Laws Requiring Permission to Obtain Guns Look Vulnerable
The 4th Circuit’s rejection of Maryland’s handgun licensing system suggests similar schemes in other states are unconstitutional.

According to a landmark 2022 Supreme Court decision, the Second Amendment constrains the requirements that states may impose on residents who want to carry guns in public for self-defense. It stands to reason that the same is true of the steps that people must take to acquire guns in the first place.
That is essentially what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit concluded last week, when it ruled that Maryland's handgun licensing system is inconsistent with the right to keep and bear arms. The case exemplifies a new front in constitutional challenges to gun control laws under the Second Amendment test that the Supreme Court established last year.
To pass that test, a law must be "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." But Maryland's law, which requires would-be handgun owners to complete a process that can take up to 30 days, bears little resemblance to regulations enacted in the 18th or 19th century.
Maryland is one of 14 states that require background checks for all firearm purchases, whether or not the seller is a federally licensed dealer. Since 2013, Maryland has imposed an additional requirement on handgun buyers: They must first obtain a "handgun qualification license," which entails completing at least four hours of firearm training and undergoing a seemingly redundant "investigation" aimed at screening out people who are legally disqualified from owning guns.
Maryland argued that its law fits a tradition of disarming "dangerous" individuals, such as people with felony records, illegal drug users, and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. But even assuming those categories of "prohibited persons" are validated by long-standing practice, 4th Circuit Judge Julius Richardson said, Maryland's statute goes further by "preemptively disarming every person until they can each prove that they are not dangerous," which "burdens a far broader swath of people."
Writing in dissent, Judge Barbara Milano Keenan highlighted the Supreme Court's distinction between "may issue" laws like New York's, which required carry-permit applicants to demonstrate "proper cause," and "shall issue" laws, which make permits available to all applicants who meet "objective criteria." Maryland's licensing system for handgun buyers falls into the latter category, Keenan said, which suggests the Court would be inclined to uphold it.
While the Supreme Court did indicate that "shall issue" laws could be consistent with the Second Amendment, it also noted that "any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends." It therefore did not rule out "constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry."
Although it's not clear what counts as an unacceptably "lengthy" time to wait for permission to obtain a firearm, the 4th Circuit majority thought a month was too long. If so, the laws of other states that license gun buyers could be vulnerable.
To buy or possess a gun in Illinois, for example, you need a "firearm owner's identification card." Although the maximum processing time is supposed to be 30 days, the average was more than four months in late 2020, and it still exceeded the statutory limit in the first three quarters of this year.
In New York, where licenses are required to possess handguns or semi-automatic rifles, the minimum wait time is four months. The New York Police Department says processing takes "approximately six months," while Ontario County advises applicants that they should expect to wait "eight months to one year."
Notably, people have to jump through these hoops merely to legally possess guns on their own property. Getting permission to carry guns in public is a separate process that typically requires more time, effort, and expense.
The Supreme Court has rejected outright bans on handguns and laws that give licensing officials discretion to decide who may publicly possess firearms. It eventually will have to deal with the question of how far states may go in requiring permission simply to own a gun.
© Copyright 2023 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
We need these laws to make it easier to put away the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member.
Yes, it works so well for Epstein's clientele, the famous 2016 election deniers like Hillary, and rogue cops.
Not to mention the killers of Joseph Arthiur Swift and Jamiel Andre Shaw.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com
Crooks like those in Washington?
It should be easy to put away muggers and carjackers provided there is evidence to prove these beyond a reasonable doubt.
Because none of those things are illegal in and of themselves. I see your point.
illegal drug users
The government makes up a law. Now you're a "criminal". Now you can't enjoy your constitutional right. What a fucking jokel
Well, it's not a joke but it is a separate problem from the right to keep and bear arms. It may be reasonable to - at least temporarily - deny a criminal convicted of murder or armed robbery the right to keep and bear arms. While incarcerated, for example. That has almost nothing whatever to do with whether possession, manufacture or sale of drugs should be illegal; or whether conviction for violation of drug laws should result in denial of the right to keep and bear arms. Two different issues that I think would be better dealt with separately by those of us who love liberty.
“consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Another example of the tortured logic the Federal courts and the Supreme Court judges have to resort to in order to avoid having to confront the plain language of the Second Amendment: “shall not be infringed.” It escapes me where in the tradition of American liberty the concept of “tradition” – a vague and elusive concept at best – became a standard of the law. The law should be, as nearly as possible, as precise, clear, easily understandable and unambiguous as the legislators and the justices can make it. The way Federal judges and the Supreme Court do that is to strike down any part of any law or regulation at any level of government that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms of everyone in America who hasn’t lost that right by having been found guilty of a major crime. Although the Supreme Court has lately been better at that than usual, they still don’t seem to able to avoid dancing all around the subject, writing hundred-page rulings that end up being about as clear as mud. All they have to do is to say, “This law (or regulation) violates the clear language and meaning of the Second Amendment by infringing on the right of plaintiffs to keep and bear arms.” What’s so hard about that? After a few such rulings the states, counties and local jurisdictions will stop trying. The only thing left would be to figure out if violators can be held in contempt of Court and punished personally with fines, imprisonment and removal from office.
"The way Federal judges and the Supreme Court do that is to strike down any part of any law or regulation at any level of government that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms of everyone in America who hasn’t lost that right by having been found guilty of a major crime."
Saying the deprivation of rights is not an "infringement" because those people have "lost that right" is ridiculous. You're just re-defining the right to account for the degree of infringement you believe is acceptable.
The Fourteenth Amendment, which is the very amendment that prohibits states from abridging the rights of citizens like the right to keep and bear arms, allows deprivation of life, liberty, and property with due process of law.
It's all a bunch of inadmissible hearsay lyrics and diary entries of a bunch of dead white dude AFAICT.
It's a fair point, but I did not say that it would not be an infringement - I was saying that there is no such thing as an absolute right and that you would not have a right, for example, to keep and bear arms in prison while serving your sentence for, say, armed robbery.
That's the anarchist argument (which I have no problem with). All government power rests on the ability to deny people their basic rights to life, liberty or property.
"Infringed" means it is adorned with a gold fringe border, which means the Second Amendment can only be violated by admiralty courts, which have no jurisdiction over statutory construction or domestic affairs, and so nothing can violate the plain language of the Second Amendment!
This "because I said so" logic sure makes things easy.
Ultimately ALL of our rights depend upon "because I say so." I insist upon the right to keep and bear arms "because I say so." If you and a lot of other Americans also insist on the right to keep and bear arms because THEY say so too, then we can encode that right in a Constitution to make it clear to everyone. Ultimately, when power-hungry officials try to erode or take away that right, We the People will either fight back to keep that right, or we will lose it.
The ATF, background checks, and other garbage that woke Maryland demands violates 2A where it is these thongs that are an actual insurrection.
I actually prefer that the rights bestowed to me by a creator be infringed by thongs.
Slightly OT: Has an AI of John infected the Reason Matrix?
I saw the typo too late. 🙂
Don’t get an ins-erection in your thong.
Welcome back.
If Ben Franklin were alive today, I'm pretty sure he would approve of having his personal rights infringed by Marylin... or Virginia... or Charlotte... or Georgia.
Only if they were wearing thongs. Also: "Thongs for the memories."
For me, the elephant in the room is that time limits are written into the so many laws but there is no real incentive for governments to meet them. One of the few processes with adequate incentives built in is the federal background check system. If the government delays more than 3 days, the result favors the citizen, not the government, and the sale can go through (ie, default proceed). Without incentives, governments can accidentally or purposely delay (eg, by under-budgeting the agency).
"Thank you for this insightful article! The information provided is clear and well-presented. I particularly appreciate the way you addressed this — it added a new perspective for me. It's great to see your site covering such relevant and timely topics. Looking forward to more engaging content like this in the future!"
Regards
ilmilog.com
If one must obtain the permission of a government to exercise a preexisting, natural human right that was later codified, is it truly a right? When the Second Amendment was ratified was there any governmental restrictions on the purchase or manufacture of firearms? Is the GCA itself constitutional in light of Bruen or was it merely a knee jerk reaction to three high profile political assassinations?