Quick overview: In Bruen, SCOTUS applied a more restrictive view of what constituted "sensitive places" compared to what NY was attempting. The doctrine of "sensitive places" was established in Heller, where the only examples cited were "schools and government buildings". Bruen specified "legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses" in a non-exhaustive list of "sensitive places", and left open the possibility of there being not only historical "sensitive places" where bearing arms could be restricted, it also allowed for the possibility of there being *new* locations covered by that doctrine but said those must be "analogous":
In light of this, I believe there are some locations in ORC 2923.126 (B) that fail this standard - specifically, churches and the very broad definition of government facilities under Ohio law (though this last one is tenuous at best)....courts can use analogies to those historical regulations of “sensitive places” to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible.
I wonder what is necessary to challenge Ohio's inclusion of churches as statutory "no carry" zones under Bruen's restrictive application of the "sensitive places" doctrine? Any thoughts from those more intimate with the world of legal challenges, etc.?