2nd Amendment outside the home
 

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 05 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 03 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 19, 2011.

Looks like SCOTUS is fast tracking this and we could get a decision next term. For those not familiar with this case, Williams applied for and received a permit to purchase a handgun. He picked up the gun and transported it to his girlfriends home, then 2 weeks later he transported said loaded handgun in his backpack headed for his own home. he was stopped and searched, then arrested for carrying without a permit. The state of MD has stated in no uncertain terms (MD v. Woollard) that applying for a permit was a futile effort, given that common citizens cannot meet the apprehended harm requirements of obtaining the permit. Luckily, the williams case is a pure 2nd Amendment case of being able to carry outside the home, especially with the way that the question was phrased to the court.....

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.

Williams was found guilty because the MD courts, and nearly a dozen other state courts, have for all intent and purposes stuck a stick in the eye of the McDonald courts decision by issuing this statement in the williams decision below.....

This is not the case, because Heller and McDonald emphasize that the Second Amendment is applicable to statutory prohibitions against home possession, the dicta in McDonald that “the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self defense within the home,” notwithstanding. __ U.S. at __ , 130 S. Ct. at 3044, 177 L. Ed. 2d at 922. 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.

There is also a good case in NY challenging the license requirement for possession, so we could, by next year, have at the least unlicensed open carry nationwide.

You can't carry a gun in a backpack? Where was he stopped at? I would have no problem with nationwide concealed carry (except for certain places for security reasons). Open carry is just a show of force and unless society has collapsed or you are in a bad part of town for some reason it isn't needed.

There was a case in MI where a bar owner used a stun gun and was cleared because the state doesn't have the right to make stun guns illegal. I'm not sure why they were found to be a problem in the first place. Judge rules against stun gun law | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

Maryland is pretty restrictive on carrying a gun. It is illegal to make any pit stops between your home and the range. (I.e. can't go to the range, and stop and get gas, etc.) The law seems to have been passed to prevent individuals from carrying a gun in their car on the basis that they are going to 'the range' (i.e. 24 hr ranges opened for this express purpose of carrying in your car).

Carry permits are 'may' issue only for 'compelling reasons.' Thus, only security guards, persons who carry a lot of cash, and individuals with recent bodily injury threats may carry.

With respect to the Supreme Court, I don't see a sweeping national shall issue decision coming down. Even though there has been a strong and successful push for gun rights, national carry by the Court lacks the hallmarks of legitimate democracy (9 robed individuals shoving shall issue down the throats of 300 million inhabitants). I foresee a plurality decision. Regardless, MD laws are asinine. So many times I've walked home at night in Baltimore with some sort of defensive weapon in my hands. Wish I could carry a gun, but I'd be committing a crime.

I think the NRA and the police needs to come up with a modern 2nd amendment that everyone can live with. Things have changed so much since the Constitution was written (including a civil war, gangs, and terrorists), that it needs an update. Court cases and precedents have filled in some gaps, but this is something that should go to get passed in 38 states. There are too many different rules in different states when it comes to some common sense issues that most people should be able to agree on.

Like I would have no problem with anybody being able to carry a gun that could only take non-lethal bean bag rounds or stun guns. And I have no problem with a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun for defense in a city if they had to take a 6-week training and simulation class and had to wear a square metal badge. But, there are problems caused by guns that need to be corrected as well. In the city, guns serve a different role than out in Wyoming. There are some guns that would only be needed in a civil war or to assassinate someone that were never imagined back in 1776. A lot of policemen die when criminals use certain types of guns or bullets. Militias, mafia, and gangs are a problem if they disrupt the peace or intimidate people with their weapons.

I've never lived in a state with restrictive gun laws however.

* Things changing does not mean your rights have changed.
There was no internet or wikileaks then, so should freedom of speech be taken away?

* Non lethal bean bag bullets can kill you.

* Wearing a square metal badge kinda defeats the whole purpose of a concealed weapon. All that would do is...
1. Let criminals know you have a gun so they target you to steal your gun, or wait until you go into a no firearms locale and break into your car to steal your gun.
-or-
2. Let criminals know who has a gun so they can target everyone else.
The only people that should know you have a concealed weapon are the dead criminal at your feet and the cop taking your report.

* Guns serve the same purpose in the city, in Wyoming, or in Afghanistan. They propel small chunks of lead at a high rate of speed with the goal being for the aforementioned lead to cause damage to it's intended target. The intent varies from person to person but a gun is a gun is a gun.

* Criminals are not going to get their guns through legal channels and are not going to follow your gun ownership rules, so you're merely penalizing the law abiding citizen, and making it more difficult for them to defend theirselves.

As I read the Md Court of Appeals decision, it appears that Williams never applied for a permit.
Ignoring the law because he believed it would have been denied?

IMO, his actions, or lack of actions, gives the Court both clear legal grounds and an easy out to decide not to take the case.

Dux, I think in ordinary challenges, doctrines of exhaustion and standing would result in the court avoiding the merits of the case.

However, since the defendant in this case was held criminally liable, such exhaustion doctrines will not govern.

For example: Standing
1.) Injury in Fact
2.) Causation
3.) Redress

or Exhaustion, which requires that the plaintiff fully exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking judicial review.

It just seems to me that this is not the best case to test a state's permit law, given the fact that the guy did not apply for a permit, raising the issue of whether or not he had standing (the Md court said he did not).

The Supreme Court has a long history of being reluctant to take on 2nd Amendment cases and this would be an easy one to deny cert based on the issue of standing rather than having to address the constitutionality of the Md law.

But. I'm not an attorney.

But, they weren't specific enough, so now we have this vast hodgepodge of rules and statues that vary from one place to the next. That is why I want to get a modern 2nd amendment to do a better job of outlining what the national rules should be.

Yes they can, but being allowed to carry one of these to certain places where a regular gun isn't allowed might be an option. The tip of the barrel should be painted blue or something.

I think it would be #2. Basically you are a private security guard protecting yourself and whoever you are with. The badge is to show that you have gone through the course and are a law abiding citizen.

In the city you have to deal with bad people a lot more than some hunter in northern Montana. A gun is a gun, but when a gun is used to hunt animals it is different from someone hunting down people they don't like. It might be school shootings or a congresswoman, but those need to be prevented.

I've been in foreign countries with very strict gun laws. This doesn't happen there for some reason. I have also been to Mexico, where they get the guns from the US and then use them down there. :rolleyes:

I would like to see a independent NRA/public citizen review board set up to investigate some people who buy guns. The basic person will be fine, but there are lots of shady people who shouldn't be purchasing a gun.

For what it's worth, in my 3 months in Taiwan, I saw a criminal in possession of a handgun when I went clubbing. So, I don't find mnky's arguments too extraordinary.

why would you even consider letting a single lobbying organization and a government entity rewrite one of your basic and fundamental rights?

---------- Post added at 10:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 AM ----------

I already posted the maryland case that states that applying for the permit was futile. This was a statement made by the state itself. I would also be curious to know how many permit applications were received from 2006 to 2009.

Open carry is absolutely needed. I and other concealed carriers do not want to be one wardrobe malfunction away from a felony--the situation they are constantly in in many states. Cover garment in place? Legal! Gust of wind? Brandishing! Printing slightly through your two shirts? Open carry! :no:

Also, why would you want to open carry in your 'bad part of town'? To deliberately lose the element of surprise? So they clearly could see if your gun looked worth enough to shooting you and taking it?

x2

My wife and I carry concealed but reaching for something on a top shelf at the grocery has revealed her belly button (and gun) more than once.

Glad FL just passed a law protecting us from these situations.

That group of people know and think about this way more than I do. I think both of them can come to some sort of agreement on some sane gun laws that would apply to every state.

Like, if you have a shirt come up and uncover your gun, that isn't openly carrying, and maybe there isn't anything wrong with people openly and concealed carrying. But, at the city council meeting I went to tonight, I think that having a gun there would be a problem.

Funny listening to whats normal. Over here, we dont carry guns - although the police have been known to kill for carrying a chairleg concealed in a bag. I wish there were less, and I wish our police were not issued with them. Licensing - doesnt work. I lived in a quiet place, an Island, and during the Toxteth riots a local chapgot a shotgun and license - he said for sport or clat shooting, but realy he only got it to shoot people. Wanker. I have a friend who is a farmer, and I understand her need for guns or a gun.
Wouldnt you be better off with one of these?-

Did he not lock the gun up when transporting it or is this a clear-cut case of a state not respecting peaceable journey precedent?
[citation needed]

Why was he stopped and searched? Did he consent to the search? I did a bit of googling and didn't see any clear answers to these questions.

This should be addressed. And I would probably agree with the NRA.






Pittsburgh Cop Killer Feared Gun Ban | Drudge Retort

And then there is proving the negative of how many shootings did the limiting of fully-auto guns prevent.