## Facts

- Maryland generally prohibited carrying a handgun in public without a permit and required applicants to show a “good and substantial reason” for public carry.
- Raymond Woollard obtained a handgun carry permit after a 2002 home invasion and renewed it once after the assailant’s release from prison.
- In 2009, Maryland State Police denied Woollard’s subsequent renewal for lack of evidence of recent threats or similar danger supporting a continuing “good and substantial reason.”
- Woollard and the Second Amendment Foundation filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the “good and substantial reason” requirement violated the Second Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, held the requirement failed intermediate scrutiny, and permanently enjoined enforcement of the “good and substantial reason” condition for public carry permits.
- Maryland officials appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the “good and substantial reason” requirement burdens conduct within the Second Amendment’s scope.
2. What level of scrutiny applies to Maryland’s public-carry permitting condition.
3. Whether, under the applicable scrutiny, the requirement is constitutional as applied and facially.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and vacated the permanent injunction.
- The court assumed (without deciding) that the requirement implicates the Second Amendment and proceeded to means-end review.
- The court applied intermediate scrutiny because the law did not severely burden the Second Amendment’s core right identified in prior Supreme Court precedent (self-defense in the home) and did not amount to a total ban.
- The court held the requirement was reasonably adapted to Maryland’s significant interests in protecting public safety and preventing crime.
- The court rejected both the as-applied and facial challenges.

## Legal Principles

- A common Second Amendment framework asks (1) whether the challenged law burdens conduct within the Amendment’s historically understood scope; and (2) if so, applies an appropriate level of scrutiny based on the burden and whether the law affects the Amendment’s core protection.
- Intermediate scrutiny requires the government to show a reasonable fit between the regulation and an important governmental interest; the government need not adopt the least restrictive alternative or prove efficacy with mathematical certainty.
- A public-carry condition that limits permits to applicants with a documented, particularized need may satisfy intermediate scrutiny when supported by legislative judgments and record materials tying reduced public carry to public-safety and crime-prevention goals.
- First Amendment prior-restraint analogies do not automatically control Second Amendment analysis; any cross-amendment comparisons must be treated with care.
- A facial challenge fails where the law has substantial constitutional applications and the challenger cannot show invalidity in all or most of its applications.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld Maryland’s “good and substantial reason” requirement for public handgun carry permits, applying intermediate scrutiny and concluding the condition was reasonably related to significant public-safety and crime-prevention objectives, thereby reversing the district court’s injunction and rejecting as-applied and facial Second Amendment challenges.


Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013)