Williams v. Maryland ~ Petition for Writ of Cert

[SilverBulletZ06]

My first post and all...

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/09/new-cases-taken-and-not/

[Big Ben]

My first post and all...

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/09/ne...taken-and-not/

And a worthwhile first post at that. Welcome to the forum.

[SilverBulletZ06]

Thank you. I'd been following CalGuns for a while. I figure living in NY we're all in similar circumstances.


Now the question for the legal eagles: Is this good or bad?

[Maestro Pistolero]

Thank you. I'd been following CalGuns for a while. I figure living in NY we're all in similar circumstances.


Now the question for the legal eagles: Is this good or bad?

Not a legal eagle, but following pretty close. Short answer: we don't know yet. It may be combined with Masciandaro, and that could be why it wasn't granted cert yet.

[Caladain]

Not a legal eagle, but following pretty close. Short answer: we don't know yet. It may be combined with Masciandaro, and that could be why it wasn't granted cert yet.

Gut says they intend to merge all three cases or look at them as a group.

[SilverBulletZ06]

Gut says they intend to merge all three cases or look at them as a group.

I realize that in broad strokes they seem to be similar, but aren't the cases asking different questions?


Whats the third case?

[Caladain]

I realize that in broad strokes they seem to be similar, but aren't the cases asking different questions?


Whats the third case?

Lowery. And, yes, they are all asking different questions, but all three are basically variations or derivatives off of a few base questions: Does the right extend beyond the home?

They may look at all three at once (do all the gun stuff at once), or merge a couple, or merge all three.

No. 11-5241
Title:
Samuel Lowery, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: July 13, 2011
Lower Ct: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Case Nos.: (06-CM-1195)
Decision Date: September 9, 2010
Rehearing Denied: April 19, 2011

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jul 13 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 12, 2011)
Jul 27 2011 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
Aug 4 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2011.
Sep 12 2011 Response Requested . (Due October 12, 2011)

[Glock22Fan]

Must admit, I've forgotten what the third case is. Oh yes, Lowery. Thanks, Caladain. Must be from holding my breath so long.

Gosh, I sure hope they get all this sorted out before I'm too senile to benefit from it

[yellowfin]

Lowery was an in-the-home case, but deals with the issue of unobtainable permits which applies to a lot of the cases we have in play right now.

[OleCuss]

.
.
.
Gosh, I sure hope they get all this sorted out before I'm too senile to benefit from it

If I said that my daughters would assure me that it will not be sorted out before tomorrow. . .

[Crom]

I realize that in broad strokes they seem to be similar, but aren't the cases asking different questions?


Whats the third case?

From the litigation Wiki

Masciandaro v. United StatesWilliams v. MarylandSamuel Lowery v. United States

[uyoga]

A bit from SCOTUS Blog on 9/27/11:

"The Court at one time had been scheduled to consider, at Monday’s Conference, three new cases on whether the Constitution’s Second Amendment protects a personal right to carry a gun outside the home, but the Justices had asked for further filings in all of the cases and they apparently were not yet ready for action."

Lets hope this unfortunate delay gets cured pronto.

[Kharn]

I think someone from SCOTUSBlog jumped the gun.
Supremecourt.gov's docket files are updated almost simultaneously with the Court releasing the order sheet for the day, and Lowery, Williams and Mascindaro show no changes as of this moment, while the cases listed on today's order sheet all have been updated.

[Caladain]

I think someone from SCOTUSBlog jumped the gun.
Supremecourt.gov's docket files are updated almost simultaneously with the Court releasing the order sheet for the day, and Lowery, Williams and Mascindaro show no changes as of this moment, while the cases listed on today's order sheet all have been updated.

I think all three are held as two are waiting on replies which are due on the 11th and 12th of October and the Scotus Blog fella overstated a bit, but not by much, by saying *all three* instead of *two of the three*.

If SCOTUS is looking at all three as one group, or seeing about combining cases, then it makes sense to set aside all three until the conference after the 12th. (20th? I think?)

[Wolverine]

In Masciandaro and Lowery a response was requested after they were originally scheduled for the September 26 conference. So SCOTUSBlog missed that little detail. They will be rescheduled after the responses and plaintiff's reply are filed. Since the plaintiff has 10 days to file a reply, this means that they could be scheduled after October 21st and October 22nd respectively.

I too think it likely that the court will hold up deciding on Williams until the court has all the replies in hand. They might also be looking down the road a bit to see if some other cases may come before them soon (like Moore).