Williams v. State of Maryland

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.
 
maestro pistolero said:
. . . .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.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. The MD court sounds like it's picking a fight, and I hope SCOTUS gives them one.

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.
 
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........
 
Does Maryland law allow for legal transport of the legally purchased firearm in any way?
Click to expand...

Yes; see pages 137-139 of the SCOTUS petition for a list of exceptions. MLeake is correct that, without a carry permit, the exceptions all require the gun to be unloaded; Williams' gun was loaded.
 
Loaded or unloaded. Makes no real difference: A gun is a gun is a gun.

Transport or carry. Makes no real difference: A gun is a gun is a gun.

Outside of the listed (and limited) exceptions, MD requires a carry permit to move the gun outside of your doorstep.

Attorney General Gansler, just finished writing a brief in the Woollard case, where he said that applying for a permit was a futile effort, given that common citizens cannot meet the apprehended harm requirements of obtaining the permit.

Was Williams foolish for taking his gun, directly from the FFL to his girlfriends house? Yes, he should have known the laws. Should he have went directly to his own home? Yes, he should have known the laws. Because once there, it could not be moved (outside of the limited legal exceptions) without a permit, by action of MD law.

Concealed or open, loaded or unloaded, transported or carried, in MD a gun is a gun is a gun.

We should note that this request for cert isn't just because of what the MD High Court said. This case was appealed to the 4th Circuit and they said the same thing: If the Supreme Court allows for the scope of the 2A right to be something more than carry/possession in the home, then it will have to be more clear (paraphrased). Both Courts poked their fingers into the Supremes eyes.

In United States v. Masciandaro, the 4th Circuit said:
On the question of Heller's applicability outside the home environment, we think it prudent to await direction from the Court itself. See Williams v. State, 10 A.3d 1167, 1177 (Md.2011) ("If the Supreme Court, in [McDonald's] dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly."); see also Sims v. United States, 963 A.2d 147, 150 (D.C.2008).​
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Al Norris, I am not defending MD. There's a reason I did not want to move there - lack of CCW, and accompanying governmental mindset. I am just saying that if Williams had been transporting an unloaded gun, he would probably not have been charged.
 
If the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.
Click to expand...
Part of me wonders if that's encouragement rather than insubordination.

Consider the oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago when it was before the 7th Circuit (partial transcript here), and how eager Easterbrook seemed to be kicking the case up the ladder to the Supreme Court.

In any case, I still think the Woollard case is a much better candidate if we're going to bump the matter up to the big nine.
 
Doesn't a ruling that the second amendment applies only in one's home mean that the court would have to believe the amendment was ratified to arm only indoor militias?
 
The Case against Maryland

OK folks, Here is an interesting filing, yesterday at the Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-1207.htm

Code: 
~~~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.

The State of Maryland has filed a waiver of their right to respond to the request for cert. In other words, The State is not going to challenge the appellee at this time. Not even with a rephrase of the question asked by Stephan Halbrook.

When you consider that the Maryland High Court, the 4th Circuit and several district courts (not to mention all the defendants) have all said that the Supreme Court never said arms were protected anywhere but "in the home," this indicates that even the State of MD wants this settled, one way or another.

If the SCOTUS grants cert, the question that will be answered is:
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.​
Click to expand...

Then there's the Wollard case, which is at the district court where we have multiple motions and cross motions for Summary Judgment. Final response is due by 05-12-2011 by the State. If the Judge holds for SAF/Gura then MD will effectively be a "Shall Issue" State.

What will not be resolved (in Wollard) is whether this is a right. That is true of all the varied "carry" cases. That is, before all the asinine CC laws can be changed, there must be judicial notice that we have the right to bear arms outside the doorstep. That is what at stake in the Williams case.

It may be that Wollard is stayed if the SCOTUS grants cert in Williams. I suspect that all the other "carry" cases may be stayed as well.

There are some not-so-subtle implications, nationwide, should the right to bear arms be recognized by the SCOTUS. Even though this is a criminal case, keep in mind that it was the MD carry laws that made Williams a criminal. Had he had the right to bear arms, he would not be a criminal.

Stephan Halbrook has crafted a very well worded question. Unlike previous attempts (by the NRA), this isn't a kitchen-sink case. There is only a single issue here: Does the 2A protect a right to bear arms outside your doorstep?

If the SCOTUS answers in the affirmative, then it's a whole new ball-game.
 
I'm really surprised that they didn't challenge the underlined part of the 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.
Click to expand...
 
It may be that Woollard is stayed if the SCOTUS grants cert in Williams. I suspect that all the other "carry" cases may be stayed as well.
Click to expand...
What are the chances looking like for Woollard to proceed further?

I'd think his case would fare better in front of SCOTUS because a) Woollard is not contesting criminal charges, b) his story is just as compelling (if not more so) than Otis McDonald and Dick Heller, and c) we've got a litigant representing him with a documented history of winning on that level.
 
Last edited:
Whatever else anyone may think, those cases that Halbrook has brought to the Court (granted cert), he has never lost.

Also, we have "Miranda" rights, because of a criminal case.

As for Wollard, it will proceed (as will every other carry case) up to the point Williams is granted cert (if it is).
 
Lets suppose we win Wollard/Williams. I live in PA on the NYS border. Suppose I apply for a NYS carry license and I'm shot down because I'm not a NYS resident. For those not in the know you can't even posses a pistol in NYS without a NYS license and they don't issue non resident licenses. Would it then be cause to file suit? If so I'm willing to lend my name to the suit.

Add: I do have a PA License To Carry a Firearm. NYS doesn't recognize out of state licenses.
 
I live in MD. When I transport a weapon to the range or to/from the gun shop or smith I am so damn careful to make sure it is in a case and unloaded. If it ain't you are looking for big trouble in this damn state. They can and will send you to jail. It is near imposssible to get a cc permit in MD and if you carry w/o one it is near impossible to avoid jail time if caught. I intend to move to rural Ill. where my sister has a business after my very old dog passes, but the laws are just as bad there:mad:
 
Lets suppose we win Wollard/Williams. I live in PA on the NYS border. Suppose I apply for a NYS carry license and I'm shot down because I'm not a NYS resident. For those not in the know you can't even posses a pistol in NYS without a NYS license and they don't issue non resident licenses. Would it then be cause to file suit? If so I'm willing to lend my name to the suit.
Click to expand...

We need to figure out the actual words and text of a Williams win first before we know the answer to that, otherwise we're engaging in reading tea-leaves and speculation. Speculation isn't necessarily a bad thing, though.

There is actually three pieces of litigation against the NYC/NYS carry laws. There's Kachalsky v. Cacace that was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. There's a case in the state court system as well (I need to look it up again, it's in Manhattan) and the NYC Fees case.

Presuming a strong win in Williams, Kachalsky would be a shoo-in for a win, even if NYS appealed it up to the 2nd circuit (and our side would still win, again depending on the strength of Williams). A Kachalsky 2nd circuit win would allow for a challenge to the non-resident law there. If my case ends up at SCOTUS and we win that case, it'll fix New York.

-Gray
 
NY State infuriates me that there is absolutely no path to a non-resident keeping, let alone bearing a handgun in that state. It is right denied, end of story. And it's a FELONY with a mandatory jail term! :eek:

Taking down that law ought to be like shooting fish in a bucket, post Heller/McDonald.
 
If memory serves right the N.Y. law for handguns came about around 1903 know as the Sullivan law. Unruly bunch they were back then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top