FPC Files Brief In California’s “Sensitive Places” Carry Ban

The case challenging California’s “sensitive places” law that bans carry in nearly every public place in the state continues to move forward, with appellants filing response briefs with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the lawsuit Carralero v. Bonta, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) on Feb. 16 announced that it had filed a response brief with the circuit court. FPC secured a preliminary injunction in this case at the district court last year, and it remains in effect while California appeals.

“In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Second Amendment protects a ‘general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense,’” the brief states. “Frustrated with that ruling, California enacted Senate Bill 2 in open retaliation. SB2 unconstitutionally limits where law-abiding, licensed Californians may keep and bear arms. Its laundry list of so-called ‘sensitive’ locations includes all manner of ordinary venues that Californians frequent. As a result, licensed individuals cannot exercise their constitutional right to bear arms during most daily activities—going to work, hiking in a park, taking public transportation, running errands, eating at a restaurant, entering a hospital, attending sporting events, and more.”

FPC further argues in the brief that the law doesn’t come close to meeting the second requirement of the new Bruen standard, which stipulates that the government must prove “historical precedent” for any law infringing on citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

“Though the State has marshalled a small army of historians, their evidence often supports Plaintiff’s arguments,” the brief states. “California fails to show that any of its proffered analogues are sufficiently widespread within the relevant time period—the Founding era—or relevantly similar in ‘how’ and ‘why’ they burden the right to self-defense. Indeed, most of the challenged locations existed in some form at the Founding, and Plaintiffs are not aware of any tradition of carry bans there—nor, importantly, has California offered any such tradition.”

For those reasons, Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation’s vice president and general counsel, and counsel for FPC, said the circuit court should make the same ruling that the district court made earlier.

“The district court has already found that California’s law preventing even licensed Californians from carrying firearms outside the home in much of the state is likely unconstitutional—the Ninth Circuit should do the same,” Wisniewski said in an FPC news item. “California passed this law in an attempt to undermine the rights of peaceable Californians in the face of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen. The Court should not entertain the state’s temper-tantrum and should instead vindicate the rights of Californians while this case proceeds.”