‘Legally stupid’: Gun rights advocates dissatisfied with proposed changes to MoCo firearm law

County Councilmember Luedtke’s bill aims to address aspects of local laws declared invalid by state Supreme Court

June 10, 2026 11:50 a.m. | Updated: June 10, 2026 11:51 a.m.

A group of gun rights advocates — including some who were directly involved in a recent legal battle over Montgomery County’s restrictions on ghost guns and firearm wear-and-carry — aren’t satisfied with a County Councilmember’s proposed remedies.

Several advocates voiced their opposition to the proposal during a Tuesday afternoon public hearing in Rockville, arguing that the revisions don’t go far enough to address issues the state’s highest court found with existing county law.

Engage Armament LLC, et al. v. Montgomery County, Maryland began in May 2021, when nine plaintiffs challenged a local law that effectively banned ghost guns in the county. Another local law restricting where people can carry guns later became part of the case.

The case made it to the Supreme Court of Maryland, which issued an opinion April 28 invalidating certain aspects of both laws, including the county’s definition of a ghost gun and its definition of “places of public assembly” where guns are restricted.

- Advertisement -

Councilmember Dawn Luedtke (D-Dist. 7) on May 12 introduced a bill she said would align the local law with the county’s authority under state law.

“I don’t want anyone to think that by doing this, I’m trying to reduce protections related to firearm violence — exactly the opposite,” Luedkte said when introducing the bill, adding that her goal is to make sure the county’s protections are enforceable.

Those who spoke during Tuesday’s public hearing focused on Luedtke’s proposed definition of “places of public assembly,” arguing the revised version would still impose an undue burden on state wear-and-carry permit holders.

“Why go through the process of getting a permit if Montgomery County isn’t even going to respect the permit?” asked Michael McIlhargey, who identified himself as a 10-year county resident and wear-and-carry permit holder.

Sponsored

Montgomery County Needs a Problem Solver: Meet Dr. Prabu Selvam

Your Neighborhood, Our Expertise: DC’s Most Trusted Real Estate Team

Featured Now

McIlhargey spoke at the public hearing virtually. Several others — including Engage Armament plaintiff Eli Shemony and Mark Pennak, an attorney who represented plaintiffs in the case — spoke in person at the council office building. All were opposed to Luedtke’s bill.

If Luedtke’s bill passes, the county’s definition of a “place of public assembly” would no longer include hospitals, community health centers, long-term care facilities and childcare facilities. Gun regulation in those places falls to the state.

People would still be prohibited from bringing guns within 100 yards of a park, place of worship, school, library, recreational facility, multipurpose exhibition facility, polling place, courthouse or legislative assembly under Luedtke’s proposal.

“There’s an old saying in the legal business that the last thing you want your client to be is legally stupid,” Pennak said during the public hearing. “I regret to say that this bill is legally stupid.”

Pennak took exception to the provision of the bill restricting firearms in and around places of worship, arguing such places are “uniquely vulnerable to attacks” that congregants must be prepared to defend against.

- Advertisement -

“Disarming a synagogue or a place of worship is an abomination,” Pennak said, adding that he plans to challenge the bill in court if it is enacted as written.

Shemony, who identified himself as the head of security for Magen David Sephardic Congregation in Rockville, said the synagogue relies on its members with wear-and-carry permits for protection when professional armed security guards are not on-site.

“The transition from public street to a house of worship is a critical and dangerous moment,” Shemony said. “I urge this council: Do not let the desire to appear tough on guns result in making Jewish residents of Montgomery County less safe. We are already a target. We are tired, and we’re trying to defend ourselves.”

Karan Singh, who said he also holds a state wear-and-carry permit, said he shares the council’s concerns about gun violence but urged members to consider the bill’s potential to disproportionately impact Black and brown gun owners.

“Unless an exception is put in place for wear-and-carry permit holders, there’s going to be basically an unfair impact on people of color … especially in contrast to other parts of Maryland that are maybe less diverse,” Singh said. “I would ask that you not limit what’s basically a state-granted privilege to only those who happen to live in the right place.”

As proposed, Luedtke’s bill would add an exemption for “the possession of a handgun by a person who has a permit to carry the handgun under state law while the person travels on public highways within 100 yards of a place of public assembly.”

The county’s gun restrictions would still apply to wear-and-carry permit holders who come within 100 yards of a “place of public assembly” via private drives or by another mode of transportation.

According to the state Supreme Court opinion, whether an amended version of the county’s gun law could be considered constitutional “will depend on the scope of the amended law and evidence concerning its effects.”

The council’s Public Safety Committee is expected to review Luedtke’s bill on Monday. Councilmember Kate Stewart (D-Dist. 4) is co-sponsoring the legislation.

Digital Partners

Originally published at Bethesdamagazine