Appeals Court Upholds Most Maryland Gun-Free Location Laws
What to Know
- The court upheld Maryland's firearm restrictions in government buildings, schools, and public transportation, citing historical traditions and safety considerations.
- Maryland's ban on firearms within 1,000 feet of public demonstrations and in alcohol-serving venues was also affirmed, with some portions reversed based on legal reasoning.
- The private property restriction was struck down, as it violated the Second Amendment, with the court emphasizing the importance of historical context in such laws.
ANNAPOLIS, Maryland -- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Jan. 20 upheld the majority of Maryland laws restricting where firearms may be carried, ruling that most challenged locations qualify as constitutionally permissible “sensitive places” under the Second Amendment.
In a published opinion authored by Judge Robert B. Gregory, the court affirmed Maryland’s authority to prohibit firearms in government buildings, schools, public transportation, health care facilities, state parks and forests, museums, and a range of entertainment venues. The court also upheld a ban on firearms within 1,000 feet of public demonstrations and in locations that sell alcohol for on-site consumption, reversing portions of the district court’s earlier rulings on those provisions.
However, the court struck down Maryland’s prohibition on carrying firearms on private property held open to the public, affirming the district court’s conclusion that the law violated the Second Amendment. The panel also held that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge restrictions on private property not open to the public.
The consolidated cases stemmed from multiple challenges brought by gun rights organizations and individual plaintiffs against Maryland officials, including Gov. Wes Moore and Maryland State Police Superintendent Col. Roland L. Butler Jr. Plaintiffs argued that the restrictions, enacted following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, impermissibly burdened the right to bear arms.
The Fourth Circuit applied the two-step framework articulated in Bruen, concluding that “sensitive place” restrictions must be evaluated under the historical tradition analysis rather than excluded at the textual stage of the Second Amendment inquiry. The court emphasized that while the right to bear arms extends to public carry, longstanding historical practices support prohibitions in certain locations tied to public safety and government functions.
In upholding the ban on firearms in mass transit vehicles and facilities, the court relied in part on the government’s role as a property owner and operator, concluding Maryland acted in a proprietary capacity when regulating weapons on state-controlled transportation systems. The court also cited historical practices by private railroad companies that restricted firearm carriage as support for modern transit restrictions.
Judge Gregory’s opinion was joined in full by Chief Judge Albert Diaz, making it controlling. Judge G. Steven Agee concurred in part and dissented in part, disagreeing with several location-based prohibitions but joining the court in invalidating the private-property restriction.
The decision provides significant guidance for law enforcement agencies and policymakers across the Fourth Circuit on the scope of enforceable gun-free zones following Bruen, particularly as states continue to revise firearms laws and enforcement protocols.