A California law banning the carrying of firearms in most public places is blocked again
A California law banning the carrying of firearms in most public places is blocked again
A new California law that bans people from carrying firearms in most public places has once again been blocked from taking effect as a court challenge continues.
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.
A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the light is".
Concealed-carry permit holders aren't the ones who commit gun crimes, but because they're the ones who actually follow the law, they're the ones that are targeted by these draconian rules.
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.
My husband (one of the most trustworthy and responsible people I know- flaws and all) has been talking about getting a concealed-carry permit.
My argument against it, is that if there is an active shooter and he also pulls out his gun to take them out, the cops or other permit-owners might not realize that he's the "good guy" and he (or I, if I'm nearby) could get shot instead.
He went silent, and seemed to spend a lot of time thinking about it after I'd shared my thoughts. Thus far he hasn't tried to obtain one
Using your pistol in a mass shooting event is an edge-case of an edge-case. Even if you're carrying, run, hide, fight is still the correct strategy. The way bigger concern is that you'll shoot yourself or a loved one. There are things you can and should do to mitigate your accident/suicide/murder risk, but that's really the thing you should be worried about.
Anyway, if you find yourself within shooting distance, yeah, calmly shoot back and run. The immediate threat of getting shot by the mass shooter is more pressing than potentially being misidentified as the perpetrator even just minutes later. It's incredibly unlikely you'll be confronted by the shooter exactly when the cops show up, making yourself a potential target.
Anyway, again, there's loads more probable things you need to worry about when it comes to CCW than a mass shooter.
draconian laws
If the US has shown the world one thing then it is that the only rule that will really work is an absolute no-exception ban on firearms.
Eric and Dylan have been dead for what, 20 years now, and what has changed? It. Got. Worse. They were amateurs compared to what followed. The Las Vegas shooting was beyond amazing and would have been prevented if weapons like these are only available on the black market for a million dollar with bullets costing 1000 bucks a pop. The crazies won't be able to afford it and the very VERY few criminals that can afford guns and want to take that risk won't be crazy enough to start shooting around at random innocent citizens and or bystanders.
This shit only happens when weapons (and more importantly, bullets) are available freely and CHEAPLY.
At this point, I'd say the US has had their chance.
This entire "but we need weapons to overthrow evil governments!" claim is absolute horse shit, exhibit A being the day before yesterday, a year ago... Those same idiots always parrotting about overthrowing evil governments trying to overthrow a legitimate government so that they can install a dictatorship.
The US has shown the world year after year that it's citizens cannot responsibly handle firearms, period. Yes, I know, guns are cool toys, BUT FUCKING CHILDREN ARE DYING BY THE THOUSANDS.
Sucks for those few that are responsible, you can thank all the incels and what not, but you won't be able to shoot them for what they did, we'll be taking those guns, thank you.
PROHIBIT ALL GUNS IN THE US
So draconian that I don't want someone to bring a gun to a public playground or the fucking zoo.
no shooting by a CCW holder has ever occurred at an existing protected location
Oh wow maybe the ban works? Noooo it's definitely because you scared idiots carrying weapons around all day are just SO responsible.
Hey you know who's 100% responsible for all gun violence? PEOPLE WITH GUNS.
or one proposed by SB2
Just conveniently left that one off of there, eh?
You're preaching to the wrong crowd, dude. Most White Americans straight up fuckin love guns and gun ownership more than they do some of their own family members
~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?
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.
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.
but you guys gotta do something.
The real things that need to be done are fixing underlying, structural problems, and it would likely take about 2-3 generations to largely fix. There are a lot of problems that contribute the rate of violence, so fixing any one thing, by itself, isn't going to have an enormous effect. And there are groups of people that are actively trying to accelerate the problems, because they believe that there are certain moral or religious arguments at stake, rather than utilitarian ones.
Lots and lots of violence could be reduced by reducing poverty; not many people get involved in crime when they have other good options. But hey, that's socialism. Dems say they want to do things like that, but Dems generally have a problem with doing what they claim they want to do because there are a lot of NIMBY Dems--e.g., it's a nat'l platform that people should have access to affordable housing, but if you try to re-zone for affordable housing in a wealthy Democratic supermajority area, you'll quickly find out that they want affordable housing somewhere else--and Dems that want social change only if it doesn't mean they have to change. (IIRC, there was a certain communist author that pointed out that many of the communists in their area were petty bourgeoisie that believed they would have more after a revolution, rather than being proletariat that just wanted decent wages.)
That said, despite public perceptions, violent crimes are down for 2023. IIRC, homicide rates are also down by several percentage points.
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.
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.
From a sub comment, but i think it should have its own thread in this post:
If the US has shown the world one thing then it is that the only rule that will really work is an absolute no-exception ban on firearms.
Eric and Dylan have been dead for what, 20 years now, and what has changed? It. Got. Worse. They were amateurs compared to what followed. The Las Vegas shooting was beyond amazing and would have been prevented if weapons like these are only available on the black market for a million dollar with bullets costing 1000 bucks a pop. The crazies won't be able to afford it and the very VERY few criminals that can afford guns and want to take that risk won't be crazy enough to start shooting around at random innocent citizens and or bystanders.
This shit only happens when weapons (and more importantly, bullets) are available freely and CHEAPLY.
At this point, I'd say the US has had their chance.
This entire "but we need weapons to overthrow evil governments!" claim is absolute horse shit, exhibit A being the day before yesterday, a year ago... Those same idiots always parrotting about overthrowing evil governments trying to overthrow a legitimate government so that they can install a dictatorship.
The US has shown the world year after year that it's citizens cannot responsibly handle firearms, period. Yes, I know, guns are cool toys, BUT FUCKING CHILDREN ARE DYING BY THE THOUSANDS.
Sucks for those few that are responsible, you can thank all the incels and what not, but you won't be able to shoot them for what they did, we'll be taking those guns, thank you.
PROHIBIT ALL GUNS IN THE US
That's the thing, you have a solution in search of a problem here. Banning guns or making them available only for "a million dollar[s] with bullets costing 1000 bucks a pop." doesn't prevent these, it just removes the right to self defense and makes a population helpless.
You brought up Columbine (in the worst way possible) so I'm going to focus here on attention seeking random mass shooters with the goal of getting coverage on cable news and not the more frequent gang style violence that gets counted as "mass shootings" to inflate statistics because they are very different problems with very different causes/solutions. Cable shootings per capita do not correlate with gun availability and the US isn't even in the top 5 among its peers statistically; this is a constantly ignored, inconvenient fact for gun grabbers so it always just gets shouted down and ignored. I'm fully expecting you to scoff and insinuate I'm crazy for even thinking this but the real world facts don't change just because you get angry at me for pointing them out so go ahead and get it out of your system and when you're done you can go back to ignoring it along with all the other facts that don't meet your preconceived notions. Based on European countries with a higher rate of cable news shooters, like France, saying that if you banned guns they wouldn't happen is absurd. You specifically brought up Vegas, the highest body count shooting in US history (but not the worst massacre) but despite having a dedicated and rich shooter that used terrifyingly effective tactics, it still had a lower death toll than a gun-free attack in France and the worst school massacre in the US also featured zero people shot. The bottom line is saying that without guns these things wouldn't happen is straight up false, even taking into account the difference between "no legal guns" and "no guns." So not only are you flat out wrong when you say "This shit only happens when weapons are available freely and CHEAPLY" but your perfect scenario still leaves the same people (and more) dead without guns.
Bad people will do bad things if they decide to. Assigning the evil actions of men to an inanimate object is the easy thing to do mentally if you don't want to face this fact but it just doesn't solve anything. Addressing the underlying causes and triggers is the only meaningful way to stop these but all effort is instead spent on deliberately triggering them and in an attempt to ban guns. The bottom line is that they are deranged individuals who do it for the attention; forensic phycologists are in virtually unanimous agreement that publicly naming them and glorifying them on a 24/7 news cycle is specifically triggering them and yet that is exactly what we do every time. It has also been established that this news coverage triggers additional copy-cat events which is why they often happen in clusters, yet the media gives them exactly what they want every time and refuses to change. The end result of all of this? People like you specifically calling them by their first names in internet comments 20 years later, which happens to be just what they wanted in the first place.
When it comes to suicide the media has a specific way of reporting to prevent triggering copy-cats. You never see an article of "John Doe hanged himself in his closet Tuesday after a night of heavy drinking" because that is known to make other people do the same. Instead you see "John Doe was found dead in his apartment Tuesday night, no foul play is suspected." This of course goes out the window when it's a celebrity and celebrity suicides almost always trigger a small wave of additional suicides right after but this is seen as an acceptable loss in exchange for the ratings. Mass shootings on the other hand result in media coverage that is specifically what the experts say not to do every single time (unless the shooter's identity isn't politically convenient to the media owners) and as such, they trigger more. Responsible media reporting standards are the #1 thing that can be done to make a meaningful impact on these events. It would take a generation to actually take effect but that's not unheard of; Japan's success in slashing their suicide rate over the last two decades is an example that deep rooted cultural issues can be solved with systematic and deliberate effort. This unfortunately would require mainstream media to care more about innocent lives than their political narratives though so I won't hold my breath. It also can't prevent every single act of terrorism which unfortunately are on the rise in Europe, but it likely would have at least some effect on the lone wolves who are currently contemplating their own shot at "glory."
Now beyond not actively rewarding the monsters that are inclined to commit these atrocities there's another common aspect of the stereotypical cable news shooter and that is coming from a broken home with a rough childhood. It doesn't really take a PhD in psych to realize that fucking up someone as a kid can make a fucked up adult. This is also the area of focus that applies to gang style and non random shootings with multiple victims as well. Gun availability, poverty and race; none of them correlate with crime as strongly as single parent/broken households. A healthy upbringing in a functional house is the #1 way to prevent someone from getting to the point of wanting to murder other people for any reason. As such, proper sexual education that actually teaches high schoolers how to not have unplanned pregnancies instead of useless abstinence only religious garbage is needed immediately. Groups in the US like Planned Parenthood need to be properly funded and available, especially to those in most need. This would also have the benefit of vastly reducing the need for abortions so even the most religious nut jobs should like this. Women's rights and bodily autonomy are absolutely necessary to break the cycle of poverty and crime. A meaningful reduction in unwanted and unplanned pregnancies is the single change with the greatest effect that can be done to prevent future crimes before they even start. Additionally, focusing on result based and functional social safety nets rather than feel good grandstanding that wastes absurd amounts of tax dollars can help keep the next generations healthy and able to avoid the lives of crime that they are currently being born into.
Cable news shooters are a manifestation of the worst aspects of modern society. Facing these issues head on is difficult and uncomfortable but the one thing that is sure to perpetuate them is to take the "easy" way out and try and assign 100% of the blame to a scapegoat scary piece of black metal. In the meantime, I'll keep my means of protecting my family and country and focus on not giving the assholes that commit monstrous acts exactly what they want.
Guess they're still banned on the courthouse.
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.
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!