Law California law banning most firearms in public is taking effect as the legal fight over it continues

LeonardoBjj

Professional Wrestler
@Brown
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
5,492
images


LOS ANGELES (AP) — A California law that bans people from carrying firearms in most public places will take effect on New Year’s Day, even as a court case continues to challenge the law.

A U.S. district judge issued a ruling Dec. 20 to block the law from taking effect, saying it violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and deprives people of their ability to defend themselves and their loved ones.

But on Saturday, a federal appeals court put a temporary hold on the district judge’s ruling. The appeals court decision allows the law to go into effect as the legal fight continues. Attorneys are scheduled to file arguments to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in January and in February.

The law, signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, prohibits people from carrying concealed guns in 26 places including public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks and zoos.

The ban applies regardless of whether the person has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. One exception is for privately owned businesses that put up signs saying people are allowed to bring guns on their premises.

46794300144_203214e2f4_b.jpg


“This ruling will allow our common-sense gun laws to remain in place while we appeal the district court’s dangerous ruling,” Newsom posted to X, formerly Twitter, after the appeals court acted Saturday. “Californians overwhelmingly support efforts to ensure that places like hospitals, libraries and children’s playgrounds remain safe and free from guns.”

The California Rifle and Pistol Association sued to block the law. When U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney granted a preliminary injunction blocking the law, he wrote that the law was “sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.”

Carney wrote that gun rights groups are likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional, meaning it would be permanently overturned.

u7rbeZO.jpg


The law overhauls California’s rules for concealed carry permits in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which set several states scrambling to react with their own laws. 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.”

Newsom has said he will keep pushing for stricter gun measures.

Newsom has positioned himself as a national leader on gun control while he is being increasingly eyed as a potential presidential candidate. He has called for and signed a variety of bills, including measures targeting untraceable “ghost guns,” the marketing of firearms to children and allowing people to bring lawsuits over gun violence. That legislation was patterned on a Texas anti-abortion law.

outnumbered.jpg


California Attorney General Rob Bonta appealed Carney’s decision. Bonta, a Democrat, said that if the district judge’s ruling to block the law were allowed to stand, it “would endanger communities by allowing guns in places where families and children gather.”

The California Pistol and Rifle Association’s president, Chuck Michel, said in a statement that under the law, gun permit holders “wouldn’t be able to drive across town without passing through a prohibited area and breaking the law.” Michel said criminals are deterred when law-abiding citizens can defend themselves.

ab4236b3c6e72f96d5bea90a1ec651f2.jpg


https://apnews.com/article/californ...n-law-appeal-53136d83deba7cc74f908fffc4dd8106
 
I’m trying to find a copy of the actual law to read exactly how it’s worded—so once I do, my opinion may change.

But the SCOTUS has bastardized and fucked up the 2nd Amendment literally beyond repair, so I fully expect them to strike this down too.

Its just incredibly ironic to me that SCOTUS sets a standard of “needing to be consistent with the historical tradition of firearms regulation”—when almost every single one of their 2A decisions isn’t.
 
California Attorney General Rob Bonta appealed Carney’s decision. Bonta, a Democrat, said that if the district judge’s ruling to block the law were allowed to stand, it “would endanger communities by allowing guns in places where families and children gather.”
Um, what? Have they been "allowing" guns in schools up until this point or something?
 
I’m trying to find a copy of the actual law to read exactly how it’s worded—so once I do, my opinion may change.

But the SCOTUS has bastardized and fucked up the 2nd Amendment literally beyond repair, so I fully expect them to strike this down too.

Its just incredibly ironic to me that SCOTUS sets a standard of “needing to be consistent with the historical tradition of firearms regulation”—when almost every single one of their 2A decisions isn’t.
giphy.gif
 
Um, what? Have they been "allowing" guns in schools up until this point or something?
Not schools of course. But if I understand correctly, there are lots of places one could carry a concealed weapon if they had a permit, whereas now this new law would override that.

Well damn, why don’t you send that horse some thoughts and prayers and see if that helps?

More than 40,000 people were killed this year due to gun violence and you act like it’s a fucking annoyance to have to keep hearing about it.
 
Not schools of course. But if I understand correctly, there are lots of places one could carry a concealed weapon if they had a permit, whereas now this new law would override that.


Well damn, why don’t you send that horse some thoughts and prayers and see if that helps?

More than 40,000 people were killed this year due to gun violence and you act like it’s a fucking annoyance to have to keep hearing about it.
A "gun free zone" is a gun free zone no? Do you honestly think folks who'd go through the trouble to get a permit to carry are the problem?

Thoughts, prayers, comfort . . . take your pick. Offering those up are done sincerely and do help many of those who experience loss of any kind.

It's an f-ing annoyance to keep hearing you whining about the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Also, there's a pretty big thread here about how violent crime is going down . . . while gun ownership sky-rockets.
 
California doing its best to make the state unlivable for law abiding residents. Nothing gets people in jail anymore but god forbid you defend yourself with a CCW. That will get you charged.

10 more years and I can bounce out of this shitty state.
 
A "gun free zone" is a gun free zone no? Do you honestly think folks who'd go through the trouble to get a permit to carry are the problem?

Thoughts, prayers, comfort . . . take your pick. Offering those up are done sincerely and do help many of those who experience loss of any kind.

It's an f-ing annoyance to keep hearing you whining about the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Also, there's a pretty big thread here about how violent crime is going down . . . while gun ownership sky-rockets.
Some of these weren’t gun free zones, is my understanding. Zoos, for example. Malls. Again, I haven’t read the text of the bill yet, I’m going by the articles about it I’ve seen.

The fact that the highest court in the land has so wrongfully interpreted this amendment that it’s left states with their hands tied while innocent citizens are mowed down in mass shootings, seems like pretty relevant thing for us to discuss as a nation.

So if you wanna just scroll right past my posts in any 2A thread, please feel free, because calling them out is exactly what I’m going to keep doing. Everyone who is only interested in offering thoughts, prayers, and comfort while these tragedies occur, can “sincerely” stick them right up their ass.
 
They'll also throw me in jail for a year for each one of the unserialized AR-15 lower receivers that I absolutely DO NOT HAVE.
 
Some of these weren’t gun free zones, is my understanding. Zoos, for example. Malls. Again, I haven’t read the text of the bill yet, I’m going by the articles about it I’ve seen.

The fact that the highest court in the land has so wrongfully interpreted this amendment that it’s left states with their hands tied while innocent citizens are mowed down in mass shootings, seems like pretty relevant thing for us to discuss as a nation.

So if you wanna just scroll right past my posts in any 2A thread, please feel free, because calling them out is exactly what I’m going to keep doing. Everyone who is only interested in offering thoughts, prayers, and comfort while these tragedies occur, can “sincerely” stick them right up their ass.
Sure thing dude . . . you do you.
 
Some of these weren’t gun free zones, is my understanding. Zoos, for example. Malls. Again, I haven’t read the text of the bill yet, I’m going by the articles about it I’ve seen.

The fact that the highest court in the land has so wrongfully interpreted this amendment that it’s left states with their hands tied while innocent citizens are mowed down in mass shootings, seems like pretty relevant thing for us to discuss as a nation.

So if you wanna just scroll right past my posts in any 2A thread, please feel free, because calling them out is exactly what I’m going to keep doing. Everyone who is only interested in offering thoughts, prayers, and comfort while these tragedies occur, can “sincerely” stick them right up their ass.
How many of the tragedies you're talking about were committed by someone with their licensed concealed weapon?
 
This law doesn't bother me as much as it bothers some other 2A advocates.

The 2A has never been about personal defense in daily life, it's about the right to equip a militia. CA's standard capacity magazine ban is far worse than this.
 
Yes if there's one thing I'm fearful of, it's the guy with the licensed concealed carry permit at the library.

Think of all the mass shootings this will stop? Everyone knows by now that mass shooters don't want to get in trouble for concealing a weapon at a mass shooting without a permit.
 
Back
Top