In the Matter of Rounds

In the Matter of William Rounds, Case No. 1533, September Term 2021.
Opinion by Wells, C.J.
PUBLIC SAFETY– HANDGUN CARRY PERMITS – GOOD AND SUBSTANTIAL
REASON
To legally carry a handgun in Maryland a citizen must apply for a permit. Under Public
Safety § 5-306(a)(6)(ii), the regulating authority, the Maryland State Police (MSP), was,
until recently, tasked with determining whether an applicant had, among other
requirements, “a good and substantial reason” to carry the handgun “as a reasonable
precaution against apprehended danger.” That requirement disappeared with the United
States Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen,
No. 20-843, 597 U.S. --- (June 23, 2022), which held that requiring an applicant to provide
a state regulating authority with “a good and substantial reason” to obtain a handgun carry
permit is unconstitutional. Because Maryland’s statute is virtually identical to the New
York statute the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional, this Court concludes the
requirement that an applicant provide MSP with “a good and substantial reason” before
obtaining a handgun permit is also unconstitutional and of no legal effect.
Circuit Court for Somerset County
Case No. C-19-CV-21-000013
REPORTED
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
No. 1533
September Term, 2021
______________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM ROUNDS
______________________________________
Wells, C.J.,
Reed,
Salmon, James P.,
(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned)
JJ.
______________________________________
Opinion by Wells, C.J.
______________________________________
Filed: July 27, 2022
Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal
Materials Act
(§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic.
2022-07-27 14:15-04:00
Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk
This appeal arises from the denial of a renewed handgun carry permit to appellant,
William Rounds, by appellee, the Maryland State Police (MSP). MSP’s denial was based
on its finding that Rounds lacked “good and substantial reason” to carry a handgun, since
he failed to provide documented evidence of an objective threat to his safety. The denial
was affirmed by an Administrative Law Judge for the Office of Administrative Hearings
(OAH), and then by the Circuit Court for Somerset County.
On appeal, Rounds presents two questions for our review:
1. Under “Good and Substantial Reason” in the Secretary/Superintendent’s
Standard Operating Procedures of the Maryland State Police, when, how and
by whose authority was actual assault or threat added to “Apprehended
danger”?
2. Was “age discrimination” a factor in denying Appellant his Concealed Carry
Permit?
We need not address these questions directly. Pursuant to the United States Supreme
Court’s recent ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-
843, 597 U.S. --- (June 23, 2022), we are obligated to hold the “good and substantial
reason” requirement of the Maryland statute under which Rounds was denied a permit—
PUBLIC SAFETY § 5-306(a)(6)(ii)—unconstitutional. Therefore, we shall reverse.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Rounds has an established history of training and experience with the use of
firearms. He is a U.S. Army veteran, a lifetime member of several gun-related
organizations, and has both received and provided training in firearms handling, shooting,
and safety. Rounds has also long held concealed carry permits, both in Maryland and in
other states. Rounds initially held a permit in Maryland in the 1980s until he moved out of
state. In 2006, after moving back to Maryland, Rounds applied for and was again granted
a handgun carry permit. Every three years since, Rounds has applied for a renewal of the
permit, and MSP has granted one, until 2017. Upon MSP’s denial in 2017, Rounds
appealed to the Handgun Review Board 1 which granted his renewal. Rounds also holds
unrestricted carry permits for Delaware, Pennsylvania and Utah. 2
According to Rounds, he has consistently indicated on his Maryland applications
that his “good and substantial reason” for carrying a handgun is that he frequently
purchases silver (often in the form of coins) for personal investment from persons unknown
to him, and he sometimes carries cash in amounts between $500 and $3,000 to make these
purchases.
In March 2020, Rounds applied for his 2020 carry permit renewal, citing once more
his silver-purchasing activities. The Handgun Permit Section of MSP denied his renewal,
explaining that he had not provided “documented evidence of threats or assaults against
him that would rise to a good and substantial reason for the issuance of a permit.” Rounds
requested and received an informal review with MSP, which sustained the denial. Rounds
then requested a hearing by OAH. In that hearing, Rounds stipulated that he does not
operate a business, and had received no threats, assaults, or attacks, documented or
1
The Handgun Permit Review Board was abolished in 2019, and the Office of
Administrative Hearings replaced it as the administrative body to whom a denial of a
handgun permit can be appealed. 2020 Maryland Laws Ch. 2 (H.B. 1343 (2019)); MD
PUBLIC SAFETY § 5-312 (2020).
2
Rounds notes that his Utah permit allows him to carry in approximately 32 other states.
2
otherwise. The only incident Rounds reported was a brief verbal altercation with another
driver, which apparently concluded without any violence. OAH sustained the denial,
finding that the “apprehended danger” Rounds asserted amounted to no more than
generalized safety concerns, which do not constitute “good and substantial” reason for
carrying a handgun. Rounds petitioned for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Somerset
County and a hearing was held in September 2021. The court issued a written decision
upholding OAH’s decision. Rounds timely appealed to this Court. Rounds has proceeded
pro se through all stages of this litigation.
DISCUSSION
A. Parties’ Contentions
Rounds contends that there is no legal authority providing that “good and substantial
reason” to carry a handgun “as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger” under
Public Safety § 5-306(a)(6)(ii) requires the applicant to have already been threatened or
assaulted. Rounds adds that not even MSP’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for
evaluating permit applications—which, he points out, is not law anyway—contains any
such requirement. Instead, Rounds asserts, the Secretary of MSP has arbitrarily added this
requirement to accommodate his own subjective view of who should be granted a permit.
Rounds also notes that the constitutionality of New York’s analogous statute—specifically,
its requirement that applicants for unrestricted conceal carry permits demonstrate “proper
cause exists” for the issuance of such a permit, N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f)—was
challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2021 and awaited decision at the
time of his appeal.
3
MSP counters that OAH’s decision is, in fact, supported by substantial evidence.
MSP asserts that Rounds’ subjective belief about his need for a handgun permit is not
determinative, and instead, the standard for “good and substantial reason” to carry a
handgun is an objective one, for which some documented evidence of a threat is necessary.
MSP likens the facts of Rounds’ case to two previous cases—Snowden v. Handgun Permit
Review Bd., 45 Md. App. 464, cert denied, 288 Md. 742 (1980) and Scherr v. Handgun
Permit Review Bd., 163 Md. App. 417 (2005)—where this Court denied permits to
applicants who could not demonstrate having received credible direct threats or attacks.
MSP adds that its objective standard ensures consistent outcomes among applicants unlike
the subjective standard that Rounds urges, and that the 2017 and 2020 disapprovals of
Rounds’ renewal applications are consistent with the evolution of MSP’s standards.
B. Analysis
Maryland statute requires carry permit applicants citing personal protection to
demonstrate “good and substantial reason”
The Criminal Law Article of the Maryland Code prohibits wearing, carrying or
transporting a handgun, subject to a limited number of exceptions. Md. Code Ann., Crim.
Law § 4-203(a), (b). One such exception is for individuals who apply and receive a permit
to carry a handgun. Id. § 4-203(b)(2). Title 5, Subtitle 3 of the Public Safety Article regards
handgun permits, and section 5-306 lists the qualifications for obtaining a permit for
personal protection. Subsection (a) is relevant to Rounds’ circumstances, and provides
… the Secretary shall issue a permit within a reasonable time to a person who
the Secretary finds:
(1) is an adult;
4
(2) (i) has not been convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor for
which a sentence of imprisonment for more than 1 year has
been imposed; or
(ii) if convicted of a crime described in item (i) of this item, has
been pardoned or has been granted relief under 18 U.S.C. §
925(c);
(3) has not been convicted of a crime involving the possession, use,
or distribution of a controlled dangerous substance;
(4) is not presently an alcoholic, addict, or habitual user of a controlled
dangerous substance unless the habitual use of the controlled
dangerous substance is under legitimate medical direction;
(5) except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, has
successfully completed prior to application and each renewal, a
firearms training course approved by the Secretary that includes:
(i) 1. for an initial application, a minimum of 16 hours of
instruction by a qualified handgun instructor; or
2. for a renewal application, 8 hours of instruction by a
qualified handgun instructor;
(ii) classroom instruction on:
1. State firearm law;
2. home firearm safety; and
3. handgun mechanisms and operation; and
(iii) a firearms qualification component that demonstrates the
applicant's proficiency and use of the firearm; and
(6) based on an investigation:
(i) has not exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that
may reasonably render the person's possession of a handgun a
danger to the person or to another; and
(ii) has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or
transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is
necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended
danger.
Pub. Safety § 5-306(a) (emphasis added). An applicant may seek review of the Secretary’s
initial decision by requesting an informal review, in which the Secretary must sustain,
reverse or modify the initial decision. Id. § 5-311. Alternatively, or after receiving a
5
decision from an informal review, an applicant may appeal the decision to OAH. Id. § 5-
312(a). A final decision by OAH is appealable to the circuit court. Id. § 5-312(b).
The basis of the denial of Rounds’ 2020 renewal is his alleged failure to demonstrate
“good and substantial reason” under § 5-306(a)(6)(ii). 3 Maryland courts have interpreted
this requirement to mean the applicant must demonstrate having received actual threats or
assaults. Scherr v. Handgun Permit Review Board, 163 Md. App. 417, 436–37 (2005);
Snowden v. Handgun Permit Review Board, 45 Md. App. 464, 466–67, 70 (1980).
Accordingly, the Secretary of MSP has internally promulgated a Standard Operating
Procedure for Processing Handgun Permit Applications, which mandates that applicants
citing personal protection as their reason for carrying a handgun provide “[c]opies of
documented evidence that the applicant’s life is in imminent danger or is currently being
targeted by individuals wishing to do the applicant harm.” SOP 29-19-004, at section
.05G(1). Likewise, it defines “Apprehended danger/fear” as “an objectively established
concern that the Applicant’s life is in danger or that the applicant is being targeted by
individuals wishing to do him or her harm.” Id. at section .03.
New York statute requiring unrestricted carry applicants to demonstrate “proper
cause” held unconstitutional
On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court released its decision in New York State Rifle
& Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit and holding unconstitutional New York’s statutory requirement for unrestricted
concealed carry permit applicants to demonstrate “proper cause” (N.Y. Penal Law §
3The parties do not dispute that Rounds satisfies all other criteria under § 5-306(a).
6
400.00(2)(f)). Slip op at 63. Petitioners had been denied such permits where they failed to
claim any unique danger to their personal safety, thereby failing to satisfy the “proper
cause” requirement. Id. at 6–7. Petitioners alleged that respondents, the superintendent of
New York State Police and a New York Supreme Court justice in charge of overseeing the
processing of their licensing applications, violated their Second and Fourteenth
Amendment rights by denying their applications on the proper cause basis. Id. As the Court
observed, ‘proper cause’ is not defined by any New York statute, but state courts “have
held that an applicant shows proper cause only if he can ‘demonstrate a special need for
self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community,’” id. at 3 (quoting In
re Klenosky, 75 App. Div. 2d 793, 428 N.Y.S. 2d 256, 257 (1980)), such as providing
“evidence of ‘particular threats, attacks or other extraordinary danger to personal safety,’”
id (quoting In re Martinek, 294 App. Div. 2d 221, 222, 743 N.Y.S. 2d 80, 81 (2002)).
The Bruen Court held that “[w]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an
individual’s conduct”—as it does in the case of publicly carrying a handgun for personal
protection—“the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must
then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical
tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. at 15, 23. The Court next concluded there was no “such
historical tradition limiting public carry only to those law-abiding citizens who demonstrate
7
a special need for self-defense.” 4 Id. at 29–30. Thus, the Court held New York’s proper
cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 63.
We conclude that this ruling requires we now hold Maryland’s “good and
substantial reason” requirement unconstitutional. And were the similarities between this
requirement and New York’s now stricken proper cause requirement not self-evident
enough, the Bruen Court expressly noted that Maryland was one of six states to “have
analogues to the ‘proper cause’ standards,’” citing Md. Pub. Safety § 5-306(a)(6)(ii) and
quoting its “good and substantial reason” language. Id. at 5–6, 6 n. 2.
Concluding the “good and substantial reason” requirement of § 5-306(a)(6)(ii) is
unconstitutional, we must also hold the rationale and resulting judgment of the circuit court
in this case is invalid. As a result, because the only grounds on which MSP based its denial
of Rounds’ permit was the “good and substantial reason” provision under Pub. Safety § 5-
306(a), now rendered unconstitutional, Rounds qualifies for a handgun carry permit under
the remaining provisions of the statute. On remand, we instruct the circuit court to order
that MSP issue Rounds his permit as requested.
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR SOMERSET COUNTY REVERSED.
CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
ACTION NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
THIS OPINION. COSTS TO BE PAID BY
APPELLEE.
4
The Court cautioned immediately thereafter that “nothing in our analysis should be
interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ ‘shall issue’ licensing
regimes, under which a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].”
Id. at 29 n. 9 (internal quotation and citation omitted).
8