Maryland Shall Issue

07/27/2026

Today, five MSI members and MSI filed suit in federal district court challenging Montgomery County Bill 23-26. That Ordinance effectively bans carry by permit holders in most of the urban areas of the county. The Complaint challenges the Bill under two Counts of State law and one Count under the Second Amendment. You can find a copy of the complaint on our website at https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents?task=download.send&id=596&catid=4&m=0 We look forward to a speedy and successful conclusion to this litigation.

07/21/2026

Bill 23-26 passed today in Montgomery County. Bill 23-26 plainly exceeds the County's power as limited by the Maryland Supreme Court's decision in Engage Armament. The County's attempt to limit the rights of persons who have carry permits issued by the Maryland State Police is a gross violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as most recently construed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Wolford v. Lopez. As the Supreme Court stated in Wolford, "the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives." If signed into law by the County Executive, the Bill will be promptly challenged in federal district court and will be enjoined by that court. The County will then be on the hook for substantial attorney's fees and costs, as allowed by federal law. The County simply fails to grasp that the Second Amendment applies to Montgomery County no less than to any other part of the United States.

07/14/2026

Yesterday MSI and two individuals (Frank Duffy and Stanley Peter) and two FFL's (The Machine Gun Nest and Engage Armament) filed our motion for a preliminary injunction. A copy of the Motion can be found at https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents?task=download.send&id=594&catid=4&m=0 and a copy of the Supporting Memorandum can be found at https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents?task=download.send&id=595&catid=4&m=0

07/04/2026

MSI wants to wish everyone a happy 4th of July!

07/02/2026

Maryland Shall Issue has joined forces with two individuals and two dealers, The Machine Gun Nest and Engage Armaments, to file a complaint in federal district court in Baltimore challenging the G***k Bans enacted by Senate Bill 334. The Complaint can be found on our website at https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents?task=download.send&id=593&catid=4&m=0 We intend to prosecute this case vigorously.

06/30/2026

Today, in Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238 (SCT), the Supreme Court just granted the petition for certiorari on "Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic ri**es." Viramontes involves a Cook County, Illinois ban on such ri**es. The Court also granted the petition in Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566, involving similar bans imposed by Connecticut and consolidated that case with Viramontes for briefing and argument. The Court deferred consideration of other "hardware" cases, including cases involving magazine bans and those cases will be carried over to the Court's new Term, which starts the first Monday of October, 2026. This is great news. A favorable decision from the Court in these cases will result in the likely invalidation of Maryland's assault weapon bans.

06/25/2026

Our statement regarding the decision in Wolford v. Lopez:

We are very pleased with the Court's decision. The Court's opinion reaffirms the Bruen methodology and reached the correct result based on the Second Amendment's text and this Nation's history and traditions of fi****ms regulation. As Justice Barrett wrote in concurring, "[w]hile most Hawaiians might prefer that no one carry fi****ms in public places, a majority’s opposition to a constitutional right is not a permissible basis for restricting it." State and local governments, particularly in blue states, should take heed.

06/25/2026

A HUGE win in the United States Supreme Court today! Wolford v. Lopez was decided today. See the summary attached here. We will issue a full statement later, once we have digested the opinion and dissents.

This case is based on the default rule of carrying on private property that is otherwise open to the public. This is also an issue central to our Novotny v. Moore litigation, currently pending at the US Supreme Court.

06/18/2026

More winning! Today in US v. Hemani, the United States Supreme Court ruled that use of a controlled substance does not automatically disqualify citizens from owning fi****ms. Mr. Hemani was charged with owning a fi***rm after admitting to drug use, yet no charges were filed for any drug possession.

This ruling does not legalize using or carrying a fi***rm while under the influence or after a disqualifying conviction.

As always, practice safe fi***rm handling, which includes knowing when you are impaired, even by prescription drugs.

06/17/2026

Good news!

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1HyFgXu7DK/

In a major ruling out of the Appellate Court of Maryland, all 14 judges agreed that police cannot stop someone just because they see or suspect a concealed handgun. The case centered on Steven Hicks, who was in a group on a Baltimore street when officers thought they saw a gun printing under his shirt and moved in for a stop and frisk. Hicks told them he was licensed, but they pushed ahead anyway, dug past a basic pat‑down, pulled items from his pockets, and eventually found guns and drugs. A lower court let that evidence in, but the appellate court tossed it, saying Bruen changed the landscape: public carry is now “presumptively lawful,” so the mere presence of a gun does not equal reasonable suspicion of a crime.

The judges were clear. The “mere possibility” that a person might not have a permit is not enough to justify seizing them. If cops want to stop and search someone over a fi***rm, they need specific facts suggesting the gun is being possessed illegally or that some other criminal activity is going on. Just seeing a bulge, a print, or a hint of a holster is no longer a free pass to treat you like a criminal. That is a huge shift in a state that long treated handgun carry as “presumptively illegal” and used that assumption to justify a lot of stops, especially in places like Baltimore.

For concealed carriers, this decision is big. It reinforces that exercising a recognized constitutional right cannot, by itself, be the excuse to detain and frisk you. It also shows how Bruen is still rippling through lower courts, forcing states to admit that “shall issue” and permitless carry regimes mean what they say: regular people with guns in public are not automatically suspects. The fight is far from over, and Maryland’s AG is already “reviewing” the ruling, but for now the message is clear: in Maryland, guns ≠ crime by default.