Malpasso et al v. Pallozzi

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 10/15/2018. (jnls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BRIAN KIRK MALPASSO, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. ELH-18-1064

WILLIAM M. PALLOZZI
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM1
Brian Kirk Malpasso and the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., plaintiffs,
filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against William M. Pallozzi, in his
official capacity as the Secretary of Maryland’s Department of State Police. ECF 1. Exhibits are
appended to the suit. Plaintiffs allege a violation of their rights under the Second Amendment to
the Constitution and seek, inter alia, “a declaration that Maryland’s limitation of the right to
carry handguns to those who can satisfy licensing officials that they have a ‘good and substantial
reason’ to exercise that right is unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution.” Id. at 1. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction that would compel
the defendant to cease enforcement of the Maryland law that purportedly limits plaintiffs’
constitutional right to carry handguns outside the home. Id. at 1-2. The Complaint contains one
Count, asserting deprivation of constitutional rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 8.
Defendant has moved to dismiss the suit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (ECF 12),
supported by a memorandum (ECF 12-1) (collectively, the “Motion”). Plaintiffs oppose the
Motion. ECF 20.
1

This case was originally assigned to Judge Marvin Garbis. It was reassigned to me on
September 5, 2018, due to Judge Garbis’s retirement.

The Court has also received amicus curiae briefs from the following organizations:
Everytown For Gun Safety (ECF 16), with an Appendix (ECF 17); Giffords Law Center To
Prevent Gun Violence (ECF 19); and the National Rifle Association of America, Inc. (ECF 211), with an Appendix (ECF 21-2).
The issues have been fully briefed. No hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6.
Defendants assert that plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
because there is a controlling decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, holding that Maryland’s application of the “good and substantial reason” requirement
does not violate the Second Amendment. ECF 12-1 at 1, 4-5 (citing Woollard v. Gallagher, 712
F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013)).
Plaintiffs agree that Woollard is controlling. In their Complaint (ECF 1, ¶ 6), they assert:
Plaintiffs acknowledge that the result they seek is contrary to Woollard v.
Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013), but, for the reasons explained in Wrenn
v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2017), that case was wrongly
decided. They therefore institute this litigation to vindicate their Second
Amendment rights and to seek to have Woollard overruled.
And, in their Opposition, plaintiffs state, ECF 20 at 1: “To be sure, as Maryland points
out, the Fourth Circuit—in precedent we concede is binding on this Court at this stage in the
litigation—has upheld Maryland’s ‘good and substantial reason’ limit.”
The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Woollard is controlling here. A discussion of the merits
of the case is unnecessary, as Woollard requires the Court to grant defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss.
An Order follows.
Date: October 15, 2018

/s/
Ellen L. Hollander
United States District Judge

-2-