Several provisions of a Maryland gun control law that were supposed to go into effect on Sunday were put on hold Friday after a U.S. District Court Judge stopped the law’s prohibition on carrying firearms in bars, public meetings, and private premises.
According to The Washington Post, U.S. District Court Judge George L. Russell III repeatedly invoked the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen in granting a preliminary injunction that prevents those pieces of the law from taking effect while the lawsuit against it moves through the courts.
Russell, who was appointed by previous President Barack Obama, stated that there should be limits on carrying firearms in schools. While hospitals, transit facilities, government buildings, and other locations were likely to be constitutionally acceptable, other provisions of the statute did not pass that test.
Russell noted in his judgment that “bars and restaurants are not analogous to any established sensitive place.”
“While it is true that such businesses can attract crowds and there are risks associated with alcohol consumption, the Court is unconvinced that intoxicated people qualify as a vulnerable population, like children or hospitalized individuals,” he wrote
“Additionally, while some crowded spaces are considered sensitive places, Bruen rejected the argument that Manhattan was sensitive ‘simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department,’” he continued.
Noting the theme laid down by the Supreme Court in its 2022 ruling, Russell added, “Additionally, the Court concludes that SB 1’s restriction on locations selling alcohol is not consistent with historical regulations.”
Gottlieb: “Maryland is one of a handful of states that have adopted new statutes designed specifically to get around the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2022 Bruen case.” @2AFDN @aarmark https://t.co/8bBRYLgGZP
— Lee Williams (@HT_GunWriter) September 29, 2023
Russell wrote that “The Second Amendment ‘presumptively guarantees’ citizens the right to carry arms ‘in public for self-defense” and that in his opinion, under the proposed law the citizens suing the government “have suffered an injury in fact.”
“State Defendants mischaracterize Plaintiffs’ injury — it is not merely the inability to carry in privately-owned buildings,” he wrote.
“Rather, their injury is the threat of prosecution for carrying firearms in places that, under prevailing law, they have previously had the presumptive right to do so absent express prohibition by the property owner,” Russell wrote.
In banning the part of the law that would ban guns near demonstrations, Russell noted, “Just before the ratification of the Second Amendment, ‘six out of the thirteen original colonies required their citizens to go armed when attending . . . public assemblies.’”
According to the Post, Mark Pennak, president of the gun rights group Maryland Shall Issue, said the law’s portion prohibiting guns in bars or restaurants damaged his safety when he ate out.
“No one is advocating drinking and being armed. But people who do carry like to do so while we eat, and they serve alcohol at most restaurants. It’s not like there’s a sign ‘no bad guys allowed’ and the bad guys say, ‘OK, we’ll stay away.’ There’s still shootings at restaurants.”
The judge disagreed with the state’s attempt to use racist historical gun laws to justify its current ones: https://t.co/t2rzRCLNon pic.twitter.com/rKLUNAakLX
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) September 29, 2023
In assessing the decision, the National Rifle Association wrote that “The biggest win was stopping the ‘private building consent rule,’” which declares all private property that is open to the public to be a prohibited place — unless the property owner expressly allows individuals to enter the premises with a firearm.
“These private building consent restrictions were cooked up by anti-Second Amendment advocates to effectively nullify the Bruen decision. They are the heart of the states’ response to Bruen. And courts are having nothing to do with them. Today’s ruling was the fourth on enjoining these private consent rules from taking effect,” the NRA explained on its NRA-ILA website.
