HOLY CRAP! How did I not know about this case???

[joejaxx 38]

This is going to be VVEEEEERRRRYYY interesting!!!

 

Williams v. Maryland

 

The question presented to the Supreme Court of the United States is:

 

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.

 

I hope they take this case!! If they do this case will be up there with Heller and McDonald in terms of importance.

 

For background on the case:

 

Source: http://lonelymachines.org/2011/05/07/williams-v-maryland/

 

For the text of the Petition for a writ of certiorari please see the attached PDF.

Petition_cert_Williams_FINAL.pdf

[matt6669 71]

oh snaps

[joejaxx 38]

Outline and basic principles for the petition for a writ of certiorari for those who do not want to read the 174 page document:

 

 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

 

I. THE RIGHT TO BEAR OR CARRY ARMS

OUTSIDE THE HOME IS NOT “OUTSIDE THE

SCOPE” OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT . . . . . 12

 

A. The Second Amendment’s Text Prohibits

Infringement of the Right to “Bear Arms,” and

Does Not Limit That Right to One’s House . 12

 

B. This Court Recognized in Heller the General

Right to Carry Arms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

 

C. This Court Recognized in McDonald that the

Right to Bear Arms is Infringed by Laws

Restricting the Right to Persons With Licenses

Not Available to Law-Abiding Citizens

Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

 

D. State Court Decisions Have Categorically

Voided Laws That Prohibit Bearing Arms Both

Openly and Concealed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

 

II. THE DECISION OF THE MARYLAND COURT

DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH HELLER AND

MCDONALD, AND PRESENTS AN IMPORTANT

FEDERAL QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE

SETTLED BY THIS COURT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

 

A. The Maryland Statutory Scheme Completely

Prohibits Ordinary, Law-Abiding Citizens from

Carrying a Handgun, Openly or Concealed, for

Purposes of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

B. Certiorari Should be Granted to Correct the

Widespread Misapprehension That Under

Heller and McDonald the Second Amendment’s

Scope Does Not Extend Beyond the Home . 33

 

C. Petitioner has Standing to Challenge the

Restrictions on his Second Amendment Rights

That Led to his Conviction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

 

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

 

So I bet you can see where I am going with this when I say I am pretty excited about this case

 

PS: Do the bold parts sound familiar to anyone?

[SpecialK 193]

Head up your a**?

 

oh wait that was one of those rhetorical questions huh...

 

Wohoo! I hope this is brought before the court! This would be pretty major.

[Jeff 13]

I'm sure NJ will argue it applies only to Maryland. God I hope this succeeds. Seems like it's only a matter of time but I'm already tired of waiting.

[Dan 177]

If it were up to NJ , all civil rights would be limited to the walls of one's home.

[mipafox 438]

If it were up to NJ , all civil rights would be limited to the walls of one's home.

 

I don't think they would extend them that far if it were up to them. You might get the walls of your skull if they were feeling charitable.