I am with Al. When I was in the military I took my new Glock with me on the road to visit relatives in New York state. We were heading to a family hunting/fishing camp where we would shoot skeet as kids. Guns no issue.
It wasn't until I got there that someone told me about NY laws. Drove reL careful out of that state on the way home, for sure.
Williams did nothing wrong. None of us would have convicted him were we on his jury.
I think the court wants to go with "safer" cases, from a social perspective. I cannot help but think some desire to avoid stoking political fires might be at play with some justices. It still does not make me happy, but I tend to worry only about the things I can control. everything else I just gotta accept.
From a purely Constitutional perspective, I agree with you. You would, however, be obligated to convict him if you were a good juror. You need to look at current laws, and determine whether he broke the law. Maryland law dictates that a firearm must be transported separate from the ammunition. Mr. Williams' gun was loaded. You could make a better argument if he were transporting the gun without ammunition. It is not for jurors to disagree with the laws, just to determine if people followed them. Changing the laws does not take place in the jury room. It takes place in the higher courts and legislature. If Mr. Williams were only transporting an unloaded firearm, it would be a much better case. This is not a very "safe" case. I do agree that everyone should be able to carry a handgun, and I feel that it should be able to be done WITHOUT the need for a permit. Current jurisprudence does not, however, support this (yet).
The Woullard case is better because Mr. Woullard was denied his Constitutional right by the State in an arbitrary manner. He had been approved before, then denied, though nothing had really changed. He is a law-abiding citizen. Good stuff