California law banning guns in certain public places temporarily halted by judge
The law, which was set to take effect Jan. 1, would have prohibited people from carrying concealed guns in 26 places, including public parks, churches, banks and zoos.
FFS can we please get some sane gun regulation in this country?
This shouldn't have been stopped by that judge.
You’re assuming judicial impartiality, which is not a safe or correct assumption. The GOP has a documented strategy of filling US federal courts with judges that sympathize with their views, and has been doing this for decades.
The GOP also doesn't allow guns in their events.
But that's par for the course for those arseholes.
What is sane about putting someone through training and interviews to get a license to carry a gun and then telling them they can't carry it anywhere? This law was just a defacto ban and a blatant violation of your rights and it should be struck down.
"A well regulated militia..."
Proper training is important, and so is making sure that firearms aren't in places they really have no place in being. In fact proper training should include stuff in regards to not having firearms in places they shouldn't be. A law like this is because a lot of people don't get proper training.
Firearms have no business being in a lot of places.
The law included all daycare and school grounds, college campuses, government and judicial buildings, medical facilities, public parks and playgrounds, correctional institutions, public transit, public demonstrations and gatherings, athletic and professional sporting facilities, public libraries, amusement parks, zoos and museums, places of worship, banks, polling places, gambling establishments, any place where alcohol is sold and any other privately owned commercial establishment that is open to the public — unless the business owner put up a sign saying guns are OK. (Source)
That's not banning you from having a firearm, "anywhere," it's a ban on having one in specific locations. There's no reason to carry a gun into a daycare, there's no reason to carry a gun into a hospital, there's no reason to carry a gun into a zoo, etc.
We do. For example I am sure there are metal detectors for that courthouse. All these pro-NRA stuff is coming from people who aren't threatened by guns. They are happy to impose regulations when it impacts themselves.
It seems to me people making laws creating gun free zones like this are hoping for some combination of:
The former is obviously not true without creating a police state where people are subject to random searches, or searched on entry to any of the listed places. The latter probably is true to some degree, but with the following side effects:
It is the second one 100%. The ideal default for these states, and probably most people on Lemmy is "no non-professional should be empowered to carry a loaded gun, period." Since that became untenable after the Bruen decision, they came up with this play to run interference. They're probably hoping for a reversal at the Supreme Court in the long term so they can go back to denying applications and likely scrapping ones they issued.
Does California have a problem of shootings committed by legal concealed-carry permit holders acting without premeditation?
No
Look man I'm not looking for a flame war here but I live in Texas, I myself own a firearm. How exactly do you determine at a glance who the "good guy with a gun" is? You simply can't. It seems completely reasonable to restrict areas guns are allowed at which is something we already do with the 30.06 signs. Why do you need/want to carry a gun at a zoo, park, or for that matter Walmart? Before you say "for my personal protection" I want you to think for a moment. If you fired a shot at a zoo, and missed you very likely could hit a child. Plus at least here in Texas it's completely normal to see metal detectors/no gun signs at the places this would have taken affect at.
How exactly do you determine at a glance who the "good guy with a gun" is? You simply can't.
The “good guy with a gun” doesn’t use it unless their life is directly threatened with no retreat and the puts it away/ drops it so as to not be a threat to anyone else; emphasis on retreats first.
I have no idea, that's a very specific and difficult statistic to try and research. Do you have the answer?
Did you even try?
https://www.pacificresearch.org/sb-2-a-law-in-search-of-a-crime/
In California, no shooting by a CCW holder has ever occurred at an existing protected location or one proposed by SB 2. In fact, concealedcarrykillers.org lists just 5 homicides having been committed by CCW holders in California in the last 24 years.
Yet, since 2013 there have been 19,249 homicides statewide, 70 percent of which were committed with firearms.
So what, are you sad that you can't bring your toys to schools and parks?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked a California law that would have banned carrying firearms in most public places, ruling that it violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and deprives people of their ability to defend themselves and their loved ones.
It would have prohibited people from carrying concealed guns in 26 places including public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks and zoos.
U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney granted a preliminary injunction blocking the law, which he wrote was "sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court."
That decision said the constitutionality of gun laws must be assessed by whether they are "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
What is repugnant is this ruling, which greenlights the proliferation of guns in our hospitals, libraries, and children's playgrounds — spaces, which should be safe for all," the governor said in a statement Wednesday evening.
Carney is a former Orange County Superior Court judge who was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush in 2003.
The original article contains 578 words, the summary contains 176 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
The 2nd amendment needs to go but never will, because americans love guns more than they love their children
I don't have any children, so if I don't love my guns I wouldn't have anything to love.
I feel it needs to stay and I love my children, but you do you.
Amen to that.
Oh so no more gun bans in public places? They won't even stop you if you, say, show up to the judge's courthouse with a loaded rifle? That's ok now?
According to the judge, it's apparently just fine to show up armed at banks, Churches, and playgrounds like that's a normal thing people do.
While I’m in favor of reasonable gun laws, looking at the examples of prohibited places, I’d be rather concerned about the increased theft risk the law. Treated.
Responsible owners w/ carry permits won’t stop carrying. They will frequently need to secure those firearms within their vehicle, which is less than ideal.
Lawnis well intentioned but concerning regardless.
Inbreds thinking the govment taking ur freedom shooters away because they can't wave their pistol around at Denny's. What is this, communist china?
Why not have permanent NRA Conventions? No guns allowed there