Background
Michael Chase applied to the Maryland Department of State Police for a handgun carry permit in October 2022. During the background investigation, the Department discovered Chase’s 2009 Virginia felony conviction for conspiracy to commit grand larceny, for which he received a sentence of three years imprisonment with all but 30 days suspended, plus two years supervised probation. The Department denied his application under Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety § 5-306(a)(2)(i), which bars permits for those convicted of a felony or misdemeanor with a sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year imposed.
Chase appealed to the Office of Administrative Hearings and then to the Circuit Court for Charles County, both of which upheld the denial. Chase then appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals, arguing that out-of-state convictions must be converted to their Maryland equivalents for permit eligibility purposes. He contended that his Virginia conspiracy-to-commit-grand-larceny conviction should be equated to Maryland’s theft statute, which carries a six-month maximum penalty, making him eligible for the permit.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that although § 5-306(a)(2)(i) appears facially clear, it is ambiguous as applied to out-of-state convictions. However, after examining the statute’s language, structure, and legislative history, the Court concluded that the Maryland equivalency analysis used for “disqualifying crimes” under § 5-101(g)(3) does not apply to handgun permit eligibility under § 5-306(a)(2)(i). The two statutes serve distinct purposes and employ materially different language: § 5-101(g)(3) focuses on the statutory maximum penalty an equivalent Maryland offense “carries,” while § 5-306(a)(2)(i) relies on the actual sentence “imposed.” Legislative history confirmed that the Legislature deliberately replaced language referring to a sentence that “could have been imposed” with “has been imposed,” signaling intent to use each applicant’s actual, individualized sentence rather than a hypothetical maximum penalty.
The Court defined “sentence imposed” to include both executed and suspended portions—the sentence is imposed when pronounced, regardless of execution suspension. Applying this interpretation, Chase’s three-year Virginia sentence (with all but 30 days suspended) exceeded one year and rendered him ineligible for a handgun permit under any reasonable interpretive framework. The Court therefore affirmed the Department’s denial and upheld the Circuit Court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Maryland does not automatically convert out-of-state felony convictions to equivalent Maryland offenses for handgun permit eligibility purposes.
- The phrase “sentence imposed” means the actual sentence pronounced by the court, including all suspended portions—not the time actually served or hypothetical alternative sentences.
- Handgun permit qualifications under § 5-306 are stricter than firearm possession prohibitions under § 5-133, and the two statutes are not interchangeable.
- Legislative history and statutory structure—not just plain language—guide interpretation where statutory ambiguity exists, particularly regarding federal-state coordination on convictions.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies a critical gap in Maryland firearm law: applicants with out-of-state convictions cannot sidestep handgun permit denials by arguing that a less-severe Maryland equivalent exists. The Court’s interpretation of “sentence imposed” to include suspended portions means that even sentences with minimal actual incarceration can trigger permit denial if the total imposed term exceeds one year. For individuals with out-of-state records, including those who have restored firearm rights in their home state, Maryland’s handgun permit regime operates independently and often more restrictively.
The decision also reinforces the distinction between possession prohibitions and carry permissions. An individual may be permitted to possess a firearm after conviction (under § 5-133’s “disqualifying crime” framework) yet still be barred from obtaining a permit to carry (under § 5-306). This two-tier system gives Maryland significantly more discretion to restrict permit issuance even where federal or home-state law would permit firearm ownership. Practitioners advising clients with out-of-state convictions should now expect Maryland to apply its own statutory framework directly, without accommodation for equivalent penalties under other jurisdictions’ law.