In January 2021, Eva Marie Gardner was driving in Montgomery County, Maryland when her car was allegedly hit by an assailant who ran her off the road before exiting his vehicle and rushing towards her. Gardner says she first screamed at him to get away, but when he continued advancing she drew her pistol in self-defense, though she never fired a shot.
When police arrived on scene, they ended up releasing the man who allegedly ran her off the road, but arrested Gardner for illegal possession of a firearm. Gardner, who now lives in North Carolina, had a valid concealed carry permit from Virginia, but Maryland doesn’t recognize carry permits from any other state and she was ultimately convicted despite raising a Second Amendment claim.
Gardner appealed all the way to the Maryland Supreme Court without success, and in mid-October she took her case to the Supreme Court, filing a cert petition on her own behalf that asks the Court to decide several questions, including whether “Maryland’s prohibition on carrying a handgun without a state permit, as applied to an interstate traveler with a valid Virginia concealed carry permit who displayed a loaded firearm in self-defense against an assailant’s vehicular assault and physical advance, violate the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, by lacking a historical tradition of disarming law-abiding citizens in such circumstances.”
Gardner also brings a claim under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that Maryland’s refusal to recognize out-of-state permits violates the Constitution and conflicts with the Firearms Owners Protection Act.
Ordinarily, a pro se petition has little chance of being granted cert by the Supreme Court, with one study finding just 84 cases since 1945. The good news for Gardner is that at least one justice has taken an interest in the case. After Maryland waived its right to respond to her cert petition, the Court requested the state provide one, and Maryland’s reply brief is now due on January 26, 2026.
Second Amendment Foundation Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros has discovered another new detail that could up the odds of SCOTUS hearing Gardner’s case next year.
I’m not sure when it was updated, but the Gardner v. Maryland docket now reflects that Cooper & Kirk, and specifically the excellent Pete Patterson, is now representing Ms. Gardner.
Having high-profile counsel helps the small odds of a cert grant. The Court likes to see that.… pic.twitter.com/AzoXgGrYs1
— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) December 11, 2025
The Second Amendment Foundation is also filing an amicus brief this week in support of Gardner’s cert petition. This would be a great opportunity for the DOJ’s new Second Amendment Section to weigh in as well, though honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if this case has flown under the DOJ’s radar. I try to keep up with Second Amendment litigation, and I confess that Moros’s post on X was the first I’d heard of Gardner’s appeal.
Gardner still faces long odds of having her case accepted, but the questions presents to the Court are good ones, and her lawsuit makes for a logical followup to Bruen, which established that the right to carry a firearm in public is protected by the Second Amendment and “may issue” concealed carry permitting regimes are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has explicitly stated that the Second Amendment isn’t a second-class right. Well, no other constitutional right ends at the border of the state where we live, so Gardner’s case would be an excellent vehicle for SCOTUS to put the right to bear arms on the same level as our other enumerated rights, including the right to be secure in our persons and property, our freedom of speech, and our right to due process.
Gardner’s only crime was entering Maryland while carrying a handgun she lawfully purchased and legally possessed on the other side of the state line. If the right to bear arms is as fundamental as SCOTUS has previously said, then that shouldn’t be a crime at all. Out-of-state permit holders can still be subject to the same time, manner, and place restrictions imposed on in-state residents, but they shouldn’t face criminal charges simply for exercising an enumerated right without the state’s express permission.
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 get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
