Lawsuit Challenges Maryland's Handgun Restrictions

BALTIMORE - Maryland places too great a burden on residents who seek permits to carry handguns, gun-rights advocates claim in a lawsuit that builds on recent Supreme Court decisions affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The lawsuit was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Baltimore. According to the complaint, plaintiff Raymond Woollard was denied a renewal of his permit to carry a handgun last year because he could not show he had been subject to "threats occurring beyond his residence." Woollard obtained the permit after fighting with an intruder in his Hampstead home in 2002.

The lawsuit was also filed on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation, based in Bellevue, Wash. Representing the plaintiffs is Alan Gura, who challenged handgun bans in the District of Columbia and Chicago.

The Supreme Court struck down D.C.'s gun ban in 2008. Last month, in the Chicago case, it ruled that state and local governments cannot pass laws that contradict the Second Amendment. That ruling opened up a new frontier for gun rights advocates, who can now challenge laws in states such as Maryland that have strict permitting requirements, Gura said Friday.

The Maryland lawsuit names Col. Terrence B. Sheridan, superintendent of the Maryland State Police, and the three members of Maryland's Handgun Permit Review Board.

Raquel Guillory, a spokeswoman for Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler, declined to comment on the specifics of the filing but said Gansler's office has reviewed Maryland's handgun laws and is confident they can withstand legal challenges.

The lawsuit claims Maryland had no reason to deny Woollard's handgun permit and wrongly put the burden on him to show why he still needed to carry a gun.

Under Maryland law, Woollard is required "to be clairvoyant and somehow prove" that he is likely to become a crime victim, Gura said. "We believe that if the state wants to deny (Woollard) a permit, then it bears the burden of proving that there's a good reason to deny him that permit."

Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was not unreasonable for a state to ask residents why they need to carry loaded weapons in public and predicted the lawsuit would fail. The Brady Center assists states and cities in defending against challenges to gun laws.

"Maryland is doing the right thing in restricting the carrying of loaded weapons," Vice said.

According to the complaint, an intruder broke into Woollard's home on Christmas Eve 2002. Woollard, a Navy veteran, pointed a shotgun at the man, who managed to get the gun away. Woollard's son retrieved another gun, ending the fight, and they held the man until police arrived.

The intruder lives three miles from Woollard, who renewed his permit when the man was released for prison in 2005, the lawsuit says. But in 2009, Woollard's application for renewal was denied. He appealed but was rejected by the review board, which found he "has not demonstrated a good and substantial reason to wear, carry or transport a handgun as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger."

The board noted that Woollard already had legal standing to carry a handgun at home.

The provision that Marylanders must demonstrate a "good and substantial reason" to carry a handgun violates the Second Amendment, the lawsuit states.

"It's not his job to prove that he needs to exercise a constitutional right," Gura said.

Similar lawsuits are possible in the 10 other states that don't have "right to carry" laws, said Dave Workman, senior editor of Gun Week, which is published by the Second Amendment Foundation. The right to bear arms "shouldn't be subject to onerous regulation," he said.

The Second Amendment Foundation is a plaintiff in a similar lawsuit filed earlier this month in Westchester County, New York.