BALTIMORE — Portions of a major Maryland gun control law are in serious jeopardy.
A federal judge on Thursday barred the state from enforcing parts of a 2023 bill severely restricting where residents with a legal permit can publicly carry a gun.
The bill essentially banned gun possession in most populated spaces.
Two groups sued, claiming the law violated the second and fourteenth amendments of the constitution.
U.S. District judge George Russell agreed in part, overturning limitations on permit holders from carrying guns on private property, at sites selling alcohol, and within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration.
Russell took special exception to the General Assembly's wide ranging restrictions.
According to Russell, here is some of what the law required.
"The Act provides that an individual carrying a firearm cannot enter a dwelling without the owner’s permission. With regard to all other private property, an individual carrying a firearm may not enter or trespass on such property unless the owner or the owner’s agent “has posted a clear and conspicuous sign indicating that it is permissible to” carry a firearm on the property, or “has given the person express permission” to carry a firearm on the property."
"At a demonstration in a public place (or in a vehicle that is within 1,000 feet of a demonstration in a public place) after being informed by a law enforcement officer that a demonstration is occurring and being ordered to leave the area until the individual disposes of the firearm."
Russell used these descriptions in deeming such portions of the law unconstitutional.
The judge, however, did side with the state in banning firearms from being carried in several other locations
including in State Parks, mass transit facilities, schools and school grounds, museums, stadiums, healthcare facilities, government buildings, amusement parks, racetracks, and casinos.
Russell also emphasized how in his opinion this case was different than last year's land mark Supreme Court ruling that "proper cause," not be required when applying for a concealed carry permit.
"The Court finds that the instant case is factually distinct from Bruen because the challenged laws here relate to carrying in specific locations, not to permitting and who may carry a firearm," Russell wrote.
This case should also not be confused with an entirely separate lawsuit against the state's ban on assault weapons.
Earlier this week, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that law.
