321 A.3d 748
Md.2024Background
- Mark McCloy applied to purchase a handgun in Maryland in 2021; his application was disapproved by the Maryland State Police (MSP) due to a 1999 federal misdemeanor conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) for witness tampering.
- McCloy’s conviction was identified by MSP as equivalent to Maryland Criminal Law § 9-305, which is a disqualifying crime under Maryland law.
- McCloy contested the MSP's decision, arguing that his federal conviction was not equivalent to any disqualifying Maryland crime at the time of his conviction because the relevant Maryland statute was not enacted until 2002.
- The administrative law judge (ALJ) denied McCloy’s appeal, but on the basis that his offense was more properly analogous to a different Maryland statute (CR § 9-306), and also for making a false statement on his application.
- The circuit court and the intermediate appellate court both affirmed denial of McCloy’s application, albeit for varying reasons. The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case to clarify how out-of-state or federal convictions should be compared to Maryland's firearms disqualifying statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which Maryland law applies when assessing disqualifying equivalency for out-of-state crimes? | McCloy: Only look at Maryland law in effect at time of conviction (1999), not at time of firearm application. | MSP: Law in effect at time of firearm application controls. | Law at time of application applies. |
| How to determine if an out-of-state/federal conviction is equivalent to a Maryland disqualifying crime? | McCloy: Use strict categorical approach; elements must match, and facts from conviction can be considered only if categorical approach fails. | MSP: Two-step test; review elements, then see if conduct could reasonably fall under a Maryland disqualifying crime. | Adopted a modified categorical approach: first compare elements; only consider facts if statute is broader and record is clear. |
| Is McCloy’s federal conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) equivalent to Maryland CR § 9-305? | McCloy: No; federal statute covers broader conduct and targets non-judicial proceedings, unlike Maryland statute. | MSP: Yes; similar purpose in preventing interference with official proceedings. | Not equivalent; federal statute is broader and facts did not satisfy Maryland law. |
| Was MSP's denial of McCloy’s application lawful? | McCloy: No, because his conviction was not disqualifying under Maryland law using the appropriate comparison. | MSP: Yes, because federal conviction was disqualifying. | Not lawful; denial must be reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (adopts the categorical approach for comparing statutory elements between laws)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (explicates the formal categorical approach for predicate offenses)
- Maryland State Police v. McLean, 197 Md. App. 430 (2011) (timing of penalty assessment for disqualifying crimes)
- McCloud v. Dep't of State Police, Handgun Permit Review Board, 426 Md. 473 (2012) (out-of-state conviction equivalence for Maryland firearms law)
- Brown v. Handgun Permit Review Board, 188 Md. App. 455 (2009) (test for equivalency between out-of-state and Maryland crimes for firearms disqualification)