Montgomery County Rebuilds Carry Ban, Faces New Federal Lawsuit

Maryland Shall Issue and five Maryland carry-permit holders have filed a federal lawsuit, Barreto v. Montgomery County, challenging Montgomery County’s latest attempt to turn much of the county into a maze of overlapping gun-free zones.

The complaint targets Emergency Bill 23-26E, passed by the Montgomery County Council on July 21, 2026, and signed by County Executive Marc Elrich on July 27. The measure took effect immediately. Montgomery County claims the legislation brings its firearm ordinance into compliance with the Maryland Supreme Court’s recent decision in Engage Armament LLC v. Montgomery County.

As AmmoLand previously reported, the Maryland Supreme Court ruled in April that Montgomery County exceeded its home-rule authority by applying its sweeping 100-yard carry prohibition to state-permit holders traveling on public highways. Rather than abandon the scheme, the County enacted Emergency Bill 23-26E—prompting Maryland Shall Issue and five permit holders to return to court.

The plaintiffs argue that the County did not truly fix the law. Instead, it rewrote the ordinance just enough to preserve substantially the same burden on lawful gun owners.

Today, five MSI members and MSI filed suit in federal district court challenging Montgomery County Bill 23-26. That Ordinance effectively bans carry by permit holders in most of the urban areas of the county. The Complaint challenges the Bill under two Counts of State law and one… pic.twitter.com/A8XSESwldS

— Maryland Shall Issue (@MD_Shall_Issue) July 27, 2026

A 100-Yard Gun Ban Around Thousands of Locations

Montgomery County Code Section 57-11 prohibits a person from selling, transferring, possessing or transporting a handgun, rifle, shotgun, ammunition or major firearm component “in or within 100 yards of a place of public assembly.”

Bill 23-26 defines those places to include publicly or privately owned parks, places of worship, schools, libraries, recreational facilities, fairgrounds, conference centers, certain government buildings, polling places, courthouses, and legislative assemblies. The prohibition also covers associated grounds and parking lots.

Those categories are broad enough on their own. Adding a 100-yard buffer around every covered location creates something far more expansive than a conventional sensitive-place restriction.

According to the complaint, Montgomery County includes hundreds of houses of worship, parks, schools and recreational facilities, along with numerous libraries, government buildings and transit-related properties that may fall under the ordinance. Using county land-use information, the plaintiffs identified at least 10,000 parcels covering more than 7,900 acres—or more than 26% of Montgomery County—that allegedly qualify as places of public assembly. That calculation does not include the additional 100-yard exclusion zones surrounding those parcels.

The map included on page 11 of the complaint makes the problem difficult to ignore. Rather than showing a few isolated courthouses or government complexes, it depicts covered parcels scattered throughout Montgomery County.

Once the 100-yard buffers are added, ordinary businesses, sidewalks, homes, parking lots and public roads can fall within the County’s gun ban merely because they are near a church, park, library, gym or school.

Permit Holders May Drive Through—But Not Get Out

The Maryland Supreme Court struck down part of Montgomery County’s earlier law in Engage Armament, holding that it was not a valid local law because it burdened holders of state-issued carry permits traveling on public highways, including Maryland residents who live outside Montgomery County.

The County responded by adding an exception for certain firearms carried or transported in a motor vehicle. A Maryland permit holder may carry a handgun in a vehicle in compliance with state law, while other firearms may generally be transported if locked in a container. But the exception largely ends when the person steps out of the vehicle.

That leads to the central absurdity identified by the lawsuit: A Maryland carry-permit holder may lawfully drive past a church, park or library but may become subject to prosecution after parking and walking toward a store, restaurant, workplace or doctor’s office located inside the surrounding 100-yard zone. Montgomery County has effectively reduced the right to bear arms to a right to remain armed inside a moving automobile.

The Second Amendment does not protect only the trip between destinations. It protects the right to carry arms for self-defense while Americans go about their daily lives.

A permit holder does not stop having a right to defend himself because he needs groceries, a haircut, lunch or medical care.

Criminal Traps Without Fair Warning

The County’s scheme is particularly troubling because many of these zones may be impossible for an ordinary citizen to identify.

A permit holder might know where the county courthouse is. He is far less likely to know that a wooded parcel behind a shopping center could qualify as a park, that a private gym might be classified as a recreational facility or that a church parking lot lies within 100 yards of the restaurant where he is eating.

There are no painted lines on the sidewalk marking the edge of these zones. There is no practical way for a citizen to measure 100 yards from every potentially covered parcel while moving through the county. Yet a violation can carry up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

The complaint alleges that the relevant county provisions contain no meaningful mens rea requirement, making violations strict-liability offenses. Each day a violation continues may also be treated as a separate offense. The predictable result is not careful compliance. It is widespread disarmament. When government creates thousands of uncertain criminal zones and attaches jail time to crossing an invisible boundary, prudent citizens will leave their firearms at home rather than risk arrest.

Ordinary Life Becomes Legally Dangerous

The individual plaintiffs give concrete examples of how the ordinance affects lawful gun owners.

Barreto alleges that places he regularly visits—including stores, restaurants, a gym, his physician’s office and a parking garage—are within 100 yards of locations that could qualify as parks, schools, libraries, recreational facilities or government buildings.

Dr. Sachs alleges that his home is within 100 yards of small publicly owned areas that may qualify as parks. Because the ordinance’s exception refers to the “home” rather than the entire residential property, he argues that he may be prohibited from leaving his house armed even to reach his vehicle.

Moore carries a firearm at his church with the knowledge and permission of church leadership for his protection and the protection of other congregants. The complaint argues that Montgomery County’s law forces him to choose between exercising his First Amendment right to worship and his Second Amendment right to armed self-defense.

Duncan and Thacher live outside Montgomery County but regularly travel there to shop, work, eat and visit public locations. Their involvement underscores why the Maryland Supreme Court previously found the County’s ordinance to be more than a purely local matter.

Maryland Shall Issue also says its members include synagogue security volunteers who carry firearms at the request of religious leaders. One member is armed at Chabad of Potomac at the specific request of his rabbi, according to the complaint.

Montgomery County’s prohibition therefore does not merely affect recreational carry. It interferes with armed citizens who have been asked to help protect houses of worship.

Three Separate Challenges to the County’s Law

The lawsuit brings three primary claims.

First, the plaintiffs argue that the ordinance is not a valid “local law” under Article XI-A of the Maryland Constitution. Montgomery County is a charter home-rule jurisdiction, but its authority is limited to local legislation. It cannot enact a general law concerning matters of significant statewide interest. A county ordinance that burdens hundreds of thousands of holders of Maryland-issued carry permits—including people who live elsewhere but work or travel in Montgomery County—is difficult to characterize as merely local.

Second, the complaint argues that Maryland law expressly preempts much of the County’s regulation of firearm possession, carry, transportation, sale, and transfer. State law provides limited authority for local regulation near specified places of public assembly. It does not give Montgomery County a blank check to regulate firearms county-wide or to rewrite Maryland’s carry laws.

Third, the plaintiffs argue that the ordinance violates the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Wolford v. Lopez, and related decisions. Under Bruen, the government cannot defend a gun restriction by merely claiming it serves public safety. Once the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct, the government must prove that the law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Historical restrictions existed at certain locations, including legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses. That does not establish a tradition of banning firearms at every privately owned park, church, library, or recreational facility, much less throughout every parking lot, surrounding property, and 100-yard buffer zone.

As the complaint notes, Bruen rejected the idea that government may treat all crowded public areas as sensitive places because doing so would eviscerate the right to carry arms in public.

Montgomery County is attempting to accomplish the same result by accumulation. It has multiplied the number of supposedly sensitive locations until meaningful public carry becomes practically impossible.

Montgomery County Did Not Fix Its Law

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief blocking enforcement, along with nominal and compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

Montgomery County lost its earlier case because it exceeded its authority and burdened holders of state-issued carry permits. Rather than accepting that ruling and adopting a genuinely narrow sensitive-place law, the County enacted emergency legislation that preserves a sprawling system of firearm exclusions.

A person may drive through Montgomery County while armed, but he cannot reliably know whether he may exit the vehicle, cross a parking lot, enter a restaurant, or walk down the sidewalk.

That is not a reasonable regulation of a constitutional right. It is an obstacle course designed to make exercising that right too confusing and legally dangerous to attempt. The right to bear arms means more than transporting a locked pistol through hostile territory. It protects the right of peaceable Americans to carry arms for self-defense while living their ordinary lives.

Montgomery County cannot erase that right 100 yards at a time.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.