By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
A trio of gun rights organizations and four private citizens have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a case challenging Maryland’s ban on concealed carry in “sensitive places,” arguing there is no historical tradition allowing such bans in crowded places, or in places where “vulnerable” people are present.
The petition was filed Wednesday by attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Maryland Shall Issue and four private citizens. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, in Washington, D.C., along with Mark W. Pennak in Chevy Chase, Maryland, and John Parker Sweeney, James W. Porter, III and William C. Lamar, Jr. at Bradley, Arant, Boult, Cummings, also in Washington, D.C. The case is known as Novotny v. Moore.
According to a SAF announcement, Maryland was among a handful of states that were forced to change their restrictive concealed carry laws following the high court’s 2022 ruling striking down New York’s carry law in a case known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. All of the affected states, including Maryland, scrambled to adopt the most restrictive carry laws they thought might be allowable under Bruen, by designating a wide array of places as “sensitive,” where firearms would not be permitted. The Novotny case challenges these designations in Maryland, but the outcome could impact all of the states with similar restrictions.
“States that for many years refused to grant carry permits at all – and were forced to do so after Bruen – passed these so-called ‘sensitive places’ carry bans resulting in citizens continuing to have their right to bear arms trampled,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb explained. “Even with permits, residents in Maryland still face five years in jail for carrying a firearm just about anywhere people actually need or want to go out in public. This infringement cannot be allowed to stand, and we encourage the Supreme Court to provide guidance to these senseless laws.”
“Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Bruen, states have found novel ways to circumvent not only the Court’s holdings, but to continue infringing on the core rights protected by the Second Amendment,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut added. “By labeling essentially all areas open to the public “sensitive places,” municipalities have attempted to completely ban the possession and carry of firearms in public all over again. We are hopeful presenting this case to the Supreme Court provides an attractive opportunity for the Court to once and for all clarify what places are, and are not, sufficiently ‘sensitive’ to justify extinguishing peoples’ rights.”
In a separate news release, published by The Outdoor Wire, FPC President Brandon Combs observed, “When the Supreme Court held that states must issue carry licenses, Maryland simply banned carry everywhere people actually go instead. Same result, different method. That’s not following the law-that’s open defiance of the Supreme Court, and we’re going to make them answer for it. We will end these carry bans in Maryland and throughout the United States.”
As noted in the petition, “The central point of agreement among almost every lower court opinion to address these restrictions in the wake of Bruen…is the conclusion that firearms can be banned in ‘crowded’ spaces. But that specific rationale was considered and definitively rejected by this Court in Bruen. The lower courts’ intransigence on the point is justification enough to grant certiorari and reverse the decision below.
“Beyond that,” the petition adds, “because this case addresses a wide variety of locations, it is an ideal vehicle for this Court to clarify the narrow scope of the historical ‘sensitive places’ limitation on the right to keep and bear arms. There is no historical tradition of banning carrying firearms in ‘crowded’ places or places where ‘vulnerable’ people are present. Quite the opposite is true, as Heller noted in recognizing that many colonies “re quired individual arms bearing for public-safety rea sons” in such places.”
