Maryland Issued the Permit — Then Banned Carry Where People Actually Go

Counsel of record David H. Thompson of Cooper & Kirk filed the petitioners’ reply in Novotny v. Moore on September 2, 2026. The caption is Katherine Novotny, et al., v. Wes Moore, Governor of Maryland, et al. The case comes up from the Fourth Circuit. Joining the petitioners are Maryland Shall Issue, the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, and private citizens including Sue Burke and Esther Rossberg.

The reply’s point is not subtle. After Wolford v. Lopez, 146 S. Ct. 2032 (2026), the Court said the Second Amendment protects carry “as they go about their daily lives.” Maryland’s brief in opposition called its scheme a “targeted approach.” The reply lists the map: mass transit, many healthcare facilities, vast public parks and forests, “places of amusement,” and anywhere that sells alcohol for on-site consumption, including restaurants. Quote from the brief: “There is nothing ‘exceptional’ about visiting a park or riding public transit.” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, in the Foundation’s September 2 release: when forced to issue carry permits, “Maryland simply made those permits useless everywhere.”

The Fourth Circuit already blessed this web. The petitioners ask the Court to grant, reverse, or GVR in light of Wolford. Maryland’s historical case, the reply says, rests on late territorial and Reconstruction-era outliers Bruen already discounted. A permit that dies at the Metro gate is not Bruen compliance. It is a workaround with a statute number. The reply is the ask. The Court has not granted.