DOJ Calls Enforcement of Montgomery County Carry Ban Police Misconduct
Montgomery County did not merely pass another unconstitutional gun law. According to the United States Department of Justice, county police and sheriff’s deputies who enforce it are engaging in a pattern or practice of civil-rights violations. That is the remarkable argument at the center of the federal government’s newly filed lawsuit against Montgomery County, the Montgomery County Police Department, the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff Maxwell C. Uy.
The complaint challenges Montgomery County’s recently enacted Bill 23-26, which prohibits the possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition, and undefined “major components” at broadly defined places of public assembly and within 100 yards of them. DOJ says those restrictions violate the Second Amendment and that enforcing them constitutes unlawful police misconduct under 34 U.S.C. § 12601, the federal statute authorizing the Attorney General to sue government agencies engaged in a pattern or practice of depriving people of constitutional rights.
In other words, the Justice Department is not asking Montgomery County politely to reconsider. It is accusing the county’s law-enforcement agencies of violating federal civil rights law every time they enforce the challenged provisions.
In @MontgomeryCoMD, Bill 23-26 broadly bans citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives—this is unconstitutional. The @CivilRights Division will protect Second Amendment rights in line with the Supreme Court’s holding in Wolford.…
— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) August 4, 2026
Montgomery County Now Faces Two Federal Lawsuits
AmmoLand previously reported that Maryland Shall Issue and five Maryland carry-permit holders filed Barreto v. Montgomery County after the county council rebuilt its carry restrictions following an earlier loss in Maryland’s highest court. The DOJ complaint repeatedly relies on evidence developed in Barreto, including a detailed map showing the enormous reach of the county’s firearm exclusion zones.
The United States has not joined Barreto. It filed a separate lawsuit, opening a second federal front against Bill 23-26.
The county’s ordinance defines “places of public assembly” to include publicly or privately owned parks, houses of worship, schools, libraries, recreational facilities and multipurpose exhibition facilities. It also covers government buildings open to the public, polling places, courthouses and legislative assemblies. The definition extends to associated property, including parking lots and grounds. Then Montgomery County adds another 100 yards.
That turns supposedly discrete “sensitive places” into sprawling gun-free bubbles that reach neighboring sidewalks, homes, businesses, parking lots and roads.
More Than 10,000 Parcels Before Adding the Buffers
DOJ calls the resulting exclusion zone “breathtaking in scope.” Montgomery County records identify 605 houses of worship, 693 public parks, 42 public recreation centers, ten colleges and universities, 45 post offices, 38 fire stations, 15 public swimming pools, 13 Metro stations and 11 MARC commuter-rail locations. According to the complaint, the mapped locations already cover at least 10,000 parcels and more than 7,900 acres—over 26 percent of Montgomery County. Those numbers do not include the 100-yard buffers.
Once those buffers are added, the actual area covered by the ban becomes considerably larger and far more difficult for an ordinary person to identify.
That is the trap. A citizen does not need to walk into a courthouse or school while armed to violate the ordinance. He can become a criminal by walking down a sidewalk one block from a park, leaving a restaurant near a library, or parking too close to a recreational facility. The county has created thousands of invisible lines backed by criminal punishment.
A Gun Owner Can Become a Criminal in His Own Backyard
DOJ asks the court to consider a gun owner whose home sits within 100 yards of a park. Bill 23-26 contains an exception allowing him to possess a firearm inside his home. But step into his own backyard while armed, and he becomes a criminal. Consider a church with a neighboring parsonage. The pastor may possess a firearm in his residence, but walking from his home to the church can violate the ordinance.
The situation becomes even more absurd if the pastor has a spare magazine. The home exception covers firearms and ammunition, but not firearm “components.” Under the ordinance’s language, DOJ argues, he could be prosecuted for possessing the magazine even inside his own home.
Those examples expose Bill 23-26 for what it is. This is not a carefully drawn sensitive-place law. It is an ordinance written so broadly that ordinary, peaceable conduct becomes a crime depending on which side of an unmarked line a citizen happens to stand.
Montgomery County’s Law Is Worse Than Hawaii’s
The Justice Department grounds its challenge in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wolford v. Lopez. In Wolford, the Court struck down Hawaii’s default ban on carrying firearms on private property open to the public without the owner’s express permission. The Court held that Hawaii had “hobbled” the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense while conducting their daily lives.
Montgomery County’s law suffers from the same constitutional defect, but DOJ says it is even more restrictive. Under Hawaii’s law, a carrier could at least seek permission from the property owner. Montgomery County does not care whether the owner consents.
A church cannot authorize armed congregants to provide security. A recreational facility cannot permit a licensed visitor to carry. A private owner whose property falls within one of the county’s exclusion zones cannot override the county’s command. The carrier remains a criminal despite having both a state carry permit and the owner’s express permission.
So much for Montgomery County’s concern for private-property rights.
DOJ Challenges Parks and the Fourth Circuit
The complaint goes further than the DOJ press release by openly challenging the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in Kipke v. Moore. In Kipke, the Fourth Circuit majority upheld firearm restrictions in parks. DOJ acknowledges that decision and then states plainly that the court was wrong. The United States is asking the district court to overturn that part of Kipke.
DOJ relies on Judge G. Steven Agee’s dissent, which concluded that governments at the Founding did not broadly prohibit firearms on public lands, urban green spaces or comparable locations. That creates a significant procedural fight because a federal district court ordinarily remains bound by circuit precedent. At a minimum, DOJ appears to be preserving the parks issue for appeal and arguing that Wolford has undermined the Fourth Circuit’s analysis.
The complaint separately challenges firearm prohibitions at houses of worship, libraries, recreational facilities and multipurpose exhibition facilities. For houses of worship, DOJ says the historical record contains no tradition of banning firearms.
For libraries, the government notes that libraries existed at the Founding and that the 1850 Census counted 1,217 public libraries, yet no state categorically prohibited firearms in them.
The same problem applies to recreational and exhibition facilities: Montgomery County has identified a modern policy preference, not a historical tradition supporting its ban.
Ammunition, Optics, Barrels, and Maybe a Detent Pin
Bill 23-26 does not stop with guns. It also prohibits ammunition and “major components” within the exclusion zones. The phrase “major components” is not defined.
DOJ asks the obvious questions: Does it include a barrel? A trigger? A pistol grip? An upper receiver? An optic? Could it include something as small as the detent pin holding a safety selector in place? Nobody knows. That is a serious problem when violating the ordinance carries criminal consequences.
The Second Amendment would be meaningless if government could claim that citizens may possess firearms while separately prohibiting the ammunition and functional components necessary to use them.
DOJ cites Duncan v. Bonta for the principle that the right to bear arms necessarily includes components and accessories required for a firearm’s ordinary operation. It also relies on precedent recognizing ammunition as a necessary corollary to the right itself. Montgomery County cannot evade the Second Amendment by banning the pieces that make an arm work.
DOJ Uses Federal Police-Misconduct Law
The most important part of the complaint may be the vehicle DOJ chose to bring the case. Section 12601 makes it unlawful for a governmental authority to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law-enforcement officers that deprives people of rights protected by the Constitution or federal law.
That statute is commonly associated with federal investigations of police departments over excessive force, unlawful searches, or discriminatory enforcement. DOJ is now applying it to the Second Amendment. The complaint alleges that Montgomery County police officers and sheriff’s deputies have a duty to enforce Bill 23-26 and are either enforcing it or will continue to enforce it unless stopped by a federal court.
Each enforcement action, DOJ argues, deprives a law-abiding citizen of the right to keep and bear arms.
The United States is asking for a declaration that enforcement of the challenged provisions constitutes a pattern or practice of unconstitutional law-enforcement conduct. It also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions barring the county, police department, sheriff’s office and Sheriff Uy from enforcing them.
That turns the usual gun-control litigation on its head. For years, local officials have treated the Second Amendment as a second-class right and forced gun owners to finance lawsuit after lawsuit merely to make government follow Supreme Court precedent. This time, the Civil Rights Division is treating the enforcement of an unconstitutional gun law as the civil-rights violation it is.
Montgomery County Built a Criminal Trap
Bill 23-26 leaves the right to bear arms nominally intact while making its exercise almost impossible.
A licensed citizen can carry in Montgomery County, provided he remains in his vehicle, avoids thousands of properties, stays more than 100 yards from each one, never enters an invisible buffer by mistake, and does not carry an ammunition magazine or firearm part that county officials later decide qualifies as a “major component.”
That is not regulation of a constitutional right. It is a criminal trap designed to discourage people from exercising it.
Maryland gun owners challenged the law first. Now the United States has accused Montgomery County’s law-enforcement agencies of engaging in a pattern or practice of violating the Second Amendment.
Montgomery County tried to erase the right to bear arms 100 yards at a time. DOJ is now asking a federal judge to stop the county police from enforcing the eraser.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.