Places Too "Sensitive" For Self-Defense © 2022 Phillip Evans

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL., made it clear that New York's "special need" provision to obtain a license to carry a firearm in public was not constitutional, and established the new test for gun control bills to be the historical context of the literal words, meaning, and understanding of the Second Amendment.

Signing of the U.S. Constitution Painting by Thomas P. Rossiter

However, the opinion of the Court left an open window for governments to ban the carrying of firearms by un-badged or "not professional enough" citizens in "Sensitive Places", to be hammered out by other courts as to what qualifies as such and whether the decision is constitutional, eventually making it back up to the U.S. Supreme Court after another decade or two.

Of course, leftist governments bent on citizen disarmament will view this window as wide as the Grand Canyon.

It's obvious that a quick solution to this problem of continuing infringements will not lie with the Federal Courts, as Democrats are now moving with high velocity in a multi-salvo assault on our Second Amendment Rights by passing new bills greatly increasing the number of off-limits places, increasing the cost to obtain a license via additional training requirements, and other added infringements, as the state of New York has just done.

Perhaps the best short-term course of action is to focus on our state representatives, to demand the free exercise of liberty to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe from criminals. 

At no charge to any government or anyone else, I will provide the correct and logical, even moral definition of what a "Sensitive Place" is that could qualify for a constitutional weapons ban, in my opinion.

When government declares a particular place to be off limits to peacefully armed citizens, it is making a very clear and understood life and death contract with them:

This contract is a PROMISE that the government will provide protection against criminal acts equal to or greater than what the citizens can provide for themselves. It's really that simple. Anything less is unacceptable to those who value human life.

Governments pretty much view a "sensitive place" as a public place with vulnerable or valuable targets (such as children), or targets more likely to be attacked due to the organized activities that take place there, such as schools, churches, government buildings, polling places, etc.

Perhaps it's reasonable to believe such places are potential targets primarily because the government mandates that the general citizenry is not permitted to possess the means of armed defense via threat of imprisonment if they disobey this edict.

Tragically too often, the government's idea of exchanging it's "protection" of you for your disarmament at their command, is to merely let you have the option of dialing 911, wait for police to arrive, and wait for them to assess the situation to determine what they will do next, all the while you are under armed attack with no real way to fight back.

This government plan of "protection" was exactly all the victims had in the school shootings of Parkland, FL and Uvalde, TX (among several others), and that didn't work out well for them. The politicians who keep armed self-defense illegal for them in schools were all safe and snug with their armed security in place.

Some might argue that government should always prohibit armed citizens in K-12 schools, but in all school mass shootings, the shooters have ignored the weapons prohibition laws for school zones, as well as the laws against murder and attempted murder.

Licensed, legal carriers have never been a problem in schools, and a few states permit carry in schools even without a license. 

The problem has been the government tying our hands, as criminals ignore the law and bring their guns in to do damage to innocents. Why handicap the good guys/gals with a self-defense prohibition?

Good people outnumber criminals, so let our guns outnumber criminals' guns when they attack. Even criminals have a certain amount of self-preservation in them, and knowing that citizens are not sitting ducks would be a strong deterrent.

One concern is that accidents can happen, and in rare cases a few walls or floors have been damaged by teachers or other staff carrying a firearm legally or not in schools, but logically ALL public places should be off limits to the carrying of guns in public by anyone not a member of law-enforcement if accidents is the primary problem. Not to mention, law-enforcement is not immune to accidents as well.

Unfortunately, we have something far more nefarious to fear than accidents.

We have people walking the streets that do not value human life. They will put a bullet into you or your child just for fun. We do not give up our right to save our lives and those under our care just because of a fear of accidents.

Liberty is not perfect because people aren't perfect, but tyrannical creation of soft targets by government is an abomination, for it guarantees a high body count when evil strikes.

The cure must not be worse than the disease.

Folks, not all the blame lies with politicians. Citizens voted in the very ones who deny our right of self-defense. Vote them out and vote in ones who will stop threatening to punish you just because you want to be able to shoot back at monsters, whether the place is a K-12 school, church, unsecured government building, or anywhere else you happen to be.