Maryland Shall Issue

We are pleased to announce that the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has just ruled that Maryland's Handgun Qualification License requirement is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

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

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.

Sotomayor immediately seeks to frame the issue as Wolford arguing that there's a custom of being allowed onto private property without the owner's express consent. But that's not quite the issue here. Historically, yes, the rule was that public-facing businesses gave implied consent for all would-be patrons to enter on the same footing, including those that were armed. If businesses wanted to exclude armed patrons, they had to affirmatively say so. The issue is whether there's a historical tradition of the government speaking on behalf of businesses that are silent about excluding armed patrons, to presume that businesses wish to exclude them.

Hawaii now citing Maryland laws, which will be awkward when he learns after the arguments that their vampire rule was just struck down

Listen live this morning! courts.state.md.us/scm/webcasts 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?

Some of the stories behind the pictures in "The Ameriguns" by Gabriele Galimberti, starting with the one that lives rent-free in so many anti-gunners' heads: 54dunkerque.com/gabriele-galim…

wbaltv.com/article/assaul… "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."

Today, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond held oral argument in Kipke/Novotny v. Moore, which is our legal challenge to SB1. That legislation severely restricted the right to carry by permit holders. We are grateful for this opportunity to present our views to the the court and look forward to a decision soon. Here is a link to the argument. Oral arguments for our case start at the one hour mark: youtube.com/live/2rT-zwU3E…

Interested in visiting the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore? They're having an open house, open to the public! April 19, 2025. from 09:00 AM to 5:00 PM 11518 Marriottsville Road Marriottsville, MD 21104 (Eye and hearing protection recommended)

A copy of the order can be found here: marylandshallissue.org/jmain/document…

Today the Supreme Court of Maryland issued an order granting our petition for certiorari to decide whether Montgomery County had the authority to regulate firearms by enacting ordinances that, among other things, made it effectively impossible, as a practical matter, for carry permit holders to carry anywhere in the County as allowed by State law. The Court will also decide whether the County's effective ban on privately made firearm and components constituted a Taking without just compensation under the Maryland Constitution. The Court's order set a briefing schedule and tentatively scheduled oral argument for the first week of September 2025. We are delighted that the Court agreed to take the case and we look forward to presenting the case to the Court.

Oral arguments set for 5.7.2025 regarding Kipke v. Moore. bit.ly/41yT6qc

This gun was recently approved to be on the California Roster and thus sold in California. So clearly, Mexico should sue California for aiding and abetting cartel violence! /s, but this was literally part of Mexico's argument today as to gun manufacturers. By making guns that appeal to Mexican-Americans, they must assume some of those guns with this sort of styling will be attractive to cartels and thus sold illegally into Mexico. It's pretty racist, and treats Mexican-Americans as a suspect class likely to sell to criminals.

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday signaled that it was likely to shut down a lawsuit brought by the Mexican government, seeking to hold seven major U.S. gun makers and a gun wholesaler responsible for violence committed by Mexican drug cartels with U.S.-made weapons. A majority of the court appeared to agree with the gun makers that the Mexican government’s suit is barred by a 2005 law intended to shield the gun industry from lawsuits in U.S. courts for the misuse of guns by others." scotusblog.com/2025/03/high-c…

NYT video on new gun owners.

Read it here: bit.ly/3QjJNFq

Today, the Montgomery County, MD Circuit Court dismissed with prejudice a suit brought by the Attorney General Offices of Maryland and of the District of Columbia against three Montgomery Co. firearms dealers. In that suit, Maryland and DC accused these dealers of violating State and federal law in making sales of handguns to a Designated Collector, the type of purchaser who is entitled, under State law, to make bulk purchases after being thoroughly investigated and cleared to do so by the Maryland State Police. The court held that the dealers fully complied with all State and federal laws in making the sales and that Maryland and DC had failed to allege any facts sufficient to show that the dealers had reason to know that the purchaser was acting as a straw purchaser for someone else. MSI supported the dealers in this suit and we are pleased and gratified with the dismissal. Maryland and DC badly overreached. As Congress recognized in passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act in 2005, dealers cannot be held responsible for criminal acts of third-parties who misuse firearms any more than auto companies can be held liable for the criminal misuse of vehicles.