Williams v. State of Maryland

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.
 
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.
 
Neither Heller nor McDonald actually broke the law...Williams, on the other hand, did in fact commit a crime (whether the law is constitutional or not is quite another matter).
Click to expand...

This was awhile back and may or may not be good law now, and may not even be from a decision, but these words still resonate well today:

"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural god-given unalienable or constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law." -- Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone
Click to expand...
http://prorev.com/juries.htm
 
Last edited:
secret agent man said:
We shall see if Al Norris is correct in suggesting The Court may be awaiting a related case.
Click to expand...

Nope. All bets are off.

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Meh. We forgive you. You're too handsome for us to stay angry.

Plus, you're also right far more often than you're wrong. Care to place bets on what this means for the related cases?
 
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.
 
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 ;) ).
 
Masciandaro is the easier case for a cert grant. The law he was convicted under is no longer in place.
Click to expand...
Gene Hoffman mentioned that the Court may be waiting for "clean" cases. By that, we could be looking at one in which the petitioner is not contesting a criminal conviction. As you mention, Masciandaro could fall under that. There are also numerous civil cases pending, and they could be holding out for one of those.

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.
 
Tom Servo said:
Gene Hoffman mentioned that the Court may be waiting for "clean" cases.
Click to expand...

Gene goes further than that. He feels that the Court wants to completely forestall all criminal 2A cases, in favor of fleshing out the bounds of the 2A rights in civil cases.

However true that may be, it is a great injustice to all convicted of malum prohibitum gun laws.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top