Supreme Court Requested to Review MD Carry Case

[krucam]

How many times have I seen this? Hear that train a'coming, its coming 'round the bend.....

 

[krucam]

The Supreme Court Docket that Kharn was mentioning is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-1207.htm

Interesting that this was submitted on 4/5 (response due 5/5). 2.5 weeks since inception before we (wjackcooper actually via PM) uncovered it.

Time for some "True Blood" and pizza...

 

[yellowfin]

How many times have I seen this? Hear that train a'coming, its coming 'round the bend.....

It accelerates greatly because of this case from its previous speed of Mach 0.000000000000000001 to about half the speed of a drunk snail fart. Considerably better off than we were, for certain.

 

[Charles Guggenheimer]

Actually there is no proof that Williams abandoned his firearm. When I am hunting, I might need to place my firearm against a tree to climb up in my tree stand and then pull it up, or while I am field dressing my game. Williams showed no intention to leave his firearm behind.

 

[jpk1md]

Actually there is no proof that Williams abandoned his firearm. When I am hunting, I might need to place my firearm against a tree to climb up in my tree stand and then pull it up, or while I am field dressing my game. Williams showed no intention to leave his firearm behind.

LOL

He hid it in the bushes when he suspected he had attracted police attention.

Since it was clearly no longer in his possession and definately not under his control what do you call that?

 

[Inigoes]

Here is the initial conviction:

Charge No: 1
Charge: Carry Handgun
Charge Code: 4-203(A)(1)(I){c}
Offense Date: 10/01/2007
Arrest Tracking No: 020005325606
Disposition Disposition: Guilty
Disposition Date:10/06/2008

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=CT080537X&loc=65&detailLoc=PG

 

[Norton]

Guys, let's not get wrapped up in minutiae. The case is proceeding, regardless of what we think.

It's the potential positive outcomes of the case that we should be discussing.

 

[Charles Guggenheimer]

agreed...

 

[Patrick]

...

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.

Halbrook says the conviction should be overturned because he did nothing wrong. There are really only two prongs to this case: public RKBA is civil right; and Maryland law and practice conspire to make exercise of that right impossible.

With that decided, concealed in a bag means nothing. The Supreme Court avoids any heartburn because once they decide the above, the case is over. Maryland law makes no manner of carry determination. It only stops people from carrying because the required permit is illusory for the common man. No civil right can be reliant upon such a system.

So agreeing with Halbrook does not "feather the scale" towards any particular manner of carry. Maryland is nicely situated in this regard. And even if it were not, the argument can be made that once the state denies your rights by fiat, their rules on the manner in which you should exercise the right you cannot exercise are immaterial.

 

[Patrick]

And for the record, I agree with JPK when it comes to the residency question. Now that 2A is incorporated, federal precedent applies. The Supreme Court has made clear that the 4th applies anywhere you lay your head. The police may notrely on the owner of a property you are staying at to search your room. If you are coresident with another, they can allow a search but you can deny acces to your bags, belongings, etc.

It's for another thread, but I suspect Maryland law has similar precedent.

Now...going to your friends house but not spending the night there might be something else. For that we might need to look at Heller.

If someone wants to create a thread on this, it might help formulate a question for the AG. That could be useful.

 

[Inigoes]

A question:

If 4-203 is struck down as unconstitutional, would the local municipalities be free to impose their own restrictions because there is no state law to preempt the local law?

 

[jpk1md]

Halbrook says the conviction should be overturned because he did nothing wrong. There are really only two prongs to this case: public RKBA is civil right; and Maryland law and practice conspire to make exercise of that right impossible.

With that decided, concealed in a bag means nothing. The Supreme Court avoids any heartburn because once they decide the above, the case is over. Maryland law makes no manner of carry determination. It only stops people from carrying because the required permit is illusory for the common man. No civil right can be reliant upon such a system.

So agreeing with Halbrook does not "feather the scale" towards any particular manner of carry. Maryland is nicely situated in this regard. And even if it were not, the argument can be made that once the state denies your rights by fiat, their rules on the manner in which you should exercise the right you cannot exercise are immaterial.

Admittedly I'm not as familiar with the smallest details in the case but its pretty clear that he hid/abandoned/willingly gave up control of his firearm and willingly put it in an unsecured place where there was every reason to believe that some random person/kid could access it.

I'm having a hard time seeing SCOTUS ignoring this not insignificant detail and none of the justices regardless of ideology will view that behavior positively.

 

[jpk1md]

And for the record, I agree with JPK when it comes to the residency question. Now that 2A is incorporated, federal precedent applies.

<chokes>

I'm glad we come to the same conclusion, specifically on the residency/firearm possession issue but obviously we get there via very different paths.

I don't support granting Fed Courts the power to make any such decision as I've stated previously....how can you allow the Fed Gov the power to rule on an ammendment to the constitution that explicitly prohibits it from infringing upon.

Once again we're going to be one political appointee away from making a decision that could rain ruin on that which shall not be infringed.

 

[Fodder4Thought]

Now...going to your friends house but not spending the night there might be something else. For that we might need to look at Heller.

I'm not so sure it would be different - I know that when I go to visit friends there isn't a set time to conclude visiting. We hang out with the understanding that if the evening goes well it might be very late before we break it off (probably lots of political/ethical philosophy conversations. Real time-suckers, those), and if it's late enough I know that I'm almost always welcome to stay the night, just as my friends know that they're always welcome to stay the night at my place. Kinda what hospitality is all about, y'know?

Maybe if there was the concrete understanding (or at least expectation) that a visitor would not be spending the night... But since you've gotta sleep somewhere and you're visiting a friend late at night, I don't think it would be that easy to argue that not intending to spend the night means that it's not within the realm of possibility.

Of course, you could also say that if you weren't intending to stay the nights then you shouldn't have brought the gun in the first place. So what happens if I can say that there was a reasonable chance that I would be?

 

[krucam]

Admittedly I'm not as familiar with the smallest details in the case but its pretty clear that he hid/abandoned/willingly gave up control of his firearm and willingly put it in an unsecured place where there was every reason to believe that some random person/kid could access it.

I'm having a hard time seeing SCOTUS ignoring this not insignificant detail and none of the justices regardless of ideology will view that behavior positively.

PG and MD Ct of Appeals agree, so let it go. It shifts gears now, the MD Ct of Appeals threw down the guantlet saying, "say so more plainly".

Holbrook's question to SCOTUS in his Petition http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/lawsuits/Petition_cert_Williams_FINAL.pdf

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.​

That is the discussion now. We're twisting the arm of SCOTUS to make them say uncle the obvious....the right to Bear exists outside the home.

A plain reading of the 2A can yield this answer by anyone with more than a Junior High level of reading comprehension...

It is no longer about Williams and his decision making skills. MD (and consequently the rest of the country) are dead meat with the "only in the home" arguments if cert is granted.

Read the Petition (linked above), it is a very good read.

 

[Fodder4Thought]

A question:

If 4-203 is struck down as unconstitutional, would the local municipalities be free to impose their own restrictions because there is no state law to preempt the local law?

Yikes - that would be messy for a while, wouldn't it? The flurry of new regulations and subsequent court cases would really work to define the limitations of the 2A (rather, to define the limits of the state's/county's/municipality's/PTA board's/etc power). Ugly, and there would also be secondary effects, wouldn't there? As each law is upheld or struck down, there would be a fluid maze of laws. Kind of like a minefield where the mines move around, appear out of nowhere, and sometimes vanish into the ether, taking their smug condescension and sanctimonious hand-wringing with them. Stupid mines, always so smug.

LeVar Burton: I'm not terribly smart and could be way off base here.

 

[Inigoes]

Yikes - that would be messy for a while, wouldn't it?

Yep, Sort of like Long gun carry...

Gansler said it was legal, but the local municipalities will arrest you in a heart beat.

 

[jpk1md]

The question presented is horrid and has extremely bad potential consequences.

Whether peaceably carrying or transporting a
REGISTERED handgun outside the home,

Registered? We're in part asking SCOTUS to Intentionally/Unintentionally legitimize Gun Registration?

Had this been written to ask the following it would stand to do a whole lot less damage.

QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether peaceably carrying or transporting a
LAWFULLY OWNED 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.[/INDENT]

 

[MDFF2008]

That's an interesting point there about registered.

 

[SkunkWerX]

That's an interesting point there about registered.

I'm thinking it's pointing to the fact that WIlliams legitimately obtained it,
via a 4473 form (and MD's "regulated firearms" forms).

It is registered in the FFL's bound book that the firearm in question was transferred to Mr. Williams, and done so legally.

And speaking to the point of him hiding it in the bushes, he wasn't charged with hiding a gun in the bushes. He was charged and convicted for illegally carrying a handgun. That is the question before us, is the Law and the subsequent arrest and conviction a violation of his civil rights?