Category: Public Documents
Downloads: Page 3 of 13
Downloads: 253
pdf0En Banc Opinion in Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Dept (4th Cir) HOT

A case of interest. Finding that Baltimore's use of a surveillance plane violates the 4th Amendment.

pdf1MSI v. Montgomery County - Emergency Motion for Partial Summary Judgment HOT
pdf2MSI v. Montgomery County - Memorandum in Support of Emergency Motion for Partial Summary Judgment HOT
pdf3MSI v. Montgomery County - Complaint HOT
pdf4Call v Jones - Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (4th Cir) HOT
pdf5Hulbert v Pope - ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment HOT

United States District Court for the District Court of Maryland Case# 1:18-cv-00461

pdf6Hulbert v Pope - Memorandum Opinion HOT

United States District Court for the District Court of Maryland Case# 1:18-cv-00461

pdf7HQL Suit - Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibit 28 HOT
pdf8HQL Suit - Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibit 22 HOT
pdf9HQL Suit - Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment HOT
pdf10Reply Brief For Petitioners - MSI v Hogan (SB707 Rapid Fire Trigger Activators) HOT
pdf11Brief in Opposition to Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - MSI v Hogan (SB707 Rapid Fire Trigger Activators) HOT
pdf12GOA v Garland 6CA Opinion HOT
pdf13HQL suit Motion for SJ and Opposition to State motion for SJ HOT

This is the combined motion for summary judgment and the opposition to the State's motion for summary judgment in the HQL litigation 

pdf14Brief of Amici Curiae David Codrea, Scott Heuman and Owen Monroe in Support of Petitioners - MSI v Hogan (SB707 Rapid Fire Trigger Activators) HOT
pdf15Brief of Amicus Curiae The Cato Institute in Support of Petitioners - MSI v Hogan (SB707 Rapid Fire Trigger Activators) HOT
pdf16Brief of Amicus Curiae Firearms Policy Coalition in Support of Petitioners - MSI v Hogan (SB707 Rapid Fire Trigger Activators) HOT
pdf17Holloway v Rosen - Amicus Brief in Support of Petitioner HOT
pdf18Petition for Writ of Certiorari in MSI v Hogan (SB707 Rapid Fire Trigger Activators) HOT

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States in MSI v Hogan (SB707 Rapid Fire Trigger Activators).

Read more here: ...

pdf19Complaint in Smith & Wesson v Grewal HOT

Complaint as filed by Smith & Wesson against Gurbir Grewal in his official capacity as Attorney General for New Jersey.
Case 2:20-cv-19047 in The United States District Court for the

...

Latest News

US Supreme Court Orders Response from MD Attorney General Brian Frosh in "Assault Weapon" Ban Challenge

On January 14, the Supreme Court ordered the Maryland Attorney General to file a response to the petition for certiorari filed by plaintiffs in Bianchi v. Frosh, No. 21-901. In that case, plaintiffs are challenging Maryland's "assault weapon" ban as unconstitutional.

That order means, at the minimum, that at least one Justice on the Court wants a response. It also likely means that the Court will hold this petition pending a decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, No. 20-843, in which the Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of New York's "good cause" requirement for carry permits. Holding Bianchi would be consistent with the hold that the Court has apparently placed on the petition filed in the New Jersey "large-capacity magazine" case, ANJRPC v. Bruck, No. 20-1507. The petition in that case has been pending in the Supreme Court since April of 2021. All of this is good news. A decision in Bruen this Spring may mean that the Court will thereafter vacate the lower court decisions in both Bianchi and ANJRPC and remand for further consideration in light of Bruen. At least, we hope that is the outcome.

The Dangers of Maryland's Carry Laws

On August 12, 2021, Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals, ruled that a violation of Md. Criminal Law § 4-203(a)(1)(i) is a strict liability crime. Put simply, if one has a handgun on or about them and is not authorized to do so, they are guilty of violating the law. The case is Lawrence v. State, 471 Md. 101 (2021).

Section 4-203 is the statute that broadly prohibits the wear, carry, or transport of handguns within the State. Specifically, § 4-203(a)(1)(i) states:

 (a)    (1)    Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:

            (i)    wear, carry, or transport a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person;

There are a few exceptions to this ban (found in subsection (b) of Section 4-203), such as one having a Maryland Wear and Carry Permit, possession in the home or business (by the business owner), or when transporting an unloaded handgun (kept in an enclosed case or enclosed holster) between a gun shop and one's residence or from their residence to a gun range. But, outside these sharply limited exceptions set out in subsection (b), the passage above otherwise broadly criminalizes having a pistol on (or about) the person. 

Read more ...

Contact Info

Mailing Address:

Maryland Shall Issue®, Inc.
9613 Harford Rd
Ste C #1015
Baltimore, MD 21234-2150

Phone:  410-849-9197
Email: 
Web:   www.marylandshallissue.org