Charles County Bill 2022-14 Withdrawn

After barely thirty minutes into its hearing and faced with a packed room of members of the public ready to testify long into the night, the Charles County Commissioners moved to have its carry ban, Bill 2022-14 withdrawn. Your feedback, advocacy, testimony, and opposition paid off. Hats off to everyone who worked in support of the right to keep and bear arms! This is precisely the type of civic engagement that can affect change for the better. Well done!

The Maryland General Assembly Begins its 2023 Legislative Session

At noon yesterday (1/11), just six hours before the Charles County hearing was set to take place, the Maryland General Assembly began its 90-day legislative session. Already, there are a number of bills that threaten to make carry permits meaningless throughout the State. These bills are a response to the landmark US Supreme Court ruling last summer in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Senator Waldstreicher and outgoing Senator Lee (who’s been selected to be our next Secretary of State by Governor-elect Moore) have introduced two bills that broadly criminalize carrying firearms in public. One of them, SB 118 was mentioned specifically in Bill 2022-14’s hearing. That bill would provide that a person “may not knowingly wear, carry, or transport a firearm on private property owned by another” without express permission, or carry at all “on property controlled by the federal government, the state government, or a local government.” Apparently, these senators think they have the power to legislate on behalf of Congress for federal property. The same senators have also proposed SB 1, which provides that ”a person may not wear, carry or transport a firearm onto the real property of another” unless given express permission. For good measure, it also flatly bans such possession “within 100 feet of a place of accommodation.” A “place of public accommodation” is defined by reference to MD Code, State Government, § 20-301, which defines the term to include any retail establishment, such as an inn, motel or hotel, restaurant or theater and other places that “offers goods, services, entertainment, recreation, or transportation.” These bills effectively eviscerate a permit holder’s right to carry in public for self-defense.

Maryland lawmakers propose gun control bills from ghost guns to public places ban - WBAL TV

New York and New Jersey have enacted similar provisions in response to Bruen. Most of New York’s “sensitive places” provisions were quickly blocked by several federal district court rulings, but those rulings have been stayed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pending a decision on the appeal filed by New York. The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to not intervene at this time, but Justices Alito and Thomas stated that the Court’s order simply reflected “respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits.” These two Justices invited the plaintiffs to seek again relief from the Supreme Court “if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal.” Meanwhile, a different federal district court in New Jersey has blocked a similar New Jersey “sensitive places” law enacted after Bruen. New Jersey is in the Third Circuit and thus that district court decision is unaffected by the Second Circuit’s stay of the New York injunctions.

Bruen held, among other things, that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun for self-defense in public. The Justices also ruled that firearms restrictions can only be justified by reference to “well-established, representative historical analogue(s)” from the time the Bill of Rights was enacted in 1791 and that it is the government’s burden to prove such an analogue. The Court recognized that firearm bans may be imposed in schools, government buildings, polling places, courthouses and legislative assemblies, but held that restrictions imposed on any place other than these five locations must be justified by the government and only by reference to a comparable, well-established and representative historical analogue. Senator Waldstreicher’s and Senator Lee’s bills have no historical support, but maybe these senators are taking their cues from the ghost of former Gov. George Wallace who infamously stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama rather than yield to Brown v. Board of Education. Alabama was not successful in defying the Supreme Court and Maryland will not be either.

Not satisfied with defying Bruen on carry permits, both Senators have introduced two other bills that would only serve to strip Marylanders of their right to keep and bear arms. SB 86 would raise the age of possession of ordinary long guns to 21, threatening every young adult in Maryland with criminal prosecution for keeping arms and effectively ending hunting by such persons unless they are “under the supervision” of someone 21 or older AND have the permission of a parent. A violation of this ban on possession of a long gun is punishable by 5 years in prison. The bill also bans the mere sale or transfer of ammunition (of any type) to a person under 21 and a violation of that provision is punishable by a year in prison. SB 113 seeks to undermine the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a federal law that shields firearms industry members from frivolous civil lawsuits.

More bills will be introduced in the coming weeks. Follow our Gun Bill Tracker to stay on top of them.

If any of these bills are to be stopped, it will only be because of your engagement with your representatives. You can find out who your State senator and delegates are at https://mdelect.net/. We’ve prepared a guide on how the legislative process works, speaking with your lawmakers, and testifying HERE. Your participation is critical in protecting your rights and those of your fellow Marylanders.

If you’re not already a member of MSI, don’t be a free rider. Join us. It’s one of the best ways to stay in the know. MSI officers and directors are all volunteers and work without pay so your dues and contributions go toward advocacy and if needed, litigation.