Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 9th, 2017, 02:18 PM #371
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 204
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Did you actually read the Maryland Appellate Court's decision on the matter (in my prior message where I mentioned a link, I ended up linking the wrong case, the one decided before McDonald. Didn't even realize it until now. Sorry about that)? At the time of his arrest, the firearm was out in the open (well, in the "brush area"). The notion that he was carrying it in his backpack is inferred, not observed. For all you know, Williams could have been carrying the firearm openly (though I do agree that is highly unlikely, since there's no mention of a holster). He was convicted of possessing ("wearing, carrying, or transporting") in public without a permit. Surely open carry is a subset of possession in public, no?

Is it your contention that placing a firearm on the ground in public is sufficient grounds to abandon Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms? Or perhaps, consistent with your view of carry, it is only protected if one were to place it on the ground in plain sight of surrounding onlookers?

While I agree that the case is a bad case, it is quite the stretch, to say the least, to claim that Williams suffered no injury under the law.

Standing isn't determined by whether or not one's rights are injured, it's determined by whether or not the law (or the actions of the other party, in the case of a civil lawsuit) injures the individual challenging the law in some way, whether it be through injury to his fundamental rights, to his liberty, to his property, or any other such thing. The law might stand anyway, and most often does, but that is not the same thing as not being subject to challenge, which is what Justice Brandeis was talking about.

Justice Brandeis concurred in judgment. But his concurrence makes plain that he believed that the Supreme Court should not have decided the case on its merits, but instead should have affirmed without comment precisely because the plaintiffs failed to show injury. The contended injury wasn't to fundamental rights, it was alleged to be to the business prospects of the Alabama Power Company and, in particular, to the financial prospects of the holders of preferred stock in said Company. He didn't say that the nature of the alleged injury mooted it as regards the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, he said that they failed to show injury, which is a different thing. As such, it is clear that "injury" can come in many forms, not just to one's fundamental Constitutional rights.
My god...What part of, "The defendant would have testified that he purchased the handgun for self-defense, and that on the date of this arrest, he had just left the handgun at his girlfriend’s house, place of residence. When he got off work, he went to her residence and picked up that handgun and was en route to his home when the arrest occurred behind the bus stop." " Officer Molake then recovered an Austria [sic] made, black Glock handgun with 15 rounds in the magazine in the brush area where he saw the defendant go. The defendant gave a written statement after being given his Miranda rights by Officer Santa Cruz, admitting to possession of the gun and placing the gun in the bush area where the officer subsequently located it." ...do you not understand. He CONCEALED his loaded firearm in his backpack, took it out of the backpack and CONCEALED it in the bushes. There's no 2nd Amendment right to do that. He INTENDED to CONCEAL a firearm from the time he left his girlfriends home to concealing it in the bushes. Peruta's sole INTENT, was to get a CONCEALED carry license...There's a common factor there and no personal damage occurred in either case.

Williams, once he hid the firearm, was no longer keeping or bearing arms for self-defense.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2017, 02:26 PM #372
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,180
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
My god...What part of, "The defendant would have testified that he purchased the handgun for self-defense, and that on the date of this arrest, he had just left the handgun at his girlfriend’s house, place of residence. When he got off work, he went to her residence and picked up that handgun and was en route to his home when the arrest occurred behind the bus stop." " Officer Molake then recovered an Austria [sic] made, black Glock handgun with 15 rounds in the magazine in the brush area where he saw the defendant go. The defendant gave a written statement after being given his Miranda rights by Officer Santa Cruz, admitting to possession of the gun and placing the gun in the bush area where the officer subsequently located it." ...do you not understand.
I understand all of that. Where in the above does it explicitly say that he was concealing the firearm prior to placing it in the bushes? It doesn't. Concealed carry is an inference, not an observation.


Quote:
He CONCEALED his loaded firearm in his backpack,
And you KNOW this how, exactly? Clairvoyance, perhaps? It wasn't explicitly stated in the case anywhere, now was it? All that was stated was that he was "rummaging through his backpack" prior to dropping the pistol in the brush. Yes, it's likely that he concealed it in his backpack but again, that is an inference, not an observation! He wasn't observed taking his pistol out of his backpack. If that were what was observed, the case would have stated so plainly.


Quote:
Williams, once he hid the firearm, was no longer keeping or bearing arms for self-defense.
So if you hide your firearm somewhere, you give up your right to it? You're treading thin ice here. Better think this through.

Last edited by kcbrown; November 10th, 2017 at 03:54 AM.
kcbrown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2017, 02:39 PM #373
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,180
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
Peruta's sole INTENT, was to get a CONCEALED carry license...There's a common factor there and no personal damage occurred in either case.
I agree with you with respect to Peruta. It was primarily a concealed carry case. Not solely a concealed carry case, since it asked whether the right to bear arms extends outside the home, but yes, it was primarily a concealed carry case. It was not the ideal vehicle for securing the right to bear in public.

Woollard, on the other hand, was about as good as it gets. The mode of carry for that case was completely irrelevant, and not even mentioned by the plaintiffs, because the law equally invalidates all forms of carry and is written in such a way that the courts can strike the open carry prohibition within it while retaining the concealed carry prohibition. But the Supreme Court denied cert to it as well.

Norman is all that's left. Everything turns on it. I expect you'll find out for yourself just how political the Court is on these things when it denies cert here as well. It did, after all, deny cert to Friedman v City of Highland Park, wherein the circuit court claimed that the prospect of people feeling safer with the "assault weapons ban" in place was sufficient justification to uphold the ban. It is not just carry cases that the Court has denied cert to. It is all 2nd Amendment firearms cases since McDonald. It is arrogance of the highest order to proclaim that all of those cases were lacking merit at the Supreme Court level.

And lest you believe that the reason they denied cert in all of those cases was "lack of injury", that is just as true of both Heller and McDonald. Neither Heller nor McDonald were arrested, much less convicted, for violating the challenged law, but the Court took the cases anyway, thus making it clear that in the eyes of the Court, they had demonstrated injury. The plaintiffs in the other cases that they denied cert to demonstrated the same level of injury as Heller and McDonald had. Thus, they were not denied due to lack of standing (i.e., for not demonstrating injury).

Last edited by kcbrown; November 10th, 2017 at 03:56 AM.
kcbrown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2017, 03:22 PM #374
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 393
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I agree with you with respect to Peruta. It was primarily a concealed carry case. Not solely a concealed carry case, since it asked whether the right to bear arms extends outside the home, but yes, it was primarily a concealed carry case. It was not the ideal vehicle for securing the right to bear in public.

Woollard, on the other hand, was about as good as it gets. The mode of carry for that case was completely irrelevant, and not even mentioned by the plaintiffs, because the law equally invalidates all forms of carry and is written in such a way that the courts can strike the open carry prohibition within it while retaining the concealed carry prohibition. But the Supreme Court denied cert to it as well.

Norman is all that's left. Everything turns on it. I expect you'll find out for yourself just how political the Court is on these things when it denies cert here as well. It did, after all, deny cert to Friedman v City of Highland Park, wherein the circuit court claimed that the prospect of people feeling safer with the "assault weapons ban" in place was sufficient justification to uphold the ban. It is not just carry cases that the Court has denied cert to. It is all 2nd Amendment firearms cases since McDonald. It is arrogance of the highest order to proclaim that all of those cases were lacking merit at the Supreme Court level.

And lest you believe that the reason they denied cert in all of those cases was "lack of injury", that is just as true of both Heller and McDonald. Neither Heller nor McDonald were arrested, much less convicted, for violating the challenged law, but the Court took the cases anyway, thus making it clear that in the eyes of the Court, they had demonstrated injury. The plaintiffs in the other cases that they denied cert to demonstrated the same level of injury as Heller and McDonald had. Thus, they were not denied due to lack of standing (i.e., not demonstrating injury).
You're right of course, but it's amazing to me how many so called conservatives just don't get it.
GlocksAndPatriots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2017, 11:53 AM #375
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 211
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 211
Isn't this the day of the "Norman" conference?

I made a note in my calendar but, you know, things get changed.
Peaceful John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2017, 12:20 PM #376
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 451
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful John View Post
Isn't this the day of the "Norman" conference?

I made a note in my calendar but, you know, things get changed.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....lic/17-68.html

yes, but the results of the conference will be announced on Monday (27th)
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2017, 04:10 PM #377
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 211
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....lic/17-68.html

yes, but the results of the conference will be announced on Monday (27th)
Thank you,
Peaceful John is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
2017, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service