Back in May it said: "May 18 2011 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including July 15, 2011."
Refresher: It's a CCW case in my state that I talked about before.
So, did anything happen with the Williams case? Is it going to SCOTUS? Let me check...
In the meantime, I have a sort of a bad feeling about this. This will only really impact non-carry type states. It's a much smaller impact on the voting population than the previous 2A cases like Heller and McDonald (I shook Mr. Heller's hand at the NRA convention, btw. That was nice.) A positive ruling will be huge, but the Supremes note the polls and note the impact and might not want to go this far. I'm looking at YOU Justice Kennedy. No time to go wobbly, sir.
An aside: If Obama gets another nomination I hope he picks a long term, vocal, anti-gun advocate. Why? That person should have to recuse themselves for eternity on any 2A case, that's why. Probably wishful thinking on my part, but Barry makes so many blunders he could make this one, easily. But one blunder I doubt he'd make were to accidentally nominate a 2A friendly judge..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Could you give us a short synopsis on Williams vs MD? When I looked in the archive, all the link did was go into people talking about OC'ing a Long Gun.
But you better hope that the Anointed One doesn't get to pick anymore SCOTUS people. Since the Senate rubber-stamped his last 2 nominees "in a Spirit of Bipartisanship", one more gives Barack Hussein Chavez his License to Openly Destroy the Country.
In the present case, Section 4-203(a)(1)(i) of which Williams was convicted, prohibits “wear[ing], carry[ing], or transport[ing] a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person,” in public, without a permit. Here, sufficient evidence was adduced to demonstrate that Williams was wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in public, and Williams had conceded that he had not obtained, or even applied for, a permit. Williams, however, attempts to bring his conviction of wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in public, without a permit, within the ambit of Heller and McDonald by claiming that those opinions would prohibit his conviction. 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.
Then mueller v maenza is still relevant...
Post a Comment