The Department of Justice has launched its first litigation aimed at “sensitive places”, suing Montgomery County, Maryland for its ban on lawful concealed carry in parks, places of worship, libraries, recreational facilities, and multipurpose exhibition facilities, along with the 100-yard “buffer zone” surrounding those locations where lawful carry is also forbidden.
The lawsuit follows on the heels of a similar complaint brought by a Montgomery County rabbi last week in a case supported by the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Like the DOJ’s other Second Amendment litigation, today’s lawsuit is a “pattern and practice” case brought under Section 12601 of the U.S. code, which empowers the DOJ to sue jurisdictions that violate the civil rights of residents and visitors.
In its complaint, the DOJ highlights the ahistorical nature of the county’s numerous “gun-free zones.”
The relevant historical record confirms that in the founding era, governments were not broadly restricting firearms on public lands, urban green spaces, and other locations that could serve as legitimate historical analogues to Montgomery County’s prohibition in parks.
The complaint acknowledges that the Fourth Circuit came to a different conclusion in Kipke v. Moore, but says the appellate court “was wrongly decided in this respect,” and should be overturned.
ill 23-26 precludes houses of worship from consenting to the entry of individuals lawfully carrying firearms. Montgomery County will not be able to rebut the presumption of unconstitutionality because it will not be able to show that Bill 23-26 does not infringe upon the historical understanding of the right codified in the Second Amendment. Indeed, just the opposite is true. The nation has no “tradition of banning firearms in places of worship.”
Libraries obviously existed at the time of the founding, and by 1850, the Census reported1,217 public libraries in the United States. Yet none of the states categorically banned firearms at libraries. Thus, Bill 23-26’s ban is not consistent with the nation’s historical tradition.
Despite the undeniable presence of places used for recreational purposes at the founding, there is no evidence of any founding-era laws prohibiting firearms in those places.
There are no founding-era regulations analogous to a prohibition on carrying firearms at public gatherings of this kind [multipurpose exhibition facilities].
The complaint goes on to argue that the scope of Montgomery County’s gun control law is “breathtaking,” and that “for all practical purposes, it prevents law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms as they go about their daily lives.”
The law does not merely forbid the possession of firearms at certain locations. It forbids carrying firearms at those locations and within 100 yards of those locations. The total area of Montgomery County where Bill 23-26 prohibits possession of firearms shall be referred to in this Complaint as the “Exclusion Zone.” The Exclusion Zone is enormous. It encompasses literally thousands of locations.
According to the DOJ, it encompasses 26 percent of the county’s land area, and that doesn’t even include the 100-yard “buffer zone” around each of the thousands of locations.
Consider a person who owns a firearm and lives within 100 yards of a park. Subsection 57-11(b)(3) says the law does not apply so long as the firearm stays “in the person’s own home.” But the person becomes a criminal if he steps into his own backyard. Consider a church that has an adjacent parsonage. The pastor is a criminal while walking to his place of employment. Moreover, the pastor is a criminal even in his own home if he has a spare magazine because the exception applies only to firearms and ammunition. The exception does not apply to “components.”
DOJ argues that Montgomery’s law “suffers the same defect as Hawaii’s law in Wolford—it prevents ahypothetical law-abiding young woman with a valid CCW permit from attending to daily life while carrying a firearm.” But unlike Hawaii’s “vampire rule,” gun owners can’t hope to get permission to carry in parks, places of worship, libraries, recreational facilities, or multipurpose exhibition facilities. Even if a pastor, rabbi, or imam wanted to allow concealed carry in their sanctuary, they are prohibited from doing so under the county’s law.
You can read the DOJ’s complaint for yourself here, as well as its request for a preliminary injunction here.
This lawsuit is another important step in clawing back our right to bear arms. Though the Supreme Court has been reluctant to take up a “sensitive places” case, the fact that the government is bringing a legal challenge to these “gun-free zones” increases the chances that the Court will grant cert when the litigation reaches the justices. With the Third Circuit Court of Appeals set to rule on New Jersey’s “gun free zones” in the near future, the DOJ will also have the opportunity to file an amicus brief urging SCOTUS to grant cert to the Koons/Siegel litigation as well… and if the Third Circuit doesn’t delay its opinion for too long, the Court could address “sensitive places” as early as next term.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
