Under-21 gun possession ban upheld by MD appellate court

The Appellate Court of Maryland upheld last week the state’s ban on firearm possession by people aged under 21 in the latest example of state courts grappling with a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that dramatically expanded gun rights.

On Thursday, the state’s intermediate appellate court found historical precedent for age-based restrictions on firearm ownership and ruled that Maryland’s permitting scheme was not invalidated in its entirety by the Supreme Court’s decision ending states’ discretion to limit firearm possession to people with a demonstrated need to carry.

“Based on our review of this caselaw, we conclude that the burden that (the law) imposes on the Second Amendment right of 18-to-20-year-olds is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” wrote Appellate Judge Kathryn Graeff. She was joined by Judge Rosalyn Tang and Senior Judge Donald Beachley, who was specially assigned.

In doing so, the court allowed charges to proceed against Terrell Henry Fields, who was 20 in 2019 when he was arrested in Prince George’s County for gun and drug offenses. The opinion states that Fields did not have a permit and hadn’t shown that he ever applied for one.

The drug charges were dropped, and for nearly three years, the case was put on hold “several times” for “various reasons,” including the coronavirus pandemic, the opinion stated.

One day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Fields filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the ruling invalidated Maryland’s entire firearm permitting scheme.

That decision created a two-part test in which courts must determine if the Second Amendment covers a person’s conduct, then must evaluate whether the law in question is “consistent with this Nation’s historical traditions of firearm regulation.”

The appellate court reversed a decision by the Prince George’s County Circuit Court, which granted Fields’ motion to dismiss — though a judge called the Supreme Court’s ruling “fairly Draconian and myopic.”

The Maryland Office of the Attorney General, which represented the state, declined to comment. The Maryland Office of the Public Defender, which represented Fields, also declined.

Graeff extensively quoted — and adopted the historical analysis of — an opinion from last year in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a Florida law preventing adults under 21 from buying guns.

She noted that until World War II, the age of majority was 21, and minors enjoyed few rights. In the late 18th century, for example, minors were not able to enter into contracts or purchase goods.

“Although the Founding-era lacked express prohibitions on the possession of firearms, ‘the limitations on the legal rights of minors were so pervasive that states had no need to enact’ such restrictions,” she wrote, quoting the 11th Circuit opinion.

In addition, the court found that the provision in the law requiring permit applicants to show a “good and substantial reason” to carry a gun — which the state acknowledged was unconstitutional under Bruen — was severable from the rest of Maryland’s permitting scheme.

That meant that much of the law still stood, allowing Fields to face charges.

Bruen prompted a wave of litigation around the country, with both civil plaintiffs and criminal defendants challenging state laws and arguing that their conduct is lawful.

The decision follows a landmark Maryland Appellate Court ruling last month. In its first en banc ruling in 14 years, the court ruled that police could not stop people solely for carrying a gun because under Bruen, openly carrying a gun is presumptively legal.

In another case, the Maryland Supreme Court in May affirmed Montgomery County’s ability to regulate firearms but narrowed how it can do so — and left a sweeping ban open to a challenge.

Just two days before the appellate court’s ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case on the legality of laws preventing gun possession by adults under 21.