LOS ANGELES (AP) — A new California law that bans people from carrying firearms in most public places was once again blocked from taking effect Saturday as a court case challenging it continues.
A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel dissolved a temporary hold on a lower court injunction blocking the law. The hold was issued by a different 9th Circuit panel and had allowed the law to go into effect Jan. 1.
Saturday’s decision keeps in place a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney blocking the law. Carney said that it violates the Second Amendment and that gun rights groups would likely prevail in proving it unconstitutional.
The law, signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, prohibits people from carrying concealed guns in 26 types of places including public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks and zoos. The ban applies regardless of whether a person has a concealed carry permit.
~13 people in the US have died from a "shooting"during 8 separate events 7 days into 2024, another ~30 injured.
I’m also not saying state enforced concealed carry bans are the way, but you guys gotta do something.
About half were murder suicides, a quarter were drive-by shootings and the last quarter were bar/party fights.
How many of those shootings were committed by someone who has a CHL? How many are committed by felons or criminals who are already prohibited from carrying any guns anywhere?
Yeah, it’s nuts how weak this California bill was and we can’t even that passed. Legit pathetic.
Can’t imagine having to raise kids in this country. Parents are brave, not giving a shit about all the legal guns
Sadly were stuck between “ban guns” and “ban banning guns” with little to no consideration for the underlying issues.
I guess that’s too hard a platform to campaign on, though
Pro/con 100% ban is an easy lever to pull unfortunately, for all sides. Republicans get essentially free votes and campaign dollars from very active and hardline single-issue voters, Democrats get fundraising and media time from pushing restrictions (regardless of efficacy). The needle moves left a little here, right a little there, but the core of 2A and the societal effects are untouched.
The huge number of suicides get shuffled off to ‘we need better mental health’ soundbites and individual responsibility to ‘reach out if you can’t cope’. Red flag laws may not survive court challenges surrounding due process post-Heller ruling with strict scrutiny, but there needs to be something there for imminent harm prevention.
Taking guns away from domestic abusers gets a pass because both sides don’t dare pull on that thread, lest 25-40% of police officers be disarmed because they abuse their partners. Best we can do for 4473 denials for those under restraining order, and prior convictions apparently?
There’s hope for a positive way forward, but it’s not done by laser focusing on the problem as a purely gun issue. It’s a mixture of social and economic issues that manifest largely in intra-community violence, and while I’ve only seen Oakland CA take a crack at untangling that one, they’ve seen results already.
Best we can do for 4473 denials for those under restraining order, and prior convictions apparently?
You can prosecute someone for lying on a 4473, but they don’t.
It’s still a crime that’ll get you 5 years though. If prosecutors routinely drop/plea away gun charges that’s a judicial issue that should be addressed. Mandatory minimums are not a good solution, but there’s apparently reduced interest in securing convictions for gun charges versus drug and/or violent crimes
Persons convicted of domestic abuse are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. It is a crime for a prohibited person to attempt to purchase a firearm. I only meant to point out that there is an opportunity to go a step further than just denying the sale at the 4473 stage.
If prosecutors routinely drop/plea away gun charges that’s a judicial issue that should be addressed.
I agree.
Common sense, data and actual arguments? Yes, those are completely useless as a platform since post-factual populism has replaced real politics.
No votes or money in actually reading the amendment or looking at the spring loaded bolt common to all semi-auto weapons. (Not just the scary looking ones). If we can’t even do that what hope do we have of actually bringing our mental health system back, or dealing with the orphan crushing machine that drives many people to crime in the first place.
Legal cigarettes smokable anywhere make it easier for illegal cigarettes to proliferate, and harder to tell who is actually allowed to smoke them.
Plenty of citizens in developed countries where this doesn’t happen have the right to own and carry guns.
Excuse me? We’re not allowed to stop people from bringing their gun into the bank??
I believe the bank is allowed to prohibit it, the state isn’t allowed to prohibit it.
You’re worried about the people who have never once robbed a bank? Worry about the criminals without legal ccws.
How about no one else with a gun is allowed to bring it in, so that when the guards/cops start aiming at the people with the guns they won’t be aiming at the wrong people? Why do you need your gun in a bank? There are armed guards there. You don’t need to be a cosplay hero in a bank.
It’s a concealed carry license, not open carry, and you’re imagining a problem that I’m not even sure if it has ever happened in California, and if it has, it’s very rare.
What about the far more common event of a criminal targeting a person who is leaving the bank and going back to their car to rob them of their new withdrawal? They should be able to protect themselves against lethal force.
How common is that event?
It is common enough that bank employees are trained to open bank branches in pairs only after driving loops around the parking lot to check for hidden robbers, as standard branch opening procedure. Robbers have figured out that banks have money in them.
Armed robbery or all violent crime? Here’s some stats: https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/JTF_CrimeTrendsJTF.pdf
tl;dr: there’s a lot of crime in California, it’s tracked. There’s not a lot of cops and armed guards shooting people with legal ccws.
I’m talking about the thing you said was a more common event. I’m wondering how often people get robbed at gunpoint in the bank parking lot.
I don’t have stats on that particular situation, it’s not tracked, but I could find a video within 2 seconds of looking that happened within the last two years: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cQeM0ilep5U
It’s allowed in the vast majority of the country.
Like where? I live in TX and many, if not all banks have signage disallowing guns.
That’s the bank, not the state.
Texas really isn’t the gun friendly mecca people think it is, when it comes to gun rights it’s solidly “meh.” I don’t know of any states where banks are statutory sensitive locations other than CA and I think the current NY and CT bills. As far as Texas goes it is up to the bank and must be properly signed to have the force of law behind the sign. Many locations do not give the force of law to a posted sign unless it’s at a location with a specific prohibition already in the law.
Businesses also have a broad right to refuse service and have people written up for trespassing if they refuse to leave. Having a gun is not a protected class. At that point hanging a sign saying no guns is completely enforceable unless the state requires some specific thing. For the record, states making gun owners a semi-protected class that requires specific signs and only at sensitive businesses is bullshit. Private businesses aren’t responsible to the Constitution and the state interest in protecting gun owners (who can just lock half the gun in their car) is nowhere near their interest in making sure the economy doesn’t split along racial lines.
Signs not having the force of law doesn’t make gun owners a protected class, it just puts an explicitly enumerated right on par with every other day to day activity. If you wear a fanny pack into a convenience store with a “no bags” sign you don’t go straight to jail and if you walk into a McDonalds without a shirt or shoes they have to ask you to leave before it’s the actual crime of trespassing. Guns are literally the only scenario where in some states ignoring a single sign on publicly open private property is an actual crime.
Fun Fact, if you ignore the No Guns sign the first thing that happens is you get asked to leave.
And again, private companies are not responsible to the Constitution. You do not have Constitutional rights in the court of Walmart.
So yes, requiring specific signs and telling some businesses they don’t qualify for signs is absolutely creating a semi-protected class. You are telling some private businesses they cannot refuse you service for carrying a gun, just like they couldn’t do so for you being black.
Fun Fact, if you ignore the No Guns sign the first thing that happens is you get asked to leave.
That’s not what this law says. This law says that if there isn’t a sign specifically permitting guns you leave in handcuffs on first contact without first being asked. Being asked to leave and refusing to being charged as trespassing is what is referred to as “signs not having the force of law” and is the default “protected class” scenario you’re talking about. In states that have stricter laws where signs have the force of law it is a crime even if they don’t ask you to leave.
Well, the bank is allowed to ban them. The court (operating under a ridiculous SCOTUS ruling) is saying it doesn’t think the government can ban them in private businesses or open areas.
Imagine stopping some basic civilization safety law based on a “far west era” decision
Firearms were banned in most towns in the Old West, for obvious reasons.
Yep, the wild West had more and better gun control than modern society. How fucked up is that. That’s what 60 years of propaganda and brainly rot will do to you though. Most people who claim to be second amendment supporters need to learn basic English grammar. Commas don’t separate to distinct thoughts. They separate two linked subjects. Granted the second amendment is definitely a case of comma gore. As well as being an archaic and obtuse use of them.
There’s far more support behind that right from the founding fathers than a comma.
Username checks out. You are a case study for exactly what I was talking about.
Are you an unnatural horrific creature?
Only to those who lack logic.
Modern grammatical functions aren’t sufficient to deduce the original intent of an article of that period. English was a far less standardized language at the time.
A better way to ascertain that original intent would be to compare it to their other writings, like the Federalist Papers or correspondences.
Actually they 100% are. The usage of the comma in the English language has not changed in many hundreds of years. It’s pretty clear from the statement what the framers meant. You don’t need to look outside the statement. The words mean things all on their own. It’s not cryptic. It’s perfectly cogent and understandable.
The framers intended there to be no standing or national army. And therefore set about in the second amendment to establish the armament of state militias for the protection of the people. No more, no less. The modern application of the second amendment is a warped bastardization no matter how you look at it.
They did intend for there to be no sizable standing army, but that doesn’t proclude the people from bearing arms for the purpose of self defense.
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…” -Adams, MA Ratifying Convention, 1788
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccari in Commonplace Book
“The people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms” -Madison, Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2 Article on the Bill of Rights
But don’t forget, the people saying those things didn’t have access to semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons, or anything much fancier than a musket. You can’t blindly apply laws written that long ago to the modern day because it’s something that those mythical founders just couldn’t even imagine.
-Belton Flintlock Repeater https://youtu.be/E2kIPmuXMWU?si=
-Puckle Gun https://youtu.be/GPC7KiYDshw?si=
-Girardoni Air Rifle https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?si=
-Chambers Machine Gun https://youtu.be/rCuVMx5h1x0?si=
Neither did tyrants or criminals
They had cannons and bombs, yet those didn’t get special mention…
So where in any of those quotes do they say that specifically to do with outside of the militia? In a militia, people always provided their own weapons. They held them privately and took them to drills and gatherings for the militia. Each. One of those quotes is completely in line with that concept.
You’re going to need to show me some quotes. Outlining that they need to keep weapons personally to shoot their neighbors or people that they don’t like just for fun. Or something like Madison or pining how every American needs a gun to shove up their ass to keep warm during the winter or something. Because none of those quotes specifically say that this is intended for outside of the militia. Each and every quote can be interpreted with that in mind. Or you can go against the wording of the second amendment. And try to interpret this in ways that the founders did not intend, which is what we’ve done for many amendments. Some good, some bad.
Because at the time, there was no concept of “inside” or “outside” the militia, other than women and children, who unfortunately didn’t warrant much consideration.
In any case, it’s quite clear - the 2a doesn’t say “the militia shall be allowed to have guns” it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The militia is brought up more to underline the importance of this right - if we want to be able to defend ourselves (be it individually or collectively) we must have access to weapons.
In which you find the Federalists arguing that a militia is only needed until there can be a standing army. And the Anti-Federalists arguing for state controlled militias as a counterbalance to any federal force. Nobody in those papers was arguing for 100 percent free carry and stand your ground laws. Guns were supposed to stay at home or in the armory unless required for a specific task.
even back then common sense was a thing so
You could also just move and change your name and no one would know.
SCOTUS literally made up history in their decision. (Gun laws have to have had an analogue in the 1792-1820 period) Guns were absolutely forbidden to carry around in most towns and cities. In fact the Sullivan Act that they specifically used this logic on was passed in 1911. And the courts didn’t have a problem with it until over a hundred years later.
TIL!
deleted by creator
I tried to write a thoughtful response to this but it is so overwhelmingly stupid I just kept pausing to laugh.
Removed by mod
Guess they’re still banned on the courthouse.
