Williams v. Maryland ~ Petition for Writ of Cert

[Glock22Fan]

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

One advantage in having your daughters the other side of the Big Pond, I suppose.

Mine haven't said anything to me since 1996.

At least I'll be visiting my son and his family next week

[Patrick-2]

Maybe they anonymously cruise MDShooters and CalGuns and want to cause mischief among we natives.

Don't sweat it. Whatever they decide, they decide. Think of it this way: no matter what happens we're have some answers before next summer. If they deny cert to all then we know. If they grant cert to any, the answers come next June.

In any case, the schedules remain the same.

[OleCuss]

I think the SCOTUS blog suggested that additional documentation/responses be filed for Williams, Masciandaro, and Lowery. This would at least suggest there is some interest in picking up all three cases.

I'm operating with extremely incomplete information and minimal experience in tracking such things, but I think the probability of SCOTUS granting cert to at least one of the three cases is better than 80% and picking up two is probably better than 50%.

I really think that Maryland's effectively thumbing its nose at SCOTUS will be nearly irresistible to at least four of the justices. SCOTUS nuances its rulings for a reason and for a lower court to effectively say "make me" follow the nuanced ruling in a criminal case is pretty darned close to an open challenge to the hierarchical judicial system. Failure to pick up that case would not destroy the orderly hierarchical nature of the judicial system but it will erode it - and I think SCOTUS will view that as an incentive to assert their authority and prevent the erosion.

I don't think the court is deciding whether to pick up a case but is deciding which cases to choose and in what format.

FWIW from a grossly inexperienced court observer with little understanding of the law.

[htjyang]

I can't help but note how extraordinary this all is. Heller was the first 2nd Amendment case in nearly 70 years and much superior to Miller in its explication of the 2nd Amendment. What seems to have happened since then is that the Heller-McDonald majority may be delivering on their promise of rehabilitating the 2nd Amendment from its previous "constitutional red-headed step-child to be hidden in the attic" status to become a normal part of the Constitution.

This is extraordinary because every term, there are usually 3-4 1st Amendment cases and a similar number (or greater) of 4th Amendment cases. Rehabilitating the 2nd Amendment may very well mean that in the future, the Court will take up 3-4 2nd Amendment cases/year.

If the Court also declares a strict scrutiny standard, imagine how devastating that will be to the gun control regime in the US. One study I've seen suggests that only 30% of legislation survive strict scrutiny. Not exactly "strict in theory but fatal in fact", but striking down 70% of all federal, state, and local gun control laws is now far closer to reality than it ever was.

[Paladin]

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).

The negative I see in all of this is that if SCOTUS had decided to take a 2nd A case now, it would have given Gov. JB some (not a lot, but at least some) political cover to veto anti bills....

[hoffmang]

Also note that no cert grant in these three doesn't mean that we will not get a later cert grant in one of the civil cases. Each of these cases has some different stances that may or may not make them a good next case.

Personally, I'm leaning toward Masciandaro getting a grant, Williams getting held with Lowery, and both being GVRed after a Masciandaro opinion.

-Gene

[yellowfin]

What makes Masciandaro the better/more likely case, in your view?

[Connor P Price]

Also note that no cert grant in these three doesn't mean that we will not get a later cert grant in one of the civil cases. Each of these cases has some different stances that may or may not make them a good next case.

Personally, I'm leaning toward Masciandaro getting a grant, Williams getting held with Lowery, and both being GVRed after a Masciandaro opinion.

-Gene

I hope you're right. That sounds like it would work out quite well.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

[Gray Peterson]

Also note that no cert grant in these three doesn't mean that we will not get a later cert grant in one of the civil cases. Each of these cases has some different stances that may or may not make them a good next case.

Personally, I'm leaning toward Masciandaro getting a grant, Williams getting held with Lowery, and both being GVRed after a Masciandaro opinion.

-Gene

I agree. We have Peterson v. Martinez coming up on November 17th, 2011 in the 10th Circuit, and Richards v. Prieto pending scheduling for oral argument in the 9th. Regardless of what happens with the trio of criminal cases (all cert's being denied is my likely guess), we will likely have a civil case up there, soon.

[hoffmang]

What makes Masciandaro the better/more likely case, in your view?

Couple of reasons.

1. Federal circuit judges don't get a pass on calling out the Supreme Court.

2. The law in question is no longer on the books but the case remains ripe. That allows the court to opine in a binding way with little impact on the other branches.

I'm not saying that it's the best for us per-se as it really is more about sensitive places than carry directly. However, it will clarify that the right is certainly not just about your home.

Williams is about carry, but it is a touch awkward for the court. I can see them opining in Masciandaro and GVRing to Maryland in light of that.

-Gene

[SilverBulletZ06]

I'll have to agree with Hoff on this, Mas is a much better suited case as far as case background. I dislike having to deal with police finding the pistol vs. Mas's telling the police the pistol was in the back. Not to say they don't have merit, just which is more likely to win votes.


Speaking on this same subject on a few boards, what happens to those people who were denied CCW for all these years due to restrictive practices (if 2A covers outside the home)? Do they have legal recourse to obtain damages/hold accountable people/agencies?

[OleCuss]

.
.
.
Speaking on this same subject on a few boards, what happens to those people who were denied CCW for all these years due to restrictive practices (if 2A covers outside the home)? Do they have legal recourse to obtain damages/hold accountable people/agencies?

Not likely. When district and federal courts are routinely getting it wrong it is unlikely that they will punish sheriffs and such for making a similar mistake.

IOW, current anti-RKBA practices are still consistent with the relevant law and case law as interpreted by lots (maybe most?) district and circuit courts.

But once Masciandaro or Williams (or whatever) goes through with a favorable ruliing, then depending on the language used it may actually be possible to start suing for damages for future grossly unconstitutional actions on the part of officials.

[press1280]

I'll have to agree with Hoff on this, Mas is a much better suited case as far as case background. I dislike having to deal with police finding the pistol vs. Mas's telling the police the pistol was in the back. Not to say they don't have merit, just which is more likely to win votes.


Speaking on this same subject on a few boards, what happens to those people who were denied CCW for all these years due to restrictive practices (if 2A covers outside the home)? Do they have legal recourse to obtain damages/hold accountable people/agencies?

Masciandaro is the cleanest, but maybe not as far reaching as Williams. It's pretty simple-2A is outside the home, and it's not likely SCOTUS will find a parking lot on National Park property can be classified a sensitive place. No permit existed for Masciandaro, although one technically was available to Williams. A GVR for Williams would put it back to the MD court, who may have to address their permit system, and either make it shall issue or roll the dice again and risk pissing the court off even worse. You'll recall some of the MD justices asking skeptically about the MD permit and mentioning the precedent cases involved law abiding citizens being denied because they didn't show specific threats.

[MikeHoncho]

subscribed

[Patrick-2]

I think we'll see the court answer some important questions between now and next July. Avoiding it would be tough.

As for "clean" versus dirty cases, I'd rather focus on good questions. Both of the two carry cases first ask about public carry. They branch from there. The court can take whichever branch they want, or as I have suggested, possibly take them both because they are both worth answering.

The only issue I have with both being denied is that this will cause one man to go to a hard prison for a year of his life for doing nothing wrong. That's not an academic issue.