What recent appellate and Supreme Court rulings have changed the legality of restricting firearms at demonstrations and 'sensitive places'?
Executive summary
The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen established a history‑and‑tradition test that has reshaped how courts evaluate limits on carrying firearms in public, prompting a wave of appellate decisions about so‑called “sensitive places” and drawing the Supreme Court back into fights over private‑property rules and location‑based bans [1] [2]. Since Bruen, lower courts — and the Supreme Court itself — have both upheld some restrictions and struck others down, leaving the legality of banning guns at demonstrations, parks, businesses, and private venues unsettled and actively litigated [3] [4] [5].
1. Bruen rewired the legal test and made “sensitive places” litigation inevitable
The pivot point was Bruen, which required courts to ask whether a modern restriction is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” whenever the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct at issue, a standard that has turned disputes over demonstrations and so‑called sensitive places into history wars rather than simple policy inquiries [2] [6].
2. Rahimi clarified limits on disarming certain categories of people but left location rules open
In 2024 the Court in United States v. Rahimi upheld a federal prohibition on firearm possession by people subject to certain domestic‑violence restraining orders, reversing an appellate court that had struck the law down and signaling that some modern disarmament statutes survive Bruen’s history test when analogues exist — but Rahimi addressed person‑based prohibitions, not place‑based bans, so it did not directly resolve sensitive‑place disputes [6] [7].
3. Circuits split on which public places count as “sensitive” and which may be off‑limits
Appellate courts since Bruen have produced divergent lists of permissible bans: some panels have said states may bar firearms at bars, restaurants that serve alcohol, youth centers, parks, casinos and athletic facilities, while rejecting bans at hospitals, transit and places of worship in specific cases — a patchwork that underscores how judges apply Bruen’s historical inquiry unevenly [3] [4].
4. The Ninth Circuit has both upheld and struck down California/Hawaii rules, producing immediate legal whiplash
A Ninth Circuit panel in 2024 upheld Hawaii’s rule requiring private‑property owner consent to carry and sustained some state restrictions on “sensitive places,” while in a separate January 2026 ruling a different Ninth Circuit panel found California’s broad open‑carry ban unconstitutional, a split that illustrates how similar facts can lead to different outcomes even within the same circuit [4] [8] [1].
5. The Supreme Court is stepping back in — skeptical of some historical analogues and ready to reevaluate private‑property defaults
The Court recently agreed to hear a challenge to Hawaii’s permission‑requirement for carrying on private property open to the public and justices showed skepticism during argument about the historical evidence the state relied on, signaling potential limits to lower‑court deference and a likelihood that the Court will narrow some location‑based exceptions [9] [10] [5]. The Court is also scheduled to hear other cases that could clarify whether modern bans on carrying in particular venues meet Bruen’s history test, including cases rescheduled for conference and argument in 2026 [4] [11].
6. What this means for demonstrations and “sensitive places” going forward
The practical upshot is that bans on firearms at demonstrations and in many designated “sensitive places” are now litigated under a demanding historical‑analogue standard; some restrictions—especially those tied to alcohol service, youth settings, or private‑property consent—have survived appellate scrutiny in places, but outcomes vary by jurisdiction and the Supreme Court’s pending decisions [3] [4] [5]. Courts and litigants on both sides are pushing narratives: states emphasize public‑safety analogues and property rights, while challengers frame permissions and bans as modern invocations that “eviscerate” the ability to carry for self‑defense, so policy motives and political agendas are explicit in many filings [5] [12].
7. The landscape remains unsettled; expect more Supreme Court rulings this term
Because the Court has signaled skepticism about some historical analogues and taken up major cases concerning private property and location bans, the next round of Supreme Court opinions is likely to further refine — and perhaps constrain — which place‑based firearms restrictions survive Bruen’s history test, making current appellate decisions provisional until SCOTUS issues clearer rules [9] [10] [4].