Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearms Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated public hearing on weapons restrictions and ghost guns draws legal, safety and equity objections
Summary
Expedited Bill 23-26, which would restrict ghost guns and impose buffer zones around places of public assembly, prompted lengthy public testimony from legal counsel, advocacy groups and permit-holders who warned of constitutional conflicts, disproportionate impact on minority permit-holders and safety trade-offs for houses of worship.
The council's public hearing on Expedited Bill 23-26 focused on two linked policy areas: restrictions on ghost guns and expanded prohibitions on carrying firearms in and near places of public assembly (including a proposed 100-yard buffer and removal of a permit-holder exemption in some instances).
Mark Pennock, who identified himself as counsel in related litigation up to the Maryland Supreme Court, said the bill “flouts” recent state case law and predicted it will be challenged in federal court if enacted. Pennock argued the bill could sweep beyond the scope recommended by the state high court and could disarm places of worship and other venues in a manner he described as legally untenable.
Speakers representing gun-rights organizations and individual permit-holders — including Matt Moore (Maryland State Director, Gun Owners of America) and John Picowski — said the bill would penalize law-abiding citizens who have passed background checks and training, would not deter criminals, and could impose onerous burdens on congregations that rely on volunteer, licensed carriers for security. Several speakers warned that the 100-yard buffer could create de facto bans for residents who live near schools, parks or houses of worship and noted potential disparate enforcement impacts for Black and Brown permit-holders.
Religious and security-affiliated witnesses also testified about safety concerns, saying volunteer or trained permit-holders provide critical on-site protection for congregations that cannot afford professional security. One public commenter recounted national examples of attacks on houses of worship and argued disarming certain trained community members could endanger vulnerable institutions.
Other speakers — including legal counsel and those with security backgrounds — urged the council to narrow any geographic buffers, preserve limited exemptions for vetted permit-holders, or focus enforcement on persons who commit violent offenses rather than broadly restricting movement by permit-holders.
The hearing did not result in an immediate council vote. Several commenters emphasized costs of litigation, potential state preemption and the need for careful drafting to avoid conflicts with recent court decisions.
