Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit typical, law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense

QUESTION PRESENTED Maryland prohibits its typical, law-abiding citizens from carrying a firearm outside the home without a permit, and provides permits only to those who can demonstrate, among other requirements, a “good and substantial reason” for carrying a firearm. In District of Columbia v. Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), and in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court held that this right “is fully applicable to the States,” 561 U.S. 742, 750 (2010). Since then, numerous courts of appeals have confronted, and have squarely divided on, the question of whether the Second Amendment allows the government to deprive typical, law-abiding citizens of all means of carrying a handgun for self-defense. This circuit split is open and acknowledged, and it is squarely presented by this case, in which the Fourth Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of a Maryland regime that prohibits law-abiding individuals from carrying a handgun unless they can demonstrate some particularized “good and substantial reason” that distinguishes them from the body of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. The time has come for this Court to resolve this critical constitutional question and to restore to citizens of Maryland and the handful of other states that prohibit the carrying of handguns the fundamental rights that the Second Amendment guarantees the people. The question presented is: Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit typical, law-abiding citizens ii from carrying handguns outside the home for selfdefense in any manner.