Maryland’s Rules That Make It Harder to Carry a Gun Concealed in Restaurants and Private Buildings Were Found to Be Unconstitutional

Five of Maryland’s gun carry rules were thrown out by a federal judge on Friday. In them, there are rules about exactly where people can legally carry.

The case, Novotny v. Moore, was brought by gun rights groups and people with concealed carry permits. It sued Gov. Wes Moore and other Maryland officials over specific rules that limited where people could legally carry guns. A lot of the rules were put in place by the Guns Safety Act of 2023, which used to be called the Senate Bill.

In a summary ruling, U.S. District Judge George Russell III said that three parts of the law were against the Second Amendment.

The first was a set of rules that said people couldn’t carry guns into places that sell alcohol for “on-site consumption,” like restaurants.

The judge also said in the decision released on Friday that the part of the law that said permit holders couldn’t bring guns into private buildings without the owner’s permission was against the Second Amendment.

He also said it was against the Constitution to take away the right to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a public protest.

The judge did not rule on other issues raised in the complaint, such as rules that say people can’t bring weapons into healthcare centers.

In September 2023, the judge gave a preliminary injunction on the same rules that were about to become law a few days later.

On May 16, 2023, the Guns Safety Act of 2023 became law. This was in reaction to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court called New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which made the process for getting a concealed permit very different across the country.

It threw out Maryland’s old gun rules, which said that people could only get concealed carry permits if they had a good reason to carry a gun.

A news release from the Second Amendment Foundation said, “We are pleased that the Court found Maryland’s harsh “anti-carry” rule to be unconstitutional.” “This kind of provision goes against the history and traditions of this country.” Of course, we will look at the court’s decision and think about our appeals choices so we can keep challenging other parts of the law we think are unconstitutional.