As we know, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Williams v Maryland case regarding whether carry outside the home is covered by the Second Amendment. The article excerpt below, from the Wall Street Journal law blog, implies that the issue is effectively dead and that it won't be considered by the Court. If that is true, the SAF suit pending in NJ and all the other CCW cases are dead in the water. We lose. Anyone else have any views on that?

 

"Gun owners cannot definitively claim they have a constitutional right to carry guns outside their homes, and a judge’s display of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom violated the constitutional separation of church and state.

 

That is the upshot of two cases the Supreme Court yesterday decided not to hear. Yes, when you are the nation’s high court you can make news by effectively doing nothing.

 

One of the cases involved Charles Williams, a Maryland resident arrested in 2007 for carrying his legally-purchased gun outside his home without a state permit. He sought high court review of his claim that the 2nd Amendment protects his right to be armed outside his house.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that Americans have a right to possess guns in their homes for self defense, but does the right extend beyond the home? Gun advocates had hoped that the Supreme Court would use the Williams case to answer that question with a resounding yes.

 

In their petition seeking Supreme Court review, Williamss lawyers wrote: “Are the words bear arms devoid of meaning, thereby limiting the Second Amendment to the right to keep arms within the four walls of ones dwelling? according to this Christian Science Monitor report. If so,” the brief stated, “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.

 

But in a brief defending the state’s gun laws, Maryland Assistant Attorney General Brian Kleinbord wrote, The Second Amendment does not bar a state from requiring residents to obtain a permit before carrying handguns outside the home,” the Christian Science Monitor reports.

 

Alas, the court kept its powder dry keeping out of the gun battle that would have been Williams v. Maryland."

I don't thimk anything is dead in the water. Williams knowingly violated the law and his attorney tried to use the 2nd to get him off. If Williams had at least applied for a ccw permit and them been denied for no good reason, he might have had a case.

 

I believe the NJ case is seeking elimination of the "justifiable need" clause in the application process. Or, at least a clear definition of what is "justifiable need".

 

There are also several other cases making their way through the courts. At least one of them is bound to get to the SCOTUS.

Williams v. Maryland wasn't an SAF case. It was an example of a bad case. SAF has 3+ carry cases that are all milling about in the lower courts. If those get denied cert, then I'll be worried. But SAF has a great track record when it comes to picking winning cases.

 

It's not going to happen right away, but we will have some form of legal carry in NJ at some point. Just be patient.

Why do you assume one of them is "bound to get to SCOTUS"? If SCOTUS wants to decide the issue they could have granted cert on the Williams case. Why is Mascandario more likely to be granted cert because it is, arguably, a more favorable case for the appellant? I'm not very familiar with the process the Court goes through in making cert decisions. The fact that the NJ case is trying to eliminate justifiable need really is irrelevant. The sole issue before the Court in any of these cases will be whether the 2A protection extends beyond the home. I'm hoping someone here is knowledgeable and could shed some light on this.

I believe Williams never applied for a carry permit, a "reasonable restriction". If he had and he were denied it would be a different case all together.

Why do you assume one of them is "bound to get to SCOTUS"? If SCOTUS wants to decide the issue they could have granted cert on the Williams case. Why is Mascandario more likely to be granted cert because it is, arguably, a more favorable case for the appellant? I'm not very familiar with the process the Court goes through in making cert decisions. The fact that the NJ case is trying to eliminate justifiable need really is irrelevant. The sole issue before the Court in any of these cases will be whether the 2A protection extends beyond the home. I'm hoping someone here is knowledgeable and could shed some light on this.

 

here's a notion:

 

If they heard the Williams case, they would have two choices. Say you have no right to be armed outside the home, or to say that you have the inherent right to be armed outside the home without a permit. If they don't want to give either of those answers, and they feel there was no issue with HOW the lower court arrived at a ruling, then they don't hear the case.

 

Your interpretation of what the case is about is wrong. That's what it means to YOU, but in reality if you want to view it as about concealed carry, it is about vermont/alaska style no permit concealed carry in the face of existing state regulations to the contrary. In that regard, yes, the USSC would appear to not believe that no-permit concealed carry is a right. That does not mean you can't challenge an existing permitting process as unconstitutional. Heck, the "may issue" type of permitting process can go there and be challenged without even bringing the 2nd into it, but attack it under due process since it treats any two people with the same set of extenuating circumstances rather arbitrarily.

^THIS^

 

This case would have left them with the choice of only saying permitless carry is a right or you have no right to carry at all outside your home. I think we will see a case before SCOTUS, but they may be looking for one with an option of allowing permits to stand if they are administered in more of a shall issue manner.

Masciandaro vs. United States is the better case. It looks like the decision to grant cert is still pending.

I will weigh in on this, I have a few cop friends around here(one being a former police chief) and the opinion among them is, NJ will never ever, allow citizens to carry. Now the reason? That I cannot get a clear answer on. In fact I cannot get a clear reason for any of the absurd NJ gun laws. Other than they do it because they can...

The more I learn about NJ the more convinced I become that the ONLY way to turn things around will be to change attitudes at the grass roots level. What does that mean? 1) For more existing gun owners to become vocal and active and 2) to introduce more NJ citizens to shooting. I've taken 4 newbies to the range over the past year. Two are now applying for FID cards and the other two had a good time and are at least aware of the travesty that is NJ gun laws (I had a capitve audience while driving them to and from the range). The reason things are so sh***y is that very few people in NJ are aware of or care about gun issues. Sorry to be pessimistic, but I just don't see a high probability of a court decision solving our problems and zero probability of a legislative solution unless there is an upheval in the legislature witht he democrats losing both the senate and the assembly. I truly hope I am wrong.

The issue is not dead. The case cert was denied in was a criminal not a civil case. The NJ Fed District Court Judge has not yet decided the issue, which of course, is a predicate to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to here it. The Circuit Court decision will control the fate of the plaintiff's in that case, even if the US Supreme Court denies cert, in the NJ case, unless it decides another case in the interim which is inconsistent with the Third Circuit opinion; the NJ Supreme Court does not have to follow the Third Circuit Decision, but it will be persuasive in any subsequent State Appellate Court opinions. The denial of cert by the US Supreme Court carries no weight either way. There are other cases that will raise the issue that will come before the Supreme Court, but it will be up to them if they ever hear it. Eventually, the issue will get decided. Also, a Republican President and Republican Controlled Legislature-(it could happen) would go a long way to getting interstate carry reciprocity. That in and of itself, could cause pressure in NJ for right to carry reform.

I thought there was to be some movement in court by this September, it is already Oct. and nothing so far?