View Full Version : Sensitive Places or Areas?

06-13-2011, 10:52 AM
I was just wondering. Is the court's use of the term "sensitive places" significant vs. "sensitive areas?" It would seem that a "place" is a bit different than an "area." For example, a school is a place but a GFSZ seems to be an area; one surrounding a school. Surely the justices are well aware of the difference between a "place" and an "area" and had they chosen to they could have even used the term "sensitive zones" as in GFSZ.

I suspect that a place is a much more restricted term than area or zone and my own, optimistic, definition would have to include some sort of elevated security to effectively provide for the safety of those within the place. Interestingly this definition would place a very different burden on those defending laws creating "sensitive places" because their usual cry that the "place" is too violent would be the exact reason they CAN'T make it a gun-free area. If the place is violent then surely there is not effective security being provided. So, the burden would be changed forcing those who write such laws to prove that there is effective security provided rather than showing that effective security is needed.

06-13-2011, 11:17 AM
I've stressed in the past that Heller and McDonald did not mention anything about zone in their sensitive places holding (even with FN 26). The court being fully aware of the 1000' SZ issue, and knowing full well that it could be challenged in the coming future, and the fact that there is not one mention of the word "zone" in that context, tells me that places is going to be under heavy examination soon, and areas is the same as zone.