The State That Does Not Want the Supreme Court to Hear This Case

Published on March 17, 2026
Duration: 8:33

This video, presented by William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law, analyzes the legal strategy employed by the State of Maryland to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing the 'Gardner v. Maryland' case. Maryland is using procedural technicalities and arguments about the Full Faith and Credit Clause to avoid addressing the Second Amendment merits of a Virginia resident's concealed carry permit recognition. The case highlights the ongoing legal battles surrounding interstate recognition of firearm permits.

Quick Summary

Maryland is using procedural technicalities and arguments about the Full Faith and Credit Clause to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing the Gardner v. Maryland case, which involves Second Amendment rights and handgun permit reciprocity across state lines.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Intro: Second Amendment Rights Across State Lines
  2. 00:31Gardner v. Maryland Supreme Court Case
  3. 00:54Case Background and Amicus Briefs
  4. 02:01Maryland's Strategy: Procedural Technicalities
  5. 02:52Full Faith and Credit Clause Argument
  6. 03:39Maryland's Procedural Forfeiture Claim
  7. 04:03Maryland's Avoidance of Second Amendment Merits
  8. 04:47Maryland's Additional Arguments Against Review
  9. 05:21Legislative Action and Bruen Decision
  10. 07:12Conclusion: Call for Cross-State Constitutional Rights

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is Maryland trying to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing the Gardner v. Maryland case?

Maryland is employing procedural arguments and technicalities, such as claims of forfeited due process and insufficient record development, to avoid addressing the core Second Amendment issue of handgun permit reciprocity across state lines.

What is the Full Faith and Credit Clause and how does it relate to Gardner v. Maryland?

The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to recognize each other's public acts and judicial proceedings. Maryland is using this principle, arguing it doesn't mandate recognition of out-of-state permits, to sidestep the Second Amendment implications of denying reciprocity.

What is Maryland's argument regarding the Bruen decision in the Gardner v. Maryland case?

Maryland misinterprets the Bruen decision, claiming it only addressed New York's internal permitting scheme and implicitly endorsed each state's right to formulate its own 'shall-issue' laws, thus not requiring recognition of out-of-state permits.

What are the key procedural obstacles Maryland claims prevent Supreme Court review of the Second Amendment issue?

Maryland argues the Second Amendment claim was litigated perfunctorily, the record is underdeveloped, there's no split of authority among courts, and pending Congressional action might resolve the issue, all to avoid substantive review.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from Washington Gun Law

View all →