A public nuisance lawsuit filed against three Maryland gun shops has been thrown out by a Maryland Circuit Court judge.
The case was brought against Engage Armament LLC, United Gun Shop, and Atlantic Guns, Inc. by The State of Maryland and the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs claimed that the three gun shops were a public nuisance because a man named Demetrius Minor purchased several guns from the shops. Minor was buying the guns to sell to prohibited people, and the plaintiffs claimed that the stores should have known that the man was an “obvious straw purchaser.” The plaintiffs also said that the gun shops had a reason to believe that Minor was purchasing the guns to resell on the black market, even though they never presented any evidence that was the case.
The defendants moved to have the case dismissed by the court because the plaintiffs never stated a claim for which relief could be granted. All three denied having any knowledge that the man was a straw purchaser and pointed out that the plaintiffs never presented any evidence that they knew that Minor was reselling the guns to prohibited buyers. If there is no evidence that the gun store knew Mr. Minor was trafficking the guns, then no relief can be granted to the plaintiffs.
The court highlighted that Minor passed a background check every time he purchased a firearm and also held a Maryland Handgun Qualification License (HQL). The judge also noted that every time he bought a handgun, approval to sell that gun was issued by the Maryland State Police (MSP), meaning that the MSP was just as culpable, if not more than the gun dealers themselves since the state approved every sale at all three dealers. He also highlighted that the man marked he was the actual purchaser of the gun on the MSP Form 77R and ATF Form 4473, which he signed under oath.
The only objective evidence that the plaintiffs had was trace data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The use of trace data in civil lawsuits is prohibited by federal law. The judge had no choice but to throw out that evidence. With the exclusion of the trace data, the state’s case was doomed because no other evidence was presented.
“Critically, in this case, the court will not consider allegations in the complaint (or arguments concerning those allegations) that are based on or derived from ‘trace’ data,” the judge wrote. “This data maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, largely for law enforcement investigative purposes. Use of such data in civil cases is expressly barred by federal law, which provides, among other things, that trace data ‘shall not be used, relied on, or disclosed in any manner, nor shall testimony or other evidence be permitted based on the data, in a civil action in any State….. or Federal Court.”
The judge used the actual sale of the guns to Minor to determine if any public nuisance existed. The plaintiffs admitted in oral arguments that the gun shops didn’t inform each other about the sales to Minor, meaning they were only aware of their own sales. The MSP was aware of all sales to the man. The judge was critical of the plaintiff’s theory that, somehow, the gun stores should have known the guns were being resold.
Again, the judge called out the plaintiffs for trying to use discovery to construct a case against the defendants. The judge was unhappy with the plaintiffs’ apparent legal maneuvering and dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning that the case could never be refiled.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
