California’s concealed carry ban in hospitals struck down by Ninth Circuit Court, but upheld in other public places.
At a Glance
- Ninth Circuit Court rules California cannot restrict firearms in hospitals and healthcare locations
- Court upholds bans in bars, restaurants serving alcohol, stadiums, and parks
- Ruling allows individual medical facilities to ban firearms under property law
- Decision highlights challenges in crafting modern gun laws under “history and tradition” test
- California considering pushing the legal battle to the U.S. Supreme Court
Court Overturns Hospital Gun Ban, Upholds Others
In a landmark decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that California cannot enforce a ban on concealed carry within hospitals and other medical facilities. The ruling, delivered on September 6, 2024, stems from the case Wolford v. Lopez, which examined prohibitions on concealed carry in “sensitive places” in both California and Hawaii.
The court’s decision upheld an injunction from December 2023 that blocked a California law banning firearms in most public places. However, the ruling wasn’t a complete victory for gun rights advocates, as the court allowed California to maintain restrictions on firearms in various other locations.
Ninth Circuit Panel: California Cannot Ban Concealed Carry in Hospitals.@BreitbartNews https://t.co/5ipKRXE1a9
— AWR Hawkins (@AWRHawkins) September 8, 2024
Divided Ruling on “Sensitive Places”
The court’s decision highlighted the challenges of crafting modern gun laws under the “history and tradition” test established by the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. The ruling effectively divided public places into two categories: those where guns may be banned and those where they may not, based on historical precedent.
“California may enforce its recent ban on guns in ‘sensitive places’ when it comes to parks and playgrounds, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, casinos, stadiums, amusement parks, zoos, libraries, museums, athletic facilities and the parking areas associated with them,” a federal appellate court ruled Friday.
The court found no historical support for banning firearms in places of worship, public gatherings, financial institutions, hospitals, or public transport. This decision has significant implications for gun owners and businesses alike.
Implications for Healthcare Facilities
While the ruling prevents California from enforcing a blanket ban on firearms in hospitals, it doesn’t leave healthcare facilities defenseless. The court emphasized that individual operators of medical facilities can still prohibit firearms on their premises under property law principles.
“We emphasize that nothing prevents an operator of a medical facility—whether privately owned or State-run—from banning firearms under ordinary principles of property law,” the ruling stated.
This decision comes at a time when concerns about gun violence in healthcare settings are on the rise. Recent fatal shootings in hospitals have increased calls for action against gun violence, prompting California lawmakers to pass a separate measure requiring hospitals to use weapons detection devices by March 1, 2027.
Reactions and Next Steps
The ruling has elicited mixed reactions from various stakeholders. California Governor Gavin Newsom expressed gratitude that the decision allows the state to restrict firearms in many areas, while also vowing to continue defending California’s gun laws.
“We refuse to accept shootings at schools, parks and concerts as a normal fact of life. While we fought for the court to go further, today’s ruling affirms our state’s authority to limit guns in many public places,” Newsom said in a statement. “California will continue to take action to protect our residents, and defend our nation-leading, life-saving gun laws from an extreme gun lobby and politicians in their pockets.”
On the other hand, gun rights advocates, including the California Rifle & Pistol Association, are considering pushing the legal battle to the U.S. Supreme Court. They argue that California’s expansion of “sensitive places” goes beyond what the Supreme Court intended in its Bruen decision.
As the debate over gun rights and public safety continues, this ruling serves as a reminder of the complex and often contentious nature of Second Amendment jurisprudence in the United States. It remains to be seen how this decision will impact similar laws in other states and whether it will ultimately reach the Supreme Court for further clarification.
