Montgomery County ‘not going to surrender’ in gun law dispute, Elrich says
Restriction on firearms in public places is subject of three federal lawsuits, including one by DOJ
By
Ceoli JacobyAugust 5, 2026 5:50 p.m.
Share
Facebook X ReddIt Email Print Copy URL
Montgomery County plans to defend its restrictions on guns in public places against mounting legal challenges, County Executive Marc Elrich (D) told reporters during his weekly virtual media briefing on Wednesday.
“We’re just not going to surrender,” Elrich said. “If we get to a legal point and we lose in court, we lose in court. But I’m not going to surrender protections for people just because we’re dealing with folks who are irrational.”
He added that the county’s job “is to try to protect people, and gun legislation is important in accomplishing that.”
Elrich’s comments came two days after the U.S. Department of Justice sued the county and two of its public safety agencies in Maryland’s federal district court, arguing that the county’s firearm law is “breathtaking in scope” and likely unconstitutional.
- Advertisement -
A version of the law — which bans guns within 100 yards of parks, places of worship and schools — has been on the books for years. The county, however, had been unable to enforce it until recently as a result of a separate challenge in state court known as Engage Armament LLC, et al. v. Montgomery County, Maryland.
To comply with the Maryland Supreme Court’s opinion in Engage Armament, the County Council on July 21 passed an amended version of the gun law, which included a narrow exemption for state wear-and-carry permit holders traveling on public highways.
That version, which took effect last week, is now at the center of the federal government’s case. As of Wednesday, the county had yet to formally respond to the Justice Department’s complaint or its request for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law.
DOJ arguments
In its complaint, the Justice Department argues that the county’s law violates the Second Amendment as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in two recent cases — New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen and Wolford v. Lopez.
Sponsored
Pooks Hill: Where History, Hospitality, and Community Come Together
AI Contracts: What Every Business Owner Needs to Know
Featured Now
The majority in Bruen found restrictions on guns in “sensitive places” are only constitutional if they are consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” In Wolford, the majority said states cannot require licensed gun carriers to obtain explicit permission from owners before entering private property open to the public.
“Bill 23-26 actually is much more restrictive than the offending law in Wolford,” the Justice Department wrote in its complaint. “In Hawaii, a citizen could hope to get a property owner’s permission to carry. Not so in Montgomery County.”
Montgomery County’s firearm law also fails the test established in Bruen, the Justice Department argues.
“The law does not merely forbid the possession of firearms at certain locations,” the complaint reads. “For all practical purposes, it prevents law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms as they go about their daily lives.”
Elrich said Wednesday he takes issue with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent interpretations of the Second Amendment.
- Advertisement -
“It’s really hard for me to reconcile the Constitution with a blanket, ‘anyone can have a gun anywhere anytime’ kind of mentality, because what the Constitution talks about is a well-regulated militia,” Elrich said.
He said most people agree on the need to limit guns in certain situations, such as with respect to minors and people who have been convicted of crimes.
“We’ve gone way far in the other direction away from rationality,” Elrich said.
Other lawsuits
Two other lawsuits have been filed in Maryland’s federal district court since the county’s amended gun law took effect — one by the Silver Spring Jewish Center and another by a group of state wear-and-carry permit holders, according to online records.
The Silver Spring Jewish Center’s challenge focuses on the county’s gun ban in and around places of worship, while the permit holders are challenging the amended firearm law more broadly. The federal government references both cases in its complaint.
Despite the wave of lawsuits at the state and federal levels, Elrich stood behind his decision to sign the county’s gun bill into law.
“It could have been better,” he conceded, “but not doing anything would have been worse.”
Previous legal battles involving county government agencies have been costly.
In February, a federal judge ordered Montgomery County Public Schools and the county school board to pay $1.5 million in damages to several families to settle an ongoing lawsuit concerning the district’s policy of prohibiting students from opting out of lessons using LGBTQ+ storybooks that ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Asked about the potential cost of defending the county’s gun law, Elrich seemed undaunted.
“Nobody likes spending money unnecessarily,” he said. “But we’re not going to know whether it’s unnecessary until we play this out in court.”
Digital Partners
Originally published at Bethesdamagazine