A California court on Friday partially reinstated firearm bans in California and Hawaii, finding that the state could, for example, prohibit guns in parks, playgrounds and bars but not in banks or hospitals.
Credit: International New York Times Photo
Sacramento, California: A federal appeals court on Friday partially reinstated firearm bans in California and Hawaii, finding that California could, for example, prohibit guns in parks, playgrounds and bars but not in banks or hospitals.
The 3-0 ruling, by a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, said the Supreme Court's current interpretation of gun rights was "seemingly arbitrary" and "hard to explain" at the moment. The court's findings applied only to laws in those two states.
The judges found that most of the prohibitions enacted last year by California and Hawaii met the constitutional standards set in a 2022 Supreme Court decision that dramatically narrowed the legal standard for restrictions on firearms.
That decision struck down a New York law that had strictly limited the carrying of guns outside homes. The Supreme Court found that restrictions on guns are constitutional only if courts can find an analogue "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." But, the court added, states could ban guns in "sensitive places" such as schools and courthouses.
Democratic-led states rushed to rewrite laws to comply with the new interpretation, in some cases banning guns in dozens of specific locations. But federal judges last year struck down new laws in California and Hawaii.
The 9th Circuit judges ruled Friday that California could prohibit guns in libraries, sports arenas, casinos, museums and restaurants that serve alcohol, in addition to parks, playgrounds and bars. Hawaii can ban guns on parks and beaches and in establishments serving alcohol.
But the judges determined that neither state could ban guns in banks, while California could not prohibit them from churches or on public transit, in addition to medical facilities.
In their decision Friday, which reviewed three lower-court decisions, the 9th Circuit panel traced state and municipal laws to the 1700s in some cases to determine whether a historical analogue existed for the gun bans that had been blocked in California and Hawaii.
The judges ruled that the states could ban guns in parks because for almost as long as parks have existed in this country, governments have enforced laws to prohibit firearms in them. "In 1858 -- the year the park opened -- New York prohibited the carrying of firearms in Central Park," Judge Susan Graber wrote for the panel, which also included Judges Mary Schroeder and Jennifer Sung. Therefore, Hawaii's ban on firearms at the beach should be upheld because beaches are the modern equivalents of parks, she wrote.
Similarly, she wrote, laws barring firearms in places serving alcohol date to colonial times in some cases. Militias in Delaware were prohibited from meeting within a half-mile of a tavern in the 1700s, she noted. And in the 1800s, guns were prohibited at public halls in New Orleans, "drinking saloons" in San Antonio, and any "Ball or Fandango" in New Mexico.
By contrast, Graber wrote, the historical record is less clear on gun bans in financial institutions, hospitals and churches. She added that a California ban on guns on public transit was most likely too broad for the Supreme Court's historic standards but might be upheld if it allowed riders to transport unloaded weapons in a proper storage case.
"Taking a step back from the historical analysis, the lists of places where a State likely may ban, or may not ban, the carry of firearms appear arbitrary," she wrote. "The deep historical analysis required by the Supreme Court provides the missing link, but the lack of an apparent logical connection among the sensitive places is hard to explain in ordinary terms."
She added that she expected further litigation because Second Amendment rulings had likewise been "seemingly arbitrary," with courts responding to the 2022 Supreme Court decision in different ways.
A spokesperson for Rob Bonta, the attorney general of California, said his office was reviewing the decision and had no immediate comment.
Chuck Michel, director of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, called the ruling a relative success, noting that all three judges on the panel had been appointed by Democratic presidents. He said gun rights groups were weighing how and whether to appeal.
The laws in California and Hawaii, he said, were "never about safety," but rather were targeted unfairly at law-abiding gun owners who had been issued licenses to carry firearms in public.
"The places where permits are now invalid," he said, "have now become criminal empowerment zones."