Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Hogan
| Decision Date | 12 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Case No. ELH-16-3311 |
| Citation | 566 F.Supp.3d 404 |
| Parties | MARYLAND SHALL ISSUE, INC., et al. v. Lawrence HOGAN, Jr. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Cary Johnson Hansel, III, Hansel Law, P.C., Baltimore, MD, John Parker Sweeney, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Washington, DC, for Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., Deborah Kay Miller, Susan Brancato Vizas.
Cary Johnson Hansel, III, Hansel Law, P.C., Baltimore, MD, James Wallace Porter, III, John Parker Sweeney, Tara Sky Woodward, Marc A. Nardone, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Washington, DC, for Atlantic Guns, Inc.
Cary Johnson Hansel, III, Hansel Law, P.C., Baltimore, MD, for Ana Sliveira, Christine Bunch.
Robert A. Scott, Ryan Robert Dietrich, Office of the Attorney General, Civil Division, Baltimore, MD, for Lawrence Hogan, Woodrow W. Jones, III.
REDACTED
This Memorandum Opinion resolves a challenge under the Second Amendment to the constitutionality of Maryland's handgun licensing requirement, embodied in Maryland's Firearm Safety Act of 2013 (the "FSA" or the "Act"). The FSA, codified in Md. Code , § 5-117.1 of the Public Safety Article ("P.S."), was enacted by the Maryland General Assembly in the aftermath of the 2012 tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, when 20 first-graders and six adults were brutally murdered by a 20-year-old individual who killed the victims with an AR-15-type Bushmaster rifle.
Plaintiffs Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. ("MSI"), for itself and approximately 1,900 members; Atlantic Guns, Inc. ("Atlantic Guns"); Deborah Kay Miller; and Susan Vizas filed suit against defendant Lawrence Hogan, Jr., in his capacity as Governor of Maryland, and defendant Colonel William M. Pallozzi, in his capacity as the Secretary and Superintendent of the Maryland State Police ("MSP").1 ECF 1 (Complaint); ECF 14 (First Amended Complaint or "FAC").2 I shall refer to the defendants collectively as the "State."
In particular, plaintiffs challenge the provision of the Act that requires a Handgun Qualification License ("HQL") as a condition for purchasing a handgun in Maryland. The First Amended Complaint (ECF 14) contains three counts. Count I asserts a claim alleging that the HQL contravenes the Second Amendment. Count II asserts a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, based, inter alia , on statutory vagueness. In Count III, plaintiffs assert an ultra vires claim under Md. Code (2014 Repl.), § 10-125(d) of the State Government Article, challenging alleged rulemaking by the MSP.
As discussed, infra , I previously found that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing as to their claims. ECF 98. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. See Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Hogan , 971 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2020). Only the Second Amendment claim remains.
Cross-motions for summary judgment are now pending. Defendants’ motion (ECF 125) is supported by a memorandum (ECF 125-1) (collectively, "Defendants’ Motion") and 15 exhibits. ECF 125-2 to ECF 125-16. They argue that plaintiffs have failed to present a genuine dispute of material fact to support their Second Amendment challenge to the HQL law. ECF 125-1 at 8. Moreover, defendants assert that the Act "easily satisfies intermediate scrutiny" review. Id.
Plaintiffs have filed a combined cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to Defendants’ Motion (ECF 135), supported by a memorandum (ECF 135-1) (collectively, "Plaintiffs’ Motion") and 28 exhibits. ECF 135-2 to ECF 135-29. They argue that the "undisputed facts" demonstrate that the "HQL requirement is unconstitutional because it effects a ban on handgun acquisition that is inconsistent with the Second Amendment's text, history, and tradition." ECF 135-1 at 12. Further, plaintiffs argue that the Act is subject to strict scrutiny, but they maintain that, even under intermediate scrutiny, defendants cannot meet their burden because the requirements as to the HQL are "unnecessary and ineffective." Id. at 27. Plaintiffs take issue with the "30-day delay" in obtaining the HQL, the fingerprint requirement, and the safety course with the live-fire requirement. Id. at 46-48. Moreover, plaintiffs argue that the HQL process is "burdensome," id. at 12, as well as "superfluous" and "redundant," in light of the "pre-existing and still-continuing handgun registration process," identified by them as the "77R Handgun Registration." Id. at 11.
Defendants have filed a combined opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion and a reply in support of their own motion (ECF 140), along with 15 additional exhibits. Plaintiffs have replied (ECF 150) and submitted four additional exhibits.
With leave of Court (ECF 128), Everytown For Gun Safety ("Everytown"), a gun-violence-prevention organization, filed an amicus brief in support of Defendants’ Motion. ECF 129 ("Amicus Brief"). The Amicus Brief includes 13 exhibits. Everytown argues that the HQL law is constitutional for three reasons: 1) the background check process that the law requires "is longstanding and lawful" under District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008) (" Heller I "); 2) the training requirement is consistent with the original understanding of the Second Amendment; and 3) the licensing fees are consistent with fees and taxes that states have been historically imposed on individuals seeking to obtain a firearm. ECF 129 at 11-12.
No hearing is necessary to resolve the pending motions. See Local Rule 105(6). For the reasons that follow, I conclude that the HQL law is constitutional. Accordingly, I shall grant Defendants’ Motion and deny Plaintiffs’ Motion.
Plaintiff MSI is a non-profit membership organization that is " " ECF 135-3 (Decl. of Mark W. Pennak, MSI President), ¶ 2 (internal citation omitted). MSI's purpose includes "promoting and defending the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms" and "defending the Constitutional right of law-abiding persons to lawfully purchase, own, possess and carry firearms and firearms accessories." Id. As of January 2021, MSI had approximately 1,900 members throughout Maryland. Id.
Plaintiff Atlantic Guns is a licensed federal firearms dealer that was founded in 1950. ECF 135-2 (Decl. of Stephen Schneider, owner of Atlantic Guns, dated 10/3/2018), ¶¶ 2, 3. According to Schneider, handguns are the most popular firearm of choice for Atlantic Guns’ customers and the HQL requirement has "severely impacted" Atlantic Guns’ business. Id. ¶¶ 6, 7. In particular, Schneider states, id. ¶ 8:
The individual plaintiffs, Miller and Vizas, are MSI members. They claim that they would like to own a handgun, but have not attempted to purchase one and do not intend to obtain an HQL.
Miller has never owned a firearm, but her husband owns both handguns and long guns. ECF 135-5 at 7, Tr. 17. In 2017, Miller decided that she wanted to purchase a handgun because she "wanted to be able to defend [herself] in [her] home." Id. at 8-9, Tr. 18-19. Further, she decided that she needed to have a gun for herself, rather than use her husband's gun, because she was concerned that under the "new law," using her husband's gun would constitute "receipt," potentially subjecting her to prosecution. Id. at 9, Tr. 19. Miller claimed that the "time for the training" is an "inconvenience that has deterred" her from obtaining an HQL. Id. at 12, Tr. 33. Specifically, Miller explained that she has "back issues" that make it difficult to sit for the four-hour course and it would also be burdensome to take time off from work. Id.
Vizas decided in 2015 that she wanted to purchase a handgun. ECF 135-4 at 5, Tr. 18. She explained that she wanted to "just have it." Id. at 7, Tr. 25. Vizas took a "hunter safety training" course in Maryland in 2016 because her children wanted to attend the class. Id. at 9, Tr. 37. But, she claimed that the "expense" of the required HQL class and the "time to take the class, to get fingerprints, [and] to wait for a background check" are an "inconvenience that has deterred [her] from obtaining an HQL." Id. at 10, Tr. 43.
In the course of this litigation, MSI has also identified other members who do not possess an HQL but who wish to acquire a handgun. ECF 135-27 (Dep. of John Matthew Clark); ECF 135-17 (Dep. of Dana Hoffman); ECF 135-26 (Dep. of Scott Miller). None of these individuals has actually applied for an HQL. But, they claim that the HQL requirements have deterred them from acquiring licenses and purchasing handguns. Mr. Miller, for example, explained that "the inconvenience" associated with the HQL requirements has deterred him from purchasing a handgun. ECF 135-26 at 3, Tr. 24. But, he also said, id. : "I have no reason to believe that I'd be barred from owning one ..." See also ECF 135-17 at 11-12, Tr. 23-24 ().
As noted, the FAC originally contained three counts. Defendants moved to dismiss. ECF 18. Judge Marvin Garbis, to whom the case was then assigned, issued a Memorandum and Order (ECF 34), granting the motion as to the Instructor Certification Requirement of the Act with respect to Count II. But...
To continue reading
Request your trial