Maryland’s Sensitive Places

The Bruen decision said that states could designate certain ‘sensitive places’ as gun free zones.  But Justice Thomas warned against overreach in designating these places.

Thumbing its nose at the Bruen decision, New York State passed the mis-named Concealed Carry Improvement Act.  (CCIA.)  It was not alone.  Several deep Democrat states passed similar laws, at least in part.  All these states have something in common; they took advantage of the opportunity to name places as ‘sensitive areas’ and totally ignored Justice Thomas’ warning about overreach.

Last week SCOPE wrote about the Supreme Court hearing the case about Hawaii’s overreach (Wolford v Lopez).  At that same time, an appeals court was hearing a similar case and its decision may be an omen of what is in store for New York State’s CCIA.

On January 20, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Maryland’s prohibition on carrying guns on private property that was held open to the public is unconstitutional.  (For instance: Gas stations, grocery stores, etc.)

The judges said that Maryland’s prohibition was “directed at gun owners, not property owners…With or without the new private-property consent rule, Maryland property owners have the right to exclude unwanted people (including those with guns) from their property.”

In addition, examples of historical precedence cited by Maryland were weak because: “Many of the historical statutes Maryland cites appear to regulate hunting on others’ property without permission.”

The Justices concluded: “Maryland’s rule would effectively declare most public places ‘gun-free zones.’ But that likely stretches the sensitive places doctrine too far…In short, there is no relevant historical tradition supporting Maryland’s private-property consent rule, at least on this record and as to property held open to the public.”

However, the court held that Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the rule for property not held open to the public.  (For instance: Homes, farms, etc.)

The ruling did allow certain places to be named as gun free zones.  Some were unanimous (as noted) but others were (held) by a 2 to 1 majority.  They are:

-  unanimously hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in government buildings is constitutional

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in public transportation is constitutional

- unanimously hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns on school grounds is constitutional

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration is constitutional (provided law enforcement first orders the armed individual to leave)

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in state parks, is constitutional

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in museums is constitutional

- unanimously hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in healthcare facilities is constitutional

-  hold that Maryland’s prohibitions on guns at stadiums, racetracks, amusement parks, and casinos are constitutional

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in locations that sell alcohol is constitutional.

The judge who disagreed with parts of the ruling issued a partial dissent, warning that the majority’s approach risks “hollowing out the Second Amendment.”  He agreed that schools, government buildings, and health care facilities can be treated as sensitive places. But he argued that approving Maryland’s long list of additional locations “stretches the sensitive places exception into a broad license to prohibit firearms in locations where people gather for almost any purpose.”

This decision only applies to the 4th circuit (Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.)  But combined with the Supreme Court’s seemingly dislike (in oral arguments) of a broad definition of ‘sensitive places that are open to the public’ and the 4th Circuit’s outright rejection of that principle, this is good news for New York gun owners and bad news for Kathy Hochul and CCIA.  

The lawsuit’s gun owners will have to decide if they will ask the full Fourth Circuit to rehear the case or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court or do nothing.  Do they want to challenge those places the 4th circuit allowed, especially those without a majority decision? 

Here is a link to the actual 94 page decision   241799.P.pdf