Today, in Kipke v. Moore, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld most restrictions the Maryland legislature enacted after the Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.  Until now, many of these Maryland restrictions had been preliminarily enjoined as unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  The Fourth Circuit has now dissolved most of that injunction. 

This decision contains crucial information for those with Maryland Wear and Carry Permits, and may impact the way you carry a concealed firearm in Maryland.

NOTE:  It is important to remember that in posting this blog, the law firm Goodwin Weber PLLC are not your counsel unless we are retained by you in writing first, and we are not offering you legal advice by you reading this blog.  This blog post is being provided for informational purposes only, in a brand-new decision that has just been posted by the federal appeals court.  Further analysis of the decision is needed, and appeal from this decision to the Supreme Court is very likely by various parties. 

A summary of the places addressed in Kikpe is set forth below. 

1.Government Buildings – upheld

Prohibition of the carrying of firearms, concealed or not, has been a routine practice for most states and the federal government. In the State of Maryland, government buildings will for now remain what the court calls “Sensitive Places” and firearms are prohibited within them.

2. Mass Transit Facilities – upheld

Mass transit facilities and property owned by the Maryland Transit Administration are considered to be sensitive places in which firearms cannot be carried. The Court holds that since the MTA is acting as a private entity, they have the right to prohibit firearms (and anything else they would like). Furthermore the Court stated that there is a longstanding history and tradition of prohibiting firearms on mass transit property, which looks back to rules enforced by railroads in the 19^th and 20th centuries. The Court states that railroads often restricted loaded or unsecured firearms and that is exactly what the MTA is doing. Courts have struck down similar laws however, such as in California where the total ban was found to be unconstitutional because railroad companies would allow the checking of luggage which included firearms. The  Fourth Circuit differentiates itself by claiming since the MTA has no place or ability to check luggage, the only solution is to ban firearms outright.

3. Schools and School Grounds – upheld

Prohibition of the carrying of firearms on schools grounds is upheld.

4. Within 1000 Feet of Demonstrations – upheld

The Court upheld prohibition on firearms within 1000 feet of any public demonstration, after being told by a public law enforcement officer a demonstration is occurring and that they must dispose of their firearm until the demonstration in complete. Here the Court appears to have agreed with Maryland’s argument that essentially boils down to, in order to protect the ability of people to express their First Amendment rights, the Second Amendment must be limited as to prevent peaceful demonstrations from becoming violent and unlawful. The Court both points to old English law as well as more recent examples from the 19^th and 20^th century.

5. State Parks, State Forests, Chesapeake Forest Lands – upheld

The Court has upheld the prohibition of carrying firearms in State Parks, Forests, and in the Chesapeake Forest Lands. The Court here says that there is a longstanding history and tradition of restricting firearms in parks that goes back to the mid to late 1800s. They also point to the fact that regulated and licensed hunting can still take place as a reason the prohibition is not unconstitutional.  We would also note that a different Maryland statute already prohibits the carrying of loaded long guns in a vehicle in Maryland, supposedly for conservation protection reasons. 

6. Healthcare Facilities – upheld

The Court also has upheld the prohibition on firearms in healthcare facilities. They did not spend much time justifying their decision beyond stating that these locations have large amounts of people who are a “vulnerable” population in which firearm regulation is necessary to avoid unnecessary harm. We would note, however, that like with other supposed “gun free zones,” there are hospital systems in Maryland that do not have armed security.  This would include Shady Grove Hospital in Montgomery County and Atlantic General Hospital in Worcester County, and this simply means that only bad people will have access to guns on hospital property, since good people will be obligated to comply with the law. 

7. Museums, Stadiums, Racetracks, and Casinos – upheld

Museums, Stadiums, Racetracks, and Casinos are now going to be considered “sensitive” locations and the carrying of firearms will be prohibited. The Court calls this category “Places of Amusement.” The Court claims that there is a history and tradition of prohibiting firearms in these places since often there are children present and that locations for social, political, and education gatherings often had prohibition on firearms in centuries past, and therefore Maryland’s ban is not unconditional. It should be noted that under this category museums and sports stadiums are also considered places of amusement and firearms are prohibited.  We would note, paradoxically, that children are inherently NOT present at Casinos, as it is illegal.  So we find the Court’s rationale in this regards to be questionable.  Left unanswered is whether the Court’s decision could lead to Maryland claiming other places fit within the Court’s definition, such as Ocean City, Maryland, which regards its entire island as a resort town. 

8. Locations which Sell Alcohol – upheld

Perhaps the greatest concern from the Court’s decision will be over denying Marylanders the ability to be armed while eating out.  Locations which are licensed to sell alcohol was one of the locations that previously had an injunction which prevented the state from enforcing this part of the law. Now the Court has ruled definitively that firearms may be prohibited in any establishment which is licensed to sell alcohol. This does not simply apply to bars, but by its language, to restaurants as well.  The Court looks to historical prohibition on the mixture of alcohol and firearms going back to the founding of the nation. The Court uses similar logic to the “places of amusement” argument but also discusses historical prohibition on possessing and using a firearm while intoxicated and therefore are extending that prohibition to the establishment as a whole.

9. Private Property without the Consent of Owner – struck down

Carrying a firearm on private property without the express consent of the owner of the property, verbally or by signage, was another piece of the law that had previously been under an injunction. The Court came to the conclusion that the prior law on banning firearms without express consent from the owner was indeed unconstitutional. However, the Court’s decision only applies to property “held open” to the public, meaning accessible and open for public use. The Court did not rule on property not “held open” the public as they felt the petitioner lacked standing to bring that claim.

To summarize: 8 out of 9 of the above prohibitions on carrying a firearm under Maryland’s new concealed carry restrictions law were upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals.  In these specific places, ONLY the ban on firearms on private property has been rejected by the federal appeals court. Please read the statutes and the decision from the Fourth Circuit for more information, and if you are in doubt consult a licensed legal professional.

About the authors: 

Dr. David P. Weber is an attorney with Goodwin Weber PLLC, with a practice interest in firearms law.  Dr. Weber is a former federal law enforcement official, and a full time faculty member at a University System of Maryland school.  He holds his law degree from Syracuse University, and his doctorate from the University of Florida.  Micah J. Weber is in his final semester at the University of Baltimore School of Law, and a law clerk for Goodwin Weber PLLC.  He received his undergraduate degree from Salisbury University.  Upon his graduation, he will sit for the Maryland bar exam and will be joining Goodwin Weber PLLC as an attorney.  Micah has a particular interest in firearms law.