Hello again, everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law tv. I am Washington Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us. Hey, we're going to circle back to the Bruin case, but not necessarily in a good way. Now, instead, what we're going to be talking about is an alarming trend, which we see a lot of these courts who are very anxious to keep civilian disarmament in place as a workaround to the Bruin opinion, and it has the potential to have very devastating consequences on your inalienable right of self-preservation. Unless the United States Supreme Court steps in or some of these circuit courts decide to start actually following the case law, this problem is probably going to spread like a wildfire. What am I talking about? I'm talking about sensitive places. In many ways, a big old temper tantrum that was thrown after the Bruin opinion. We're seeing a lot of states do this worse yet we're seeing a lot of states get away with it. We'll give you a couple of examples today. So today, let's spend a few minutes, let's geek out on it and let's talk about this is how they're going to work around Bruin.

Okay? Hey, before we get going too far down the road, we're going down, I want to talk to you about something that kind of bothers me. We don't talk about it much on this channel, but it's the constant attack on masculinity. It's like any dude who just wants to act like a dude suddenly is a toxic individual. He's a misogynist, he's a homophobe, and how we glorify the feminization of men, and yet we vilify masculine men. And why is that? Well, one of the theories is, and it's a pretty plausible theory, is that well, feminine men are much easier to control. Then there's a lot of people who believe that well, actually, with all the junk food and other processed foods we're eating, men's testosterone levels are naturally just being taken down. And the truth is, if you take a look at the medical data, yeah, men's testosterone levels over the last 20 to 25 years have been decreasing.

Why is that? Well, we're not going to get into any of that today, but I will tell you that if you're anywhere close to my age, then you should be talking to your doctor all the time about your current testosterone level, guys. And if you're not, well, it's time to start doing that. Well, listen, you and your doctor are going to have a lot of options from prescription medications, injections, creams, but maybe you want to do it a more natural, healthier way. Well consider what the folks over at Black Forest supplements are doing with their queone with Tongkat Ali. Now, I know it sounds weird, but listen to me, because the benefits have shown that it will increase testosterone, which helps increase with strength. It helps increase lean muscle mass. It improves recovery. If you're into working out, it helps decrease stress. We can all need some help with that.

And yeah, it will help with fat loss and weight control. Listen guys, it's okay to be a guy if you want to get some extra help. If you're looking for a natural way to give you just that little extra boost, check out what Black Forest supplements is doing right now with their tesone with to Cat Ali. And here's the best part, because if you go to Black Forest supplements.com/gun right now, you are going to receive a third supplement free if you go ahead and buy two. That offer is good only for the next 48 hours. But visit my good friends today@blackforestsupplements.com slash gun. Okay, America, here's what we're talking about. We're talking about two cases that come out of the Ninth Circuit. Never good news when I'm talking about the Ninth Circuit. One comes from Hawaii, one comes from California. They both deal with their respective states broan response bills, which we will talk about in a moment.

The cases that we're actually talking about are Fr v Lopez out of Hawaii and May v Bonta out of California. We have talked about both of those cases. Now, what is a Bruin response bill? Well, a Bruin response bill is when a state legislature has a massive temper tantrum because the United States Supreme Court has struck down a piece of your civilian disarmament legislation. In the Bruin case, it was these may issue regime. So they states that were just kind of deciding who gets a concealed carry license and who doesn't. Yeah, they're the ones that had the big old temper tantrums. What do they do? They go stampeding back to their state legislature and they write a whole new list of sensitive places of the opinion that, well, if we're going to have to give people licenses to carry guns, what we'll do is we'll take away all the places in which they could possibly carry a firearm.

Now, we've already talked about sensitive places, and yeah, there is a very, very finite number of places that there may be a historical analogs that suggest should be or could be gun-free zones. However, when we get into all the areas that California and Hawaii are getting into, well, of course there's going to be no historical precedent. Now, the court has come up to some really, really strange conclusions. And this is what I want you to be concerned about because if all of these sensitive places continue to be upheld, well then what stops the state from just passing more and more of 'em so that literally every single place in the state becomes a gun-free zone? Because two of the restrictions here, one in California, one in Hawaii, actually involves what's called the Vampire Rule. The vampire rule is that the law presumes that firearms are not allowed on any private property whatsoever unless the owner themselves has given express permission to do so.

Okay? Part of this court's very confusing ruling includes in Hawaii we affirm the preliminary injunction with respect to financial institutions parking lots adjacent to financial institutions and parking lots shared by government buildings and non-government buildings. We otherwise reverse preliminary injunction, thereby reversing the injunction with respect to bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, beaches, parks, and similar areas, parking areas adjacent to all of those places, and the new default rule prohibiting the carry of firearms onto private property without consent. Okay? Now, one of the big challenge things here is the Vampire Rule, which is a cool name actually for this prohibition on all firearms, on all private property unless the owner has explicitly granted permission. And the reason it's called the Vampire Rule is it really turns traditional notions of First Amendment and Second Amendment and all those things, property ownership, right? And all that stuff kind of on its head.

You see, because really the presumption should be yes, a firearm would be permitted as long as you're lawfully and responsibly carrying it unless the owner says otherwise. And we've always said here that definitely private property owners have the ability and the right to exclude firearms from that property. Now, here's the weird thing. The court found no problem with Hawaii's vampire rule, so that stays in place, but they still had a beef with California's. And the reasoning, well, it's a little goofy, but it is as follows, although the state statutes are similar, they differ in one key respect. Hawaii's law allows a property owner to consent orally in writing or by posting appropriate signage on site. California's law by contrast, allows a property owner to consent only by clearly and conspicuously posting a sign at the entrance of the building are on the premise indicating that license holders are permitted to carry firearms on the property.

Oh, and the historical analogs that the court used to justify that reasoning, A one single law, 1771 in New Jersey, and a second one on private farmlands, 1865 in Louisiana, we find no historical support for that stringent limitation. None of the laws for be a person from obtaining permission only by convincing the owner to pose signs of a specific size, nor do modern circumstances appear to justify California's imposing a much more stringent consent requirement. Ordinary signs existed in 1791 in 1868 and today, and you sit there and you go, well, wait a second, wait a second. Hasn't other courts actually already ruled on this issue and found completely contrary to way this court ruled? And the answer is, well, yes they had. But hey, when you got the ninth circuit and you got a little aloha spirit going, well then court's capable of doing this. We acknowledge that our primary holding that a national tradition likely exists of prohibiting the carrying of firearms on private property without the owner's oral or written consent differs from the decision by the Second Circuit in some district courts.

In reaching our limited conclusion, we carefully have examined the record in the Hawaii case and to the extent that our decision conflicts with the analysis by other courts addressing the likelihood of success in those cases, we respectfully disagree with their preliminary pre rahini analysis. And that gets me to the big problem for today, which is this. This is going to continue to exist and we are all going to be disarmed because of two things, sensitive places and the Rahimi decision because ultimately why there are very few, if any, historical analogs to support sensitive places or gun-free zones. The Rahini opinion provides so much fodder for those who want to water down the Bruin test of much ammunition for those who will do or say anything to disarm, lawful and responsible Americans that you see ninth circuit panels like this making rulings that you include. The court's analysis in Bruin misled some courts into imposing too rigid a test.

When considering historical sources in Rahimi, the court clarified that Bruin did not require stringent adherence. The founding error laws emphasizing its precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber. Oh, but there's more Rahimi therefore instructs that even where historical analogs are not close matches to the challenge law, they may convince principles underpinning our nation's regulatory tradition, and it is sufficient for the government to show that its law is consistent with those principles. That's not even a closest good enough. That is you are somewhere in the ballpark. No, you're not even somewhere in the ballpark. You're in the parking lot next to the ballpark. And that is good enough. We pause to note the difference between the distinctly similar test applied in Bruin to New York's law and the more lenient standard that applies when analyzing the regulation of firearms at sensitive places.

So as you can see, they're carving out a more lenient standard when we're talking about sensitive places. And then the ninth Circuit panel went on to rule after all, only one or two colonial laws provided sufficient justification for the court to designate several places as sensitive. The court placed schools in this category, even though no law prohibited firearms in school until more than 30 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment. By contrast, when Bruin applied the distinctly similar test to New York's proper cause law, the court's analysis was more stringent. And again, the Rahini language, which was way, way too sloppy, allows the court to start cherry picking and connecting connectable dots. This way, the relevant tradition regulation of firearms at sensitive places existed at the founding when examining whether a particular place falls within that tradition, a small number of laws, even localized laws can suffice if those laws were viewed as non-controversial.

And again, you don't think that Rahim is going to be the big escape hatch that these courts are going to use over and over and over. How else did the Ninth Circuit justify its complete split from the second circuit on the same issue? Well, because of Rahimi, in reaching our limited conclusion, we carefully have examined the record in the Hawaii case, and to the extent that our decision conflicts with the analysis by other courts addressing the likelihood of success in those cases, we respectfully disagree with their preliminary pre rahimi analysis. Okay? Now, I do want everyone to remember here that this is still an appeal about an interlocutory issue that is whether or not injunction should or should not have been Granted, this is not a final ruling on the merits, but for those of you who geek out on this channel, you will know that you got to show a likelihood of prevailing in order to get these injunctions.

So right now, we can kind of see where the court is tipping its hand. The big concern is this, is that if we're going to allow rahimi to basically eviscerate the ruining of test and that close is good enough or kind of sort of close is good enough, and then we continue to have state after state after state pass more and more sensitive places so that large swaths of very blue states literally become gun-free zones, well then there really won't be any second Amendment rights in any of those jurisdictions. The cases, once again, our Woolford v Lopez out of Hawaii, it may be Bonta out of California. We will link up the ruling below so that you can geek out on it for yourself. Maybe you got more questions about this or anything else related to what's left of our Second Amendment rights. You guys should know how to get ahold of Washington gun law by now, but if you don't, that's okay.

That information's down in the description box. Maybe you got an idea for a video we should be doing around here. If you do, go ahead and click on that link right there. A lot of the good ideas we have candidly, are not our ideas at all. Maybe you just want to be part of our monthly newsletter. The ability to subscribe to that is all down there in the description box. And then finally, and most importantly, let's everyone remember that part of being the lawful and responsible gun owner, like we talk about all the time here, is to know what the lie is in every situation, how it applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself. Until next time, thanks for watching. Stay Safe.

Credit: William Kirk Washington Gun Law