While the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to Hawaii’s carry restrictions, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit struck down Maryland’s attempt to impose a sweeping “default ban” on lawful concealed carry on private property open to the public.
The case, Kipke v. Moore, is an NRA-supported case challenging Maryland’s sweeping carry restrictions enacted as part of the Gun Safety Act of 2023.
Part of the ruling is an important reaffirmation that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, as the Fourth Circuit struck down Maryland’s “vampire rule.” But, as NRA-ILA reported, “the court upheld Maryland’s prohibitions on carrying firearms in state parks, state forests, government buildings, museums, public transportation, healthcare facilities, school grounds, stadiums, racetracks, amusement parks, casinos, locations that sell alcohol, and within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration.”
As in New York and a handful of other states, in response to the NRA’s landmark Supreme Court victory in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which affirmed the right of all Americans to carry firearms in public, Maryland prohibited firearms in numerous locations it deemed “sensitive places.” The state also banned carrying firearms on private property held open to the public without the owner’s express permission—a regulation commonly known as the “vampire rule,” referencing the literary notion that vampires must obtain an owner’s consent before entering a building.
Like Hawaii’s, Maryland’s law presumed that carrying a firearm on any private property open to the public—such as retail stores, restaurants or other businesses—was illegal unless the owner gave explicit permission. In practice, this flipped centuries of legal tradition on its head. Rather than respecting the rights of both property owners and licensed citizens, the state imposed a blanket prohibition that made lawful carry effectively impossible in daily life.
The Fourth Circuit recognized this scheme for what it was: an unconstitutional end-run around the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). In Bruen, the Court made clear that the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry firearms in public for self-defense.
Maryland’s law could not meet that constitutional standard. There is no historical tradition of treating all privately owned businesses as “gun-free zones” by default. To the contrary, American history shows that property owners—not the government—decide what is permitted on their premises. The Fourth Circuit’s ruling restores that balance, ensuring that private property rights are respected without extinguishing the right to self-defense.
Importantly, the decision does not force firearms onto unwilling property owners. Businesses remain free to prohibit guns if they choose, just as they can set other rules for entry—the Second Amendment, after all, is a restriction on government, not we the people. What the ruling prevents is the government arrogating that decision to itself and criminalizing lawful conduct absent any individualized justification.
This matters because if states can declare almost everywhere to be a “sensitive place” or impose universal prohibitions that require affirmative permission to exercise a constitutional right, then the Second Amendment becomes almost meaningless.
At a time when some states continue to resist Supreme Court precedent, the Fourth Circuit’s decision on this point is a reminder that constitutional rights still have teeth. The Second Amendment protects real people in real places—and the Constitution does not vanish when a citizen walks into a store.
Further proceedings are expected as the parties evaluate their options following this ruling.
