By William Kirk, Esq. Washington Gun Law
Hello again everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law tv. I'm Washington Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us. Hey, we're going to talk again about what we call the post Bruin meltdown. That is a state which following Bruin just completely crapped its pants, ran back to its state capitol and tried to pass even more oppressive and unconstitutional civilian disarmament legislation. They include California with their most recent Senate bill too, New York with their concealed carry improvement Act in Illinois with their Protect Illinois Communities Act. But there's a state that we haven't really had a chance yet to talk about, and that's Maryland, because Maryland also is on that short list of states that candidly just hates all of its lawful and responsible gun owners and enter Maryland Senate Bill one. This is their Bruin respons bill. It was passed and signed by the governor was about to go into effect at the beginning of this month, including basically turning the entire state of Maryland into one gigantic gun-free zone. But a judge has said, Hey, not so fast, and we're actually going to take a closer look at this. So today, let's try to get everyone in Maryland educated and let's talk about Maryland gets a time out from disarming its citizens.
Voy v Moore
Okay, talking about the state of Maryland taking a chance here. Last time I did a video about the state of Maryland. I got about 17 views, so here goes nothing. The case we're talking about today is a case called Voy v Moore. Now just a little background, Onvoy v Moore, it is a case that started as multiple lawsuits involving multiple plaintiffs. It was all consolidated. Eventually, there was all these lawsuits that were going after Senate Bill one, there were various different legal arguments, different theories, challenges to this aspect without challenges to this portion of law. And so eventually it was all consolidated into Novo v Moore. One of the chief plaintiffs on this, of course, is our good friends at the Firearms Policy Coalition. So if you want to show FPCA little love, we'll put a link for them down below. Now what this is is Maryland's Bruin response bill where they crapped their pants, went back to their state capitol, wrote all sorts of new laws, and essentially listed just about everywhere in the state of Maryland now is a sensitive area, which is a gun-free zone.
Bruin opinion
And we're seeing this with states that got smacked around by the Bruin opinion, which is, oh yeah, now we have to give concealed carry licenses to everybody. Well, here's what we'll do. We'll just turn the whole state into a no carry zone. And this is exactly what the state of Maryland's done. Now, there were many, many aspects of this that has been litigated, but what we're going to be talking about today is this. There was all sorts of sensitive areas. There was a motion to enjoin enforcement of all of those, most of that was denied, but there were a few that were granted. We're going to talk about that. Now, what I am going to give a check mark, what that means is the court has said, Hey, that law is good to go. No problem. We're going to let this law go into enforcement.
lawful and responsible gun owner
If you see this mark though, that will be telling you that the judge has said, Nope, I don't like that. I think that the plaintiffs have a likelihood of prevailing on that argument and therefore I am enjoining the law. So if you are a lawful and responsible gun owner in the state of Maryland, you wanted to see as much of this law enjoined, if not all of it enjoined. However, that's not what occurred. There was some aspect, so let's go through it. Now, the challenged sensitive areas that were subject to litigation here in Novo v Moore include museums, healthcare facilities, state parks, mass transit, locations, location, selling alcohol, private property, school grounds, government buildings, stadiums, racetracks, amusement parks, and areas of public demonstrations. Now, a couple of other really important notes. There is great debate sometimes about when we're talking about historical analogs. Do we go back to 1791 or do we go back to 1868 ratification of the second amendment or ratification of the 14th amendment?
Type of permission
The court here said doesn't really matter because our understanding of carry laws was the same in the late 17 hundreds as it was in the mid 18 hundreds, and therefore the historical analog is six and one half dozen the other, the court also took a real exception to this private property, and we're going to stop there and talk about that for a second because we see this in California Senate bill too also, which is the state stepping in and saying, Hey, we are now deeming all private property to be a gun-free zone unless the owner of that property gives express permission to that individual. Now in Maryland, they made it even worse because the type of permission and the manner in which you communicated it was going to be dependent upon what type of building it was, and that concerned the court greatly as they pointed out.
Multiple areas were challenged
The manner in which permission may be expressed or obtained depends on whether the building at issue is a dwelling. SB one provides that an individual carrying a firearm may not enter or trespass in the dwelling of another unless the owner or the owner's agent has given express permission either to the person or to the public generally to wear, carry, or transport a firearm inside the dwelling. With regard to all other private property, an individual carrying a firearm may not enter or trespass on such property unless the owner or owner's agent one has posted a clear and conspicuous sign indicating that it is permissible to carry a firearm on the property, or two has given the express permission to carry a firearm on the property. Now, as I mentioned, there were multiple areas that were challenged. The court did not enjoin most of them. As a side note, the court went back and carefully looked at Bruin, and as we are all aware, Bruin did discuss sensitive places and actually used schools as an example of a sensitive place in which firearms could be restricted.
court's opinion museums
The court unfortunately kind of took that and read a little bit more into it, but in order addressed in the court's opinion museums, museums, the court found were very similar to other educational buildings that their purpose really is to educate. They are akin to school grounds and therefore the court has ruled there will be no injunction on the law prohibiting firearms in museums. So as of the 1st of October, firearms cannot be carried into any museum in the state of Maryland, healthcare facilities, healthcare facilities. The court has also ruled that there will be no injunction. The court mentioned that again, they believe a lot of education occurs inside healthcare facilities. They also likened it akin to many other sensitive areas. So as of the beginning of October, firearms are not permitted in healthcare facilities, state parks, state forest, and the Chesapeake Forest lands. Now, I was a little disappointed in this one.
Concealed carry laws
The court really I think had to kind of bend over backward on this one. And unfortunate is because when you take a look at a lot of other states, oftentimes concealed carry laws get relaxed when you're engaged in outdoor activities where you may have to defend yourself from predatory animals. The court here, however, did not find that there was anything wrong with that. And so therefore, and this is a big deal if you're into outdoor activities, and I don't know the number of predatory animals you got to deal with in Maryland, but yeah, you cannot be carrying a firearm in any state park, any state forest or on the Chesapeake forest lands, mass transit and mass transit locations. The court also found that this was akin to a sensitive place which was authorized under Bruin. I disagree with that expansive reading, but the court will decline to enjoin the law which prohibits firearms from mass tra and mass transit locations.
Carrying a firearm merely selling alcohol
So again, as of the beginning of October, you cannot lawfully carry a firearm onto mass transit or a mass transit location in the state of Maryland locations selling alcohol smart move by the plaintiffs Here, they did not challenge the prohibition against possessing a firearm while you're intoxicated by alcohol. But they did say, Hey, what about any place that's just merely selling alcohol? And I don't know what the alcohol sales laws are in the state of Maryland. If that were the case in the state of Washington, it would preclude you from most grocery stores, mini marts, convenience stores, a lot of places that sell alcohol. It would also exclude you from every single restaurant in the state. So obviously this was a big deal. Now, the state argued that, well, there's a long tradition of prohibiting people who are intoxicated from possessing a firearm, and there is a lot of truth to that.
Prohibiting possession of firearm
There is a rich history of prohibiting possession of firearm by those who are actually under the influence of a substance. But Maryland's prohibition here was just merely to be on the property in which it was being sold, had nothing to do with the consumption of the firearm owner. As the court then pointed out in regards to the state's offered historical analogs, those historical statutes prevented only intoxicated individuals from carrying firearms. While Senate Bill one bans, all people present locations selling alcohol from carrying. And finally, and I think this is the big one, private property, the court has enjoined enforcement of the law restricting firearms on private property. So that law does not go into effect. The first part of October, the court specifically found state defendants argue that private property owners can include firearms. So the injury not being able to carry a firearm into private buildings would not be redressed by enjoining Senate Bill one state defendants mischaracterized plaintiff's injury.
It is not merely the inability to carry in privately owned buildings. Rather, their injury is the threat of prosecution for carrying firearms in places that under prevailing law, they have previously had the presumptive right to do so, absent express permission by the property owner. Accordingly, in joining Senate Bill, one would redress plaintiff's injury. So the restriction on private property, and for all you property owners, everything, what sign do I need to put up? You do not have to worry about it yet. Now, there were a limited number of plaintiffs who also challenged additional areas and the court has made rulings on that. They include school grounds. Now, I should come as shocked to know when the court is not going to enjoin the enforcement of this law on school grounds. And again, as I mentioned, they found that Bruin had talked about sensitive places and used school grounds as an example of a sensitive place, and then the court extrapolated that anything in which education was occurring would probably be deemed a sensitive place.
So school grounds not happening. There is as of the beginning of October, you cannot possess a firearm on school grounds in Maryland government buildings. The court went through a lengthy analysis of both the Heller and McDonald decision and how they discussed sensitive areas. They used examples of government buildings, polling places and things such as that, and therefore the court has found that there is a historical analog for that. There will not be an injunction on the restriction of firearms in government buildings, stadiums, racetracks, amusement parks, casinos, all of that. The court believes that there is a historical tradition of banning firearms from entertainment sites. I disagree with the court's historical analysis here, but the court does believe that there is a history of banning from entertainment sites. All of these constitute entertainment sites, and therefore there will be no injunction against that and therefore firearms are prohibited to be possessed in those locations beginning the 1st of October.
Legislation in Washington
Finally, public demonstrations. Now this is a big one, and we passed a similar piece of legislation out here in Washington a couple of years ago. The court has enjoined the law, paused the law as it relates to enforcing the prohibition against firearms at public demonstrations. Now, the court very interestingly said that they would've easily ruled the other way, but for the constraints of Bruin, in fact, the court specifically stated if the court were permitted to apply intermediate or even strict scrutiny to public demonstration restriction, the law would almost certainly pass constitutional muster because it does not categorically ban all firearms at public demonstrations. Rather, it prohibits guns only in a narrower set of circumstances designed to promote public safety while preserving the right to bear arms. Even so, the Supreme Court has rejected this means and analysis, and this court must conclude that the kike plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their challenge of the public demonstration restriction.
Okay, so if you're keeping tally at home and you're a Maryland resident who wants to know where the lines are and whether you want to scribble inside or scribble outside, the rulings of the court in nay v Moore are as follows, museums, the law is good. Healthcare facilities, the law is good. State Park, state Forest, Chesapeake Forest lands, the law is good. Mass transit, no problem with that location. Selling alcohol, yes, there's a problem. That law has been enjoined. The restriction of carrying firearms under private property. Yes, there is a problem with that. That law has been enjoined school grounds. There will be no injunction, government buildings, there will be no injunction, stadiums, racetracks, amusement park, casinos, all of that. There will be no injunction. Public demonstrations, yes, that law has been enjoined. The case once again is Voy v Moore. We will link it up down below so that you can geek out on it.
There will be appeals
Obviously, there will be appeals. The state of Maryland will crap its pants. They will go to a higher court and there will likely be more developments if we give more than 17 views on this video. Perhaps we'll even follow up and see what else happens with it. In the meantime, if you've got any other questions about this or anything else related to what's left of your Second Amendment rights, you guys should know how to get ahold of Washington gun law by now. If you don't, that's okay. That information is right down there in the description box. Now, in the meantime, let's remember that part of being the lawful and responsible gun owner, like we talk about all the time here, is to know what the law is in every situation and how it applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself. Until next time, thanks for watching. Stay Safe.
Credit: William Kirk, Esq., Washington Gun Law