Quoted:
The legislation prohibits carrying firearms in areas such as government buildings, schools and health care facilities; law enforcement, security personnel and active-duty military are exempt

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld most of Maryland’s law banning firearms in designated “restricted areas,” rejecting a challenge from the Maryland chapter of the National Rifle Association while striking down select provisions.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the state’s restrictions on where licensed gun owners can carry in public are largely constitutional, siding with Maryland in a dispute over the law passed in 2023.

The legislation prohibits carrying firearms in government buildings, schools, health care facilities, public transportation, stadiums, museums, racetracks, casinos, and locations selling alcohol or cannabis. Certain groups — such as law enforcement, security personnel, and active-duty military — are exempt.

The lawsuit said the restrictions violated the Second Amendment. Attempts to reach the Maryland chapter of the NRA were unsuccessful by presstime.

Maryland defended the law by citing the “sensitive place exception” first outlined by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

That exemption refers to the Supreme Court’s decision that laws prohibiting the carrying of firearms in specific, sensitive locations are “presumptively lawful” and do not violate the Second Amendment.

One slight change
There were two things changed as a result of Tuesday’s decision. First, the court struck down the ban on carrying guns on private property open to the public without the owner’s consent. That includes things like private gardens or parks, with Baltimore’s Sherwood Gardens and Ladew Topiary Gardens in Monkton as examples.

A lower court’s injunction had blocked Maryland’s prohibitions on carrying firearms within 1,000 feet of protests and at establishments selling alcohol. Tuesday’s ruling reverses that.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a related case, Wolford v. Lopez, involving similar firearm restrictions in Hawaii and California. The high court’s eventual ruling could impact Maryland’s law.

Gov. Wes Moore signed Maryland’s gun restrictions into law after the Supreme Court struck down previous concealed carry rules, prompting lawmakers to define new limits on licensed carry in public spaces.

https://www.police1.com/gun-legislation-law-enforcement/md-appeals-court-upholds-most-of-states-restricted-areas-firearms-ban-after-nra-challenge

Quoted:
The legislation prohibits carrying firearms in areas such as government buildings, schools and health care facilities; law enforcement, security personnel and active-duty military are exempt

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld most of Maryland’s law banning firearms in designated “restricted areas,” rejecting a challenge from the Maryland chapter of the National Rifle Association while striking down select provisions.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the state’s restrictions on where licensed gun owners can carry in public are largely constitutional, siding with Maryland in a dispute over the law passed in 2023.

The legislation prohibits carrying firearms in government buildings, schools, health care facilities, public transportation, stadiums, museums, racetracks, casinos, and locations selling alcohol or cannabis. Certain groups — such as law enforcement, security personnel, and active-duty military — are exempt.

The lawsuit said the restrictions violated the Second Amendment. Attempts to reach the Maryland chapter of the NRA were unsuccessful by presstime.

Maryland defended the law by citing the “sensitive place exception” first outlined by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

That exemption refers to the Supreme Court’s decision that laws prohibiting the carrying of firearms in specific, sensitive locations are “presumptively lawful” and do not violate the Second Amendment.

One slight change
There were two things changed as a result of Tuesday’s decision. First, the court struck down the ban on carrying guns on private property open to the public without the owner’s consent. That includes things like private gardens or parks, with Baltimore’s Sherwood Gardens and Ladew Topiary Gardens in Monkton as examples.

A lower court’s injunction had blocked Maryland’s prohibitions on carrying firearms within 1,000 feet of protests and at establishments selling alcohol. Tuesday’s ruling reverses that.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a related case, Wolford v. Lopez, involving similar firearm restrictions in Hawaii and California. The high court’s eventual ruling could impact Maryland’s law.

Gov. Wes Moore signed Maryland’s gun restrictions into law after the Supreme Court struck down previous concealed carry rules, prompting lawmakers to define new limits on licensed carry in public spaces.

https://www.police1.com/gun-legislation-law-enforcement/md-appeals-court-upholds-most-of-states-restricted-areas-firearms-ban-after-nra-challenge

Quoted:


no disrespect intended to anyone at all, but the active duty military personnel exemption is kind of silly when you consider that many military members have duties that do not see them around firearms on a regular basis ( aside from any qualifications that are required on a yearly basis ).

Quoted:
Within 1,000 feet of an establishment that serves alcohol is literally everywhere.  Gas stations, restaurants, grocery stores and anything in between.

Quoted:
Within 1,000 feet of an establishment that serves alcohol is literally everywhere.  Gas stations, restaurants, grocery stores and anything in between.

Quoted:

There were two things changed as a result of Tuesday’s decision. First, the court struck down the ban on carrying guns on private property open to the public without the owner’s consent. That includes things like private gardens or parks, with Baltimore’s Sherwood Gardens and Ladew Topiary Gardens in Monkton as examples.

A lower court’s injunction had blocked Maryland’s prohibitions on carrying firearms within 1,000 feet of protests and at establishments selling alcohol. Tuesday’s ruling reverses that.

In a vivid demonstration of the principle, McClellan notes that while elected officials in the "Upper House" of Maryland's legislature in the 17th century could be armed with swords in their chambers, arms were even then prohibited in the "Lower House." That resulted, in an instance in 1682, in the Doorkeeper (i.e., guard) to the Lower House turning away members of the Upper House who were carrying both swords and a message from the governor, because entry with a sword "was contrary to the Antient rules & Custume of this house."

Quoted:


It's the shitlib response to Bruen everywhere.

Oh we have to issue licenses to carry handguns. So we'll just make them completely worthless by terraforming the entire world in which people go about their lives into a giant, impassible minefield of prohibited places. And get some limp-wristed history professor to talk about "historical regulations" like laws banning duck hunting at public parks, that have nothing to do with carrying handguns for self-defense.

Quoted:



It's
1. within 1,000' of a protest. (whatever the legal definition of 'protest' is)
2. in an establishment that sells alcohol. (better use 'pay at the pump' when you buy gas)

Those were the two that the district court found unconstitutional and the 4th circuit reinstated.

"Every business establishment in the state" was the one that the district court threw out and the circuit court left out. < This is your 2A 'partial win' in the case.

Quoted:
"Largely constitutional"

In other words, unconstitutional.

I missed the part in the 2ndA that says, shall not infringe except some places.

So, now they opened the door for states to make huge lists of barred places.

Quoted:

What distinguishes a protest from a violent mob? Is that what a court decides when you have to defend yourself from a "mostly peaceful protester"?