Fooks v. State, 278 A.3d 208

Robert Fooks was charged with multiple counts of illegal possession of firearms and one count of theft; the charging information alleged a 2016 constructive criminal contempt conviction disqualified him under Maryland law.
Maryland law (PS §§ 5-133(b)(2) and 5-205(b)(2)) bars firearm possession by a person convicted of a common-law crime who received a term of imprisonment of more than two years.
Fooks argued the statutes violated his Second Amendment rights—both facially and as applied—because his contempt conviction (for failure to pay child support) was nonviolent and a common-law offense.
The circuit court denied Fooks’s motion to dismiss; he entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the denial and was sentenced (with most time suspended).
The Court of Special Appeals reviewed de novo whether the statutes are facially unconstitutional and whether they are unconstitutional as applied to Fooks, and ultimately affirmed the circuit court.

Issue	Fooks' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Facial challenge to PS §§ 5-133(b)(2) and 5-205(b)(2)	Statutes are overbroad and unconstitutional in all applications because constructive criminal contempt is nonviolent, vague, and should not bar Second Amendment rights	Statutes are presumptively lawful; Fooks failed to show there are no circumstances where the statutes would be constitutional	Challenge preserved but fails—statutes are not facially unconstitutional; Fooks did not rebut presumption of lawfulness
As-applied challenge based on Fooks's contempt conviction	His contempt conviction (failure to pay child support) is nonviolent and does not place him outside the class of "law‑abiding, responsible citizens" protected by the Second Amendment	Statutes are presumptively lawful; sentence >2 years makes the conviction disqualifying; Fooks’s conduct falls outside protected Second Amendment activity (also State emphasized he lacked an ownership/right interest in the particular guns)	Statutes are presumptively lawful; Fooks does not fall within the protected class; statutes constitutional as applied; conviction and sentence affirmed

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized individual right to possess arms for self‑defense but noted some regulations are "presumptively lawful")
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (applied Second Amendment to the states and reiterated Heller's central holding)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (Second Amendment challenges must be resolved by reference to the text and historical tradition of firearm regulation)
Hamilton v. Pallozzi, 848 F.3d 614 (4th Cir. 2017) (applied a streamlined two‑step analysis for as‑applied challenges to disarmament laws; felony convictions generally remove challengers from protected class)
United States v. Moore, 666 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2012) (identified certain firearm regulations as presumptively lawful and endorsed a streamlined inquiry)
United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) (established the two‑prong test for assessing Second Amendment burdens)
United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (discussed historical inquiry and means‑end analysis for firearm regulations)
Corcoran v. Sessions, 261 F. Supp. 3d 579 (D. Md. 2017) (upheld Maryland disqualification provisions against a challenge distinguishing violent and nonviolent convictions)
State v. Roundtree, 952 N.W.2d 765 (Wis. 2021) (upheld felon‑in‑possession ban as applied to a nonviolent failure‑to‑pay‑support conviction)