Churches, Firearms, and the Ninth Circuit: Tracking a Pivotal Case
The evolving legal landscape surrounding firearm restrictions in sensitive areas has significant implications for churches, particularly those seeking to protect their congregations. The recent developments in California Penal Code §26230, passed as SB 2, have thrust this issue into the spotlight. This law, which became effective on January 1, 2024, prohibits the carrying of firearms in various locations, even for those with concealed carry permits (CCWs). Among these is a provision targeting places of worship, which has been temporarily blocked by the courts. Here’s what this means for churches and how they can follow the progress of this case.
What the Law Says About Churches
Under California Penal Code §26230(a)(22), firearms are prohibited in churches, synagogues, mosques, or other places of worship unless the operator of the place of worship explicitly allows it by posting a state-approved sign permitting firearms. The signage must be at least four inches by six inches in size and conform to specific design requirements prescribed by the Department of Justice.
However, a federal court ruling has temporarily blocked this provision, making it unenforceable for now. This means churches currently retain the right to decide their firearm policies without state-imposed restrictions, unless further legal developments alter this ruling.
This is a victory for church security teams who value the ability to defend their congregations. Churches meeting in sensitive areas, such as schools or youth centers, are still subject to stricter enforcement under other provisions of the law, which underscores the importance of staying informed and proactive.
Recent Legal Developments and What’s Next
The challenge to California’s firearm restrictions has been consolidated with a case from Hawaii, Wolford v. Lopez, and is currently under review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This case hinges on whether these restrictions align with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Court in Bruen established that firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The Ninth Circuit, which has recently shown a tendency to side with gun owners in Second Amendment cases, will issue its ruling on this pivotal case. Given their track record, there is cautious optimism among supporters of gun rights that they will continue to uphold individual freedoms. After the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the case could also be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a definitive resolution.
How Churches Can Stay Updated
Churches should closely monitor this case, as its outcome will directly affect their ability to determine firearm policies. Here are some practical steps to stay informed:
Track Case Updates: Follow the case’s progress through reputable legal resources, such as PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) or legal blogs that provide updates on Second Amendment cases.
Engage Legal Counsel: If your church’s location or policies might be impacted, consult with an attorney to ensure compliance with current laws and prepare for potential changes.
Join Advocacy Groups: Organizations like the CPRA or Gun Owners of America often provide timely updates and insights on key cases. You can always stay here and I will provide relevant updates as they happen.
Practical Considerations for Churches
While this legal debate unfolds, churches should take proactive steps to address security concerns:
Decide on Firearm Policies: Clearly communicate whether firearms are permitted or prohibited on church property, and post the appropriate signage to reflect your decision.
Review Security Plans: Evaluate your existing security measures and consider alternative strategies if firearm restrictions are enforced in your area.
Monitor Sensitive Locations: Churches meeting in schools, youth centers, or other sensitive areas should work closely with property managers to clarify firearm policies and implement non-lethal security measures if necessary.
The Larger Context
This case reflects a broader battle over Second Amendment rights and the definition of sensitive areas. The Ninth Circuit’s decision will have national implications, setting a precedent for how far states can go in restricting firearms, even for licensed carriers. For now, churches have a window of opportunity to assess their policies and prepare for the potential outcomes of this pivotal legal challenge.
I see problems either way on a permitting or prohibiting firearms sign. A problem with a guns permitted sign is that a church insurer may not want to cover liability from unknown armed congregants. A problem with a guns prohibited sign is that it advertises lack of protection.
Another problem with the current situation in California is that as of September, 2024, even those with a current CCW can't carry in a "place of amusement", which has been interpreted under this temporary rule to include parks, beaches, museums, stadiums, and zoos.
The blue party is determined to disarming the Americans at all cost. Their agenda needs it to get full power in the future over the people. Cuba, Venezuela, others socialist and communist countries had done it and Canada is moving in that direction. A disarmed country equal to easy and controlable people.