No.
MSI v. Hogan - The Challenge Against the Handgun Qualification License Proceeds
- Thread starter DC-W
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I hope someone challenges the 7-day wait. Aside from the logic of requiring a person who already has handguns still wait 7 days to purchase additional handguns making absolutely no sense, there's no reason the background check requires 7 days to complete. Heck, you'd think that with the HQL pre-approving someone to purchase a handgun the 7-day wait would be completely unnecessary. It's nothing more than a reason to delay rights.
Interestingly, I dislike the 7-day wait so much that I usually purchase 2+ handguns at a time because it makes me feel that the wait is a little more palatable.
Interestingly, I dislike the 7-day wait so much that I usually purchase 2+ handguns at a time because it makes me feel that the wait is a little more palatable.
- Apr 26, 2012
- 5,289
There are not enough words in this post... please add approximatley 67 more... thank you.
Gosh darn it.There are not enough words in this post... please add approximatley 67 more... thank you.
"no, sir".
If you REALLY needs some more words, no, the court is not going to grant relief to individuals who already paid fees for an HQL, let alone any training anyone had to do.
PapiBarcelona
Ultimate Member
- Jan 1, 2011
- 7,359
Right, also......
Maryland really needs a Maryland Instant Check System like Pennsylvania/PICS if our state legislator is still all about the maryland state police being involved in firearm sales.
They're already way ahead of the game by the Licensing Portal
- Nov 11, 2009
- 30,887
David Kopel posts about his amicus brief for MSI v Hogan, in today;s Volokh Conspiracy:
Today Joseph Greenlee and I filed an amicus brief in the Fourth Circuit case Maryland Shall Issue v. Hogan. Our brief is on behalf of the Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation (where he works) and Independence Institute (the Denver think tank where I work).
The case had previously appeared in the Fourth Circuit in 2020, when a panel ruled that a licensed firearms dealer had standing to challenge Maryland's 2013 handgun licensing law, and that the dealer also had third party standing on behalf of customers. 971 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2020). Now, the case has returned on the merits. The Maryland Attorney General denied consent for filing of the amicus brief, so we will wait to see whether the Fourth Circuit accepts it.
Under a 2013 Maryland statute, a state-issued Handgun Qualification License (HQL), which requires range training, is necessary to purchase, rent, or receive a handgun. This is on top of the pre-existing system requiring a "Maryland State Police Application and Affidavit to Purchase a Regulated Firearm" (MSP 77R). And of course on top of the background check required by federal law for all firearms purchases in gun stores. According to the complaint, applying for a HQL takes a month, and necessitates "hundreds of dollars in fees, costs and travel, not counting time off of work."
The amicus brief straightforwardly applies the Supreme Court's test for Second Amendment cases, as recently stated in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen
In Bruen, the Court stated that history from the original periods (1791 for the Second Amendment, 1868 for the Fourteenth, which made the Second Amendment enforceable against the states) are most important. Colonial history is relevant, as is English history to the extent that it reflected an unbroken tradition that was adopted by the colonists and in force during the Founding Era. The nineteenth century is also relevant, with the first part of the century being most important, and the latter part of considerably less (but not zero) significance. Anything after 1900 is far too late to establish a tradition contrary to the constitutional text.
In the Maryland Shall Issue amicus brief, we describe in chronological order all pre-1900 licensing laws for gun possession. Such laws did exist, but only for people who were considered not to have civil rights: slaves (who were either blacks or Indians) or free people of color (again, blacks or Indians). Antebellum courts that upheld these laws expressly stated that they would be unconstitutional if applied to the white population. Aldridge v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. 447, 449 (1824); State v. Newsom, 27 N.C. 250, 252 (1844).
The Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act got rid of all the gun possession licensing laws. No such law was enacted thereafter in the United States in the nineteenth century, except for an 1893 Florida statute. That statute made it unlawful to "own a Winchester or other repeating rifle" without a license from the County Commissioners; the license required an exorbitant bond.
As Florida Supreme Court Justice Rivers H. Buford later explained, the licensing law "was passed . . . for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers" in the state and "was never intended to be applied to the white population." Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516, 524 (1941) (Buford, J., concurring). Justice Buford noted that "there had never been any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested." Id.
So the number of valid pre-1900 precedents for licensing home possession of a firearm is zero. While Bruen allows analogical reasoning (rather than simply copying valid gun control laws from pre-1900), here there is nothing on which to base an analogy.
The precedent for a training requirement for home possession is also non-existent. There is no question that a state government can train the militia. U.S. Constitution, Art. I, sect. 8, cl. 16 ("reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"); Md. Const. art. IX, § 1 ("The General Assembly shall make, from time to time, such provisions for organizing, equipping and disciplining the Militia, as the exigency may require, and pass such Laws to promote Volunteer Militia organizations as may afford them effectual encouragement.").
The HQL, however, applies to everyone in Maryland, not solely militia members. And the training requirements do not involve militia skills, such as perimeter defense by a group. Historically, training was not a precondition to possession of an arm for militia duty. Rather, the statutes required militiamen to possess certain arms (typically, a long gun and an edged weapon), and to bring those arms to training whenever the government scheduled militia training.
Notably, in many colonies and states, the government also required ownership of the same arms by people who were not in the militia. These included men with occupational exemptions (e.g., physicians), men who were too old for the militia, and females who were heads of households.
Additionally, many statutes required arms carrying by everyone engaging in certain activities, such as traveling, going to public meetings, going to church, going to court, or working in the fields. These requirements applied regardless of sex or household status.
Notably, there were no training requirements at all for non-militia who were legally required to possess the same arms as the militia. No state or colony before 1900 imposed any rule making training a prerequisite to keeping a firearm at home.
Therefore, the amicus brief suggests that the training requirement of Maryland's Handgun Qualification License is unconstitutional.
Today Joseph Greenlee and I filed an amicus brief in the Fourth Circuit case Maryland Shall Issue v. Hogan. Our brief is on behalf of the Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation (where he works) and Independence Institute (the Denver think tank where I work).
The case had previously appeared in the Fourth Circuit in 2020, when a panel ruled that a licensed firearms dealer had standing to challenge Maryland's 2013 handgun licensing law, and that the dealer also had third party standing on behalf of customers. 971 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2020). Now, the case has returned on the merits. The Maryland Attorney General denied consent for filing of the amicus brief, so we will wait to see whether the Fourth Circuit accepts it.
Under a 2013 Maryland statute, a state-issued Handgun Qualification License (HQL), which requires range training, is necessary to purchase, rent, or receive a handgun. This is on top of the pre-existing system requiring a "Maryland State Police Application and Affidavit to Purchase a Regulated Firearm" (MSP 77R). And of course on top of the background check required by federal law for all firearms purchases in gun stores. According to the complaint, applying for a HQL takes a month, and necessitates "hundreds of dollars in fees, costs and travel, not counting time off of work."
The amicus brief straightforwardly applies the Supreme Court's test for Second Amendment cases, as recently stated in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen
Here, the case involves keeping a handgun in the home, which is certainly protected by the Second Amendment. The government bears the burden of proving that the HQL "is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
In Bruen, the Court stated that history from the original periods (1791 for the Second Amendment, 1868 for the Fourteenth, which made the Second Amendment enforceable against the states) are most important. Colonial history is relevant, as is English history to the extent that it reflected an unbroken tradition that was adopted by the colonists and in force during the Founding Era. The nineteenth century is also relevant, with the first part of the century being most important, and the latter part of considerably less (but not zero) significance. Anything after 1900 is far too late to establish a tradition contrary to the constitutional text.
In the Maryland Shall Issue amicus brief, we describe in chronological order all pre-1900 licensing laws for gun possession. Such laws did exist, but only for people who were considered not to have civil rights: slaves (who were either blacks or Indians) or free people of color (again, blacks or Indians). Antebellum courts that upheld these laws expressly stated that they would be unconstitutional if applied to the white population. Aldridge v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. 447, 449 (1824); State v. Newsom, 27 N.C. 250, 252 (1844).
The Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act got rid of all the gun possession licensing laws. No such law was enacted thereafter in the United States in the nineteenth century, except for an 1893 Florida statute. That statute made it unlawful to "own a Winchester or other repeating rifle" without a license from the County Commissioners; the license required an exorbitant bond.
As Florida Supreme Court Justice Rivers H. Buford later explained, the licensing law "was passed . . . for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers" in the state and "was never intended to be applied to the white population." Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516, 524 (1941) (Buford, J., concurring). Justice Buford noted that "there had never been any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested." Id.
So the number of valid pre-1900 precedents for licensing home possession of a firearm is zero. While Bruen allows analogical reasoning (rather than simply copying valid gun control laws from pre-1900), here there is nothing on which to base an analogy.
The precedent for a training requirement for home possession is also non-existent. There is no question that a state government can train the militia. U.S. Constitution, Art. I, sect. 8, cl. 16 ("reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"); Md. Const. art. IX, § 1 ("The General Assembly shall make, from time to time, such provisions for organizing, equipping and disciplining the Militia, as the exigency may require, and pass such Laws to promote Volunteer Militia organizations as may afford them effectual encouragement.").
The HQL, however, applies to everyone in Maryland, not solely militia members. And the training requirements do not involve militia skills, such as perimeter defense by a group. Historically, training was not a precondition to possession of an arm for militia duty. Rather, the statutes required militiamen to possess certain arms (typically, a long gun and an edged weapon), and to bring those arms to training whenever the government scheduled militia training.
Notably, in many colonies and states, the government also required ownership of the same arms by people who were not in the militia. These included men with occupational exemptions (e.g., physicians), men who were too old for the militia, and females who were heads of households.
Additionally, many statutes required arms carrying by everyone engaging in certain activities, such as traveling, going to public meetings, going to church, going to court, or working in the fields. These requirements applied regardless of sex or household status.
Notably, there were no training requirements at all for non-militia who were legally required to possess the same arms as the militia. No state or colony before 1900 imposed any rule making training a prerequisite to keeping a firearm at home.
Therefore, the amicus brief suggests that the training requirement of Maryland's Handgun Qualification License is unconstitutional.
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
Posted by {Bob A]
:americanflag
:americanflag
Oh yeah, no wonder Frosh doesn't want this added. Outstanding.
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,253
Too Bad. If it hit them in the wallet maybe it would deter legislatures from writing unconstitutional laws.
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
Suprised the State hasn't ask for 2 or 3 week extension! Also, reading FPC, David Kopel amicus wonder why not go after the 77R?
Quoted "Any person who wishes to purchase, rent, or transfer a regulated firearm must complete a MSP 77R Application and Affidavit to purchse a regulated firearm. This includes individuals acquiring a regulated firearm through a firearm dealer, secondary sale/private sale, gift, or a person who wishes to voluntarily register a regulated firearm shall complete a Maryland State Police Application and Affidavit to Purchase a Regulated Firearm (MSP 77R)."
The government bears the burden of proving that the (-HQL-) 77R "is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
Last edited:
Afrikeber
Ultimate Member
Ditto. Also consider the Second Ammendment Foundation!
The 77R fight would be the same as fighting the 4473. Only difference is the fight is at the state level instead of the federal level
Afrikeber
Ultimate Member
Laughable that those Jim Crow Sr. laws came back to bite Jim Crow Jr. in the arse.
Glad the clean up of the reconstruction that never happened is taking place.
Glad the clean up of the reconstruction that never happened is taking place.
Not really. It doesn't hit their wallets, it hits ours (taxpayers).
We pay them to pass these horrible laws. We pay them to defend
these laws and we pay the lawyers trying to overturn them.
Taxpayers and gunowners finance 100% of all of this.
Meanwhile we're paying for training classes , fingerprints, background
checks and licenses all along the way.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
I hope everyone is a member of MSI, speaking of lawyers..... And BTW, the NRA is helping with this suit too.
Just renewed two hours ago!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You do it.
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
quoted.
""Like the licensing requirement, the extensive training requirement effectively serves as a handgun prohibition until considerable time, money, and resources are spent by the person desiring to exercise his fundamental right to keep arms. No historical regulation USCA4 Appeal: 21-2017 Doc: 29-1 Filed: 08/10/2022 Pg: 39 of 43 32 imposed a “comparable burden.” Training was never a prerequisite to possessing a common arm, nor did any analogous prerequisites exist. Therefore, no comparable historical justification existed either.""
Question? 16 Hours of Training?
Can't the 77R fit into this category also? Don't tell me it like a 4473!
77R is a STATE burden.
""Like the licensing requirement, the extensive training requirement effectively serves as a handgun prohibition until considerable time, money, and resources are spent by the person desiring to exercise his fundamental right to keep arms. No historical regulation USCA4 Appeal: 21-2017 Doc: 29-1 Filed: 08/10/2022 Pg: 39 of 43 32 imposed a “comparable burden.” Training was never a prerequisite to possessing a common arm, nor did any analogous prerequisites exist. Therefore, no comparable historical justification existed either.""
Question? 16 Hours of Training?
Can't the 77R fit into this category also? Don't tell me it like a 4473!
77R is a STATE burden.
Last edited:
Renewed this week as well, and just kicked in more for the CanDoEZ karma
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
Holosun DRS-NV (Digital Rifle Sight-Night Vision) In Stock (2 Viewers)- Started by MDElite
- Replies: 1
-
-
MD DNR Outdoor Recreation Survey -- Outdoorsman Responses Needed (1 Viewer)
- Started by Derwood
- Replies: 5
-
-