The 445th session of the Maryland General Assembly has adjourned. Instead of honoring and respecting Marylanders’ right to defend themselves in public, the body chose to pass bills that criminalize wear and carry permit holders and ban carry by permit holders in countless new places in Maryland. These bills are on their way to Governor Moore, who has said that he will sign them.

We are prepared to challenge the unconstitutional provisions within these bills through litigation. Marylanders have a right to protect themselves in public and the General Assembly and the Governor cannot legislate those rights away.

What Passed?

‘Bruen response’ bills, SB 1 and HB 824 - Effective Date 10/1/2023

We have a guide on how both bills affect lawful carry in Maryland starting on October 1st, 2023 HERE.

SB 1 is one of the ‘Bruen response’ bills submitted this session and one that bans carry by permit holders in publicly-accessible buildings and virtually all government buildings. As originally enacted by the Senate, after many amendments, SB 1 would have allowed carry by permit holders in otherwise publicly accessible private buildings unless the private owner put a sign banning any such carry. When SB 1 reached the House of Delegates, it was amended by the House Judiciary Committee to do the reverse, viz., allowing carry in privately-owned buildings only with express permission or where signs had been posted by the owner allowing such carry. Every private building open to the public automatically becomes a gun-free zone in Maryland. Willfully entering any building without such permission would be punishable by up to a year of imprisonment, a fine of up to $1000, or both.

If that weren’t bad enough, SB 1 separately prohibits lawful carry in any location that has a license to serve alcohol (and cannabis, but that’s another issue). The supporters of this provision dishonestly portrayed the ban as something that would prevent “wild west” shootouts when in reality, all it does is prevent adults from carrying when eating at a restaurant, thereby forcing permit holders to leave firearms in their vehicles (supposing they have vehicles). Attempts in both the Senate and the House to prohibit only the consumption of alcohol or sitting at a bar while carrying all failed.

The other response to Bruen comes in HB 824, which institutes higher fees and more training requirements for the issuance of a permit to carry a handgun, as well as increasing criminal penalties for carrying a handgun without a permit. Starting October 1st, initial application fees would increase from $75 to $125 and renewals go from $50 to $75. Training requirements are also affected, as all training must be taught in person, effectively prohibiting instruction through tools like Zoom. The Bill creates new subject matter that instructors must cover, such as suicide prevention, anger management, and conflict de-escalation and requires the State to provide a curriculum to instructors that cover these subjects. There is a provision in HB 824 that clarifies that these changes to licensing are prospective from October 1st onwards. Those who have permits now do not need to get the new training.

HB 824 also modifies the current § 4-203 of the Criminal Law Article which includes the penalties for carrying a handgun without a permit and violating transport restrictions of handguns. Right now, someone convicted under that statute for a first offense faces up to three years imprisonment and loses their gun rights for life. The Bill increases that potential imprisonment to up to five years. Baltimore States Attorney, Ivan Bates, pushed hard for this increase and the General Assembly gave him what he wanted. We and others testified against the increase, noting that studies have shown that because of soaring violent crime and lack of trust in the police, many law-abiding people in Baltimore carry out of fear. Many such folks cannot afford all the fees and costs associated with getting a carry permit. Ivan Bates wants to put those people in jail for even longer. We think every law-abiding Maryland gun owner should get a Wear and Carry Permit. Doing so will discourage violent crime and make us all safer. We have information on how to apply for a permit HERE. 

For more on SB 1 and HB 824, see our guide HERE.

It is easy to be discouraged by the passage of these bills. Hundreds of you submitted testimony against these bills and many, many more reached out to your elected representatives to express your concerns. That effort informed lawmakers like Delegates Arikan, Kipke, Pippy, Arentz, and Morgan and Senators Folden, West, Ready, and many others who spoke out against these restrictions. Even the Speaker Pro Tem of the House expressed concerns and voted against SB 1 because of how the bill could be enforced. That it took 2,156 out of 2,200 hours available in the session to pass SB 1 is a testament to how influential and powerful your voices are. You did not make this easy for them. The list of bad bills that did not pass, set forth below, is further evidence that advocacy can work. SB 1 and HB 824 are bad bills, but they started out much worse.

Mandated Storage, SB 858 “Jaelynn’s Law” - Effective Date 10/1/2023

SB 858 changes § 4-104 of the Criminal Law Article, the current law surrounding the storage of firearms, to apply to all individuals under 18. Under the bill, no such person is allowed to have any unsupervised access to a loaded firearm unless they have a hunter's safety certificate issued by the Department of Natural Resources or are repelling an unlawful entry into a home. This came as a result of last-minute changes to the bill by the House Judiciary Committee, as the version passed by the Senate would have made use of the existing reckless endangerment statute to penalize those who recklessly leave firearms accessible to minors. The Senate version would have also included a tax credit for up to $250 toward the purchase of firearms storage devices. The House Judiciary Committee stripped all of those Senate provisions from the bill. In passing the House version, the General Assembly once again demonstrates that it would rather criminalize gun owners than actually promote the acquisition of safe storage devices.

You can see all of the gun-related bills from the 445th Maryland General Assembly session in our tracker HERE. Bills listed as “Returned Passed” or “Passed Enrolled” are headed to Governor Wes Moore’s desk. Everything else is marked as “Failed Legislation” for failure to pass both chambers of the legislature. Final vote counts by lawmakers will continue to be added to the tracker as they become available.

What Didn’t Pass?

While SB1 and HB824 passed, both bills were heavily amended to make them far less draconian. The General Assembly at least listened that much. A lot of really bad legislation also failed to passed.

Firearms Industry Nuisance Bills SB 113 / HB 259

These bills would have made firearms and ammunition sellers, manufacturers, and others potentially liable for the bad actions of criminals who misuse firearms. As we explained in our testimony, federal law shields the industry from such suits but national anti-gun organizations like Everytown and Brady have pushed for state laws that attempt to undermine those protections. The bills were heard in their committees but no further action was taken. This is the second year bills like this have been introduced.

GPS Tracking of Firearms HB 704

Delegate Queen has continued her attempts to mandate GPS tracking devices for privately-owned firearms, this time by targeting sales of 10 or more firearms to a buyer, whether the buyer is a dealer or a private individual. Not only is such a requirement practically impossible to implement, but it’s also highly illegal. The bill was heard by the Judiciary Committee and no further action was taken. 

Criminalization of Young Adult Gun Owners SB 86

Senator Waldstreicher may have gotten his wishes on disarming permit-holding Marylanders with SB 1, but another one of his aggressively unconstitutional bills, the “Raise the Age Act of 2023” failed to move after its hearing in the Judicial Proceedings Committee. The bill would have made it unlawful for any person under 21 from purchasing or even possessing any firearm. It is already criminal in Maryland for those under 21 to possess handguns, leaving purchases of shotguns and rifles the only arms available to 18-to-20-year-olds. Our testimony noted that the current law is likely unconstitutional as it is, but the new prohibition certainly would be.

Voluntary Do Not Sell List for Guns HB 162 / SB 159

These bills would have had the State maintain a database for people to voluntarily add themselves to that would bar them from purchasing firearms. The sponsors’ thinking here is that if someone thinks they’re suicidal or otherwise not stable enough to have firearms, they could sign up and cut off a way of legal access to firearms. The bills would have also added a harsh criminal penalty to anyone who provided a firearm to someone on the list. As we explained in our written and oral testimony, insurmountable logistical issues prevent this bill from working. No entity other than the Maryland Department of Health has access to the list. A gun dealer or another individual would have no idea whether someone is on the list — despite the threat of criminal prosecution. The lis is not reportable to the FBI NICS system. Ignoring these problems, the House passed HB 162, but the bill died in the Senate. We expect this bill to come back next year.

Bills that Advance or Protect Gun Owners’ Rights

The majority of the General Assembly remains hostile to Marylanders’ rights to keep and bear arms. Bills that would have had the state reimburse those unconstitutionally denied carry permits for lack of a “good and substantial reason,” failed to progress. The proposed tax credit to help gun owners secure their firearms in the storage bill was removed. Bills that would have helped those with expunged records recover their 2nd Amendment rights didn’t emerge from committee. A bill that would have put Maryland in line with 26 other states in not requiring a permit to carry a handgun was voted unfavorably in committee. Bills that sought to protect gun owners from theft of their guns were not considered.

The prevailing attitude in the General Assembly seems to be that the ownership of firearms should be discouraged and gun owners should be criminalized to the extent possible. During final debate on SB 1 in the House, one delegate in particular espoused the view that Maryland should follow Australia’s example and confiscate firearms and ban their purchase. Such a program would, of course, be blatantly unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, but that reality did not seem to bother that delegate in the slightest. Legislators espousing such views seem blissfully ignorant of the hard reality that Maryland’s murder rate is among the worse in the United States (nearly double Virginia’s rate and far higher than Pennsylvania’s rate), notwithstanding Maryland’s far stricter gun laws.

Our work continues as an all-volunteer non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation and advancement of gun owners' rights in Maryland. MSI seeks to educate the community about the right of self-protection, the safe handling of firearms, and the responsibility that goes with carrying a firearm in public. We are grateful to every person who stands with us in advancing these initiatives. Join us today.