I got a little critical of the NRA earlier this week. There were apparently some people who didn’t like it. They’ll get over it.

With me, I tend to call them as I see them. I don’t always get it right, but I try.

Part of that is to call out allies who don’t seem to be doing much. Another part is acknowledging when they’re on top of something, and that’s just what I’m going to do here.

It seems the NRA was ready to pounce on a gun control bill in Maryland.

The NRA’s lobbying arm filed a lawsuit against the state of Maryland on Tuesday after Democrat Gov. Wes Moore signed a pair of gun control bills that the NRA says will prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying for self-defense purposes.

Moore signed SB 1 and HB 824 into law Tuesday after Democrat lawmakers in the state championed the bills as ones that would cut back on crime and violence. The laws further restrict where residents can legally carry while making the application processes to obtain a carry license more burdensome.

The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) filed its lawsuit on Tuesday, Fox News exclusively learned, citing the measures as “illegal under the U.S. Constitution.”

…

SB 1 prevents residents – even if they have a permit – from carrying or transporting a firearm on private property without permission, and it also bans people from carrying firearms in areas such as schools, polling places, sports complexes or where alcohol is served.

Democrat State Sen. Jeff Waldstreicher, who sponsored the bill, said it “creates among the strongest gun violence prevention legislation in the country” and is “the strongest gun violence prevention legislation that we’ve had since 2013.”

Except it doesn’t do any of that.

What it does is further restrict law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves. Meanwhile, the criminals will continue to carry anywhere and everywhere they desire.

The NRA called this “illegal under the U.S. Constitution.” They’re absolutely right to do so and with the Bruen decision as a guide, it seems entirely possible that this gun control scheme will be ripped to shreds.

Yes, Bruen does allow “sensitive places” to be declared off-limits, but part of this bill is basically declaring every bit of private property off-limits unless express permission is given. That’s not the standard for any other right on private property.

With, say, free speech, the presumption is that you have permission to exercise that right unless and until it is revoked by the property owner. Same with the exercise of religion–you’re not forbidden from saying a prayer over a meal in a restaurant, for example, unless the place gives you permission.

So the idea that gun rights deserve a completely different standard is troubling, especially since that standard essentially makes most of Maryland off-limits.

The NRA’s lawsuit, in addition to separate litigation filed by a 2A coalition that includes the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Maryland Shall Issue, will likely address it and hopefully overturn a bad bit of law. Especially considering we’ve seen a similar law hit choppy waters in New Jersey.

This is a good move and I wish all of the organizations fighting to overturn this disgrace good luck going forward.