Maryland Supreme Court Takes Up Case Involving Regulated Firearm Purchase Denial

The Maryland Supreme Court has issued an Order granting our client’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari In The Matter of Mark McCloy.

For background, in 1999, Mr. McCloy was convicted of a federal witness tampering offense that carried a maximum potential term of imprisonment of one year. That conviction did not trigger a federal firearms disability, and Mr. McCloy is still entitled to purchase and possess firearms under federal law. In 2015, he was denied a Handgun Qualification License by the Maryland State Police, which he appealed, but the MSP reversed their denial and issued his license before a hearing occurred. In the recent appeal, an MSP senior trooper testified that they don’t know why the 2015 denial was reversed.

In 2021, the MSP denied Mr. McCloy’s application to purchase a regulated firearm on the basis that his 1999 conviction was a violation classified in Maryland as a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years of imprisonment. Or more simply, that the federal offense is equivalent to a Maryland misdemeanor offense that carries a potential penalty in excess of two years of imprisonment, and thus qualifies as a “disqualifying crime.”

To date, the MSP has changed their position on which Maryland offense is actually applicable, the Office of Administrative Hearings has exceeded its authority and violated Mr. McCloy’s due process rights, and each of the three appellate decisions in this matter so far have relied on different rationales.

The Maryland Supreme Court will be considering these four questions:

Whether the Appellate Court of Maryland erred in affirming the MSP’s denial of Mr. McCloy’s application to purchase a regulated firearm?
Whether the Appellate Court erred in finding that the relevant Maryland statute to be considered for equivalence is the statute in effect at the time of the application, not the statute in effect at the time of the out-of-state conviction?
Whether the Appellate Court erred in adopting a “substantial evidence” test that fails to provide clear criteria for determining the equivalence of out-of-state offenses and affords unreasonable deference to the agency’s statutory interpretations?
Whether the Appellate Court erred in finding that a “reasonable mind” could accept the MSP’s conclusion, given that MSP’s conclusion has abruptly and inexplicably changed absent any changes to the relevant facts or law?

If you are affiliated with an organization interested in filing an Amicus Curiae Brief or otherwise supporting Mr. McCloy’s appeal, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group today!

If you or someone you know has been denied a firearm purchase in Pennsylvania or Maryland, contact us to discuss your options!