Williams v. Maryland ~ Petition for Writ of Cert

[OleCuss]

Whoa! Chein v. California? I've not been following closely enough. I don't think I've even heard of that case.

[OleCuss]

I suspect the Chein v. California was a mistake.

There is a Edmund Chein v. California up for cert but I suspect it has nothing to do with the 2A. Edmund Y. Chein is a sort of physician who may also have his JD and has been engaged in doubtful medical endeavors and has been involved in a fair amount of litigation. I'm guessing California tried to shut him down in some fashion and it's getting appealed right on up to SCOTUS. This could even be a continuation of some perjury litigation which started some time back.

I'm guessing ScotusBlog had a typo and referenced Chein rather than the Lowery case.

FWIW.

[M. D. Van Norman]

There are several license-to-carry cases headed to the appeals circuit right now.

[ccmc]

ccmc:

Along that line. . .

Seems to me some plaintiffs in some of the civil cases have gotten bumped because they didn't actually apply for permits (or apply sufficiently frequently) and thus were not considered to have standing. This denial of cert may be more of the same.

So I wonder if the SCOTUS viewed this case as being more about standing than about the RKBA. If so, this denial tells us little about future SCOTUS behavior.

'Tis unfortunate Williams is going to suffer for doing something fairly understandable. Flipside is that SCOTUS (IIRC) doesn't usually view itself as the court of last resort on findings of fact but rather on the application of law.

So if SCOTUS viewed the lower court's issues with standing to be valid based on the law they could reasonably deny cert.

I think they'll view Masciandaro differently.

But I'm no lawyer and could have it all wrong.

I'm not a lawyer either, and a lot of legal minds here shot me down by quoting a case from the 1950's involving permits that were unobtainable by the average person, but the whole permit thing kept nagging at me. The case would look different IMHO if it had taken place in Illinois where carry is illegal and there is no way to apply for a permit. AFAICS the facts of the case are that Williams was breaking Maryland law, he knew was breaking Maryland law, and he had not made an attempt to comply with Maryland law by applying for a Maryland permit. His only hope was that the courts would rule the Maryland law unconstitutional, something that from my layman's perspective looked very tenuous.

I'm gonna go one step further, and I expect to get flamed for this. I've said a few times here that the way to get bad laws changed is through the legislative process, not the judicial process. Scalia has been quoted a number of times as saying the courts are used too much to address grievances that require a legislative solution. There was a thread here a while back about the new Florida law specifying penalties for breaking state firearm preemption law, and someone posted it should have been addressed through the courts rather than the state adding another law to clarify penalties for breaking an existing law. I strongly disagreed, but maybe that's a difference between Florida and California, at least when it comes to the two firearms forums (Cal Guns and Florida Concealed Carry) where I'm a member - here a large number of members favor judicial relief (perhaps that's why this is such a good 2A forum), whereas on the Florida forum people seem to be more in favor of legislative relief. Of course Florida has a much more liberal and broad minded appoach to firearms regulations than California, so that might have something to do with it.

[wildhawker]

I agree. I am saddened by this decision. I hope for better in Masciandaro, but de facto, if not de jure, Williams did not deserve prison. For goodness sake, people who actually have, with intent, harmed society get let off every day. Anything more than a suspended sentence here is political.

And this is why we keep telling people that politics and strategy are the difference between winning and not. Logic and history applies in law to the extent those who decide cases want them to.

-Brandon

[press1280]

If Charles Williams had applied for a license to wear a handgun, he would not have been in a position he was in today.

I have a suspicion (which will be confirmed by denying cert to Masciandaro & Lowery) that this court wants to completely shut down the criminal defense bar when it comes to 2A cases, at least at first.

This leaves the civil cases.

I hope not. Unless something comes along quickly(in order to make it to this years term), denying cert to all 3 will embolden all the lower courts to just sit on any analysis with "only in the home". Masciandaro could be limited enough to make the lower courts re-think what they've been doing without overturning 7 or 8 states' carry laws with one swift stroke.

[Window_Seat]

Petition denied.

Erik.

[SilverBulletZ06]

Could this have been because there are five similar cases that may be easier to distinguish?

[Crom]

Could this have been because there are five similar cases that may be easier to distinguish?

I think nobody knows for sure. I think Kharn said it most succinctly. See below.

...<post trimmed>...
denying cert means no-way-no-how, Williams will not be changed by the results of any other cases this term. Its a very strong statement.

Something about the case made the Court say this guy is going to jail. It could be his lack of a permit, RKBA doesn't apply to the bus, he shouldn't have hid it in the bushes, they did not like Halbrook's shoe shine last time he appeared before them, etc.

[Glock22Fan]

Petition denied.

Erik.

yes, we know, we've been discussing it all morning - where have you been?

[Patrick-2]

Hey, Gene called it for the most part. He said Williams was harder for the court because one ruling would take a machete to the laws of several states. Etc.


My perspective: I am disappointed over Williams, but also recognize that Masciandaro has little at stake. The federal law used to charge Masciandaro has already changed, so the effect of the ruling would be limited to past-tense issues. It would not break a state's legislative law immediately - instead forcing civil suits to use the output of Masciandaro to drive home their points. Then Woollard and the others can use the case, and the Federal Courts could rule against the states and modify their laws with a scalpel instead of a machete.

I wanted them both picked up, but we'll have to wait and see the rest.

[hadjin]

The Supremes refuse to hear it

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider whether an individual's right to own guns includes carrying a firearm outside the home, staying out of one of the nation's most divisive social, political and legal issues.

http://news.yahoo.com/top-court-wont-review-gun-rights-outside-home-152139561.html

[ed bernay]

...
I'm gonna go one step further, and I expect to get flamed for this. I've said a few times here that the way to get bad laws changed is through the legislative process, not the judicial process. Scalia has been quoted a number of times as saying the courts are used too much to address grievances that require a legislative solution. There was a thread here a while back about the new Florida law specifying penalties for breaking state firearm preemption law, and someone posted it should have been addressed through the courts rather than the state adding another law to clarify penalties for breaking an existing law. I strongly disagreed, but maybe that's a difference between Florida and California, at least when it comes to the two firearms forums (Cal Guns and Florida Concealed Carry) where I'm a member - here a large number of members favor judicial relief (perhaps that's why this is such a good 2A forum), whereas on the Florida forum people seem to be more in favor of legislative relief. Of course Florida has a much more liberal and broad minded appoach to firearms regulations than California, so that might have something to do with it.

Then why do we pay judges? I thought it was to protect us from the overreach of government (Legislators). Politicans only care about one thing...winning elections. I thought it would be obvious by now that a proposed law's constitutionality is not on their mind. How many decades do people in some jursidictions have to have their constitutional rights trampled? I guess people in Chicago, DC, NY, MA, San Fran are **** out of luck until they get some politicans that care about the constitution. Rosa Parks should have just sat in the back of the bus as she was told by the southern politicans and hope they would one day view her as a citizen.

[smokeysbandit]

Ughhhh

[Maestro Pistolero]

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.