Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-22-2011, 11:31 AM
krucam krucam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Dallas/Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 333
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Williams v. Maryland ~ Petition for Writ of Cert

Stephen Halbrook has apparently filed a Writ for Cert to the Supreme Court in the case of Williams v. Maryland.
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.
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Williams was a case in the criminal courts, not civil. The opinion was notable in their audacity in my opinion, saying "iIf the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly."

Careful what you wish for, perhaps.

Williams v Maryland Opinion

The question now is if this one will have the legs, or perhaps they'll deny it, knowing of SAF/CGF/Gura's blitzkrieg in the lower courts. I guess we'll see...
__________________
Mark C.
DFW, TX

Last edited by krucam; 04-22-2011 at 11:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-22-2011, 12:00 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krucam View Post
The question now is if this one will have the legs, or perhaps they'll deny it, knowing of SAF/CGF/Gura's blitzkrieg in the lower courts. I guess we'll see...
I trust Halbrook more than I do the lawyer that argued his case in front of the Court of Appeal. Halbrook is a good arguer and not prone to be in the loo when it's your turn, or shouting counter-arguments from the bench during AG Gansler's oral argument.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-22-2011, 12:05 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,371
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Excellent. They need to have something that clearly makes them mad so they'll give a solid knockout punch between the eyes instead of a watered down, one foot in one foot out wishy washy limp fish.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-22-2011, 12:18 PM
Patrick-2 Patrick-2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 600
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

First, Stephen Halbrook is top notch.

Second, this is about as good a criminal case as we will ever have to get to the Supreme Court. Here are the facts, uncontested by both Maryland and the Plaintiff:
  1. Williams legally purchased his handgun at a Maryland dealer, took a training course and took lawful possession of the gun a month later
  2. Williams had the gun at his girlfriend's house and stopped by to take it home
  3. 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
  4. LEO asks Williams what was in the bushes. Williams states "my gun".
  5. Arrest and hilarity ensue

Notice something here?

Williams was doing nothing wrong. No crime was alleged to occur, other than his possession of a lawfully acquired and owned handgun. He followed all the rules, save on: he did not have (or apply for) a carry permit.

This is a pure 2A case. This is not Chester - where some ******* beat his wife, kicked his daughter and then said "Gimme some guns!"


When it comes to that pesky permit, Halbrook dispenses with it here:
It is undisputed that Petitioner did not file an application for a handgun carry permit. He contended instead “that as a result of the regulatory scheme, ‘any such application would have been denied.’” The record does not disclose any documented threats, assaults or robberies against Petitioner that are a prerequisite to even potentially being able to obtain a carry permit for personal defense under the Maryland statutory scheme.
Of course, Maryland can try to argue that Williams should have applied for a permit before making this claim, but Maryland just argued in Woollard that absent any documentary evidence they can and will deny any and all who request it. That made the permit unattainable to Williams.

(My Argument/Point): Add to that the fact that even if he had applied, the process would have exceeded the time in which his arrest occurred. He was arrested barely two weeks after getting the gun from the dealer - Maryland routinely takes 90 days to rule on a permit.

None of that really matters, though. If the Court takes up this case, there are no arguments over little things like "standing". Simply put, if SCOTUS wants to take the case, it wil be all 2A all the way.

So let's get to the core argument Halbrook is making:

Quote:
Instead of analyzing Heller in more detail, the Maryland court opined that Heller (and McDonald) only “address[ed] prohibitions against handgun possession in the home . . . .” Id. at 1176 & n.10 (string citing to cases). The court referred to “dicta in McDonald that ‘the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home . . . . .’” Id. at 1177, quoting McDonald, 130 S.Ct. at 3044. The Maryland court continued:
"Although Williams attempts to find succor in this dicta, it is clear that prohibition of firearms in the home was the gravamen of the certiorari questions in both Heller and McDonald and their answers. If the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly."
The Maryland court concluded that the right to bear arms exists only in one’s home: “It is the exception permitting home possession in Section 4-203(b)(6) that takes the statutory scheme embodied in Section 4-203 outside of the scope of the Second Amendment, as articulated in Heller and McDonald.”

No fewer than ten state and federal courts have refused, relying on Heller, to recognize a constitutional right to bear arms outside the home. See Part II.B., below. Several have expressly acknowledged that they will not recognize such a right unless this Court does. The Fourth Circuit, relying on the Maryland Court of Appeals’ decision in the instant case, recently stated:
"On the question of Heller's applicability outside the home environment, we think it prudent to await direction from the Court itself. See Williams v. State,... ("If the Supreme Court, in [McDonald's] dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.")"

United States v. Masciandaro,
Although this Court has specifically ruled only on the right to keep a handgun in the home, it is evident from the Court’s analyses and plain statements in Heller and McDonald that the right to bear arms exists outside the home. See Part I.B., below. Thus, the Maryland court’s decision and the other decisions limiting the scope of that right to the home (discussed in Part II.B.) have decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court. If it should be contended that Heller and McDonald did not clearly establish that the Second Amendment applies outside the home, then this is an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court.

The Big Question

"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."

Let's break it down:
  • "Whether peaceably carrying or transporting": only covers the good guys

  • "a Registered Handgun": oops But what does "registered" mean other than "lawfully purchased", as some states will consider a 4473 enough? This is a smart move because it takes the question of registration off the table, if the court so chooses.

  • "outside the home": non-specific and leaves sensitive places (whatever that means) intact

  • "without a carry permit that is unobtainable by ordinary, law-abiding citizens": a way to work around the fact Williams didn't even try to get one, but leaves open the door that SCOTUS might prefer to leave permits as a required item for RKBA (smart move...plays this both ways)

  • "is outside the scope" of 2A: the big question.


Summary:

If the Court wants this case, they could take it. The only real reach here is the fact Williams never tried to get a permit, but the way Halbrook phrased the query, the court is not cornered into deciding that issue right now. They can answer the particular question over public RKBA and ignore whether a permit is even required. Or they can rule there, too.

This is a case of whether the right supersedes the state's willingness to recognize it.
__________________
------
Some Guy In Maryland

Last edited by Patrick-2; 04-22-2011 at 12:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-22-2011, 12:55 PM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,216
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I bet the MD AG is very annoyed state supreme court rulings are appealed directly to the Supreme Court. If cert is granted, I will be taking the day off and making the journey to 1 First St for the oral arguments.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-22-2011, 1:02 PM
Dreaded Claymore Dreaded Claymore is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,237
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

This looks very exciting.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-22-2011, 1:10 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,361
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick-2 View Post
It is undisputed that Petitioner did not file an application for a handgun carry permit. He contended instead “that as a result of the regulatory scheme, ‘any such application would have been denied.’” The record does not disclose any documented threats, assaults or robberies against Petitioner that are a prerequisite to even potentially being able to obtain a carry permit for personal defense under the Maryland statutory scheme.
Of course, Maryland can try to argue that Williams should have applied for a permit before making this claim, but Maryland just argued in Woollard that absent any documentary evidence they can and will deny any and all who request it. That made the permit unattainable to Williams.

(My Argument/Point): Add to that the fact that even if he had applied, the process would have exceeded the time in which his arrest occurred. He was arrested barely two weeks after getting the gun from the dealer - Maryland routinely takes 90 days to rule on a permit.
I think that their position in Wollard will prevent them from arguing Williams' standing since it clearly would have been a futile exercise to apply.

It seems that this is really well set up to simply argue "bear," as it relates to transport anyway. I think this is an excellent prelude to "real" bear cases regarding concealed/open carry beyond transport.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-22-2011, 1:23 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,497
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

When I first saw the thread title, I thought "oh no". While this case gets a huge boost by Halbrook as attorney, I'm wondering if the lack of permit application will spell doom. Will SCOTUS actually take up the issue of MD's restrictiveness on permits? After all, Gansler said over 90% of MD permit applications were approved
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-22-2011, 1:26 PM
Patrick-2 Patrick-2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 600
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
I bet the MD AG is very annoyed state supreme court rulings are appealed directly to the Supreme Court. If cert is granted, I will be taking the day off and making the journey to 1 First St for the oral arguments.
Yes. Especially considering the lightweight who fought for Williams the first time. I failed to give Gansler full credit on Woollard, but I am feeling good that he will be one on the hook here. NY/NJ's AG would be a much tougher fight, though I doubt Gansler is going to go it alone here. Expect a metric buttload of amicus briefs from every anti-gun AG in the nation, plus a few from shall-issue states that don't want the constitution shoved in their face.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd
I think that their position in Wollard will prevent them from arguing Williams' standing since it clearly would have been a futile exercise to apply.
Agree. Timing on this is excellent, considering the recent response by Gansler on the subjective permit system. Cannot help but think this was intentional and crafted to take advantage of his concession (that people like Williams will never get permits in Maryland under existing state law).

Quote:
It seems that this is really well set up to simply argue "bear," as it relates to transport anyway. I think this is an excellent prelude to "real" bear cases regarding concealed/open carry beyond transport.
Respectfully disagree. Re-read the question posed by Hallbrook. It is not a set-up to the big question, it is the big question:
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.
Carry == Bear, according to Ginsburg and Heller. Also, note the use of the word "or".
__________________
------
Some Guy In Maryland

Last edited by Patrick-2; 04-22-2011 at 1:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-22-2011, 1:32 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,820
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

I'll tell you, here's an argument I hope is taken up - from page 28
Quote:
Officials may not ignore the plain text of the Constitution under the theory that no case on point has been decided by this Court to verify that the constitutional command must actually be obeyed.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-22-2011, 1:34 PM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

If SCOTUS takes this and doesn't rule the right to bear cannot be converted to a privilege by requiring a permit, looks like we're stuck with permits.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-22-2011, 1:35 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ (The United States of America)
Posts: 3,535
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
I bet the MD AG is very annoyed state supreme court rulings are appealed directly to the Supreme Court. If cert is granted, I will be taking the day off and making the journey to 1 First St for the oral arguments.
Likewise, but what was that case (was it this case?) where the lower court made critical statements to the effect that the USSC needs to define what is lawful & what isn't lawful outside the home more clearly (when talking about Heller & McDonald)?

Looks like it could be this one, and the court is effectively asking SCOTUS to grant cert by poking the Justices in the rear with this statement:

Quote:
Although Williams attempts to find succor in this dicta, it is clear that prohibition of firearms in the home was the gravamen of the certiorari questions in both Heller and McDonald and their answers. If the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.


Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-22-2011, 1:35 PM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,168
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

So this is basically a constitutional carry case?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-22-2011, 1:51 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,580
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Just curious what Maryland law is regarding transporting? What manner is proscirbed as to the legal manner for transportation? Locked container like CA?
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-22-2011, 1:59 PM
mdimeo mdimeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 613
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by safewaysecurity View Post
So this is basically a constitutional carry case?
If by constitutional carry you mean "no-permit-required, like in Vermont et al.," I would say no. The Court could rule that Maryland needs to issue permits to law-abiding citizens.

They could also rule permits are unconstitutional infringements, but they're not really being asked to.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-22-2011, 2:02 PM
mdimeo mdimeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 613
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick-2 View Post
Second, this is about as good a criminal case as we will ever have to get to the Supreme Court.
Agreed. Strategically, though, I sure wish there was a noncriminal case first (i.e. a good guy arbitrarily denied a carry permit).
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-22-2011, 2:10 PM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It sounds as if a win here might (would?) force all sixty fifty states to have some form of carry, whether they like it or not.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.


Last edited by Glock22Fan; 04-22-2011 at 2:18 PM.. Reason: Can't count properly today.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-22-2011, 2:19 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ (The United States of America)
Posts: 3,535
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdimeo View Post
If by constitutional carry you mean "no-permit-required, like in Vermont et al.," I would say no. The Court could rule that Maryland needs to issue permits to law-abiding citizens.

They could also rule permits are unconstitutional infringements, but they're not really being asked to.
But could they be asked, or could it be stated in later briefs that the incorporated fundamental and individual right is being infringed upon by way of a permit/licensing system, like from Calguns Foundation, SAF, NRA, State's AGs?

If sensitive places is more narrowly defined, then could it be asked or stated in later briefs whether or not a permit system would be constitutionally permissible for only sensitive places, and then we start seeing permits being issued on a shall issue basis for carry in places like schools & government buildings?

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-22-2011, 2:22 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm sure Halbrook, in his reply brief to the state of Maryland, will point out their representations in Woollard.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-22-2011, 2:28 PM
Patrick-2 Patrick-2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 600
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N6ATF View Post
If SCOTUS takes this and doesn't rule the right to bear cannot be converted to a privilege by requiring a permit, looks like we're stuck with permits.
Quote:
If by constitutional carry you mean "no-permit-required, like in Vermont et al.," I would say no. The Court could rule that Maryland needs to issue permits to law-abiding citizens.

They could also rule permits are unconstitutional infringements, but they're not really being asked to.
Halbrook leaves that door open here:
Petitioner takes no position on whether the failure to apply for a permit would jeopardize the assertion of a Second Amendment claim in a prosecution for carrying a handgun without a permit in a state where, unlike Maryland, such a permit is required to be issued to law-abiding citizens.
He's written the question in a fairly restrictive way so as to ask only one question at a time. Permits - though he makes an argument that they might be unnecessary in the case where applying for one is a futile act - are still a future question.

Quote:
Agreed. Strategically, though, I sure wish there was a noncriminal case first (i.e. a good guy arbitrarily denied a carry permit).
In this case we got a good guy convicted by an arbitrary denial of right, and nothing else. I think this is an excellent set of conditions - there are few better times to engage a court than those which free a man from prison for doing little more than exercising his fundamental rights.

Williams got caught with his legal gun on his lawful personage, going from one place to the other. Maryland denies him the right to carry, and he therefore got convicted and sent to prison. At the end of the day, Halbrook is arguing that Williams did nothing wrong; the wrong move was on Maryland imprisoning him for exercising a fundamental right.

Quote:
Just curious what Maryland law is regarding transporting? What manner is proscirbed as to the legal manner for transportation? Locked container like CA?
Inaccessible and unloaded. It does not need to be locked. Generally we carry in the trunk, unloaded. You can have loaded mags with the gun.

Safe bet in central Maryland (especially PG County, where this case came to fruition) is to lock the case and keep ammo separate and out of sight if you get pulled over. Eliminate all cause for a search.

Keep in mind our AG just told a federal court in a Gura case that citizens can carry fully loaded AR-15s in public without a permit. We've already found several cases where people were arrested for much less (plastic guns on their way to an indoor "laser tag" type event...they were arrested for assault).

Quote:
Likewise, but what was that case (was it this case?) where the lower court made critical statements to the effect that the USSC needs to define what is lawful & what isn't lawful outside the home more clearly (when talking about Heller & McDonald)?
All of them. Hallbrook points out the obvious state case here, but also points to the recent 4th Circuit finding in Masciandaro, where two out of three judges on the panel openly refused to place RKBA in or out of 2A protection until the Supreme Court told them what to do. I think he notes at least ten decisions that all say "The Second Amendment is restricted to the home until the Supreme Court tells us otherwise."


Overall, Halbrook paints a picture that says: "The lower courts are all messed up trying to figure out what Heller/McDonald meant. My client went to jail over this confusion. Respectfully, please step in and answer the burning question so we can all move on."
__________________
------
Some Guy In Maryland

Last edited by Patrick-2; 04-22-2011 at 2:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-22-2011, 2:34 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,580
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick-2 View Post
Inaccessible and unloaded. It does not need to be locked. Generally we carry in the trunk, unloaded. You can have loaded mags with the gun.

Safe bet in central Maryland (especially PG County, where this case came to fruition) is to lock the case and keep ammo separate and out of sight if you get pulled over. Eliminate all cause for a search.

Keep in mind our AG just told a federal court in a Gura case that citizens can carry fully loaded AR-15s in public without a permit. We've already found several cases where people were arrested for much less (plastic guns on their way to an indoor "laser tag" type event...they were arrested for assault).
So then how would a person not traveling by car.....like walking or taking a city bus legally transport? Locked container?
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-22-2011, 2:36 PM
Patrick-2 Patrick-2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 600
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
So then how would a person not traveling by car.....like walking or taking a city bus legally transport? Locked container?
Very carefully, or you end up like Williams.
__________________
------
Some Guy In Maryland
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-22-2011, 2:41 PM
Pat Riot Pat Riot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So when can we expect a response from SCOTUS.
__________________
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -Samuel Adams
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-22-2011, 2:47 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,580
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick-2 View Post
Very carefully, or you end up like Williams.
well that's what I'm gettin' at. Is the MD transport law so vague that a person isn't really sure how to legally transport w/o violating the law?

Or is that even though the you might be correctly transporting you still run the risk of getting busted because the COPs will just use some other excuse to arrest you?
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-22-2011, 3:01 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,943
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreaded Claymore View Post
This looks very exciting.
That doesn't even begin to describe how I'm feeling about it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
I'll tell you, here's an argument I hope is taken up - from page 28
Quote:
Officials may not ignore the plain text of the Constitution under the theory that no case on point has been decided by this Court to verify that the constitutional command must actually be obeyed.
I read that too. I hope USSC takes this case and REALLY puts a slap-down on the lower courts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
Just curious what Maryland law is regarding transporting? What manner is proscirbed as to the legal manner for transportation? Locked container like CA?
How on earth did the guy legally transport it from the gun store when he picked it up? How do you transport it to the range? Is transport totally prohibited without a permit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdimeo View Post
If by constitutional carry you mean "no-permit-required, like in Vermont et al.," I would say no. The Court could rule that Maryland needs to issue permits to law-abiding citizens.

I would add to that "for the core lawful purpose of self defense"

They could also rule permits are unconstitutional infringements, but they're not really being asked to.
Or they could rule MARYLAND's permit system is unconstitutional

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdimeo View Post
Agreed. Strategically, though, I sure wish there was a noncriminal case first (i.e. a good guy arbitrarily denied a carry permit).

This is as clean a case you're going to get criminally. In fact, I like it. It's the criminality of the bearing/transport that is ultimately in question here, IMO

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan View Post
It sounds as if a win here might (would?) force all sixty fifty states to have some form of carry, whether they like it or not.
Hopefully it will be a permit-less and LOADED form of carry.
I hope the Supreme Court is wise enough to head off the next ridiculous round of litigation. Take California. They could say ok, you can conceal (or open carry) but the Court never explicitly said we had to allow loaded carry. I can see a new acronim now CBC (concealed bullet-less carry) or OBO (open bullet-less carry)


Looks like Patrick strikes again. I'm slow today... well, ok, most days
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice

Last edited by Southwest Chuck; 04-22-2011 at 3:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-22-2011, 3:05 PM
krucam krucam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Dallas/Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 333
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
well that's what I'm gettin' at. Is the MD transport law so vague that a person isn't really sure how to legally transport w/o violating the law?

Or is that even though the you might be correctly transporting you still run the risk of getting busted because the COPs will just use some other excuse to arrest you?
I want to say Mr Williams was legit for transport IF he had just kept it in his backpack (enclosed) and magazines separated (unloaded) AND he was on his way to/from Range, or Gun Shop, or special Military Event, or dog training (need to verify that last one).

One residence to another is not protected in MD Code with a handgun (unless you owned/leased both) without one of those unobtanium permits.

Just looked it up:
http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland...gcr/4-203.html

4-203:
Quote:
....(2) the wearing, carrying, or transporting of a handgun by a person to whom a permit to wear, carry, or transport the handgun has been issued under Title 5, Subtitle 3 of the Public Safety Article;
(3) the carrying of a handgun on the person or in a vehicle while the person is transporting the handgun to or from the place of legal purchase or sale, or to or from a bona fide repair shop, or between bona fide residences of the person, or between the bona fide residence and place of business of the person, if the business is operated and owned substantially by the person if each handgun is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an enclosed holster;
(4) the wearing, carrying, or transporting by a person of a handgun used in connection with an organized military activity, a target shoot, formal or informal target practice, sport shooting event, hunting, a Department of Natural Resources-sponsored firearms and hunter safety class, trapping, or a dog obedience training class or show, while the person is engaged in, on the way to, or returning from that activity if each handgun is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an enclosed holster;
(5) the moving by a bona fide gun collector of part or all of the collector's gun collection from place to place for public or private exhibition if each handgun is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an enclosed holster;
(6) the wearing, carrying, or transporting of a handgun by a person on real estate that the person owns or leases or where the person resides or within the confines of a business establishment that the person owns or leases;
....
(6) allows you to move handguns between places you own/lease.
(3) & (4) cover most other normal events.
__________________
Mark C.
DFW, TX
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-22-2011, 3:06 PM
Tier One Arms's Avatar
Tier One Arms Tier One Arms is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 2,595
iTrader: 141 / 100%
Default

How long can we expect before we hear if this is going to the Supreme Court?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-22-2011, 3:10 PM
Patrick-2 Patrick-2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 600
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Krucam: Good points. So if you come to my house to shoot dirt you are legal, but only because we shoot informally at a hill. If you went to another person's house with the gun - somewhere with no ability to kill earthworms - you'd be illegal. This is Maryland for you.


The more I think of this case, the more I like it.

This is effectively a challenge based on the permit being unavailable. It would require shall-issue or no-issue permitting. But the state could modify its permit practice if they wanted.

This question opens a few possible doors. First, what happens if a state takes too long to issue a permit and you are caught carrying between the time you buy the gun and time the state issues the permit? Halbrook is hinting the answer is they cannot touch you. This is a subtle effect if they answer this question his way.
__________________
------
Some Guy In Maryland
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-22-2011, 3:13 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,497
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

MD has transportation exceptions to/from range,gun store, home. Locked container I believe.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-22-2011, 3:33 PM
uyoga's Avatar
uyoga uyoga is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I agree this IS the BIG question.
__________________
Non verbis sed operis
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-22-2011, 3:59 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,580
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick-2 View Post
Krucam: Good points. So if you come to my house to shoot dirt you are legal, but only because we shoot informally at a hill. If you went to another person's house with the gun - somewhere with no ability to kill earthworms - you'd be illegal. This is Maryland for you.


The more I think of this case, the more I like it.

This is effectively a challenge based on the permit being unavailable. It would require shall-issue or no-issue permitting. But the state could modify its permit practice if they wanted.

This question opens a few possible doors. First, what happens if a state takes too long to issue a permit and you are caught carrying between the time you buy the gun and time the state issues the permit? Halbrook is hinting the answer is they cannot touch you. This is a subtle effect if they answer this question his way.

Damn...MD is just as f-ed up as CA is. Looking forward to see where this goes.


What kills me is that a guy sitting on a bus bench waiting for a bus and shuffling thru a backpack is worthy of RS by the LEO for making a contact. Does he stop every woman he sees looking thru her purse for lipstick too?
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-22-2011, 4:40 PM
dwtt dwtt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,471
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
Damn...MD is just as f-ed up as CA is. Looking forward to see where this goes.


What kills me is that a guy sitting on a bus bench waiting for a bus and shuffling thru a backpack is worthy of RS by the LEO for making a contact. Does he stop every woman he sees looking thru her purse for lipstick too?
Md, NY, NJ, CT, and MA are just as bad or worse than CA. So, be lucky that there are organizations like CGF to counter the antigun politicians in Sacramento. Also, be lucky that CA has Paul Payne and the local NRA members councils that keep on top of bad proposed legislation. We don't have anything like Paul or the member's councils here in the east coast.
As for transporting, it's legal to carry the unloaded pistol in a backpack. I picked up a S&W from our local FFL in Herndon, VA, and carried it back to my home in a back pack with no problems. Everything was legal and no children were hurt in the process. Unlike Md, across the river Virginia issues CCW to regular law abiding citizens and if a police officer were to stop me, I can show my CCW and I won't have to worry about being arrested. I hope this case makes Md more like VA. Well, except for the high cost of living.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-22-2011, 5:06 PM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,216
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

MD does allow a "designated collector" (someone who informs the state they collect handguns or "assault rifles" in exchange for being exempt from the one-handgun-per-month rule) to transport unloaded handguns for a "private exhibition." Many MDShooters register as such so they can take a firearm to a friend's house without fear of a random traffic stop, my girlfriend knew that I was bringing a pistol to show her every evening I intended to spend the night.

MD also technically does not recognize traveling to a state where one can OC/CCW as a reason for having a pistol in the car, you need to articulate a valid exemption. I always know a gun store or friend across the state line I intend to visit while outside of MD.

Last edited by Kharn; 04-22-2011 at 5:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-22-2011, 7:56 PM
navyinrwanda's Avatar
navyinrwanda navyinrwanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 598
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Good case for a GVR...
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-22-2011, 8:12 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,820
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Two bits from Volokh on the case:

EV's comment on the High Court of MD opinion.

Dave Kopel's comment on the petition for cert.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-23-2011, 12:15 AM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by navyinrwanda View Post
Good case for a GVR...
Can they GVR criminal cases from a state supreme court? Or do they actually have to go through all the arguments?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-23-2011, 1:30 AM
Dreaded Claymore Dreaded Claymore is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,237
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by page 28 posted by Librarian
Officials may not ignore the plain text of the Constitution under the theory that no case on point has been decided by this Court to verify that the constitutional command must actually be obeyed.
This. I hope Scalia's pimp hand is strong.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-23-2011, 2:04 AM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,216
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N6ATF View Post
Can they GVR criminal cases from a state supreme court? Or do they actually have to go through all the arguments?
They can GVR any case, but it does not set the precident we need or the lower courts are requesting. GVR is used when there is a very similar case with sufficiently identical situation, see Raich and Stewart.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-23-2011, 3:02 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,996
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
MD has transportation exceptions to/from range,gun store, home. Locked container I believe.
Yes, MD is generally "specific destination" for handgun transport.
Far worse than CA - we only have specific destination for AWs.

I believe people have been popped, in the past, for trivial side trips (gas? dinner?) on the way to/from the range - or some similar trivia.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-23-2011, 3:10 AM
Patrick-2 Patrick-2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 600
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by navyinrwanda View Post
Good case for a GVR...
Except the Maryland Court answered the question with full knowledge of Heller and McDonald. They just chose to ignore most of them. GVR is called for when something has changed post-decision.

The confusion here might be the timing of Williams' conviction: it actually came after our two big cases, although on first blush it looks like it was 2007-ish. The actual Maryland high court ruled on this just last year, post-McDonald. Outside of a few Maryland nerds, this is probably new info.


Assuming the Court takes Williams and answers it in our favor (big assumptions right now), GVR could come into play in the future for other petitioners.

For instance, you get arrested for possession in California today - when such is illegal in the state. The Supreme Court takes Williams and then sometime next year says "Wrong. Public carry is legal and when the state permit is illusory to the lawful applicant; they cannot be punished for exercising their right."

At that point you could appeal, and a GVR could be used to basically say to the California Court: "Read our ruling and apply it to this case. Now."
__________________
------
Some Guy In Maryland
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 -8. The time now is 8:13 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.