So I think all of these places will fail under strict scrutiny:
Times Square; Public transit; Sports arenas; Parks; Libraries; Government buildings; Playgrounds Entertainment venues; Protests Places of worship Businesses that sell alcohol
Those places are simply too public, and banning guns from them is just an attempt to ban guns in general. It also violates the Constitutional right of those businesses to ALLOW guns.
The following places I think fail strict scrutiny because they are opt-out instead of opt-in. Opt-in MIGHT pass scrutiny, but opt-out certainly does not:
Private businesses, except those that post prominent signage
I think if you want to draft as restrictive a law as possible, you would need to simply allow private businesses to ban guns on their premises, and to ban guns only in places like "legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses", not the DMV.
NY already tried to argue in Bruen that it should be able to ban guns really broadly under the "sensitive places" rule, and the Court told them NO.
But the Court did not explicitly define what places were and were not "sensitive", so NY is coming back playing the little game of trying to list ALL the places and see what they can get away with.
So I think all of these places will fail under strict scrutiny:
Those places are simply too public, and banning guns from them is just an attempt to ban guns in general. It also violates the Constitutional right of those businesses to ALLOW guns.
The following places I think fail strict scrutiny because they are opt-out instead of opt-in. Opt-in MIGHT pass scrutiny, but opt-out certainly does not:
I think if you want to draft as restrictive a law as possible, you would need to simply allow private businesses to ban guns on their premises, and to ban guns only in places like "legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses", not the DMV.
"We're not banning guns. It's just that some places are so public that we have to ban guns."
NY already tried to argue in Bruen that it should be able to ban guns really broadly under the "sensitive places" rule, and the Court told them NO.
But the Court did not explicitly define what places were and were not "sensitive", so NY is coming back playing the little game of trying to list ALL the places and see what they can get away with.