A major federal court decision is reshaping what “sensitive places” mean after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In a sweeping ruling, the Fourth Circuit largely upheld Maryland’s post-Bruen gun-free zone law, allowing the state to ban firearms across vast areas of public life—including public transportation, parks, bars, stadiums, museums, hospitals, demonstrations, and entire school grounds.

While the court acknowledged that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public, it ruled that states may still prohibit carry in locations where they can point to a historical tradition of firearm restrictions. By applying this history-and-tradition test, the court gave states a roadmap to dramatically expand “sensitive places,” effectively shrinking where lawful carry is allowed.

The one major win for gun owners came when the court struck down Maryland’s attempt to make all private property gun-free by default unless owners explicitly allowed carry. The court ruled that history places the burden on property owners to prohibit firearms—not on citizens to assume a ban.

Despite that narrow victory, the decision is one of the most consequential Second Amendment rulings since Bruen. It is likely to be cited by states like New York, California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts as justification for expansive carry bans. If sensitive places can include nearly everywhere people gather, the right to bear arms risks becoming largely theoretical—setting the stage for eventual Supreme Court review.