May 2023 - Parks & Recreation - 32

LAW REVIEW
ther point to a particular or analogous
prohibition on carrying firearms
at playgrounds nor provide a
more meaningful analysis, despite
this Court's persistent invitation.
In particular, Defendants have
done no analysis to answer the question
Bruen leaves open: is it " settled "
that this is a location where
firearms-carrying could be prohibited
consistent with the Second
Amendment? Where the right to
self-defense and sensitive place designations
could be read in harmony
under the Second Amendment? For
that matter, nor have Plaintiffs.
Despite
these
" shortcomings "
in the Defendants' argument, the
federal district
court concluded
The federal district court assumed it was
" settled that playgrounds are a sensitive
place " and rejected Plaintiffs' Second
Amendment challenge to playgrounds.
In their complaint, Plaintiffs contended
" Subpart 10 violates their
right to public carry. " In the opinion
of the federal district court,
Plaintiffs had met " the threshold
inquiry articulated in Bruen " ; i.e.,
" the Second Amendment's plain
text covers the conduct in question
(carrying a firearm in public for
self-defense in the places identified
in Subpart 10). "
Accordingly, consistent with Bruen,
the court acknowledged: " Defendants
must be able to rebut the
presumption of protection against
this regulation by demonstrating
that the regulation is consistent
with this Nation's historical tradition
of firearm regulation. "
Playgrounds
In this case, the federal district court
refused
to
32 Parks & Recreation | MAY 2 0 2 3
" grant
the
Plaintiffs
seek with
respect
playgrounds. " In so doing,
at certain
to
the
court noted the Supreme Court
in Bruen " expressly identified
restrictions
sensitive
places (such as schools) to be wellsettled,
even though the 18th- and
19th-century evidence has revealed
few categories in number. " In
addition, the court found Bruen
" further instructs courts to consider
analogies to such sensitive places
when
considering whether
the
Government can meet its burden
of showing that a given regulation
is constitutionally permissible. "
In this case, Defendants had
argued that a statutory firearm
prohibition
analogous
in
to
or
playgrounds was
" historical
incapacitated
are
statutes
that regulate firearms where
crowds gather and where the vulnerable
lorestraints
|
PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G
cated. " The federal district court,
however, found Defendants had
failed to satisfy the Bruen standard:
Unfortunately, Defendants nei " schools
and playgrounds intersect,
that is, playgrounds fall within
the sphere of schools. " Consistent
with Bruen, the court, therefore,
assumed it was " settled that playgrounds
are a sensitive place. " As a
result, the court rejected Plaintiffs'
Second Amendment challenge to
playgrounds in Subpart 10.
Public Beaches
Similarly, the federal district court
found Defendants had " not come
forward with any historical evidence
at all to suggest that the right
to public carry for self-defense on
beaches is within our history or tradition. "
Moreover, the court noted
Defendants had failed to " put forward
an analogue from which this
Court could conclude that Subpart
10 is constitutional with respect to
beaches. " As a result, the court held
Plaintiffs had " shown a likelihood
of success on the merits as to beaches "
in support of their motion for a
temporary restraining order to block
beach enforcement of Subpart 10
prior to further trial proceedings.
May 2023 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of May 2023 - Parks & Recreation
