Williams v. State
Decision Date | 05 January 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 16, Sept. Term, 2010.,16, Sept. Term, 2010. |
Citation | 10 A.3d 1167,417 Md. 479 |
Parties | Charles Francis WILLIAMS, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
James Brewster Hopewell, Riverdale, MD, for petitioner.
Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of Maryland (Jeremy M. McCoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, MD), on brief, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS, BARBERA, JJ.
In this case, we enter into the constitutional fray involving the scope of the Second Amendment right to bear arms,1 recently explored by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, ---U.S. ----, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010).
Petitioner, Charles F. Williams, Jr., seeks to overturn his conviction in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County for unlawful possession of a handgun, pursuant to Section 4-203(a)(1)(i) of the Criminal Law Article, Maryland Code (2002),2 asserting that Maryland's regulatory scheme for handgunsviolates his right to "keep and carry arms" under the Second Amendment. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed Williams' conviction, in a reported opinion, Williams v. State, 188 Md.App. 691, 982 A.2d 1168 (2009), and we granted certiorari,Williams v. State, 412 Md. 495, 988 A.2d 1008 (2010), to answer the following question:
Are Md.Code Ann. Criminal Law § 4-203, Public Safety §§ 5-301, et seq. , and COMAR 29.03.02.04 unconstitutional in light of Heller v. District of Columbia? 3
We shall hold that Section 4-203(a)(1)(i) of the Criminal Law Article, which prohibits wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun, without a permit and outside of one's home, is outside of the scope of the Second Amendment. We also shallhold that, because Williams failed to apply for a permit to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, he lacks standing to challenge Section 5-301 et seq. of the Public Safety Article, Maryland Code (2003),4 as well as COMAR 29.03.02.04.5 As a result, Williams's convictionwill stand.
During a bench trial before the Honorable Sean D. Wallace, the State presented the following facts, describing a police officer's encounter with Williams near a bus stop:
The facts described the police officer's recovery of Williams's handgun and Williams's statement to police:
The facts provided the following, regarding Williams's purchase of the handgun, apparently for "self-defense":
Judge Wallace found Williams guilty of wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in violation of Section 4-203(a)(1)(i) and sentenced him to three years' incarceration, with two years suspended. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, determining that the Second Amendment is not applicable to the States,6 and that, were the Second Amendment to apply to Maryland, "it would not invalidate the statute at issue here," because Section 4-203(b)(6) expressly permits wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in one's residence, thereby preserving the right "to keep and bear arms in the home for the purpose of immediate self-defense." Williams, 188 Md.App. at 699, 982 A.2d at 1172.
Before us, as he did in the Circuit Court in a "Motion to Dismiss Indictment," and in his brief before the Court of Special Appeals, Williams asserts that the prohibition in Section 4-203(a) against wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun without a permit and outside of one's home, infringes upon his Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms." He contends that the Supreme Court opinions in Heller and McDonald make clear that the Second Amendment establishes a general "right of persons to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes."
The State counters that the opinions in Heller and McDonald together stand for the proposition that, pursuant to the Second Amendment, "states may not generally prohibit the possession of a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense, but remain free to enact reasonable restrictions on the possession and use of firearms." The State contends that the statutory scheme embodied in Section 4-203 is eminently reasonable, because Section 4-203(b)(6) expressly permits wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in the home.
We begin by exploring the dictates of Section 4-203(a) of the Criminal Law Article, which contains a prohibition against wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in public, "whether concealed or open":
The exceptions to the prohibition, contained in Section 4-203(b), are many:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kachalsky v. Cacace
...than Heller did, and Defendants have pointed to no case decided after Heller that has done so. To the contrary, Williams v. State, 417 Md. 479, 10 A.3d 1167, 1169–70 (2011), considered a Maryland statute prohibiting any carrying outside the home without a permit, which could only be issued ......
-
United States v. Robinson
...("[L]imitations on carrying weapons in public do[ ] not implicate activity protected by the Second Amendment."); Williams v. State, 417 Md. 479, 10 A.3d 1167, 1178 (Md. 2011) (holding that regulations on carrying firearms outside the home are "outside of the scope of the Second Amendment, a......
-
Commonwealth v. Powell
...law. In these circumstances, we conclude that he may not challenge his conviction under G.L. c. 269, § 10 ( h ) (1). See Williams v. State, 417 Md. 479, 488 n. 7 (2011) (defendant could not challenge handgun statute where he had not obtained, or even applied for, handgun permit). (ii) Unlaw......
-
Martin v. State
...that function of reply brief is limited and that it may not be used to raise issues not previously raised in initial brief), aff'd,417 Md. 479, 10 A.3d 1167cert. denied,565 U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 93, 181 L.Ed.2d 22 (2011). In any event, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is, ordinar......
-
A First Amendment-inspired Approach to Heller's "schools" and "government Buildings"
...a future case, citing with approval a decision by Maryland's highest court that limited the right to the home) (citing Williams v. State, 417 Md. 479, 496, cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 93 (2011) ("If the Supreme Court . . . meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say......