Williams v. Maryland ~ Petition for Writ of Cert

[krucam]

Stephen Halbrook has apparently filed a Writ for Cert to the Supreme Court in the case of Williams v. Maryland.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Williams was a case in the criminal courts, not civil. The opinion was notable in their audacity in my opinion, saying "iIf the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly."

Careful what you wish for, perhaps.

Williams v Maryland Opinion

The question now is if this one will have the legs, or perhaps they'll deny it, knowing of SAF/CGF/Gura's blitzkrieg in the lower courts. I guess we'll see...

[Gray Peterson]

The question now is if this one will have the legs, or perhaps they'll deny it, knowing of SAF/CGF/Gura's blitzkrieg in the lower courts. I guess we'll see...

I trust Halbrook more than I do the lawyer that argued his case in front of the Court of Appeal. Halbrook is a good arguer and not prone to be in the loo when it's your turn, or shouting counter-arguments from the bench during AG Gansler's oral argument.

[yellowfin]

Excellent. They need to have something that clearly makes them mad so they'll give a solid knockout punch between the eyes instead of a watered down, one foot in one foot out wishy washy limp fish.

[Patrick-2]

First, Stephen Halbrook is top notch.

Second, this is about as good a criminal case as we will ever have to get to the Supreme Court. Here are the facts, uncontested by both Maryland and the Plaintiff:

1. Williams legally purchased his handgun at a Maryland dealer, took a training course and took lawful possession of the gun a month later
2. Williams had the gun at his girlfriend's house and stopped by to take it home
3. A cop saw Williams rummaging in his bag at a bus stop and turned his cruiser around to check him out. The LEO saw Williams place something in some bushes
4. LEO asks Williams what was in the bushes. Williams states "my gun".
5. Arrest and hilarity ensue

Notice something here?

Williams was doing nothing wrong. No crime was alleged to occur, other than his possession of a lawfully acquired and owned handgun. He followed all the rules, save on: he did not have (or apply for) a carry permit.

This is a pure 2A case. This is not Chester - where some ******* beat his wife, kicked his daughter and then said "Gimme some guns!"


When it comes to that pesky permit, Halbrook dispenses with it here:

Of course, Maryland can try to argue that Williams should have applied for a permit before making this claim, but Maryland just argued in Woollard that absent any documentary evidence they can and will deny any and all who request it. That made the permit unattainable to Williams.

(My Argument/Point): Add to that the fact that even if he had applied, the process would have exceeded the time in which his arrest occurred. He was arrested barely two weeks after getting the gun from the dealer - Maryland routinely takes 90 days to rule on a permit.

None of that really matters, though. If the Court takes up this case, there are no arguments over little things like "standing". Simply put, if SCOTUS wants to take the case, it wil be all 2A all the way.

So let's get to the core argument Halbrook is making:

"Although Williams attempts to find succor in this dicta, it is clear that prohibition of firearms in the home was the gravamen of the certiorari questions in both Heller and McDonald and their answers. If the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly."

"On the question of Heller's applicability outside the home environment, we think it prudent to await direction from the Court itself. See Williams v. State,... ("If the Supreme Court, in [McDonald's] dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.")"

United States v. Masciandaro,

The Big Question



Let's break it down:

• "Whether peaceably carrying or transporting": only covers the good guys
  
  
• "a Registered Handgun": oops But what does "registered" mean other than "lawfully purchased", as some states will consider a 4473 enough? This is a smart move because it takes the question of registration off the table, if the court so chooses.
  
  
• "outside the home": non-specific and leaves sensitive places (whatever that means) intact
  
  
• "without a carry permit that is unobtainable by ordinary, law-abiding citizens": a way to work around the fact Williams didn't even try to get one, but leaves open the door that SCOTUS might prefer to leave permits as a required item for RKBA (smart move...plays this both ways)
  
  
• "is outside the scope" of 2A: the big question.

Summary:

If the Court wants this case, they could take it. The only real reach here is the fact Williams never tried to get a permit, but the way Halbrook phrased the query, the court is not cornered into deciding that issue right now. They can answer the particular question over public RKBA and ignore whether a permit is even required. Or they can rule there, too.

This is a case of whether the right supersedes the state's willingness to recognize it.

[Kharn]

I bet the MD AG is very annoyed state supreme court rulings are appealed directly to the Supreme Court. If cert is granted, I will be taking the day off and making the journey to 1 First St for the oral arguments.

[Dreaded Claymore]

This looks very exciting.

[dantodd]

Of course, Maryland can try to argue that Williams should have applied for a permit before making this claim, but Maryland just argued in Woollard that absent any documentary evidence they can and will deny any and all who request it. That made the permit unattainable to Williams.

(My Argument/Point): Add to that the fact that even if he had applied, the process would have exceeded the time in which his arrest occurred. He was arrested barely two weeks after getting the gun from the dealer - Maryland routinely takes 90 days to rule on a permit.

I think that their position in Wollard will prevent them from arguing Williams' standing since it clearly would have been a futile exercise to apply.

It seems that this is really well set up to simply argue "bear," as it relates to transport anyway. I think this is an excellent prelude to "real" bear cases regarding concealed/open carry beyond transport.

[press1280]

When I first saw the thread title, I thought "oh no". While this case gets a huge boost by Halbrook as attorney, I'm wondering if the lack of permit application will spell doom. Will SCOTUS actually take up the issue of MD's restrictiveness on permits? After all, Gansler said over 90% of MD permit applications were approved

[Patrick-2]

I bet the MD AG is very annoyed state supreme court rulings are appealed directly to the Supreme Court. If cert is granted, I will be taking the day off and making the journey to 1 First St for the oral arguments.

Yes. Especially considering the lightweight who fought for Williams the first time. I failed to give Gansler full credit on Woollard, but I am feeling good that he will be one on the hook here. NY/NJ's AG would be a much tougher fight, though I doubt Gansler is going to go it alone here. Expect a metric buttload of amicus briefs from every anti-gun AG in the nation, plus a few from shall-issue states that don't want the constitution shoved in their face.

I think that their position in Wollard will prevent them from arguing Williams' standing since it clearly would have been a futile exercise to apply.

Agree. Timing on this is excellent, considering the recent response by Gansler on the subjective permit system. Cannot help but think this was intentional and crafted to take advantage of his concession (that people like Williams will never get permits in Maryland under existing state law).

It seems that this is really well set up to simply argue "bear," as it relates to transport anyway. I think this is an excellent prelude to "real" bear cases regarding concealed/open carry beyond transport.

Respectfully disagree. Re-read the question posed by Hallbrook. It is not a set-up to the big question, it is the big question:

Whether peaceably carrying or transporting a
registered handgun outside the home, without a carry
permit that is unobtainable by ordinary, law-abiding
citizens, is outside of the scope of “the right of the
people to . . . bear arms” protected by the Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Carry == Bear, according to Ginsburg and Heller. Also, note the use of the word "or".

[Librarian]

I'll tell you, here's an argument I hope is taken up - from page 28

Officials may not ignore the plain text of the Constitution under the theory that no case on point has been decided by this Court to verify that the constitutional command must actually be obeyed.

[N6ATF]

If SCOTUS takes this and doesn't rule the right to bear cannot be converted to a privilege by requiring a permit, looks like we're stuck with permits.

[Window_Seat]

I bet the MD AG is very annoyed state supreme court rulings are appealed directly to the Supreme Court. If cert is granted, I will be taking the day off and making the journey to 1 First St for the oral arguments.

Likewise, but what was that case (was it this case?) where the lower court made critical statements to the effect that the USSC needs to define what is lawful & what isn't lawful outside the home more clearly (when talking about Heller & McDonald)?

Looks like it could be this one, and the court is effectively asking SCOTUS to grant cert by poking the Justices in the rear with this statement:

Although Williams attempts to find succor in this dicta, it is clear that prohibition of firearms in the home was the gravamen of the certiorari questions in both Heller and McDonald and their answers. If the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.

Erik.

[safewaysecurity]

So this is basically a constitutional carry case?

[Untamed1972]

Just curious what Maryland law is regarding transporting? What manner is proscirbed as to the legal manner for transportation? Locked container like CA?

[mdimeo]

So this is basically a constitutional carry case?

If by constitutional carry you mean "no-permit-required, like in Vermont et al.," I would say no. The Court could rule that Maryland needs to issue permits to law-abiding citizens.

They could also rule permits are unconstitutional infringements, but they're not really being asked to.