Maryland Supreme Court upholds ban on gun possession in some non-felony cases
(Photo by U.S. Customs and Border Protection)
The Maryland Supreme Court upheld a state law banning gun possession by people who have been sentenced to two years or more in prison, calling it comparable to a ban on gun possession by felons, whether the underlying crime was a felony or not.
Despite a string of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have greatly strengthened gun rights, the high court has not suggested that the Second Amendment 'prohibits the enactment of laws banning the possession of guns by categories of persons thought by a legislature to present a special danger of misuse,' the Maryland court said Friday.
Maryland's law is such a law, said the opinion by Maryland Chief Judge Matthew Fader.
'Based on our conclusion that § 5-133(b)(2) [the challenged law] is the equivalent of a prohibition on the possession of firearms by felons, and the United States Supreme Court's repeated references to such prohibitions as presumptively constitutional, we conclude that it satisfies Second Amendment scrutiny and is facially constitutional,' Fader wrote.
But in a lengthy dissent, Justice Jonathan Biran said that the U.S. Supreme Court rulings rely on historical context, and that the majority could not point to any previous law that 'disarmed a citizen who violated a legal norm of society but was not viewed as a threat to public safety.'
'The logical conclusion of the Majority's historical analysis is that the General Assembly may make infractions such as jaywalking or exceeding the posted speed limit the basis for permanent firearms disqualification by increasing the maximum penalty for those offenses to imprisonment for more than one year,' Biran wrote in a 65-page dissent, 22 pages of which were a history of British and U.S. gun laws.
The law was challenged by Robert L. Fooks, who was charged in Wicomico County in 2021 with allegedly stealing firearms from relatives to sell at pawn shops. Included in the 14-count indictment were two gun possession charges based on Fooks' 2017 conviction for 'constructive criminal contempt,' for which he received a sentence of 4 years and 6 months.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The 2017 conviction was for 'willful failure to pay child support,' according to court records. The ruling said constructive criminal contempt is a common law offense that is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor and does not some with a minimum or maximum sentence.
Fooks pleaded guilty in 2021 to the gun charges and agreed to pay restitution to a relative, in exchange for the other charges being dropped. But he retained his right to challenge the gun conviction on Second Amendment grounds.
Fooks claimed on appeal that his conviction runs afoul of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that say the burden is on the state to prove the need for gun restrictions, not on the individual to protect gun rights. Banning gun possession for the conviction of a nonviolent crime is not the same as banning someone convicted of a violent crime or a felony, he argued.
The Appellate Court of Maryland disagreed, upholding the law affirming Fooks' convictions. The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed, saying there is 'no magic to … the word 'felony,'' but that courts must look to the intent of lawmakers who decided which crimes should merit a ban on gun possession.
'The common thread among felon dispossession statutes is thus not any magic afforded to the use of the word 'felony' but a general intent to prohibit the possession of firearms by individuals who have committed offenses the respective legislative body has deemed serious enough to be eligible for a significant term of imprisonment,' Fader wrote.
In major Second Amendment rulings over the last 16 years, 'Justices constituting a majority of the Supreme Court of the United States have identified laws like § 5-133(b)(2) as presumptively lawful,' Fader wrote, and Maryland should, too.
'The General Assembly, like the United States Congress and other state legislatures around the country, has concluded that individuals convicted of serious criminal offenses should not be permitted to possess firearms, regardless of whether the particular offenses they previously committed are themselves violent,' he wrote.
Biran said the majority opinion was 'well written and its conclusions may be proven to be correct after the Supreme Court decides a case like this one,' but he disagreed. The recent history of U.S. Supreme Court cases have taken the permanent disqualification of a person from gun ownership because of a nonviolent criminal conviction 'off the table,' he wrote.
'When the State seeks to prosecute a person for possessing a firearm based on a prior conviction, the State meets its burden … if it shows that the predicate conviction was for an offense that is violent in nature,' Biran wrote in dissent.
'Mr. Fooks's predicate conviction is for constructive criminal contempt. That offense is not violent in nature,' he wrote. 'It follows that, as applied to Mr. Fooks, PS § 5-133(b)(2) violates the Second Amendment.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jan. 6 attack gets in the way of Republican talking points on ICE protests
Reflecting on the recent protests in Los Angeles, Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin told CNN that he considered it 'absolutely insane' to see protesters 'carrying a foreign flag.' When 'State of the Union' host Dana Bash reminded the Oklahoma senator that carrying a flag 'is not illegal,' Mullin quickly interjected, 'A foreign flag while you're attacking law enforcement, it's pretty bad.' Of course, during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Americans also saw foreign flags and rioters attacking law enforcement, and much of the Republican Party now treats those violent criminals as victims and heroes. A day before Mullin's on-air comments, U.S. Customs and Border Protection used its social media platform to issue a statement that read, 'Let this be clear: Anyone who assaults or impedes a federal law enforcement officer or agent in the performance of their duties will be arrested and swiftly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Attack a cop, and life long consequences will follow!' That certainly seemed like an uncontroversial sentiment, except, again, Jan. 6 rioters assaulted and impeded law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties. And while they were arrested and prosecuted, and it appeared that many of them might face serious consequences, Trump returned to the White House and started handing out pardons — including to those who were convicted of violent assaults. And then there was FBI Director Kash Patel, who published a related online item of his own over the weekend: 'Hit a cop, you're going to jail ... doesn't matter where you came from, how you got here, or what movement speaks to you.' Not only did the president who appointed Patel come to the opposite conclusion when handing out Jan. 6 pardons, but the comment also brought to mind this Mother Jones report published after Patel's Senate confirmation hearing earlier this year. [Patel] hailed January 6 rioters convicted of violence against police officers as 'political prisoners.' ... Several Democrats pressed Patel on his work with the J6 Prison Choir, a group of January 6 rioters who recorded a version of the national anthem mashed up with Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The song became a mainstay at Trump's campaign rallies. Patel told Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) that he promoted the song to raise money for the families of January 6 attackers. To be sure, 'Hit a cop, you're going to jail' seemed like an undebatable point. The trouble is, in the Trump administration, it's a maxim that comes with some important fine print: 'Hit a cop, you're going to jail, unless the president likes the reason you hit a cop, in which case you're getting a pardon.' This article was originally published on
Hamilton Spectator
25 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
NATO chief calls for ‘quantum leap' in defense and says Russia could attack in 5 years
LONDON (AP) — NATO members need to increase their air and missile defenses by 400% to counter the threat from Russia, the head of the military alliance said Monday, warning that Moscow could be ready to attack it within five years. Secretary-General Mark Rutte said during a visit to London that he expects the 32 NATO members to agree to a big hike in military spending at a summit in the Netherlands this month. Speaking at the Chatham House think tank, Rutte said Russia is outpacing the far bigger NATO in producing ammunition, and the alliance must take a 'quantum leap' in collective defense. 'Wishful thinking will not keep us safe,' Rutte said. 'We cannot dream away the danger. Hope is not a strategy. So NATO has to become a stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance.' Rutte has proposed a target of 3.5% of economic output on military spending and another 1.5% on 'defense-related expenditure' such as roads, bridges, airfields and sea ports. He said he is confident the alliance will agree to the target at its summit in The Hague on June 24-25. At the moment, 22 of the 32 members meet or exceed NATO's current 2% target, which was set in 2014. Rutte said he expects all to reach 2% by the end of this year. The new target would meet a demand by U.S. President Donald Trump that member states spend 5% of gross domestic product on defense. Trump has long questioned the value of NATO and complained that the U.S. provides security to European countries that don't contribute enough. Rutte said he agreed that 'America has carried too much of the burden for too long.' Rutte said NATO needs thousands more armored vehicles and millions more artillery shells, as well as a 400% increase in air and missile defense. 'We see in Ukraine how Russia delivers terror from above, so we will strengthen the shield that protects our skies,' he said. 'Russia could be ready to use military force against NATO within five years,' Rutte added. 'We are all on the eastern flank now.' Rutte also held talks Monday with Prime Minister Keir Starmer and praised the U.K.'s commitment to increase defense spending as 'very good stuff.' Starmer has pledged to boost military spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2027 and to 3% by 2034. Like other NATO members, the U.K. has been reassessing its defense spending since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. European NATO members, led by the U.K. and France, have scrambled to coordinate their defense posture as Trump transforms American foreign policy , seemingly sidelining Europe as he looks to end the war in Ukraine. Last week the U.K. government said it would build new nuclear-powered attack submarines, prepare its army to fight a war in Europe and become 'a battle-ready, armor-clad nation.' The plans represent the most sweeping changes to British defenses since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than three decades ago. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nigel Farage calls for ‘re-industrialisation' of Wales
Nigel Farage has said his party wants to restart Port Talbot's blast furnaces and 're-industrialise Wales'. On a visit to South Wales, the leader of Reform UK said the resumption of traditional steelmaking and coal production is the party's long-term ambition if it comes to power. The speech came one year ahead of the Senedd elections in May next year, where the party is looking to end Labour's 26 years of domination. Addressing reporters, Mr Farage acknowledged that plans to open a traditional furnace could take years and cost 'in the low billions'. The GMB Union has branded the plans 'more lies from an opportunistic chancer'. Port Talbot's remaining blast furnaces were shut down in September, with a new electric arc furnace being built in their place. Tata Steel, the owner of the plant, said the closure of the furnaces was necessary, with the steelworks losing £1m a day. 'Our ambition is to re-industrialise Wales,' Mr Farage said. 'We are going to be using more steel over the next few years than we have probably ever used. 'As we increase military spending and as we attempt a house building programme in Wales, and even more so in England, of massive proportions, just to catch up with the population explosion over the last 20 years, we are going to need a lot of steel.' The Reform leader said 'specific types of coal' are needed in the UK, particularly for a new blast furnace. 'I'm not saying let's open all of the pits,' he said. 'What I am saying is coal, specific types of coal for certain uses that we still need in this country – and we certainly will need for the blast furnaces here – we should be producing ourselves rather than importing.' While he acknowledged 'mining is dangerous', Mr Farage said the industry could provide well-paying jobs. The Reform leader acknowledged the plan to open a new furnace would cost 'in the low billions' and would be 'no easy thing'. 'It's a massive, expensive job to reopen blast furnaces, we're going to need cheaper energy, we're going to need much cheaper coal, we are going to need private business partners prepared to come into a joint venture,' he said. Responding to the GMB Union allegations that his party's plans were 'lies', Mr Farage said the union was tied to the Labour Party as one of its biggest funders. He said: 'They see us as a challenge, and therefore, they'll be rude about us. 'What you will find is that increasingly, GMB members are going to vote for us, and the more GMB members vote for us, the more upset GMB officials and leaders will become. 'Frankly, the trade unions have done nothing to protect British workers through open borders over the last 20-25 years.' During his speech, Mr Farage said he doubted that the electric arc furnace, which is due to come online in 2028, 'will ever, ever be switched on'. Challenged on what evidence he had, he argued that with British energy prices being so high, it would be producing 'very, very expensive secondary steel'. He added: 'I hope I'm wrong, an electric arc furnace is not the real deal, but it's better than nothing.' Mr Farage said the party's campaign for the Senedd election next May 'starts today', but would not say when Reform would announce a leader in Wales. Regional officer Ruth Brady, speaking at the GMB's annual conference in Brighton, said: 'The people of Port Talbot will see this for what it is – more lies from this opportunistic chancer. 'Nigel Farage was happy to let British Steel go to the wall. He'll trot out any line when the cameras are rolling. He doesn't care about steel communities or steel workers.' Ms Brady said the plans to shut the blast furnaces were made by the last Tory government and the union wanted Labour to 'make good on their promises to our members in Port Talbot'. Political opponents hit out at Reform's plans, with a Welsh Labour spokesperson saying the people of Wales would 'see through' Mr Farage's false hopes and promises. 'His answer is to bring back the mines. The only thing Nigel Farage is trying to mine is votes from communities that have already gone through tough times,' they said. 'Nigel Farage has today brought his fantasy politics and magic money tree to Port Talbot. He's gambling with real people's livelihoods.' Darren Millar, leader of the Welsh Conservatives in the Senedd, accused Mr Farage of making 'wild promises' without speaking to Tata. Welsh Liberal Democrat MP David Chadwick argued mining was Wales' past, not its future. 'My relatives in South Wales worked hard to ensure that their children and grandchildren wouldn't have to do the dangerous work of going down the pits and for future generations to have better opportunities in life,' he said. 'The fact that Nigel Farage doesn't see this shows how poorly he understands Welsh communities.' Heledd Fychan, speaking for Plaid Cymru, accused Mr Farage of 'taking advantage' after the industry said reopening the existing furnaces would be 'impossible.' 'You can imagine my surprise at his calls to reopen the coal mines in Wales, especially considering the actions taken by his political hero, Margaret Thatcher,' she said. 'Reform clearly have no interest in actually improving the lives of the people of Wales, they can only come up with unrealistic and unsubstantiated headlines that will be of no material benefit to the people of Port Talbot or Wales. Greenpeace also hit out at the plans, saying bringing back British coal 'has about as much chance of success as resurrecting dinosaurs'.
