The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this month on the controversial California law limiting where Concealed Carry Weapons Permit holders can take their guns, maintaining large parts of the law while striking down other parts.

Senate Bill 2 in 2023 banned guns on more than two dozen types of property and required all business owners to post whether they would allow guns on their property.

Federal Judge Susan Graber in her opinion for the 9th Circuit determined that guns could still be banned in parks, beaches, and bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

But the court ruled that categorical bans at hospitals, banks, churches, and gatherings exceeded the state’s powers. The court also said California’s requirement that property owners have to post signs stating guns are allowed could not be defended constitutionally.

Business owners and operators can still individually decide to ban guns on their property or at their event.

But the court also left open the possibility for more lawsuits, calling the method of determining whether bans are legal “arbitrary.”

In an email to GV Wire, a spokesperson with the California Attorney General’s office — the defendant in the case — said the state is continuing to litigate the matter.

The Firearms Policy Coalition, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, called the decision a partial victory.

“This partially favorable decision from the 9th Circuit shows how far we’ve come over the past decade. But this case, and our work to restore the right to bear arms, is far from over,” said coalition president Brandon Combs. “FPC will continue to fight forward until all peaceable people can fully exercise their right to carry in California and throughout the United States.”

Bars, Restaurants, Parks, Zoos, Libraries on the Ban List

The court combined the California lawsuit with another similar lawsuit in Hawaii. Both states passed rules limiting where CCW holders can take their guns. For the more than two dozen bans separated by property types, the court looked at those properties’ place in history as they relate to the Second Amendment.

For bars and restaurants, which have existed since the passage of the Second Amendment, judges used previous bans set by cities to justify upholding the two states’ laws.

For playgrounds and youth centers, the court said since those didn’t exist in a modern since when the Second Amendment was passed, the court applied the distinction of being a “sensitive place” and upheld the ban.

“Because many laws prohibited carrying firearms in parks, and the constitutionality of those laws was not in dispute, we agree with the 2nd Circuit and several district courts that the Nation’s historical tradition includes regulating firearms in parks,” Graber wrote in her opinion.

The court applied the same logic to casinos, stadiums, amusement parks, zoos, museums, and libraries.

Parking Lots Not as Clear

Courts did not make a blanket ruling on parking lots. Judges considered how connected a parking lot was to a “sensitive place.” The courts said this could be upheld because gun owners are still allowed to store their guns in their cars.

“We easily conclude that the ban on firearms at some parking lots — parking garages under government buildings, fenced parking areas adjacent to nuclear power plants, student-only parking areas at schools, and so on — are permissible,” Graber wrote.

Businesses Don’t Have to Post Whether Guns are Allowed

The court was concerned about whether a business owner has to say a gun is allowed or not.

The court acknowledged that having to get consent to carry a gun puts another burden on permit holders.

But it also stated property owners have the right to ban guns on their property. What the court was concerned with was how gun owners found out about a ban. It ruled that permit holders still needed permission to carry weapons while on private property open to the public.

It ruled that California’s law requiring businesses to post on a sign that guns are allowed at a business was too stringent.

“We acknowledge that our primary holding — that a national tradition likely exists of prohibiting the carrying of firearms on private property without the owner’s oral or written consent — differs from the decision by the 2nd Circuit and some district courts,” Graber wrote.

The court ruled that categorical bans at hospitals, public events, and on public transit were unprecedented.

But the court left open the possibility for further litigation.

The court called the historical analysis favored by the U.S. Supreme Court supporting bans at museums but not hospitals and libraries but not banks “arbitrary.”

“The seemingly arbitrary nature of Second Amendment rulings undoubtedly will inspire further litigation as state and local jurisdictions attempt to legislate within constitutional bounds,” Graber wrote.