Maryland’s highest court has ruled that the Second Amendment gives no right to carry weapons outside the home. I don’t see how this can stand. Heller said explicitly that the right to “bear arms” means right to carry arms on one’s person:
At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry. . . When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” . . . We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.”
To suggest that that right is somehow limited to the home (where it would be no different than the right to keep arms) doesn’t seem tenable to me.