The gun-control movement has a new phrase in its pocket—and, boy, do its leading advocates seem pleased with it. That phrase is the “guns everywhere agenda,” and, if you follow the news, you have probably heard it deployed in the course of campaigns against concealed-carry reciprocity, in the course of efforts against shall-issue permitting systems and, most recently, in the course of fights against President Donald Trump’s (R) nominees to lead the FBI, DOJ and other federal agencies that intersect with the regulation of firearms.
The obvious purpose of this phrase is to imply that, in their efforts to ensure that the “bear” part of the Second Amendment is respected, advocates of legal carry are pushing the idea too far. But, as usual, this implication is backwards. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the issue at hand has not been whether carriers will be permitted to bring their guns into the places that have been historically off-limits—courtrooms, for example—but whether they will be permitted to bring their guns everywhere else. Or, to put it more starkly: The question facing millions of Americans today is not whether they will be subject to a “guns everywhere agenda,” but whether they will be subject to a guns nowhere agenda. Alas, if California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and a few other jurisdictions are allowed to prevail, the answer could well be that all of America would become a “sensitive place.”
Prior to Bruen, the trick pulled by those states was to establish that permits would be issued only on the basis of “need,” and then to determine that almost nobody who applied met the threshold. After Bruen, the trick pulled by those states has been to establish that there are some “sensitive places” in which guns may not be carried, and then to determine that almost everywhere must be designated as a “sensitive place.” This, clearly, is unconstitutional—as Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly noted, expanding the category of “‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ‘sensitive places’ far too broadly”—but it is also terrible public policy.
As history clearly shows, “gun-free zones” do not work. Indeed, in most cases, they have exactly the opposite effect than the one their advocates advertise. Unless it is completely sealed off (as is, say, the White House), a “gun-free zone” is a place in which the law-abiding people will be disarmed while the criminals will be armed. That arrangement rarely ends well.
It is no accident that the most high-profile “sensitive places” often become famous for their dysfunction. In cities such as Chicago, and within sprawling institutions such as the New York City subway, the general public has ended up feeling completely helpless while the criminal class enjoys free rein. And why wouldn’t the law-abiding public feel this way, when the odds are deliberately stacked against them?
It is defensible for a government to insist that a courtroom be exempt from the right to bear arms. It is absurd for a government to insist that the same rules apply to the entirety of Central Park, Times Square and the New York City transportation system. Just as, if everything is important, then nothing is, so it is clear that if everything is “sensitive,” nothing is. Under Bruen, there exist a handful of exceptions to the Second Amendment’s time-and-place scope, but there does not exist a right to secede from the U.S. Constitution.
It may take time to achieve, but the next great restorative challenge has made itself clear, and it is not “guns everywhere,” but “guns where they are rightfully allowed to be.”
