Gun control: 9th Circuit restricts in some places, but not all

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, on Sept. 6, 2024, affirmed preliminary injunctions issued by the District Courts against enforcing gun control statutes for places including churches, banks and hospitals. However, it reversed injunctions for bars, restaurants and parks. The Court considered statutes in California, Penal Code Section 26230, [Page 19.] and in Hawaii, Revised Statutes, Section 134-9.1 (a) et seq. This article will focus on the CA statute.  

Wolford et al. v. Lopez et al., _F. 3d_, No. 23-16164 (9th Circuit).

U.S. Supreme Court decisions

The Court relied on several recent Supreme Court decisions including New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) and U.S. v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. _, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024) [Page 13.]

The Court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court rulings "do not call into question longstanding laws prohibiting the carry of firearms at sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." Bruen, page 30. [Page 13.

Private property

The Court went on to note about banks specifically and private property in general, "a bank may prohibit firearms as a matter of the ordinary property-law right to exclude." [Pages 14, 64-65.]

However, the preliminary injunction is enforced against the broad CA statute which requires property owners to post a sign of a specific size only if they wish to permit the carry of firearms on their premises. [Page 68.]

Preliminary injunction affirmed

The Court affirmed preliminary injunctions against enforcing the CA statute banning firearms in the following:

Places of worship; [Page 69.]

Public gatherings requiring a gun permit; [Page 73.]

Financial Institutions; [Pages 74-75.]

Hospitals and other medical facilities; [Page 76.] and

Public transit. [Pages 78-81.]

Preliminary injunctions reversed

The Court reversed preliminary injunctions and permitted the enforcement of the CA statute in the following:

Parks, athletic facilities, and similar areas; [Pages 40 and 46.]

Playgrounds and youth centers; [Page 46.]

Bars and restaurants which serve alcohol; [Page 49.]

Casinos, stadiums, amusement parks, zoos, museums and libraries; [Page 54.] and

Parking areas connected to sensitive areas such as schools. [Pages 55 and 57.]

Trial

The decision does not mention a trial. However, it seems likely that these actions will proceed to a trial on the merits of all issues. The ultimate issue will be whether the preliminary injunctions will become permanent.

Comment

While it might be a burden, the practical result of this ruling is that all private property owners where the preliminary injunction has been affirmed, whose premises are open to the public and who want to ban firearms on their premises, must do so with a sign at each entrance. The sign should be clear, large, well-lit, and prominently placed. The remaining questions include which languages in addition to English should be used, the height at which the signs should be placed, and their size.

Additionally, it would be wise for the property owner to communicate any firearm bans on their private property through print, electronic, and social media.

Lastly, given the controversy surrounding Second Amendment issues, it seems likely that this case will reach the U.S. Supreme Court.