Williams v. State of Maryland

1) Is Williams a Federal or Maryland citizen? Dred Scott, which still stands, determines this.
2) Does MacDonald and Heller apply to only Federal citizens? I think Heller was scoped as only for Federal citizens.
3) 42 USC 1981, which is current law, plus rights incorporated under the SCOTUS 14A rulings, are the rights of Federal citizens.
4) How does article 2 of the Maryland constitution affect this case?

Art. 2. The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Does this not mean the 2A fully applies? That also means any laws preventing a person from bearing arms is NOT law. Maybe the last phrase causes the 2A to not apply.

5) Art. 28. That a well regulated Militia is the proper and natural defence of a free Government.

How does this apply? It would seem to me that this guy is part of the militia of Maryland.
 
Last edited:
230therapy:

1) Williams is both a citizen of the US and MD. Dred Scott does not figure into this at all.
2) Heller applied to the Federal Government. McDonald incorporated the 2nd via the 14th as applying against the States and local governments. In doing this, McDonald also incorporated the Heller decision. i.e. What was decided in Heller applies equally at the Federal level and to the States.
3) Rights incorporated via the 14th are rights that belong to the people, regardless of citizenship status. See United States v.
Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990).
4) Art 2 of the Maryland Constitution does not come into play in this case.
5) Art. 28 does not come into play, except as it may conflict with the rights defined under the 2nd.
 
230therapy: the entire subject of "US citizen vs. state citizen" tells me you've been reading a lot of crap. Sorry, but those ideas are based on a very flawed understanding of the the 14th Amendment. Anybody who lives in a state is a citizen of that state if they are also a US citizen - it's both at once and we always have both sets of rights. We are not denied one set for having the other, ever. You're paying attention to a garbage line of reasoning that is wrongfully critical of the 14th Amendment, and grossly misunderstands it.

Suggested reading: "The Bill Of Rights", 1999 by Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor. That book was a huge if indirect influence on the Heller decision...it tracks what exactly happened to the Bill Of Rights (item by item) when the 14th Amendment passed in 1868. I also recommend "The Day Freedom Died" by Charles Lane, 2008 which was directly cited in Heller.
 
Jim March said:
Suggested reading: "The Bill Of Rights", 1999 by Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor. That book was a huge if indirect influence on the Heller decision...it tracks what exactly happened to the Bill Of Rights (item by item) when the 14th Amendment passed in 1868.
Click to expand...
Am I mis-remembering, or was it Professor Amar who started off looking at the 2nd Amendment from a strictly anti-gunner perspective and after researching it came around (admittedly very reluctantly) to acknowledging that it really DOES guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms?
 
Yup! That's exactly what happened. His distaste regarding what he discovered re: the real meaning of the 14th is really obvious but to his credit he did report his findings.

I actually confronted him about this around 2002...and mentioned that if the 2nd Amendment protects the type of arms found in 1868, the Mormons had already invented the snubby big-bore revolver and the Union was fielding entire regiments of guys armed with 15shot leverguns - which by 1866 were in commercial production and sales. He looked sick :).

Stephen Halbrook had discovered the same quotes on the 14th by John Bingham, the primary author of the 14th and the leader of the post-civil-war civil rights movement that failed, in Halbrook's 1984 book "That Every Man Be Armed". Nobody took him seriously until Amar independently discovered the same source material 14 years later. Amar actually documented it better and is the better book on the subject, esp. since it covers more than just the 2nd Amendment implications.
 
His distaste regarding what he discovered re: the real meaning of the 14th is really obvious but to his credit he did report his findings.
Click to expand...
That took an incredible amount of academic honesty on his part. There's a parallel to Gary Kleck, who also started off as an anti-gun guy. His research returned some troubling (to him) results, but he felt obliged to run with it anyway.
 
Yesterday, Sept. 26,2011, was the Long Conference of the Court before the opening session, next Monday.

Williams was one of the many cases listed for conference. This morning, the misc. orders were published. You will note that Williams was not granted cert.

Next Monday, another list will come out. This will be the list of cases that were denied cert. Hopefully, Williams will not be on that list.

It will mean that the Williams case was passed over for later review.
 
If SCOTUS does not accept the Williams case for review, what could it possibly be waiting on? Or, maybe SCOTUS just does not want to fill in the blanks left by Heller.
 
What could they be waiting on? Read my post in the 2A Cases Thread. It explains it all.

ETA: Link was broken when I inadvertently deleted the 2A Cases thread. sigh.
 
Here's approximately what I wrote over at MDShooters, which is close to what I wrote here (in the now deleted 2A Cases thread):

When I made my prediction, I hadn't known about Lowery. I posted that prediction towards the end of August. We didn't hear about Lowery until the middle of Sept. The Lowery cert stage will be completed by Nov. 28th (I'm assuming a request for a 30 day extension - Oct 21st without the extension).

What is obvious (to me), is that some on the Court are, in fact, interested in these gun cases. If this were not so, then responses would not have been requested in all three cases. Stop and think about what that really means for a minute.

Adding Lowery into the mix and what Lyle Denniston wrote above, changes things a bit. That makes a much stronger case that at least one of these cases will be selected, and cert will be granted.

After looking hard at the three cases, Williams is still the best case. This case can be answered in such a way that will affect the outcome of the other two cases. So, assuming a hold on two cases, we will have a decision and then a GVR on the other two.

There's another reason that I think one (or more) of the three gun cases will be granted cert.

While I agree with Gene Hoffman (CalGuns) that a Federal Circuit does not get a pass in calling out the SCOTUS, Williams is still the best case to craft a question that answers all three cases.

Consider that it was the Maryland Court of Appeals that directly challenged the Heller Court. That was the case that Judge Wilkinson cited in Masciandaro.

Justice Scalia has to be "chomping at the bit" right about now.

Remember also, that in the McDonald decision, Justice Scalia filed a separate concurring opinion, just to get the last dig against retiring Justice Stevens, a long time adversary.

You can make bet that Justice Scalia would like nothing more than to rake Judge Wilkinson over the coals for that. These cases will give him just that opportunity. Williams in particular, as Scalia can rail against the State High Court, all the while making Wilkinson look extremely bad for relying upon a State Court in order to further dis Scalia on a Federal Issue. (Some of you may remember Judge Wilkinson. Right after the Heller decision, he wrote a scathing article about that decision and about Justice Scalia in particular)
 
Next Monday, another list will come out. This will be the list of cases that were denied cert. Hopefully, Williams will not be on that list.
Click to expand...
After looking hard at the three cases, Williams is still the best case. This case can be answered in such a way that will affect the outcome of the other two cases. So, assuming a hold on two cases, we will have a decision and then a GVR on the other two.
Click to expand...

Williams is denied...Williams
 
I suspect the underlying issue is that the gun was loaded
Click to expand...

The underlying issue is the 2A isnt seen by most states as a civil right, if you applied the same types of laws against oh lets say the freedom of speech or freedom of religion they would have a riot beyond belief on their hands.

One day the SCOTUS must give it the same types of protections as the other provisions of the constitution and for whatever reason that simply hasnt been the case.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly. Maybe Williams was the best of the three cases that applied for cert. this term, but that doesn't really say much. Truth is, Maryland has an avenue for concealed carry. Yes, it sucks, yes you have to be connected to get through it, but it does have the process. The present case was not about Williams applying and being denied a permit, it was about him actually breaking the law - carrying a loaded Glock in a backpack without a permit. I'd have been surprised if the Court could've mustered five votes in support of the right to keep and bear arms with such a fact pattern. Far better for the Court to remain silent on the issue than to have a majority opinion on the second amendment written by Breyer, for example.

There'll be other -- and better -- cases to try to bring before the court on this issue.
 
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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top