A stunning decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has struck down Maryland’s broad ban on concealed carry on private property open to the public, handed down on Tuesday after a contentious legal battle.
The case, initially heard in May 2025 at the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, reached the Fourth Circuit on appeal, where a three-judge panel—Chief Judge Albert Diaz, Circuit Judge Roger L. Gregory, and Circuit Judge G. Steven Agee—reviewed the ban using the framework established by the 2022 Bruen decision.
The ruling has ignited sharp debate over the balance between public safety and individual rights. While the court upheld many of Maryland’s restrictions on carrying firearms in sensitive locations, it drew a firm line at the state’s overreach on private property. This split decision signals a nuanced approach to Second Amendment protections.
Maryland’s so-called “Vampire Rule,” which presumed a ban on guns in public-facing private spaces unless explicitly permitted, was deemed unconstitutional by the panel, as reported by Breitbart. Judge Gregory, writing for the court and joined by Chief Judge Diaz, declared, “We hold that Maryland’s prohibition on carrying guns on private property held open to the public is unconstitutional.” This rejection of a blanket restriction hands a significant win to gun rights advocates.
Yet, the court wasn’t shy about affirming the state’s authority elsewhere. Restrictions remain intact for government buildings, schools, public transit, health care facilities, state parks, museums, stadiums, amusement parks, casinos, bars, and even within 1,000 feet of public demonstrations. It’s a long list, and it shows the judges weren’t tossing out every limit in the book.
Still, the private property ruling stings for those pushing expansive gun control. Forcing property owners to explicitly ban firearms flips the script from the state’s heavy-handed default. It’s a nod to personal responsibility over bureaucratic overreach.
The panel leaned on historical precedent to justify upholding bans in what they call “sensitive places.” Their reasoning? Crowds, children, and vulnerable folks need extra layers of protection, and history backs up restrictions in such spots.
But let’s not pretend this is airtight logic. If safety is the concern, why does the state get to decide for private owners what’s risky on their own turf? That’s a question the court sidestepped with a shrug.
And while the judges cited past laws to support these limits, one wonders if they’re cherry-picking history to fit a modern agenda. The Second Amendment isn’t a museum piece to be dusted off only when convenient. It’s a living right, and this decision feels like a half-measure.
Meanwhile, a parallel fight brews in Hawaii, where a comparable “Vampire Rule” faces a challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court. The outcome there could ripple across states itching to impose similar bans. Maryland’s case might just be the opening salvo.
For now, Maryland gun owners can breathe a bit easier on private property open to the public. The court made clear that unless a store or business owner posts a clear “no guns” sign, the state can’t play gatekeeper. That’s a small but meaningful victory.
Yet, the broader battle over where rights begin and end rages on. Judge Gregory’s opinion, with Diaz in agreement and Agee concurring, stated, “We affirm the district court,” in striking down the private property ban. It’s a pointed reminder that even in blue-leaning states, constitutional limits still bite.
This ruling doesn’t mean open season for carrying everywhere. Most of Maryland’s location-specific bans stand firm, rooted in the idea that some places are just too dicey for firearms. Think schools, hospitals, or packed stadiums.
But the private property carve-out raises a fair point for gun rights supporters. If the state can’t trust individuals to respect a business owner’s wishes, why should it get to dictate terms by default? That’s less about safety and more about control.
In the end, the Fourth Circuit’s decision walks a tightrope. It upholds a hefty chunk of Maryland’s gun restrictions while slapping down an overzealous rule that treaded too far into personal territory. For now, it’s a cautious win for Second Amendment defenders, but the war over where guns belong is far from settled.
