The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that laws restricting the carrying of handguns outside the home are unconstitutional, a ruling that could impact a Maryland law limiting who can get a permit to carry a concealed handgun.

The 6-3 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen took aim at a law in New York state that requires anyone seeking a permit to carry a gun to show a specific reason why they would need to carry one in public.

Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said the law “violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.”

“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” he added.

In his dissent for the court’s two other liberal members, Justice Stephen Breyer said the ruling failed to consider historic restrictions on who can carry guns. “Only by ignoring an abundance of historical evidence supporting regulations restricting the public carriage of firearms can the Court conclude that New York’s law is not ‘consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,'” he wrote.

“Many States have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence… by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds. The Court today severely burdens States’ efforts to do so,” added Breyer.

Though the case focused on New York’s law, it could well have local impacts, notably in Maryland, which requires gun owners to show a “good and substantial reason​ to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against danger.”

California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island also have similar laws on the books. D.C. also had its own good-reason requirement for concealed-carry handgun permits until a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional in 2017; city officials decided not to appeal to avoid a possible Supreme Court showdown like the one that resulted in Thursday’s ruling on New York’s law.

In a statement, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh criticized the court’s ruling.

“Today’s decision means more deaths and more pain in a country already awash in gun violence. If the norm is that people can carry firearms, our neighborhoods, our streets and other public places will become more dangerous. It will make the lives of law enforcement more difficult and more perilous. The epidemic of gun violence sweeping our nation demonstrates daily the folly of introducing more guns into this boiling cauldron,” he said.

“Maryland, like many other states, has enacted common sense gun laws that place the lives and safety of our residents first. They have been proven to reduce gun violence. We will examine today’s ruling to determine its impact in our state, and we will continue to fight to protect the safety of Marylanders,” he added.

In their own statement, Maryland Senate President Bill Ferguson and House Speaker Adrienne Jones

“We fundamentally disagree with the Supreme Court’s majority opinion,” they said. “More guns in public means more violence, and more violence means more death and heartache everywhere. This is the wrong answer. The Second Amendment permits reasonable restrictions on the right to carry a firearm. We will be reviewing the opinion and, if necessary, pass legislation that protects Marylanders and complies with this brand-new precedent.”

The ruling does not directly toss out specific licensing requirements to carry a gun or laws that make it illegal to carry a handgun in specific “sensitive” places, citing historic restrictions on guns in “legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses.” Still, Thomas did note that from now on “the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”

D.C., for one, prohibits open carrying of handguns and restricts where people with concealed-carry permits can go. Currently, someone carrying a concealed handgun cannot enter government buildings; schools or universities; libraries; hospitals; public transportation; stadiums or arenas; the National Mall, U.S. Capitol, and around the White House; or within 1,000 feet of a protest or dignitary who receives police protection.

D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine’s office is reviewing the ruling for any impacts on the city’s existing gun laws.

In a statement, Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, celebrated the court’s ruling. “The right to self-defense and to defend your family and loved ones should not end at your home. This ruling brings life-saving justice to law-abiding Americans who have lived under unconstitutional regimes all across our country,” he said.

John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, disagreed.

“Today’s ruling is out of step with the bipartisan majority in Congress that is on the verge of passing significant gun safety legislation, and out of touch with the overwhelming majority of Americans who support gun safety measures,” he said in a statement. “Let’s be clear: the Supreme Court got this decision wrong, choosing to put our communities in even greater danger with gun violence on the rise across the country.”

Thursday decision builds on the landmark 2008 Heller ruling that declared the Second Amendment confers an individual right to have a gun. The ruling was founded on a lawsuit against D.C.’s longstanding ban on handguns in the city, which the court overturned.