The Ninth Circuit has a long history of anti-gun rulings. It's only the inclusion of Judge Robert "Saint" Benitez started to change that. In fact, following Bruen, it seemed that the Ninth Circuit was actually a lot less hostile toward the Second Amendment, even when Benitez wasn't the judge in question.

But some things aren't going to hold forever.

It seems that the Ninth Circuit has decided that California's sensitive places measure wasn't the infringement many of us argued. However, it wasn't a complete win for anti-gunners, either.

California may enforce its recent ban on guns in "sensitive places" when it comes to parks and playgrounds, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, casinos, stadiums, amusement parks, zoos, libraries, museums, athletic facilities and the parking areas associated with them, a federal appellate court ruled Friday.

However, the state may not enforce similar restrictions in hospitals or other medical facilities, on public transit, at places of worship or financial institutions, or in the parking areas associated with or shared by those places, the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined.

It also may not enforce its ban on guns at all events requiring a permit, or on visitors carrying guns onto any private property where the owner has not posted signs explicitly allowing them, the panel ruled.

The appellate panel — which simultaneously issued similar findings relating to laws in Hawaii — issued its ruling in response to broad injunctions by lower courts that had blocked the bans from taking effect amid ongoing litigation over the laws.

The panel noted that some locations where it rejected statewide bans, such as banks and churches, could still bar visitors from carrying guns based on existing property laws, but the state governments could not unilaterally and universally do so for them. It said owners of private property are similarly free to ban firearms on their property.

"For the places where we hold that the states likely may not prohibit the carry of firearms, the practical effect of our ruling is merely that private-property owners may choose to allow the carry of firearms," Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber wrote for the panel. "Owners of hospitals, banks and churches, for example, remain free to ban firearms at those locations."

Gov. Gavin Newsom claimed partial victory — and said the state would continue fighting to drive down gun violence.

Of course, it would be nice if Newsom and other anti-gunners would remember that criminals don't actually obey gun-free zone signs.

Newsom wasn't the only one of the usual suspects to claim victory here.

As the author of the CA bill I am pleased by this decisiom. https://t.co/ulYxb1pHlS @ca_brady @MomsDemand @SFVDems @EAPDLA

— Anthony Portantino (@Portantino) September 6, 2024

However, Second Amendment attorney Kostas Moros offered a slam dunk that really does lay out the reality here.

I mean, I'm not thrilled with it by any means, but I woulda guessed you'd pretty much feel the same as me about, for opposite reasons.

You won lots, sure, but you lost on public transport, the vampire rule, banks, hospitals, public gatherings, churches, and their parking areas.… https://t.co/4ZljtZTIUK

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) September 6, 2024

Moros is absolutely correct here. This is as good as it's going to get for California anti-gunners and they still only got a partial win.

The truth is that Bruen permits governments to declare some places to be sensitive and thus gun-free. What California's law tried to do was make so many places gun-free that there was no way to lawfully carry a firearm in one's day-to-day life. This was such an infringement that even the most anti-gun panel one could get at the Ninth Circuit could only grant them a partial victory.

It's also a victory that's not guaranteed to hold up.

While Bruen does permit gun-free zones in sensitive places, there are always going to be questions as to which places are actually sensitive and which aren't. That's what the challenge is about and I'd be shocked if this doesn't end up on the Supreme Court's desk for consideration. I'm not sure they'll take it, of course, but they could, and if so, it may well find even these victories to be short-lived.

Even if the law is upheld, it's a law that can be whittled down, at least in theory. California lawmakers may not be thrilled at that prospect, but it's something that gun rights advocates need to work toward each and every year until they achieve that victory.

And we need to support them fully.