Well, the Legislative Season is upon us.  More on that below.  But the really big news is that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari (agreed to decide) its first major Second Amendment case since McDonald v. Chicago was decided back in 2010. 

Rarely have so many misguided arguments been contained in so few words as those contained in The Sun’s January 24, 2019 editorial, “Guns and the new Supreme Court.” It's hard to know where to begin.  But let’s start with Baltimore and the assertion in the editorial that “Baltimore’s murder problem and its gun problem are essentially one in the same.”  Rubbish.

Baltimore City kindly offers, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

1. Litigation Updates
   2. Medical Marijuana
   3. Attorney General Frosh and the Maryland Defense Act
   4. Southern Maryland Wear and Carry Permit Seminar Friday!
   5. Lots of Gun Shows in November!
   6. December Membership Meeting

YOUR ATTENTION AND ACTION ARE NEEDED IMMEDIATELY

In a huge decision authored by Judge O'Scannlain, a split panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that Hawaii's ban on open carry outside the home in that state violates the Second Amendment under any level of scrutiny. The decision, Young v. Hawaii, can be found here. The decision is very scholarly, carefully reasoned and a powerful statement that the Second Amendment is not a "second-class" right or a constitutional "orphan."

And it is a *wonderful* choice. While serving as an attorney in the Department of Justice, I argued a number of cases before Judge Kavanaugh, winning most, losing a few. Win or lose, I found his demeanor and questions from the bench during an argument and his written opinions and dissents to be outstanding.

On June 11, 2018, MSI and four individuals filed a class action suit challenging SB 707, the Bump Stock Bill that was signed into law by Governor Hogan on April 24.

The Maryland State Police's Online Portal for HQL Applications and Handgun Instructors will be down from June 13th through June 15th

Continue Reading

Maryland Shall Issue (MSI) applauds the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) announcement of its support of a new challenge against the State of Maryland's unfair and discriminatory wear and carry permit system in federal district court.  The case name is Malpasso v. Pallozzi, No. 18-1064 (D. MD).  The Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, which is the NRA's Maryland state organization, is also a named plaintiff. The lawsuit candidly acknowledges that the relief sought "is contrary to Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013), but alleges that the Fourth Circuit's decision in Woollard was "wrongly decided" for the "reasons explained in Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2017), and that the purpose of the suit is "to seek to have Woollard overturned."  The suit is thus similar to complaints filed by the same counsel in New York (New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Beach, No. 18-134 (N.D.N.Y.)), and in New Jersey (Rogers v. Grewal, No. 18-1544 (D.N.J.)) in which existing adverse Second Circuit and Third Circuit precedent is challenged in the same way. These suits all take advantage of the "circuit split" created by the D.C. Circuit's decision in Wrenn. The resolution of such circuit splits is often the reason that cases are reviewed in the Supreme Court. 

With the recent changes in Maryland law concerning medical marijuana, see MD Code, Health - General, § 13-3304 et seq., and the push to legalize the use of marijuana in Maryland, a recurring issue is how such marijuana use would affect your Second Amendment rights.  The short answer is that it may well act to abrogate those rights by (1) barring a FFL from selling a firearm to such a user and (2), by making such a user a prohibited person under federal law.

Well no surprise, Brian Frosh, as Maryland Attorney General, has opposed our Petition for Certiorari (definition) in Kolbe.  We are shocked (not really).  You can find that opposition here.

Today, the D.C. Circuit denied the District of Columbia's petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in the Wrenn and Grace cases!

On September 6, 2017, Federal District Judge Garbis swept away the State's arguments and denied, in all important respects, the State's motion to dismiss.  You can read the full decision here.

The hearing on Monday, August 7, 2017 before federal District Judge Garbis on the State's Motion To Dismiss lasted almost two hours and was very interesting.

Today, the D.C. Circuit released its long-awaited decision in Wrenn v. D.C and Grace v. DC.

Well, gun control proponents at the City of Baltimore are at it again.

There may come a time when you need an attorney knowledgeable in firearm law. It could be for something relatively simple like a gun trust, handling transfers between family members, or a much more urgent need, a case of self-defense. As a responsible gun owner, you should consider building a relationship with an attorney before their services are needed. Views and opinions on various legal matters and laws are extremely common on the Internet, and members of law enforcement may be familiar with some things.  Do not rely on such informal sources.  Even law enforcement officers are often wrong on the law. The safest approach for whatever you need is to build a relationship with a competent attorney.

MSI Fights Back on the State's Motion to Dismiss MSI's HQL lawsuit. Today, MSI and the other plaintiffs filed their Opposition to the State's motion to dismiss filed in federal district court.