The Second Amendment creates the default rule that, absent a narrow exception, keeping and bearing arms is a right that may not be infringed. The ongoing debate on the nature of the "sensitive places" where firearms may be prohibited boils down to whether, if individuals may have no arms for self-defense, the government must provide comprehensive or enhanced security. If not, the disarmed place is just the perfect location for criminals to attack victims.
The Supreme Court has not decided a case on "sensitive places," but has referred to their existence, most recently in Bruen. There, the Court set forth the following two-step rule: "[W]hen the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, … the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." A modern restriction must be shown to be analogous to laws (either statutes or the common law) that were considered permissible at the Founding.
To illustrate reasoning by analogy, Bruen recalled Heller's dicta alluding to "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." The Bruen Court explained:
