|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 6, 2011, 08:59 AM | #1 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Williams v. State of Maryland
In the case of Williams vs. State, the Court of Appeals heard the case of Williams, who was convicted of carrying a loaded Glock in a backpack and claimed to be picking the firearm up from his girlfriend's house and headed home. Williams did not have a Maryland-may-issue permit to carry a handgun concealed.
Williams claimed a Second Amendment defense, which the state first denied saying the Second Amendment didn't apply to states. After McDonald clarified this, the Court of Appeals held that because there is a statutory exception for wearing/carrying a handgun in the home without a permit, the statute is not unconstitutional. While I might agree that Williams conviction could withstand Second Amendment scrutiny, the reasoning by the Court of Appeals was horrible and left gaping holes in its logic. Prof. Eugene Volokh gives a very charitable assessment of some of those problems at the Volokh Conspiracy.[/quote] I was mostly surprised that the court chose to focus on the "outside the home" argument rather than the "without a permit" argument. I think ultimately, if this case did go to the current SCOTUS, the court will find the "outside the home" argument doesn't stand up under either McDonald or Heller. |
January 6, 2011, 09:36 AM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2010
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 368
|
This sentence from the opinion neatly sums up why the court held as it did:
Quote:
"[T]he Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home."I don't see this as a surprising result, given the statutes at issue in Heller and MacDonald, and the Court's holdings in those cases. We really need a further case to be granted cert, that would test the extension of the RKBA beyond mere home possession. I don't think Williams is that case, though. Bartholomew, please refresh our memories: What do you see as the best candidate among the various pending cases, that might extend the Heller and MacDonald holdings beyond home possession? DD |
|
January 6, 2011, 09:58 AM | #3 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Sooo...... Maryland maintains that the Second Amendment provision to bear arms ends at your front door?
|
January 6, 2011, 10:00 AM | #4 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Incredible.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by these things anymore, but I always am. I don't know how or why we got to the place where the written word no longer simply means what it says or how we managed to end up with so many apparently well-educated judges and lawyers who seemingly have no capacity for rationale, logical, independent thought.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
January 6, 2011, 10:12 AM | #5 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
My issue with the Maryland Court of Appeals holdings is they overlooked a lot of dicta that strongly supports a right to lawfully use a firearm for self defense outside the home. The reasoning was just bad. You could have easily reached the same result without ignoring larges swaths of Heller and McDonald; but the Court of Appeals seems to have made a conscious decision to set the bar as low as possible.
Not that I am complaining, ultimately restrictive overreaching supported by poor logic helps us more than it hurts us; but I am still surprised when I see it. Quote:
I don't think you'll see a single case that does it as much as a series of small victories in many different cases that builds up a solid foundation over all. |
|
January 6, 2011, 10:18 AM | #6 |
Junior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2011
Location: Uniontown, PA
Posts: 4
|
I can't believe that even though I possess a CCW from PA I cannot CC on my way to visit my daughter near Baltimore.
__________________
Honest Officer ... that midget was on fire when I got here! |
January 6, 2011, 10:27 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 5,457
|
I feel bad for folks who live in oppressive states but I am all for the complete and total boycott of those states by anyone who cherishes their 2A rights. They sure as hell ain't going to change because they have lucid moment on the meaning of that Amendment.
__________________
People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice. |
January 6, 2011, 12:51 PM | #8 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Still waiting for the results of Woollard, which as Bartholomew says, takes a slightly different tack, but may have the same result: an easing of Maryland's dreadful carry statutes.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 6, 2011, 01:57 PM | #9 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This is my favorite passage from this decision:
Quote:
While obiter dicta is not binding, when such dicta is the only inference a lower court has to go on, dicta is very, very compelling... Such as the very first sentence by Justice Alito in McDonald, Quote:
It is becoming very clear to me that the lower courts will pick and choose what they can interpret to keep the status quo. It will be in the various Circuit Courts where we may begin to see some clarity. Another point to remember, is that MD has no 2A analog, so it is much easier for their State Courts to dismiss what was said in Heller and McDonald. |
||
January 6, 2011, 02:08 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 5,457
|
I hear you Tom; I may have chosen my words poorly. I don't care where anybody else spends their own money. I just ain't sending them any of mine.
__________________
People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice. |
January 6, 2011, 02:13 PM | #11 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
Election have consequences and judges hold the RKBA in the balance. Trying to remember red or blue state.
|
January 6, 2011, 03:18 PM | #12 | |||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
I mean, when a court can say this: Quote:
Quote:
"Most notably" is inarguable implication that "within the home" does not stand alone. It's basic english reading comprehension.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|||
January 6, 2011, 04:41 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2010
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 368
|
But did the Court in either Heller or MacDonald actually hold that the RKBA extends beyond the home? Didn't the statutes at issue in both of those cases prohibit possession of an assembled/loaded handgun in one's home, and wasn't that what was actually challenged as unconstitutional?
The Supreme Court usually tries to confine its precise holding to no more than what is required to decide the actual case or controversy before it. It's not unreasonable to read Heller and MacDonald as deciding only that any law prohibiting possession of a working handgun in one's home for self-defense is an impermissible infringement of the Second Amendment. DD |
January 6, 2011, 05:13 PM | #14 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
DogoDon, so far the lessor courts are holding to what was said in Heller and mostly ignoring the incorporating statements made in McDonald.
This is disingenuous, at best. Quote:
The best argument to date, is the Motion for Summary Judgment by the attorneys in Muller v. Maenz, the New Jersey case challenging the NJ laws on their face. This brief attacks every angle you have previously seen used by the opposition and wondered why it was left as it was. All of the other cases are being challenged As Applied. This case is a Facial challenge, and spells out in no uncertain terms that the right includes carry, away from the door-step of your home. Not every law can be challenged in such a manner, which is why most of our cases are worded the way they are. Muller is different. Look at the other thread, and how Aitkins was convicted for doing what most of the nation takes for granted. That is how severe the restrictions on possession are in NJ. The case this thread is about, just shows how picking the right client, in the right place and using the right venue, makes for better law than those criminal cases we cannot control. This is not to say that this case could not go the way of Miranda. It could, but not with the current attorney at the helm. |
|
April 23, 2011, 09:43 PM | #15 | |||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Hang On To Your Hats, Folks!
This case is not going away, just yet. On April 5, 2011, Stephan Halbrook has taken the case and has filed a writ for certiorari in Williams v. Maryland, case 10-1207.
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. The Petition is here. The response is due on May 5, 2011. You may want top refresh your memory on the Maryland opinion. It is here. As you know, the Court of Appeals of Maryland has basically thumbed its nose at the U.S. Supreme Court, in its decision. Stephan Halbrook takes them to task and shreds what little logic the State High Court used in its opinion. I'm going to blatantly post what Patrick wrote over at Calguns, as I can't lay it out any better then he has: Quote:
This will affect many of the cases that are currently being litigated. |
|||
April 23, 2011, 10:07 PM | #16 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Can't wait to see what happens on this one.
|
April 23, 2011, 10:31 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
Is this one gearing up to be the next Heller or McDonald?
|
April 23, 2011, 10:32 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Halbrook did a nice job of putting the underlying issue squarely in front of the court.
Quote:
|
|
April 23, 2011, 11:27 PM | #19 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Let's hope the SCOTUS takes it. I think we still have the votes to carry it. It would be my hope that the SCOTUS will not take kindly to a lower court basically digging in and trying to tell the big guys what they should have written.
|
April 23, 2011, 11:32 PM | #20 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
But only if the SCOTUS grants cert. |
|
April 24, 2011, 02:19 AM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I am just a little bothered by the fact that the guy didn't apply, although I understand it would have been futile. The fact that the gun was loaded doesn't bother me as much, because if he has a right to carry it, then he has a right for it to be functional. Man, a 3 year sentence just for trying to take your gun home. Brutal.
This truly is a pure 2A case, and I gotta love it for that. I sure do miss the punchy, concise Gura-style writing that we become accustomed to. This is a long read. The fact that the appeals court basically poked a stick in the eye of the SCOTUS over clarity can't hurt. It's as if they are double-dog-daring them to confirm that the amendment, and their rulings actually mean what they say. |
April 24, 2011, 06:40 AM | #22 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
I haven't done a review of the courts, but if ten state and federal courts have refused to recognize the RKBA right outside the home, but others have recognized it, there's a good chance SCOTUS will take this one. And it sounds like the Fourth Circuit is pretty well begging for them to do so. |
|
April 24, 2011, 06:48 AM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
OK, I didn't read the the documentation that closely, so nudge me if I missed something.
Does Maryland law allow for legal transport of the legally purchased firearm in any way? If so, does that cover those citizens which do not drive a car? Why? Well, If I own a gun and want to go to the range with it, and I don't drive, how am I allowed to transport it? For that matter, how do I legally get it home from the gun shop? Just asking........
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
April 24, 2011, 08:29 AM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
CowTowner, I suspect the underlying issue is that the gun was loaded.
|
April 24, 2011, 08:46 AM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|