MDGA 2021 - MSI Testimony in Support of SB221 - Handgun Qualification License - Firearms Safety Training

pexels photo 5202421 small

✅ SB221

The HQL Statute and the Bill:

This bill would amend MD Code, Public Safety, 5-117.1 (HQL statute). That Section prohibits law-abiding, responsible Maryland citizens from acquiring a handgun unless they have a Handgun Qualification License (“HQL”). Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety, § 5-117.1(c). Subsection (d) imposes training requirements, including a (i) a minimum of 4 hours of instruction by a qualified handgun instructor” consisting of “(ii) classroom instruction on: 1. State firearm law; 2. home firearm safety; 3. handgun mechanisms and operation; and (iii) a firearms orientation component that demonstrates the person’s safe operation and handling of a firearm.” In regulations, the Maryland State Police have added a new and additional live-fire training requirement, mandating that the HQL applicant “safely fires at least one round of live ammunition.” COMAR 29.03.01.29(C)(4). That live round requirement is not found in the statute.

In the interests of full disclosure, we note that the live-fire requirement, along with the rest of the HQL statute, is presently being challenged by MSI in federal court. See MSI v. Hogan, 2017 WL 3891705 (D. MD. 2017) (denying the State’s motion to dismiss). The district court, in a later decision, held that the plaintiffs lacked standing without reaching the merits of the constitutionality of the HQL statute. That decision was very recently reversed on appeal. See MSI v. Hogan, 971 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2020). Further proceedings are now being conducted in district court on remand. On the merits, we believe that it is highly likely that the Supreme Court will, in an appropriate case, soon make clear that the “text, history and tradition” test is controlling in determining the constitutionality of gun control legislation – not tiers of scrutiny. Four members of the Supreme Court recently employed this very approach in NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. City of New York, 140 S.Ct. 1525 (2020), where a majority of the Court held that the case was mooted by the repeal of the offending City of New York ordinance, but the concurring Justice and the three dissenting Justices discussed the merits in separate opinions. See Id. at 1526 (Kavanaugh, J.) (concurring in judgment of mootness, but agreeing with Justice Alito’s discussion of Heller and McDonald on the merits; Id. at 1540-41 (Alito, J., joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, dissenting from the judgment of mootness but noting further on the merits that the City’s ordinance violated the Second Amendment under Heller and McDonald). Justice Thomas made the same point very recently in another case. Rogers, et al. v. Grewal, 140 S.Ct.1865, 1868 (2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). See also Heller v. District of Columbia (i.e. “Heller II”), 670 F.3d 1244, 1269 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (“In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.”).

With Justice Barrett now joining the Court, we believe that a solid majority of the Court will adhere to these principles when the issue is presented. See Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437, 452-53 (7th Cir. 2019) (Barrett, J., dissenting). In Wrenn v. D.C., 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2017), the D.C. Circuit applied this text, history and tradition test in striking down the carry statute enacted by the District of Columbia. The DC statute that was invalidated was materially identical to the Maryland carry statute. The HQL statute will likely fail under the text, history and tradition test, just as the D.C. carry statute failed in Wrenn. Ironically, eliminating the live fire requirement will simply help the State defend this statute in this ongoing litigation. A failure to enact this bill will help MSI and the other plaintiffs win the case on the merits. Should MSI and the other plaintiffs prevail, in whole or in part, the State would be liable for substantial attorneys’ fees and costs under federal law, 42 U.S.C. §1988. That cost will likely be several hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The Live-Fire Requirement Is Not Authorized By the HQL Statute and Is Discriminatory:

It is well-established in Maryland law that “[a]n agency’s authority extends only as far as the General Assembly prescribes.” Thanner Enters., LLC v. Balt. Cty., 995 A.2d 257, 263 (Md. 2010). Thus, an agency’s rule or regulations cannot “contradict the language or purpose of the statute.” Medstar Health v. Md. Health Care Comm’n, 827 A.2d 83, 96 (Md. 2003). Here, the Maryland State Police has grafted onto Section 5-117.1(d)(3)(iii)’s requirement of a “firearms orientation component” an entirely new “practice component” under which the applicant must safely fire “at least one round of live ammunition.” COMAR 29.03.01.29C(4). Although Section 5-117.1(n) provides that “[t]he Secretary may adopt regulations to carry out the provisions of this section,” it does not allow the Maryland State Police to add new “provisions,” such as adding “a practice component” so as to mandate live-fire.

The State Police rule is directly contrary to legislative intent. As originally proposed, the HQL bill required a safety course that included “a firearms qualification component that demonstrates the person’s proficiency and use of the firearm.” 2013 Leg. Sess. SB 281 (First Reader) at 17.9. By common usage of these terms, a “qualification component” that demonstrates “proficiency” calls for live-fire. This “qualification component” was deleted by the General Assembly, however, and Section 5-117.1(d)(3)(iii) was changed to its current language by amendment in the House of Delegates proffered by then-Delegate McDermott. Chapter 427 of the 2013 Laws of Maryland. The debate on the floor of the House of Delegates confirms that the amendment was intended to eliminate a live-fire requirement that would have been associated with the “proficiency and use” language of the original bill. See General Assembly of Maryland, 2013 Regular Session Proceedings – House Audio, April 2, 2013, Session 2, at 19:05 (April 2, 2013). The General Assembly’s rejection of this language in the law that passed means that live-fire training exceeds the scope of the statutory grant. This body should insist that the State Police follow the law that the General Assembly actually passed.

The live-fire requirement is not only unauthorized, it effectively discriminates against residents of the City of Baltimore and the poor populations in Maryland. This requirement is designed to erect a barrier to access for those living in urban areas like Baltimore City where no ranges can be found or reached by mass transportation. Imposition of a live fire requirement by the State is simply a means to further burden and discourage law-abiding Maryland citizens from acquiring a handgun. Specifically, training without a live-fire requirement can take place anywhere, while training that must include live-fire can only take place at a firing range, the availability of which is highly limited (there are none in Baltimore City). The need for a range, in turn, acts as a complete barrier to the acquisition of a HQL License by persons, especially the poor, minorities and the disadvantaged, who live in areas, such as Baltimore and most of urban Maryland, where access to a shooting range is highly limited or non-existent. Range access is also expensive and requiring it means that the cost of the training is likewise expensive. Indeed, the discharge of such live ammunition, required by the State Police regulation, is flatly banned by local law in the urban portions of Maryland, including all of the City of Baltimore, all of Prince Georges County and most of Montgomery County and the entire Metro area of Baltimore County. The sole exception is for discharges taking place on “established ranges” which are protected from local regulation by state law, MD Code, Criminal Law § 4-209(d)(2). Again, there are very few such ranges in these areas (and none in Baltimore City).

There is no justification for a live-fire requirement that has this sort of intentional discriminatory impact. The residents of Baltimore and the urban areas of Maryland should not be placed at such a profound disadvantage. Persons with means will be able to pay a private instructor who will have access to a range. Cost will not be a barrier for these individuals. They will be able to obtain an HQL. Poorer Marylanders are out of luck. That is intolerable. Like it or not, under the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), all law-abiding, responsible adult citizens have a right to buy a handgun for self-defense. Period. Full stop. Not even the State Attorney General has disputed that basic premise in the MSI litigation. That right should be available to every law-abiding responsible citizen, regardless of whether they live in Baltimore or somewhere else in Maryland. By reversing the discriminatory requirement of live-fire, this bill will help ensure that right is available to all law-abiding citizens, just like other constitutional rights. The HQL statute will eventually fail to survive constitutional challenge. In the meantime, the law-abiding citizens of Baltimore and of the other urban portions of Maryland should enjoy the same rights as enjoyed by persons with means. We urge a favorable report.

Sincerely,

Mark W. Pennak

President, Maryland Shall Issue, Inc.


Latest News

Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. et al v. Montgomery County, Maryland

 
On May 28, 2021, Maryland Shall Issue, Engage Armament, ICE Firearms & Defensive Training, and several residents of Montgomery County, Maryland, filed suit against the County, challenging its enactment of Bill 4-21. That Bill criminalizes the mere possession of privately made firearms without providing compensation and redefines the meaning of "place of public assembly" to encompass virtually the entirety of Montgomery County just in order to criminalize otherwise perfectly lawful firearms possession in the home and elsewhere. The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of damages, including punitive damages. 

You can read the complaint HERE.

Read more ...

Hulbert v. Pope goes to Trial!



We at Maryland Shall Issue send our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Jeff Hulbert. Jeff passed this morning (5/3/2021) surrounded by his loved ones after a lengthy and valiant battle against cancer. He was an outspoken and stalwart proponent of individual rights and a fierce supporter of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Jeff founded the Patriot Picket, a group that "hits the bricks" with stylized signs and pointed political messages in promotion and defense of those rights. Please keep the Hulbert family in your thoughts and prayers as we remember and honor Jeff.



A Decision Three Long Years in the Making (and it still isn't over)

The First Amendment protects the right to advocate so in fundamentally important ways, the First Amendment helps protect the Second Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, including unlawful arrests. So when two MSI members, Jeff and Kevin Hulbert, were arrested on the sidewalks of Annapolis on the evening of February 5th, 2018 for holding edgy signs that criticized the powers that be in the General Assembly, MSI and the Hulberts swiftly filed suit in federal court in Baltimore for a violation of their First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights. The arresting officers were named as defendants, but they are represented by counsel from the State Attorney General's Office.

Video of arrests on 2/5/2018 - "1st Amendment Under Attack"

In an opening gambit, the defendants first moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, but that effort failed when the Court didn't buy it. Then extensive discovery ensured, which was delayed with the pandemic. That discovery showed that the arrests that night stemmed from a call from the Governor's mansion to have the group moved because the "mansion" did not want to be bothered with questions or attempts at conversations by the protestors. Everyone (including the defendants and other officers at the Capitol Police) admitted that these orders came from the "mansion," but, amazingly, no one at the "mansion" could identify who gave the orders. We did discover that such orders happen as often as twice a month, or whenever someone at the "mansion" decides that the "mansion" does not want to deal with completely peaceful protestors lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights. We can only wonder at the identity of this "mansion" person.

Read more ...

Contact Info

Headquarters:

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

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