The Supreme Court of Maryland issued its decision today in our challenge to the Montgomery County ordinance that basically banned carry by permit holders through out the County. On that issue we completely prevailed and the County lost. Specifically the Court held that the County's ban "is not a local law because of its application to holders of State-issued wear-and-carry permits traveling on public highways who cross within 100 yards of a place of public assembly." That means that permit holders may carry in Montgomery County without regard to the County's ordinance as long as they remain in compliance with State law. By any measure, we count that as a huge WIN! The whole point of the County's ordinance was to make it impossible for permit holders to carry in the County after the decision by the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen. On that point, the County lost completely. The Maryland Supreme Court issued other rulings as well, holding that County's regulation of so-called "ghost guns" was preempted by State law "to the extent it includes firearms that have been serialized in compliance with federal and State law." That means that persons may transport personally made firearms to FFLs and FFLs in the County may serialize personally made frames and receivers in accordance with State law. The Court also struck down as preempted a section of the County's ordinance which banned a "broad swath of otherwise lawful (and constitutionally protected) conduct by adults merely because it occurs in the presence of a minor, without any apparent connection to whether that activity might result in minors gaining unsupervised access to those firearms." The lesson to County residents and others: get a carry permit and carry in accordance with State law.

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 marylandshallissue.org/jmain… We look forward to a speedy and successful conclusion to this litigation.

Today 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 marylandshallissue.org/jmain… and a copy of the Supporting Memorandum can be found at marylandshallissue.org/jmain…

MSI wishes everyone a happy 4th of July!

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 rifles." Viramontes involves a Cook County, Illinois ban on such rifles. The Court also granted the petition in Grant v. Rovella, 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 ban.

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 firearms regulation. As Justice Barrett wrote in concurring, "[w]hile most Hawaiians might prefer that no one carry firearms 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.

A bit about the Montgomery County case and win in the Maryland Supreme Court youtube.com/watch?v=8T1Th3ZH…

The ban on the sale, receipt, purchase or transfer of Glocks (SB 334) has been enacted by both Houses of the General Assembly. It will now be "presented" to the Governor. The General Assembly "presents" an enacted bill to the Governor who has, under the Maryland Constitution, 30 days (after the legislature's adjournment) to sign or veto the Bill. See MD Const. Article II, section 17(c) ("(c) Any Bill presented to the Governor within six days (Sundays excepted), prior to adjournment of any session of the General Assembly, or after such adjournment, shall become law without the Governor's signature unless it is vetoed by the Governor within 30 days after its presentment."). "Presentment" to the Governor can take place within 20 days after adjournment, which is May 3, 2026, this year. See Maryland Const. Article III, Section 30 ("All bills passed during a regular or special session shall be presented to the Governor for the Governor's approval no later than 20 days after adjournment."). So there is a window in which a signature can take place. I have no doubt that Gov. Moore will sign SB 334. We are gearing up our challenge to this Bill.

Listen to our testimony on the Maryland Glock ban bill here, starting at the 1 hour 34 minute mark. youtu.be/0az5uyOn6-o?t=5649

The Fourth Circuit has issued their Temporary Stay of Mandate in Novotny v. Moore. This means that carry in private property open to the public, places that sell alcohol for on-site consumption, and demonstrations are officially all still legal, pending further court review.

Today, we asked the Fourth Circuit to stay its mandate so as to keep the district court's injunction in place while we file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Fourth Circuit has temporarily stayed the mandate pending resolution of the Motion. That order allows carrying with a permit in places where alcohol is served for onsite consumption and within 1000 feet of a public demonstration, until the Supreme Court acts on our petition for certiorari. If that petition is granted by the Supreme Court then the stay would continue in effect until final resolution of the case in the Supreme Court. The Fourth Circuit has requested a response to the Motion from the State by Feb. 9, 2026.

We join with the National Rifle Association and other groups that have condemned as dangerous and wrong the statement of Bill Essayli, First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California that federal law enforcement officers would be legally justified in shooting any person who approaches officers while otherwise lawfully carrying a firearm in a holster. Longstanding Supreme Court precedent simply does not allow the use of lethal force in such circumstances. We call for a full investigation into the shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis and for full accountability for any person who unlawfully employed lethal force.

Listen live this morning! courts.state.md.us/scm/webca… Oral arguments start at 9 am, scheduled as the 3rd case. Engage Armament LLC, et al. v. Montgomery County, Maryland Issues – Public Safety – 1) Did the trial court correctly find that Maryland’s comprehensive system of firearms regulation preempted portions of Chapter 57 of the Montgomery County Code (to the extent that it regulates the possession, transport, sale, and transfer of firearms)? 2) Did the trial court correctly find that Chapter 57 of the County Code is not a “local law” within the meaning of Article XI-A, § 3 of the Maryland Constitution? 3) Did the trial court correctly find that Chapter 57 of the County Code affected a taking of “major components” of firearms and privately made firearms within the meaning of the Maryland Constitution, Article III, § 40, and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 4) On Montgomery County’s cross-petition, did the trial court err in invalidating and prohibiting enforcement of portions of the county code that were not referenced in the operative complaint and that Petitioners placed at issue for the first time in their motion for summary judgment?

wbaltv.com/article/assault-v… "Police said two men approached the victim, assaulted him, knocked him to the ground and tried to steal his car. When the assailants couldn't start the car, they tried to again assault the victim, who drew a gun and pointed it at them. The assailants ran off."