Williams v. Maryland ~ Petition for Writ of Cert

[SilverBulletZ06]

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.

I guess that's the difference between civil and criminal cases. Criminal cases are inherently going to be "dirty".

[Crom]

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.

Makes perfect sense to me. The court should take the cases and review them them on their merits and answer the questions of law. If Justice is blind, then it should not matter and the court should do the right thing. They are the only ones that can answer the question.

I think we all want a nice clean civil case to go forward to expand/clarify the right, so everybody looks good. But when you have an innocent man incarcerated then there is a real problem--an injustice.

[Patrick-2]

All the talk of cases sometimes miss the underlying questions. I simply think they are all worth answering, not from a "values" perspective but from a "the courts do not know the answers" perspective. However they do this is somewhat less material - I have no doubt the various counsels would all chime in with amicus at some point.

Grant two; hold one or grant one; hold two...doesn't matter. The latter option - handling them all with one case - would require some re-write of some questions and probably also open the door to a wider focus for the briefs.

If the court wants to answer our questions, the answers will flow forth. They have plenty of plates on the buffet line at this point.

[SilverBulletZ06]

SCOTUS Docket has Williams Arguments to be heard Dec. 12 on their schedule, but I haven't heard anything about a writ being granted.

[yellowfin]

SCOTUS Docket has Williams Arguments to be heard Dec. 12 on their schedule, but I haven't heard anything about a writ being granted.

Where do you see that, exactly?

[2009_gunner]

SCOTUS Docket has Williams Arguments to be heard Dec. 12 on their schedule, but I haven't heard anything about a writ being granted.

I see a Williams V. Illinois (not Maryland) on 12/6

[RivCoFireman]

Not the same case.

[SilverBulletZ06]

Too bad.

[Caladain]

Cert Denied.

[Patrick-2]

Hate being wrong on that one. Disappointing, to say the least.

Also, a guy is going to prison because of this.

[Kharn]

Unfortunate for Williams, my guess is the Court focused on his lack of attempt to receive a permit. IIRC Scalia's a real law-and-order type, no point granting cert if the other four Heller/McDonald Justices know he won't agree with them.

[HowardW56]

No. 10-1207
Title:Charles F. Williams, Jr., Petitioner v.Maryland
Docketed:April 5, 2011
Lower Ct:Court of Appeals of Maryland
Case Nos. 16, September Term, 2010)
Decision Date:January 5, 2011
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Apr 5 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 5, 2011)
Apr 20 2011 Waiver of right of respondent Maryland to respond filed. May 3 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 19, 2011.
May 16 2011 Response Requested . (Due June 15, 2011)
May 18 2011 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including July 15, 2011.
Jul 15 2011 Brief of respondent Maryland in opposition filed.
Jul 26 2011 Reply of petitioner Charles F. Williams, Jr. filed.
Jul 27 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2011.Oct 3 2011 Petition DENIED.

[ed bernay]

Disgraceful. A man is going to jail for no other reason other than not asking some bureaucrat for permission to exercise his fundamental right.

The politicans in Maryland can go **** themselves.

[sholling]

Disgraceful. A man is going to jail for no other reason other than not asking some bureaucrat for permission to exercise his fundamental right.

The politicans in Maryland can go **** themselves.

Unfortunately the courts choose and rule on cases based on the "greater good" for the collective and see adverse effects on the individuals that bring the cases as little more unfortunate roadkill. It's that 50,000 foot view that comes from only having time to hear a few cases per year. It's also the result of 100 years of judicial movement away from a belief in a libertarian presumption of individual liberty toward a more Progressive presumption of government authority to regulate everything. In this case the court passed on an opportunity to say that citizens don't need a permission slip to enjoy their rights.

[kcbrown]

Fair point, but considering that this is the case where the MD supreme court threw the gauntlet in the face of SCOTUS in the form of a direct challenge to SCOTUS' stated intentions, how likely is it that SCOTUS would deny cert on the basis of some "technicality" like that?


I very much doubt this case will lead to unregulated open carry anywhere that doesn't already have it. As has been asked before, how could you possibly convince Justice Kennedy to get behind that?

Wow, did I ever get this wrong. I was actually optimistic about Williams being taken up by the Supreme Court.

You can now see what happens when I'm optimistic.

I keep telling you guys: you do not want me to be optimistic about something. When I am, things almost always turn out worse than I predict.

This merely serves to drive that point home...


The cynic in me is not surprised at all that SCOTUS decided to let Williams burn. My only question is, if SCOTUS should decide that "bear" does indeed apply outside the home, will Williams be able to re-appeal his conviction? If so, will the court be obliged to accept the appeal and reconsider his conviction in light of the new SCOTUS jurisprudence?