State Supreme Court says MoCo overstepped with gun restrictions

Case heads back to Circuit Court in Rockville for further proceedings; further litigation in federal court possible

May 5, 2026 2:00 p.m.

The Supreme Court of Maryland has found Montgomery County does not have the authority under state law to prohibit wear-and-carry permit holders from bringing guns within 100 yards of certain public places, according to an April 28 opinion.

The case before the state’s highest court, Engage Armament LLC, et al. v. Montgomery County, Maryland, centered on a series of county law changes aimed at cracking down on gun violence. It now heads back to the Montgomery County Circuit Court in Rockville for further proceedings in accordance with the state Supreme Court’s opinion.

Mark Pennak, president and counsel for the gun rights group Maryland Shall Issue, told Bethesda Today in a Friday interview that the county law changes at issue in the case created thousands of de-facto gun-free zones that “basically made it impossible to carry in the county, because you couldn’t move around with a firearm.”

“The county has been given authority to do some of that, but they went and way overstepped it, as the court held,” said Pennak, who represented the lead plaintiff before the Maryland Supreme Court. “We regard the opinion basically as a win.”

- Advertisement -

In a Thursday statement to Bethesda Today, however, spokesperson Scott Peterson wrote the county government is also “pleased with the result from the Maryland Supreme Court.”

Peterson declined to comment further, noting the case is still pending.

History of the case

In April 2021, the Montgomery County Council passed a law banning ghost guns — defined as firearms that lack a serial number “engraved or cased in metal alloy on the frame or receiver by a licensed manufacturer, maker or importer” — within 100 yards of a “place of public assembly.”

Initially, the county’s definition of a “place of public assembly” applied to government-owned parks, places of worship, elementary and secondary schools, public libraries, government- owned or operated recreational facilities and multipurpose exhibition facilities.

Maryland Supreme Court opinion

In the 67-page opinion published April 28, Supreme Court of Maryland Chief Justice Matthew Fader wrote that state law does authorize counties to restrict firearms in parks, places of worship, schools, libraries, courthouses and legislative assemblies.

Even if a place is privately owned, the court found it could still qualify as “a place of public assembly” if members of the public are able to gather there for a common purpose such as worship, entertainment, education or recreation.

In contrast, the court found that hospitals, community health centers, long-term care facilities and child care facilities are not generally open to the public for a common purpose.

As a result, the county can’t ban firearms within 100 feet of those locations. However, state law still prevents people including wear-and-carry permit holders from carrying firearms within the locations themselves.

Additionally, while some government buildings and government-owned properties might count as places of public assembly, the court found the existing prohibition on firearms in those locations “goes too far.”

“The County owns buildings throughout its borders, including single-family homes, that cannot reasonably be described as places of public assembly,” Fader wrote in the opinion.

The court also found that “a gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional right to protest or assemble” does not count as a “place” for the purpose of restricting firearms there.

Finally, the court found the county cannot prohibit state wear-and-carry permit holders from traveling on public highways that cross within 100 yards of a place of public assembly, even though the county is authorized to restrict firearms at the locations themselves.

“In effect, the County’s regulation creates pockets of roadway throughout the County’s lengthy and complex highway system in which travelers with State-issued wear-and-carry permits are banned from carrying firearms based on the proximity of those segments of roadway to buildings or locations that might not abut or even be visible from the road,” Fader wrote in the opinion.

Regarding ghost guns, the court found the county is within its authority to restrict unserialized firearms. However, those restrictions can’t apply to firearms made without a serial number but later serialized by federally licensed firearms dealers.

Effect of opinion

Josh Hochman is an attorney whose writing on the Second Amendment has been cited in majority opinions by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits.

In a Friday interview with Bethesda Today, Hochman said the changes to Montgomery County law should be viewed in the context of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.

In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a New York law requiring people to show a special need for self-protection to carry a concealed firearm outside the home. Maryland had a similar law at the time.

The majority opinion in Bruen stated restrictions on guns in “sensitive places” are only constitutional if they are consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Hochman said some federal courts have since recognized public transportation, child care facilities and hospitals as falling within that historical tradition.

“The list of places here where the county is allowed to regulate is narrower, it seems to me, than the list of places federal courts have said states can regulate firearms,” Hochman said.

“That is not because the Maryland Supreme Court is taking a more cramped view of the question,” he continued. “It’s because it’s evaluating a completely different question about the powers of the local government vis-a-vis the state.”

Hochman said Montgomery County’s law as written could be considered permissible under the state constitution if the Maryland General Assembly were to pass legislation expanding the list of places where counties are authorized to regulate guns.

For his part, Pennak said he may pursue litigation in federal court to get “further clarity on the Second Amendment with respect to Montgomery County’s ordinance.”

Pennak said he is also aware of multiple cases pending in federal court through which the U.S. Supreme Court could elaborate on the “sensitive places” issue, including one challenging Maryland’s list of sensitive places as unconstitutional.

“There’s a lot of overlap between the state law and the county law. It’s not the same, but there’s overlap,” Pennak said. “So it makes sense to wait until this gets all sorted out.”

Digital Partners

Originally published at Bethesdamagazine