Which specific categories of SB 2’s ‘sensitive places’ were upheld versus enjoined in the Ninth Circuit’s May v. Bonta and Carralero decisions?
Executive summary
The Ninth Circuit’s consolidated September 6, 2024 decisions in May v. Bonta and Carralero v. Bonta split the difference: the panel left in place a district-court preliminary injunction (meaning those SB 2 “sensitive places” prohibitions remain unenforceable) for a set of location categories tied to institutions and hosted events, while reversing the injunction (allowing California to enforce SB 2) for other public‑place categories such as bars, parks, beaches, and certain parking areas [1] [2].
1. Which “sensitive places” the Ninth Circuit kept enjoined (preliminary injunction upheld)
The appellate panel affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction as to prohibitions on carrying firearms in hospitals and similar medical facilities, on public transit, at gatherings that require a permit, at places of worship, at financial institutions, and in parking areas and similar areas connected to those listed places—so those specific SB 2 restrictions remained enjoined after the Ninth Circuit opinion [1] [2] [3].
2. Which “sensitive places” the Ninth Circuit allowed the state to enforce (preliminary injunction reversed)
Conversely, the panel reversed the district court and permitted enforcement of SB 2’s bans for bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, for beaches, parks and “similar areas,” and for parking areas adjacent to those locales; the court also reversed the injunction against the new default rule that prohibits carrying onto another person’s private property without consent [1] [2].
3. How the court framed its distinctions and why the split matters
The Ninth Circuit panel applied Bruen-era historical‑analogy reasoning and drew lines between places historically treated as appropriate targets of firearm restrictions (institutional or government‑adjacent settings) and more general public recreation or commercial venues where the panel concluded the state could analogize modern bans to historical analogues, producing a category‑by‑category result rather than a blanket rule [1] [4]. That analytical partition is consequential because it leaves intact prohibitions tied to institutional settings—hospitals, transit, permitted gatherings, houses of worship, banks and their connected parking—even while restoring California’s ability to bar guns from parks, beaches, and restaurants that serve alcohol, which had been enjoined by the district court [2] [5].
4. Complicating factors: stays, consolidation, and ongoing appeals
The post‑decision legal landscape remained unsettled: the cases were consolidated with other appeals (Wolford v. Lopez), the Ninth Circuit issued administrative stays at times and plaintiffs sought rehearing en banc, meaning the status of enforcement shifted during successive filings and stays and the rulings were subject to further review—facts the state DOJ, law‑enforcement groups, and gun‑rights and gun‑safety advocates all flagged in their public statements [6] [3] [7] [8]. Parties on both sides emphasize different takeaways: law‑enforcement groups framed the affirmances as preserving public safety buffers [3], while gun‑rights advocates pointed to reversals as a partial vindication of public‑carry rights [9] [10].
5. What remains outside these opinions and reporting limits
The district court’s December 2023 injunction originally left untouched certain longstanding exclusions—school zones, airports, legislative offices, and preschools—and the Ninth Circuit opinions addressed only the challenged categories; reporting in the supplied sources does not purport to catalog every SB 2 subsection or every procedural development after the panel rulings, so this account confines itself to the specific categories that the Ninth Circuit affirmed or reversed in the consolidated opinions [8] [1].