A Deep Dive into the 9th Circuit's NEW Opinion on Sensitive Places!

Published on September 17, 2024
Duration: 14:13

This video provides an expert analysis of the 9th Circuit's opinion in Wolford v. May regarding 'sensitive places' for firearm carry. Attorney Costas Moros breaks down the court's new framework for identifying sensitive places, distinguishing between historical and modern locations. He details the specific wins and losses for the firearms community, highlighting the unexpected victory on public transit restrictions and the disappointment surrounding bans in places serving alcohol and parks. The discussion also delves into the 'vampire rule' and its differential treatment in Hawaii and California.

Quick Summary

The 9th Circuit's new framework for 'sensitive places' requires historical regulations for founding-era locations and analogous ones for newer places. Wins include carrying in government building parking, places of worship, and financial/medical facilities. Losses involve parks, bars, and amusement venues, though public transit restrictions were unexpectedly upheld.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction to Wolford v. May Opinion
  2. 00:19Guest Introduction: Attorney Costas Moros
  3. 01:10What Was Won and Lost
  4. 01:39Court's Framework for Sensitive Places
  5. 02:27First Amendment Analogy
  6. 03:04Panel's Motivation and Concessions
  7. 04:06Detailed Wins and Losses Breakdown
  8. 04:31Wins: Shared Parking, Places of Worship, Financial/Medical
  9. 04:56Losses: Parks, Youth Centers, Bars, Amusement, Public Transit
  10. 05:33Correction: Public Transit Win
  11. 06:15Disappointments: Parks and Alcohol-Serving Places
  12. 07:46Deep Dive: The Vampire Rule
  13. 08:33Origin and Meaning of the Vampire Rule
  14. 09:29Hawaii vs. California Vampire Rule Distinction
  15. 10:40What Happens Next: Legal Strategy
  16. 11:26En Banc Petition for Review
  17. 12:00Previous En Banc Panel Dynamics
  18. 12:37Potential En Banc Panel Composition
  19. 13:30Conclusion and Call to Action

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the 9th Circuit's new approach to defining 'sensitive places' for firearm carry?

The 9th Circuit now requires that for places existing since the founding, historical regulations similar in number and timeframe to those cited by the Supreme Court must be shown. For newer places, analogous regulations are needed, acknowledging it's illogical to regulate a place before its modern existence.

What were the key wins for the firearms community in the Wolford v. May 'sensitive places' ruling?

The firearms community secured wins by having injunctions upheld for carrying in shared parking areas with government buildings, places of worship, public gatherings requiring permits, financial institutions, and medical facilities. A significant surprise win was on public transit restrictions.

What are the main losses from the 9th Circuit's sensitive places opinion?

Key losses include the inability to carry firearms in parks and similar areas, playgrounds and youth centers, bars and restaurants that serve liquor, places of amusement, parking areas connected to sensitive places, and public transit (though this was later corrected as a win).

How does the 'vampire rule' differ between Hawaii and California according to the 9th Circuit?

The 9th Circuit differentiated the 'vampire rule' by keeping the injunction for California's law, which requires a sign for entry, deeming it unconstitutional. Hawaii's law, allowing any form of consent (verbal, email, etc.), was deemed historically compliant.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from CRPA TV

View all →