What are Sensitive Places under the 2nd Amendment?

Sensitive Places: Where can the state prohibit guns?
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms, but it does have limitations. One exception relates locations where guns can be restricted under a judicial doctrine of “sensitive places.” Constitutional scholar and Second Amendment expert, Joseph Blocher, sheds light on this topic in an interview with TalksOnLaw.
Sensitive places are locations where guns can be prohibited without violating the Second Amendment. Examples include schools and government buildings, as established in the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller. The Court later expanded the list to enumerate legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Blocher explains that after Bruen, the legitimacy of modern gun laws is based on the law’s consistency with historical tradition. This means that courts have to look to historical examples to justify modern restrictions. For example, some historical place-based restrictions reflect concerns about physical danger in crowded areas, while others pertain to democratic life and the potential for violence and intimidation. Such historical laws can be used to justify comparable modern laws today.
One challenge in applying this historical approach is that certain modern locations, like airplanes, daycare centers, or subways did not exist at the time of the Constitution’s ratification. Courts must therefore evaluate the laws by drawing analogies between historical restrictions and modern concerns.
Prof. Blocher also points out that the debate around sensitive places highlights the "awful symmetry" of gun rights and regulation, where the same factors that make a place dangerous and warrant gun prohibition are the reasons some people may want to carry a gun for their own protection. A potential solution that some scholars have raised may be to disarm individuals only in locations where the government has taken on an increased security role, such as through the use of metal detectors.
As the debate on sensitive places continues, new cases are rising through the courts sharpening the edges of government power to restrict firearms and establishing the outer boundaries of where the Second Amendment applies.
Joseph Blocher is a leading Second Amendment scholar and a professor at Duke Law School. He serves as co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law.
► www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/whe...
► www.talksonlaw.com for more legal explainers and interviews with the titans of law
____________________
00:00 What are sensitive places and where can the government restrict guns?
01:30 Examples of Sensitive Places Where the Government Can Prohibit Guns
02:35 Supreme Court Cases on Sensitive Places - DC v. Heller
03:48 Supreme Court Cases on Sensitive Places - NYSRPA v. Bruen
04:45 The Supreme Court Test for Sensitive Places
06:05 Applying the Text History & Tradition Test to Modern Sensitive Places
09:55 Duke Center for Firearms Law's Repository of Historical Gun Law
11:15 The Awful Symmetry of Gun Laws
13:00 Balancing Conflicting Constitutional Rights with Gun Rights
15:27 Conclusion with expert, Prof Blocher

[@igotyoubeat]

Heller, McDonald, and Bruen have all stated that an individuals self-defense is a central component of the second amendment right. Bruen further asserts that interest balancing is no longer a measure of asserting a governments interest over the people when crafting a specific regulation or restriction. when considering aircraft travel one could argue that a temporary sensitive places burden does exist and extra measures are in place since you are heavily screened by security and severely limited on what you can bring onto a plane. The same could be said for court houses since you are screened in a similar fashion upon entry. What is aggravating is states like maryland, New Jersey, New York, and other liberal states have continued to undermine the people’s right to defend themselves by passing laws that do not align with Supreme Court guidance. Despite the clarity given in the bruen decision they have since passed laws specifically citing a governmental interest over the public. State parks, shopping malls, or any other place of public accommodation are not sensitive places. In fact those areas are examples exact places where an individual who wishes to exercise their right of self defense would do so.

[@joshuatoler1965]

shooting a hole in a plane will not cause it to brake up& crash

[@rkba4923]

Where are those places listed as exceptions in the supreme Law of the LAND? And, what takes them OUTSIDE the "unqualified command," "shall not be infringed"?

[@Morganfrost]

The airplane situation isn't a problem. Historical tradition does include places that are routinely secured by law enforcement (e.g., courthouses, etc.). Airplanes are similarly secured by a fairly rigorous process to protect passengers, crew and the safety of the aircraft. The problem comes when states (e.g., Maryland, New York) attempt to expand the concept of "sensitive places" to be so large that the exceptions (intentionally) swallow up the entire right. The simple rule of sensitive places is to ensure that the states can't simply declare places sensitive without having taken steps to secure those places by the continual presence of law enforcement.

[@chas6817]

The historical law in texas mentioned about 10:25 is unconstitutional at that time in history in the 1800's.

[@richardthomas6602]

Carrying arms is constitutionaly protected, safety is not constitutionaly protected. 17th centry laws prohibiting guns in schools only prohibited childern from having guns, not adults.

[@ajbrant3296]

According to the ACTUAL wording of the 2nd Amendment, there are no such things as "sensitive places". SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED seems pretty clear.

[@ajbrant3296]

You are trying to mansplain/copsplain so that you can get around " text, history and tradition at the time of inception"

[@alterrille5863]

There are no sensitive places under the Second Amendment! It is a very short paragraph and the last four words in that law spell it out.

[@user-bl4hb1bq9t]

Joe anti gun! Scouts is 1 issue court. Bruen decided right to carry outside home. Sensitive places is separate issue. It needs it own case, to show it doesn't pass the bruen test.