Md. gun laws restricting concealed carry in restaurants, private buildings, ruled unconstitutional
Luke Lukert
WTOP
August 5, 2024
A federal judge ruled Friday that several of Maryland’s gun carry laws are unconstitutional. They include provisions of where exactly permitted citizens can lawfully carry.
The lawsuit, Novotny v. Moore, was brought by several concealed carry permit holders and gun rights groups. It sued Gov. Wes Moore and other Maryland officials over specific restrictions on where citizens could legally carry. Many of the restrictions were passed in the Guns Safety Act of 2023, formerly known as Senate Bill 1.
U.S. District Judge George Russell III ruled in a summary judgment that three provisions violated the Second Amendment.
The first was a set of rules that barred carrying firearms in locations that sell alcohol for “on-site consumption,” including restaurants.
According to the ruling issued Friday, the judge also wrote that the provision prohibiting permit holders from carrying guns into private buildings without the express approval of the owner was against the Second Amendment.
He also ruled that barring the right to carry within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration was unconstitutional.
The judge, however, declined to rule on other provisions brought in the complaint, including rules that prohibit carrying weapons in health care facilities.
In September 2023, the judge issued a preliminary injunction on the same provisions that were set to go into effect just days later.
The Guns Safety Act of 2023 was signed into law on May 16 last year. It was a response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, that drastically changed the concealed permitting process across the country.
It effectively struck down Maryland’s prior gun permitting laws that limited concealed carry permits to only citizens that could provide a proper need of carrying a weapon.
“We are pleased that the Court found Maryland’s draconian ‘anticarry’ rule to be unconstitutional,” Second Amendment Foundation Executive Director Adam Kraut said in a news release. “Such a provision flies in the face of this nation’s history and tradition. Of course, we will examine the court’s opinion and weigh our options for appeal to continue to challenge other provisions we believe are unconstitutional.”