Prince George's County - Termination of Gas or Electric Service to Multifamily Dwelling Units - Notification PG 406-25
HB 353, titled the Maryland’s Constitutional Carry Act of 2025, would repeal Maryland’s current handgun permit system for carrying, wearing, or transporting a handgun. The bill deletes the statutory provisions in the Public Safety Article that create and govern handgun permits, and it removes references to permit holders as an exception in the criminal law provisions regulating handgun possession.
The bill also rewrites Maryland’s handgun possession restrictions to keep certain age-based and location-based limits in place. It would continue to prohibit persons under 21 from wearing, carrying, or transporting handguns, including in vehicles, and it would continue to bar handgun possession on public school property and while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The bill adds a new misdemeanor offense for carrying a handgun while under the influence, with penalties of up to one year in jail, a $1,000 fine, or both.
In addition, HB 353 updates related cross-references in the Natural Resources Article so that vehicle-based wildlife and firearms rules no longer refer to the repealed handgun permit subtitle. The bill would take effect October 1, 2025, if enacted, and would significantly change how Maryland law treats lawful handgun carry by eliminating the permit requirement while preserving several categorical restrictions and exceptions for law enforcement, military personnel, and certain other official uses.
The available legislative context shows no committee transcript, no recorded votes, and the bill was ultimately withdrawn by the sponsor in the House. As a result, there is no documented floor or committee debate in the provided materials, but the bill’s subject matter suggests a major policy shift toward permitless carry. The likely point of contention is the repeal of the handgun permit requirement itself, which would be opposed by supporters of the existing permitting framework and favored by advocates of broader gun-carry rights; the remaining age, school, and intoxication restrictions indicate an attempt to preserve some public-safety limits while expanding carry rights.
HB 353 would repeal Title 5, Subtitle 3 of the Public Safety Article, eliminating Maryland’s handgun permit framework and removing permit-based exceptions from related criminal law provisions. It would amend Criminal Law § 4-203 to retain and clarify certain handgun restrictions, including a prohibition on carry by persons under 21, on public school property, and while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, while also creating a new standalone offense for intoxicated carry. The bill would also update Natural Resources § 10-410 to conform cross-references to the repeal of the permit subtitle. If enacted, it would substantially alter who may lawfully carry a handgun in Maryland and reduce the role of permits in handgun regulation.
No committee testimony or vote record is provided, and the bill was withdrawn by the sponsor before further action, so there is no formal recorded legislative sentiment in the materials. The bill’s title and structure indicate support from sponsors aligned with constitutional carry or permitless carry policies, while the repeal of handgun permits would likely draw opposition from gun-control advocates and lawmakers concerned about public safety. The retained restrictions on minors, schools, and intoxication suggest the bill was framed as a targeted expansion of carry rights rather than a complete deregulation of handgun possession.
The central point of contention is the repeal of the handgun permit requirement, which would remove the existing licensing system for carrying, wearing, or transporting handguns. Supporters would likely argue that law-abiding adults should not need a permit to carry, while opponents would likely view the change as weakening screening and oversight. Secondary points of debate include the bill’s age threshold of 21 for handgun carry, the new intoxication offense, and the continued restrictions on carrying in schools and other sensitive contexts. Because the bill was withdrawn and no transcripts are available, the specific arguments of individual legislators or stakeholders are not documented in the provided record.