Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Don P said:
1911, ironically.
It's direct intent was to prevent law abiding citizens defending themselves from the armed robberies perpetrated by friends of Senator Sullivan.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Williams v. State of Maryland
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
1911, ironically.
It's direct intent was to prevent law abiding citizens defending themselves from the armed robberies perpetrated by friends of Senator Sullivan.
maestro pistolero
New member
I can hear it now:
"The Second Amendment is only about the collective right to arm INDOOR militias, I tell you!"
"The Second Amendment is only about the collective right to arm INDOOR militias, I tell you!"
HotShot.444
Moderator
Post #42 :
" I'd like the MD Court of Appeals to explain what other constitutionally-enumerated rights exist only in one's residence and nowhere else. " Me also. As it stands, the Veterans Administration now says it is illegal for me to exercise certain Constitutional rights when I make appointments at the facility, to wit : any person or patient visiting the facility is subject to stop, search, and seizure of any article package or container, carrying any firearm (or knife or other contraband ) and if such is found, the person requesting entrance to said facility for treatment will be denied unless / until such contraband is taken off of facility property. Person is also threatened ( to me, personally, by "V.A.Law" enforcement officer ) with immediate confiscation of weapon, and incarceration by "V.A.Law" enforcement until trial, followed by 5-years and $5,000 fine. Now there are varyious rulings -- habeus corpus, et al -- involved in this summary application of guilt, but the "stop, search, and seizure" is the one bothering me, as it is the proximal event causing my (supposed) law-breaking event: for over three years of using the V.A. facility, I frequently carried a gun in my car, as there are four gun-shops reachable from my itinerary going to and from the V.A. There is a plaquard just inside the V.A. entrance gate, stating that visitors must stop and put any weapons in a lock-box at the Gate shack, keeping the key until departing the facility. I always complied. But one day this year the wording was changed. Same size and color of sign, but MUCH more restrictive wording, as pointed out above, which I did not notice. Upon visiting recently, dutifully I carried my gun into the Gate shack to leave it until I was done. This is the act that got me dressed down and threatened. But since I was a "regular" at the shack, the Sr. LE on duty just warned me loudly several times, and locked the gun in his office. I have been "V.A.Law" abiding ever since. My question: did I shed myself of the protection of my Constitutional Rights at the "V.A.Law" gates, simply because "some one" changed the words on that sign? I will be happy to apply my name to the case, if needed. Thanks to all responders. Dao.
" I'd like the MD Court of Appeals to explain what other constitutionally-enumerated rights exist only in one's residence and nowhere else. " Me also. As it stands, the Veterans Administration now says it is illegal for me to exercise certain Constitutional rights when I make appointments at the facility, to wit : any person or patient visiting the facility is subject to stop, search, and seizure of any article package or container, carrying any firearm (or knife or other contraband ) and if such is found, the person requesting entrance to said facility for treatment will be denied unless / until such contraband is taken off of facility property. Person is also threatened ( to me, personally, by "V.A.Law" enforcement officer ) with immediate confiscation of weapon, and incarceration by "V.A.Law" enforcement until trial, followed by 5-years and $5,000 fine. Now there are varyious rulings -- habeus corpus, et al -- involved in this summary application of guilt, but the "stop, search, and seizure" is the one bothering me, as it is the proximal event causing my (supposed) law-breaking event: for over three years of using the V.A. facility, I frequently carried a gun in my car, as there are four gun-shops reachable from my itinerary going to and from the V.A. There is a plaquard just inside the V.A. entrance gate, stating that visitors must stop and put any weapons in a lock-box at the Gate shack, keeping the key until departing the facility. I always complied. But one day this year the wording was changed. Same size and color of sign, but MUCH more restrictive wording, as pointed out above, which I did not notice. Upon visiting recently, dutifully I carried my gun into the Gate shack to leave it until I was done. This is the act that got me dressed down and threatened. But since I was a "regular" at the shack, the Sr. LE on duty just warned me loudly several times, and locked the gun in his office. I have been "V.A.Law" abiding ever since. My question: did I shed myself of the protection of my Constitutional Rights at the "V.A.Law" gates, simply because "some one" changed the words on that sign? I will be happy to apply my name to the case, if needed. Thanks to all responders. Dao.
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 05 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 03 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 19, 2011.
See the bolded part, above? Granted that many times a case will go to conference several times.... Folks, this is a seriously fast reaction by the SCOTUS to this case.
Here's the thing: We have a guy (stupid or not) who's only crime is that he carried a gun in a State where any carry requires a permit and said permit is never given out to the plebes. At his final appeal, the MD Court thumbed their noses at the SCOTUS. As have several other courts.
It's not just the Heller Five that are being challenged here. It's the entire SCOTUS. The four dissenters may not like the results of Heller and McDonald, but their own Judicial Authority is being challenged, along with their opponents. That cannot be sitting well with them.
Halbrooks question is amazingly simple: Does the right to self defense stop at your doorstep?
The question/validity of permits only comes into play, because the State won't issue to everyone (non-prohibited persons). So if you can't get a valid carry permit, in your State, can the State criminalize your right to carry in self defense?
Within Heller's historical context, the answer is a resounding, NO.
Regardless of when cert is granted (and I believe it will be granted); Regardless of when the orals are held; Regardless of how much we want to hear (and read) the decision, it will be on the last day of the 2012 session.
My reasoning is fairly simple:
Heller gave us the Right to Keep. McDonald gave us incorporation. Those were cases of First Impression. They were huge decisions and the Court traditionally reserves the last day for cases of importance. Williams almost certainly will give us the Right to Bear. This is another case of First Impression. This will be another huge decision (however it turns out). This is another case of great importance.
I have no idea whether it is of any import in this matter, but actual registration of handguns is not required in Maryland. If one wishes to purchase a handgun in the state, the State Police have to sign off on a form that possession is "not denied"; but if, for example, you move into the state with your collection you are under no obligation to inform any official entity of what you have.
With my C&R, I can buy, from outside the state, any handgun that is not on the state list of unacceptable firearms (and since anything pre-1985 is exempted anyway, the question will not likely come up under the C&R classification) without having to inform anyone in the state govt of my purchase.
I suppose that under the wording of the question I might be denied permission to carry "unregistered" handguns, but one would of course hope for common sense to prevail. Possibly a forlorn hope in Maryland.
With my C&R, I can buy, from outside the state, any handgun that is not on the state list of unacceptable firearms (and since anything pre-1985 is exempted anyway, the question will not likely come up under the C&R classification) without having to inform anyone in the state govt of my purchase.
I suppose that under the wording of the question I might be denied permission to carry "unregistered" handguns, but one would of course hope for common sense to prevail. Possibly a forlorn hope in Maryland.
No kidding! Somebody wants this decided soon. We could have an answer (and a precedent) by next summer. Who wants to bet how many times it has to run through conference? So far, there doesn't appear to be much on the plate for OT11.Folks, this is a seriously fast reaction by the SCOTUS to this case.
This doesn't come into the picture at all, bob.a.bob.a said:I have no idea whether it is of any import in this matter, but actual registration of handguns is not required in Maryland.
In MD, outside of a few very limited exceptions, you must have a carry permit to move that firearm anywhere outside of your home.
When Williams bought the handgun and went from the dealer to his girlfriends house (with the gun), that was against the law (he wasn't caught doing this, but it was still a technical violation). The exception is transport from the dealer to his house. He then attempted to transport the firearm from his girlfriends place to his own home. Again, no permit and the transport was unlawful.
It really doesn't matter if we call this transporting or carry. Under MD law, it is one and the same. You must have a MD permit to carry/transport a firearm anywhere outside of the narrow exceptions to those Statutes. Except....
A normal citizen is barred from getting that permit, as AG Gansler has argued (effectively) in the Wollard case (in the Williams State case, the AG argued the exact opposite). Don't think for a minute that Halbrook isn't aware of this. He will take advantage of this argument.
Despite the opinion, just handed down, in the Nordyke case (9th Circuit), they have handed Halbrook another tasty morsel: Heightened scrutiny only applies if the regulation results in a substantial restriction of the right - such as no carry/transport without a permit that you can't obtain.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
As much as I'd like to think that the Supreme Court would eventually be concerned about lower courts ignoring their dicta and make an honest effort to respect the precedent established by Heller and McDonald, I don't see it happening.
I think this issue is politicized on the Court and that the Heller minority is taking the view that they were essentially correct and are just waiting for the opportunity to reverse it. As such, the last thing they want to do is create any more precedent, so I think they will continue to side against the Second Amendment for the foreseeable future.
The only (very, very small hope) is that there is at least one Justice who was not in the minority for Heller or McDonald and they may be more responsive.
I think this issue is politicized on the Court and that the Heller minority is taking the view that they were essentially correct and are just waiting for the opportunity to reverse it. As such, the last thing they want to do is create any more precedent, so I think they will continue to side against the Second Amendment for the foreseeable future.
The only (very, very small hope) is that there is at least one Justice who was not in the minority for Heller or McDonald and they may be more responsive.
If the dude had the piece unloaded, the cops probably would not have hassled him. He was a dumbass for carrying a loaded weapon, if he was really just transporting it, but he won't be the first dumbass to end up in the joint. Maryland has some tough gun laws and I doubt they are going to change them anytime soon.
The folks over at Maryland Shall Issue have provided scores of cases where the individual was cited for unlawful transport. It never made a bit of difference to the authorities, if the firearm was loaded or unloaded.
Unless you can come up with scores of cases where the charges were never made or were dropped because the firearm was unloaded, I tend to believe the information that MSI has provided.
Let's assume for the moment, that you are correct, bigbaby. A conviction in MD for unlawful transport/carry carries an indeterminate sentence of up to 3 years imprisonment. That alone makes you a federally prohibited person. Your gun rights are lost forever. See Schrader v. Holder.
Was Williams stupid? I have already agreed that he was. The case is still an important case. If it were not for the convoluted MD carry laws (and lack of a meaningful method of acquiring a MD carry permit for ordinary citizens), Williams would not be a criminal.
Unless you can come up with scores of cases where the charges were never made or were dropped because the firearm was unloaded, I tend to believe the information that MSI has provided.
Let's assume for the moment, that you are correct, bigbaby. A conviction in MD for unlawful transport/carry carries an indeterminate sentence of up to 3 years imprisonment. That alone makes you a federally prohibited person. Your gun rights are lost forever. See Schrader v. Holder.
Was Williams stupid? I have already agreed that he was. The case is still an important case. If it were not for the convoluted MD carry laws (and lack of a meaningful method of acquiring a MD carry permit for ordinary citizens), Williams would not be a criminal.
Last week, I learned some more interesting tidbits on how the SCOTUS works.
Patrick and Krucam (from MDShooters) had a discussion with Lyle Denniston over at SCOTUSBlog and found out that if a petition for cert is made and no response is made, the case is usually (as in almost always) denied. If however, any Justice(s) is/are interested in a case, a "request" for a response is made.
The petition was set for conference on the 19th. So a "request" for response must be made before this date.
Today (05-16-2011), the Court requested a response by Maryland.
This response is due in 30 days from today, but a 30 day extension may be asked for and is generally granted.
So here is the current timeline for briefs (now that a response has been "requested"):
June 15 for opposition to certiorari (or if automatically extended, July 15).
July 1 for response to opposition (or Aug 1, if extended).
Amicus briefs are due on or about June 15, no extensions (Rule 37.2(a)). In general, amicus must have consent of both parties (at cert stage), but may petition to file if either or both parties do not give consent (Rule 37.2(b)).
In general, cert may be granted or denied anytime after Aug. recess - say Sept. 1, onward.
If cert is granted, the clock begins ticking again and a new set of rules come into play.
Patrick and Krucam (from MDShooters) had a discussion with Lyle Denniston over at SCOTUSBlog and found out that if a petition for cert is made and no response is made, the case is usually (as in almost always) denied. If however, any Justice(s) is/are interested in a case, a "request" for a response is made.
The petition was set for conference on the 19th. So a "request" for response must be made before this date.
Today (05-16-2011), the Court requested a response by Maryland.
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)
This response is due in 30 days from today, but a 30 day extension may be asked for and is generally granted.
So here is the current timeline for briefs (now that a response has been "requested"):
June 15 for opposition to certiorari (or if automatically extended, July 15).
July 1 for response to opposition (or Aug 1, if extended).
Amicus briefs are due on or about June 15, no extensions (Rule 37.2(a)). In general, amicus must have consent of both parties (at cert stage), but may petition to file if either or both parties do not give consent (Rule 37.2(b)).
In general, cert may be granted or denied anytime after Aug. recess - say Sept. 1, onward.
If cert is granted, the clock begins ticking again and a new set of rules come into play.
Spats McGee
Administrator
As an aside, I defended a case several years ago that I won at the 8th Circuit. The Plaintiff appealed to SCOTUS, and they sent me a form that basically asked, "Do you want to go ahead and respond to the petition, or wait for us to request a response?" I chose the latter, and no request ever came. The case was rejected by SCOTUS.Al Norris said:Last week, I learned some more interesting tidbits on how the SCOTUS works.
Patrick and Krucam (from MDShooters) had a discussion with Lyle Denniston over at SCOTUSBlog and found out that if a petition for cert is made and no response is made, the case is usually (as in almost always) denied. If however, any Justice(s) is/are interested in a case, a "request" for a response is made.
maestro pistolero
New member
What's the Maryland response going to say? "If the court meant it's ruling to apply outside of the home, please say so more plainly?" LOL!
Spats McGee
Administrator
The defendant was transporting the gun home from his girlfriend's place (IIRC), and hid the gun in the bushes when a police cruiser went by. The police officer saw him rummaging through his backpack and said that he saw the defendant put something in the bushes. Officer made contact and asked what was in the bushes. The defendant said, "my gun."
AG Gansler has replied in Williams v. Maryland. The reply is a little over 800KB and thus beyond the limits allowed at TFL. You can obtain a copy here or here (WARNING: You may have to be a registered user to download files at these sites).
Remembering that Halbrook has asked the Court to answer whether or not a citizen has the right to carry in public, Gansler avoids this. Instead, he tries to restate the question about permits and that this case is "ugly" (um, so was Miranda, Mr. Gansler). Gansler weaves his way around the petitioners question, treating it as a mere secondary issue. Halbrook was very careful, in that the carry question is the only question being asked. He was very careful to avoid the issue of permits, entirely.
It is clear that Gansler is hoping to create a complicated inquiry, so that the Court will avoid the issue.
As a secondary tactic, Gansler paints a picture of the lower courts in complete disarray. Instead of arguing that Halbrook has overstated the confusion in the lower courts, Gansler paints a really dismal picture and then argues that the Court should just let these other cases "percolate" in order to get some sort of coherent framework, because, "this case is more chaotic than the others...you should wait for one of them."
There is more that can be said about this response, suffice it to say that this was not unexpected. It's all Gansler could realistically do.
I strongly suspect that Stephan Halbrook will have fun pinning down the outright falsehoods that Gansler has woven into this brief.
Remembering that Halbrook has asked the Court to answer whether or not a citizen has the right to carry in public, Gansler avoids this. Instead, he tries to restate the question about permits and that this case is "ugly" (um, so was Miranda, Mr. Gansler). Gansler weaves his way around the petitioners question, treating it as a mere secondary issue. Halbrook was very careful, in that the carry question is the only question being asked. He was very careful to avoid the issue of permits, entirely.
It is clear that Gansler is hoping to create a complicated inquiry, so that the Court will avoid the issue.
As a secondary tactic, Gansler paints a picture of the lower courts in complete disarray. Instead of arguing that Halbrook has overstated the confusion in the lower courts, Gansler paints a really dismal picture and then argues that the Court should just let these other cases "percolate" in order to get some sort of coherent framework, because, "this case is more chaotic than the others...you should wait for one of them."
There is more that can be said about this response, suffice it to say that this was not unexpected. It's all Gansler could realistically do.
I strongly suspect that Stephan Halbrook will have fun pinning down the outright falsehoods that Gansler has woven into this brief.
Today, Stephan Halbrook filed his reply brief (attached).
From some of the opening remarks:
That's just the start! Like Gura's amicus brief in Masciandaro, Stephan Halbrook simply zings the MD AG's position, over and over.
From some of the opening remarks:
The Second Amendment provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The Maryland court holds that there is no Second Amendment right to bear arms (that is, to wear or carry arms for purposes of confrontation or self-defense). See Part I below, and Pet. at 12-23. Any state-granted, discretionary privilege to carry a handgun in Maryland is restricted to a tiny minority of favored individuals, and by law is not available to the ordinary citizens who make up the people.
The State asserts that this case presents “none of the critical issues” being considered by lower courts after Heller and McDonald. Opp. at 5. To the contrary, this case presents perhaps the most critical issue of all: are the words “bear arms” devoid of meaning, thereby limiting the Second Amendment to the right to “keep arms” within the four walls of one’s dwelling? If so, it is an extraordinarily constricted constitutional right, that bears little resemblance to the robust right clearly envisioned by the Framers and exercised throughout American history. Yet numerous lower court decisions after Heller have refused to recognize the right to bear arms outside the home.
That's just the start! Like Gura's amicus brief in Masciandaro, Stephan Halbrook simply zings the MD AG's position, over and over.
Attachments
Aguila Blanca
Staff
As I've mentioned in other threads here, especially in the McDonald decision Mr. Justice Alito frequently refers to "the" right (singular -- ONE right) to keep and bear arms.
How any lower court judge, in the face of the numerous such references throughout the McDonald decision, could possibly contend that the 2nd Amendment protects nothing more than a right to maintain a firearm within ones own home is beyond comprehension.
Unless, of course, one is willing to entertain the notion that some lower court justices might have their own agenda ...
How any lower court judge, in the face of the numerous such references throughout the McDonald decision, could possibly contend that the 2nd Amendment protects nothing more than a right to maintain a firearm within ones own home is beyond comprehension.
Unless, of course, one is willing to entertain the notion that some lower court justices might have their own agenda ...
kilimanjaro
New member
All the more reason to be educated on who appoints the judges, and vote accordingly. In Washington, our State SC is elected, so the 2nd Amendment is a frequent platform.
It took decades of complacency and ignorance to get folks like these in office, and it's going to take decades to get rid of these folks. It begins with your local elections, right down to school board level.
It took decades of complacency and ignorance to get folks like these in office, and it's going to take decades to get rid of these folks. It begins with your local elections, right down to school board level.