Key Takeaways
- The challengers to Maryland’s carry bans filed a reply brief at the U.S. Supreme Court on September 2, 2026, asking for a review of Novotny v. Moore.
- They argue the Fourth Circuit misapplied precedents and that history does not support banning carry in ordinary public places.
- Their main point states that a ‘sensitive place’ must be a location secured by the government, like courthouses, not just any area the legislature names.
- Maryland does not recognize out-of-state permits, complicating carry rights for nonresidents and leading to constitutional challenges.
- The Court must decide if the definition of ‘sensitive place’ is limited to government-protected sites or if it can expand to other areas.
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
WASHINGTON, DC — The challengers to Maryland’s location-based carry bans filed their reply brief at the U.S. Supreme Court on September 2, 2026, their last word before the Justices decide whether to take up Novotny v. Moore. The petitioners include Katherine Novotny, Sue Burke, Esther Rossberg, Susannah Warner Kipke, Maryland Shall Issue, the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition and the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association. Governor Wes Moore is the lead respondent. They are asking the Court to review a Fourth Circuit ruling that went against them.
Here is the procedure in plain terms. The petitioners asked the Court for a writ of certiorari, which is just a request that the Justices agree to hear the case. Maryland filed its brief in opposition, and this reply brief is the petitioners’ answer to it. David H. Thompson of Cooper & Kirk is counsel of record for Kipke and the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association. Mark W. Pennak represents Novotny, Burke, Rossberg, Maryland Shall Issue, SAF and FPC. If you carry in Maryland or plan to, my Maryland concealed carry guide covers the permit process the state requires before any of these location rules even come into play.
The brief makes three arguments, and none of them need a law degree to follow. One: the Fourth Circuit got this wrong under the Supreme Court’s own precedents, and appeals courts around the country are struggling with “sensitive place” cases, so the Justices need to step in. Two: the history Maryland relies on does not support banning carry in ordinary places the public uses every day. The petitioners back that up with state court decisions from the 1870s. Three: history shows a “sensitive place” is one the government actually secures against armed attack, not any place a legislature decides to name.
That third point is the whole case. Bruen said sensitive places exist, but the examples it gave were courthouses, polling places and legislative buildings. Those are places with guards and metal detectors, where the government takes on the job of keeping people safe. Maryland took that label and put it on ordinary public spaces where nobody is guarding the door. In those places you are responsible for your own safety, and the state says you cannot carry the tool to do it. If the Court agrees with the petitioners, most of the location bans restrictive states have passed since Bruen are in trouble.
Maryland has a second carry case knocking on the same door. In December 2025, SAF, joined by the National Rifle Association, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, the Second Amendment Law Center, the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, filed an amicus brief, a filing by non-parties urging the Court to take a case, in Gardner v. Maryland. According to SAF, Eva Marie Gardner held a Virginia carry permit and was arrested for carrying without a permit after defending herself in Maryland, because Maryland honors no other state’s permit. Permit recognition in most of the country works one of two ways. Some states sign formal agreements with each other. Others simply honor out-of-state permits on their own, no agreement required. Maryland does neither, and my reciprocity maps show how few permits it accepts. SAF’s Kostas Moros said the Maryland Supreme Court’s ruling “defies Bruen by allowing states to force visitors from other states to jump through costly and time-consuming hoops to exercise their right to carry arms for self-defense.”
Put the two cases side by side and the picture is complete. A nonresident cannot carry in Maryland at all. A resident who clears the permit process still cannot carry in a long list of places. Gun Owners of America made a related point about the Fourth Circuit in its 2024 amicus brief in the Maryland assault weapons ban case, arguing the circuit had intentionally tried to circumvent Bruen. The Novotny petitioners are now saying the same thing about the same court on carry.
More from USA Carry:
To be clear, these are arguments in a brief. The Court has not decided whether to hear Novotny v. Moore, and a reply brief settles nothing on its own. What it does is frame the question cleanly: does “sensitive place” mean a place the government protects, or any place a legislature decides to name? A Maryland permit holder has to build a carry mindset around that answer every day, knowing which doors his permit stops at and planning around them. The Court now gets to say whether that list was ever constitutional.
I will continue tracking Novotny v. Moore as the Court decides whether to grant review.
Read the full article here
