August 11, 2023
BELLEVUE, WA –Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a federal challenge of Maryland’s expanded “sensitive places” law, have filed a reply brief, supporting their earlier motion for summary judgment and opposing the state’s summary judgment request.
The case, known as Novotny v. Moore, was filed earlier this year against the law, which places broad restrictions on where a legally-licensed private citizen may carry a firearm for personal protection. SAF is joined in the case by Maryland Shall Issue, the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, all of whom possess “wear and carry permits,” including Susan Burke of Reisterstown, Esther Rossberg of Baltimore, and Katherine Novotny of Aberdeen, for whom the lawsuit is named. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson and Peter A. Patterson at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C., Mark W. Pennak at Maryland Shall Issue in Baltimore, and Matthew Larosiere from Lake Worth, Fla.
The lawsuit, filed in May, focuses on SB1, a bill signed by Gov. Wesley Moore, which added new restrictions on where legally-licensed citizens may carry firearms for personal protection. SAF and its partners maintain that Maryland is attempting to wildly expand so-called “sensitive places” in an attempt to prohibit lawful, licensed concealed carry in almost every venue in the state outside of someone’s home or business.
“Maryland is desperately clinging to its belief it can continue to impair the rights of law-abiding citizens who are legally licensed to carry in public for their personal protection,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Maryland lawmakers are trying hard to not comply with either the spirit or the letter of the Supreme Court ruling last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and instead are almost literally fighting tooth-and-nail to perpetuate restrictions they know are no longer permissible under the Constitution.”
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, who is also an attorney in neighboring Pennsylvania, concurred: “Maryland’s thumb-in-the-eye reaction to the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling is simply not compatible with this nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation nor the rule of law. We are hopeful that the court will correct the legislature’s misstep.”