PDA

View Full Version : "Reasonable restrictions" and "sensitive places"


nobody_special
04-20-2009, 9:42 PM
So Nordyke is out, and while we all won on incorporation :thumbsup:, the case was lost because the panel ruled that "municipal property" falls under the "sensitive places" exception from Heller:
The Nordykes argue that the Ordinance is overbroad because it covers more than such sensitive places. They list the areas covered: “open space venues, such as County-owned parks, recreational areas, historic sites, parking lots of public buildings . . . and the County fairgrounds.” The only one of these that seems odd as a “sensitive place” is parking lots. The rest are gathering places where high numbers of people might congregate. That is presumably why they are called “open space venues.” Indeed, the fairgrounds itself hosts numerous public and private events throughout the year, which a large number of people presumably attend; again, the Nordykes’ gun shows routinely attracted about 4,000 people. Although Heller does not provide much guidance, the open, public spaces the County’s Ordinance covers fit comfortably within the same category as schools and government buildings.

What limits can be set on the "sensitive places" which serve as an exception to the 2nd amendment? Clearly Heller upholds the 2A in the home, but it does not explicitly apply beyond that. (One can "bear" in the home, too.) What strategies might help to mitigate the sensitive place exception? Are there precedents involving other enumerated, fundamental rights which may help?

I'm very much concerned that we may have won a right that is practically useless, as the scope of the right may be very limited. :cuss:

pullnshoot25
04-20-2009, 10:19 PM
This is a good and probably valid point. Any legal input here?

nobody_special
04-20-2009, 10:29 PM
Indeed, I would argue that open spaces where people congregate are important locations for exercising 2nd amendment rights. Heller states that the 2nd amendment protects the right to keep & bear arms for self-defense in case of confrontation. It seems to me that such "confrontations" (using Scalia's language) are far more likely in public venues than in places of isolation.

SwissFluCase
04-21-2009, 8:42 AM
It seems to me that SCOTUS would be referring to places such as airports and jails among other areas, where there would already be a metal detector in place. It seems in this case that the court said "start a fresh challenge on 2A grounds", so who knows how binding the 9th circuit's ruling might be on the sensitive areas bit.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Untamed1972
04-21-2009, 8:55 AM
I think if you look at the comments made by the one judge regarding the Mumbai incident, to me that indicates he was thinking with a broader scope then just the home. The incident happened at a hotel, and he seemed to be indicating that had some people in that hotel (which was not their home) had been armed they could have quickly interviened. So then by extention, by applying that here in the US, should some type of attack occur, it never going to happen against an individual's home, it would likely be in a more public places, or for people to be able to intervien they'd need to be able to be armed in that public place.

I'm not saying states like CA wouldn't try to crazy restrictive on the "sensitive places" part and hafta be challenged on it, but I don't think it could stand long because what right does the state/local gov't have to restrict or other fundamental rights in public places, and so why would 2A be any different?

If I am entitled to speak freely or practice my religion in a public park, why should 2A be any different? They can't deny my right to free speech in park because I MIGHT encite a riot, but they can arrest me later if I ACTUALLY DO incite a riot. So why would 2A be any different? Can't deny me my right to carry a gun because I MIGHT commit a crime, but they can arrest me later if I ACTUALLY DO commit a crime.

natasha69
04-21-2009, 9:51 AM
Scares me a little bit. Remember back in '90 when smoking was slowly outlawed. It was never outlawed, just you could not smoke within 50 feet (i don't know the exact #) of a public place. So bars, restaurants, etc etc. At the college I was at, there was only one place in the entire campus you could smoke, and it was in the middle of an intersection (and you'd get a jaywalking ticket of some sort).

If the anti-guns expand on the sensitive places wording, could this same type of situation occur?

Untamed1972
04-21-2009, 9:54 AM
Scares me a little bit. Remember back in '90 when smoking was slowly outlawed. It was never outlawed, just you could not smoke within 50 feet (i don't know the exact #) of a public place. So bars, restaurants, etc etc. At the college I was at, there was only one place in the entire campus you could smoke, and it was in the middle of an intersection (and you'd get a jaywalking ticket of some sort).

If the anti-guns expand on the sensitive places wording, could this same type of situation occur?

Except that smoking is not a fundamental constitutional right.

nobody_special
04-21-2009, 9:57 AM
Except that smoking is not a fundamental constitutional right.
And yet, we have a binding 9th Circuit decision which says that the possession of firearms or ammunition may be banned on "municipal property"...

natasha69
04-21-2009, 9:57 AM
Except that smoking is not a fundamental constitutional right.

True. If the right is being defined by Heller, and the sensitive places part is abused, could same strategy could be used? Just asking the question here for the lawyers. Hopefully someone pipes in and explains why it could not be abused in this fashion.

JDoe
04-21-2009, 9:58 AM
Except that smoking is not a fundamental constitutional right.

If I am getting this right, the 2nd is a fundamental human right that precedes the constitution and the 2nd says that right "shall not be infringed." :thumbsup:

JDoe
04-21-2009, 10:04 AM
I think if you look at the comments made by the one judge regarding the Mumbai incident, to me that indicates he was thinking with a broader scope then just the home.

Exactly.

Many people are on this forum that can recall a time when about the only sensitive places were inside prisons, jails and the like. Those were the days when bad people were blamed for using good tools to do bad things. Now we blame good tools for doing bad things without mentioning bad people.

Untamed1972
04-21-2009, 10:11 AM
True. If the right is being defined by Heller, and the sensitive places part is abused, could same strategy could be used? Just asking the question here for the lawyers. Hopefully someone pipes in and explains why it could not be abused in this fashion.

Like I said above, I think it would hafta be taken in context with the "reasonable restrictions" places on other rights like freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech in not an ABSOLUTE right, you know the old "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater" argument. So I would point to something like, you don't have freedom of speech in a courtroom either, in that place your speech is subject to limitation, and so should weapons. So whatever standard of scrutiny is used to evaluate your other rights, the same should be applied to 2A. If I can stand on a street corner and "preach the gospel" then I should be able to stand on the same corner with my firearm.

That's how it should be....but I do think states like CA will TRY to overplay that angle in retaliation to losing control to 2A. What they need to do is quit wasting the taxpayers money on fighting stuff that doesn't change anything anyway.

wash
04-21-2009, 10:18 AM
I think a CCW permit will allow a person to bring arms in to some "sensitive places" so if we win the shall issue CCW battle, it doesn't matter so much.

Also, this means that a law will have to be passed on every place that they want to restrict. Now that we have the legal team together it will be a lot easier to fight these before they become law. People are also working to make this sort of legislation very unpopular for politicians so we should have fewer fights ahead of us.

The language isn't ideal and we might see some places off-limits for a while but eventually the "reasonable restrictions" that we have to deal with will actually be reasonable.

We will never be able to buy hand grenades from a vending machine. That's a restriction I can live with.

nobody_special
04-21-2009, 10:31 AM
I think if you look at the comments made by the one judge regarding the Mumbai incident, to me that indicates he was thinking with a broader scope then just the home.
And yet that same judge concurred with this opinion and voted to uphold the Alameda law which bans possession of firearms and ammunition on county property...

Liberty1
04-21-2009, 10:34 AM
I think a CCW permit will allow a person to bring arms in to some "sensitive places" so if we win the shall issue CCW battle, it doesn't matter so much.

That is always 50% + 1 changeable; not very much assurance compared to a court protected right so it matters a lot IMO. This "muni property as sensitive merely because government owns it" concept doesn't square with the rest of their waxing poetic about the importance of the Rights the 2nd A. protects of for "Heller" for that matter.

glockman19
04-21-2009, 10:53 AM
I think if you look at the comments made by the one judge regarding the Mumbai incident, to me that indicates he was thinking with a broader scope then just the home. The incident happened at a hotel, and he seemed to be indicating that had some people in that hotel (which was not their home) had been armed they could have quickly interviened. So then by extention, by applying that here in the US, should some type of attack occur, it never going to happen against an individual's home, it would likely be in a more public places, or for people to be able to intervien they'd need to be able to be armed in that public place.

I'm not saying states like CA wouldn't try to crazy restrictive on the "sensitive places" part and hafta be challenged on it, but I don't think it could stand long because what right does the state/local gov't have to restrict or other fundamental rights in public places, and so why would 2A be any different?

If I am entitled to speak freely or practice my religion in a public park, why should 2A be any different? They can't deny my right to free speech in park because I MIGHT encite a riot, but they can arrest me later if I ACTUALLY DO incite a riot. So why would 2A be any different? Can't deny me my right to carry a gun because I MIGHT commit a crime, but they can arrest me later if I ACTUALLY DO commit a crime.

The law actually allows you to posess a firearm and carry it concealed loaded legally in your tent at a camp ground just as much as it does in a rented apartment or hotel/motel room.

I don't think you need firearms in courts, City hall, city council meetings where there is a strong 24/7 police presence.

glockman19
04-21-2009, 10:59 AM
That is always 50% + 1 changeable; not very much assurance compared to a court protected right so it matters a lot IMO. This "muni property as sensitive merely because government owns it" concept doesn't square with the rest of their waxing poetic about the importance of the Rights the 2nd A. protects of for "Heller" for that matter.

Yes it will be a difficult process. If you have to visit the Building Department, and it's in the same building as some "restricted" jurisdiction then no carying to the building Dept.

Then the question becomes...how does one then safely store teh firearm while at/on the premises? Will they have a Gun check in with a safe for every gun like in hotel rooms? take a # for a safe, set a code and deposit your gun before entering? you can retrieve it before you leave?

Would a gun in a locked car be safer? parked in lot across the street? unloaded and in a locked case?

you can bet there will be challenges to EVERYTHING that challenges existing law.

Untamed1972
04-21-2009, 11:15 AM
The law actually allows you to posess a firearm and carry it concealed loaded legally in your tent at a camp ground just as much as it does in a rented apartment or hotel/motel room.

I don't think you need firearms in courts, City hall, city council meetings where there is a strong 24/7 police presence.


Yes...that is true. But I didn't get that the judge was likening the hotel to peoples homes, but more about people being readily able to defend themselves should an attack occur anywhere. Plus I think because of many of the other restrictive gun laws, sometimes people are even afraid to transport their firearms and would not likely take them when they travel, especially if it meant they had to leave their guns in the hotel room where there is no safe way to store them and keep the maids from stealing them.

jjperl
04-21-2009, 12:12 PM
I can already see that this whole "sensitive place" exception is going to be abused to its fullest by the anti's.

IMO this decision should be appealed to the supreme court on the grounds that state/local gov'ts don't have the right to essentially ban other fundamental rights in public places, so they should not have the right to ban the 2nd A.

Next they will say that Condor zones are sensitive areas. Where does it end? This is a very slippery slope.

Untamed1972
04-21-2009, 1:04 PM
I can already see that this whole "sensitive place" exception is going to be abused to its fullest by the anti's.

IMO this decision should be appealed to the supreme court on the grounds that state/local gov'ts don't have the right to essentially ban other fundamental rights in public places, so they should not have the right to ban the 2nd A.

Next they will say that Condor zones are sensitive areas. Where does it end? This is a very slippery slope.

If they tried I would have to say "Why now all in the sudden declare all of X places sensitive when you didn't before?"

If the as of now says only things like school zones and gov't buildings then why should that change at all?

I think the school zone needs to go away though. I'm fine with "not on school grounds" but walking/driving down the street in front of a school is ridiculous.

nick
04-21-2009, 2:48 PM
I don't think you need firearms in courts, City hall, city council meetings where there is a strong 24/7 police presence.

You mean, like in Mumbai train station? :)

I don't think I have to be required to be dependent on someone else for my safety. If someone else does protect me, great. However, it's primarily MY responsibility to protect myself (and the Supreme court apparently agrees with that. At least, it stated that the state doens't have to protect me as an individual, just the society in general), and as such, it must be my right to be able to fulfill that responsibility.

So it's not up to somebody else to decide what I need and what I don't need in such a fundamental question as self-defense. At least, it shouldn't be up to somebody else in a society that at least pretends to be free.

nick
04-21-2009, 2:54 PM
I think the school zone needs to go away though. I'm fine with "not on school grounds" but walking/driving down the street in front of a school is ridiculous.

You know, children and teachers need protection, too, as evidenced by the school shootings. So I'm not fine with the "not on school grounds" crap.

Untamed1972
04-21-2009, 3:16 PM
You know, children and teachers need protection, too, as evidenced by the school shootings. So I'm not fine with the "not on school grounds" crap.

I just meant that if they are going to be allowed to label certain places as "sensitive areas" then that means there will be some. On school grounds is one I can live with if I must. Would rather not, but I can live with it. It would not be expensive to have a couple of armed security guards on every school campus. But to restrict my movement on a public street or sidewalk because it is a within 1000ft of a school is not what I would consider reasonable.

DDT
04-21-2009, 3:54 PM
If we are to have a "sensitive places" exemption it should be strictly limited to places that are truly sensitive.

Courthouses
Jails
Meetings of governmental bodies (Capitol Building, The White House, etc.)
Police Stations
K-12 School GROUNDS

Now, we can argue about and try to have "sensitive places" tossed out but it came along with Heller and it's a trade off that we should be able to live with if we work on defining a reasonable, common sense idea of what places are sensitive.

The good news is that with Nordyke we can work in any state in any circuit to make these definitions.

demnogis
04-21-2009, 3:57 PM
If we are to have a "sensitive places" exemption it should be strictly limited to places that are truly sensitive.

Courthouses
Jails
Meetings of governmental bodies (Capitol Building, The White House, etc.)
Police Stations
K-12 School GROUNDS

Now, we can argue about and try to have "sensitive places" tossed out but it came along with Heller and it's a trade off that we should be able to live with if we work on defining a reasonable, common sense idea of what places are sensitive.

The good news is that with Nordyke we can work in any state in any circuit to make these definitions.

Limiting sensitive places to what you have mentioned would basically make 626.9/626.95 irrelevant in respect to firearms possession, but could still allow "School Zones" to work as an enhancement in legal prosecution of actual crimes...

DDT
04-21-2009, 4:08 PM
Limiting sensitive places to what you have mentioned would basically make 626.9/626.95 irrelevant in respect to firearms possession, but could still allow "School Zones" to work as an enhancement in legal prosecution of actual crimes...

Why would firearms be a reason to enhance a sentence in a school zone vs. a non-school zone or a crime committed without a firearm?

Is a gang-shooting 990' from a school zone a greater tragedy than one 1005' from a school zone? Is a dead child any less tragic if strangled or beheaded than if shot? Is an armed robbery any worse when committed with a gun than if the robber used a knife?

nobody_special
04-21-2009, 4:21 PM
You know, children and teachers need protection, too, as evidenced by the school shootings. So I'm not fine with the "not on school grounds" crap.

I absolutely agree with that... and, BTW, I work at UC Berkeley. That said, I'm resigned to the current reality which renders me defenseless.

stillnotbob
04-21-2009, 5:08 PM
I never understood the whole "school zone" thing. I mean if someone is going to commit the number one worst crime of murder, then is the whole "school zone" thing going to matter? I guess that goes for all "gun free" zones.

Uxi
04-21-2009, 5:52 PM
I think the school zone needs to go away though. I'm fine with "not on school grounds" but walking/driving down the street in front of a school is ridiculous.

Definitely. And I live down the street from a school. :eek:

GuyW
04-21-2009, 6:22 PM
If I had a CCW, why shouldn't I legally be able to carry when I go up on the dais at City Hall?
.

DDT
04-21-2009, 6:42 PM
If I had a CCW, why shouldn't I legally be able to carry when I go up on the dais at City Hall?
.

You should. But, if "sensitive places" is a reasonable restriction, then city hall would probably be included.

Now, you may feel there is no such thing as a "sensitive place" but SCOTUS says there is. Fighting that fight is a LONG way off. This is for what you start thinking about going after once the entire NFA is repealed.