Baltimore, MD - In a significant ruling on Tuesday, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond struck down Maryland's handgun licensing law, deeming it unconstitutionally restrictive. The court's 2-1 decision cited a recent Supreme Court ruling that caused a "sea change in Second Amendment law."

The lawsuit challenging the law was initiated in 2016, taking aim at a Maryland statute that mandated a special license for purchasing handguns. Enacted in 2013 following the tragic mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the law required prospective buyers to complete a four-hour firearms safety course, submit fingerprints for a background check, and meet residency and age requirements.

Expressing disappointment, Maryland Governor Wes Moore, a Democrat, stated that he will continue to fight for the law. However, his administration is currently reviewing the ruling and considering its options, given their commitment to reducing gun violence in the state.

The appellate court's opinion, penned by Judge Julius Richardson, directly referenced the Supreme Court decision of 2022, which expanded the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Richardson and Judge G. Steven Agee found that Maryland's law did not align with the "historical tradition of firearm regulation" demanded by the Supreme Court.

Richardson emphasized the arduous process Maryland residents must undertake to legally possess a handgun, including a lengthy waiting period of up to 30 days. He argued that the law unfairly restricted law-abiding citizens' ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights, and the state failed to justify such a restriction.

However, Judge Barbara Milano Keenan issued a dissenting opinion, asserting that her colleagues misapplied the Supreme Court precedent and suggesting that the case should have been remanded to the lower court for further review instead.

The Supreme Court's 2022 ruling, which marked its first major gun decision in more than a decade, displayed a similar split, with the court's conservative justices forming the majority and the liberal justices dissenting.

Responding to the court's decision, Mark Pennack, president of the advocacy group Maryland Shall Issue, hailed it as a triumph for common sense and the rule of law. Pennack argued that the 2013 law burdened prospective gun owners with unnecessary costs and excessive bureaucratic procedures, making it difficult to exercise their rights.

Prior to the enactment of the law, people had to fulfill a more streamlined set of requirements, including limited training and a background check.

With the striking down of Maryland's handgun licensing law, the state now faces the challenge of reconciling the recent court ruling with its goal of implementing reasonable gun control measures. The decision has ignited a broader debate on the balance between individual Second Amendment rights and public safety concerns.

As the legal battle continues, stakeholders on both sides are expected to intensify their efforts to shape future gun control legislation, with the hope of finding common ground that prioritizes public safety while respecting the rights of gun owners.