California's Conceal Carry 'Sensitive Places' Limits Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Judge

AR-15s are Protected by the 2nd Amendment Embroidered Premium Hoodie

U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney issued a preliminary injunction against California's "sensitive places" law, stating that it openly defies the Supreme Court.

Judge Carney evaluated the "sensitive places" law in light of Bruen's (2022) assertion that contemporary gun controls should align with historical precedent in American firearm tradition. He found the law lacking in this regard, noting that California lawmakers relied on peculiar and exceptional statutes rather than common tradition to support their ban on carrying firearms in certain locations.

For instance, the prohibition of concealed carry permit holders from being armed for self-defense in casinos, stadiums, arenas, and amusement parks was justified by California lawmakers citing historical laws such as the 1786 Virginia terror in fair or markets law, the 1816 New Orleans 'public ballroom' weapon coat check law, the 1853 New Mexico law banning firearms at 'Balls or Fandangos,' and the 1882 New Orleans law regulating carry in theaters, public halls, places for shows or exhibitions, or other places of public entertainment or amusement.

However, Carney pointed out that "The Virginia 'terror' law and the nineteenth-century New Mexico and New Orleans laws do not reflect a well-established, representative historical tradition of preventing vetted and trained permitholders from carrying firearms for self-defense in casinos, stadiums, arenas, amusement parks, or similar locations."

Regarding the restriction on carrying a gun for self-defense in houses of worship, Carney argued that California's government failed to provide evidence of a historical tradition of prohibiting trained and vetted permitholders from carrying handguns in places of worship where confrontations are increasingly likely.

Carney concluded, stating that "CCW permitholders are not the gun wielders legislators should fear. Indeed, CCW permitholders are not responsible for any of the mass shootings or horrific gun violence that has occurred in California."

He emphasized the interest of self-preservation, quoting from Heller (2008) to support his argument:

"Contrary to this interest, [California’s ‘sensitive places’ law] requires that law-abiding citizens open themselves up for slaughter at the hands of people flaunting the law and creates numerous areas ripe for mass murder by ensuring there is no one there to protect people before “the intervention of society in his behalf.”

Carney determined that "The challenged [California] provisions unconstitutionally deprive [licensed concealed permit holders] of their constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense."

Join Our 2A Membership Club here on YOUTUBE and get these perks:

Join MY Exclusive 2A Advocacy Text List while AUTOMATICALLY being entered in our monthly 2A Giveaways

Get UnApologetically 2A Content In Short-Form On YouTube & Help Protect The Second Amendment

FREE BOOK - If I Only Had One Concealed Carry

Looking to help further our Pro Constitution, Pro 2A message, donate below:

UnApologetically 2A Content Content On Other Platforms:

#2ANews #ColionNoir #ThePewPewLife #PewPewLife

[wolffe]

I don't understand how a governor can do things that are unconstitutional and still be allowed to lead a state.

[AndreVeaseyJr]

I found it hilarious that the judge in his ruling repeated, 'California denies the people who THEY trained to receive concealed carry permits to go in these places.' His acknowledgment of the absurdity of it is refreshing.

[thedevilsadvocate]

Imagine the energy put into these dumb policies being diverted to actually trying to fix things. How different would Cali look like?

[chiefwaukon]

All new "laws" in California are pretty much always unconstitutional. You just have to challenge them at either your own expense or the help of better funded conservative entities.

[JustiPp-dznu]

Arrest all people knowingly making unconstitutional laws .

[damienroser]

It's a constitutional duty to carry to protect liberty from the tyrants. The tyrants who are working very hard to disarm us for this very reason.

[damienroser]

The problem is compliance. They can't violate rights if nobody complies with their clown rules.

[jairoaldana]

Now get rid of the unconstitutional roster and unconstitutional restrictions put on California citizens!

[jamesduncan]

“ An honest politician need not fear an armed citizenry.” Ues, I know an honest politician is probably an oxymoron.

[Xanatost]

This Marine, when it comes to protecting my family, all laws are just a suggestion to me!

[JacobRAdkins]

I’m as liberal as they come and even I know this “sensitive places” rule is unconstitutional. Props to the judge in this decision.

[twigsmctwiggy]

"Sensitive Places" are transitional places where criminals look for easy targets. Armed citizens are here to protect them and their loved ones, but most sane, sober, moral armed citizens will also step in and protect others just the same as their own.

[constantnom]

As a lifelong Californian, it’s easy to see that California is beyond redemption. The judicial branch and the incredible organizations suing the state are the only things keeping us from total and complete tyranny.

[Mariner]

60 yr old California Native - living rural for the last 25 years (after my military career). I have my CCW and carry every day - I lead our Church's "Safety-Team" and we are all strapped for a decade (not a single BAD incident, just ONCE had to show my holster to an intruder to get them to walk outside). Our COUNTY has a very low crime rate - criminals KNOW everyone around has a gun (okay, 85%) - 4 idiots from an urban area came up here during Covid to do some burglaries - their 3rd stop surprised a 75 yr old homeowner - she shot 3 of them dead (deer slugs) and the 4th turned himself in after he ran. Deputies had no problem, and DA had no problem - the survivor told the story in detention and then prison - criminals don't COME here <shrug>.

[Mark-qvbn]

I haven't set foot in California for 20 years. Nobody ever stands up and says no. That's my right to protect myself with whatever I need. I'll never go there.

[once]

You could literally ban all guns for 48 hours and when a shooting happens within that said time they would still say we need more gun laws.

[gadawgs]

Everytime I take my daughter to the park, I am carrying. Somebody told me there was no need to do so at that specific park since it is right across the street from the police department. It would still take at least 5 minutes for any officer at the station to find out about anything happening and make their way to the park, so I would rather be proactive than reactive

[dougadams]

Criminals carry everywhere with NO PERMIT!

[DasMonke]

Those ‘sensitive place’ are the exact places people need the guns, because they are ‘sensitive’

[kenhughes]

Hopefully this will hold up. California will keep trying to ban in one way or the other.