MD Dumbocrats Prohibit Carrying Guns in Any Place Deemed “a Sensitive Place” and then Arbitrarily Claim that Most Places are Sensitive. Court says Only Gov Agents Can Have Guns in Many Public Places

A federal appeals court has upheld most of Maryland’s Gun Rights Safety Act of 2023,allowing the state to ban firearms in a wide range of public locations, while striking down one key provision that would have effectively turned much of the state into default gun-free zones.

In a decision issued January 20, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that most of the locations listed in Maryland’s law qualify as “sensitive places” under Supreme Court precedent.

The court rejected, however, Maryland’s attempt to prohibit firearms on private property that is open to the public unless the owner gives explicit permission .

What the Court Decided

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Roger L. Gregory said that the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen allow governments to prohibit firearms in certain locations with historical analogies.

The Fourth Circuit upheld Maryland’s bans on carrying firearms in government buildings, schools and school grounds, public transportation, parks and forests, health care facilities, stadiums, museums, casinos, racetracks, amusement parks, and locations that sell alcohol for on-site consumption.

The court also reversed an earlier district court ruling. It allowed the state to enforce a ban on carrying firearms at public demonstrations and within 1,000 feet of them, provided law enforcement first orders the armed individual to leave.

At the same time, the panel unanimously agreed that Maryland went too far when it tried to ban firearms on all private property that is open to the public unless the owner affirmatively allows carry.

“Maryland’s rule would effectively declare most public places ‘gun-free zones,’” Gregory wrote. “But that likely stretches the sensitive places doctrine too far” .

A Sharp Dissent on Constitutional Limits

Judge Steven Agee concurred with parts of the ruling but issued a strong partial dissent, warning that the majority’s approach risks hollowing out the Second Amendment. [too late]

He agreed that schools, government buildings, and health care facilities can be treated as sensitive places. But he argued that approving Maryland’s long list of additional locations “stretches the sensitive places exception into a broad license to prohibit firearms in locations where people gather for almost any purpose” .

Agee emphasized that Bruen requires modern gun laws to be grounded in Founding-era history, not later traditions selectively assembled to justify broad bans. In his view, the absence of close historical analogues should be decisive, not brushed aside. [MORE]