When the Supreme Court issued its ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen, it made allowances for restricting guns in certain "sensitive places" like courthouses and such. Since then, though, anti-gun lawmakers have tried to make just about everywhere a sensitive place.
They can't make all of, say, Manhattan sensitive, because the Court expressly forbid that, but they've tried the next best thing.
They just claim that so many places are "sensitive" that it makes trying to carry a firearm for self-defense so precarious that few will bother to do so. At least, lawfully. The criminals don't care, just as they've never cared.
Now, the Second Amendment Foundation is calling on the Supreme Court to review a case regarding these "sensitive places."
Via a press release:
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review in Novotny v. Moore, SAF’s challenge to Maryland’s so-called “sensitive places” carry ban.
Maryland was among the states forced to change their carry permit laws after the landmark Bruen decision held that every American had the right to carry in public. In response, the state passed a new carry ban in which, even with a newly available permit, residents are still not allowed to carry a firearm in a long list of overlapping “sensitive place” categories, like mass transit facilities, state parks, healthcare facilities, museums, stadiums, and more.”
“Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Bruen, states have found novel ways to circumvent not only the Court’s holdings, but to continue infringing on the core rights protected by the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “By labeling essentially all areas open to the public “sensitive places,” municipalities have attempted to completely ban the possession and carry of firearms in public all over again. We are hopeful presenting this case to the Supreme Court provides an attractive opportunity for the Court to once and for all clarify what places are, and are not, sufficiently ‘sensitive’ to justify extinguishing peoples’ rights.”
As noted in the petition, “…because this case addresses a wide variety of locations, it is an ideal vehicle for this Court to clarify the narrow scope of the historical “sensitive places” limitation on the right to keep and bear arms. There is no historical tradition of banning carrying firearms in “crowded” places or places where “vulnerable” people are present.” Joining SAF in the case are Maryland Shall Issue, Firearms Policy Coalition, Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association and four private citizens.
“States that for many years refused to grant carry permits at all – and were forced to do so after Bruen – passed these so-called “sensitive places” carry bans resulting in citizens continuing to have their right to bear arms trampled,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Even with permits, residents in Maryland still face five years in jail for carrying a firearm just about anywhere people actually need or want to go out in public. This infringement cannot be allowed to stand, and we encourage the Supreme Court to provide guidance to these senseless laws.”
Maryland is a prime example of how broad this practice is, but it's far from the only one.
The issue here is that Maryland, like so many other state's laws, have basically made it so you can technically carry a firearm, but you can't go anywhere while you're doing it. Ironically, this also sets the stage for arming criminals, something that these states claim they are trying to prevent with numerous other gun control measures.
See, what happens is that someone needs to go and get some bloodwork done, so they swing by the local hospital to get it drawn because that's who their insurance pays to draw it, but because it's a healthcare facility, they have to leave the gun in the car. While inside, some punks break into the person's car, finds their gun in the glove box, and then we have armed criminals.
Maryland will then blame the gun owner for not having an expensive car-mounted safe when it was the law itself that put him or her in that position.
Or, what often happens, is that people realize they can't go anywhere while carrying, so they leave their gun at home and have to simply hope that they won't need it. I'm quite sure there are numerous cases where that hope didn't pan out.
So yeah, the Supreme Court needs to better define what a sensitive place actually is, what it can be, and that you can't just decree anywhere a large number of people might go as "sensitive."
