Williams v. Maryland ~ Petition for Writ of Cert

[meaty-btz]

How is that two weeks working out? The flood gates have just been re-opened for restrictions.

[M. D. Van Norman]

We need an answer one way or the other. I don’t think we can go on much longer without a decision. It is a crisis that must be quickly averted or eventually realized either by choice or by inaction.

[OleCuss]

Is there the possibility that denying cert to Williams, as wrong as it is, might have foreclosed an even worse decision should it have been taken up by the court?

In other words, maybe Roberts, Scalia and Thomas realized that if cert was granted, that the majority would have thrown Williams and everyone after him under the eternal bus.

Interesting question. I doubt we'll ever know.

I'm quite certain that you remember that CGF keeps saying that they need clean cases and that bad cases make bad law.

It may be (as you seem to be suggesting) that the "good guys" on SCOTUS figured that this was a bad case which would make bad law.

But I'm guessing we'll never know.

[randian]

In other words, maybe Roberts, Scalia and Thomas realized that if cert was granted, that the majority would have thrown Williams and everyone after him under the eternal bus.

If that's true all the pending 2A cases get denied cert. That would be a tragedy.

[wildhawker]

How is that two weeks working out? The flood gates have just been re-opened for restrictions.

You're comments are wildly premature for many reasons that are common knowledge here, and some that aren't.

-Brandon

[Glock22Fan]

The Supremes refuse to hear it

Apart from this already being covered in another thread, it is helpful in thread titles if one isn't left guessing what "it" might be.

[wildhawker]

If that's true all the pending 2A cases get denied cert. That would be a tragedy.

You're not following the logic of his hypo.

-Brandon

[nicki]

SCOTUS wants clean cases.

My gut tells me that the SCOTUS wants "clean gun cases".
By "Clean", I mean cases that are not "criminal".

The bright side is all of "Alan Gura's" cases are "clean".

Carry is something the SCOTUS will deal with, but they want to do it in such a way that they won't provide endless appeals for those convicted of gun crimes.

This is a "minor setback".

There is a bright side. The current SCOTUS may only effectively allow "Alan Gura" to argue second amendment cases.

Nicki

[meaty-btz]

You're comments are wildly premature for many reasons that are common knowledge here, and some that aren't.

-Brandon

My entire life has been spent watching freedom die, one piece at a time. In the past few years I have watched the CGF and other organizations fight back. I see them take a step forward then freedom taking two back through legislation.

I also watch innocent blood be the price we pay for the speed of our courts, but no one talks about them. No one mentions the fact that nothing ever done by the courts, by us, or by CGF will ever restore what was lost by them. We count them casualties of war and that is fine, just remember our bloodless court revolution to this culture is anything but.

My comments are not based on this one instance which I happen to agree with the speculation here that it was a good thing. Freedom is more than just gun rights.

Right now I see every gun bill being signed or allowed to slide by by Gov. Brown. It will take court cases again to knock those down, till then we are under them, we are restricted. So in the end we take steps back but wait to take those lost steps back forward again. Winning them last time did not stop them from rising again from the grave.

Today, I don't see any bright future. Prove me wrong in my lifetime, please.

[htjyang]

I'm somewhat surprised by this outcome because I thought even if the Court did not grant cert, they might have held it for another case (such as Masciandaro) so that once there is a favorable ruling for right to carry, this one will be GVR'ed.

As for those who think that it is unfortunate for Williams to go to prison, the unfortunate reality is as sholling stated: The Court receives 7,000-8,000 cert petitions/year and hears only about 80. There is bound to be many who draw the short straw. I do not pretend that this is fair, merely that it is the way the Court works.

Gray Peterson may be right in that the Court wishes to shut out the criminal defense bar. As for those who hope that some future decision might lead to a reversal of this conviction in the future, don't count on it. The Court dislikes disturbing settled verdicts.

[Kharn]

I posted this in July because I was really concerned that the fact he had not applied for a Maryland permit could be a key factor. Don't know how key it was, or whether or not it was even considered by SCOTUS, but applying for a permit could not have hurt his case. I also made a factual error - CA's population is around eight times that of MD, not five. Really sad for him personally on a number of levels.

Nearly every cop in MD has a permit, most departments say if you're carrying on your badge you can only carry your duty pistol; everyone gets a permit so they can leave the full-size Glock or Beretta at home and carry a P3AT or J-frame. Last time I checked, there were less than a thousand people in MD with permits for "personal protection / death threats", almost everyone else was either a cop/jailer or a businessman of some sort.

[sholling]

The Court dislikes disturbing settled verdicts.

Unfortunately their distaste for disturbing settled verdicts is exactly akin to a hypothetical post civil war court deciding that slaves are still slaves under the 13th Amendment because their position in life is settled but we should rejoice in the fact that no one else can be enslaved in the future. The morality is no different. It's a lazy, cowardly, and bigoted attitude taken against those that they see as insufficiently submissive to the state. The difference between our system of justice (innocent until proven guilty) and the Napoleonic Code (guilty until proven innocent) is that ours is supposed to take the attitude that it's better for a 1000 guilty men to go free than a single innocent man be punished. Allowing a single citizen to remain imprisoned for exercising his rights is a modern example of Dred Scott at work.

Well we can't change the court over night. Democrat/Progressive presidents will keep appointing Progressives with no respect for the the 2nd and 10th Amendments or property rights, and Republican Presidents will keep appointing law & order fanatics with no respect for the 4th Amendment and no interest in righting past wrongs. That's why we need to be so very careful in our selection of presidents and governors.

Hopefully the court will redeem itself by taking a civil case and using it to restore "bear" to constitutional law.

[OleCuss]

My entire life has been spent watching freedom die, one piece at a time. In the past few years I have watched the CGF and other organizations fight back. I see them take a step forward then freedom taking two back through legislation.

I also watch innocent blood be the price we pay for the speed of our courts, but no one talks about them. No one mentions the fact that nothing ever done by the courts, by us, or by CGF will ever restore what was lost by them. We count them casualties of war and that is fine, just remember our bloodless court revolution to this culture is anything but.

My comments are not based on this one instance which I happen to agree with the speculation here that it was a good thing. Freedom is more than just gun rights.

Right now I see every gun bill being signed or allowed to slide by by Gov. Brown. It will take court cases again to knock those down, till then we are under them, we are restricted. So in the end we take steps back but wait to take those lost steps back forward again. Winning them last time did not stop them from rising again from the grave.

Today, I don't see any bright future. Prove me wrong in my lifetime, please.

Difficult to fully address where you're going with this.

There is room for some pessimism based on historical trends. Thing is that Heller and then McDonald were historic in their change of 2A jurisprudence (and because of Thomas's PorI concurrence, maybe eventually some other things).

You could view it sort of like steering a big ship. There is so much momentum that even once the turn has been initiated it can take a lot of time and a lot of room to actually reverse the course. And if the space the ship is in is constrained, you may need multiple tugboat enterventions to adjust/change the course.

In our case the course change is initiated but not completed. You can argue as to whether we've yet gone past 90 degrees of the 180 degrees we will eventually accomplish, but the course is changing.

For the sake of the illustration I'm going to say that we are in a large RKBA ship which was headed due South, and there are hazards in the area. The Captain and pilot have committed to a course change to due North and the rudder has been turned to accomplish that change. We will require quite a number of assists from tugboats (think Gura) to avoid obstacles and overcome adverse currents for which the ponderous rudder change (Heller/McDonald) is insufficiently nimble. At this time we've made maybe only 40-60 degrees of the 180 degree change to which we've committed so we're still mostly headed the wrong way. But the change is already underway with the rudder turned and the tugboat(s) in place. This means we're winning.

Yup, we may still be losing ground, but we're winning.

I was in an infantry battalion for a while. We'd determine the most probable direction from which the OPFOR would attack us and set things up with men and equipment positioned so that when the enemy penetrated the "kill zone" we'd wipe them out as a functional unit. You'd seldom get all the OPFOR and you'd then have to locate and deal with the rest, but you'd effectively have destroyed the OPFOR at that time.

By that illustration you'd have to argue that the OPFOR has entered our zone. We're destroying them as an effective force but since they are not yet ineffective we are still going to take casualties - and even when they cease to be an "effective" force it will take time to apprehend and render harmless all the remaining OPFOR which did not enter the zone.

Now, for anyone who thinks otherwise, I am in no way or manner whatsoever advocating causing physical (or even psychological) harm to those who are opposing our liberties. I wish them long, happy, and fulfilled lives without the power to harm our liberty. This is simply using my experience to illustrate how the peaceful battle for our liberty is conducted and is likely to flow.

The point is that even though we are still seeing people and rights harmed by the forces which seek to restrict our liberty - it does not mean we are not winning.

FWIW

[Paladin]

"Strike one!" We've got two swings at the bat this year.

Then there's still -- IIRC -- Scocca, Richards, Peruta and Rosso.

[Patrick-2]

"Strike one!" We've got two swings at the bat this year.

Then there's still -- IIRC -- Scocca, Richards, Peruta and Rosso.

And that's just in California. Add Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts and Hawaii to the list. Did I leave any out?

Yeah: Colorado and North Carolina. And probably more.

Lots of swings, but you only get to strikeout once...