A federal appeals court has upheld most of Maryland’s Gun Rights Safety Act of 2023, allowing the state to ban firearms in a wide range of public locations, while striking down one key provision that would have effectively turned much of the state into default gun-free zones.
In a decision issued January 20, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that most of the locations listed in Maryland’s law qualify as “sensitive places” under Supreme Court precedent.
The court rejected, however, Maryland’s attempt to prohibit firearms on private property that is open to the public unless the owner gives explicit permission .
What the Court Decided
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Roger L. Gregory said that the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen allow governments to prohibit firearms in certain locations with historical analogies.
The Fourth Circuit upheld Maryland’s bans on carrying firearms in government buildings, schools and school grounds, public transportation, parks and forests, health care facilities, stadiums, museums, casinos, racetracks, amusement parks, and locations that sell alcohol for on-site consumption.
The court also reversed an earlier district court ruling. It allowed the state to enforce a ban on carrying firearms at public demonstrations and within 1,000 feet of them, provided law enforcement first orders the armed individual to leave.
At the same time, the panel unanimously agreed that Maryland went too far when it tried to ban firearms on all private property that is open to the public unless the owner affirmatively allows carry.
“Maryland’s rule would effectively declare most public places ‘gun-free zones,’” Gregory wrote. “But that likely stretches the sensitive places doctrine too far” .
A Sharp Dissent on Constitutional Limits
Judge Steven Agee concurred with parts of the ruling but issued a strong partial dissent, warning that the majority’s approach risks hollowing out the Second Amendment. [too late]
He agreed that schools, government buildings, and health care facilities can be treated as sensitive places. But he argued that approving Maryland’s long list of additional locations “stretches the sensitive places exception into a broad license to prohibit firearms in locations where people gather for almost any purpose” .
Agee emphasized that Bruen requires modern gun laws to be grounded in Founding-era history, not later traditions selectively assembled to justify broad bans. In his view, the absence of close historical analogues should be decisive, not brushed aside.
How This Case Got Here
The case combined two separate challenges to Maryland’s Gun Rights Safety Act of 2023, filed the same day Governor Wes Moore signed the law. Plaintiffs included Maryland gun owners, Maryland Shall Issue, the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
In August 2024, U.S. District Judge George L. Russell III upheld most of the law but blocked enforcement of the private-property provision, the alcohol-location ban, and the demonstration buffer zone. His ruling declared those three provisions unconstitutional and barred the state from enforcing them against permit holders.
The Fourth Circuit’s new decision largely restores the law, reversing the district court on alcohol-serving locations and public demonstrations, while leaving the private-property ruling intact.
Reaction From Both Sides
Mark Pennak, president of Maryland Shall Issue, said gun-rights advocates are not done fighting.
While he welcomed the court’s rejection of the private-property ban, Pennak said gun owners are “considering our options,” including asking the full Fourth Circuit to rehear the case or appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Democrat Governor Wes Moore called the ruling “a major win for public safety in Maryland,” rolling out the tired trope that the state would continue working to “keep illegal guns off our streets” while respecting lawful ownership.
Gun-control groups also celebrated the outcome. Everytown Law, which supported Maryland as an amicus, said the decision reinforces the idea that states may restrict firearms in places like parks, schools, transit systems, and entertainment venues.
Why This Matters Nationally
This ruling is one of the most detailed appellate decisions to date applying the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework to “sensitive places.” For gun owners, the takeaway is clear: at least in the Fourth Circuit, courts are willing to approve broad location-based carry bans so long as judges can point to some historical tradition or analogy.
At the same time, the court drew a line against laws that flip the presumption of carry on private property open to the public, signaling that there are still constitutional limits—even if they are narrowing.
With similar “sensitive places” laws on the books in other states, and judges openly disagreeing on how far Bruen allows legislatures to go, the issue is increasingly likely to return to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Maryland’s Gun-Free Zones Getting Roasted in Federal Court ~ 2A Victory May Be Coming ~ VIDEO
SCOTUS is Right About This – It Will Need to Address State Gun Bans
