Gun News

Maryland’s Gun-Free Zones Getting Roasted in Federal Court ~ 2A Victory May Be Coming ~ VIDEO

Opinion, with Comments by Mark Smith

In a case that could send shockwaves through anti-gun laws across the country, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit just heard arguments in Kipke v. Moore., and by all appearances, the pro-Second Amendment side walked in with solid footing—and walked out with momentum. What looked like a dead-end fight in front of a left-leaning judicial panel may actually flip in favor of your constitutional rights.

Here’s what went down—and why it matters.

Maryland’s Anti-Carry Overreach After Bruen

After the Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen decision in 2022 affirmed that law-abiding Americans have a general right to carry firearms in public, Maryland, like several other blue states, scrambled to restrict that right in any way it could. Instead of blocking permits directly (which Bruen prevents), Maryland shifted tactics and started declaring entire swaths of public areas—parks, museums, public transit, school grounds, libraries, and even places that serve alcohol—as “sensitive places” where carry is banned.

But here’s the thing: almost none of these areas were treated as “gun-free” before 2022.

Judges Weren’t Buying It

Many observers (including Second Amendment legal analyst Mark Smith from Four Boxes Diner) were surprised by how skeptical the judges sounded, especially for a panel many expected to be unfriendly to gun rights.

Throughout the oral argument, the Maryland attorney struggled to explain why all these new “sensitive places” only emerged after Bruen. As Judge Gregory sharply pointed out, how does a subway—where people are regularly assaulted—qualify as a “gun-free zone” when there’s no armed security?

Shouldn’t that be exactly the kind of place where law-abiding citizens need to carry?

Defining “Sensitive Places” — The Key Legal Test

Under Bruen, when a gun law burdens a right clearly protected by the Second Amendment—like carrying a firearm for self-defense in public—the government bears the burden of proving the restriction is consistent with historical tradition.

The Maryland lawyers tried to lean on a few post-Civil War laws, but the Second Amendment lawyers stuck to a clean argument: you must look to 1791—the year the Second Amendment was adopted—to find any valid historical analogs. And in 1791, the only commonly recognized sensitive places were those where the government provided comprehensive, armed security: courthouses (with armed bailiffs), legislative buildings (with sergeants-at-arms), and polling places (guarded by sheriffs).

That’s it.

So unless the government is actually doing the protecting, they can’t take away your right to protect yourself.

Objective Standards, Not Political Labels

The brilliance of this argument is its simplicity: calling something a “sensitive place” isn’t enough. The government must treat it like one—meaning metal detectors, armed guards, and secured entry. Otherwise, the Constitution wins.

As one of the attorneys said during the hearing, “Just because Maryland calls a museum sensitive doesn’t mean it is. No security, no detectors, no armed guards? Then it’s just a museum—and I still have my right to carry.”

Schools & In Loco Parentis

One of the deeper historical arguments came when Maryland tried to justify school carry bans. The Second Amendment side pushed back hard: yes, students could be banned from carrying in schools back in the day—but only because schoolmasters acted in loco parentis (in the place of parents). That restriction applied to children, not adults. No historical record suggests that a parent dropping off their kid at school in 1791 would’ve been breaking the law by being armed.

Why This Case Matters Nationally

What’s happening in Maryland isn’t just about Maryland. States like New York, New Jersey, California, and Illinois are watching closely. If the Fourth Circuit rules that these blanket bans on public carry in loosely defined “sensitive places” violate the Second Amendment, other gun-grabbing states will lose their go-to workaround.

This case could become the next major stop on the road to the Supreme Court—and possibly a knockout blow against the post-Bruen anti-gun backlash.

Final Thought

The biggest takeaway? The tide may be turning. Even in a circuit like the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which has been hostile to gun rights for years, the judges couldn’t ignore the strength of history, logic, and the Constitution.

And if the state can’t show they’re stepping up to protect you with armed security, then they sure as hell can’t stop you from protecting yourself.