Second Amendment Roundup: How a Fake Citation Misled Courts to Uphold "Sensitive Place" Gun Bans

Key Takeaways

• Antonyuk relied on a non‑existent 1792 North Carolina statute.
• Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits used the flawed analogy to uphold bans.
• The citation came from Martin’s 1792 collection, not actual North Carolina law.
• Koons rehearing en banc may reverse the erroneous “sensitive place” precedent.

Pulse Analysis

The Supreme Court’s *Bruen* decision shifted Second Amendment analysis from balancing tests to a historical‑tradition inquiry. Courts now must locate analogues in the Founding era to justify modern firearm restrictions, prompting a wave of “sensitive place” bans that prohibit guns in schools, courthouses, and other public venues. This doctrinal pivot has intensified scholarly scrutiny of early American gun laws, as litigants race to find precedents that can survive the *Bruen* lens.

In *Antonyuk v. James*, the Second Circuit anchored New York’s place‑based prohibitions to a mischaracterized 1792 North Carolina statute. The citation actually derived from François‑Xavier Martin’s *Collection of Statutes*, a secondary compilation, not a binding colonial law. The court ignored genuine North Carolina statutes that criminalized only offensive armed conduct and treated the mere act of carrying as non‑offensive for free persons. This error cascaded: the Ninth Circuit in *Wolford v. Lopez* and the Third Circuit in *Koons v. Attorney General of New Jersey* adopted the same faulty historical analogy, extending the reach of “sensitive place” bans across multiple jurisdictions.

The ramifications are profound. Misapplied historical analogues risk entrenching overly broad gun‑free zones, limiting lawful firearm possession in everyday settings. Accurate historical scholarship becomes a gatekeeper for constitutional adjudication, and courts may now face pressure to revisit these precedents. The en banc rehearing of *Koons* offers a potential corrective, while the Supreme Court could intervene to clarify the proper use of historical evidence under *Bruen*. Stakeholders—from gun‑rights advocates to municipal policymakers—must monitor these developments, as they will shape the balance between public safety and constitutional rights for years to come.