Post-McDonald Second Amendment Cases

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Oral argument in the case of State v. Charles Williams, pending in the Maryland Court of Appeals. Williams was charged with carrying without a permit, said permits being very difficult to get, and has raised the constitutionality of the requirement. Argument will be broadcast live at 10 AM EDT Thursday, October 7. http://www.courts.state.md.us/coappeals/webcast.html

    Via http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2010/10/argument_monday.php

    Wow! Thanks for the lead Norton. I'll do some digging on this one. Talk about a blatant challenge! Without having looked myself, do you know if this is a Civil or Criminal case???
     

    Norton

    NRA Endowment Member, Rifleman
    Staff member
    Admin
    Moderator
    May 22, 2005
    122,848
    Wow! Thanks for the lead Norton. I'll do some digging on this one. Talk about a blatant challenge! Without having looked myself, do you know if this is a Civil or Criminal case???

    I didn't get a chance to look at it. It was forwarded to me so I figured that it would be more efficient use of my time for one of you bulldogs to pick it apart :D
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,359
    SoMD / West PA
    Wow! Thanks for the lead Norton. I'll do some digging on this one. Talk about a blatant challenge! Without having looked myself, do you know if this is a Civil or Criminal case???

    No. 16 Charles Francis Williams, Jr. v. State of Maryland

    ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - ARE MD. CODE ANN. CRIMINAL LAW SECTION 4-203, PUBLIC SAFETY ART. SECTIONS 5-301 ET. SEQ. AND COMAR 29.03.02.04 UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN LIGHT OF HELLER V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA?

    Attorney for Appellant: James Brewster Hopewell
    Attorney for Appellee: Jeremy M. McCoy
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    No. 16 Charles Francis Williams, Jr. v. State of Maryland

    ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - ARE MD. CODE ANN. CRIMINAL LAW SECTION 4-203, PUBLIC SAFETY ART. SECTIONS 5-301 ET. SEQ. AND COMAR 29.03.02.04 UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN LIGHT OF HELLER V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA?

    Attorney for Appellant: James Brewster Hopewell
    Attorney for Appellee: Jeremy M. McCoy

    Thanks Inigoes....I looked on MD CaseSearch and couldn't find a warm lead.

    However, stating as yet unverified....therein lies a problem. Go back to the Brady quote in their McDonald amicus where they cite 190 cases post-Heller. The vast majority of that 190 were in Criminal Court....someone walking the street with a glock in their pocket citing 2A protection. Someone holding up a store and one of the charges is commission of a felony with firearm and they cite 2A protection....

    These Criminal Court 2A challenges are not the poster child's we want or I'm going to endorse, neither would SAF or the NRA or Cato. Challenges in Civil Court (think Fundamental/Civil Right) are....I'm sure we can all grasp the rationale....

    The question is whether he even applied for a permit. If he didn't, this is not going to be a Civil question and one I wouldn't endorse....not now at least.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    I remember this one. I cannot find any actual documents because it appears MD is about 15 years behind the rest of the world when it comes to electronic court management. But an interesting stub from an article on the matter that might jog some memories:

    In the case pending before the Court of Appeals, Williams bought his handgun legally from a licensed dealer in August 2007.

    On Oct. 1, 2007, a Prince George’s County police officer saw Williams near woods and asked what he had hidden in the bushes.

    Williams responded, “My gun.”

    The officer arrested Williams for unlawful gun possession, specifically for violating a provision on carriage and transport. He was convicted and sentenced on Oct. 6, 2008, to three years in prison with all but one year suspended.

    The Court of Special Appeals upheld the conviction, setting the stage for the constitutional challenge before Maryland’s high court.

    “I’m certainly not going to predict what the Court of Appeals is going to do,” Hopewell said.

    Arguments in the case are tentatively scheduled for October, according to the Court of Appeals clerk’s office. The case is Charles F. Williams Jr. v. State, No. 16, September Term 2010.

    If we find anything interesting we might want another thread for this one.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Another one of potential interest from the MD Court of Appeals, this time on Weds 13 October:

    No. 20 Rodney Taureen Moore v. State of Maryland

    ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) IS PROOF OF THE OPERABILITY OF THE FIREARM A PREREQUISITE TO A CONVICTION FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A REGULATED FIREARM? (2) IF SO, WAS THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE OPERABILITY IN THE PRESENT CASE?

    Attorney for Appellant: Martha Gillespie
    Attorney for Appellee: James E. Williams

    The question seems pretty easy to answer in this case, as the gun found with the felon was most likely a working gun. It had issues that made it unsafe to test fire, so the MSP had to replace a latch before they would fire it. It fired. Without the latch, it would have probably fired, though according to the MSP tester, a cracked/broken part might have "come back and hit me in the head."

    Also, the question itself, "must it be operable?", is probably moot because the MD law defines a firearm as something "designed to propel...", meaning a gun is a gun by design, not by maintenance. So: If a bad guy tries to kill you during a robbery and gets an FTF, it is still a firearm even though it failed to operate.

    The case should be interesting because of any side-effects their decision creates. It's cases like this that get referenced forever.
     

    Brychan

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 24, 2009
    8,391
    Baltimore
    MD Court of Appeals CCW Heariing

    Recieved this from AGC Legislative Office and had not seen this posted anywhere, so for anyone thats interested

    Maryland Court of Appeals CCW Hearing - Oral Arguments on the Internet


    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

    SCHEDULE

    Thursday, October 7, 2010:



    No. 16 Charles Francis Williams, Jr. v. State of Maryland

    ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - ARE MD. CODE ANN. CRIMINAL LAW SECTION 4-203, PUBLIC SAFETY ART. SECTIONS 5-301 ET. SEQ. AND COMAR 29.03.02.04 UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN LIGHT OF HELLER V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA?

    Attorney for Appellant: James Brewster Hopewell
    Attorney for Appellee: Jeremy M. McCoy


    Posting on Of Arms & the Law Website:


    Argument Monday in post-McDonald case

    Posted by David Hardy · 3 October 2010 10:00 AM


    The case is State v. Charles Williams, pending in the Maryland Court of Appeals. I'm told Williams was charged with carrying without a permit, said permits being very difficult to get, and has raised the constitutionality of the requirement. I'd expect there will be procedural issues (e.g., an argument that he has to apply for a permit and see what happens, rather than breaking the law and raising it as a defense,


    Argument will be broadcast live, here, at 10 AM EDT Thursday, October 7.

    http://www.courts.state.md.us/coappeals/webcast.html
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Added under the "Bear" Section in Post #1.

    Birdt v. Beck, (CA, CCW in Los Angeles County)
    Filed: October 29, 2010. California Central District
    http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/filed047.pdf

    Calguns and CalgunsFoundation are fighting many fights in...I think California. They are working a county by county resolution towards inconsistent CCW issuance. One of the big targets is of course Los Angeles county.

    Jon Birdt is an attorney who was denied a CCW in LA County. He's going this one on his own, without SAF or NRA or CGF help.
    Complaint: http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/filed047.pdf

    On http://www.calccw.com/Forums/announcements/17265-lapd-lasd-lawsuit.html
    his screen name is jonbirdt, read for more info...

    I'll dig up more shortly, but my OP has been updated.

    Welcome to the jungle....
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Added under the "Bear" Section in Post #1.

    Birdt v. Beck, (CA, CCW in Los Angeles County)
    Filed: October 29, 2010. California Central District
    http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/filed047.pdf

    Calguns and CalgunsFoundation are fighting many fights in...I think California. They are working a county by county resolution towards inconsistent CCW issuance. One of the big targets is of course Los Angeles county.

    Jon Birdt is an attorney who was denied a CCW in LA County. He's going this one on his own, without SAF or NRA or CGF help.
    Complaint: http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/filed047.pdf

    On http://www.calccw.com/Forums/announcements/17265-lapd-lasd-lawsuit.html
    his screen name is jonbirdt, read for more info...

    I'll dig up more shortly, but my OP has been updated.

    Welcome to the jungle....

    This lawyer is an idiot. He was previously suspended from the bar due to ethical issues, including lying to the court (perjury).

    And to top it off, he actually brought up 14th Amendment Due Process issues in his complaint (fine), but then stipulated, through quoting a rational basis case, that rational basis is the scrutiny involved. He obviously is unaware of even the core issues here. All he can do is whine that he wants his gun and he wants it now.

    He obviously knows less than we do, and we're just voices on the net. Maye he should have hung around this forum a while before doing stupid things. LA is going to eat this guy up.

    Who knows...he might get lucky and find a 2A-friendly judge looking to make a point. LA County does have conservatives in it.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    This lawyer is an idiot. He was previously suspended from the bar due to ethical issues, including lying to the court (perjury).

    And to top it off, he actually brought up 14th Amendment Due Process issues in his complaint (fine), but then stipulated, through quoting a rational basis case, that rational basis is the scrutiny involved. He obviously is unaware of even the core issues here. All he can do is whine that he wants his gun and he wants it now.

    He obviously knows less than we do, and we're just voices on the net. Maye he should have hung around this forum a while before doing stupid things. LA is going to eat this guy up.

    Who knows...he might get lucky and find a 2A-friendly judge looking to make a point. LA County does have conservatives in it.

    He is being eaten alive over at Calguns as well, having a whopping 3-post career on that forum. He's been contacted by some of the CGF lawyers as well...another loose cannon ala Gorski...
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County

    For those who do not recognize my old Sheriff's anme (Baca), this is being fought in Los Angeles.

    Clean, clear, concise and carefully written. I am forwarding to some friends out there. Thanks, EZ.

    The Plaintiff is an attorney who wants a permit. He was careful. The following words are going to irk some folks here, but it important to have all the same:


    19. Plaintiff does not dispute the validity of the statute [CA Code Section 12050], or the right of the State to regulate the possession of loaded weapons. In fact, the State legislature has made clear its’ intent to create the only mechanism by which law abiding citizens can and should posses loaded firearms in the state by creating a statutory scheme for regulating such conduct.

    He's saying "I recognize the need for a permit, I simply want you to issue one based on passing a criminal background check for self defense."

    To help everyone irked as to why this is important - it derails a defense that the government could make over the "need" for a permit. That fight would take years and at its conclusion, we would then still need to fight the "good cause" requirements. This is a short-cut.

    Nothing says we cannot go back and fight it later. But for now, we target the things we need most. Even is that means we go through the state to exercise our rights. Again: for now.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    What to expect...week of December 6th.

    Peruta v. County of San Diego CCW Case.
    Oral Arguments were heard 11/15. Judge Irma Gonzalez said 3-4 weeks for her Opinion. :thumbsup:

    Benson v. Chicago (Chicago's Post-McDonald Gun Laws challenges)
    Both parties meet with Judge Guzman on 12/9/2010 for Agreed Motion to Extend Fact Discovery

    Jackson v. San Francisco
    Defendants who filed their motion to consolidate. Scheduled Hearing for 12/9/2010. :tdown:

    Second Amendment Arms et al v. City of Chicago
    Status Hearing on 12/08/2010

    GeorgiaCarry.org v. Toomer
    Oral Arguments on 12/9/2010, 11th Ckt Court of Appeals. :thumbsup:

    Busy week coming up....:innocent0
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Peruta this week would be Great. I'm setting aside time to dig into that one in real detail.

    Of course, I am making a serious assumption that it will go well for our side.
     

    ezliving

    Besieger
    Oct 9, 2008
    4,590
    Undisclosed Secure Location
    Here is a surprise (to me.) Good news from The Illinois Supreme Court!
    ------------

    ISRA Supported Suit Against Cook County Succeeds In State Supreme Court

    By Illinois State Rifle Association

    Published: Saturday, Dec. 4, 2010 - 5:50 pm

    CHICAGO, Dec. 4, 2010 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A case brought against Cook County, challenging its "Assault Weapon" ban passed in 2006, has finally been decided favorably for the ISRA backed Plaintiffs.

    The case of Wilson, et al. vs Cook County et al., was returned to the State Appellate Court pursuant to the Supreme Court's exercise of its judicial authority, and the First District Appellate Court has been ordered to vacate its decision and reconsider the case based on the recent decision in McDonald vs. City of Chicago. McDonald was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in which ISRA was one of the Plaintiffs.

    In a move that surprised all parties to the litigation, the First District Appellate Court ordered both plaintiffs and defendants to file simultaneous briefs in 15 days, with no Reply briefing allowed. The Appellate court's Order came within days of the Supreme Court's issued mandate, which directs the Appellate Court to vacate and reconsider.

    The purported "assault weapons," as defined under the very broad and vague terms of the subject County Ordinance, include numerous semi-automatic handguns and rifles, including the Ar-15, M-1 Carbine, Smith & Wesson P99 pistol, Smith & Wesson 22A, Browning BAR Longtrack, Winchester Super X Rifle, and the Mini-30 Ranch Rifle just to name a few Since the lawsuit was filed in early 2007, the enforcement of the Ordinance has been at a virtual stand-still, and the objective of the ISRA is to see that this unwarranted ban is overturned with finality.

    A supplementary brief is being filed and the decision of the Appellate Court is expected soon. If required, ISRA is prepared to back this case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. Since 1903, the ISRA has represented the interests of over 1.5 million law-abiding Illinois firearm owners.

    WEB SITE: http://www.isra.org
    SOURCE Illinois State Rifle Association

    Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/12/04/3233473/isra-supported-suit-against-cook.html#ixzz17PHGODcy

    http://www.iml.org/page.cfm?key=1733&parent=2494
     
    Last edited:

    ezliving

    Besieger
    Oct 9, 2008
    4,590
    Undisclosed Secure Location
    Colorado Supreme Court agrees to hear guns on campus arguments

    DENVER (AP) - A group that opposes guns on campus filed an argument with the Colorado Supreme Court urging the justices to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to give students the right to carry firearms at colleges.

    The Washington, D.C.-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said in a brief filed Monday that the Court should "protect students and faculty from the severe risks posed by guns."

    In April, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a gun-rights group that sued the University of Colorado. The group argued that the university's 1994 policy banning concealed weapons violates state gun laws.

    The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to take up the case.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Colorado Supreme Court agrees to hear guns on campus arguments

    DENVER (AP) - A group that opposes guns on campus filed an argument with the Colorado Supreme Court urging the justices to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to give students the right to carry firearms at colleges.

    The Washington, D.C.-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said in a brief filed Monday that the Court should "protect students and faculty from the severe risks posed by guns."

    In April, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a gun-rights group that sued the University of Colorado. The group argued that the university's 1994 policy banning concealed weapons violates state gun laws.

    The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to take up the case.

    Thanks...the Brady's have obviously forgotten Virginia Tech...I want to say there is another Campus-Carry case in TX as well.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,917
    Messages
    7,258,650
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom