Supreme Court Requested to Review MD Carry Case

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Dogabutila

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 21, 2010
    2,359
    I'm thinking this gets heard. We've got 3 solid yes votes and the 4th is the one that's hard to find. Thankfully SCOTUS has this thing called the "4" vote. Basically where a justice is saying that if 3 others think it is important enough s/he will be the 4th vote to pass it (otherwise it doesnt count, so if you have 2 yes's and 2 4's then it wont be heard).
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    I agree. This would be a good case for cert, at elast from our perspective. One thing we haven't talked much about is that because this is a Maryland case, the laws under review directly affect us. So anything the Court does to remedy Williams' plight will also immediately remedy the citizens of Maryland. No need to go to another court and fight out the details and argue over the semantics of how Williams affects MD law. We'll know on the first day. Those poor blokes in California, New Jersey and New York on the other hand...

    If cert is granted, the question is probably going to be-framed in a way that suits the Court's intentions yet still answers the question at hand. We saw this in Heller, where,

    "Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns."​

    became a much broader question that answered the Big Question at the time: Does the Second Amendment protect to an individual or a collective right?

    Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?


    If the Court wants this case, they are likely to re-frame the query in other ways. If they really want to settle the issue, the could answer the more simple question: Does Maryland law (x, y, z) violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals to bear arms in public places?

    I tend to think they'll go with the more broad question, as they did in Heller. This is new law and the courts are clamoring for support. Unlike McDonald - which just reinforced Heller at the national level - this case would actually answer some pressing issues regarding the right and bridge new ground. It is in their interest to respond in a way that encompasses other queries at the same time.

    One thing about this case: it directly addresses "scrutiny" in the cert request. This, more than anything else I have seen, might make the Court nervous. Unlike Heller - where a categorical analysis was used - issues of means-end testing befuddle this court. "Scrutiny" analysis draws artificial lines in the sand that are hard to cross. They are handy with settled jurisprudence, but are largely inappropriate with issues of first impression (or almost first impression). This court does not like drawing those lines, and some justices feel that means-end testing prevents judges from actually thinking through a case. They are inflexible in application.

    Halbrook argued for a categorical finding ala Heller, but also pointed out the numerous examples of the use of intermediate scrutiny by the courts when answering questions of RKBA in public. It's obvious he - and the courts and the many who practice law and the many who watch it - want the court to define some standards.

    I don't think they will get them.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    I'm thinking this gets heard. We've got 3 solid yes votes and the 4th is the one that's hard to find. Thankfully SCOTUS has this thing called the "4" vote. Basically where a justice is saying that if 3 others think it is important enough s/he will be the 4th vote to pass it (otherwise it doesnt count, so if you have 2 yes's and 2 4's then it wont be heard).

    I'm not convinced it will be heard-the 4 Progressives probably have no issue with MD's ruling, and don't want to have another SCOTUS decision expand the 2A. Right now the lower courts are doing all they can to limit everything to the home, and that's fine by them.
    The Heller 5 may pass(or at least enough of them), because it's not a case where all the I's were dotted and the T's crossed, namely this was not a properly "groomed" case. They may be aware of the other cleaner cases on their way(too slowly IMO) which they'd rather take.
    But, on the other hand, the guy got prison time, and MD basically called out SCOTUS in their opinion(not to mention other courts punting on the issue). So they may decide that they want to send a message right away instead of waiting another year or two before deciding the issue.

    Since Halbrook is taking up this guy's case, I'm curious whether he may also consider Masciandaro's case(the National Parks case). That case has another 60 days to file with SCOTUS. I think that one has legs since it'll be easy to convince SCOTUS that a parking lot is NOT a sensitive place, it's outside the home, and it's not a gun store/range/aka common exceptions from carry prohibition. The end result would demolish the "only in the home" garbage being perpetrated by the lower courts, and put the states currently under lawsuit in a very very tiny corner with very little or no wiggle room going forward.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Between the two cases you suggest, I like Williams for answering our specific question. It is a clean question and has more broad effect for our purposes and it involves other-than-government property. And...it involves Maryland. But Masciandaro is also important.

    I think the two cases actually are complimentary. They do not need to pose the same questions.

    Williams: Does 2A protect a public right to RKBA, in general (subject to some sensitive place exceptions)

    Masciandaro: Where do we draw those exceptions? Can the government define them using whatever illusions they conjure up regarding public safety? Can the government really act as a private property holder when it comes to a fundamental right?


    I hope Masciandaro appeals. I think both cases are important. And as far a criminal cases go, they are both fairly clean.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Williams (as presented) or Masciandaro will do the job of eliminating "in the home". I agree also that it was better on the surface as well. I'd heard a rumor a couple weeks back that "people" were talking with Masciandaro, apparently those same people were talking with Williams. I'll leave it at that and trust their call.

    So...we could get "in the home" wiped with this, if granted. Seems slam dunk, right? Remember that Williams was transporting/carrying concealed in a backpack. The Courts will NEVER come out and specifically claim Concealed is protected. Too many decisions would be affected.

    With that, expect permits to be allowed in a post-Williams world. With that, don't expect a lot of help with CCW permits being arbitrary/capricious.

    That is where the SAF/Gura Civil cases come in. Eliminating the "in the home" argument before an Equal Protection, Due Process (civil) case gets to SCOTUS would make the ride all that much smoother.
     

    w2kbr

    MSI EM, NRA LM, SAF, AAFG
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 13, 2009
    1,128
    Severn 21144
    I am not a Lawyer, nor am I cognizant of the workings of the court, but in my own mind, this Williams case is a shame and the poor guy got shafted. It seems to me that all the legal eagle chatter about Heller/McDonald etc was unnecessary. As I recall, MD law allows the transporting of firearms, and lays out the whys and wherefores. So, here's a guy who is/has transported his firearm, in a bag, not within view of the public, and panics when LE approaches. And who wouldn't in this state? He was probably scared to death, and he winds up with a year!!
    Where is/was the common sense approach to this adventure? Should have never went to Court in the first place, no law was broken, or...am I way out in left field?

    R
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    I am not a Lawyer, nor am I cognizant of the workings of the court, but in my own mind, this Williams case is a shame and the poor guy got shafted. It seems to me that all the legal eagle chatter about Heller/McDonald etc was unnecessary. As I recall, MD law allows the transporting of firearms, and lays out the whys and wherefores. So, here's a guy who is/has transported his firearm, in a bag, not within view of the public, and panics when LE approaches. And who wouldn't in this state? He was probably scared to death, and he winds up with a year!!
    Where is/was the common sense approach to this adventure? Should have never went to Court in the first place, no law was broken, or...am I way out in left field?

    R

    If I recall, he was going to/from girlfriend's house, which isn't permissible w/o a carry permit. The ideal situation would have been for the LEO to check him out, and tell him that he can't transport his handgun in this fashion and give him a warning. Of course, when it comes to guns even the smallest infractions will get the book thrown at you. The law was broken, but the problem is that the law is unconstitutional in general.
    As far as it being concealed, it would seem irrelevant because he didn't have a carry permit. If this had happened in an unlicensed open carry state, it would be a much different issue.
     

    yellowfin

    Pro 2A Gastronome
    Jul 30, 2010
    1,516
    Lancaster, PA
    I agree. This would be a good case for cert, at elast from our perspective. One thing we haven't talked much about is that because this is a Maryland case, the laws under review directly affect us. So anything the Court does to remedy Williams' plight will also immediately remedy the citizens of Maryland. No need to go to another court and fight out the details and argue over the semantics of how Williams affects MD law. We'll know on the first day. Those poor blokes in California, New Jersey and New York on the other hand...
    This will be a MAJOR boost for Kachalsky, Palmer, Muller, Kwong, Richards, etc. if it goes right. Even if not directly affecting them verbatim, it's a GREAT help by jumping a few steps in line so we don't have to wonder if we'll get a carry case in front of them in time. I really hope this allows them to simplify things or at least speed them along.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Williams (as presented) or Masciandaro will do the job of eliminating "in the home". I agree also that it was better on the surface as well. I'd heard a rumor a couple weeks back that "people" were talking with Masciandaro, apparently those same people were talking with Williams. I'll leave it at that and trust their call.

    They (assuming Halbrook) might want Masciandaro if for nothing more than another shot at SCOTUS. Anyone think they'd take 2 2A cases in the same term? I'd think one may be enough for them.
    Question: Is this just Halbrook pro-bono reaching out to Williams, or is the NRA helping fund this?
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    This will be a MAJOR boost for Kachalsky, Palmer, Muller, Kwong, Richards, etc. if it goes right. Even if not directly affecting them verbatim, it's a GREAT help by jumping a few steps in line so we don't have to wonder if we'll get a carry case in front of them in time. I really hope this allows them to simplify things or at least speed them along.

    Punting on 2A outside the home will no longer be a defense. It'll just be blood and more blood in the streets, or possibly another new defense, like hey you can carry pepper spray w/o a license!
     

    yellowfin

    Pro 2A Gastronome
    Jul 30, 2010
    1,516
    Lancaster, PA
    I hope they'll stop feeding us one crumb at a time like they've been doing and take away ALL forms of punting. They really need to cut out this stupid tiptoeing around the daisies crap and start marching on the daisies with spike cleat snowshoes.
     

    Nobody

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 15, 2009
    2,810
    I hope they'll stop feeding us one crumb at a time like they've been doing and take away ALL forms of punting. They really need to cut out this stupid tiptoeing around the daisies crap and start marching on the daisies with spike cleat snowshoes.

    The wheels of justice turn s l o w l y especally when your are the one being wronged. I would say how long I think it will be but it has been said.

    Tick, tick, tick tick.

    NOBODY
     

    jpk1md

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 13, 2007
    11,313
    [*]A cop saw Williams rummaging in his bag at a bus stop and turned his cruiser around to check him out. The LEO saw Williams place something in some bushes
    [*]LEO asks Williams what was in the bushes. Williams states "my gun".
    [*]Arrest and hilarity ensue

    Did he actually leave/abandon his gun in the bushes?!?!?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,487
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom