CALIFORNIA CITY SUSPENDS ‘SENSITIVE AREAS’ ENFORCEMENT
CRPA is celebrating a small but significant victory after CRPA’s CCW Reckoning Project caused the community of Los Gatos, in Santa Clara County, to suspend enforcement of an ordinance adopted earlier this year establishing several new “sensitive areas” where legal concealed carry is prohibited.
Enforcement of the ordinance was put “on hold” by the City after the CRPA’s attorneys at the law firm of Michel & Associates warned the city it would be sued on constitutional grounds if the new law was enforced. CRPA’s strategic partners at the Second Amendment Foundation joined CRPA in this effort.
“According to published reports,” said CRPA volunteer President Chuck Michel, “the town is waiting to see whether CRPA and SAF’s lawsuit against pending state legislation (Senate Bill 2 is expected to be passed and signed by Gavin Newsom in the next few weeks) is resolved. That’s fine with us, for now, because it means this restrictive ordinance will not be enforced.”
Designating areas as “sensitive places” where lawful concealed carry, even with a CCW, is prohibited is a strategy being used by gun prohibitionists to get around new guidelines set down in the 2022 Bruen ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding concealed carry in public.
SAF, often in partnership with CRPA. is also challenging similar restrictions in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, and elsewhere in California, The over-designation of areas as “sensitive” where CCW’s are not valid is a strategy that is obviously designed to circumvent the Supreme Court’s edict. CRPA is battling cities and counties throughout California that use this gambit as a thumb their vindictive noses at the high court’s mandate, no matter how much they dislike the right to bear arms.
The ordinance was set to take effect Sept. 1, but with the threat of litigation, there will be no enforcement of the sensitive areas prohibition at certain locations, including some town property, places of worship, and on public transportation. This is an important “first step” in the effort to stop these expansive designations of what constitutes a “sensitive place.”