When talking about sensitive places, the state takes the position that who or what might be in that location is what makes that place “sensitive”.
This is just a dumb way of infringing on The People’s right to keep and bear arms.
We will ignore property rights at this junction, just to simplify the discussion.
My yard is not a “sensitive” place. No matter who might enter my yard, there is nothing that would make it a place where I should be kept from bearing an arm.
The same goes for the street in front of my house. Nor anyplace along that street.
But what about a school? A school is full of “vulnerable” people, children. Having vulnerable people doesn’t make the place sensitive. For example, what if the school was empty of students, and you were attending a meeting with a bunch of crazy liberal/leftists? Like school administrators and teachers?
The park is not a sensitive place, nor is the town hall nor the public parts of the police fortress.
What makes a place “sensitive”, is whether the government has taken responsibility for providing security and that security is comprehensive.
For example, a courtroom. The state has the responsibility for providing the security, in the form of armed security. They people are disarmed before entering the courtroom. The courtroom is secured at all entry points to prevent people from bypassing the security screening.
In addition, that place should only be made a sensitive place if it provides a safe location outside the security parameter for you to secure your arms.
This means that my pooling place is not a sensitive location. The state does not provide any real security.
This means that airports, outside security checkpoint are not sensitive places.
In addition, the areas beyond the security checkpoint are also not sensitive places. This is because the TSA does a shit job of screening. TSA’s security record is so poor that El Al still performs their security screenings of all passengers.
An El Al aircraft is a sensitive place.
Mark Smith has spoken many times about the relationship between sensitive places and Supreme Court cases. The commonality in the locations singled out by the Supreme Court as sensitive is that they provide comprehensive security.
Comments
4 responses to “Real “Sensitive” Places”
Some airports (Atlanta GA) do not prohibit carriage of firearms in the main terminal outside of the screening area; although the no gun signs are prominent on the main entrance doors which, unless you read the small print, is rather misleading. Others, (Norfolk VA) ban firearms on the entire airport “property” including parking decks. It is a legal minefield for a ccw….
It would be useful, but impossible, to create and maintain a rock solid definition of what constitutes a “sensitive place” because there are some – I contend precious few – places where it is reasonable to limit carry of arms; impossible because the anti-gun crowd wants Planet Earth declared a “sensitive place” and those of us who know better refuse to go along with that illogic.
My state forbids any form of carry in any government-owned or leased buildings; I’ve looked at Bruen and done some historical research and cannot find anything from ~1791 indicating polling places, libraries and tax offices prohibited posession of arms (and I used “arms” specifically, rather than “firearms”).
As for property rights, that same state requires a gun carrier to notify the owner or lessee of a residence that he or she is armed and obtain permission to enter; I have no problem with that because it respects property rights. Maintain a public accomodation, however – bank, grocery or hardware store, gasoline station, etc. – and the rules change; carry can be denied – those private property rights again – but the property must be so identified by visible signage which the statutes define in both size, location and content. I don’t have a problem with that; I disagree with the sentiment, but if your bank or business forbids lawful carry of arms I’ll gladly escort my money elsewhere, no harm, no foul. With government services, however, there are no competitors offering the same services; there is only one DMV or Post Office and no one has ever called 911 to get a cost estimate.
My heartburn is those locations which were built, and/or operated with, public funds, aka “tax money.” Some years back I had a discussion with officialdom regarding a proposal for banning arms possession in the county admin building; since it was Florida, I pointed out that the legislature had established itself as the premier arbiter of gun law in the state and had enacted statutory prohibition against localities enacting more restrictive gun laws than the legislature, and on the basis of that, was this official also planning on allowing armed passage at the metal detectors with the display of a state-issued concealed carry license. He replied in the negative, stating that “like any building owner, the county can control who enters its properties.” I pointed out that the county is not the building owner, the citizens and taxpayers are, they have already spoken on the issue through the legislature, the county’s position is that of operating the services within for the citizens and residents and maintaining the property in serviceable condition for the true owners, and nothing in state stautes or local ordinances prohibited licensed carry in county buildings.
I was overruled (full disclosure: the official in question and I both worked for different parts of the same LE agency, which did have security responsibility for county buildings).
Which brings us to the question of whom is the real owner of government buildings and properties, and what authority have the citizens and property owners granted to government personnel to operate and maintain the taxpayers’ facilities, especially to declare them “sensitive spaces” deserving of prohibition of possession of arms? Who is the final arbiter of constitutionality of law: The Supreme Court of the United States or elected representatives, and by what Constitutional constrictions do each control the effect of law?
The only places I’ve ever been that provided real security backed by at least one armed guard to enforce what the metal detector says have been:
Court
Colt Manufacturing factory floor
.
I was asked to sign a petition once for metal detectors in schools. I asked who would man them. That was not a point previously considered to say the least.
.
Sensitive places are obviously a joke.
I’m not convinced that El Al aircraft should be considered sensitive places. Yes, they have more security than others, but it doesn’t follow that there is value in disarming honest people there, any more than there is on any other aircraft.
https://scottbieser.com/sept11.html
It’s interesting how few places are restricted in NH. Last I looked, CC was perfectly OK in the State Capitol, and indeed some legislators routinely carry. One of them got in trouble with the Speaker a few years ago, but not for carrying — her offense was to carry in a crappy holster that did not properly secure her weapon.