Lawsuit could signal broader trouble for “sensitive place” carry bans nationwide after the Supreme Court’s major Second Amendment ruling
The U.S. Justice Department is putting the Supreme Court’s recent Wolford v. Lopez decision to work, suing Montgomery County, Maryland, over sweeping restrictions that prohibit lawful firearm carry across large portions of the county.
The lawsuit challenges Montgomery County’s Bill 23-26, which bans firearms at thousands of locations — including parks, churches, libraries, recreational facilities, health care facilities, and other commonly visited places — while also creating 100-yard “Gun Free” Zones around many of them.
According to the Justice Department, the restrictions are so extensive that it is practically impossible for a law-abiding citizen with a carry permit to go about ordinary daily life without crossing into an area where carrying a firearm is prohibited.
That is where the Supreme Court’s June ruling in Wolford could prove devastating for Montgomery County — and potentially other jurisdictions that have attempted to designate huge portions of public life as so-called “sensitive places.”
In Wolford, the Supreme Court struck down Hawaii’s “vampire rule,” which presumed firearms were prohibited on private property open to the public unless the property owner expressly allowed them, holding that the government cannot broadly eliminate the right to carry in places Americans routinely visit during their daily lives.
National Foundation for Gun Rights Vice President Hannah Hill highlighted the significance of the DOJ lawsuit, noting that the Department is now applying the logic of Wolford beyond private property restrictions and directly against Montgomery County’s extensive sensitive-place regime.
That could make this lawsuit far more significant than a dispute over one Maryland county ordinance.
For years, anti-gun politicians have responded to the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision by dramatically expanding the list of locations where licensed citizens are prohibited from carrying firearms, effectively attempting to turn entire communities into “Gun Free” Zones.
But Wolford strengthened the argument that the government cannot recognize a right to carry firearms in theory while banning its exercise virtually everywhere people actually go.
Montgomery County’s ordinance illustrates the problem perfectly: a lawful gun owner could leave home legally armed, only to encounter overlapping prohibited areas simply by walking down the street.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said the county has made it “almost impossible” for licensed citizens to navigate Montgomery County without entering one of its exclusion zones, and pledged that the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division would defend Americans whose Second Amendment rights are violated.
The lawsuit is being brought by the Civil Rights Division’s Second Amendment Section, created by the Trump Administration specifically to enforce the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
For gun rights advocates, the most important question now may be how far the reasoning behind the lawsuit ultimately reaches.
If Wolford prevents governments from banning lawful carry throughout the places Americans ordinarily visit, then expansive sensitive-place laws enacted after Bruen in Maryland and other anti-gun jurisdictions could face serious Constitutional problems as well.
The National Association for Gun Rights has long argued that the right to bear arms cannot exist only on paper while politicians declare virtually every destination outside the home off-limits to firearms.
With Wolford now on the books and the Trump Justice Department actively enforcing it, Montgomery County may be the first major target — but it may not be the last.
Read more at Justice.gov
