The Bruen decision wasn't exactly great for anti-gunners. It prohibited all kinds of measures that were among their favorites, including requiring an acceptable reason why someone should be granted a concealed carry permit.

One thing it did allow for, though, is prohibiting guns in "sensitive places."

The argument for such a thing is that there are places where guns simply shouldn't be allowed for whatever reason. Common examples are places like courthouses, places where emotions may well run particularly high. Schools are another such place, though that hasn't exactly stopped people from carrying them there.

As a result, a lot of states started putting just about everything on the list of sensitive places. That's going too far and will likely be struck down in time, but it's still happening. Colorado was considering a measure that did just this.

The key word there, though, is "was."

The measure still exists, mind you, but the list of sensitive places was gutted.

When state lawmakers first introduced a new gun control measure in February, it included a list of more than two dozen places where guns would be banned.

That original version of SB24-131 prohibited carrying a firearm — whether openly or concealed — everywhere from banks to bars, carnivals to churches, dispensaries to hospitals, and arenas to zoos, among many other locations named in the bill.

Now, the proposal has been significantly narrowed after questions from a key Democratic senator. The list of proposed “sensitive spaces” has been reduced to:

• Much of the state capitol building
• Public and private schools
• Courthouses
• Polling places
• Local government buildings, unless the local government chooses to allow firearms

Open carry is already prohibited in places like schools, courthouses and polling places, but the proposal would also forbid concealed carry.

The changes were made by the Senate Judiciary Committee, largely in response to concerns from Sen. Dylan Roberts, a Democrat. He said the new version of the bill would have stronger legal standing, even after the U.S. Supreme Court undermined the basis of many gun laws in its 2022 Bruen decision.

“It is very limited. It is very tailored. It removes many of the spaces in the introduced version of the bill,” Roberts said.

Roberts is right. This is much more resistant to judicial overturn than the previous measure, in part because it is exactly what he said; it's "limited" and "tailored."

I'm not supportive of this bill. I don't like sensitive places and while I get the argument for permitting them to exist, I don't necessarily agree with it and I don't think it actually makes anyone safer.

That said, the courts disagree. Bruen clearly provides for sensitive places, but there's a warning not to just declare the entire island of Manhattan a sensitive place. While that's probably a bit of hyperbole on Justice Clarence Thomas's part, the reality is that what many places of done is only a hair shy of just that.

These so-called carry killer bills are designed to dissuade people from exercising their rights since it would be almost impossible for them to do so lawfully.

By gutting this list to just a handful of places generally agreed to be sensitive by a large chunk of the population, Duran has made it so Colorado's law may well survive a legal challenge.

It doesn't mean there won't be one--I think every gun control law should be challenged on general principle--but that it's more likely to survive such a challenge.

That's probably not ideal, but it is what it is.