MALPASSO v. Giffords Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence; Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence; Maryland Chiefs of Police Association; Everytown for Gun Safety, Amici Supporting Appellee. (2019)

Brian Kirk Malpasso and Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint alleging that § 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Maryland Code of Public Safety is an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. Malpasso and the Association seek a declaratory judgment declaring that § 5-306(a)(6)(ii) is unconstitutional and an injunction precluding future enforcement of the statute and requiring the State to issue handgun carry licenses to Malpasso and the Association’s members. The district court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the complaint after Malpasso and the Association conceded that our ruling in Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013), controlled.^*

On appeal, Malpasso and the Association acknowledge that this panel cannot overturn Woollard. “A decision of a panel of this court becomes the law of the circuit and is binding on other panels unless overruled by a subsequent en banc opinion of this court or a superseding contrary decision of the Supreme Court.” United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 311 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   In Woollard, we held that assuming, without deciding, that § 5-306(a)(6)(ii)’s “good-and-substantial-reason” requirement implicated Second Amendment protections, the provision did not unconstitutionally infringe upon the rights granted by the Second Amendment, as applied to the statute’s challenger. 712 F.3d at 882.

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.