Supreme Court Requested to Review MD Carry Case

MDFF2008 · Apr 22, 2011

I really have high hopes that a Maryland case will open the flood gates.

Maryland has all the right elements: Irrational gun laws, totally arbitrary permitting requirements, incompetent lawyers defending it, and no way to 2-step with open carry or anything like that.

ChannelCat · Apr 22, 2011

If they do take it, it will be another 5-4 desision sadly. The four lib-tards, will vote against the 2A, and the four consititutionalists will vote in favor of the 2A. The only question is, how will Kennedy side? I have hope, based on his recent track record, that he will air on the side of freedom...

ezliving · Apr 22, 2011

Williams is lucky to get the lawyer upgrade. Still, I don't know if this is the best next gun rights case for SCOTUS.

Gura has spoken several times about the NRA's strength at lobbying and how he wished they would stay out of the courtroom.

Patrick · Apr 22, 2011

ChannelCat said:
If they do take it, it will be another 5-4 decision, sadly. ...

- "Whether by an inch or a mile, a win is a win.", Vin Diesel in some movie, somewhere

X-Factor · Apr 22, 2011

ChannelCat said:
If they do take it, it will be another 5-4 desision sadly.

5-4 is better than 4-5.

This thread just made my day. Here's hoping.

HOWEVER....let's assume a few things and play this out:

-Williams gets cert, is heard, and Woolard gets up through the 4th (either side winning). What happens if Williams is 4-5 and Woolard gets appealed to SCOTUS? Wouldn't that basically be the worst possible scenario? Woolard being heard by SCOTUS after a loss with Williams?

Is this scenario at all possible/logical?

X-Factor · Apr 22, 2011

Patrick said:
Two things:

- "Whether by an inch or a mile, a win is a win.", Vin Diesel in some movie, somewhere

- Whether you love them or hate them, women in general deserve better than to be called what you just called two sitting Supreme Court justices. Respectfully request you modify your post accordingly. Maybe with the words I used above in bold?

-The Fast and the Furious (first one)

- :thumbsup:

MDFF2008 · Apr 22, 2011

X-Factor said:
5-4 is better than 4-5.

This thread just made my day. Here's hoping.

HOWEVER....let's assume a few things and play this out:

-Williams gets cert, is heard, and Woolard gets up through the 4th (either side winning). What happens if Williams is 4-5 and Woolard gets appealed to SCOTUS? Wouldn't that basically be the worst possible scenario? Woolard being heard by SCOTUS after a loss with Williams?

Is this scenario at all possible/logical?

I'm surprised they are trying to take a constitutional carry case to the Supreme court so soon.

There is a difference between Williams and Wollard thou

Patrick · Apr 22, 2011

ezliving said:
Williams is lucky to get the lawyer upgrade. Still, I don't know if this is the best next gun rights case for SCOTUS.

Gura has spoken several times about the NRA's strength at lobbying and how he wished they would stay out of the courtroom.

Halbrook is smart and this question is carefully written to avoid the most predominant NRA litigation style: tossing it all up on the wall and seeing what sticks. This is not a kitchen sink case. There is only one question, and it leaves the door open for everything else to be answered now or later.

The NRA appears to be getting better at this stuff. Witness their most recent forays into civil rights litigation (gun restrictions for the under-21 crowd, etc.). They are adapting.

Assuming they grant cert, I can see them punting because a permit had not been applied for and denied, regardless of the details mentioned above (SCOTUS can demonstrate a gift for invertebrate behavior).

Hallbrook goes into more detail in his request, but he points out several cases where the Supreme Court - among other federal courts - has ruled that failing to request a permit is not grounds for dismissal when the act of application would be plainly futile. There is no requirement to run the gamut of administrative applications and remedies when the outcome is obvious. If so, a state could simply keep creating vexatious administrative "processes" and hearings in a never-ending litany of denials, all aimed at preventing you from seeking relief in the federal system. It would be the Hotel California of civil rights litigation.

Hallbrook points out a case where SCOTUS shot down a permit requirement for a protest even though the permit was never applied for. When a fundamental right is in play, this is easier.

krucam said:
I tried to get into McDonald. Got up there around 5:30am, dark, cold and #75 in line. They only let 50 in when they started entry at 9:30am. 4 hours for nothing sucked.

You kids enjoy yourself and take good notes. If this is heard, it will be in the Fall or Winter and several years in Southern California made my New York blood thin out. No more ice fishing for me. I'll be sipping my hot tea thinking about you guys standing in the cold.

Or better yet...I will be cruising around the court with the heat on, listening to "Scalia's Greatest Hits - Favorite Zingers from Supreme Court Oral Arguments, Cranky Old Man Edition", sipping my hot tea and mocking you from the SUV. :lol2:

teratos · Apr 22, 2011

This is interesting news indeed. So it seems I fell asleep in the middle of the game and we went from the first quarter to the 4th quarter. Our team has the ball.....

Trapper · Apr 22, 2011

joppaj said:
I'm ok with this being kept seperate. The older thread kind of wandered all over the place. When does the USSC have to announce whether they'll hear it?

Joppa, can you fix your final link in the other one, it goes nowhere.

Thanks.

Patrick · Apr 22, 2011

gprimr1 said:
I'm surprised they are trying to take a constitutional carry case to the Supreme court so soon.

There is a difference between Williams and Wollard thou

This is not a constitutional carry case.

Please re-read and repeat.

Halbrook is clear about that on page 41:

Petitioner takes no position on whether the failure to apply for a permit would jeopardize the assertion of a Second Amendment claim in a prosecution for carrying a handgun without a permit in a state where, unlike Maryland, such a permit is required to be issued to law-abiding citizens.

This is effectively a challenge based on the permit being unavailable. It would require shall-issue or no-issue permitting. But the state could modify its permit practice if they wanted.

This opens a few possible doors. First, what happens if a state takes too long to issue a permit and you are caught carrying between the time you buy the gun and time the state issues the permit? Halbrook is hinting the answer is they cannot touch you. This is a subtle effect if they answer this question his way.

This question also opens the door to justices that want to avoid permits entirely. I doubt this will happen, as some see signs that Roberts would not go that way. He's big into law and order stuff and permits fit that bill.

ChannelCat · Apr 22, 2011

Patrick said:
Whether you love them or hate them, women in general deserve better than to be called what you just called two sitting Supreme Court justices. Respectfully request you modify your post accordingly. Maybe with the words I used above in bold?

Oh OK. My bad.

If they do take it, it will be another 5-4 desision sadly. The four lib-tards, including the two progressive, "living document" constitutional theorists (read: they make it up as they go along, changing their interpretation of the Consititution on the fly to fit their Marxist agenda) that Hussein put in there, wil vote against the 2A, and the four consititutionalists will vote in favor of the 2A. The only question is, how will Kennedy side? I have hope, based on his recent track record, that he will air on the side of freedom...

Patrick · Apr 22, 2011

That's more like it! Thx.

I like your explanation.

joppaj · Apr 22, 2011

Trapper said:
Joppa, can you fix your final link in the other one, it goes nowhere.

Thanks.

Got it, thanks for the catch.

krucam · Apr 22, 2011

Kopel via Volokh sounds off...

http://volokh.com/2011/04/22/cert-petition-in-right-to-carry-case/

Volokh's analysis in January when MD Court of Appeals ruled against Williams:

http://volokh.com/2011/01/05/highes...ng-concealed-or-not-of-guns-outside-the-home/

This is only starting...think big earthquake deep, deep in the ocean and nobody is aware of it.

krucam · Apr 22, 2011

The more I think about this, especially with 3 Yeunglings under my belt, is that the Court is really going to want to answer this one. The Big Question.

Forget that Heller and McDonald were 5-4 rulings. Forget that they didn't answer the "Bear" side of the RKBA equation. The question of Bear was not addressed in either.

So...we had 5 that ruled in our favor in a Home-based situation. Does this necessarily imply they want to entertain an Outside-the-Home-Situation? No, it doesn't. It does (to me) imply that the 4 who dissented WOULD want to take this up.

So...we now have 4 individuals who don't like us possibly ruling to grant Cert so they can chime in on the Big Question. Do not count them out on this Petition.

Musing out loud, but I'm feeling good on this one...at least as far as Cert being Granted....

www.scotusblog.com
is the place for watch for Petitions. You think Patrick is a "junkie"? They maintain a "Petitions to Watch" column, http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/petitions-were-watching/ and this will be the place to watch (besides MD Shooters) for status on Williams v. Maryland...

My foggy crystal-clear crystal ball says this will be Granted Cert easily.

gruntz03 · Apr 22, 2011

Any chance that Gansler knew this was coming and really didnt put a whole lot of thought into MD's last response in Wollard? Did he figure the SCOTUS would win or lose it for him?

press1280 · Apr 22, 2011

Some things to help this get cert. from SCOTUS would be-amicus briefs signed by members of Congress and the states, as well as from groups like SAF and NRA(and every other group). Heller and McDonald both had all of that. It seems to put pressure on the court to take the case if everyone is begging them for it.

annihilation-time · Apr 22, 2011

This case has me thinking.... According to the high court, we have the right to keep arms in our homes for self-defense, but.... what about the homeless. Without a residence, one would be forced to bear their arms in order to keep their arms. Correct? Do homeless people not have the right to keep arms? What if this case would have involved a street person with a handgun in a shopping cart that contained the entirety of his or her possessions?

blindnoodle · Apr 22, 2011

teratos said:
This is interesting news indeed. So it seems I fell asleep in the middle of the game and we went from the first quarter to the 4th quarter. Our team has the ball.....

Better analogy, we went from a scheduled NBA game to petitioning the NBA to let us have a free throw competition instead... from the opposite free throw line.

Supreme Court Requested to Review MD Carry Case

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Besieger

MSI Executive Member

I don't say please

I don't say please

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

My hair is amazing

I'm a member too.

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

Sheepdog

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

MOLON LABE

Livin' the dream!

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics