Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Eva Marie Gardner, Petitioner v. Maryland

N»-i--------------

OR!GINAL

filed

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCT 2 2 2025

BuPREM£FCTOuR^g<

Eva Marie Gardner, Pro Se Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND, RESPONDENT.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Eva Marie Gardner, Pro Se

P.O. 30

Yanceyville, North Carolina 27379

717-415-9992

1

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Does Maryland’s prohibition on carrying a handgun without a state permit, as applied to

an interstate traveler with a valid Virginia concealed carry permit who displayed a loaded

firearm in self-defense against an assailant’s vehicular assault and physical advance,

violate the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597

U.S. 1 (2022), by lacking a historical tradition of disarming law-abiding citizens in such

circumstances?

2. Did the Maryland courts’ reliance on a video showing the assailant’s calm demeanor

upon police arrival, without his testimony or other witnesses to corroborate the incident,

while disregarding Petitioner’s evidence of the assailant’s PIT maneuver, vehicular

coercion, and physical advance, violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause

by denying Petitioner a meaningful opportunity to present a self-defense claim?

3. Does Maryland’s refusal to recognize Petitioner’s valid Virginia concealed carry permit

for interstate travel violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause, U.S. Const, art. IV, § 1, or

the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 926A), despite the firearm being

loaded and Pennsylvania’s non-recognition of the permit at the time of the incident?

*/

2

LIST OF PARTIES

•

Petitioner: Eva Marie Gardner, P.O. Box 30, Yanceyville, NC 27379.

•

Respondent: State of Maryland, represented by the Maryland Attorney General, 200 St.

Paul Place, Baltimore, MD 21202.

RELATED CASES

•

State v. Eva Marie Gardner, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Case No. 138914C,

Judgment entered August 25, 2022.

•

State v. Eva Marie Gardner, Appellate Court of Maryland, Case No. 1496, Opinion

issued April 18, 2025.

•

State v. Eva Marie Gardner, Supreme Court of Maryland, Case No. 87, Certiorari denied

July 29, 2025.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover Page................................................................................................1

Questions Presented................................................................................2

List of Parties........................................................................................... 3

Related Cases........................................................................................... 3

Table of Contents................................................................................... 4

Index to Appendices................................................................................5

Table of Authorities................................................................................6

Opinions Below........................................................................................8

Jurisdiction............................................................................................... 9

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved.............................. 10

Statement of the Case.......................................................................... 11

Reasons for Granting the Petition..........................................

•

12

I. Maryland’s Application of § 4-203 Violates the Second Amendment Under

Bruen........................... 12

•

II. Maryland’s Handling of Petitioner’s Self-Defense Claim Violated Due Process

13

4

•

III. Maryland’s Refusal to Recognize Petitioner’s Virginia Permit Violates the

Full Faith and Credit Clause ... 13

Conclusion.......................................................................................... 15

Proof of Service ................................................................................. 16

INDEX TO APPENDICES

Appendix A: Order of the Supreme Court of Maryland, July 29, 2025

Appendix B: Opinion of the Appellate Court of Maryland, April 18, 2025

Appendix C: Judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, August 25, 2022

Appendix D: Maryland Criminal Law § 4-203

Appendix E: 18 U.S.C. § 926A

Appendix F: Relevant Trial Record: police report

5

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Cases

•

Antonyuk v. Chiumento, 89 F.4th 271 (2d Cir. 2023)

•

Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973)

13,15

•

Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986)

13,15

•

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

•

Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006)

13,15

•

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

12, 15

•

Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012)

12

•

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S., 1 (2022)

•

People v. Frawley, 98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 555 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)

.

State v. Faulkner, 301 Md. 482, 483 A.2d 759 (1984)..............................

•

Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988)

13

•

Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2017)

12

13

12

11, 12

13

11,13

Statutes

•

Maryland Criminal Law § 4-203

•

18 U.S.C. § 926A

10,11, Appendix D

13, Appendix E

6

•

28 U.S.C. § 1257(a)

9

Constitutional Provisions

•

U.S. Const, amend. II

•

U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1

•

U.S. Const, art. IV, § 1

2, 4, 10, 11,12,13

2, 10,13

10, 13,14, 15

Other Authorities

•

U.S. Concealed Carry Association, Reciprocity Map (2025)

7

13

OPINIONS BELOW

The Supreme Court of Maryland’s order denying Petitioner’s petition for certiorari, dated July

29, 2025, is unreported (Appendix A).

The Appellate Court of Maryland’s opinion affirming Petitioner’s conviction dated April 18,

2025, is unreported (Appendix B).

The Circuit Court for Montgomery County’s judgment of conviction, entered August 25, 2022,

(Appendix C)

8

JURISDICTION

The Supreme Court of Maryland denied certiorari on July 29, 2025. This Court has jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) to review final judgments of the highest state court raising federal

constitutional questions. This petition is timely filed within 90 days of the denial (by October 27,

2025), pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13. A copy of that order appears at Appendix A

9

CONSTITUTIONAL and STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

1. Second Amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free

State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

2. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

. nor shall any State deprive any person of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of law ...”

3. Article IV, Section 1: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public

Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”

4. Maryland Criminal Law § 4-203: Prohibits carrying a handgun without a Maryland

permit (Appendix D).

5. 18 U.S.C. § 926A: Allows interstate transport of firearms by persons with valid permits,

if legal in origin and destination states (Appendix E).

10

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner Eva Marie Gardner, a law-abiding citizen with a valid Virginia concealed carry permit,

was traveling through Maryland on January 16, 2021. In Montgomery County, an assailant

executed a PIT maneuver, striking Petitioner’s vehicle, and used his car to force her off 1-270. As

the assailant exited his vehicle and rushed toward Petitioner’s car, she screamed to deter him.

When he continued advancing, Petitioner displayed her loaded handgun in self-defense to protect

against the imminent threat. Maryland police, arriving later, noted the assailant’s calm demeanor

in a video presented at trial and in a police report, despite no witnesses to the incident and the

assailant’s lack of a valid driver’s license, proof of car ownership, or insurance. The assailant

could not be located post-incident. Police released the assailant and arrested Petitioner for

violating Maryland Criminal Law § 4-203 (Appendix D). At trial in the Circuit Court for

Montgomery County, Petitioner argued that her actions were protected by the Second

Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), citing her

Virginia permit and the assailant’s actions (PIT maneuver, vehicular coercion, physical advance).

She also raised self-defense under Maryland common law (State v. Faulkner, 301 Md. 482, 483

A.2d 759 (1984)). The trial court rejected these defenses, relying on a video showing the

assailant’s post-incident demeanor, despite his absence as a witness, and the lack of a Maryland

permit, convicting her on August 25, 2022 (Appendix C). The Appellate Court of Maryland

affirmed, dismissing Petitioner’s Bruen and due process claims on April 18, 2025 (Appendix B).

The Supreme Court of Maryland denied certiorari on July 29, 2025, barring reconsideration

(Appendix A).

11

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

This case presents critical federal questions regarding the Second Amendment rights of interstate

travelers, due process in self-defense claims, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause’s application

to concealed carry permits. The Maryland courts’ decisions conflict with this Court’s precedents

and affect millions of permit holders, warranting review.

I. Maryland’s Application of § 4-203 Violates the Second Amendment Under Bruen

Maryland’s prohibition on carrying a handgun without a state permit, as applied to

Petitioner—an interstate traveler with a valid Virginia permit who displayed a firearm in

self-defense—violates the Second Amendment. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n

v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17-29 (2022), this Court held that the Second Amendment protects

the right of law-abiding citizens to carry firearms in public for self-defense, and

restrictions must be consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

See also District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 628 (2008) (self-defense as core

right); McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (applying Second Amendment

to states).Petitioner, a law-abiding citizen with a Virginia permit, faced an imminent

threat when an assailant struck her vehicle with a PIT maneuver, forced her off the road,

and advanced toward her. After screaming failed, she displayed her handgun, a protected

act of self-defense under Heller and Bruen. Maryland’s § 4-203, lacking exceptions for

interstate travelers or self-defense, fails Bruen’s historical test, as no Founding-era law

disarmed law-abiding travelers in such circumstances. See Bruen, 597 U.S. at 47-50;

Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 2012); Wrenn v. District of Columbia,

864 F.3d 650, 661 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Maryland’s non-reciprocity burdens over 20 million

permit holders. See U.S. Concealed Carry Association, Reciprocity Map (2025);

12

Antonyuk v. Chiumento, 89 F.4th 271 (2d Cir. 2023) (scrutinizing permit regimes).

Review is needed to clarify Second Amendment protections for travelers.

II. Maryland’s Handling of Petitioner’s Self-Defense Claim Violated Due Process

The Maryland courts’ reliance on a video showing the assailant’s calm demeanor at

police arrival, despite his absence as a witness, no other witnesses, and his undocumented

status (no valid driver’s license, proof of car ownership, or insurance, and disappearance

post-incident), denied Petitioner due process. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a

meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. Holmes v. South Carolina, 547

U.S. 319, 324 (2006); Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986); Chambers v.

Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 (1973). Arbitrary reliance on incomplete evidence violates

due process. Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400,410 (1988). Petitioner presented evidence of

the assailant’s PIT maneuver, vehicular coercion, necessitating her defensive display of a

firearm, as noted in the police report (Appendix F) and Appellate Court opinion

(Appendix B). The trial court’s focus on the video, without allowing cross-examination

of the assailant or corroborating witnesses, ignored Petitioner’s self-defense evidence

under Maryland law (State v. Faulkner, 301 Md. 482). The assailant’s undocumented

status and disappearance further undermine the video’s reliability. The Appellate Court

and Supreme Court of Maryland’s affirmance perpetuated this error. Review is needed to

ensure due process in firearm-related defenses.

13

III. Maryland’s Refusal to Recognize Petitioner’s Virginia Permit Violates the Full Faith and

Credit Clause

Maryland’s refusal to recognize Petitioner’s valid Virginia concealed carry permit

violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause, U.S. Const, art. IV, § 1, and burdens interstate

travel under 18 U.S.C. § 926A (Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, FOPA) (Appendix E).

Article IV, § 1 requires states to respect other states’ public acts, including licenses. See

People v. Frawley, 98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 555 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). FOPA permits interstate

transport of firearms by permit holders if legal in origin and destination states.

Maryland’s prosecution under § 4-203 (Appendix D) nullifies Article IV, § 1, as

Petitioner’s Virginia permit was valid in her origin state. Although her firearm was

loaded and Pennsylvania did not recognize the permit in 2021 (recognized by 2022),

Maryland’s categorical non-reciprocity lacks a historical basis under Bruen and burdens

over 20 million permit holders. See U.S. Concealed Carry Association, Reciprocity Map

(2025). This issue, potentially unpreserved, may be raised via a state post-conviction

petition for ineffective assistance of counsel. Review is warranted to address this national

issue affecting interstate travelers.

14

CONCLUSION

Maryland’s application of § 4-203 conflicts with Bruen, Heller, and by punishing Petitioner’s

self-defense as an interstate traveler. The courts’ disregard of assault evidence violates due

process under Holmes, Crane, and Chambers. Maryland’s non-recognition of Petitioner’s

Virginia permit contravenes Article IV, § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 926A. These issues demand

clarification. The Court should grant certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,

Eva Marie Gardner

P.O. Box 30

Yanceyville, North Carolina 27379

(717)415-9992

Petitioner, Pro Se

October 22, 2025

15