<\/a><\/div>\nFresh off the 9th<\/sup> Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Maryland\u2019s Handgun Qualification License requirement is constitutional, plaintiffs in the case are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue.<\/p>\nOn September 27, plaintiffs in the case Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore<\/em> filed a petition with the Supreme Court in hopes the onerous law won\u2019t meet muster before that body.<\/p>\n\u201cJust two years ago, this Court rejected the interest-balancing approach adopted by nearly every lower court, and emphatically held that the Second Amendment \u2018demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment\u2019s text, as informed by history,\u2019\u201d the petition states. \u201cBut certain lower courts\u2014determined to avoid applying Bruen<\/em>\u2019s holding\u2014are disregarding this Court\u2019s precedents and straining the constitutional text to fit desired policy ends. That is exactly what the en banc 4th Circuit did in this case to uphold Maryland\u2019s ahistorical and burdensome two-step licensing and registration scheme for acquisition and possession of a handgun for self-defense.\u201d<\/p>\nIn fact, the process in question is quite complicated. Before possessing any handgun, Maryland requires citizens to obtain a Handgun Qualification License, which isn\u2019t an easy task. To qualify, citizens must be fingerprinted, attend a half-day training course, live fire a handgun and pass a background check\u2014all of which takes significant time, effort and money. Once they receive their license, there are still hurdles to overcome, as another Maryland law requires a background check and seven-day wait before taking possession of a purchased handgun.<\/p>\n
In late 2023 a three-judge panel of the 9th<\/sup> Circuit Court ruled that the HQL requirement unconstitutional. But on August 23, an en banc panel of the 4th Circuit issued its decision upholding the Handgun Qualification License law.\u00a0<\/p>\nTo plaintiffs, the burdensome process, which allows the state up to 30 days to approve an application, represents a blatant disregard of the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n
\u201cCompliance with the HQL Requirement places significant burdens on possession and acquisition of a handgun unknown at the Founding and is an outlier even in modern times,\u201d the plaintiffs\u2019 petition states. \u201cFailure to comply may result in fines, imprisonment and the permanent loss of firearm rights.\u201d<\/p>\n
The petition further states: \u201cThe HQL Requirement is an unconstitutional outlier that the Founders never would have tolerated. Petitioners have shown that Maryland\u2019s novel and extreme acquisition-and-possession licensing regime burdens protected conduct. And Maryland has not met its burden to prove that the HQL Requirement\u2014step one of its two-step licensing scheme\u2014is consistent with historical tradition.<\/p>\n
In the end, Maryland Shall Issue is asking the Supreme Court to consider the case using its own two-step process handed down in the Bruen<\/em> case in 2022.<\/p>\n\u201cThis Court should grant certiorari to prevent lower courts from reading exception-upon-exception into Bruen<\/em>\u2019s standard\u2014before that standard exists no more,\u201d the petition concludes. \u201cThe constitution \u2018demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment\u2019s text, as informed by history,\u2019 not tests rooted in dicta and whatever constructions of text best fit lower courts\u2019 desired policy ends. This Court should once again say so.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n
Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Fresh off the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Maryland\u2019s Handgun Qualification License requirement is constitutional, plaintiffs in the case are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue. On September 27, plaintiffs in the case Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore filed a petition with the Supreme Court in hopes the onerous […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4017,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-4016","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-reviews"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4016","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4016"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4016\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/4017"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4016"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4016"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4016"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![<\/a><\/div>\nFresh off the 9th<\/sup> Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Maryland\u2019s Handgun Qualification License requirement is constitutional, plaintiffs in the case are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue.<\/p>\nOn September 27, plaintiffs in the case Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore<\/em> filed a petition with the Supreme Court in hopes the onerous law won\u2019t meet muster before that body.<\/p>\n\u201cJust two years ago, this Court rejected the interest-balancing approach adopted by nearly every lower court, and emphatically held that the Second Amendment \u2018demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment\u2019s text, as informed by history,\u2019\u201d the petition states. \u201cBut certain lower courts\u2014determined to avoid applying Bruen<\/em>\u2019s holding\u2014are disregarding this Court\u2019s precedents and straining the constitutional text to fit desired policy ends. That is exactly what the en banc 4th Circuit did in this case to uphold Maryland\u2019s ahistorical and burdensome two-step licensing and registration scheme for acquisition and possession of a handgun for self-defense.\u201d<\/p>\nIn fact, the process in question is quite complicated. Before possessing any handgun, Maryland requires citizens to obtain a Handgun Qualification License, which isn\u2019t an easy task. To qualify, citizens must be fingerprinted, attend a half-day training course, live fire a handgun and pass a background check\u2014all of which takes significant time, effort and money. Once they receive their license, there are still hurdles to overcome, as another Maryland law requires a background check and seven-day wait before taking possession of a purchased handgun.<\/p>\nIn late 2023 a three-judge panel of the 9th<\/sup> Circuit Court ruled that the HQL requirement unconstitutional. But on August 23, an en banc panel of the 4th Circuit issued its decision upholding the Handgun Qualification License law.\u00a0<\/p>\nTo plaintiffs, the burdensome process, which allows the state up to 30 days to approve an application, represents a blatant disregard of the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n\u201cCompliance with the HQL Requirement places significant burdens on possession and acquisition of a handgun unknown at the Founding and is an outlier even in modern times,\u201d the plaintiffs\u2019 petition states. \u201cFailure to comply may result in fines, imprisonment and the permanent loss of firearm rights.\u201d<\/p>\nThe petition further states: \u201cThe HQL Requirement is an unconstitutional outlier that the Founders never would have tolerated. Petitioners have shown that Maryland\u2019s novel and extreme acquisition-and-possession licensing regime burdens protected conduct. And Maryland has not met its burden to prove that the HQL Requirement\u2014step one of its two-step licensing scheme\u2014is consistent with historical tradition.<\/p>\nIn the end, Maryland Shall Issue is asking the Supreme Court to consider the case using its own two-step process handed down in the Bruen<\/em> case in 2022.<\/p>\n\u201cThis Court should grant certiorari to prevent lower courts from reading exception-upon-exception into Bruen<\/em>\u2019s standard\u2014before that standard exists no more,\u201d the petition concludes. \u201cThe constitution \u2018demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment\u2019s text, as informed by history,\u2019 not tests rooted in dicta and whatever constructions of text best fit lower courts\u2019 desired policy ends. This Court should once again say so.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\nSource link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Fresh off the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Maryland\u2019s Handgun Qualification License requirement is constitutional, plaintiffs in the case are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue. On September 27, plaintiffs in the case Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore filed a petition with the Supreme Court in hopes the onerous […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4017,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-4016","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-reviews"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4016","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4016"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4016\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/4017"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4016"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4016"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4016"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}](\"https:\/\/cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Screen-Shot-2024-10-09-at-3.38.04-PM.png\"){kind=link}