The Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller affirmed that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns. McDonald v. Chicago incorporated that right against the states. Both of those cases were about ownership of guns in the home. The issue of carry outside the home (the “bearing” part of “keep and bear”) was touched upon only lightly and vaguely.
This case may change that.
Charles Williams legally purchased a gun in Maryland. He jumped through all the hoops. He did everything right. After picking it up from the shop, he dropped it off at his girlfriend’s house. Later, he retrieved the gun and headed home. He was arrested and sentenced to a year in jail for unlawful transportation of a firearm without a permit.
Williams admits that he didn’t even apply for a permit. Why? Because the state of Maryland has made it clear that they don’t issue them. Sure, there’s a bureaucratic framework for doing so, but the process is so arbitrary that denial is a foregone conclusion.
At the moment, Mr. Williams is a criminal. He hurt nobody. He didn’t deprive anyone of anything. He simply committed a malum prohibitum offense that would not have been a crime if his rights were respected.
Williams appealed his conviction to the 4th Circuit. Justice Battaglia’s opinion upholding his conviction [pdf] is fairly dreadful. Among his assertions is this little chestnut:
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. [p. 21]
Oh, someone’s picked a fight they don’t want. It’s rare (if not unique) to see this sort of arrogance and insubordination from the lower courts. In short order, Stephen Halbrook picked up the case and petitioned [pdf–long] the Supreme Court for certiorari. In contrast to the complexity of the McDonald case, this one is fairly straightforward.
Question Presented:
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.
On Tuesday, the case showed up on the Supreme Court docket to be heard in conference. The Justices will discuss its merits on May 19th.
I’d initially hoped the Woolard case would be the one to address this matter before the big nine. The plaintiff isn’t contesting criminal charges, and it has Alan Gura at the helm. It seemed more like a winning horse at first.
On consideration, however, Williams addresses a more pressing issue: a law violating the core and spirit of the 2nd Amendment turned an otherwise blameless man into a criminal. Furthermore, the Woollard case challenges the the fairness of Maryland’s licensing scheme, but it does not go so far as to ask the courts to declare for a right to carry outside the home. Williams does just that.
So, what are our chances? Almost assured. Halbrook has argued before the Supreme Court three times, and each time he’s won. If Williams is being heard in conference this quickly, I’d lay odds we’ll see cert. We could have a decision on the matter next summer.