A Texas gun owner, Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation are taking aim at federal carry restrictions inside America’s national parks, arguing the government cannot keep expanding so-called “sensitive places” without any real historical basis. The new lawsuit challenges the ban on firearms in National Park Service-operated federal facilities and other restricted park areas as unconstitutional under Bruen.

The complaint, Zimmerman v. Bondi, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, by Gary Zimmerman, Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation against U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi in her official capacity. The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, not damages.

At the center of the complaint is 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), the federal law that bars the knowing possession of firearms in a “federal facility,” and 36 C.F.R. § 1.5, a regulation the complaint says is used by park officials to impose park-specific restrictions on where firearms may be carried within national parks. The suit challenges Section 930(a) as applied to National Park Service-operated federal facilities and challenges Section 1.5 to the extent it is used to further limit lawful carry inside national parks.

According to the complaint, Zimmerman is a Fort Worth, Texas resident, an NRA-certified firearms instructor, and a certified license-to-carry instructor for multiple states. The filing says he holds active handgun carry licenses in ten states and regularly carries a handgun for self-defense while traveling.

The lawsuit leans heavily on Zimmerman’s travel history to establish standing. It says he and his wife hold lifetime national park passes and frequently visit parks for recreation. The complaint states Zimmerman has visited Big Bend National Park almost annually over the last eight years and has visited Arches National Park and Canyonlands National Park six times over the last decade. But because of the laws being challenged, he says he has repeatedly been forced to disarm when entering federal facilities inside parks or other areas where firearm carry has been prohibited.

The complaint gives a specific recent example from Mammoth Cave National Park. According to the filing, Zimmerman visited the park last August and had to disarm to enter federal facilities for permits and shopping, and again when touring the cave itself. The complaint says that while in those locations he was left unable to defend himself against an attack.

The complaint describes the challenged federal law in straightforward terms. Under 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), possessing a firearm in a federal facility is a crime. The filing notes that a “federal facility” means a building owned or leased by the federal government where federal employees are regularly present for official duties, and says that includes places inside national parks such as visitor centers, ranger stations, fee collection buildings, maintenance facilities, and government offices. A violation can be punished by a fine, imprisonment for less than a year, or both.

The complaint then points to 36 C.F.R. § 1.5, which allows park officials to impose closures and public-use restrictions. As one example, the lawsuit cites Mammoth Cave National Park’s superintendent’s compendium, which the complaint says bans the carriage of firearms on cave tours. Violating a closure imposed under that regulation can carry a fine, up to six months in prison, or both.

The legal theory is built squarely on the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The complaint argues that Bruen already established that carrying firearms publicly for self-defense falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment, which means the burden shifts to the government to prove its restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

From there, the plaintiffs take aim at the government’s likely “sensitive places” defense. The complaint points to Bruen’s warning that governments cannot simply label broad swaths of public space as sensitive places just because people gather there. It argues that if the government wants to ban firearms in a particular location, it must identify a well-established historical analogue.

The plaintiffs say that history is not on the government’s side here. The complaint notes that Bruen identified legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses as recognized founding-era sensitive places. It then argues those places shared a common feature: comprehensive government-provided security. According to the complaint, federal facilities located within national parks do not have that kind of security. Zimmerman specifically alleges that when he has entered these facilities in the past, they were not secured in a way that ensured no one brought a firearm inside.

That is the complaint’s core argument in plain English. The plaintiffs are saying the government cannot stretch the “sensitive places” idea to cover ordinary park buildings and other park-designated areas without proving there is a real historical tradition of doing so. And they say that history does not exist.

The complaint ultimately asks the court to declare 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and firearms restrictions imposed under 36 C.F.R. § 1.5 unconstitutional to the extent they bar the possession and carrying of firearms within national parks, and to permanently enjoin their enforcement in that same scope. It also seeks costs and attorney’s fees.

For now, what matters is that this case tees up a direct post-Bruen challenge to one of the federal government’s most familiar carry restrictions. If the plaintiffs can convince the court that national park facilities are not historically grounded “sensitive places,” the case could become another important test of how far the government can go in carving out supposedly gun-free zones from the right to bear arms.

Cleared in Self-Defense, Charged for Carrying: Michigan Case Shows Why ‘Sensitive Places’ Fail