Most of the time, when the federal government weighs in on a Second Amendment case, it’s a friend-of-the-court brief filed months after everyone else has already picked sides. On August 4, the Department of Justice skipped that step entirely and sued a local government directly. That doesn’t happen often, and it’s worth understanding why.
How we got here
Maryland’s high court had already struck down parts of the county’s original carry restrictions earlier this year, ruling some of the old “sensitive place” list went too far. Rather than narrow the law in response, the county’s Democratic executive signed a replacement, Expedited Bill 23-26, on July 27, and that replacement is what’s now being sued over twice, first by a synagogue and then by the federal government itself.
What the county’s new law does
Bill 23-26 bans carrying a firearm within 100 yards of a long list of “public assembly” locations: parks, libraries, courthouses, polling places, recreational facilities, and houses of worship among them. That buffer zone applies even if you’re licensed to carry and the property owner has told you it’s fine.
A rabbi and his synagogue in Silver Spring filed suit first. Their complaint points to a specific, documented threat: a visibly Jewish member of the congregation was attacked just outside the building in October 2024. Their argument is that the county’s buffer zone strips a community that has already been targeted of the ability to provide its own armed security. Their lawsuit also raises First Amendment and Equal Protection claims alongside the Second Amendment one.
Days later, the DOJ filed its own, separate lawsuit against the county.
Why the DOJ says it’s unconstitutional
On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Hawaii couldn’t make private property a default “no guns” zone unless the owner explicitly said otherwise. The Court held that sensitive-place restrictions have to be genuinely narrow and historically grounded, not a backdoor way to ban carry almost everywhere. Justice Barrett wrote a concurrence; Justices Kagan and Jackson each dissented separately.
DOJ’s argument is straightforward: Montgomery County’s 100-yard buffers around “thousands of locations,” do to an entire county what Hawaii tried to do statewide. It turns routine public carry into something nearly impossible to comply with. “Montgomery County makes it almost impossible for a law-abiding citizen with a valid carry license to walk down the street and avoid these exclusion zones,” Dhillon said. The lawsuit asks the court to declare the law unconstitutional and permanently block the county from enforcing it.
Why this matters if you carry in Texas
Texas isn’t Montgomery County, and nothing here changes Texas law directly. But the legal theory DOJ is using: that “sensitive place” and buffer-zone laws have to be narrow, specific, and historically justified rather than sweeping – is the same theory that gets used to challenge restricted-carry lists everywhere, including here. If DOJ wins this case, it strengthens that argument nationwide. If Montgomery County wins, expect states and counties elsewhere to draft broader buffer zones with more confidence.
Texas has its own list of places where carry isn’t allowed even with an LTC, and it’s worth treating that list the same way we’d want Montgomery County residents to treat theirs: read it carefully, don’t assume a place is fine because it seems like it should be, and don’t assume a place is off-limits just because it feels sensitive. The letter of the law is what matters if you’re ever questioned about it, not the vibe of the location.
What DOJ actually has to prove
Winning this case isn’t automatic just because Wolford went the government’s way in June. DOJ still has to convince a federal judge that Montgomery County’s specific 100-yard buffers around “public assembly” locations are the same kind of sweeping, default-deny restriction the Supreme Court rejected in Hawaii. Montgomery County will almost certainly argue its list is different: tied to specific location types like courthouses and polling places, which are also restricted in Texas.
Train hard. Train smart. Train safe.
AI assisted research and editing. Human verified and finalized.
Leave a Reply