Buried in a federal gun case from 2024, a single court brief is driving big questions about guns in public spaces.
The argument shows up in an amicus brief filed in Carralero v. Bonta, one of several Ninth Circuit cases challenging California’s post-Bruen rules on where firearms can be carried.
In that brief, government attorneys argue that events involving political speech — including rallies and protests — should be treated as “sensitive places” where firearms can be banned.
Political rallies and protests, the brief says, are often targets of violence. Allowing firearms at those events, it argues, could raise tensions or discourage people from speaking freely.
To back that up, the brief points to state laws that already restrict firearms at protests, demonstrations, and political events.
It also lumps those gatherings in with places like parks, libraries, and recreation centers, locations often cited as off-limits for carry in the name of public safety.
Put simply, the brief treats political activity itself as a reason to bar firearms.
That position might have stayed buried in a court filing if gun-rights advocates hadn’t started circulating excerpts online.
The AGs of DC, IL, CT, DE, HI, MD, MA, MI, MN, NV, NJ, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, and WA argued in 2024 that there’s no 2A right to carry guns at “events involving political speech, like political rallies and protests” because they are “often targets of violence” https://t.co/471u7bqPEi pic.twitter.com/bN5KHgMf4e
— Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) January 25, 2026
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that states could sidestep the right to carry by declaring large swaths of public life off-limits.
The Court warned against turning public carry into an empty promise through sweeping bans.
Labeling rallies and protests as sensitive places does exactly that.
It removes carry rights from some of the most common public spaces where people gather to speak, assemble, and dissent.
Critics also argue there’s little evidence that political gatherings were broadly treated as gun-free zones at the time the Second Amendment was adopted, which is the test Bruen requires courts to use.
Gun-rights advocates also say the logic is upside down.
If protests are high-risk environments, that’s precisely where law-abiding citizens may want to exercise the Second Amendment.
They also point out the obvious: people intent on causing trouble aren’t going to be stopped by a carry ban.
All of this matters because courts are still deciding how far “sensitive place” laws can go after Bruen.
While Carralero itself is still working its way through the Ninth Circuit, the ideas in that brief aren’t limited to California.
If rallies and protests can be declared off-limits by default, the same reasoning could easily be applied to marches, public meetings, political festivals, or any gathering where speech and politics overlap.
Where courts draw that line will determine where your rights actually apply.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. Digital technology was used in the research, writing, and production of this article. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
