admin
The new fight over gun rights and religious liberty in Montgomery County just landed in federal court. A local Orthodox synagogue and its rabbi asked a judge to block the county’s new 100‑yard firearms ban around houses of worship and other public places. This is not a drill — it is a test of whether communities can protect themselves or must rely on bureaucrats to decide who gets to keep people safe.
The lawsuit and the emergency motion
On July 30, 2026 the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed suit on behalf of the Silver Spring Jewish Center and Rabbi J. Menashe Shapiro in U.S. District Court (Case No. 8:26‑cv‑02963). The filing asks for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to stop Montgomery County’s Expedited Bill 23‑26 from being enforced while the case moves forward. The complaint says the law prevents the synagogue’s volunteer armed security team — many with Maryland carry permits — from carrying to protect worshippers after real threats and incidents outside the building.
What the law does — and why it matters
EB23‑26 creates a 100‑yard buffer that bars people from possessing or carrying firearms in or within 100 yards of “places of public assembly,” a list that includes houses of worship, schools, parks, libraries and more. The county kept narrow exceptions for police and licensed security guards and allowed permit holders to carry in vehicles but not to walk through a restricted area. The Council passed the measure 10–1 and County Executive Marc Elrich signed it, claiming the update aligns county law with state court limits. The question now is simple: must a rabbi or a trained congregant stand down while a threat approaches?
Religious liberty, self‑defense, and common sense
The synagogue says Jewish law requires community members to defend one another, and Rabbi Shapiro — a licensed permit holder who walks to services on the Sabbath — says the rule forces them either to be defenseless or to hire outside guards. The suit argues EB23‑26 violates the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments. If the county can decide who may protect a house of worship, that is not neutral lawmaking — it is choosing who gets to keep people safe. Hiring private security may sound tidy on paper, but it is expensive and slow. When danger comes, you want trained neighbors at the door, not a memo from a county office.
What comes next — and why the stakes are national
The court will soon consider whether to grant emergency relief. If the judge issues a TRO or preliminary injunction, the county cannot enforce the ban against these plaintiffs while the case proceeds. If not, the law stands unless overturned later. This case sits squarely in the post‑Bruen era where courts wrestle with “sensitive‑place” rules and historical analogues. For congregations across America watching this, the outcome will matter. Governments should be protecting citizens’ rights to defend their houses of worship, not writing them out of their own security plans. County leaders can either listen to real safety needs or set up a legal fight that could end up costing both money and lives.
