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.

September 30th, 2016

Today, Maryland Shall Issue, Atlantic Guns of Rockville and Silver Spring, MD, and several individual citizens of Maryland filed suit in federal district court in Baltimore, challenging every aspect of the Handgun Qualification License (HQL) requirements imposed by the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, and the implementing regulations and practices imposed by the Maryland State Police in 2013.  A copy of the complaint, as filed in court, can be found HERE on the Maryland Shall Issue website.

 

Today, in a sharply split decision, a majority of the en banc court of the Ninth Circuit held that concealed carry outside the home is not protected, at all, by the Second Amendment.  In so holding the en banc majority declined to decide whether the Second Amendment protects open carry outside the home, stating that "[i]n light of our holding, we need not, and do not, answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms openly in public."  The majority dismissed the reality that California law flatly prohibits open carry outside the home, reasoning that plaintiffs had challenged only the "good cause" requirement for concealed carry, not the law banning open carry. The majority decision drew sharp dissents from several members of the en banc court.  The next step for the plaintiffs would be to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which is now sitting, since Justice Scalia's death in February, with only 8 members.  That reality may make certiorari difficult to obtain.

 

To read the full decision, click here.

Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view. 

Dear MSI Member: 

  While we are still a bit short of money (please keep those contributions coming in!) we nonetheless are gearing up for the HQL suit on the premise that we will file it this Fall.  One of the essential elements in any suit in federal court is “standing”

Many, including members of Maryland's Handgun Permit Review Board have asked and even speculated about the differences and definitions of a Review vs. a Hearing.  Here is what you need to know about the differences between the two.

What is the status of Kolbe v. Hogan and how did we get here?

Continue Reading

---