Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,139 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Maryland's Court of Appeals (it's highest court) has ruled that the 2A does not cover the carrying of a gun outside of the home. The opinions says that if that's what the Supreme Court meant in their Heller dicta, it will have to say so plainly. Basically a middle finger, if I read it right. Could be the next big case.

http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2011/16a10.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,139 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
To be clear, this is a challenge to both concealed and open carry, unpermitted. The defendant had no permit. Maryland is not a "shall issue" state. They require that you demonstrate to the goverment "good and substantial reasons" for carrying a gun outside your home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,809 Posts
I'll have to read the ruling on that, I don't recall anything in the 2A that referenced a well armed militia that stays at home. I do remember something about 'shall not be infringed'. I'm guessing that, because the 2A doesn't explicitly state carry outside of personal property, the court deemed it not to be inclusive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,139 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
As to whether this is a good Supreme Court case, unfortunately Mr. Williams did not apply for a permit, so he may run into standing issues about challenging the permitting statute.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,139 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
RedDawnTheMusical said:
I'll have to read the ruling on that, I don't recall anything in the 2A that referenced a well armed militia that stays at home. I do remember something about 'shall not be infringed'. I'm guessing that, because the 2A doesn't explicitly state carry outside of personal property, the court deemed it not to be inclusive.
Maryland is basically staking out its blue state position and saying that the Sup Ct is going to have to make them if they want further changes. Mr. Williams didn't apply for a permit, which doesn't allow him to challenge the permitting statute for not being "shall issue". Had he done that, we would have a prime case for the Sup Ct. As it is, we do not. I think other cases coming along in CA and others demanding equal treatment for permits have a better chance.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,524 Posts
Cert reply brief in Williams v. Maryland
Posted by David Hardy · 27 July 2011 07:07 PM
Steve Halbrook and Dan Peterson have filed a reply brief on their petition for certiorari in Williams v. Maryland, which upheld a conviction for carrying a handgun outside the home. When first I heard of the case, I was concerned about the defendant's having to challenge because he hadn't applied for a permit, but it looks as if they nailed that down, tightly.

Permalink · Chicago aftermath · Comments (0)

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2011/ ... brie_1.php

Reply brief available at the link.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,110 Posts
I love how they frame the question presented to the Court:
... this case presents perhaps the most critical
issue of all: are the words “bear arms†devoid of
meaning, thereby limiting the Second Amendment to
the right to “keep arms†within the four walls of one’s
dwelling? If so, it is an extraordinarily constricted
constitutional right, that bears little resemblance to
the robust right clearly envisioned by the Framers and
exercised throughout American history
.

This is good, too:

The Maryland court did not hold that the carry statute and
permitting process withstood constitutional scrutiny.
It held that there will be no scrutiny at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,189 Posts
MD may as well be listed as "almost never issue" state. Very, very few can qualify to carry and if they do, like someone transporting a lot of cash for a night deposit, can only carry in those circumstances specified.
 

·
Junior Butt Warmer
Joined
·
46,427 Posts
RedDawnTheMusical said:
I'll have to read the ruling on that, I don't recall anything in the 2A that referenced a well armed militia that stays at home. I do remember something about 'shall not be infringed'. I'm guessing that, because the 2A doesn't explicitly state carry outside of personal property, the court deemed it not to be inclusive.
It is intentionally unqualified, (reference the period after "shall not be infringed").
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,139 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Pretty good reply brief, I thought. This question will be answered soon, one way or other. Cases challenging no permits in Illinois, this case, CA cases: somebody will get review shortly.
 

·
Junior Butt Warmer
Joined
·
46,427 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
The State of Maryland and at least one federal Court of Appeals have stated that they will not recognize that constitutional right unless directed to do so by this Court.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate ... l-statutes
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights


This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.
McDonald, 130 S.Ct. at 3047 (“[T]he scope of the Second Amendment right†is determined by textual and historical inquiry, not interest-balancing.).
(Emphasis added) We are a Republic.
 

·
GeePeeDoHolic
Joined
·
6,404 Posts
Can you imagine how much worse things would be if we didn't have a Bill of Rights at all with at least their wording to stand on? And to think the Framers thought a BoR is unnecessary.

Federalist Paper #84 said:
Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government
On the other hand, Hamilton was exactly right here, but I still wonder that without the explicit recognition spelled out, if it'd have been worse.

Federalist Paper #84 said:
For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. [ emphasis mine ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts
Rugerer, I think that pretty much sums up the basic schism between the two schools of thought regarding constitutional law, doesn’t it? Either the gov’t can do anything not forbidden by the constitution, or they only have those powers expressly granted therein.

If this is silly or so obvious as to not need mentioning forgive me. I’ve VERY tired and slightly high on caffeine. :mrgreen:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts
CoffeeMate said:
rashley said:
Either the gov’t can do anything not forbidden by the constitution, or they only have those powers expressly granted therein.
I've always thought the Tenth Amendment was pretty clear on that.
One would think, but that's not really the reality is it? I mean, think about how far they've stretched the "interstate commerce" thing.
 

·
Under Scrutiny
Joined
·
19,384 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
Everybody read the brief! :D
That was actually quite entertaining.
 

·
GeePeeDoHolic
Joined
·
6,404 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
Everybody read the brief! :D
I did read it. That was my point. I can't help but imagine these sorts of legal fights, over everything possible, free press, free religion, free carry, etc., would have been much worse without being able to point to explicit wording that proved a specific right was in mind and recognized. Alan Gura likes to point out that First Amendment questions weren't generally settled until the early 1900s. It's turning out that the BoR is providing us with a "last stand" position to fight from on many issues.

Here, the brief had the word "bear" to turn it's argument on.

Without that, we'd argue over everything like we argue over the "right to privacy". The Constitution doesn't list it in so many words, so is it therefore a "privilege" and not a "right"?

"The people surrender nothing, they have all the power."
"Yes, well, but not that power. That power wasn't ever meant to be with the people. The nation would go to ruin if we let the people do that."

All that said, I agree, the brief was a fun read.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top