Raymond Woollard, a handgun owner, and a Second Amendment advocacy group brought an action against state officials, alleging Maryland’s requirement that an applicant demonstrate “good and substantial reason” for the issuance of a handgun permit violated the Second Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted the plaintiffs’ motion and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Defendants appealed. The U.S Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. Judge KING wrote the opinion, in which Judge DAVIS and Judge DIAZ joined.

Facts 

On Christmas Eve, 2002, Woollard was at home with his wife, children, and grandchildren when an intruder shattered a window and broke into the house. The intruder was Kris Lee Abbott, Woollard’s son-in-law. Abbott, who was high on drugs and intent on driving into Baltimore city to buy more, was looking for his wife’s car keys. Woollard grabbed a shotgun and trained it on Abbott, but Abbott wrested the shotgun away. Woollard’s son restored order by pointing a second gun at Abbott. Woollard’s wife called the police, who took two and- a-half hours to arrive.....

1. Summarize the facts relevant to deciding whether Maryland’s “good-and-substantial-reason requirement”

violates the Second Amendment.

2. Summarize Raymond Woollard’s arguments that the requirement violated his Second Amendment rights.

3. Summarize the Court’s arguments upholding the requirement against Woollard’s challenge.

4. In your opinion, is the good-and-substantial reason requirement “reasonably adapted to a substantial governmental interest”? Defend your answer.