Last month, in Wolford v. Lopez, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision with implications on commercial property owners’ rights to restrict firearms on private property. Interpreting the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent “history and tradition” approach to the Second Amendment, the court set serious limits on state authority to ban firearms in public locations and highlighted the tension between Second Amendment rights and property ownership.
The Court’s Main Findings
The Ninth Circuit ruled that, while states cannot implement blanket bans on guns in private establishments, property owners themselves retain the right to prohibit firearms on their premises. This decision is rooted in a fundamental principle of property law: private property owners can control what occurs on their land, including whether they permit firearms. In effect, the court’s decision prevents states or local governments from dictating firearms policies for private property, but empowers property owners to establish their own rules.
Sensitive Places and Constitutional Bans
The court considered various public and private spaces where firearm restrictions might apply. The Ninth Circuit upheld certain regulatory bans, ruling that prohibiting guns in certain locations aligns with historical traditions of gun regulation and meets constitutional standards. These locations include:
- Parks and athletic facilities
- Playgrounds and youth centers
- Bars and restaurants serving alcohol
- Amusement venues, including stadiums, museums, zoos, and other similar places
- Parking areas
However, the court found that, in some cases, state-mandated bans on firearms are unconstitutional in public areas. For example, the court struck down government-led prohibitions on guns in places of worship, hospitals, and financial institutions.
The Implications for Oregon Property Owners
For property owners in Oregon, this ruling affirms that the government cannot impose blanket bans on firearms in private businesses, churches, or hospitals. However, commercial property owners maintain their full rights to adopt policies that restrict the possession of firearms on private property by posting signs, giving verbal instructions, or otherwise making their wishes clear. Particularly while Oregon’s own gun control measures remain tied up in court, Wolford confirms that commercial property owners can fill the policy vacuum left by recent judicial decisions.
Property owners are encouraged to understand their rights and to take proactive measures if they wish to create safe and reasonable firearms restrictions on their premises.
