James Hamilton v. William Pallozzi, 848 F.3d 614

James Hamilton, a Virginia resident convicted in 2006 of three felony credit-card–related offenses, had most civil rights restored by the Virginia Governor and firearms rights later restored by a Virginia circuit court; he now lives in Maryland.
Maryland law bars possession of firearms by persons convicted of a “disqualifying crime” (including out-of-state convictions if Maryland has an equivalent), and requires a handgun permit application that asks applicants to swear they have no disqualifying convictions.
Hamilton was informed by a Maryland Assistant Attorney General that Maryland treats his Virginia felonies as disqualifying and that Maryland will not consider them removed absent a full pardon from Virginia; he therefore declined to apply for a Maryland handgun permit for fear of prosecution.
Hamilton sued Maryland officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to Maryland’s handgun-permit and long-gun possession rules; the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, finding his challenge failed at step one of the circuit’s Second Amendment framework.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding the challenge justiciable (applying futility doctrine to ripeness) but concluding that a state-law felony conviction places a challenger outside the class of “law-abiding, responsible citizens” for purposes of the Step One inquiry unless the conviction has been pardoned or the conviction law invalidated.

Issue	Hamilton's Argument	Maryland's Argument	Held
Ripeness/Justiciability of permit challenge	Need not apply because he was told application would be futile	Plaintiff must apply; denial might rest on other grounds	Justiciable — futility exception applies; he was told eligibility requires a Virginia pardon
Pre-enforcement challenge to long-gun prohibition	Meets intent and credible-threat requirements to bring pre-enforcement suit	No dispute Maryland met pre-enforcement standards	Pre-enforcement challenge is justiciable; plaintiff satisfies requirements
Whether a state-law felon can be a “law-abiding, responsible citizen” at Step One of Second Amendment test	His circumstances (rehabilitation, restored VA rights, employment as armed officer, nonviolent offenses, passage of time) place him within protected class	A felony conviction removes challenger from protected class absent pardon or law invalidation	Held: conviction of a state-law felony bars Step One success; rehabilitation, recidivism risk, or passage of time are not relevant at Step One
Effect of Virginia restoration/employment with armed duties	VA restoration and supervisory armed employment show he is responsible and should be allowed arms in Maryland	States may set their own eligibility; VA restoration does not bind Maryland	Maryland may lawfully treat him as a felon; federalism permits differing state determinations

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized presumptively lawful felon-dispossession rules)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment against the states)
United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) (articulated two-step Second Amendment framework)
United States v. Moore, 666 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2012) (streamlined application of Chester for presumptively lawful regulations)
United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (origin of the two-step approach applied in Chester)
Doe v. Virginia Dep’t of State Police, 713 F.3d 745 (4th Cir. 2013) (ripeness/finality principles for challenges dependent on initial administrative decisions)
Binderup v. Attorney General, 836 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc) (discussed limits of Step One and role of "seriousness" of offense; court split on reasoning)
United States v. Smoot, 690 F.3d 215 (4th Cir. 2012) (upholding felon-dispossession for nonviolent predicate offenses)