Call v. Jones: Defending Maryland’s Strong Public Carry Regulations
Case Information: Call v. Jones (D. Md. brief filed December 12, 2020)
At Issue: This case involves a Second Amendment challenge to Maryland’s concealed carry regulations and standards. The challenged policies require applicants to demonstrate a “good and substantial reason” to carry concealed guns in public in order to receive a concealed carry permit. This issue was litigated in 2013 in the case Woollard v. Gallagher, and again last year in the case Malpasso v. Pallozzi, and the “good and substantial reason” requirement was upheld as constitutional by the 4th Circuit and the Supreme Court denied review both times. Plaintiffs in this case seek to take advantage of the changes in the Supreme Court’s membership to change a law that the court chose to leave in place less than six months ago.
Our Brief: Our brief argues that Maryland’s concealed carry regulations survive any level of constitutional scrutiny, and certainly survive intermediate scrutiny because the “good and substantial reason” requirement serves a substantial governmental interest. Reputable research that has been released since the 4th Circuit’s 2013 decision in Woollard overwhelmingly shows that relaxing concealed carry laws leads to increased violent crime and homicide. Research has also found that guns are rarely used in self-defense, and carrying a gun may actually increase one’s chance of being shot in an assault. Our brief also argues that the plaintiffs’ attempt to argue that Maryland’s law is unconstitutional by making an analogy to First Amendment law is inappropriate because of the substantive differences between the First and Second Amendments.