PDA

View Full Version : A Former Civil Rights Attorney's Take On Why Williams Was Denied Cert


ccmc
10-13-2011, 10:36 AM
Too much legal wonkery in the other thread. This explains it in plain English. See post 14 in the linked thread:

www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=67151

choprzrul
10-13-2011, 11:01 AM
Nice piece of analysis for us laymen.

.

Crom
10-13-2011, 11:03 AM
Very good. Thanks for that.

Python2
10-13-2011, 11:08 AM
Yeah, plain english alright. Thanks.

vonderplatz
10-13-2011, 11:11 AM
I hope the poster is right.

HowardW56
10-13-2011, 11:50 AM
A well reasoned post addressing the possible, and very plausible, reasoning of the court.

wildhawker
10-13-2011, 11:58 AM
That excellent post (http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=1317315&postcount=14) restates exactly what we've been saying since the cert petition.

-Brandon

ckprax
10-13-2011, 12:03 PM
A very easy to understand analysis, but I have to disagree with the last part.

My take is that, apart from giving the Brady bunch a pretext upon which to issue a press release, State v. Williams is of no real value in either direction to anyone except Williams.

I think Williams asked a very important question, which is do we have the right to carry without a permit? Or if a permit is necessary, can issuance be subjective? (idea stolen from Patrick-2)

Williams did nothing wrong. He is going to spend time behind bars for transporting legally owned property.

yellowfin
10-13-2011, 12:36 PM
Did Gansler's admission in the Woollard case that MD's policy purposefully intends to exclude virtually everyone from getting a license come after the oral arguments, as such that it could not have been used by the Williams defense at the time?

ccmc
10-13-2011, 12:37 PM
That excellent post (http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=1317315&postcount=14) restates exactly what we've been saying since the cert petition.

-Brandon

There was so much wonking back and forth in the other thread that maybe that point was obscured. Other than post 202 by hoffmang I didn't see the lack of applying for a permit addressed (other than by me) as a concern.

Briancnelson
10-13-2011, 12:44 PM
Bottom line, this case doesn't mean the Court won't rule in our favor on the issue ultimately, but if it does so, it will be on a case where it has good facts and can craft a very specific opinion.

Bad facts make bad law, so the Court will often choose to deny cert rather than address a case with facts that will create a muddled opinion that is hard to follow.

They don't always succeed at that, but it would be much worse if they heard every case like this.

wildhawker
10-13-2011, 12:54 PM
There was so much wonking back and forth in the other thread that maybe that point was obscured. Other than post 202 by hoffmang I didn't see the lack of applying for a permit addressed (other than by me) as a concern.

It's been addressed at least 3 times I can think of offhand, but you may not have seen those as they may now be buried in the noise and other threads.

-Brandon

ccmc
10-13-2011, 1:00 PM
A very easy to understand analysis, but I have to disagree with the last part.



I think Williams asked a very important question, which is do we have the right to carry without a permit? Or if a permit is necessary, can issuance be subjective? (idea stolen from Patrick-2)

Williams did nothing wrong. He is going to spend time behind bars for transporting legally owned property.

Most people here won't disagree about the permit issue since this is a gun forum, and I suspect most people here support constitutional carry. But that's not reality today. Reality today is most states require permits for carrying a loaded firearm, and that's what Williams was doing ie it was more than transporting legally owned property, but carrying (in his pocket) a loaded firearm without a pemit to do so, and without ever having applied for a permit to do so irrespective of how subjective the issuance is in MD (a point which is more anecdotal from a legal POV than factual as stated in Miranda's excellent post ie everybody knows you can't get a permit in MD so nobody applies leading the state to truthfully claim that 90 plus pct of all applications are approved).

BigDogatPlay
10-13-2011, 1:09 PM
Williams did nothing wrong. He is going to spend time behind bars for transporting legally owned property.

But he transporting that legally owned property illegally under Maryland law, hence the problem. The legality of the former does not over ride the illegality of the latter, IMO.

From the linked thread and paraphrasing:



1) Williams's first mistake was failing to put the State to its burden of denying him a permit.

< snip >

2) Williams appeared to have "unclean hands" in the matter,

< snip >

3) Williams acted guilty when he hid his gun in the nearby bushes.

< snip >

Williams's case essentially asked the COA to throw out wholesale the entire statute under which he was convicted.

And given 1-3 above, a casual read might conclude as the court apparently did; that there was no way they were going to take that big a leap. If they had it would have been a walk off home run, in effect, but the percentage of it happening would be small.

That linked thread sums it up brilliantly and hat tip to the fine attorney who posted there.

nicki
10-13-2011, 1:50 PM
That attorney hit things on the head, glad he is on "our side".

Too bad he is over in Maryland:facepalm:
Glad we have the internet.:43:

Nicki

ckprax
10-13-2011, 2:05 PM
But he transporting that legally owned property illegally under Maryland law, hence the problem. The legality of the former does not over ride the illegality of the latter, IMO.

From the linked thread and paraphrasing:



And given 1-3 above, a casual read might conclude as the court apparently did; that there was no way they were going to take that big a leap. If they had it would have been a walk off home run, in effect, but the percentage of it happening would be small.

That linked thread sums it up brilliantly and hat tip to the fine attorney who posted there.

I understand that he was transporting it illegally according to Maryland law, but that does not mean he did anything wrong. He certainly did not do anything that would justify him spending time behind bars.

yellowfin
10-13-2011, 2:11 PM
I understand that he was transporting it illegally according to Maryland law, but that does not mean he did anything wrong. He certainly did not do anything that would justify him spending time behind bars.Depends on who you ask. Anti gun MD legislators and judges think that gun ownership, use, and transportation in and of itself is worse to them than crime that actually harms people because it harms their ideology which they value much higher than people.

oni.dori
10-13-2011, 5:35 PM
It is absolutely ridiculous that the BC has to give everything they don't like their own little "pet name" to fear monger and prey upon the weak minds and emotional reactions of people, instead of just letting the laws speak for themselves. I guess if they did that, they would never win and have no reason to exist then. I think it is more about fighting for job security wit them, than it is about gun control and "making a difference to make people safer".
I can always tell a person gets all of their info on guns/GC from the BC (or similar org) because they never know the ACTUAL name/jist of the law, they just know the BC nickname for it. Hell, a lot of them even think that IS the rean lame of the legislature.

hoffmang
10-13-2011, 10:12 PM
Wonder who said almost exactly the same thing? Heh.

-Gene

oni.dori
10-14-2011, 1:37 AM
Same thing as what?

ccmc
10-14-2011, 5:42 AM
Wonder who said almost exactly the same thing? Heh.

-Gene

That would be me :)

To be fair I do remember you putting the odds at 50-50 for cert being granted, and I already mentioned your post 202 where you said what if SCOTUS looks at the fact that Williams didn't apply for a permit and uses that as grounds for denying cert.

The several times I mentioned it I got (mildly) chastised by legal guys because legal precedent was already established that it wasn't necessary to apply for a permit that was unobtainable. I didn't buy it, but I'm not a constitutional attorney. Anyway as former civil rights lawyer Miranda B points out in post 14 on the linked thread that is generally a very high legal bar, and in this case it was indeed.

OleCuss
10-14-2011, 6:10 AM
Now if we could get "Miranda" to handicap Masciandaro and Lowery?

I know, I know, the opinion that really matters is that of SCOTUS - and that means we just have to wait.

yellowfin
10-14-2011, 6:44 AM
The fact that the permit was unobtainable was NOT anecdotal, it is established law via the Snowden and Scherr cases. Were those not cited or were they and simply ignored?

Mulay El Raisuli
10-14-2011, 7:03 AM
Now if we could get "Miranda" to handicap Masciandaro and Lowery?

I know, I know, the opinion that really matters is that of SCOTUS - and that means we just have to wait.


Especially Masciandaro.

We may not have to wait all that long. Masciandaro is at the door knocking, after all.


The Raisuli

ccmc
10-14-2011, 8:59 AM
The fact that the permit was unobtainable was NOT anecdotal, it is established law via the Snowden and Scherr cases. Were those not cited or were they and simply ignored?

I'm not familiar with those cases. Did they also take place in Maryland? I think MirandaB explained that pretty well in point 1 of post 14 in the linked thread. Don't take that as a defense of Maryland on my part, just legal reality.

ccmc
10-14-2011, 2:50 PM
Now if we could get "Miranda" to handicap Masciandaro

Done today. See post 22 (page 2) of linked thread in my OP.

yellowfin
10-14-2011, 3:41 PM
I'm not familiar with those cases. Did they also take place in Maryland? I think MirandaB explained that pretty well in point 1 of post 14 in the linked thread. Don't take that as a defense of Maryland on my part, just legal reality.They were both cases involving denial of MD carry licenses, both saying that the average person doesn't qualify and the default answer is no to getting one, and the state can set the bar as high as they want and as arbitrary as they want. MD will cite those cases EVERY TIME you apply.

Either MirandaB left that out or Mr. Halbrook and/or Williams' counsel in the prior cases did (I really hope both didn't, or we're dealing with seriously contagious incompetence), or it was totally ignored by SCOTUS in their consideration of the case. The Woollard case brings up Snowden and Scherr as being in need of correction as they're both pre-Heller/McDonald, and they're what was responsible for the problem that resulted in Mr. Williams' unfortunate situation.

redking
10-14-2011, 3:51 PM
The right to keep and bear arms.

Kharn
10-14-2011, 7:19 PM
I'm not familiar with those cases. Did they also take place in Maryland? I think MirandaB explained that pretty well in point 1 of post 14 in the linked thread. Don't take that as a defense of Maryland on my part, just legal reality.

Here's a good snippet of Snowden:
If we accept Snowden's reasoning there would never be a time when a lawful person, fearful of his safety, would be denied a permit to carry a gun. Any vague threat would be sufficient to cause apprehension and, thus, the right to have a permit to carry a handgun. We think the phrase "good and substantial reason," as used in Md.Ann.Code art. 27, § 36E(a)(6), means something more than personal anxiety over having one's name connected publicly with anti-drug and anti-crime activities. It means, we believe, something more than the concern the individual may have because he has been told by another, that she heard some unidentified men threatening to harm the applicant if he journeys to Meade Village. The statute makes clear that it is the Board not the applicant, that decides whether there is "apprehended danger" to the applicant. If the Act were read as Mr. Snowden would have the court read it, there would be no necessity for a review by the Board. Each person could decide for himself or herself that he or she was in danger. The State Police would become a "rubber stamp" agency for the purpose of handing out handgun permits. The carefully considered legislation would be rendered absolutely meaningless insofar as the control of handguns is concerned.
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, April 17, 1980

ccmc
10-15-2011, 1:37 PM
They were both cases involving denial of MD carry licenses, both saying that the average person doesn't qualify and the default answer is no to getting one, and the state can set the bar as high as they want and as arbitrary as they want. MD will cite those cases EVERY TIME you apply.

Either MirandaB left that out or Mr. Halbrook and/or Williams' counsel in the prior cases did (I really hope both didn't, or we're dealing with seriously contagious incompetence), or it was totally ignored by SCOTUS in their consideration of the case. The Woollard case brings up Snowden and Scherr as being in need of correction as they're both pre-Heller/McDonald, and they're what was responsible for the problem that resulted in Mr. Williams' unfortunate situation.

Thanks for that info. I did look up these cases, and was really appalled at how arbitrary the decisions were. I don't remember either of these being mentioned in the session before MD COA that I saw on video. I'll have to reread the petition for cert, but don't specifically remember anything about these cases, but reading this stuff sometimes gives me a figurative headache.

ccmc
10-15-2011, 1:38 PM
Here's a good snippet of Snowden:

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, April 17, 1980

That's one of the things I was particularly appalled at.