Jump to content


Photo

Williams v. Maryland


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
11 replies to this topic

#1 05FLHT

    TCB.

  • Members
  • 1,196 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 08

Posted 05 January 2011 - 09:23 PM

In the present case, Section 4-203(a)(1)(i) of which Williams was convicted, prohibits “wear[ing], carry[ing], or transport[ing] a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person,” in public, without a permit. Here, sufficient evidence was adduced to demonstrate that Williams was wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in public, and Williams had conceded that he had not obtained, or even applied for, a permit. Williams, however, attempts to bring his conviction of wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in public, without a permit, within the ambit of Heller and McDonald by claiming that those opinions would prohibit his conviction. This is not the case, because Heller and McDonald emphasize that the Second Amendment is applicable to statutory prohibitions against home possession, the dicta in McDonald that “the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self- defense within the home,” notwithstanding. __ U.S. at __ , 130 S. Ct. at 3044, 177 L. Ed. 2d at 922. Although Williams attempts to find succor in this dicta, it is clear that prohibition of firearms in the home was the gravamen of the certiorari questions in both Heller and McDonald and their answers. If the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.


Wow, them there are some fighting words. I guess MD is throwing down the gauntlet, and I really hope SCOTUS picks it up and executes a MAJOR ******* SLAP!

Attached Files


NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
IL Concealed Carry Firearm Instructor

#2 pyre400

    Political opinions expressed are always my own.

  • Admin
  • 7,728 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 09

Posted 05 January 2011 - 09:40 PM

[quote]
[quote] the dicta in McDonald that “the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self- defense within the home,”
[/quote]

I hope this is the ticket, thanks for posting.

__________________
R[∃vo˩]ution


#3 Ashrak

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,902 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 09

Posted 05 January 2011 - 09:51 PM

In the present case, Section 4-203(a)(1)(i) of which Williams was convicted, prohibits “wear[ing], carry[ing], or transport[ing] a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person,” in public, without a permit. Here, sufficient evidence was adduced to demonstrate that Williams was wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in public, and Williams had conceded that he had not obtained, or even applied for, a permit. Williams, however, attempts to bring his conviction of wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in public, without a permit, within the ambit of Heller and McDonald by claiming that those opinions would prohibit his conviction. This is not the case, because Heller and McDonald emphasize that the Second Amendment is applicable to statutory prohibitions against home possession, the dicta in McDonald that “the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self- defense within the home,” notwithstanding. __ U.S. at __ , 130 S. Ct. at 3044, 177 L. Ed. 2d at 922. Although Williams attempts to find succor in this dicta, it is clear that prohibition of firearms in the home was the gravamen of the certiorari questions in both Heller and McDonald and their answers. If the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.


Wow, them there are some fighting words. I guess MD is throwing down the gauntlet, and I really hope SCOTUS picks it up and executes a MAJOR ******* SLAP!

When the Court said in decision that "The Second is no different[than the First]", it already did plainly say that these rights extended outside the home. No sane person will argue that the First Amendment is limited to only within the home. Neither will they argue that a permit is required, that permission must be asked for and paid for and granted, in order to exercise it.

It is time to call this track exactly what it is - idiocy based denial employed trying to deny Citizens their Second Amendment recognized rights. Simple as that.
That an individual right exists requires that certain policy positions be removed from the table of debate.


I write, therefore I am.

"It's not your business model that sucks, it's you that sucks." - Andrew Breitbart referring to the Mainstream Media.

#4 mstrat

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,395 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 10

Posted 06 January 2011 - 07:51 AM

A big factor in this case, iirc, was that the convict did not even attempt to apply for a license to carry. MD has provisions for carry, but this individual decided to make up his own rules.... It was a weak case to start with.

But yea this is a blow for us. It's unfortunate this case was even pressed forward in the first place though.
ProtectIllinois.org: Share this link to teach others about RTC in IL

#5 pyre400

    Political opinions expressed are always my own.

  • Admin
  • 7,728 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 09

Posted 06 January 2011 - 09:28 AM

But yea this is a blow for us. It's unfortunate this case was even pressed forward in the first place though.


So is this guy not going to appeal? This is a test of McD we've been waiting for, right?

__________________
R[∃vo˩]ution


#6 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Members
  • 9,346 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 06 January 2011 - 09:36 AM

But yea this is a blow for us. It's unfortunate this case was even pressed forward in the first place though.


So is this guy not going to appeal? This is a test of McD we've been waiting for, right?


No, this is another criminal in possession last ditch effort by his lawyer. Gura has a good plaintiff challenging that law in process.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#7 mstrat

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,395 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 10

Posted 06 January 2011 - 09:39 AM

This is a test of McD we've been waiting for, right?


I'll wait for somebody more knowledgable to give a stronger answer. (Edit: Sounds like FF is spot-on)

But it's my guess/assumption/feeling that, were this case to win, it would mean license to carry is unnecessary and we therefore have federal Constitutional carry. That's a pretty tall order, and doomed to fail as I understand it. Maryland has (an albeit pain-in-the-***) license to carry, which this guy failed to even apply for. He had an avenue to legally carry a firearm outside of the home but didn't.
ProtectIllinois.org: Share this link to teach others about RTC in IL

#8 BigJim

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,891 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 08

Posted 06 January 2011 - 11:27 AM

Section 4-203(a)(1)(i) of which Williams was convicted, prohibits “wear[ing], carry[ing], or transport[ing] a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person,” in public, without a permit.

If I can't transport my handgun about my person how do I get it from my house to the range and back?
Big Jim
-----------------------------------------
I will not be commanded,
I will not be controlled
And I will not let my future go on,
without the help of my soul

The Lost Boy - Greg Holden

#9 05FLHT

    TCB.

  • Members
  • 1,196 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 08

Posted 06 January 2011 - 12:36 PM

This is a test of McD we've been waiting for, right?


Williams is not an ideal candidate to champion the Second Amendment, but then again neither was Miranda. Williams is going to appeal, what does he have to lose? I made a comment in regards to this on Calguns, in essence saying that time to formulate the 'right' case, with the 'right' plantiff/defendant, and in the 'right' venue is a luxury not easily afforded. Criminal defense attorneys were formulating Second Amendment challenges for their clients before the ink McDonald was written in dried.


But it's my guess/assumption/feeling that, were this case to win, it would mean license to carry is unnecessary and we therefore have federal Constitutional carry. That's a pretty tall order, and doomed to fail as I understand it. Maryland has (an albeit pain-in-the-***) license to carry, which this guy failed to even apply for. He had an avenue to legally carry a firearm outside of the home but didn't.


Yes, Maryland issues carry permits. No, there is no way in heck you, being a 'common' law abiding citizen, would get one. Maryland's permitting process is, to say the least,arbitrary and capricious at best.
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
IL Concealed Carry Firearm Instructor

#10 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,056 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 06 January 2011 - 01:05 PM

This is a test of McD we've been waiting for, right?


I'll wait for somebody more knowledgable to give a stronger answer. (Edit: Sounds like FF is spot-on)

But it's my guess/assumption/feeling that, were this case to win, it would mean license to carry is unnecessary and we therefore have federal Constitutional carry. That's a pretty tall order, and doomed to fail as I understand it. Maryland has (an albeit pain-in-the-***) license to carry, which this guy failed to even apply for. He had an avenue to legally carry a firearm outside of the home but didn't.


So in MD your right to protect yourself ends when you step out of your house! This is not the perfect case to bring, but if there is a circuit split on the issue there is also another plaintiff and hopefully that case is on behalf of a moral upstanding citizen like Otis McDonald.

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#11 Sigma

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,011 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 09

Posted 06 January 2011 - 03:42 PM

even if i didnt like guns i would be able to read this and say most notably cant mean only
Exodus 22:2-3
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. Once they have all the guns, they'll also have complete control.-Abolt

Guns kill people just like beds get girls pregnant.

#12 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,712 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 06 January 2011 - 08:49 PM

Section 4-203(a)(1)(i) of which Williams was convicted, prohibits "wear[ing], carry[ing], or transport[ing] a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person," in public, without a permit.

If I can't transport my handgun about my person how do I get it from my house to the range and back?


You don't.

Same type of law exists in IN. They are touted for their carry law, which is a good one. What many people don't understand is, if you don't have an IN LTCH or a license from another state, you can only carry your handgun from the FFL to your home and to your gunsmith legally. Period. Not "unloaded and encased" nor "not easily accessible" nor "disassembled to a non-operating state". With the "unrestricted" license, you can carry open or concealed statewide. They have another class of license available for target shooting only. Not many people opt for that one.

AB
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB