Maryland's Handgun Qualification License Invalidated Under Second Amendment Post-Bruen

Introduction

In the landmark case of Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. et al. v. Governor Wes Moore et al., decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on November 21, 2023, plaintiffs challenged Maryland's stringent handgun qualification licensing (HQL) requirements as a violation of the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs, including Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., individual gun owners, and firearm retailers, argued that the state's additional preliminary licensing steps unjustly restricted the rights of law-abiding citizens to possess handguns.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, which had upheld Maryland's HQL requirements. The appellate court found that Maryland's law failed to satisfy the Supreme Court's two-part test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). Specifically, the court held that Maryland's law not only regulates conduct protected by the Second Amendment but also lacks a historical justification under the nation's firearm regulation traditions. Consequently, the enforcement of the handgun qualification license was enjoined, marking a significant precedent in Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references pivotal Supreme Court decisions that have shaped Second Amendment interpretations:

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): Affirmed an individual's right to possess firearms unconnected with service in a militia.
McDonald v. Chicago (2010): Incorporated the Second Amendment to apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022): Established a two-part test focusing on the Second Amendment's text and historical tradition.

The court primarily leveraged Bruen, which dismantled the previous two-step interest-balancing framework in favor of a text-and-history approach, requiring that any firearm regulation align with historical traditions of firearm regulation.

Legal Reasoning

The court employed Bruen's two-part test to evaluate the constitutionality of Maryland's HQL requirements:

Protected Conduct: The plaintiffs demonstrated that the HQL requirement regulates conduct within the Second Amendment's purview—specifically, the right to possess and carry handguns.
Historical Tradition: Maryland failed to provide a historical analogue justifying the HQL framework. The state argued that the law aligns with historical prohibitions against "dangerous" individuals possessing firearms and militia training requirements. However, the court found these arguments unpersuasive, noting a lack of direct historical parallels and the distinct mechanisms employed by Maryland's law compared to historical regulations.

Additionally, the dissenting opinion criticized the majority for misapplying Bruen, particularly in distinguishing between "shall-issue" and "may-issue" licensing regimes, advocating for remand to allow the district court to apply the new framework comprehensively.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for firearm regulation across the United States:

State-Level Licensing Laws: States with similar handgun qualification requirements may face challenges under the Second Amendment unless they can align their laws with historical firearm regulation traditions.
Shifting Jurisprudence: Courts are now compelled to rigorously assess firearm regulations against historical precedents, potentially leading to the invalidation of various state laws that do not meet this criterion.
Legislative Scrutiny: Legislatures will need to ensure that firearm regulations not only serve a contemporary governmental interest but also resonate with historical practices recognized by the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, the decision underscores the enduring influence of Bruen in shaping Second Amendment litigation, emphasizing the necessity for laws to be deeply rooted in historical firearm regulation traditions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Shall-Issue vs. May-Issue Licensing Regimes

Shall-Issue: Under this regime, authorities must issue a firearm license to any applicant who meets predefined criteria without discretionary judgment. Maryland's HQL falls under this category as it requires applicants to fulfill objective requirements like age, residency, training, and background checks.

May-Issue: This type allows authorities significant discretion to deny firearm licenses even if applicants meet the basic criteria, often requiring proof of "good cause" or a special need. The Supreme Court's Bruen particularly criticized "may-issue" laws for granting excessive discretionary power to officials.

Historical Tradition Test

This test, established in Bruen, requires that any firearm regulation must align with the nation's historical traditions of firearm regulation. This involves identifying statutes from the founding era or historical analogues that justify the modern law's framework, ensuring that contemporary regulations are not arbitrary or excessively restrictive beyond historical precedent.

Burden-Shifting Framework

Prior to Bruen, courts used a two-step burden-shifting analysis to evaluate firearm laws, determining whether the regulation served a substantial governmental interest and was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Bruen replaced this with the historical tradition test, focusing instead on whether the law aligns with the Second Amendment's text and historical practices.

Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit's decision in Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Moore represents a significant advancement in Second Amendment jurisprudence, heavily influenced by the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. By invalidating Maryland's handgun qualification license requirement, the court reinforced the necessity for firearm regulations to be deeply intertwined with historical practices and traditions. This ruling not only curtails Maryland's stringent licensing process but also sets a precedent that may challenge similar laws nationwide, compelling states to revisit and potentially revise their firearm regulations to ensure compliance with the Second Amendment as interpreted through a historical lens.