Williams v. Maryland ~ Petition for Writ of Cert

[mdimeo]

I'm going to go way, way out on a limb and say that at some point, SCOTUS is going to either hold themselves or let lower courts get away with the idea that at least some people who were carrying illegally according to laws eventually found unconstitutional are not sufficiently law abiding to get their convictions overturned.

Fact is, most people who go to prison for illegal carry are probably bad guys (anyone wanting to argue this should look up the definition of "most" first), and SCOTUS is no-how, no-way going to want to let them all free.

[kcbrown]

Not sure I fully agree with you on this one.

I'm pretty sure that it will not sort out that you have to have a permit to possess a firearm within your own home - or within the homes of your friends, in your front yard, or in your business.

Really?

Heller had to get a permit to possess a firearm within his own home. The Court forced DC to turn it into a "shall issue" setup, but the permit is required all the same.

No, I haven't seen any evidence at all that this Court will find anything about RKBA that can't be governed via a permit system.

[jar]

This is New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts, and only MA and NY have gun registration on a statewide level.

MA doesn't quite have full registration. The law mandates registration of firearm *transfers*. If you bring a gun you own with you when moving in to MA, there's no requirement to register it.

[Gray Peterson]

Gray - according to NRA ILA, only IL and MA require a license for ownership of all types of guns. NY only requires a license for handguns not long guns. Now Chicago and NYC also require registration of individual guns but the rest of IL and NY state doesn't.

If the concern about challenging licensing of gun owners and registration of individual guns as being too much too fast, why isn't the NYC requirement to register long guns an easy target for us right now, especially when the rest of NY isn't required to? In my humble opinion, if you can't get SCOTUS to hold strict scrutiny for the 2nd amendment most notably for ownership in the home, then is it realistic to expect to get it for carry. Just thinking out loud.

Because rifle/shotgun permits cost $140, and there is a lawsuit to get the handgun pistol permit down to $10. The purpose of such a lawsuit beyond what was stated is to make home registration un-affordable to the state.

The more we corner jurisdictions into getting out of the licensing business for home gun ownership, when we take up cases to SCOTUS, there are only a handful of states doing so, the big reason DC and Chicago lost is because their statute is an outlier.

[Peaceful John]

Masciandaro had a VA permit but found himself on federal property after he pulled over to sleep.

If any of you ever want to carry in Virginia, please understand that like Maryland, it is heavily dotted with federal property where rules differ. Just driving from DC to Baltimore up Route 295 (major road) puts you under the auspices of the US Park Police until you get north of BWI airport (almost 30 miles). Likewise, the DC Beltway is comprised of almost 40 municipalities and jurisdictions, some state, some federal and some local. And the military property is huge, not all of it gated.

That is why carry for a guy like me is almost impossible - I traverse so many of these federal areas regularly that it'd be like playing "Where's Waldo" with my gun every hour.

So any relief we're likely to get from Masciandaro would be limited to "sensitive places"?

[sholling]

You mean like Voting and Parade Permits?

A more correct analogy for license to possess in the home or mandatory registration/periodic-reregistration would a requirement for a pillow talk with the significant other permit. In the same way a more correct analogy for carry licensing is a requirement for a permit to discuss politics over lunch with friends or to wear a Ron Paul t-shirt in public. In both cases there are no crowd control excuses just individual peaceful and non disruptive exercise of enumerated rights.

I'll say it again. The civil rights movement didn't start with miscegenation...

Even your pessimism is an incorrect take on what I was saying. SCOTUS is going to start with discretionary licenses and limit those. It's not going to say that "unlicensed carry is not Constitutionally protected." It's going to ignore that specific determination at first and follow 40 states first leaving open the point you're naively expecting them to foreclose. They get to be more careful than your doomsaying...

-Gene

I don't disagree in any way with the remainder of your analysis. Like the rest I'm just frustrated with the reality that at many of us won't live long enough to see an end to licensing and registration schemes or a restoration of full capacity magazines. The CA legislature and most of the lower courts are going to continue fighting us tooth and nail and the the odds of nominally 2nd Amendment friendly justices remaining a majority on the SCOTUS long enough are at best 50:50. But I think that the greatest frustration is that the court has decided to allow those otherwise law abiding citizens imprisoned for exercising their rights to continue to rot in prison. That gives the "we want all of our civil rights respected" community the same sense of frustration that Dred Scott gave the abolitionist movement.

We all know that you and the team are doing all that's humanly possible so thanks for your efforts and keep up the good work!

[Patrick-2]

So any relief we're likely to get from Masciandaro would be limited to "sensitive places"?

No. Masciandaro presents two questions: does the Second Amendment right to bear arms extend beyond the home; and can the Park Service convict for exercising that right while sleeping in a car in the park?

Inquiry #1 is the question the may-issue states need answered. It would not be limited to federal or quasi-sensitive places, though the full ruling would likely provide some guidance on place restrictions that would be applicable elsewhere.

Of course, the court is free to modify those questions any way they want, if they grant cert.

[ed bernay]

Because rifle/shotgun permits cost $140, and there is a lawsuit to get the handgun pistol permit down to $10. The purpose of such a lawsuit beyond what was stated is to make home registration un-affordable to the state.

The more we corner jurisdictions into getting out of the licensing business for home gun ownership, when we take up cases to SCOTUS, there are only a handful of states doing so, the big reason DC and Chicago lost is because their statute is an outlier.

I understand but I don't think it will matter what the fee is. If the fee is only $140 right now, I bet they are losing money anyway...between the cost of having officers/judges to staff for this requirement and real estate, supplies etc. Even if the NY case wins, I doubt they will make the registration requirement go away. Its about control/power and a fear of common people with guns.

[Maestro Pistolero]

Really?

Heller had to get a permit to possess a firearm within his own home. The Court forced DC to turn it into a "shall issue" setup, but the permit is required all the same.

No, I haven't seen any evidence at all that this Court will find anything about RKBA that can't be governed via a permit system.

Heller specifically did NOT decide the licensing issue. A license WAS involved in the relief only because the unchallenged licensing scheme stood in the way of their narrow ruling.

Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not “have a problem with . . . licensing” and that the Dis- trict’s law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not ad- dress the licensing requirement.

Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the Dis- trict must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not ad- dress the licensing requirement.

[OleCuss]

Really?

Heller had to get a permit to possess a firearm within his own home. The Court forced DC to turn it into a "shall issue" setup, but the permit is required all the same.

No, I haven't seen any evidence at all that this Court will find anything about RKBA that can't be governed via a permit system.

You didn't read what I wrote quite right.

[dantodd]

If the Supreme Court thought that unlicensed carry was Constitutionally protected, it wouldn't care whether or not its rulings cast doubt on shall-issue carry permit schemes, because the failure of shall-issue carry permit schemes to survive judicial review leaves unlicensed carry in place.

Whenever you have this urge to jump over 5 legal steps (skip over right to bear with permit, skip over permitting processes, skip over sensitive areas, etc. etc. etc.) in your rush to get to the right end result, please think of Gene and Anal sex.

[HowardW56]

Whenever you have this urge to jump over 5 legal steps (skip over right to bear with permit, skip over permitting processes, skip over sensitive areas, etc. etc. etc.) in your rush to get to the right end result, please think of Gene and Anal sex.

BAD VISUAL......................

[ke6guj]

please think of Gene and Anal sex.

I'd rather not

[kcbrown]

Whenever you have this urge to jump over 5 legal steps (skip over right to bear with permit, skip over permitting processes, skip over sensitive areas, etc. etc. etc.) in your rush to get to the right end result, please think of Gene and Anal sex.

I'm assuming, of course, that SCOTUS is composed of people who have already determined their position on this because none of them is a complete idiot (not even Sotomayor) and Heller and/or McDonald would have naturally led them to contemplate their position on this, if nothing prior did.

In other words, this is a gauge of SCOTUS' likely position based on their recent actions and Gene's stated thinking. It logically follows from that.

Nothing says the Court will remain consistent with its own telegraphed position, of course, but think it through: why would the court try to protect licensing schemes which cover the entirety of "bear" now if it has no intention of doing so later?

[Rossi357]

please think of Gene and Anal sex.

He may want dinner and a movie first.