• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

SCOTUS refuses to hear appeal of Wollard case

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I have said this before: SCOTUS will likely not take up any more 2nd amend cases for many years

I don't need guys in robes telling me what I can and cannot do.
 

BrianB

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
223
Location
Florida
FYI - unless the newspaper spelled the name wrong, it's "Woollard".

You're correct - it is Woolard.

I read through the briefs of the petitioner and respondent, but haven't looked at all the amicus briefs. I note with some interest that one reason the omnipotent State of Maryland doesn't think their ban on open carry of handguns, along with a near-ban on concealed carry of handguns is unconstitutional, is because open carry of long guns is legal in Maryland. At least that's what they said in their brief in opposition of granting certiorari.

Since it appears to be the position of the State that your right to open carry a long gun means your right to carry a gun in your day to day activities in public is not infringed, I guess everyone should just start doing that. If the cops hassle you, show them a hardcopy of the "Brief of respondents..." (link) and tell them you're just doing what the State apparently expects you to do.

Something tells me that if 10% of the population started carrying AR15s with them everywhere, they'd probably ban that too, but then poof, their goes their argument that you have a viable mode of carry.

I know long gun open carry is off topic for most of the forum, but not for Maryland since it definitely fits this exemption in the rules:

Exception: This rule does NOT apply to discussions about long gun carry in jurisdictions which ban handgun carry but not long gun carry and thus require long gun carry as a matter of public policy.

I go out of my way to avoid setting foot in Maryland at all costs, but for those who don't want to move, I'm thinking carrying an AR15 is the way to go. Of course, it's Maryland, so AR15s are banned (if I remember correctly) so some non-banned but equally evil looking gun is probably the next best choice.

This crap frustrates me and I don't even live there. I'm hoping SCOTUS denied cert just because there is a better case coming down the road and they'd rather rule on that one instead of this one. In the meantime, their denying cert on this case definitely sends a message to the anti's that what MD is doing is OK under the 2A.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
You're correct - it is Woolard...
No, it's Woollard. Two o's and two l's. Why couldn't he have just spelled his name the "normal" way?? :rolleyes:


...Since it appears to be the position of the State that your right to open carry a long gun means your right to carry a gun in your day to day activities in public is not infringed, I guess everyone should just start doing that. If the cops hassle you, show them a hardcopy of the "Brief of respondents..." (link) and tell them you're just doing what the State apparently expects you to do...
That's exactly what people should start doing. It worked in Ohio, with openly carried handguns. The question is "How strong of an RKBA organization does MD have?"


...This crap frustrates me and I don't even live there. I'm hoping SCOTUS denied cert just because there is a better case coming down the road and they'd rather rule on that one instead of this one. In the meantime, their denying cert on this case definitely sends a message to the anti's that what MD is doing is OK under the 2A.
You're not the only one frustrated, and I agree with your USSC analysis.
 
Last edited:
Top