The Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition aren’t waiting for Maryland’s “sensitive places” statute to metastasize into a de-facto may-issue regime; they’re dragging the issue straight to the Supreme Court while the ink on Bruen is barely dry. By challenging the law’s sweeping list of prohibited zones—schools, stadiums, museums, even private property open to the public without posted notice—the groups are forcing the justices to decide whether states can simply redraw the map of “sensitive places” until lawful carry becomes geographically impossible. The petition cleverly frames the statute as the exact sort of interest-balancing regime Bruen rejected, arguing that historical analogues must be “relevantly similar” both in why and how they burdened the right, not merely that some place was once regulated in some fashion.

If the Court grants cert, the case will test whether Bruen’s history-and-tradition test has teeth or whether lower courts can keep laundering pre-Bruen policy preferences under new labels. A win would slam the door on the emerging tactic of designating entire classes of property off-limits by legislative fiat; a denial or narrow ruling would green-light copycat laws in blue states itching to nullify constitutional carry without overtly reviving discretionary permitting. Either way, the litigation underscores a larger strategic reality: the post-Bruen battlefield has shifted from permitting schemes to geography, and groups like SAF and FPC are determined to meet that shift head-on before the map is redrawn beyond recognition.