Williams v. State Of Md.

CHARLES FRANCIS WILLIAMS, JR.

v.STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 16

COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2010

Filed: January 5, 2011

Bell, C.J.

Harrell

Battaglia

Greene

Murphy

Adkins

Barbera,

JJ.

Opinion by Battaglia, J. Murphy, J., concurs.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-SECOND AMENDMENT-SECTION 4-203 OF THE CRIMINAL LAW ARTICLE-SCOPE OF RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

Section 4-203(a)(1)(i) of the Criminal Law Article, which prohibits wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in public, without a permit, is outside of the scope of the Second Amendment as explicated by the United States Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald because that Section does not implicate gun ownership for personal protection in the home. Petitioner also lacked standing to challenge Section 5-301 et seq. of the Public Safety Article, Maryland Code (2003), as well as COMAR 29.03.02.04, governing carry permitting, because he had failed to even apply for a permit to wear, carry, or transport a handgun.

In this case, we enter into the constitutional fray involving the scope of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, ¹ recently explored by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010).

Petitioner, Charles F. Williams, Jr., seeks to overturn his conviction in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County for unlawful possession of a handgun, pursuant to Section 4-203(a)(1)(i) of the Criminal Law Article, Maryland Code (2002), ² asserting thatMaryland's regulatory scheme for handguns violates his right to "keep and carry arms" under the Second Amendment. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed Williams' conviction, in a reported opinion, Williams v. State, 188 Md. App. 691, 982 A.2d 1168 (2009), and we granted certiorari, Williams v. State, 412 Md. 495, 988 A.2d 1008 (2010), to answer the following question:

Are Md. Code Ann. Criminal Law § 4-203, Public Safety §§ 5301, et seq., and COMAR 29.03.02.04 unconstitutional in light of Heller v. District of Columbia?³

We shall hold that Section 4-203(a)(1)(i) of the Criminal Law Article, which prohibits wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun, without a permit and outside of one's home, is outside of the scope of the Second Amendment. We also shall hold that, because Williams failed to apply for a permit to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, he lacks standing to challenge Section 5-301 et seq. of the Public Safety Article, Maryland Code (2003), ⁴ as wellas COMAR 29.03.02.04.⁵ As a result, Williams's conviction will stand.

During a bench trial before the Honorable Sean D. Wallace, the State presented the following facts, describing a police officer's encounter with Williams near a bus stop:

The facts, as stipulated, had the matter gone to trial, the facts would show that on October 1, 2007, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Officer Molake with the Prince George's County Police Department, was in the area of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and Landover Road in Prince George's County, Maryland, and as he was driving in that area, he observed the defendant going through a backpack near a wooded area nearby the cross area, and at one time, as the officer turned his cruiser around, he observed the defendant turn and place something in the brush area as if he was hiding something.

Officer Molake made contact with the defendant, who he would identify as the gentleman seated to the left with the green shirt and asked him what he was doing. The defendant told him he was going through the backpack to see what was in it. He then asked the defendant what he went and hid in the bushes, and the defendant hesitated and then stated "my gun."

The facts described the police officer's recovery of Williams's handgun and Williams's statement to police:

Officer Molake then recovered an Austria [sic] made, black Glock handgun with 15 rounds in the magazine in the brush area where he saw the defendant go.

The defendant gave a written statement after being given his Miranda rights by Officer Santa Cruz, admitting to possession of the gun and placing the gun in the bush area where the officer subsequently located it.

The handgun test-fired as positive.

The facts provided the following, regarding Williams's purchase of the handgun, apparently for "self-defense":

The defense would have provided evidence by way of documents that would show that the defendant purchased the handgun in Realco at 6108 Marlboro Pike in Forestville, Maryland, on August 15 of 2007, and that would be shown through Exhibit 1. Paid the balance that was due on that handgun on September 14, 2007, which will be shown in Exhibit 2; that the defense would have provided evidence that the defendant completed the Maryland State Police application and affidavit to purchase a regulated firearm application, which is a total of three pages, on August 15, 2007, which will be shown in Exhibit 3. He received the certificate of completion, which is shown in Exhibits 4 and 5, on August 15, 2007.

The defendant would have testified that he purchased the handgun for self-defense, and that on the date of this arrest, he had just left the handgun at his girlfriend's house, place of residence. When he got off work, he went to her residence and picked up that handgun and was en route to his home when the arrest occurred behind the bus stop.

The defendant was again given Miranda rights and gave a written statement that will be shown in the State's Exhibits Number 3 and 4.

Judge Wallace found Williams guilty of wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in violation of Section 4-203(a)(1)(i) and sentenced him to three years' incarceration, with two years suspended. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, determining that the SecondAmendment is not applicable to the States, ⁶ and that, were the Second Amendment to apply to Maryland, "it would not invalidate the statute at issue here," because Section 4-203(b)(6) expressly permits wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in one's residence, thereby preserving the right "to keep and bear arms in the home for the purpose of immediate self-defense." Williams, 188 Md. App. at 699, 982 A.2d at 1172.

Before us, as he did in the Circuit Court in a "Motion to Dismiss Indictment," and in his brief before the Court of Special Appeals, Williams asserts that the prohibition in Section 4-203(a) against wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun without a permit and outside of one's home, infringes upon his Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms." He contends that the Supreme Court opinions in Heller and McDonald make clear that the Second Amendment establishes a general "right of persons to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes."

The State counters that the opinions in Heller and McDonald together stand for the proposition that, pursuant to the Second Amendment, "states may not generally prohibit the possession of a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense, but remain free to enact reasonable restrictions on the possession and use of firearms." The State contends that the statutory scheme embodied in Section 4-203 is eminently reasonable, because Section 4-203(b)(6) expressly permits wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in the home.

We begin by exploring the dictates of Section 4-203(a) of the Criminal Law Article, which contains a prohibition against wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in public, "whether concealed or open":

(a) Prohibited. — (1) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:

(i) wear, carry, or transport a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person; or

(ii) wear, carry, or knowingly transport a handgun, whether concealed or open, in a vehicle traveling on a road or parking lot generally used by the public, highway, waterway, or airway of the State.

The exceptions to the prohibition, contained in Section 4-203(b), are many:

(b) Exceptions. — This section does not prohibit:

(1) the wearing, carrying, or transporting of a handgun by a person who is on active assignment engaged in law enforcement, is authorized at the time and under the circumstances to wear, carry, or transport the handgun as part of the person's official equipment, and is:

(i) a law enforcement official of the United States, the State, or a county or city of the State;

(ii) a member of the armed forces of the United States or the National Guard on duty or traveling to or from duty;

(iii) a law enforcement official of another state or subdivision of another state temporarily in this State on official business;

(iv) a correctional officer or warden of a correctional facility in the State;

(v) a sheriff or full-time assistant or deputy sheriff of the State; or

(vi) a temporary or part-time sheriffs deputy;

(2) the wearing, carrying, or transporting of a handgun by a person to whom a permit to wear, carry, or transport thehandgun has been issued under [§§ 5-301-5-314 of the Public Safety Article, Maryland Code (2003)];

(3) the carrying of a handgun on the person or in a vehicle while the person is transporting the handgun to or from the place of legal purchase or sale, or to or from a bona fide repair shop, or between bona fide residences of the person, or between the bona fide residence and place of business of the person, if the business is operated and owned substantially by the person;

(4) the wearing, carrying, or transporting by a person of a handgun used in connection with an organized military activity, a target shoot, formal or informal target practice, sport shooting event, hunting, a Department of Natural Resources-sponsored firearms and hunter safety class, trapping, or a dog obedience training class or show, while the person is engaged in, on the way to, or returning from that activity;

(5) the moving by a bona fide gun collector of part or all of the collector's gun collection from place to place for public or private exhibition if each handgun is unloaded

...