Maryland firearms restrictions upheld under historical analysis

Listen to this article

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of Maryland’s firearms regulations, concluding that the challenged restrictions are consistent with the Second Amendment as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and Bruen. The court affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, holding that the state properly relied on historical analogues to justify limits on carrying firearms in designated locations.

In consolidated cross-appeals, two sets of plaintiffs brought largely facial challenges to Maryland laws prohibiting firearms in a wide range of locations, including government buildings, mass transit facilities, school grounds, areas near public demonstrations, state parks and forests, healthcare facilities, places of amusement, locations selling alcohol for on-site consumption, and certain private property. Because the claims were facial, the plaintiffs were required to show that the laws were unconstitutional in all applications.

The 4th Circuit applied the two-step framework outlined in Bruen. After assuming the Second Amendment’s text covered the plaintiffs’ proposed conduct, the court focused on whether the regulations were consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court emphasized that “sensitive place” restrictions are evaluated at this second, historical step.

Relying on historical evidence, the court upheld firearm bans in government buildings and school grounds, noting longstanding recognition of such locations as sensitive places. It also sustained restrictions on firearms in mass transit facilities, reasoning that the state acted as a proprietor managing its operations, with historical analogues in private railroad regulations. Limits near public demonstrations were supported by historical traditions of restricting arms at assemblies to preserve public peace.

The court likewise upheld prohibitions in parks, healthcare facilities, places of amusement, and establishments serving alcohol, finding sufficient historical support for regulating firearms in crowded or vulnerable settings. Although the court affirmed most of the challenged provisions, it reversed in part on narrower grounds not affecting the core holdings.

The 94 page opinion is Kipke v. Moore, Lawyers Weekly No. 001-025-26.