|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 3, 2011, 01:45 PM | #76 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This is more than disturbing to me. The Williams case wasn't necessarily about licensing or permitting. It was wholly about whether or not we have a right to self defense outside of the home.
That there were not 4 Justices that would answer this question is an indication that none of the other cases will be granted cert. Above all, it is an indication that the Court is not ready to commit on the actual right of self defense itself. Everyone says that we should not read into a cert denial anything more than it was denied. But... What this will do for all the other cases is to vindicate the current judgments and future judgments against this right. In other words, The Collective Right to Public Safety trumps The Individual Right to be safe from people who would harm me and mine, outside my house. |
October 3, 2011, 03:13 PM | #77 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
|
Perhaps Sanford Levison's next little tome should be, "The Embarrassing Supreme Court Of The United States."
|
October 3, 2011, 03:15 PM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Is it possible that denying cert, wrong as it is, averted an even worse decision? I can imagine Roberts, Scalia and Thomas, if realizing that the majority would throw Williams and everyone after him under the eternal bus, might avoid the case altogether.
In fact, even if all the bear-outside-the-home cases are denied, it would still be better than a SCOTUS ruling against bearing outside the home. That would slam the door forever. It sucks, but it could suck even worse. |
October 3, 2011, 04:57 PM | #79 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 26, 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 297
|
Quote:
There'll be other -- and better -- cases to try to bring before the court on this issue. |
|
October 3, 2011, 06:57 PM | #80 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
|
Heller portends The Court would rule in favor of Williams. It is illogical The Court would suddenly backpedal once the gun is outside the home. This is surely a puzzling development, however. We shall see if Al Norris is correct in suggesting The Court may be awaiting a related case.
Last edited by secret_agent_man; October 3, 2011 at 07:11 PM. |
October 3, 2011, 07:16 PM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
I must admit that I have mixed feelings about the denial. On the one hand, I'm a bit disappointed that the Court won't rule on the issue, at least not as soon as I'd hoped. On the other hand, however, I was a bit nervous about Williams in the first place as he isn't as "clean" as Dick Heller and Otis McDonald were. Neither Heller nor McDonald actually broke the law, rather they sued to get it changed so that they wouldn't have to. Williams, on the other hand, did in fact commit a crime (whether the law is constitutional or not is quite another matter).
The really bothersome part here is that Williams had never even applied for a permit to begin with. I could see him having a better argument had he applied for the permit and subsequently been denied, but as it stands he never even gave MD's system a chance to fail him. While I agree that "may issue" stinks and needs to be on the chopping block, I don't really think that Williams was the case to do it. Honestly, I really think that one of the two cases in IL, which still has no legal way for citizens to carry outside the home, are better cases to take before SCOTUS. The plaintiffs in those, as far as I know, are clean cut and have not violated any laws, even the draconian ones of their state. |
October 3, 2011, 07:59 PM | #82 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
I have to agree with Webleymkv on this one.
I also think the case of the church secretary (whose name I just can't think of at this time) would be much better for our side than would Williams. |
October 3, 2011, 09:25 PM | #83 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by secret_agent_man; October 3, 2011 at 09:37 PM. |
||
October 3, 2011, 09:35 PM | #84 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
When I suggested "a related case," I also suggested that Williams would be stayed. It wasn't. I'll go one further. Since you didn't come right out and say it, I will: I was a fool to second guess the Court. |
|
October 3, 2011, 09:38 PM | #85 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Plus, you're also right far more often than you're wrong. Care to place bets on what this means for the related cases?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
October 3, 2011, 09:46 PM | #86 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I can only hope this is for the best. I wouldn't want to be the one to try to explain that to Mr. Williams, however. I don't see how the court can avoid this issue forever without allowing the lower courts to eviscerate the right. So, I have to believe there must be a better case. If not, this may be headed to a very dark place.
|
October 3, 2011, 10:08 PM | #87 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
|
Quote:
|
|
October 3, 2011, 10:28 PM | #88 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
That's the thing, Tom.
As it stands, Lowery could simply be GVR'd - "See Heller." Masciandaro is the easier case for a cert grant. The law he was convicted under is no longer in place. So the sensitive place issue is almost a non sequitur. The Court doesn't have to speak much more than in very vague terms about the right, outside the home. In that respect, it's a win for the Court, inasmuch as they won't be overturning any State laws... Which I suspect was the crux of the matter for the Williams case. Some have speculated that the Court will wait for one of the Illinois cases to reach them. They won't have to touch licensing/permitting at all, as IL has none. As for myself, I will have to think upon it a bit more, before I hazard another guess (and you just know I will ). |
October 4, 2011, 01:18 AM | #89 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
I'm a bit bummed because I really thought the Williams case was putting the right questions forth, with the perfect litigator for the job.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
October 4, 2011, 09:55 AM | #90 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
However true that may be, it is a great injustice to all convicted of malum prohibitum gun laws. |
|
October 4, 2011, 10:45 AM | #91 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
I'm a bit bummed but I do like the idea of relying on cases with plaintiffs that are not criminal defendants who didn't even TRY to follow the law.
The fairness question of those who have/will be convicted under unfair/unconstitutional laws is unsettling though. I guess it's the old sausage/law analogy, sort of. |
|
|