California’s sweeping new restrictions on public possession of firearms, many of which a federal judge enjoined this month after deeming them “repugnant to the Second Amendment,” took effect today thanks to a stay that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit issued on Saturday. That means Californians with permits that notionally allow them to carry concealed handguns will have to think twice before using them, because the state has declared a long list of locations they routinely visit to be “sensitive places” where firearms are prohibited.

Senate Bill 2, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law on September 26, makes it a crime for permit holders to carry their handguns in 26 categories of places, including parks, playgrounds, zoos, libraries, museums, banks, hospitals, places of worship, public transportation, stadiums, athletic facilities, casinos, bars, and restaurants that serve alcohol. The list also covers any “privately owned commercial establishment that is open to the public” unless the owner “clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance” saying guns are allowed.

S.B. 2 “turns nearly every public place in California into a ‘sensitive place,’ effectively abolishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding and exceptionally qualified citizens to be armed and to defend themselves in public,” U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney noted on December 20, when he issued a preliminary injunction that barred the state from enforcing 15 provisions of the law. “California will not allow concealed carry permitholders to effectively practice what the Second Amendment promises. SB2’s coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.”

Carney was referring to the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling inNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which upheld the right to carry guns in public for self-defense. UnderBruen, states may no longer demand that residents demonstrate a “special need” before they are allowed to exercise that right. Accordingly, S.B. 2 eliminates California’s “good cause” requirement for carry permits, along with a similarly amorphous “good character” criterion. By limiting the discretion of licensing authorities, the bill notes, those changes could have opened the door to “broadly allowing individuals to carry firearms in most public areas.” Deeming that outcome intolerable, legislators instead decreed that guns may notbe carried in most public areas.

Several other states, including New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii, have attempted the same end run around Bruen, making carry permits easier to obtain but much harder to use. Their location-specific gun bans provoked lawsuits that resulted in adverse rulings by federal judges. But those warnings did not deter California legislators, who are hoping that the 9th Circuit, which historically has been very friendly to gun control, will bless their transparent trickery. Although the appeals court has not yet addressed the merits of the case, its stay in May v. Bontaallows enforcement of the new restrictions instead of maintaining the status quo.

The lead plaintiff, Sonoma County resident Reno May, explains what that means in a declaration he submitted as part of the lawsuit, which was filed by several carry permit holders and gun rights groups. “Prior to SB 2, I only didn’t carry my pistol when planning on going to one of the few places where carry was not permitted, such as a school or courthouse, or when I intended to have a drink with dinner,” he writes. “Because SB 2 will prohibit me from carrying in many places where I am accustomed to concealed carrying a firearm, the utility of my CCW permit, and thus my right to be armed for self-defense in public, will be outright eliminated in nearly all common contexts.”

May can no longer legally bring his gun to most of the restaurants he patronizes, because they have liquor licenses; it does not matter whether he plans to drink. His permit also is no good on BART trains, at the bank, at the gym (an “athletic facility”), at urgent care clinics, or at the Santa Rosa mall May often visits, which includes a fitness center as well as restaurants that serve alcohol. Even stopping for gas is legally fraught, since “most gas stations sell lottery tickets,” making them “sensitive” as locations “used for gambling.”

The default rule against guns in businesses open to the public poses further problems. “There are many local businesses that I frequent that will likely not post [the legally required] signs, forcing me to either not carry there or stop patronizing them,” May says. “Even the ones that are willing to post such signs may be off limits for other reasons.” His local gun dealer, for instance, “shares a parking lot with several other businesses, including an establishment that serves alcohol.” So even if the gun shop posts a sign welcoming armed permit holders, May cannot bring his gun into the store without breaking the law while crossing the parking lot.

In addition to noting the breadth of California’s gun-free zones, Carney emphasized that state-vetted carry permit holders are “overwhelmingly law-abiding and responsible.” They have to undergo training and extensive screening, and they are rarely implicated in violent crime. They “are not the gun wielders legislators should fear,” Carney wrote, since they “are not responsible for any of the mass shootings or horrific gun violence that has occurred in California.”

UnderBruen, the state has the burden of showing that its restrictions are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Again and again, Carney found that California had failed to meet that test. In some cases, its arguments were so broad that they could justify a blanket ban on public possession of guns.

Defending the ban on guns in banks, for example, the state likened them to schools. California “contends that banks are like schools because they ‘are frequented by vulnerable populations such as the elderly,'” Carney notes. “But nonvulnerable populations are just as likely to visit banks as vulnerable populations. Accepting a comparison between schools and banks in this context would condone eviscerating law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense altogether.” And that, of course, is the whole idea.