SFC13557
NES Member
Questions remain for lawmakers, courts on forbidding the carrying of firearms in ‘sensitive places’
From today's WSJ."Democratic-led states where gun restrictions were upended by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling are pushing ahead with new measures to ban concealed weapons from places such as hospitals, parks and houses of worship.
Lawmakers in several states are considering legislation to replace their old permitting regimes, which gave state licensing officials wide latitude to deny permits unless a gun owner could provide sufficient justification for carrying a concealed weapon outside the home. The 6-3 high-court opinion said that New York officials had too much discretion. The court also set a new constitutional test for state and local gun-control measures: They must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.
New York lawmakers enacted a new law a week after the ruling. It changed the criteria for obtaining a license—requiring in-person training as well as disclosure of social-media accounts—and prohibited guns in a number of what it said were sensitive places.
There are nine federal lawsuits challenging the new law, and judges have blocked enforcement of some of the sensitive-place restrictions, according to the state attorney general’s office.
U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby, an appointee of George W. Bush sitting in Syracuse, ruled that some of New York’s newly crafted sensitive-place prohibitions were disproportionately burdensome compared with laws enacted in cities and states during the 19th century. His Nov. 7 decision barred the state from enforcing bans on carrying firearms in houses of worship, public parks, zoos, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, conference centers and theaters. He also struck down a provision that banned guns in privately owned businesses or property unless the owners expressly allowed them.
Judge Suddaby’s preliminary injunction was stayed by the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as state lawyers challenged the ruling. Other judges have blocked enforcement of the bans on firearms in houses of worship and on private property.
Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, said the situation in New York showcased the tricky nature of interpreting the Supreme Court decision. For example, Judge Suddaby ruled that firearms could be banned from playgrounds and libraries but not public parks or zoos.
“Judges are making up how to implement this test as they go along,” said Mr. Willinger. “There’s going to have to be some sort of broader framework on what factors do courts use as opposed to a nose count of historical laws.”
In a landmark 2008 opinion, the Supreme Court recognized an individual right to possess a firearm and use it for self-defense in the home, but the court said it wasn’t calling into question laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. In this summer’s New York ruling, however, the justices said there were limits to how far states and municipalities could go in declaring a range of places as sensitive gun-free zones.
The legal uncertainty in New York hasn’t deterred other jurisdictions from enacting similar laws. Maryland’s Montgomery County last month approved a law that would prohibit firearms within 100 yards of places of public assembly, including hospitals, schools, parks and places of worship. In Hawaii, the Honolulu City Council held the first hearing last week on a bill to prohibit firearms in parks and public transportation facilities, among other places.
State lawmakers in New Jersey are considering a bill that would require applicants for a concealed-weapons permit to complete in-person training and purchase liability insurance. The bill—which was approved last month by the state Assembly and will be considered this week by a Senate committee—would prohibit firearms in more than two-dozen places that lawmakers deemed sensitive, including bars and casinos.
Assemblyman Joe Danielsen, a Democrat from Middlesex County who sponsors the bill, said he watched the legal challenges to New York’s law and opted against mimicking some of its provisions, such as the social-media disclosure or a ban on firearms in houses of worship.
“The people sent me to Trenton as a legislator. They did not send me to be a Supreme Court justice,” Mr. Danielsen said. “I started this with the attitude that safety is my target, and this bill hits a bull’s-eye.”
Evan Nappen, a New Jersey attorney and gun-rights activist, said the legislation was overly broad and would affect lawful gun owners who aren’t committing crimes. “This will not stand. It’s already proven in New York’s experiment with this same garbage,” Mr. Nappen said.
Hawaii state Sen. Karl Rhoads, a Democrat, said he would introduce a sensitive-places bill next year but that its exact text will depend on the latest court rulings in New York. In California, state Sen. Anthony Portantino, also a Democrat, said he would reintroduce a bill that failed to gain enough support to pass this summer.
Democratic lawmakers who control both chambers of the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law to bring their firearm-licensing laws in line with the Supreme Court decision, but they haven’t put forward any specific sensitive-place restrictions.
Bill Sack, director of legal operations for the Firearms Policy Coalition, a gun-rights advocacy group, said his organization would continue to challenge sensitive-place restrictions that go beyond the schools and government buildings mentioned by the Supreme Court.
Gun-control advocates said states and localities should move forward despite the uncertainty.
“If courts eventually strike down certain provisions, so be it,” said Adam Skaggs, chief counsel and policy director for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “But if legislators don’t push the envelope and explore the extent of their powers, I think they’re doing themselves and their constituents a disservice.”
