Md. Shall Issue v. Hogan
Citation | 353 F.Supp.3d 400 |
Decision Date | 15 November 2018 |
Docket Number | CIVIL NO. JKB-18-1700 |
Parties | MARYLAND SHALL ISSUE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Lawrence HOGAN, in His Official Capacity as Governor of Maryland, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Cary Johnson Hansel, III, Hansel Law, P.C., Baltimore, MD, for Plaintiffs.
Jennifer L. Katz, Office of the Attorney General, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant.
Dep't of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives (ATF), Bump-Stock-Type Devices, 83 Fed. Reg. 13442, 13443 (proposed Mar. 29, 2018) [hereinafter "DOJ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking"] (cited in Amicus Brief at 2).
Machine guns have been regulated under federal law for decades. See e.g. , National Firearms Act of 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-474, 48 Stat. 1236 ( ); Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449 ( ). However, federal law does not classify most bump-stock-type devices as machine guns, despite their impact on a semiautomatic weapon's rate of fire. See DOJ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 83 Fed. Reg. at 13444–46 ( ). Largely unregulated, such devices are widely available, often for $200 or less. (Amicus Brief at 6.)
In the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, numerous elected officials called for changes to federal law. DOJ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 83 Fed. Reg. at 13446. Even the National Rifle Association publicly declared support for more stringent regulation. See Polly Mosendz & Kim Bhasin, Bump-Fire Stock Prices Double, Thanks to the NRA , Bloomberg (Oct. 5, 2017), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-05/bump-fire-stock-prices-double-thanks-to-the-nra (cited in Amicus Brief at 6 n.17). In early 2018, President Trump "directed the Department of Justice ... ‘to dedicate all available resources[,] ... as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.’ " DOJ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 83 Fed. Reg. at 13446 ( ). Shortly thereafter, DOJ proposed a rule that would reclassify bump-stock-type devices as machine guns under federal law, id. at 13442, but no changes have yet been made.
The Maryland General Assembly moved more decisively. In April 2018, the democratically elected representatives of Maryland enacted Senate Bill 707, which made manufacture, sale, transport, or possession of "rapid fire trigger activators," including bump stocks and similar devices, unlawful in Maryland. 2018 Md. Laws ch. 252 ( )[hereinafter "SB-707"]. In crafting the law, legislators expressed concern about mass shootings, the lethality of firearms equipped with bump-stock-type devices, their unregulated status, and the danger to public safety. See S. Judicial Proceedings Comm. Floor Rep. on SB-707, at 4, 2018 Reg. Sess. (Md. 2018) ( ); Testimony of Sen. Victor R. Ramirez in Support of SB-707 at 2, S. Judicial Proceedings Comm., 2018 Reg. Sess. (Md. 2018) () Seven other states similarly moved to restrict bump-stock-type devices. (Amicus at 11 n.33 ( ).)
In this case, a putative class action filed on June 11, 2018, Plaintiffs seek to invalidate SB-707's restrictions on bump stocks and similar devices. Plaintiff Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. (MSI), a non-profit membership organization "dedicated to the preservation and advancement of gun owners' rights in Maryland," asserts claims on its own behalf, and on behalf of its members and others similarly situated. (Compl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 1.) Four individual MSI members are also named as individual plaintiffs. (Id. ¶¶ 9-12.) Plaintiffs have sued Governor Larry Hogan in his official capacity, alleging that SB-707 violates their constitutional rights under the Federal and State Constitutions. (Id. ¶ 3.) The Complaint puts forward five counts: a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment (Count I); a violation of the Takings Clause of the Maryland Constitution, Article III, § 40 (Count II); a violation of the federal Due Process Clause, because of the imposition of an impossible condition (Count III); a violation of the federal Due Process Clause, because of vagueness (Count IV); and a violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Constitution, because of the abrogation of vested property rights (Count V). (Id. )
Currently before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 9.) The issue is fully briefed, and no hearing is required. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion will be granted as to all counts of the Complaint.
On April 24, 2018, Governor Hogan signed Senate Bill 707 ("the Act," or "SB-707") into law. (Compl. ¶ 13.) The Act makes it unlawful for any person to "manufacture, possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive a rapid fire trigger activator" or to "transport" such a device into the state. SB-707, sec. 2, § 4-305.1(a). Violation of the Act is a criminal misdemeanor subject to a term of imprisonment up to three years, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. SB-707, sec. 1, § 4-306(a).
The Act defines a "rapid fire trigger activator" to be "any device, including a removable manual or power-driven activating device, constructed so that, when installed in or attached to a firearm the rate at which the trigger is activated increases; or the rate of fire increases." SB-707, sec. 1, § 4-301(M)(1). The term is defined to include "a bump stock, trigger crank, hellfire trigger, binary trigger system, burst trigger system, or a copy or a similar device, regardless of the producer or manufacturer." § 4-301(M)(2). These named devices are defined as follows:
Finally, the Act exempts from the definition any "semiautomatic replacement trigger that improves the performance and functionality over the stock trigger." § 4-301(M)(3).
The Act contains an exception clause to permit certain individuals to continue to possess the otherwise prohibited devices in Maryland, provided that the individual:
(1) possessed the rapid fire trigger activator before October 1, 2018; (2) applied to the [ATF] before October 1, 2018, for authorization to possess a rapid fire trigger activator; (3) received authorization to possess a rapid fire trigger activator from the [ATF] before October 1, 2019; and (4) is in compliance with all federal requirements for possession of a rapid fire trigger...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Md. Shall Issue, Inc. v. Hogan
...401 U.S. 37, 42 (1971)). Chief Judge Bredar of this Court recently considered an analogous situation in Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Hogan, 353 F. Supp. 3d 400, 418-19 (D. Md. 2018). In that case, MSI and four members challenged Maryland's prohibition of the manufacture, sale, transport, o......
-
Todman v. Mayor & City Council of Balt.
...(3) cases in which regulations compel a landowner to suffer "a permanent physical occupation of real property." Md. Shall Issue v. Hogan, 353 F.Supp.3d 400, 412–13 (D. Md. 2018) (citations omitted).Plaintiffs’ claim here does not fall into the first category, as the City did not take posses......
-
McCutchen v. United States
...the Takings Clause. Id. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland recently reached a similar conclusion in Maryland Shall Issue v. Hogan. See generally 353 F. Supp. 3d 400 (D. Md. 2018). It rejected plaintiffs' claim that their property (bump stocks and similar devices) ......
-
Student "A" v. Hogan
...use of land," and (3) regulations that require a "permanent physical occupation of real property," Maryland Shall Issue v. Hogan , 353 F. Supp. 3d 400, 412–13 (D. Md. 2018) (citations omitted),7 none of which are implicated by the plaintiffs' claims. Nor can the plaintiffs successfully show......