Maryland Shall Issue

Maryland Shall Issue is an all-volunteer, non-partisan organization dedicated to the preservation and advancement of gun owners' rights in MD. 410-849-9197

[Maryland Shall Issue @MD_Shall_Issue]

The Supreme Court of Maryland issued its decision today in our challenge to the Montgomery County ordinance that basically banned carry by permit holders through out the County. On that issue we completely prevailed and the County lost. Specifically the Court held that the County's ban "is not a local law because of its application to holders of State-issued wear-and-carry permits traveling on public highways who cross within 100 yards of a place of public assembly." That means that permit holders may carry in Montgomery County without regard to the County's ordinance as long as they remain in compliance with State law. By any measure, we count that as a huge WIN! The whole point of the County's ordinance was to make it impossible for permit holders to carry in the County after the decision by the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen. On that point, the County lost completely. The Maryland Supreme Court issued other rulings as well, holding that County's regulation of so-called "ghost guns" was preempted by State law "to the extent it includes firearms that have been serialized in compliance with federal and State law." That means that persons may transport personally made firearms to FFLs and FFLs in the County may serialize personally made frames and receivers in accordance with State law. The Court also struck down as preempted a section of the County's ordinance which banned a "broad swath of otherwise lawful (and constitutionally protected) conduct by adults merely because it occurs in the presence of a minor, without any apparent connection to whether that activity might result in minors gaining unsupervised access to those firearms." The lesson to County residents and others: get a carry permit and carry in accordance with State law.

[Maryland Shall Issue @MD_Shall_Issue]

@gunpolicy

[Maryland Shall Issue @MD_Shall_Issue]

The ban on the sale, receipt, purchase or transfer of Glocks (SB 334) has been enacted by both Houses of the General Assembly. It will now be "presented" to the Governor. The General Assembly "presents" an enacted bill to the Governor who has, under the Maryland Constitution, 30 days (after the legislature's adjournment) to sign or veto the Bill. See MD Const. Article II, section 17(c) ("(c) Any Bill presented to the Governor within six days (Sundays excepted), prior to adjournment of any session of the General Assembly, or after such adjournment, shall become law without the Governor's signature unless it is vetoed by the Governor within 30 days after its presentment."). "Presentment" to the Governor can take place within 20 days after adjournment, which is May 3, 2026, this year. See Maryland Const. Article III, Section 30 ("All bills passed during a regular or special session shall be presented to the Governor for the Governor's approval no later than 20 days after adjournment."). So there is a window in which a signature can take place. I have no doubt that Gov. Moore will sign SB 334. We are gearing up our challenge to this Bill.

[Maryland Shall Issue @MD_Shall_Issue]

Listen to our testimony on the Maryland Glock ban bill here, starting at the 1 hour 34 minute mark.

https://t.co/cPpxF7hDpQ

[Maryland Shall Issue @MD_Shall_Issue]

The Fourth Circuit has issued their Temporary Stay of Mandate in Novotny v. Moore.
This means that carry in private property open to the public, places that sell alcohol for on-site consumption, and demonstrations are officially all still legal, pending further court review.

[Maryland Shall Issue @MD_Shall_Issue]

Today, we asked the Fourth Circuit to stay its mandate so as to keep the district court's injunction in place while we file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

The Fourth Circuit has temporarily stayed the mandate pending resolution of the Motion.

That order allows carrying with a permit in places where alcohol is served for onsite consumption and within 1000 feet of a public demonstration, until the Supreme Court acts on our petition for certiorari. If that petition is granted by the Supreme Court then the stay would continue in effect until final resolution of the case in the Supreme Court.

The Fourth Circuit has requested a response to the Motion from the State by Feb. 9, 2026.

[Maryland Shall Issue @MD_Shall_Issue]

We join with the National Rifle Association and other groups that have condemned as dangerous and wrong the statement of Bill Essayli, First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California that federal law enforcement officers would be legally justified in shooting any person who approaches officers while otherwise lawfully carrying a firearm in a holster. Longstanding Supreme Court precedent simply does not allow the use of lethal force in such circumstances. We call for a full investigation into the shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis and for full accountability for any person who unlawfully employed lethal force.

[Amy Swearer @AmySwearer]

Sotomayor immediately seeks to frame the issue as Wolford arguing that there's a custom of being allowed onto private property without the owner's express consent. But that's not quite the issue here. Historically, yes, the rule was that public-facing businesses gave implied consent for all would-be patrons to enter on the same footing, including those that were armed. If businesses wanted to exclude armed patrons, they had to affirmatively say so.

The issue is whether there's a historical tradition of the government speaking on behalf of businesses that are silent about excluding armed patrons, to presume that businesses wish to exclude them.

[Firearms Policy Coalition @gunpolicy]

Hawaii now citing Maryland laws, which will be awkward when he learns after the arguments that their vampire rule was just struck down

[Maryland Shall Issue @MD_Shall_Issue]

Listen live this morning!
https://t.co/s94pYqhD8x
Oral arguments start at 9 am, scheduled as the 3rd case.
Engage Armament LLC, et al. v. Montgomery County, Maryland
Issues – Public Safety – 1) Did the trial court correctly find that Maryland’s comprehensive system of firearms regulation preempted portions of Chapter 57 of the Montgomery County Code (to the extent that it regulates the possession, transport, sale, and transfer of firearms)? 2) Did the trial court correctly find that Chapter 57 of the County Code is not a “local law” within the meaning of Article XI-A, § 3 of the Maryland Constitution? 3) Did the trial court correctly find that Chapter 57 of the County Code affected a taking of “major components” of firearms and privately made firearms within the meaning of the Maryland Constitution, Article III, § 40, and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 4) On Montgomery County’s cross-petition, did the trial court err in invalidating and prohibiting enforcement of portions of the county code that were not referenced in the operative complaint and that Petitioners placed at issue for the first time in their motion for summary judgment?

[Rob Romano @2Aupdates]

Some of the stories behind the pictures in "The Ameriguns" by Gabriele Galimberti, starting with the one that lives rent-free in so many anti-gunners' heads: https://t.co/DtKKbs4RYF

[Maryland Shall Issue @MD_Shall_Issue]

https://t.co/ixaRGM10Yu

"Police said two men approached the victim, assaulted him, knocked him to the ground and tried to steal his car. When the assailants couldn't start the car, they tried to again assault the victim, who drew a gun and pointed it at them. The assailants ran off."

[Maryland Shall Issue @MD_Shall_Issue]

Today, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond held oral argument in Kipke/Novotny v. Moore, which is our legal challenge to SB1. That legislation severely restricted the right to carry by permit holders. We are grateful for this opportunity to present our views to the the court and look forward to a decision soon. Here is a link to the argument. Oral arguments for our case start at the one hour mark:
https://t.co/r3t81BfzMH

[Maryland Shall Issue @MD_Shall_Issue]

Interested in visiting the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore? They're having an open house, open to the public!
April 19, 2025. from 09:00 AM to 5:00 PM
11518 Marriottsville Road
Marriottsville, MD 21104
(Eye and hearing protection recommended)

[Maryland Shall Issue @MD_Shall_Issue]

A copy of the order can be found here: https://t.co/V3rsoLjMBf

[Maryland Shall Issue @MD_Shall_Issue]

Today the Supreme Court of Maryland issued an order granting our petition for certiorari to decide whether Montgomery County had the authority to regulate firearms by enacting ordinances that, among other things, made it effectively impossible, as a practical matter, for carry permit holders to carry anywhere in the County as allowed by State law. The Court will also decide whether the County's effective ban on privately made firearm and components constituted a Taking without just compensation under the Maryland Constitution. The Court's order set a briefing schedule and tentatively scheduled oral argument for the first week of September 2025. We are delighted that the Court agreed to take the case and we look forward to presenting the case to the Court.

[Maryland Shall Issue @MD_Shall_Issue]

Oral arguments set for 5.7.2025 regarding Kipke v. Moore. https://t.co/moXtRE7NN0

[Kostas Moros @MorosKostas]

This gun was recently approved to be on the California Roster and thus sold in California.

So clearly, Mexico should sue California for aiding and abetting cartel violence!

/s, but this was literally part of Mexico's argument today as to gun manufacturers. By making guns that appeal to Mexican-Americans, they must assume some of those guns with this sort of styling will be attractive to cartels and thus sold illegally into Mexico.

It's pretty racist, and treats Mexican-Americans as a suspect class likely to sell to criminals.

[Maryland Shall Issue @MD_Shall_Issue]

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday signaled that it was likely to shut down a lawsuit brought by the Mexican government, seeking to hold seven major U.S. gun makers and a gun wholesaler responsible for violence committed by Mexican drug cartels with U.S.-made weapons. A majority of the court appeared to agree with the gun makers that the Mexican government’s suit is barred by a 2005 law intended to shield the gun industry from lawsuits in U.S. courts for the misuse of guns by others."

https://t.co/At61Fj2pQE