First, the district court determined that intermediate scrutiny applied to the Second Amendment claims, and concluded that Maryland’s firearm and magazine bans met the applicable standards and were thus valid under the Second Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the State on all three grounds. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing (1) that the firearm and magazine abridged their rights under the Second Amendment (2) that the exemption for retired law enforcement officers violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and (3) that certain provisions were unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Just before the FSA bans became effective, the FSA was challenged on several constitutional grounds by two individual residents in Maryland two businesses that operate in the firearms, hunting, and sport shooting industries and several trade, hunting and gun-owners’ rights organizations (collectively “Plaintiffs”). The FSA also contains exceptions for several classes of individuals, including active law enforcement officers, licensed firearms dealers, and retired state or local law enforcement agents who received the prohibited firearm or magazine prior to or upon retirement. The FSA contains a grandfather clause allowing those in lawful possession of prohibited firearms or magazines prior to October 1, 2013, to continue such possession. The second challenged provision criminalizes the manufacture, sale, purchase, or transfer of detachable magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds of ammunition for a firearm. The first challenged provision criminalizes the possession, sale, purchase, transfer, or transport of any firearm designated as an “assault weapon,” including the popular AR-15 and AK-47 semi-automatic rifles. In April 2013, Maryland passed the FSA, which bans certain firearms effective October 1, 2013. In a 2–1 decision, the Fourth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case back to the district court, holding that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard for the Second Amendment challenges.

Using intermediate scrutiny in its evaluation of the FSA, the district court held that the FSA restrictions were valid under the Second Amendment. The FSA criminalizes the possession, sale, and transport of certain semi-automatic guns and narrows the scope of detachable magazines that may be manufactured or sold. Hogan, a civil case challenging the constitutionality of Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act (“FSA”). But one thing I do: forgetting the things that are behind, and stretching forth myself to those that are before,ġ4 I press towards the mark, to the prize of the supernal vocation of God in Christ Jesus.On February 4, 2016, the Fourth Circuit issued its published opinion in Kolbe v. 8 Furthermore I count all things to be but loss for the excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but as dung, that I may gain Christ:ĩ And may be found in him, not having my justice, which is of the law, but that which is of the faith of Christ Jesus, which is of God, justice in faith:ġ0 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable to his death,ġ1 If by any means I may attain to the resurrection which is from the dead.ġ2 Not as though I has already attained, or were already perfect but I follow after, if I may by any means apprehend, wherein I am also apprehended by Christ Jesus.ġ3 Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended.

Ordinary scrutiny