SmarterthanYou
rebel
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.
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.
