Maryland defends Handgun Qualification License before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
May 09, 2024
On August 23, 2024, the en banc panel of the 4th Circuit issued its decision upholding the Handgun Qualification License law.
This article was updated August 23, 2024 to reflect new developments since the first version posted May 9, 2024.
Last year, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found Maryland’s Handgun Qualification License (HQL) unconstitutional. An HQL is a form of firearm purchaser licensing that requires would-be handgun purchasers to apply for and receive a license. The two-judge majority ruling stated that the HQL, while not a permanent ban, violated the Second Amendment because it prevented individuals from immediately obtaining a handgun. The State of Maryland successfully petitioned for the case to be heard by a panel of all active judges of the Fourth Circuit – a process known as a re-hearing en banc.
On March 21st, 16 judges of the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia heard oral arguments in Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore . On August 23, 2024, the en banc panel of the 4 th Circuit issued its decision upholding the HQL law. The timeline below shows the long, winding road through the courts of suits, challenges, and Supreme Court decisions that have affected this case.
Maryland Shall Issue: Gun owners’ rights non-profit organization.
Governor Wes Moore/State of Maryland and the HQL requirements included in the Firearm Safety Act of 2013.
While the court case relates to the challenge of the entirety of the purchaser licensing system in Maryland, the oral arguments focused almost exclusively on whether the Constitution allows for a wait of any length of time before an individual may take possession of a firearm.
Maryland Shall Issue asserted that the HQL, which currently allows the State up to 30 days to process an application , violates the Second Amendment.
The State and multiple judges on the panel noted that the Supreme Court seemed to bless shall-issue public carry licensing regimes, similar to Maryland’s HQL, except perhaps where wait times are too long. Arguing that the Bruen decision indicated that only law-abiding, responsible, adult citizens are covered by the Second Amendment, the state asserted that persons seeking to purchase a firearm must show that they are among that group by completing the HQL process. Additionally, the State asserted that courts have recognized a historical tradition of regulating firearms by dangerous persons. According to the state, the requirements put in place by the HQL, including fingerprinting, a thorough background check, and firearm safety training, ensure that the individual is of legal age, a resident of the state, not prohibited from possessing a firearm, and will be a responsible gun owner.
On August 23, 2024, the en banc 4 th Circuit issued a 14-2 decision upholding Maryland’s HQL law against the Second Amendment challenge. Judge Keenan writing for the majority, joined by 9 other judges of the 4 th Circuit, relied on language in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen that appeared to bless shall-issue public carrying licensing regimes and determined that Maryland’s HQL was one such shall-issue licensing law. The majority rejected the challenger's assertion that the “relatively brief application, review, and approval process of the HQL statute” was unconstitutionally lengthy. Four judges agreed with the ultimate outcome of the case but disagreed with the reasoning and either authored concurring opinions or joined concurring opinions. Only two judges dissented and would have found the law unconstitutional.
For an in-depth discussion with our legal team, tune in to our podcast: Sufficiently Analogous . Although recorded before the en banc decision, the first episode provides an overview of the 3-judge panel opinion, reactions to oral arguments and takes a deep dive into the research on firearm purchaser licensing and historical analogues for firearm purchaser licensing.
