DOJ Sues Maryland County, Challenging 'Sensitive Places' Gun Ban as Unconstitutional

The United States Department of Justice has sued Montgomery County, Maryland, arguing that the county's newly enacted ban on carrying firearms in and around "places of public assembly" violates the Second Amendment. The federal lawsuit seeks to block an ordinance that prohibits licensed gun owners from carrying weapons within 100 yards of parks, schools, libraries, and houses of worship.[1][3]

Filed by the DOJ's Civil Rights Division under Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, the complaint targets Expedited Bill 23-26. The legislation, signed by County Executive Marc Elrich in late July, establishes strict buffer zones around thousands of locations. The Justice Department contends that these overlapping 100-yard radiuses create an "exclusion zone" covering more than 26 percent of the county's land area, encompassing over 10,000 individual parcels.[2][8]

Federal attorneys argue this geographic reality makes it practically impossible for licensed gun owners to navigate daily life without inadvertently committing a crime. Because the buffer zones extend into public sidewalks, roads, and neighboring private properties, the DOJ claims the ordinance effectively nullifies the right to bear arms in public for self-defense.[2][4]

The federal challenge relies heavily on the Supreme Court's June 2026 decision in Wolford v. Lopez. In that ruling, the Court struck down a Hawaii law that presumptively banned concealed carry on private property open to the public. The DOJ asserts Montgomery County's law is even more restrictive than the invalidated Hawaii statute, as it applies even if a private property owner explicitly consents to firearms on their premises.[2][7]

Montgomery County's legislation was itself a structural response to a prior legal defeat. In April 2026, the Maryland Supreme Court ruled in Engage Armament v. Montgomery County that the county's previous gun control ordinance exceeded local authority by applying to state-licensed permit holders traveling on state highways.[3][8]

Bill 23-26 was drafted specifically to comply with that state ruling. The County Council removed certain locations from the "public assembly" definition and added exemptions for permit holders traveling through restricted areas on public roads. County officials maintain the revised law preserves the strongest firearm restrictions still permitted under state law to protect vulnerable public spaces.[3][4]

The DOJ's involvement escalates a multi-front legal battle over the ordinance, marking the third federal lawsuit filed against the county in less than two weeks. Gun rights organization Maryland Shall Issue and five permit holders filed suit in late July, arguing the county merely rewrote the ordinance to preserve the same unconstitutional burden on lawful gun owners.[4][6]

Separately, the Silver Spring Jewish Center and Rabbi J. Menashe Shapiro filed a federal lawsuit challenging the ban on firearms in places of worship. They argue the ordinance violates both the First and Second Amendments by preventing the Orthodox synagogue from relying on armed volunteer congregants for security amid rising antisemitic incidents.[5]

The DOJ's complaint echoes this specific concern, noting that the nation has no historical tradition of banning firearms in places of worship. Federal attorneys argue that stripping religious institutions of the ability to authorize volunteer security places an unsupportable burden on congregants' right to self-defense.[2][5]

The Justice Department is seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the Montgomery County Police Department and the Sheriff's Office from enforcing the legislation while the case proceeds. The outcome will test the limits of how local governments can define "sensitive places" in the wake of recent Supreme Court rulings expanding public carry rights.[1][8]