261 F. Supp. 3d 579
D. Md.2017Background
- Plaintiff Thomas Corcoran, a Maryland resident, was denied a Maryland Handgun Qualification License in 2016 based on a 1976 Virginia conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle. He asserts the conviction was a misdemeanor and received a 90-day suspended sentence.
- Maryland disqualifies persons from possessing regulated firearms if they have been convicted of a “disqualifying crime,” defined to include out-of-state offenses mapped to Maryland equivalents with statutory maxima over two years. The State deemed Corcoran’s Virginia conviction equivalent to Maryland § 7-203 (unauthorized removal of property) carrying a four-year maximum.
- Corcoran sued state and federal officials asserting: (1) an as-applied Second Amendment challenge; (2) a facial Second Amendment challenge; and (3) Ex Post Facto and retroactivity claims. He also sought injunctive and declaratory relief.
- The State moved to dismiss; Corcoran cross-moved for summary judgment. The Court stayed and later lifted proceedings after Fourth Circuit decisions (e.g., Hamilton). The Court solicited supplemental briefing.
- The Court dismissed with prejudice the facial Second Amendment claim and the Ex Post Facto/retroactivity claims, but denied dismissal (without prejudice) of the as-applied Second Amendment claim, finding Corcoran plausibly pleaded that his circumstances fall within the protected class and that the State has not yet shown a reasonable fit under intermediate scrutiny. Corcoran’s summary judgment motion was denied as premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial Second Amendment challenge to Maryland firearms prohibitions | Statutes categorically strip rights from non-violent misdemeanants and are therefore facially unconstitutional | Statutes are analogous to federal §922(g)(1) and are presumptively lawful restrictions on firearm possession by those with disqualifying convictions | Dismissed with prejudice — facial challenge fails (statutes akin to long-standing felon-disarmament prohibitions) |
| As-applied Second Amendment challenge (Corcoran) | His single non-violent 1976 misdemeanor and decades of law-abiding life place him within the protected class of law-abiding, responsible citizens seeking arms for home defense | State contends disqualifying conviction shows disregard for law; statutes serve substantial public safety interests and mirror accepted felon-disarmament rules | Survives dismissal (denied without prejudice). Court finds Corcoran plausibly in protected class and that intermediate scrutiny applies; but State has not yet shown a reasonable fit on current record |
| Level of scrutiny applicable to as-applied challenge | Corcoran urged strict scrutiny because prohibition results in complete disarmament | State urged intermediate scrutiny consistent with Fourth Circuit precedent for persons with criminal history | Court applied intermediate scrutiny (Chester framework and Fourth Circuit precedent) |
| Ex Post Facto / retroactivity challenge | Applying 1996 Maryland prohibitions to 1976 conviction imposes retroactive punishment and additional disability | State argued the prohibitions are prospective regulatory measures that bar current/future possession, not punish past conduct | Dismissed with prejudice — not an ex post facto violation (law prohibits present possession; Mitchell supports non-retroactivity) |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (recognizes individual right to bear arms but notes presumptively lawful regulatory measures including felon disarmament)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (incorporates Second Amendment against the States)
- United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) (two-prong framework for as-applied Second Amendment challenges)
- United States v. Moore, 666 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2012) (streamlined Chester analysis for presumptively lawful prohibitions)
- Hamilton v. Pallozzi, 848 F.3d 614 (4th Cir. 2017) (applies Chester/Moore framework to Maryland prohibitions; informs step-one limitations)
- Binderup v. Attorney General, 836 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc plurality on as-applied challenges for nonviolent misdemeanants and factors to consider)
- United States v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 319 (4th Cir. 2000) (statute banning possession after conviction is prospective; not ex post facto when enacted after underlying conviction)
- Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) (recognizes substantial government interest in public safety; clarifies that some regulations do not burden core Second Amendment protections)