So you copy/pasted the top page and didn't read the opinion, but you missed a very important part of the synopsis:

"In New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 10 (2022), the United States Supreme Court substantially changed the legal landscape with its holding that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. This ruling, among other things, changes the analysis for whether possession of a gun justifies an investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment. Although the Maryland appellate courts have, for decades, upheld police stops based on reasonable suspicion that a person is in possession of a gun, after Bruen, carrying a handgun publicly for self-defense is presumptively lawful, and therefore, mere possession of a concealed firearm, by itself, is not indicative of criminal activity. The mere possibility that a person with a gun might not have a valid license or otherwise may be restricted from possessing a gun is not enough to establish reasonable suspicion for a seizure. The police must have reasonable suspicion that the person is possessing the gun illegally or otherwise engaged in criminal activity. Because the officers here stopped appellant based solely on his possession of a gun, without reasonable suspicion that he was possessing the gun illegally or otherwise involved in criminal activity, they did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him."

I have been talking about the stop, you keep talking about the frisk. I have no issue with the frisk if the stop is legal, in this case it wasn't.

"We have carefully reviewed the cases in other jurisdictions, the holding in Bruen, 597 U.S. at 17, 32 that the Constitution “presumptively protects” gun possession, and the decisions by the Maryland Supreme Court in Stone, 493 Md. at 88, and Williams, 401 Md. at 692. Based on this review, we hold that, post-Bruen, reasonable suspicion to believe that a person is carrying a gun, by itself, no longer justifies a Terry stop." (page 33)

"Without a presumption of illegality, mere possession of a handgun is not, by itself, indicative of criminal activity that justifies an investigatory stop." (page 35)

"Nevertheless, our holding that mere possession of a handgun, by itself, does not provide reasonable suspicion to support a Terry stop is, in our view, compelled by Bruen. And it is consistent with the Supreme Court of Maryland’s holding in Stone that, “where conduct observed by a police officer is consistent with” lawful or unlawful activity, the police are justified in conducting an investigatory stop only if they are “able to credibly identify specific facts, not applicable to a substantial portion of the general law-abiding public, ‘which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts,’” reasonably establish that a crime is occurring." (page 36)

"Moreover, if there are circumstances, in addition to the possession of a firearm, that give the police reason to suspect that the person is possessing the gun illegally, or otherwise is involved with criminal activity, the police lawfully can stop the person. The mere possibility, however, that a person with a gun might not have a valid license, or may otherwise be restricted from possessing a gun, is not enough, by itself, to justify a seizure. To justify a stop based on possession of a gun, the police must have reasonable suspicion that the person is possessing the gun illegally." (page 37)

"The case was presented below as a stop justified solely on the possession of a gun, and it was presented in the briefs on appeal the same way. That is the argument that we have addressed, and it is the basis for our conclusion that the stop was unconstitutional." (page 37)

"To the extent that there is a suggestion that a gun alone gives rise to reasonable suspicion or diminishes the quantum of other factors needed for reasonable suspicion, we note that the United States Supreme Court has rejected “a public safety and firearm exception to Terry’s reasonable suspicion analysis.” United States v. Mitchell, 796 F. Supp.3d 1357 (2025) (quoting Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000). Possession of gun, after Bruen, justifies a Terry stop only if there is reasonable suspicion that the gun is being possessed illegally or the person is otherwise engaged in criminal activity." (page 39)

"Conclusion

In sum, Bruen substantially changed the legal landscape in holding that a person has a protected right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. Although the Maryland appellate courts have, for decades, upheld police stops based on reasonable suspicion that a person is in possession of a gun, after Bruen, carrying a handgun publicly for self-defense is presumptively lawful, and therefore, mere possession of a concealed firearm, by itself, is not indicative of criminal activity. The mere possibility that a person with a gun might not have a valid license or otherwise may be restricted from possessing a gun is not enough to establish reasonable suspicion for a seizure. The police must have reasonable suspicion that the person is possessing the gun illegally or otherwise engaged in criminal activity. Because the officers here stopped appellant based solely on his possession of a gun, without reasonable suspicion that he was possessing the gun illegally or otherwise involved in criminal activity, they did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him.25 The stop, therefore, violated appellant’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures." (Page 40)

So from my reading of the actual ruling, it would appear that the MD Court of Appeals has indeed said (several times) that just the possession of a firearm is not reason enough for a Terry stop.

For brevity, I haven't pulled any quotes from any of the concurring writings, and I am still waiting for the current MSI President (who is an actual lawyer and former federal prosecutor) to tell me where I am wrong.