Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners in a federal court challenge of Maryland’s restrictive “sensitive places” gun control law have filed an appellants’ brief with the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Novotny v. Moore Case Background:

The case revolves around a challenge to Maryland’s Senate Bill 1 (SB1), enacted in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. SB1 imposes significant restrictions on where individuals with Maryland wear and carry permits can legally carry firearms. The plaintiffs, including individual permit holders and organizations like Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Firearms Policy Coalition, argue that SB1’s provisions violate their Second Amendment rights.

The complaint highlights that SB1 restricts carrying firearms in locations such as private properties open to the public, restaurants serving alcohol, healthcare facilities, museums, state parks, forests, and mass transit facilities. The plaintiffs contend that these restrictions are inconsistent with historical precedent and the constitutional right to bear arms as affirmed in Bruen. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the enforcement of these provisions, claiming they impose unnecessary burdens on lawful gun owners and hinder their ability to defend themselves.

This case brings into focus the ongoing debate over the balance between public safety regulations and the constitutional rights of individuals to carry firearms for self-defense.

Joining SAF in the case, which is known as Novotny v. Moore, are Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., the FPC, and three private citizens, including Katherine Novotny, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson. Peter A. Patterson, Megan Marie Wold, and William V. Bergstrom at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C., and Mark W. Pennack in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

The state adopted a statute which bans concealed carry in a wide array of so-called “sensitive places” including museums, health care facilities, mass transit, state parks, entertainment facilities, school grounds and government buildings. However, there are no historical analogs to support such a broad ban.

“We maintain in our brief that Maryland’s carry bans violate the Second Amendment,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The state has failed to meet its burden to affirmatively prove any of its restrictions are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. We contend the district court erred when it upheld the carry bans.”

“Maryland’s law essentially bans concealed carry virtually anywhere one might find people gathering for any legitimate purpose,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut noted. “The purpose of including all of these locations under the definition of ‘sensitive places’ is to essentially render the right of concealed carry to be meaningless. We’re asking the appeals court to remand the case back to the district court with instructions to enter a judgment for the plaintiffs.”

For more information, visit saf.org.

Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing, and legal action group dedicated to safeguarding and promoting the fundamental rights of individuals enshrined in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. SAF engages in aggressive legal action to ensure the principles of armed self-defense, personal liberty, and the ownership of arms are defended, secured, and restored. Through public education initiatives, SAF teaches the importance of the Second Amendment to promote a society that values and exercises the right to keep and bear arms.