In layman’s terms: The Ninth Circuit of Appeals largely upheld the “sensitive locations” in California and Hawaii where concealed firearms are banned, with a few exceptions.
Today, the notoriously anti-Second Amendment United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a mixed opinion regarding challenges to California’s and Hawaii’s “sensitive places” ban on concealed firearms.
The now-consolidated cases of May v. Bonta, Carralero v. Bonta, and Wolford v. Lopez, challenged aspects of each state’s Bruen-response bills that attempted to carve out so-called “sensitive places” where concealed firearms may not be carried.
In December of last year, a federal judge blocked California’s unconstitutional “sensitive places” gun-free zones enumerated in SB2. Similarly, district courts blocked enforcement of such laws in Hawaii’s Act 52. Due to the similar nature of the challenges, the Ninth Circuit Appeals court consolidated the cases.
Read our interview with attorney Kostas Moros on the initial injunction here.
A whole host of Second Amendment rights groups were involved in these cases including, in no particular order: the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, Orange County Gun Owners PAC, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, the California Gun Rights Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Liberal Gun Owners Association, the California Rifle & Pistol Association.
Today’s decision from the three-judge panel was penned by Judge Susan P. Graber and began with a ceremonious statement implying that lower courts didn’t understand Bruen:
Because we conclude that the district courts erred in applying Bruen with respect to most of those provisions, we reverse in large part.
The decision then proceeded to largely misapply Bruen and uphold nearly all of the sensitive locations where guns are banned, even though permit holders passed significant background checks, and the state failed to show logical and convincing evidence of historical analogues.
With regard to California’s sensitive locations, the decision was as follows:
Locations where concealed carry by permit holders is allowed:
- Hospitals and similar medical facilities
- Public transit
- Gatherings that require a permit
- Places of worship
- Financial institutions
- Parking areas and similar areas connected to those places.
Locations where concealed carry by permit holders is prohibited:
- Bars and restaurants that serve alcohol
- Playgrounds
- Youth centers
- Parks
- Athletic areas and athletic facilities
- Most real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or the Department of Fish and Wildlife
- Casinos and similar gambling establishments
- Stadiums and arenas
- Public libraries
- Amusement parks, zoos, and museums
- Parking areas and similar areas connected to those places; and all parking areas connected to other sensitive places listed in the statute.
The panel also affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction with respect to the new default rule as to private property.
If you like our articles… please subscribe to our 2nd Amendment update list. We generally send one email per week containing 2A news you might’ve missed.
With regard to Hawaii’s sensitive locations, the decision was as follows:
Locations where concealed carry by permit holders is allowed:
- Financial institutions
- Parking lots adjacent to financial institutions
- Parking lots shared by government buildings and nongovernmental buildings.
Locations where concealed carry by permit holders is prohibited:
- Bars and restaurants that serve alcohol
- Beaches, parks, and similar areas
- In parking areas adjacent to all of those places.
The panel also reversed the preliminary injunction with respect to Hawaii’s new default rule prohibiting the carry of firearms onto private property without consent.
The decision received great criticism because many of the named locations are wide-open spaces where people are often not concentrated, and often alone, the ideal location in which to carry a firearm.
“We are disappointed that the panel did not see things our way on several of the places at issue, but considering the tough panel that was assigned to our case, the result was better than expected. We will continue to pursue this case and will examine whether it makes sense to petition for en banc or Supreme Court review, or instead to pursue a final judgment and then appeal after that,” said Chuck Michel, President of the California Rifle & Pistol Association.
Constitutional scholar and Second Amendment lawyer, Mark Smith commented on Twitter in response to the decision:
The Ninth Circuit decision in Carralero v. Bonta involving CA and Hawaii ‘sensitive places’ laws aka govt-mandated gun free zones is overall a poorly reasoned opinion. But, it was a terrible anti-gun panel so that 2A won anything is a minor miracle.
The Second Amendment Foundation made the following statement:
SAF will continue to work with its partners to aggressively put an end to California’s unconstitutional ban on carry.
Gun Owners of California commented:
Given that the panel was so anti-2A, we made significant progress and will continue to push this case until we get a total victory.
A similar case regarding New Jersey’s carry-killer Bruen-response bill was argued in front of the Third Circuit Court of appeals in October of last year (well before the cases mentioned above in this article) and has still not rendered a decision.
