Hello again everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law tv. I'm Washington Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us. Coming to you again. Yes, that's right. Again from Security Gun Club, Washington's premier indoor shooting facility right here in Woodinville, Washington because yes, we are still transitioning to our new studio. Going to talk to you about sensitive places today. Gun-free zones are what really should be called Liberal 10 per tantrums because we saw once the Bruin opinion was published a couple summers ago that many states went out and actually had what they called Bruin response bills. Now think about that for a second. The Supreme Court announces a decision and then a state legislature has to go out and write a law in response and in contradiction to what the Supreme Court said that actually happened in many, many states subject to lots and lots of litigation. We're going to be talking about those that occurred in the state of Maryland. This time there has been challenges and there has finally been a resolution on all sorts of new sensitive places and this could have very valuable presidential value elsewhere today. Let's spend a few minutes and let's talk about huge ruling strikes down several sensitive places.
Okay, before we get going too far down the road, we're going down proud to announce that this video is being brought to you by Right to Bear. That's right. Legal protection for self-protection. Listen, good lawyers aren't cheap. Cheap lawyers aren't good. You're not truly prepared unless you have right to bear back. You, you will always get an attorney answered hotline, so you will always have a confidential phone call. There are no cap limits for either civil or criminal defense. This covers all forms of self-defense. So from a fist to a firearm, from a fat lip to a dead body, you are covered and you will have some of the nation's most passionate to a attorneys in your corner fighting for you. And right now, if you visit my friends@protectwithbear.com and you use the promo code Wgl L, you'll receive 10% off. Listen, you need to protect yourself so that you can protect them.
Visit my Good friends@protectwithbear.com. Okay, America, the cases that we're talking about, the name case, if you just take a look at the caption, is Kike v Moore. You may know of this case from the title of nay v Moore. That was a separate action. They were all eventually consolidated into one action. Kike apparently gets poll position in the naming. This is some litigation. However, I would be remiss not to mention that this is litigation that was brought to us by our good friends at the Firearms Policy Coalition as well as the Second Amendment Foundation, which means of course there will be links below in the description box so that you can show them some love. This is a challenge to Marilyn's Gun Safety Act of 2023 or essentially their Bruin response bill. Now, Marilyn never known for preserving the individual liberties of its residents. Already had several sensitive places, gun-free zones, whatever you may want to call them in play already prior to the Bruin opinion being announced.
However, after they had their temper tantrum and crapped their pants, all states such as California, New York, Illinois, Washington, Oregon and so on, they decided to pass a whole new slew of sensitive places. Now, the new legislation actually created New Gun-free zones in one, any area for children or vulnerable individuals. Two, a government or public infrastructure area, and three, a special purpose area. But then of course the devil is always in the detail because as it turned out, these restricted areas included schools and school grounds, healthcare facilities, government buildings, stadiums, museums, amusement parts, race tracks, casinos and location selling alcohol for onsite consumption. And then in addition to that, the law actually placed prohibition on any person carrying firearms onto private property without the express permission of that property owner. And then as I mentioned, Marilyn had a long, long history of already restricting firearms in large swaths of the state.
So there was preexisting law which prohibited the carrying or possession of firearms in state park, state forests, public transit owned or controlled by the Maryland Mass Transit Administration at welcome centers, rest areas, scenic, overlooks, roadside picnic areas and other public use areas within the interstate and state highway system on the grounds of public school property, on property of state public buildings improvement grounds and multi-service centers under the jurisdiction of the Department of General Services in the Camden Yard Sports Complex in a casino and at a demonstration in a public place or in a vehicle that is within 1000 feet of the demonstration in a public place. So between all of the lawsuits, and I'm not going to bore you with all the details of what was challenging, what between the Kike plaintiffs and the Novotny plaintiffs, all of them had one of these actions under challenge and many times they were overlapping.
Now if you also recall, we did a video previously on the channel, this video right here where we had talked about that some portions of this law had already been temporarily enjoined and as you recall, we always say, Hey, if you get a temporary injunction, that's good news because one, yeah, you've shown that you have irreparable harm, but it also shows that you are likely to proceed on the merits. What happened afterwards was quite interesting because after the court decided to enjoin certain parts of the law and not enjoin large swaths of the law, both sides, the plaintiffs and the defendants actually agreed to conduct no further discovery whatsoever. So there was no exchange of evidence, there was no other records really made and so therefore the court, when it came time to determine final judgment on the summary judgments was left with basically the same record that it had been provided for the temporary injunction hearings.
The court previously considered the same issues on the motions for preliminary injunction. Although those motions required a different standard review than the summary judgment standard set forth above, there has been no discovery in this case and the facts are unchanged and undisputed and for that reason, the court is really left with only one conclusion accordingly, for the same reason stated in the memorandum opinion where the court determined whether plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, the court now finds that there is no genuine dispute as to material fact as to whether the regulations identified above violate the Second amendment. The court will grant in part and deny in part the motions for summary judgment in accordance with its prior memorandum opinion and order, and the court will permanently enjoin Maryland's laws restricting the carrying of firearms in location, selling alcohol for onsite consumption, private buildings without the owner's consent and within 1000 feet of a public demonstration.
Okay, did you get that Marilyn so permanently enjoying these laws are no longer enforceable at all. The prohibition on possessing a firearm in locations that are actually selling and allowing for consumption of alcohol, the prohibition of entering a private building without express permission of the owner to have a firearm in there, that too is enjoined and the prohibition against having a firearm within 1000 feet of a demonstration. Now, there was no further discovery on this case, but as you can imagine, there were a lot of case laws including that dam Rahimi case that came out, which meant there was all sorts of memorandums of supplemental authority that were submitted to the court. However, the court was not really persuaded by any of it, didn't believe that any of the more recent Supreme Court case law changed the complexion of this case in any way, shape, or form as they ruled.
The parties have filed several notices of supplementary authority since the court issued its memorandum opinion and order, but none of them changed the court's decision or require the court to revisit its analysis. Now, I have been incredibly critical and in some ways standing alone on an island out here of creators that says, Hey, this rahini opinion is brutal and it's going to just be used to beat us over the head ad nauseum. Of course, the Maryland state government tried to use it to their advantage here. Fortunately, this court was not persuaded by what Rahimi had to say. The court finds that the instant case is factually distinct from both Rahimi and Bruin because the challenge laws here relate to caring in specific locations not to permitting and who may carry a firearm further. Many of the regulations at issue here may be upheld under Bruin, either analogous sensitive places or because they're consistent with historical regulations at set forth in the memorandum opinion.
And thank God they didn't say because they were relevantly similar or part of a more nuanced approach because trust me, America, you're going to get really used to hearing those phrases, dual ruling of the court. Now Marilyn, this is the actual ruling verbatim from the court is accordingly, the court will grant plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in part as to one location, selling alcohol for onsite consumption, two private property without the owner's consent and three, within 1000 feet of a public demonstration. These laws will be permanently enjoined because the court will permanently enjoin the private building consent rule on Second Amendment grounds. It need not determine whether that law also violates the First Amendment as kike plaintiff's claim. In count two of their complaint, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment otherwise will be denied. Now, I want you to be careful about something else here, Marilyn, because all the rest of the challenges not only have been denied, but apparently they have been summary judgment out as well.
As you recall, a summary judgment is when the party argues to the court, Hey, listen, there's no dispute about the facts, there's no dispute about the law, and therefore we are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The court has agreed with both sides here. They have said, yeah, plaintiffs you're right as to certain counts. Here you are absolutely right. We're granting summary judgment there, but to the defendants we're also going to grant summary judgment on many of the other challenges, and one of the reasons is they believe that the plaintiffs may have abandoned part of the claims the court actually ruled. Consequently, kike plaintiffs have abandoned their 14th Amendment claims and because the court finds state defendants arguments to be meritorious, summary judgment will be entered for state defendants on counts three and four of the kike complaint, which means as it sits right now, Marilyn, any of the other challenges that were not successful at this point are dead.
Now, certainly they could be raised again, but of course there will be precedent that will be difficult to overcome. The name case is Kike v Moore. You may better know it as nay v Moore. It is brought to us again by the good folks at the Firearms Policy Coalition as well as the Second Amendment Foundation, links to show love down below in the description box. We'll also link up this ruling down below so that you can geek out on it for yourself. Maybe you got questions about this or something else related to what's left of our Second Amendment rights. If you do, you should know how to get ahold of us by now. If you don't, that's okay. That information is down there in the description box. Maybe you got an idea for a video we should be doing here. If you do, go ahead and click on that link right there, or maybe you just want to subscribe to our newsletter. Hey, the link to do that is down in the description box as well. And then finally, and most importantly, let's everyone remember that part of being in the lawful and responsible gun on earn, like we talk about all the time here, is to know what the law is in every situation. Now it applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself. Until next time, thanks for watching. Stay Safe.
YouTube Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8sgI9AJP4Y
Credit: William Kirk, Esq Washington Gun Law