Maryland could no longer deny ordinary citizens the right to carry after Bruen, so the state tried the next best thing: issue the permit, then ban carry almost everywhere people actually go.
That is the heart of Novotny v. Moore, a new Supreme Court petition filed by gun owners and Second Amendment groups challenging Maryland’s sweeping “sensitive places” carry restrictions. The petition asks the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether Maryland’s long list of public carry bans violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
The case is not just about Maryland. It is about whether anti-gun states can openly defy New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen by replacing “may issue” carry-permit schemes with a new strategy: declare ordinary public life off-limits to armed citizens.
Maryland’s law blocks even permitted gun owners from carrying in or around mass transit facilities, public demonstrations, state parks and forests, healthcare facilities, museums, stadiums, racetracks, amusement parks, casinos, places selling alcohol for on-site consumption, government buildings, school grounds, and more. The state also tried to flip the rule on private property open to the public, making carry illegal unless the property owner gave express permission.
Maryland’s message to gun owners was simple: You may have a carry permit, but do not expect to actually carry.
The Post-Bruen Workaround
Before Bruen, Maryland used its “good and substantial reason” requirement to keep most ordinary citizens from obtaining carry permits. After the Supreme Court made clear that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, Maryland had to retreat from that system.
Maryland did not suddenly respect the right to bear arms. It changed tactics. The petition notes that Maryland itself admitted there had been “little practical need for broad locational restrictions” when the state could already sharply limit who received carry permits. Once Bruen made it easier for ordinary citizens to obtain permits, Maryland created broad location-based bans instead.
That is the whole game. If the state cannot deny the permit outright, it can try to make the permit worthless.
The Second Amendment Foundation, one of the groups backing the challenge, described Maryland as one of the states forced to change its carry laws after Bruen, only to pass a new carry ban covering “a long list of overlapping ‘sensitive place’ categories.”
“Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Bruen, states have found novel ways to circumvent not only the Court’s holdings, but to continue infringing on the core rights protected by the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “By labeling essentially all areas open to the public ‘sensitive places,’ municipalities have attempted to completely ban the possession and carry of firearms in public all over again. We are hopeful presenting this case to the Supreme Court provides an attractive opportunity for the Court to once and for all clarify what places are, and are not, sufficiently ‘sensitive’ to justify extinguishing peoples’ rights.”
Maryland is not regulating carry at a few genuinely sensitive locations. It is trying to turn the exception into the rule.
The Fourth Circuit Gave Maryland Most Of What It Wanted
The lower courts split the case, but the Fourth Circuit ultimately gave Maryland most of what it wanted.
The district court initially blocked parts of the law, including the private-property default rule, the ban on carry in places selling alcohol for on-site consumption, and the ban near public demonstrations. But it upheld several other restrictions.
The Fourth Circuit went further for the state. It upheld Maryland’s challenged bans on public transit, demonstrations, parks and forests, healthcare facilities, places of amusement, museums, and places selling alcohol. The court did strike down Maryland’s private-property default rule as applied to private property open to the public, the provision Firearms Policy Coalition calls the “Vampire Rule.”
Maryland’s rule treated lawful carry on private property open to the public as forbidden unless the owner invited it in.
The Fourth Circuit accepted Maryland’s broad theory that a wide range of normal public places can be treated as “sensitive” and placed off-limits to lawful carry. If that view survives, Bruen becomes a hollow victory in states hostile to the Second Amendment.
“Sensitive Places” Cannot Mean Everywhere
The Supreme Court has recognized that some places may be sensitive. Courthouses and legislative assemblies are the usual examples. Those are limited, historically grounded categories.
Maryland wants something far broader. It wants to treat crowded places, public gathering places, transit systems, restaurants, parks, forests, museums, stadiums, and entertainment venues as places where the right to bear arms can be extinguished.
The petition warns that if the right to carry “in public” does not include public places owned by the government, places where First Amendment activity occurs, places where people eat and drink, or places where people gather for amusement and recreation, then it is hard to know what the right to carry in public actually protects.
That is the question the Supreme Court needs to answer.
A right to carry that disappears in public transit, parks, restaurants, public gatherings, and entertainment venues is not a real public-carry right. It is a legal trap.
“Even with permits, residents in Maryland still face five years in jail for carrying a firearm just about anywhere people actually need or want to go out in public,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said. “This infringement cannot be allowed to stand, and we encourage the Supreme Court to provide guidance to these senseless laws.”
That is not a narrow sensitive-place rule. That is a backdoor public-carry ban.
FPC Calls It Open Defiance
Firearms Policy Coalition was even more direct.
FPC President Brandon Combs said:
“When the Supreme Court held that states must issue carry licenses, Maryland simply banned carry everywhere people actually go instead. Same result, different method. That’s not following the law—that’s open defiance of the Supreme Court, and we’re going to make them answer for it. We will end these carry bans in Maryland and throughout the United States.”
Maryland is not confused about Bruen. Maryland knows exactly what Bruen said. The state just does not like the answer.
The Supreme Court said ordinary, law-abiding Americans have a constitutional right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Maryland’s response was to make “public” mean less and less until the right barely functions.
Judge Agee Saw The Problem
Even at the Fourth Circuit, not every judge was willing to go along with Maryland’s theory.
Judge Agee agreed with some restrictions, but he strongly criticized the majority’s approach to Maryland’s broader carry bans. He warned that Maryland’s laws would convert the sensitive-place exception into a broad license to ban firearms wherever people gather, as long as the state separately lists enough categories to make the ban look limited.
Anti-gun lawmakers can take almost any ordinary location and slap a “sensitive place” label on it.
At that point, the word “sensitive” has no connection to the Founding Era. It becomes a political label used to disarm the public.
Judge Agee also criticized reliance on scattered 19th-century and later laws to justify modern restrictions, arguing that the analysis should focus on the Founding-era understanding of the Second Amendment.
That is exactly where many lower courts have gone wrong after Bruen. Instead of applying the historical test honestly, they rummage through history for anything that can be stretched into a modern gun-control excuse.
Crowded Places Are Not Automatically Sensitive Places
One of the most dangerous arguments accepted by lower courts is the idea that firearms can be banned in “crowded” places.
The Supreme Court already rejected that logic in Bruen. If crowding alone were enough, the government could declare much of public life off-limits to carry. Manhattan could be labeled sensitive. So could a downtown district, a bus station, a park, or any popular public event.
The petition argues there is no historical tradition of banning firearms in crowded places or places where “vulnerable” people are present. In fact, the petition points out that American history often went the other direction, with laws permitting or even requiring arms in places of public assembly.
The Founders did not believe citizens became less deserving of self-defense when they entered a crowd. They understood that public places are exactly where threats can arise.
Maryland’s position flips that logic upside down. The state disarms the people who obey the law while pretending that criminals will respect the boundary lines in the Maryland Code.
The petition draws an important distinction between genuinely secured places and ordinary public locations. A courthouse with armed guards and magnetometers is one thing. A public park, bus stop, restaurant, museum, or state forest is something else entirely.
If the government is going to disarm citizens, then the government should at least be taking responsibility for security. Maryland’s law does not do that. It simply tells lawful permit holders they are disarmed and on their own.
Supreme Court Must Answer “Sensitive Places” Question
The petition argues that lower courts are badly divided over how to analyze sensitive-place laws after Bruen. Courts have reached different conclusions on public transit, healthcare facilities, public gatherings, parks, government-owned property, private-property default rules, and the use of history from 1791 versus the Reconstruction period.
If the Supreme Court takes Novotny v. Moore, it could finally draw a line. It could make clear that “sensitive places” are narrow exceptions, not a permission slip for states to ban carry everywhere useful.
Gun owners should watch this case closely. Maryland’s law is part of the same playbook used in other anti-gun states. Lose the permit fight, then attack the places where the permit can be used.
Maryland tried to make peaceable carry functionally impossible while pretending to comply with Bruen.
The state did not ban carry permits. It just banned carry in the places where those permits matter.
That is why Novotny v. Moore deserves Supreme Court review. The right to bear arms cannot exist without the right to carry in public places.
Virginia “Assault Firearm” Ban Challenged With Emergency Injunction
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
