Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Baltimore District Court Gun Ruling Gun Are Dangerous

Baltimore District Court Gun Ruling Gun Are Dangerous

Ratings: (0)|Views: 17,833|Likes:
Judge Catherine C. Blake upheld a Maryland law banning the sale of assault rifles and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, finding that it did not violate the Constitution.
Judge Catherine C. Blake upheld a Maryland law banning the sale of assault rifles and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, finding that it did not violate the Constitution.

More info:

Categories:Types, Legal forms
Published by: AmmoLand Shooting Sports News on Aug 13, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/14/2014

pdf

text

original

 
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
* STEPHEN V. KOLBE, et al. * * * v. * Civil No. CCB-13-2841 * * MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, et al. * * ******
MEMORANDUM
On May 16, 2013, in the wake of a number of mass shootings, the most recent of which claimed the lives of twenty children and six adult staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, the Governor of Maryland signed into law the Firearm Safety Act of 2013. The Act bans certain assault weapons and large-capacity magazines (“LCMs”). Plaintiffs Stephen V. Kolbe, Andrew C. Turner, Wink’s Sporting Goods, Inc., Atlantic Guns, Inc., Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc. (“AGC”), Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. (“NSSF”), and Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association, Inc. (“MLFDA”)
1
 brought this action against defendants Martin J. O’Malley, Douglas F. Gansler, Marcus L. Brown, and Maryland State Police (“MSP”),
2
 requesting a judgment declaring Maryland’s gun control legislation unconstitutional.
3
 Now pending before the court are the defendants’ motion for
1
 The plaintiffs are various associations of gun owners and advocates, companies in the business of selling firearms and magazines, and individual gun-owning citizens of Maryland.
2
 All the defendants are sued in their official capacities.
3
 The defendants do not challenge the plaintiffs’ standing to bring this lawsuit. Exercising its independent duty to ensure that jurisdiction is proper, the court is satisfied that individual plaintiffs Kolbe and Turner face a credible threat of prosecution under the Firearm Safety Act.
See
 
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus
, 134 S. Ct. 2334, 2342 (2014). Kolbe currently owns a semi-automatic handgun that comes with detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. (Kolbe Decl., ECF No. 55-2, ¶ 3.) Although he does not own a long gun banned by the Firearm Safety
Case 1:13-cv-02841-CCB Document 78 Filed 08/12/14 Page 1 of 47
 
2 summary judgment and the plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment. Also pending are the plaintiffs’ motion to exclude testimony, which the defendants have opposed, and a number of unopposed motions, including the defendants’ motions for protective orders and John Cutonilli’s motion for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae. The parties have fully briefed the issues, and oral argument was held on July 22, 2014. For the reasons stated below, I find the law constitutional, and accordingly will grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and deny the plaintiffs’ cross motion.
4
 The plaintiffs’ motion to exclude will be denied, the defendants’ motions for protective orders will be granted, and Cutonilli’s motion to file an amicus brief will be denied.
5
 
BACKGROUND
 The Firearm Safety Act of 2013 provides in general that, after October 1, 2013, a person may not possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive “assault pistols,”
6
 “assault long
Act, he indicates that, but for the Act, he would purchase one along with detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. (
 Id.
 ¶¶ 4–5.) Turner currently owns three long guns classified as assault weapons, all of which come with detachable magazines holding in excess of ten rounds. (Turner Decl., ECF No. 55-3, ¶ 3.) He claims that, but for the Act, he would purchase other banned firearms and large capacity magazines. (
 Id.
 ¶¶ 4–5.)
Cf. New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Cuomo
(
 NYSRPA
), -- F. Supp. 2d --, 2013 WL 6909955, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2013) (concluding that individual plaintiffs had standing to challenge a New York gun control statute, as they owned rifles, pistols, and large capacity magazines regulated by the statute and desired to acquire weapons that the statute rendered illegal);
see also Ezell v. City of Chicago
, 651 F.3d 684, 695–96 (7th Cir. 2011) (deciding that  plaintiffs, who wished to engage in range training, had standing to bring a Second Amendment challenge to a Chicago ordinance banning firing ranges, reasoning that the very existence of the ordinance implied a threat to  prosecute). As Kolbe and Turner have standing, jurisdiction is secure, and the court may adjudicate this dispute whether or not the additional plaintiffs have standing.
See
 
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp.
, 429 U.S. 252, 264 & n.9 (1977).
4
 The court will deny as moot the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and the defendants’ motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.
5
 The court does not find Cutonilli’s proffered amicus brief, which consists of his interpretation of the Second Amendment and relevant precedents, useful to the disposition of this case.
See Finkle v. Howard Cnty., Md.
, -- F. Supp. 2d --, 2014 WL 1396386, at *2 (D. Md. Apr. 10, 2014) (noting the trial court’s discretion in deciding whether to grant leave to file as amicus curiae and that “a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief . . . should not be granted unless the court deems the proffered information timely and useful” (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). The court, however, has considered the amicus briefs proffered by Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center in support of the defendants. The court has also considered the amicus briefs of the Pink Pistols and the National Rifle Association (“NRA”) in support of the plaintiffs.
6
 The plaintiffs are not challenging the Act’s ban on assault pistols.
Case 1:13-cv-02841-CCB Document 78 Filed 08/12/14 Page 2 of 47
 
3 guns,”
7
 and “copycat weapons” (together, “assault weapons”).
8
 Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law (“CR”) §§ 4-301(d), 4-303(a)(2). In addition, the Act states that a person “may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a detachable magazine that has a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition for a firearm.”
9
 
 Id.
§ 4-305(b). A person who violates the Act “is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $5,000 or both,” although different penalties are provided for a  person who uses an assault weapon or LCM in the commission of a felony or a crime of violence.
 Id.
§ 4-306. The Act exempts from the ban the transfer of an assault weapon from a law enforcement agency to a retired law enforcement officer as long as: (1) it is sold or transferred on retirement
7
 The Firearm Safety Act defines assault long guns by reference to § 5-101(r)(2) of the Public Safety Article. Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 4-301(b). Thus, the Act bans: a firearm that is any of the following specific assault weapons or their copies, regardless of which company produced and manufactured that assault weapon: (i) American Arms Spectre da Semiautomatic carbine; (ii) AK-47 in all forms; (iii) Algimec AGM-1 type semi-auto; (iv) AR 100 type semi-auto; (v) AR 180 type semi-auto; (vi) Argentine L.S.R. semi-auto; (vii) Australian Automatic Arms SAR type semi-auto; (viii) Auto-Ordnance Thompson M1 and 1927 semi-automatics; (ix) Barrett light .50 cal. semi-auto; (x) Beretta AR70 type semi-auto; (xi) Bushmaster semi-auto rifle; (xii) Calico models M-100 and M-900; (xiii) CIS SR 88 type semi-auto; (xiv) Claridge HI TEC C-9 carbines; (xv) Colt AR-15, CAR-15, and all imitations except Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR rifle; (xvi) Daewoo MAX 1 and MAX 2, aka AR 100, 110C, K-1, and K-2; (xvii) Dragunov Chinese made semi-auto; (xviii) Famas semi-auto (.223 caliber); (xix) Feather AT-9 semi-auto; (xx) FN LAR and FN FAL assault rifle; (xxi) FNC semi-auto type carbine; (xxii) F.I.E./Franchi LAW 12 and SPAS 12 assault shotgun; (xxiii) Steyr-AUG-SA semi-auto; (xxiv) Galil models AR and ARM semi-auto; (xxv) Heckler and Koch HK-91 A3, HK-93 A2, HK-94 A2 and A3; (xxvi) Holmes model 88 shotgun; (xxvii) Avtomat Kalashnikov semiautomatic rifle in any format; (xxviii) Manchester Arms “Commando” MK-45, MK-9; (xxix) Mandell TAC-1 semi-auto carbine; (xxx) Mossberg model 500 Bullpup assault shotgun; (xxxi) Sterling Mark 6; (xxxii) P.A.W.S. carbine; (xxxiii) Ruger mini-14 folding stock model (.223 caliber); (xxxiv) SIG 550/551 assault rifle (.223 caliber); (xxxv) SKS with detachable magazine; (xxxvi) AP-74 Commando type semi-auto; (xxxvii) Springfield Armory BM-59, SAR-48, G3, SAR-3, M-21 sniper rifle, M1A, excluding the M1 Garand; (xxxviii) Street sweeper assault type shotgun; (xxxix) Striker 12 assault shotgun in all formats; (xl) Unique F11 semi-auto type; (xli) Daewoo USAS 12 semi-auto shotgun; (xlii) UZI 9mm carbine or rifle; (xliii) Valmet M-76 and M-78 semi-auto; (xliv) Weaver Arms “Nighthawk” semi-auto carbine; or (xlv) Wilkinson Arms 9mm semi-auto “Terry”. Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety (“PS”) § 5-101(r)(2). According to the plaintiffs, the most widely owned firearms of those banned by the Act are the AR-15, the AK-47, and their copies.
8
 Individuals who lawfully possessed assault long guns or copycat weapons before October 1, 2013, however, may continue to possess those weapons. Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 4-303(b)(3).
9
 The court will refer to such detachable magazines as “large capacity magazines” or “LCMs.” It does not appear that CR § 4-305 bans mere possession of LCMs.
Case 1:13-cv-02841-CCB Document 78 Filed 08/12/14 Page 3 of 47

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->