15 replies to this topic

[05FLHT]

A shameless quote of krucam's post on Calguns

http://www.calguns.n...ad.php?t=424194

(Btw, at the link above there is some VERY GOOD discussion by some VERY respected people)

Quote

Williams v. Maryland ~ Petition for Writ of Cert

Stephen Halbrook has apparently filed a Writ for Cert to the Supreme Court in the case of Williams v. Maryland.

QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether peaceably carrying or transporting a
registered handgun outside the home, without a carry
permit that is unobtainable by ordinary, law-abiding
citizens, is outside of the scope of “the right of the
people to . . . bear arms” protected by the Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution.

http://www.stephenha...liams_FINAL.pdf

Williams was a case in the criminal courts, not civil. The opinion was notable in their audacity in my opinion, saying "iIf the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly."

Careful what you wish for, perhaps.

http://mdcourts.gov/.../2011/16a10.pdf

The question now is if this one will have the legs, or perhaps they'll deny it, knowing of SAF/CGF/Gura's blitzkrieg in the lower courts. I guess we'll see...

There's that sound again...chugga chugga CHOO CHOO!

**To any Mod, please move this to 2A. I put it in National Politics by mistake. Thanks!**

[05FLHT]

More discussion on MDS

http://www.mdshooter...ead.php?t=56480

[mstrat]

So  if I'm understanding this correctly, this means if the SCOTUS accepts this, we would get further clarification on what the states can and cannot do with respect to "bear arms" ?

In other words... this has the possibility of blowing the "in the home" argument out of the water?

[05FLHT]

mstrat, on 22 April 2011 - 04:01 PM, said:

So  if I'm understanding this correctly, this means if the SCOTUS accepts this, we would get further clarification on what the states can and cannot do with respect to "bear arms" ?

In other words... this has the possibility of blowing the "in the home" argument out of the water?

If Cert is granted SCOTUS decides if a lawful individual can bear arms 'outside of the home.' Yes, it would blow a lot of things out of the water.

It takes 4 Justices to accept the Cert. Heller and McDonald were both 5-4.

[mstrat]

05FLHT, on 22 April 2011 - 04:08 PM, said:

It takes 4 Justices to accept the Cert. Heller and McDonald were both 5-4.

I was just looking into that.  It sounds like 4 need to accept it first, but it will still require another 5-4 majority on their decision for it to work in our favor.

[05FLHT]

Analysis and commentary on Volokh Conspiracy - http://volokh.com/20...-to-carry-case/

[Davey]

So if SCOTUS takes this up and rules in our favor the second amendment will have scope outside the home? Wewt!

[05FLHT]

Davey, on 22 April 2011 - 09:47 PM, said:

So if SCOTUS takes this up and rules in our favor the second amendment will have scope outside the home? Wewt!

Bingo.

Williams was arrested and convicted for doing nothing more than possessing his legally owned handgun 'outside of the home,' without a carry permit issued by Maryland. Although Williams did not apply for a carry permit, the MD AG, Gansler, replied in a brief to the 4th in Woollard that otherwise law abiding citizens, such as Williams, would not have 'good and substantial reason' to be 'granted' a permit anyway.

Quite simply, the court is being asked if the Second Amendment protects an otherwise lawful citizen, who peacefully carry a firearm outside of the home without a 'permit' that the State will not issue. It is a simple and direct question that the court has wide latitude to answer.

Don't forget, the 4th is also the circuit that stated 'if the SCOTUS meant so, they should have said so more plainly.' Well, let's hope they do.  

[Howard Roark]

Last year I bought a couple of copies of Stephen Halbrook's excellent book on the Second Amendment.  Excellent book.  And lucky for us, he is the attorney of record on this case's appeal to the US Supreme Court.  Even better, he has wins at the Supreme Court on gun issues.  Citations will follow, be patient.

[05FLHT]

Quote

No. 10-1207
Title: Charles F. Williams, Jr., Petitioner
v.
Maryland

Docketed: April 5, 2011
Lower Ct: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Case Nos.: (16, September Term, 2010)
Decision Date: January 5, 2011

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apr 5 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 5, 2011)
Apr 20 2011 Waiver of right of respondent Maryland to respond filed.
May 3 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 19, 2011.

http://www.supremeco...les/10-1207.htm

The next step in SCOTUS granting Cert. has been taken.

[CraigC]

05FLHT, on 05 May 2011 - 05:33 AM, said:

Quote

No. 10-1207
Title: Charles F. Williams, Jr., Petitioner
v.
Maryland

Docketed: April 5, 2011
Lower Ct: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Case Nos.: (16, September Term, 2010)
Decision Date: January 5, 2011

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apr 5 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 5, 2011)
Apr 20 2011 Waiver of right of respondent Maryland to respond filed.
May 3 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 19, 2011.

http://www.supremeco...les/10-1207.htm

The next step in SCOTUS granting Cert. has been taken.

Did I read that correctly? Maryland waived their right to respond? I assume that this is good for us???

[05FLHT]

CraigC, on 05 May 2011 - 06:58 PM, said:

Did I read that correctly? Maryland waived their right to respond? I assume that this is good for us???

They're the ones that wanted the SCOTUS to 'say so more plainly,' in regards to bearing arms outside of the home. Looks like they'll get their <open mouth, insert foot> wish.

[Howard Roark]

05FLHT, on 05 May 2011 - 07:11 PM, said:

CraigC, on 05 May 2011 - 06:58 PM, said:

Did I read that correctly? Maryland waived their right to respond? I assume that this is good for us???

They're the ones that wanted the SCOTUS to 'say so more plainly,' in regards to bearing arms outside of the home. Looks like they'll get their <open mouth, insert foot> wish.

Stupid is as stupid does, to quote Forrest Gump and Herman Melville.  If Washington DC had just "shut up" we would not have our glorious victory at Heller.  And now Maryland says "guns ONLY in the home!" unless the SCOTUS tells them otherwise.   And Maryland is facing the same 5 members of the Supreme Court that decided both Heller and McDonald.  How many ways are there to spell s.t.u.p.i.d. ?

[w00dc4ip]

Quote

No. 10-1207
Title:
Charles F. Williams, Jr., Petitioner
v.
Maryland
Docketed: April 5, 2011
Lower Ct: Court of Appeals of Maryland
  Case Nos.: (16, September Term, 2010)
  Decision Date: January 5, 2011

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apr 5 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 5, 2011)
Apr 20 2011 Waiver of right of respondent Maryland to respond filed.
May 3 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 19, 2011.
May 16 2011 Response Requested . (Due June 15, 2011)
May 18 2011 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including July 15, 2011.

Looks like Maryland won't get to just ignore this and let it go away...

[CraigC]

w00dc4ip, on 20 May 2011 - 12:55 PM, said:

Quote

No. 10-1207
Title:
Charles F. Williams, Jr., Petitioner
v.
Maryland
Docketed: April 5, 2011
Lower Ct: Court of Appeals of Maryland
  Case Nos.: (16, September Term, 2010)
  Decision Date: January 5, 2011

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apr 5 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 5, 2011)
Apr 20 2011 Waiver of right of respondent Maryland to respond filed.
May 3 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 19, 2011.
May 16 2011 Response Requested . (Due June 15, 2011)
May 18 2011 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including July 15, 2011.

Looks like Maryland won't get to just ignore this and let it go away...

I'm reading it differently. I took "response requested" to mean that the court really wants to hear maryland's side. I see it as a very good thing.

[05FLHT]

CraigC, on 20 May 2011 - 02:19 PM, said:

I'm reading it differently. I took "response requested" to mean that the court really wants to hear maryland's side. I see it as a very good thing.

As I understand it, the court only requests a response if there is interest in granting Cert. This is a good sign...