Legal Wolford v. Lopez

[timthetwin]

I really hope we get parks and restaurants with alcohol back. Those two are a major hit.

 

[Gawernator]

Thank you! I appreciate the insight.

The Supreme Court’s holding is immediately binding precedent. No, CADOJ does not need to issue a release for it to have legal effect. But as a practical matter, California-specific enforcement may still require a district court, Ninth Circuit, or stipulated order applying Wolford to SB 2’s materially similar provision.

 

[Gawernator]

I really hope we get parks and restaurants with alcohol back. Those two are a major hit.

Wolford does not directly decide parks or restaurants that serve alcohol, so I would not say they are automatically back. The holding is directly about the private-property default rule. But the opinion’s reasoning helps. The Court emphasized that the state cannot burden carry in the ordinary places people go during daily life and then pretend the right still meaningfully exists.

Restaurants with alcohol are especially absurd if the rule applies just because the business serves alcohol, regardless of whether the permit holder is drinking. That turns a huge percentage of normal restaurants into prohibited places. Parks are similar. If the state can label ordinary public parks as categorically sensitive with weak historical support, then “sensitive place” becomes a loophole big enough to swallow the right.

So I agree those should be major targets after the vampire rule. Wolford does not hand them back automatically, but it gives stronger language for arguing that SB 2’s sensitive-place list is overbroad and interferes with ordinary lawful carry.

 

[timthetwin]

Wolford does not directly decide parks or restaurants that serve alcohol, so I would not say they are automatically back. The holding is directly about the private-property default rule. But the opinion’s reasoning helps. The Court emphasized that the state cannot burden carry in the ordinary places people go during daily life and then pretend the right still meaningfully exists.

Restaurants with alcohol are especially absurd if the rule applies just because the business serves alcohol, regardless of whether the permit holder is drinking. That turns a huge percentage of normal restaurants into prohibited places. Parks are similar. If the state can label ordinary public parks as categorically sensitive with weak historical support, then “sensitive place” becomes a loophole big enough to swallow the right.

So I agree those should be major targets after the vampire rule. Wolford does not hand them back automatically, but it gives stronger language for arguing that SB 2’s sensitive-place list is overbroad and interferes with ordinary lawful carry.

Copy. Thanks!

 

[NationMostWanted]

How does this help us? They can use that ruling for SB2?

 

[Gawernator]

How does this help us? They can use that ruling for SB2?

yes see above