McCloud v. Department of State Police
426 Md. 473
| Md. | 2012Background
- McCloud applied to renew a Maryland handgun permit and was denied based on a 2006 DC conviction for attempting to carry a pistol without a license.
- MSP relied on the 2006 Attorney General’s Opinion concluding out-of-state convictions can disqualify and that the Maryland equivalent offense must be used to assess disqualifying status.
- The MSP Handgun Permit Review Board reversed the denial; the Circuit Court for Baltimore County reversed the Board; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
- Maryland’s disqualifying-crime provisions include: (1) a violent crime; (2) a felony in Maryland; or (3) a Maryland misdemeanor carrying more than two years’ penalty.
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to determine if the Attorney General’s Opinion correctly defines a disqualifying crime and whether out-of-state convictions are within 5-101(g)(3) and 5-133(b)(1).
- The central issue is whether out-of-state convictions are within the statute’s scope and, if so, whether the Maryland-penalty framework governs disqualification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether out-of-state convictions can be disqualifying crimes. | McCloud argues the out-of-state conviction should be evaluated under Maryland law. | MSP relies on the AG Opinion that out-of-state convictions are included. | Yes; out-of-state convictions can be disqualifying crimes. |
| What standard determines if an out-of-state offense is disqualifying? | Use Maryland’s penalty framework to classify the comparable offense. | No, apply the jurisdiction's penalty where the offense occurred. | Determine disqualifying status by Maryland’s penalty for the equivalent offense. |
| Should the Court defer to agency interpretation of the statute? | Valentine-like deference to agency construction should apply. | Administrative interpretation has not been consistent; deference not controlling. | Court does not defer to the Board’s interpretation; adopts Maryland-equivalence approach. |
| Is AG Opinion binding on statutory interpretation? | AG’s view should limit or guide statutory construction. | AG Opinion is persuasive but not controlling where text is clear. | AG Opinion properly guides interpretation but the statute controls; out-of-state offenses included. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Handgun Permit Review Bd., 188 Md.App. 455 (2009) (interpreting disqualifying-crime scope and Maryland equivalence; recodification context)
- Jones v. State, 420 Md. 437 (2011) (out-of-state felonies as predicates for §5-133(b) under Maryland law)
- Brown (prior discussion), 188 Md.App. 455, 982 A.2d 830 (2009) (recodification and language interpretation supporting Maryland-equivalence approach)
- Chesek v. Jones, 406 Md. 446 (2008) (agency interpretation and role of AG opinions in statutory interpretation)
- Robinson v. Balt. Police Dep't, 424 Md. 41 (2011) (statutory-interpretation framework; ascertain legislative intent)