Where Can You Carry? Gun-Free Zones After Bruen
Four years after the Supreme Court expanded the right to carry, the courts have sorted 'sensitive places' into a rough map. Schools are on the safe side of it.
By Evelyn Shaw, Constitution Explained
Published · 7 min read
The Overview
The facts, straight
Updated Oct. 16, 2026, 3:42 p.m. MT: Added the views of Second Amendment Foundation lawyer Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) on the pending sensitive-places cases and Oregon's 2021 school carry law.
The holding that started it, in one sentence: in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects carrying a handgun in public for self-defense, and that gun laws must fit "the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
Bruen also left a door open. It said that historical laws barring guns in "legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses" were settled, and that courts could reason by analogy to other "sensitive places." Earlier, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008), the Court had said nothing in its opinion should cast doubt on "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." The Court repeated that line this June.
Several states answered Bruen with long lists of places where licensed carry is banned. Those lists have been in court ever since.
How the test works now. In United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), the Court said lower courts had "misunderstood" Bruen. Its precedents "were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber." The question is whether a law "is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition," and a modern law need not be a "historical twin."
The Map So Far
Upheld, broadly, across circuits: schools, government buildings, polling places and courthouses. Those categories come straight from Heller and Bruen. The Fourth Circuit in Kipke v. Moore, No. 24-1799 (4th Cir. Jan. 20, 2026), upheld Maryland's bans in government buildings, mass transit, school grounds, state parks and forests, museums, health care facilities, stadiums, racetracks, amusement parks, casinos, public demonstrations and places that sell alcohol.
Struck down, broadly: the "private-property default rule," which banned carry on private property open to the public, such as a gas station or store, unless the owner gave express permission. In Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046 (June 25, 2026), the Supreme Court struck down Hawaii's version 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito. At common law, the Court said, opening property to the public implies "a license to all persons to enter." The Court noted that California, Maryland, New Jersey and New York had passed similar rules. The Second Circuit (New York) and Fourth Circuit (Maryland) had already blocked their states' versions.
Mixed, and still contested: parks, beaches, bars, transit, places of worship and banks.
- The Ninth Circuit, in Wolford v. Lopez, 116 F.4th 959 (9th Cir. 2024), upheld Hawaii's bans at parks, beaches and bars and restaurants serving alcohol, but blocked bans at banks and some shared parking lots. Those parts were not before the Supreme Court and still stand. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction on the private-property rule on remand in August.
- The Second Circuit, in Antonyuk v. James, 120 F.4th 941 (2d Cir. 2024), let most of New York's sensitive-locations list take effect, including parks, zoos, theaters and places serving alcohol. The Supreme Court denied review on April 7, 2025 (No. 24-795).
- The Third Circuit's panel ruling on New Jersey's list in Koons v. Platkin and Siegel v. Platkin was vacated when the full court granted rehearing en banc on Dec. 11, 2025. The full court heard argument Feb. 11, 2026. As of mid-October, no decision has issued. The case is now captioned Koons v. Davenport.
- Gun-rights advocates read the tea leaves differently. Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas), director of legal research and education at the Second Amendment Foundation, flagged an Oct. 13 Third Circuit ruling holding that "things and places cannot be casually conscribed" and wrote on X: "Probably a decent hint that the en banc Koons ruling is mostly going to go our way too." That is an advocate's prediction, not a ruling.
At the Supreme Court now: Maryland's own petition in the Kipke case (No. 25-1206) was dismissed by agreement in August. The gun-rights challengers' petition, Novotny v. Moore (No. 25-1324), has been distributed for conference and rescheduled several times, most recently from the Oct. 16 conference, according to the Court's docket. No grant has been announced. We could not identify any other pending grant on sensitive places.
Can anyone say exactly how many gun-free zones courts have struck down? Not reliably. Rulings come at different stages, preliminary injunctions versus final judgments, and are vacated, narrowed or remanded. The categories above are the honest summary.
What the Left Says
The progressive and Democratic case
Supporters of gun-free zones point to the only matched study on the question. Researchers led by Paul Reeping, published in The Lancet Regional Health – Americas in 2024, compared 150 places that had active shootings from 2014 to 2020 with 150 similar places that did not. Forty-eight percent of shooting sites were gun-free, compared with 61.3% of the controls. The odds of an active shooting at gun-free sites were 0.38 times those at gun-allowing sites. "It is unlikely that gun-free zones attract active shooters," the authors concluded.
They also say the legal map supports them where it matters most. Schools and government buildings are the categories the Supreme Court itself keeps calling settled.
Where Reality Likely Sits
Radio Purple's analysis
The numbers fight is mostly a definitions fight. Everytown found that 10% of 133 mass shootings from 2009 to 2016 occurred in gun-free zones. CPRC found nearly all did. The Washington Post Fact Checker, rerunning Lott's own data for 2009 to 2016, got about 86%. RAND concludes that the gaps come partly from how "mass shooting" is defined and partly from how "gun-free zone" is classified. Its review does not find a settled answer.
On the law, there is more agreement than the headlines suggest. Schools, courthouses and polling places are safe ground for bans. Blanket bans on ordinary private businesses are not. Everything in between, parks, transit, bars, houses of worship, is where the next round of cases will be fought.
What the Right Says
The conservative and Republican case
Gun-rights advocates say the trend line is on their side. Bruen, then Wolford, rejected states' efforts to make licensed carry nearly impossible in daily life. And they argue that gun-free zones invite attackers. The Crime Prevention Research Center (@CrimeResearch1), founded by economist John Lott (@JohnRLottJr), reported that 97.8% of mass public shootings from 1998 to 2018 happened in gun-free zones, as RAND (@RANDCorporation) summarizes it.
Moros, an advocate for the challengers' side, has also accused the Ninth Circuit of slow-walking Wolford. In a Sept. 22 post he wrote that Judge Lawrence VanDyke "bashes the Wolford panel for not asking for supplemental briefing on the other 'sensitive places' it had ruled on, after Wolford called its whole analysis into question." And after the Bend shooting, he argued on X that "Oregon used to preempt local carry bans, including at schools," and that Giffords "encouraged the state to end that preemption." Oregon's 2021 law, SB 554, did let school districts bar concealed handgun license holders; supporters framed it as local control. The Giffords claim is his.
They argue critics inflate the other side's numbers by counting shootings in private homes and gang crimes. Lott's group has said Everytown's (@Everytown) research "muddies the discussion on mass public shootings by including shootings in private homes."
Sources & Citations
- Supreme Court of the United States, “New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)”, June 23, 2022.
- Supreme Court of the United States, “United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024)”, June 21, 2024.
- Supreme Court of the United States, “Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046 (2026)”, June 25, 2026.
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, “Kipke v. Moore, No. 24-1799 (4th Cir. 2026)”, January 20, 2026.
- RAND, “The Effects of Gun-Free Zones”, October 16, 2026.
Positions above are attributed to the public statements and published reporting cited here. Quotations are taken from these sources; Radio Purple does not publish unattributed or invented quotes. See an error? Request a correction.
