Woollard v. Gallagher

Last updated

Woollard v. Gallagher
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Full case nameRaymond Woollard, et al. v. Denis Gallagher, et al.
ArguedOctober 24, 2012
DecidedMarch 21, 2013
Citation712 F.3d 865
Case history
Prior historyWoollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp. 2d 462 (D. Md. 2012)
Subsequent history Cert. denied, 571 U.S. 952(2013).
Court membership
Judges sitting Robert Bruce King, Andre M. Davis, Albert Diaz
Case opinions
MajorityKing, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. II

Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp. 2d 462 (D. Md. 2012), reversed sub. nom., Woollard v Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013), was a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of Raymond Woollard, a resident of the State of Maryland, by the Second Amendment Foundation against Terrence Sheridan, Secretary of the Maryland State Police, and members of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' refusal to grant a concealed carry permit renewal to Mr. Woollard on the basis that he "...ha[d] not demonstrated a good and substantial reason to wear, carry or transport a handgun as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger in the State of Maryland" was a violation of Mr. Woollard's rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore unconstitutional. [1] The trial court found in favor of Mr. Woollard, [2] However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that decision.

Contents

The case is notable as being the first direct challenge to a "may-issue" concealed carry firearms law in the United States, and also for being uncommon among challenges to U.S. firearms law in that the plaintiffs were successful in federal District Court, rather than requiring appeal to a Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court before a decision was handed down in the plaintiffs' favor.

Background

The State of Maryland currently prohibits the carry of firearms, be it concealed or open, without a permit issued to the person by the State. These permits are currently issued on a discretionary basis, beyond the federal prohibitions on for example former mental patients and domestic abusers owning lethal guns, (so-called "may-issue" licensing), based upon, in part, a finding that the applicant "has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger." [1]

In 2002, Raymond Woollard was the victim of a home invasion in Baltimore County by his son-in-law, Kris Lee Abbot. Subsequent to this crime, he applied for and was granted a concealed carry permit in 2003, and a renewal was granted in 2006 after Abbot, having violated his probation from the home invasion, was released from prison. However, in 2009, a second renewal application by Woollard was denied on the grounds that Woollard had failed to provide evidence of a continuing threat to his safety. Woollard appealed to the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board, and was again denied; the Board stating that Woollard "...ha[d] not submitted any documentation to verify threats occurring beyond his residence, where he can already legally carry a handgun."

The suit was filed on June 29, 2010, in United States District Court for the District of Maryland, contesting that "Maryland's handgun permitting scheme is facially violative of both the Second Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." [1] The Plaintiffs sought relief in the form of the removal of the "good and substantial reason" requirement of Maryland's firearm laws. As the facts of the case were not in dispute, both parties petitioned the Court for summary judgment on their behalf. Alan Gura, who successfully argued District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago before the U.S. Supreme Court, argued the case pro hac vice for the plaintiffs.

District Court Decision

In an opinion dated March 2, 2012, District Judge Benson Legg granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. The Court declined to consider Plaintiffs' arguments based on the Equal Protection Clause, instead deciding based on the arguments of the Second Amendment violations. The decision refers to District of Columbia v. Heller , and to relevant post-Heller lower court decisions such as U.S. v. Chester (628 F.3d 673, 4th Cir. 2010) and U.S. v Masciandaro (638 F.3d 459, 4th Cir. 2010) and found that application of intermediate scrutiny is called for; "In order to prevail, the State must demonstrate that the challenged regulation is reasonably adapted to a substantial governmental interest." [1]

The Court found that, under this standard, the Maryland law requiring "good and substantial reason" was overly broad; it did not specifically prohibit persons such as convicted criminals or the mentally ill, or even individuals "whose conduct indicates that he or she is potentially a danger to the public if entrusted with a handgun", as is found in the laws of other "may-issue" states. The law is instead, as the Defendants admitted to in oral arguments, a rationing system intended solely to reduce the number of firearms carried, by restricting the "privilege" based on a demonstrated need beyond a general desire for self-defense. The Court found that while the Defendants articulated many compelling reasons why limiting firearms is in the interest of public safety, the "good reason" requirement did little to combat any of the situations offered; an applicant who has "good reason" to carry a firearm may still have it forcibly removed or stolen from their person, may still cause a negligent discharge or other accidental injury, and may still use the gun in a criminal manner. In fact, Maryland's law, the decision states, "places firearms in the hands of those most likely to use them in a violent situation by limiting the issuance of permits to 'groups of individuals who are at greater risk than others of being the victims of crime.'" [1]

Summary judgment was entered in favor of the Plaintiffs; however, a temporary stay was granted by the trial court, and Judge Legg heard oral arguments on May 23 to determine if that stay will be continued while the State appeals the decision to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. [2] On July 23, 2012, Judge Legg issued an order dissolving the temporary stay on his previous injunction, effective 14 days after the issuance of said order. [3]

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

The appeal was filed by the defendants in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 6, 2012, as Woollard v Gallagher (12-1437). Denis Gallagher is a member of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board and was a co-defendant at the District level. Terrence Sheridan remains a co-defendant/appellant.

On August 2, 2012, the Fourth Circuit granted Maryland's motion for a stay pending the outcome of this appeal. This overruled the District Court's order that would have lifted the stay effective August 7.

Oral arguments in the case were heard on October 24, 2012, beginning at 9:30 before Panel 1 of the Court. During the hearing, questions were posed to both lawyers from the bench about the appropriateness of Woollard filing suit in Federal court challenging a ruling by a state agency, an action subject to the application of the Younger abstention and Rooker-Feldman doctrines. Questions were also posed as to the curiousness of Maryland's statute only prohibiting handguns and not long guns; Appellants asserted that the permitting law was put in place in response to a problem with handgun violence; that handguns were overwhelmingly the weapon of choice for criminals and the law was enacted to control this problem.

On March 21, 2013, the Fourth Circuit unanimously reversed the District Court opinion. [4] The Circuit Court found that the trial court's judgment hinged on a finding that the rights of the Second Amendment extend outside one's own home, and that the right is "impermissibly burdened" by the "good and substantial cause" requirement. The Court found that, while the "good cause" requirement does indeed infringe upon Woollard's Second Amendment rights, the requirement nevertheless passes intermediate scrutiny (the standard previously determined applicable in Masciandaro and Chester, heard by the same Circuit), by holding that Maryland's desire to reduce handgun violence is a "substantial government interest", and that the "good cause" requirement is "reasonably fitted" to this interest in several ways, primarily by reducing the number of guns on the street, which the Court agreed with the Appellants provides several secondary effects that significantly reduce handgun violence and increase the ability of the police to distinguish criminals from law-abiding citizens. En banc appeal to the full Circuit Court was denied.

United States Supreme Court

The Second Amendment Foundation filed a Writ of Certiorari with the SCOTUS for this case July 9, 2013. Respondent Gallagher filed a response brief on September 9, 2013. Several amici briefs, all in favor of Petitioner, have been filed. As of September 25, 2013, this case has been scheduled for conference to occur on October 11, 2013. The petition was denied on October 15, 2013. [5] [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Sullivan Act was a gun control law in New York state that took effect in 1911. The NY state law requires licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them in public is a felony. The law was the subject of controversy regarding both its selective enforcement and the licensing bribery schemes it enabled. The act was named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a Tammany Hall Democrat.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open carry in the United States</span> Practice of carrying a visible firearm in some US states

In the United States, open carry refers to the practice of visibly carrying a firearm in public places, as distinguished from concealed carry, where firearms cannot be seen by the casual observer. To "carry" in this context indicates that the firearm is kept readily accessible on the person, within a holster or attached to a sling. Carrying a firearm directly in the hands, particularly in a firing position or combat stance, is known as "brandishing" and may constitute a serious crime, but is not the mode of "carrying" discussed in this article.

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is modulated by a variety of state and federal statutes. These laws generally regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by state, local and the federal agencies which include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was only intended for state militias.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in California</span>

Gun laws in California regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of California in the United States.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in Florida</span>

Gun laws in Florida regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Florida in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in Colorado</span>

Gun laws in Colorado regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Colorado in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in the District of Columbia</span>

Gun laws in the District of Columbia regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in Washington, D.C.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in Illinois</span>

Gun laws in Illinois regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Illinois in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in Maryland</span>

Gun laws in Maryland regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Maryland.

<i>Moore v. Madigan</i> Pair of court cases

Moore v. Madigan is the common name for a pair of cases decided in 2013 by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, regarding the constitutionality of the State of Illinois' no-issue legislation and policy regarding the carry of concealed weapons. The plaintiffs, Michael Moore, Mary Shepard and the Second Amendment Foundation, sought an injunction against Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan, Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn, and other named defendants, barring them from enforcing two key provisions of the Illinois Statutes prohibiting public possession of a firearm or other weapon.

Kachalsky v. Cacace is a case regarding the constitutionality of "may-issue" concealed carry laws. The plaintiffs, Alan Kachalsky, Christina Nikolov, and the Second Amendment Foundation, represented by Alan Gura, originally sought an injunction barring Susan Cacace, handgun licensing authority for co-Defendant Westchester County, New York, from enforcing a requirement of New York State law that applicants for handgun carry permits demonstrate "proper cause" for the issuance of a handgun license and subsequent carry of a handgun in public.

People v. Aguilar, 2 N.E.3d 321, was an Illinois Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUF) statute violated the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court stated that this was because the statute amounted to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that was specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court. A conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (UPF) was proper because the possession of handguns by minors was conduct that fell outside the scope of the Second Amendment's protection.

<i>Peruta v. San Diego County</i>

Peruta v. San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" before issuing a concealed carry permit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Julius N. Richardson</span> American judge (born 1976)

Julius Ness "Jay" Richardson is an American judge and lawyer who serves as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He was formerly an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of concealed carry in the United States</span> Historical aspect of American gun law

The history of concealed carry in the United States is the history of public opinion, policy, and law regarding the practice of carrying concealed firearms, especially handguns.

Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650, is a United States court case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the "individual right to carry common firearms beyond the home for self defense—even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking special self-defense needs—falls within the core of the Second Amendment’s protections."

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), abbreviated NYSRPA v. Bruen and also known as NYSRPA II or Bruen to distinguish it from the 2020 case, is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court related to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the constitutionality of the 1911 Sullivan Act, a New York State law requiring applicants for a pistol concealed carry license to show "proper cause", or a special need distinguishable from that of the general public, in their application.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Woollard v. Sheridan, 863F. Supp. 2d462 ( D. Md. 2012).
  2. 1 2 CBS 13 Baltimore - Md. Gun Law Found Unconstitutional
  3. ↑ Woolard v. Brown, No.1:10-cv-02068 (D. Md.Jul. 23, 2012).
  4. ↑ Woollard v Gallagher, 712F.3d865 ( 4th Cir. 2013).
  5. ↑ Woollard v Gallagher, 571 U.S. 952(2013).
  6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States of America. "Supreme Court page for #13-42" . Retrieved October 2, 2013.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.