Court Opinion

ID: 9753355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:10:02.233618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:34.775447
License: Public Domain

BELL, C.J.,
dissenting, in which GREENE, J. joins.
The majority, relying on the plain language of Maryland Code (2008, 2011 Supp.) § 5-133(c) of the Public Safety Article,1 the statute at issue, proscribing possession of a regulated firearm by a disqualified person, concludes that a handgun need not be operable to be considered a “firearm,” as defined *142in § 5-101(h)2 of that Article. The majority, in so concluding, assumes a fact that simply does not exist, that there is a uniform definition of firearm, which applies to the construction of § 5-133(c). There are, however, conflicting definitions of the term, “firearm,” one of which the majority fails to address, either ignoring it or paying it short shrift. To be sure, “firearm” is defined by § 5 — 101(h) in a way that supports the majority’s interpretation of § 5-133(c), and that would be dispositive, except that, prior to its enactment, this Court had defined firearm differently, albeit in construing a different statute and in a different context. Notwithstanding that one of the definitions was developed by case law in connection with a different statute and if it were confined only to that statute, the other definition, the one reflected in the statutory language, may be clear, where there is more than one definition of a term and those definitions are conflicting, an ambiguity exists, as it calls into question the Legislature’s intention in enacting the statute; given the conflicting definition that the legislation contained, it is not at all clear that the General Assembly intended to overrule this Court’s earlier definition of firearm. Thus, the plain language of § 5-101(h) no longer governs its meaning. For this reason, I respectfully dissent.
The petitioner, Rodney Taureen Moore, was charged in Baltimore County, with, inter alia, two counts of the use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, Maryland Code (2002) Criminal Law Article § 4-204(a),3 wearing, carrying or transporting a handgun, Criminal Law Article § 4-*143203(a),4 as well as a Maryland Code (2003) Public Safety Article, § 5-133(c) violation, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. After a court trial, the petitioner was convicted of the § 5-133(c) charge, and sentenced to five years imprisonment, without parole.5 That charge, felon in possession, stemmed from the petitioner’s 2005 conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, one of the enumerated proscribed offenses in § 5 — 133(c)(l)(ii), and the recovery of a .32 caliber revolver from beneath the petitioner’s bed during the execution of the search warrant at his residence. The handgun, the forensic firearms examiner concluded, was defective. In order to safely test-fire the gun, he had to replace a latch, that was cracked, on the gun. For the purposes of this opinion, therefore, the handgun, when discovered, was defective and inoperable.
Under the Maryland statutory scheme regarding gun crimes, it was, as it is now, a crime to wear, carry and *144transport a handgun, Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol.) Article 27, § 36B (b)6, now Maryland Code (2002, 2011 Supp.) Criminal Law Article, § 4-203, to use a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence, Article 27 § 36B (d),7 now § 4-204 of the Criminal Law Article, and for certain persons to possess “pistols and revolvers.” Maryland Code (1957, 1971 Repl.Vol.) Article 27, § 445,8 now § 5-133(b) of the Public Safety Article. Although Article 27, § 36F defined “handgun” as “any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person ...” (emphasis added)9 and the *145Legislature defined, Article 27, § 441(c), “pistol or revolver” as “any firearm with barrel less than twelve inches in length, including signal, starter, and blank pistols,” there were no provisions in Article 27 expressly regulating “Firearms,”10 or defining what a “firearm” was.
The scheme now in effect defines “firearm” as
“(i) a weapon that expels, is designed to expel, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile ... or
“(ii) the frame or receiver of such a weapon.”
Maryland Code (2003, 2011 Supp.) Public Safety Article, § 5-101(h).11 That section includes in the definition “a starter gun.”
As we have seen, that has not always been the case. This definition, in its present formulation, became a part of the Maryland legislative framework in 1996, when, as part of the Maryland Gun Violence Act of 1996, “Section 2, chs. 561 and 562, Acts 1996, effective Oct. 1, 1996, repealed former § 441 and enacted a new section in lieu thereof.” That new § 441 contained new subsection (i), which provided:
“Firearm. — ‘Firearm’ means:
“(1) Any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; or
“(1) The frame or receiver of any such weapon.”
In another part of that Act, the General Assembly made a substantive change, and a significant one, to Article 27, § 36B (d). In what could only be an attempt, with respect to that *146statute, to put to rest the controversy caused by certain factual scenarios involving obvious, but inoperable, handguns, the Legislature amended that section to provide:
“(d) Unlawful use of handgun or antique firearm in commission of crime; penalties. — Any person who shall use a handgun or an antique firearm capable of being concealed on the person in the commission of any felony or any crime of violence as defined in § 441 of this article, whether operable or inoperable at the time of the offense, shall be guilty of a separate misdemeanor.... ”
(Emphasis added). Significantly, neither § 445, predecessor to § 5-133 of the Public Safety Article nor § 36B (b), predecessor to § 4-203 of the Criminal Law Article were amended to address operability.
Before Howell v. State, 278 Md. 389, 364 A.2d 797 (1976), as the majority states, § 441, the eventual predecessor to § 5-101, was titled “Pistols,” and it contained no possession provisions — the possession prohibitions were in § 445, titled “Restrictions on sale, transfer and possession of pistols and revolvers,” see note 9, supra — , although it enumerated the crimes that were predicate for the use of handgun charges proscribed by Article 27, § 36B (d). Additionally, § 447, titled “Antique or unserviceable firearms excepted,” stated, “[t]he provisions of this subtitle shall not be construed to include any antique or unserviceable firearms sold or transferred and/or held as curios or museum pieces.” Maryland Code (1957,1971 Repl.Vol.) Article 27, § 447. Later, § 447, re-codified in 2003, see Laws 2003, ch. 5, § 2, without substantive change, as § 5-102 of the Public Safety Article, added the exception, “a regulated firearm modified to render it permanently inoperative[.]” Most significantly, there was not, in § 36B (b), (d) or any other statute, any exception or any attempt to exempt any weapon or device from the definition of handgun.
Subsequent to the passage of Maryland’s Gun Violence Act of 1996, pursuant to Laws 2002, ch. 26, § 2, § 36F was re-*147codified, without substantive change, as § 4-201(c)12 of the Criminal Law Article. At the same time and by the same authority, the related provisions, § 36B (a), which prohibited the wearing, carrying or transporting of a handgun, and § 36B (d), which prohibited the use of a handgun or antique firearm in commission of a crime, were also re-codified as, respectively, § § 4-203(a)13 and 4-204(a)14 of the Criminal Law Article. *148About a year later, see Laws 2003, ch. 5, § 2, Article 27, § 445(d), to which extensive revisions had been made over the years, was re-codified as § 5-133(b) and, as we have seen, § 441 was re-codified as § 5-101.
Nevertheless, the term, “handgun,” which necessarily required interpretation of the term, “firearm,” was defined by this Court in Howell. The definition we settled upon was one based on language similar to, if not identical to, that of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921(3) (1968). See Howell, 278 Md. at 391 n. 1, 364 A.2d at 798 n. 1 (quoting the Attorney General that “[i]t is abundantly clear that the term handgun as defined [in the Maryland statute] covers the same weapons as contemplated in the definition of firearm contained in the ‘Gun Control Act of 1968’ ”). The appellant in Howell was convicted on a number of charges, including the unlawful use of a handgun in the commission of a crime in violation of Article 27, § 36B (d) of the Maryland Code (1957, 1976 Repl.Vol.). Id. at 390, 364 A.2d at 798. Although the robbery victim thought the gun held to his head was a .22 caliber, in actuality, the appellant had been holding a tear gas gun, capable only of expelling fine particles highly irritating to the eyes. Id. at 390-91, 364 A.2d at 798.
This Court had to decide whether a tear gas pistol was a handgun within the meaning of Maryland Code (1957, 1976 Repl.Vol.) Article 27, § 36F (1957, 1976 Repl.Vol.). Id. at 390, 364 A.2d at 798. We held that it was not. Id. at 390, 364 A.2d at 797. Instead, the Court concluded that, in order to be a handgun, the weapon must be “a firearm or it must be readily or easily convertible into a firearm ... [F]urther[,] ... to be a firearm it must propel a missile by gunpowder or some such *149similar explosive[.]” Id. at 394-96, 364 A.2d at 800-801. The Court clearly was cognizant of the federal definition of “firearm,” and the structure of its opinion and its analysis indicate a purpose of ensuring that this definition was consistent. In a footnote, we acknowledged the federal statute and the Attorney General’s arguments:
“The Attorney General in 58 Op. Att’y Gen. 572, 576 (1973) opined that ‘[i]t is abundantly clear that the term handgun as defined [in the Maryland statute] covers the same weapons as contemplated in the definition of firearm contained in the ‘Gun Control Act of 1968,’ codified at 18 U.S.C. 921(3),’ stating that the latter statute ‘defines firearm as “... any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.” ’ The federal act says that a ‘destructive device’ is ‘any type of weapon ... by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter....’”
Id. at 391, n. 1, 364 A.2d at 798, n. 1. Further, having distinguished the cases the State relied on and consulted various dictionaries for definitions of handguns, we reasoned,
“If we regard the statute here as intending to define the term handgun as ‘any pistol, revolver, or other firearm’ (Emphasis added.) then the only way that ‘no word, clause, sentence, or phrase [may not] be rendered surplusage, superfluous, meaningless, or nugatory,’ is to conclude that the presence of the word ‘other’ before ‘firearm’ is an indication that the General Assembly intended that to be a ‘handgun’ the device under consideration must be a firearm.”
Id. at 394, 364 A.2d at 800.
After our decision in Howell, it was well settled that a handgun within the meaning of § 36F “cover[ed] the same *150weapons as contemplated in the definition of ‘firearm’ contained in the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. 921 (1968).” 58 Op. Att’y Gen. 567, 576 (1973); See also Maryland Code (1957, 1982 Repl.Vol.) Article 27, § 36F (citing 58 Op. Att’y Gen. 567 (1973) and Howell v. State) (stating “[t]he term ‘handgun’ as defined in this section covers the same weapons as contemplated in the definition of ‘firearm,’ contained in the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 922”). Moreover, as we have seen, the General Assembly amended § 441, in effect codifying the Howell definition of “firearm,” borrowed from federal law, by largely adopting the language from the federal Gun Control Act that Howell construed and which formed the basis for that definition and inserting it in subsection (n). In so doing, the Legislature was aware, and in any event, is presumed to have been aware, of this Court’s interpretation of “firearm” in light of that federal statute. Consol. Constr. Servs. v. Simpson, 372 Md. 434, 461, 813 A.2d 260, 276 (2002) (When interpreting the attorney’s lien statute, we stated that “Legislature is presumed to have been aware of our case law regarding the purpose and definition of such liens, i.e., charging liens.”); Atl. Sea-Con, Ltd. v. Robert Dann Co., 321 Md. 275, 292, 582 A.2d 981, 990 (1990) (stating “we presume that the Legislature was cognizant, when it enacted and later revised the [Miller Act], of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Miller Act ... ”); Best Drywall v. Berry, 108 Md.App. 381, 392-93, 672 A.2d 116, 122 (1996) (Holding that legislature’s intent in using the term “residence” was contrary to equating it with “domicile,” after gleaning such a principle from case law, because a statute’s “meaning is dependent on its contextual use.”). Despite the remaining issues associated with the implementation of the Howell definition of “firearm,” see, e.g., York v. State, 56 Md.App. 222, 230, 467 A.2d 552, 556 (1983), that definition has remained constant and accepted.
Section 5-133 provides that “(b) ... [a] person may not possess a regulated firearm if the person: (1) has been convicted of a disqualifying crime[,]” as listed in § 5-133(c). Section 5-101(h) defines “firearm,” which subsection (a) indicates applies to the Regulated Firearm Subtitle. The majori*151ty interprets this definition as being identical to the federal “firearm” definition located in § 921(a)(3), Title 18 of the United States Code. See Moore v. State, 135 n. 8, 34 A.3d at 522 n. 8. In actuality, Maryland’s “firearm” definition, which has also been used to define the term “handgun,” though originally borrowed from federal law, has a state-specific meaning as a result of court decisions and Legislative acceptance, see Maryland Code (1957, 1982 Repl.Vol.) Article 27, § 36F, and consistent amendments and enactments over the past several decades.
The majority traces the roots of § 5-101 to § 441 without acknowledging the relationship between § 445 and §§ 36B and 36F and, in particular, that § 36F defined the objects whose possession, under the enumerated circumstances, § 445 proscribed. In fact, although, when Howell was decided, all of the statutes involved “Crimes and Punishments” and appeared in the same Article, the majority simply dismisses § 36F as “a different handgun statute.”15 Moore, 137, 34 A.3d at 524.
*152Sections 4-201(c), 4-203(a) and 4-204(a) are a part of a single statutory scheme: they are all a part of Title 4 because each is a crime that involves a weapon and, because the common weapon is a handgun, they also share space in Subtitle 2. More specifically, critical to a prosecution under §§ 4-203 and 4-204 is the definition of a handgun, a question that must be answered, as Howell demonstrates, by reference to § 4-201(c). Although not a part of the same Title and Subtitle, and, indeed, is in another Article entirely, § 5-133(b) is nevertheless related to, and, I submit, shares a legislative scheme with these provisions. It too is a handgun offense, to the proof of which the definition of handgun is central. As Howell pointed out, given the structure and wording of the reference to “firearm” in the definition of handgun, a “ ‘handgun’ must be a firearm.” Id. at 394, 364 A.2d at 800. Where the “regulated firearm” otherwise falls within the definition of handgun, the opposite is also true. Section 5 — 101(h) also is related and cannot be exempted from the scheme. Although that section defines “firearm,” the definition of “handgun,” as Howell made clear, id., necessarily encompassed, and thus required reference to and construction of that term. As a matter of fact, as we have seen, id. at 391 n. 1, 364 A.2d at 798 n. 1, in construing § 36B (c), the predecessor to § 4-201(c), the Court considered the very language that § 5-101 (h) uses, albeit it did so in the context of the federal act upon which the statute is based.
Although, as the majority emphasizes, which, by the way, I concede, Howell interpreted, not § 441 (i), the predecessor to § 5 — 101(h), but § 36F, in which the definition of “handgun,” as used in § 36B (d), was set forth. There was a good reason that the Court did not interpret § 441(i): it did not then exist and no Maryland statute defined “firearm.” To be sure, then present § 441(c) used the term, “firearm,” in its definition of “handgun,” as did § 36B (b), but neither further defined or explained that term. More to the point, however, as Howell makes clear, the Court was aware of, and, indeed, in defining that term, considered the definition of “firearm” in the ‘Gun Control Act of 1968,’ codified at 18 U.S.C. 921(3), which used *153virtually the same language as the General Assembly did in enacting § 5-101 and, later, § 4-201(a).
The majority, after an extensive plain meaning analysis of § 5-101(h), states that the Maryland Gun Violence Act, which codified the definition of “firearm” in § 441(i) of Article 27, created a new definition consistent with federal law, evidenced by the nearly-identical language contained in the § 921(a)(3) of Title 18, United States Code. Moore, 133-34, 34 A.3d at 521-22. It goes on to say, in a footnote,
“To the extent that Moore contends that the new definition was not consistent with federal law, we find no merit in his argument. In addition to the legislative history that indicates as much, the definition that the General Assembly chose for the definition of “firearm” was virtually identical to language that was found in Section 921(a)(3) of Title 18, United States Code.”
Id. at 135 n. 8, 34 A.3d at 522 n. 8. Despite the majority’s pushing for such strict adherence to federal law regarding § 5-101(h), and thereafter citing a number of cases noting “that federal courts have overwhelmingly determined that operability is not a requirement under the similar federal statute,” id, 136, 34 A.3d at 523, and therefore concluding that operability is not required for a § 5-133(c) conviction, the majority quickly dismisses Howell and its progeny, reasoning that the definition involved there “pertained to offenses for ‘wearing and carrying handguns during the commission of certain crimes, which were enumerated in Section 36 of Article 27.” Moore, 138, 34 A.3d at 524. The majority then quotes the language of Howell, which states that “the term handgun as defined [in the Maryland statute] covers the same weapons as contemplated in the definition of firearm contained in the [federal statute.]” Moore, 138, 34 A.3d at 524 (internal quotation marks omitted). The majority, in interpreting § 5-101, concludes that the “firearm” definition therein strictly coincides with the federal definition, in that operability is not required, while § 4-201 loosely coincides with the federal definition, and operability is required.
*154The logic of the majority’s construction escapes me. As we have seen, this Court took account of the federal statute on which § 5-101 is based when it, construing § 36B (b), defined “handgun,” a critical component of which is that it be a “firearm.” Consequently, the Court necessarily defined “firearm.” Following that decision, it has been the law of this State that, to be a handgun, the object must be a firearm, and that it be an operable firearm. See Brown v. State, 182 Md.App. 138, 168 n. 16, 957 A.2d 654, 671 n. 16 (2008) (noting that “[a] weapon must be an operable firearm to sustain a conviction for carrying a handgun”); Powell v. State, 140 Md.App. 479, 486, 780 A.2d 1219, 1223 (2001) (emphasizing that under Howell v. State, “for a weapon to be a ‘handgun,’ it must be a firearm, and for a weapon to be a firearm, it must function as a firearm or be ‘readily convertible into a firearm’ ”); Wright v. State, 70 Md.App. 616, 620-21, 522 A.2d 401, 402-403 (1987) (reversing a handgun conviction where the jury had not been instructed on the requirement of operability); York, 56 Md.App. at 229, 467 A.2d at 556 (recognizing that-“a gun which, at the time of its use, is not a firearm (‘explosive of projectiles’) and not readily convertible to that purpose, is not a handgun under § 36B(d)”); United States v. Robson, 391 F.Supp.2d 383, 390 (D.Md.2005) (the United States District Court, in applying Maryland law in a prosecution for transporting handguns onto a federal enclave, recognized that Maryland is a jurisdiction which requires proof of operability as a prerequisite to conviction for handgun offenses).
That was the case whether the cases involved, as in the above cited cases, “wearing, carrying or transporting” or “use of’ a handgun crimes, or, as the following cases exclusively involve, the possession proscribed by § 5-133(c).16 See Parker v. State, 402 Md. 372, 377, 936 A.2d 862, 865 (2007) (where the Court noted that “an operable, loaded .357 magnum handgun” was recovered from the appellant’s residence); McCain v. *155State, 194 Md.App. 252, 264, 4 A.3d 53, 59 (2010) (where the court noted that, during trial, “[t]he prosecutor represented to the court that the handgun recovered ... had been tested and found to be an operable ‘high-power nine millimeter luger handgun.’ In addition, the prosecutor proffered that appellant had been convicted of assault in the second degree in 1999. Neither proffer was contested by appellant.”); Thompson v. State, 192 Md.App. 653, 666, 995 A.2d 1030, 1037 (2010) (where the court noted that “a report indicating that the aforementioned gun was operable was submitted without objection, as well as an exhibit indicating that appellant was prohibited, under Maryland law, from possessing a regulated firearm based on a prior disqualifying conviction ... ”); Nash v. State, 191 Md.App. 386, 392, 991 A.2d 831, 835 (2010) (Where the court noted that, at trial, the appellant moved for judgment of acquittal on the grounds that the State failed to show that the weapon was fireable because there was no evidence that the gun had been tested. In response, the State argued that their firearm expert had 13 years experience with guns and provided uncontroverted testimony that this was an operable weapon. The court denied the defendant’s motion).17
The mere subsequent adoption of pre-existing and well known federal statute language simply does not, and cannot, negate or undermine in any way the Howell ruling. More is required to indicate a legislative intent to reverse that decision. There is nothing more in that regard in this case. The more there is augurs against the position the majority espouses.
As I have previously pointed out, concurrently with the enactment of a definition of “firearm,” which largely mirrored *156the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, the General Assembly amended § 36B (d) to make clear that conviction of that offense did not depend on whether the handgun used was operable, that conviction could occur “whether the antique firearm or handgun is operable or inoperable at the time of the crime.” To my mind, this indicates quite clearly that, rather than a mere presumption, see Simpson, 372 Md. at 461, 813 A.2d at 276, the Legislature was very much aware of, and accepted, the Howell decision and its operability requirement, but wanted to confine its effect to crimes that did not involve the offensive use of the handgun. That certainly would address some of the concerns expressed about the operability requirement. See e.g., York, 56 Md.App. at 230, 467 A.2d at 556 (“We do not think the legislature, in its concern for the protection of citizens against handguns used in crimes, intended a weapon to be excluded from the handgun category because of nice calculations of percentages or the relative strengths of potential users.”). It also explains an interesting and significant omission: no similar amendment to the admittedly related “wearing and carrying” statute, § 36B (b), or to § 445, § 5-133(c)’s predecessor.
A rationale for removing the State’s burden of proving that a handgun used in the commission of a crime was operable was clearly stated by the Governor’s Commission on Gun Violence:
“The Commission heard testimony that this issue is critical in the prosecution of crimes involving the use of a handgun and [requiring operability] poses an extra element of proof for prosecutors. Moreover, some Commissioners stated that it was irrelevant to a crime victim, who believed that the handgun was capable of being fired, whether the weapon was operable or not. In other words, the impact intended by the criminal and felt by the victim is the same irrespective of whether the gun was operable. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the proof that the handgun was operable was essentially irrelevant to the criminal act in question and voted to recommend elimination of this element of proof.”
*157Report of Governor’s Commission on Gun Violence at 18. To my mind, the General Assembly’s action in amending § 36B (d) was consistent with the Commission’s sentiments. Equally significant, none of the other handgun statutes, § 36 B(b), prohibiting wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun; § 281A (b), prohibiting possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime; § 291(A)(b), prohibiting possession of a firearm after conviction of a drug offense; or § 445, prohibiting possession of a firearm by, inter alia, a person convicted of a disqualifying crime, were amended to include this exemption language.
It makes sense not to require proof that a brandished handgun is operable where the charged crime is an active one, involving violence and a victim, who, as a result, is, and is intended to be, intimidated; in such circumstances, the handgun’s operability simply may be deemed irrelevant. This rationale does not apply in the case of a statute that prohibits a certain class of persons from merely possessing a handgun.18 Indeed, operability is more relevant in such cases, where the handgun is not actively being used to harm or intimidate, but is available should the offender decide to revert to engaging in activity harmful to society sometime in the future. Indeed, subsequent to the Gun Violence Act of 1996, this Court and the Court of Special Appeals have continued to apply the Howell “firearm” definition in cases involving §§ 4-203 and 5-133. See Pye v. State, 397 Md. 626, 628, 919 A.2d 632, 634 (2007) (appellant was convicted of both 5-133 and 4-203, and the court noted that the gun proved to be operable); Brown, 182 Md.App. at 168 n. 16, 957 A.2d at 671 n. 16 (noting that “[a] weapon must be an operable firearm to sustain a conviction for carrying a handgun”). If the majority is correct, despite the Howell decision and the fact that only § 4-204 was amended to delete the operability requirement, § 4-203 would *158be the only one of the three statutes referencing “firearm” still to require operability. This simply is not sensible. Moreover, had the Legislature intended the same result in all cases in which handguns were involved, it certainly knew how to provide for it. Balto. Harbor Charters v. Ayd, 365 Md. 366, 386, 780 A.2d 303, 314 (2001) (holding that “[w]e have long applied the principle of statutory construction, ‘expressio unis est exdusio alterius,’ the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another”) (internal citations omitted). It chose not to.
In 2009, thirteen years after Maryland had codified the definition of “firearm” borrowed from federal law, the issue of whether proof of operability was a requirement for a conviction under § 5-133 was squarely presented to the Court of Special Appeals in Hicks v. State, 189 Md.App. 112, 984 A.2d 246 (2009). Without discussing Howell, or any of the § 5-133 cases referenced herein, focusing instead on the language, “frame or receiver,” borrowed from the federal statute, 58 Op. Att’y Gen. at 576, the intermediate appellate court held:
“We have found no Maryland cases that directly speak to the precise issue before us. We are persuaded, however, that a firearm need not be operable to sustain a conviction under Pub. Safety § 5-133(b). As noted, ‘firearm,’ the operative term here, is defined as ‘a weapon that expels, is designed to expel, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; or the frame or receiver of such a weapon.’
“Since the federal definition of ‘firearm’ is substantially the same as that in Pub. Safety, § 5-101(h), and the corresponding federal and Maryland statutes regulate essentially the same conduct, we view the federal courts’ interpretation of the term ‘firearm’ as persuasive. We hold that, in order to obtain a conviction under Pub. Safety § 5-133, the State need not prove that the firearm in question was operable.”
*159Id. at 136, 139, 984 A.2d at 260, 262. I find this rationale to be the product of illogic and incomplete analysis of Maryland’s statutory scheme and history and the relevant case law.
To the majority, the Public Safety Article and the Criminal Law Article contain mutually exclusive definitions of the word “firearm.” See Moore, 137-39, 34 A.3d at 524-25. The majority is wrong. It is true, there is now a definition of “firearm” in the Criminal Law Article, it is, however, a “Johnny Come Lately,” having just recently been added. When we defined “handgun,” and in the process, “firearm,” there was no statutory definition of “firearm,” although the statute we construed, § 36F, as well as several others, including the predecessor to § 5-101, § 441, referred to “firearm.” The definition of which we applied to each of these statutes and the case law reflects that reality. It also makes sense, as we pointed out, our definition of “handgun” encompasses “firearm.” Moreover, when the Court defined “handgun,” in the process defining “firearm,” all of the statutes were a part of one statutory scheme. Although they are today spread out over two Articles, they still are intimately related and are a part of a well developed scheme to regulate and punish gun crimes. House Judiciary Committee Bill Analysis for Senate Bill 215 at *1 (Md.1996). Thus, it is an incorrect and illogical assumption to read “firearm” as used in § 5-133, and defined in § 5-101(h), as completely separate and based upon a different definition than that articulated by this Court in Howell, admittedly applicable to § 4-203, wearing and carrying a handgun, a crime quite similar in nature, and, but for the exemption enacted in 1996, to § 4-204, use in crime. For these reasons, a plain meaning analysis is not available or appropriate in the construction of § 5-101(h). Such an analysis is possible only “[i]f the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, [rendering it unnecessary to] look beyond the statute’s provisions----” Ray v. State, 410 Md. 384, 978 A.2d 736 (2009). The Howell decision defining “firearm,” being relevant to its interpretation, renders the later enacted statute, defining the same term, but not purporting to overrule the earlier one, at the least ambiguous.
*160But even a plain meaning analysis does not justify the result the majority strains to reach: the language of § 5-101(h) requires that the subject weapon expel; be designed to expel; may be readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, or to be the frame or receiver of a weapon that expels, is designed to expel, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile. Rather than not being language “that requires operability,” as the majority states, Moore, 127, 34 A.3d at 518, I believe this language very clearly does the opposite, it requires that the weapon, designed to expel a projectile, operate or be readily converted to an operable state. Such a reading of the statute, moreover, takes account of all the words in the first clause and gives them meaning. Moreover, the statute states that a “firearm” includes “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” Of course, the frame or receiver of a weapon — with nothing more — is a component of, but not a, firearm. Consequently, that provision alone introduces an ambiguity which must be resolved.19
This is in contradistinction to the majority’s approach: it focuses on the phrase, “is designed to,” and concludes that the mere design alone makes a weapon a “firearm” for purposes of the § 5-101(h) violation. Id. at 129-30, 34 A.3d at 519. The majority bolsters this conclusion by relying on § 5-101(h)(1)(ii), including in the definition of “firearm,” “the frame or receiver of such a weapon,” pointing out that “[a] frame or receiver that provides housing for the internal components of the weapon is clearly not capable of ‘expel[ling] a projectile by the action of an explosive,’ absent the requisite internal components.” Id. at 131, 34 A.3d at 520.
It is well settled that, when interpreting statutes, we seek “to ensure that no word, clause, sentence or phrase is ren*161dered surplusage, superfluous, meaningless or nugatory.” Ray, 410 Md. at 404-05, 978 A.2d at 747-48 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Applying this canon of construction, it follows that, if subsection (h)(l)(i) were interpreted to mean that a conviction for illegal possession of a prohibited firearm could be based solely on evidence that the weapon was “designed” to expel a projectile, regardless of its actual capacity to do so, the requirement that it “expel a projectile ... or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” would be totally superfluous.20 Similarly, with regard to the “frame or receiver” requirement, if it trumps the rest of the statute, one can only wonder why the General Assembly bothered to say anything more.
Section 5 — 101(h)(1)(i) defines “firearm” using a series of phrases, which, as characterized by the majority, “contemplates three distinct levels of functionality under which a firearm may fall[.]” Moore, 130, 34 A.3d at 519 (emphasis added). By using the term “functionality,” I believe the majority concedes that, to be a firearm, the subject weapon must have some level of operability. See The American Heritage Dictionary 551, 956. (3rd ed. 1997) (Defining “operable” as “[b]eing such that operation is possible[; jpossible to put into practice; practicable” and defining “functional” as “[djesigned for or adapted to a particular function or use; [cjapable of performing; operative.'”) (emphasis added). Curiously, rather than analyze the statute as a whole, which, I submit, leads inexorably to the conclusion that the statute requires the weapon, at least, to be capable of expulsion, and, if not capable at that exact moment in time, “readily” convert*162ed to do so, the majority then focuses on the literal meaning of the words “designed to expel.”
The majority last argues that, because Maryland intended to model its own Act after the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, and because the federal government does not require operability, then Maryland’s Act, as a whole, does not either. See Moore, 133-36, 34 A.3d at 521-23. I simply do not find this argument convincing in light of Howell, Maryland’s long history of requiring, albeit by judicial decision, that handguns be operable, and the number of differences between the federal act and our State’s act. Further, I agree with the petitioner, although this Court, in Dept. of Public Safety v. Berg, 342 Md. 126, 139, 674 A.2d 513, 519 (1996), held that, in applying § 5-133(c), Maryland law enforcement official’s may appropriately consider federal gun control laws, there simply is no basis for the assertion that Maryland’s own gun control laws be interpreted in perfect conformity with federal law.
I dissent.
Judge GREENE authorizes me to state that he joins in the dissent.

. Public Safety Article § 5-133(c) provides:
"(c) Penalty for possession by person convicted of crime of violence.—
"(1) A person may not possess a regulated firearm if the person was previously convicted of:
"(i) a crime of violence; or
“(ii) a violation of § 5-602, § 5-603, § 5-604, § 5-605, § 5-612, § 5-613, or § 5-614 of the Criminal Law Article.
"(2)(i) Subject to paragraph (3) of this subsection, a person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony and on conviction is subject to imprisonment for not less than 5 years and not exceeding 15 years.
“(ii) The court may not suspend any part of the mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years.
“(iii) Except as otherwise provided in § 4-305 of the Correctional Services Article, the person is not eligible for parole during the mandatory minimum sentence.
"(3) At the time of the commission of the offense, if a period of more than 5 years has elapsed since the person completed serving the sentence for the most recent conviction under paragraph (l)(i) or (ii) of this subsection, including all imprisonment, mandatory supervision, probation, and parole:
“(i) the imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence is within the discretion of the court; and
"(ii) the mandatory minimum sentence may not be imposed unless the State’s Attorney notifies the person in writing at least 30 days before trial of the State’s intention to seek the mandatory minimum sentence.
"(4) Each violation of this subsection is a separate crime.”

. Public Safety Article § 5-101(n) also contains a definition of "handgun,” "a firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches in length[, including] signal, starter, and blank pistols,” a carry-over from former Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol.) Article 27, § 441(c). Although not as forthright as Public Safety Article §§ 5-301 and 5-401, both of which defined handguns by reference to the definition in Maryland Code (2002, 2011 Supp.) Criminal Law Article, § 4-201, this seems to be for a similar purpose, to conform to that aspect of the Criminal Law Article definition that addresses concealability.

. Criminal Law Article § 4-204(a) (2002) provides:
"(a) Prohibited. — A person may not use a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, as defined in § 5-101 of the Public Safety *143Article, or any felony, whether the firearm is operable or inoperable at the time of the crime.”

. Criminal Law Article § 4-203(a) (2002) provides:
“(a) Prohibited.—
"(1) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
“(i) wear, carry, or transport a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person;
"(ii) wear, carry, or knowingly transport a handgun, whether concealed or open, in a vehicle traveling on a road or parking lot generally used by the public, highway, waterway, or airway of the State;
“(iii) violate item (i) or (ii) of this paragraph while on public school property in the State; or
"(iv) violate item (i) or (ii) of this paragraph with the deliberate purpose of injuring or killing another person.
"(2) There is a rebuttable presumption that a person who transports a handgun under paragraph (l)(ii) of this subsection transports the handgun knowingly.”

. All other charges were nolle prosequi’d after the trial judge, in a ruling on a motion in limine, found as a matter of law, that a handgun need not be operable for a conviction under § 5 — 133(c). Thereafter, the parties proceeded on a not guilty agreed statement of facts, at which the State pursued only the charge under § 5-133(c) of the Public Safety Article.

. Article 27, § 36B (b) provided:
"(b) Unlawful wearing, carrying, or transporting of handguns; penalties. — Any person who shall wear, carry, or transport any handgun, whether concealed or open, upon or about his person, and any person who shall wear, carry or knowingly transport any handgun, whether concealed or open, in any vehicle traveling upon the public roads, highways, waterways, or airways or upon roads or parking lots generally used by the public in this State shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; and it shall be a rebuttable presumption that the person is knowingly transporting the handgun.”
All future references to Article 27 shall be to this volume of the Code, unless otherwise indicated.

. Article 27, § 36B (d) provided:
“(d) Unlawful use of handgun or antique firearm in commission of crime; penalties. — Any person who shall use a handgun or an antique firearm capable of being concealed on the person in the commission of any felony or any crime of violence as defined in § 441 of this article shall be guilty of a separate misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall, in addition to any other sentence imposed by virtue of commission of said felony or misdemeanor.”

. Maryland Code (1957, 1971 Repl.Vol.) Article 27, § 445, as relevant, provided:

''Restrictions on sale, transfer and possession of pistols and revolvers.

"(c) Possession by criminal, fugitive, etc. — -It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence, or of any of the provisions of this subtitle or who is a fugitive from justice or a habitual drunkard, or addicted to or an habitual user of narcotics, barbiturates or amphetamines, to possess a pistol or revolver.”

. In its entirety, the definition was:
"(b) Handgun. — 'Handgun' means any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, including a short-barreled shotgun and a short-barreled rifle as these terms are defined *145below, except it does not include a shotgun, rifle or antique firearm as those terms are defined below.' "

. The one section under "Firearms,” § 154, was repealed by Acts 1973, 1st Sp. Sess., ch. 4, § 2. It formerly stated:
"Carrying firearm while under influence of alcohol or narcotic drug. It shall be unlawful for a person to carry any firearm for the purpose of hunting any wild game, bird or creature, while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or any narcotic drug ...”
Maryland Code (1957, 1971 Repl.Vol.) Article 27, § 154.

. As a result of Code Revision, see laws 2003, ch.5, § 2, Article 27, § 441(i) was re-codified as § 5-101(h) of the Public Safety Article.

. As re-codified, § 4-201(c) provided:
"(c) Handgun.—
“(1) 'Handgun' means a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person.
"(2) 'Handgun' includes a short-barreled shotgun and a short-barreled rifle.
"(3) 'Handgun' does not include a shotgun, rifle, or antique firearm.”

. That section provided:
"(a) Prohibited.—
"(1) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
“(i) wear, carry, or transport a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person;
“(ii) wear, carry, or knowingly transport a handgun, whether concealed or open, in a vehicle traveling on a road or parking lot generally used by the public, highway, waterway, or airway of the State;
"(iii) violate item (i) or (ii) of this paragraph while on public school property in the State; or
"(iv) violate item (i) or (ii) of this paragraph with the deliberate purpose of injuring or killing another person.
"(2) There is a rebuttable presumption that a person who transports a handgun under paragraph (l)(ii) of this subsection transports the handgun knowingly.”
Comparison of the re-codified provision with the one it replaced confirms the Revisor’s conclusion that it "is new language derived without substantive change”

. As re-codified, § 4-204(a) provided:
"(a) Prohibited. — A person may not use an antique firearm capable of being concealed on the person or any handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, as defined in Article 27, § 441 of the Code, or any felony, whether the antique firearm or handgun is operable or inoperable at the time of the crime.”
By Laws 2003, ch. 17, the reference to Article 27, § 441 was replaced by one to § 5-101 of the Public Safety Article. During the last legislative session, § 4-204 was amended to include its own definition section to define "firearm.” See Laws 2011, ch. 164 and ch.165. That new subsection (a), largely identical to § 5 — 101(h), now provides:
*148"(a) ‘Firearm’defined. — (1) In this section,‘firearm’means:
"(i) a weapon that expels, is designed to expel, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; or
"(ii) the frame or receiver of such a weapon.
"(b) Prohibited. — A person may not use a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, as defined in § 5-101 of the Public Safety Article, or any felony, whether the firearm is operable or inoperable at the time of the crime.”

. The majority, in support of its proposition, cites to Henry C. Black, Handbook on the Construction and Interpretation of the Laws 171-72 (2d ed.1911), stating "[t]here is no rule of construction which requires the same meaning always to be given to the same word, when used in different connections in the same statute or in different statutes.” Moore v. State, 139, 34 A.3d at 525 (2011). The majority fails to address, or follow, the rule from Taxiera v. Malkus, 320 Md. 471, 481, 578 A.2d 761, 765 (1990), which states,
”[W]here two statutes purport to deal with the same subject matter, they must be construed together as if they were not inconsistent with one another. Police Comm’r v. Dowling, 281 Md. 412, 418, 379 A.2d 1007 (1977); Comm’n on Md. Discipline v. Bendler, 280 Md. 326, 330, 373 A.2d 1232 (1977). In this regard, the courts strongly favor a harmonious interpretation in construing the related statutes which gives full effect to both statutes, even where they were enacted at different times and without relation to one another. Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Schlossberg, 306 Md. 48, 56, 507 A.2d 172 (1986).”
I submit that §§ 5-133 and 4-203 of the Maryland Code purport to deal with the same subject matter, firearms. Further, I do not believe, and there is no evidence to show, that the Legislature had an intent to create a definition of "firearm” in § 5-101(h) that was contrary to, and not harmonious with, § 4-201(c) and its Howell-based interpretation.

. In candor, in none of these cases was operability of the handgun the issue.

. Nash v. State was pending appeal when the decision in Hicks v. State, 189 Md.App. 112, 139, 984 A.2d 246 (2009) was announced. Citing Hicks, the court noted, in its opinion:
"Although appellant did not raise on appeal the issue he raised below regarding the operability of the firearm, we note that the State is not required to demonstrate that a firearm is operable to obtain a conviction under P.S. § 5-133(c)."
Nash, 191 Md.App. at 405, note 8, 991 A.2d at 842.

. Additionally, there would seem to be due process implications where a person in mere possession of an inoperable weapon, fundamentally a useless heap of metal, is convicted of possessing a regulated firearm. I do not believe the statute gives proper notice that any weapon, whether operable or not, could incriminate a person under § 5-133.

. The statute's reference to "the frame or receiver of any such weapon,” (emphasis added) is, I believe, a reference to a weapon that expels, is designed to expel, or is readily capable of expelling a projectile. I do not take this language to mean that the frame or receiver of an inoperable weapon suffices. Had that been the Legislature’s intent, the words “any such weapon," referring back to subsection (l)(i), would not have been used.

. The same logic applies to Section 4-204(a) of the Criminal Law Article, which states
"A person may not use an antique firearm capable of being concealed on the person or any handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, as defined in [what is now] § 5-101 of the Public Safety Article, or any felony, whether the antique firearm or handgun is operable or inoperable at the time of the crime.”
If Section 5-101 in fact defined a firearm as being an operable or inoperable weapon, the language of Section 4-204 that states "whether ... operable or inoperable” would be superfluous.