California could enforce its recent gun ban in “sensitive locations” such as parks and playgrounds, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, casinos, stadiums, amusement parks, zoos, libraries, museums, sports facilities and associated parking areas, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
However, the state cannot apply similar restrictions in hospitals or other medical facilities, on public transportation, at places of worship or financial institutions, or in parking areas associated with or shared by those places, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit determined.
The committee also ruled that it could not enforce the ban on firearms at any events requiring a permit, or on visitors carrying firearms on any private property where the owner has not posted signs explicitly authorizing them.
The appeals panel, which simultaneously issued similar findings regarding the Hawaii laws, issued its decision in response to broad injunctions from lower courts that had blocked the bans from taking effect amid ongoing litigation over the laws.
The committee noted that some places where it rejected statewide bans, such as banks and churches, could still prohibit visitors from carrying guns under existing property laws, but that state governments could not do so unilaterally and universally. It said private property owners were also free to ban guns on their property.
“In places where we hold that states cannot prohibit the carrying of firearms, the practical effect of our decision is simply that owners of private property can choose to allow the carrying of firearms,” Judge Susan P. Graber wrote for the panel. “Owners of hospitals, banks, and churches, for example, remain free to prohibit firearms in those places.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom claimed a partial victory and said the state would continue to fight to reduce gun violence.
“We refuse to accept school, park and concert shootings as a normal fact of life. While we fought for the court to go further, today’s decision upholds our state’s authority to restrict guns in many public places,” Newsom said in a statement. “California will continue to take action to protect its residents and defend our state’s life-saving gun laws against an extreme gun lobby and the politicians who support them.”
Gun advocates also called the decision a partial victory.
“This partially favorable decision from the Ninth Circuit shows how far we’ve come in the last decade. But this case and our work to restore the right to bear arms is far from over,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, which helped challenge these laws. “The FPC will continue to fight until all peaceful people can fully exercise their right to bear arms in California and across the United States.”
Graber, appointed by President Clinton, was joined in the decision by Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder, appointed by President Carter, and Circuit Judge Jennifer Sung, appointed by President Biden.
The decision is the latest to apply the landmark test for gun laws established in 2022 by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen. In that case, the Supreme Court said gun laws are legitimate only if they are rooted in the nation’s history and tradition or sufficiently analogous to a landmark law.
Graber’s opinion analyzed a body of historical law to determine whether lower court injunctions blocking many gun bans in sensitive locations in states should stand or be overturned based on historical precedent.
In doing so, the decision divided public places into those where guns can be banned, such as parks, and those where they cannot be banned due to the lack of similar restrictions in the past, such as places of worship.
The score highlighted a reality under Bruen’s “history and tradition” test that gun control advocates have denounced as absurd: It prevents leaders from crafting modern gun laws to address the modern realities of gun violence, such as mass shootings in houses of worship.
Billy Clark, senior litigation attorney at the gun control advocacy group Giffords Law Center, said the decision “illustrates once again that it is constitutional to keep guns out of sensitive locations” — but also further evidence of the “chaos” in Second Amendment law caused by the Bruen decision.
Janet Carter, senior director of issues and appeals at the gun control group Everytown Law, said her group did not agree with every aspect of the decision but nonetheless found it “encouraging.”
“Keeping guns out of sensitive locations is common sense and these laws are essential to protecting our communities from gun violence,” Carter said.
Adam Kraut, executive director of the gun rights group Second Amendment Foundation, said California’s expansion of “sensitive locations” where guns are banned “goes beyond what the Supreme Court envisioned when it listed them in Bruen,” and said his group would continue to fight such bans in court.
