248

A California law banning the carrying of firearms in most public places is blocked again (apnews.com)

submitted 11 months ago by theyoyomaster@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

98 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 59 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[-] rosymind@leminal.space 9 points 11 months ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (16 replies)

[-] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

~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.

[-] GluWu@lemm.ee 40 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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?

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Zorque@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago

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

[-] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 9 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

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

[-] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] Ooops@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Common sense, data and actual arguments? Yes, those are completely useless as a platform since post-factual populism has replaced real politics.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] hperrin@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

Excuse me? We’re not allowed to stop people from bringing their gun into the bank??

[-] kn33@lemmy.world 33 points 11 months ago

I believe the bank is allowed to prohibit it, the state isn't allowed to prohibit it.

[-] theyoyomaster@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

It's allowed in the vast majority of the country.

[-] GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Like where? I live in TX and many, if not all banks have signage disallowing guns.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago

That’s the bank, not the state.

[-] theyoyomaster@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

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.

https://i.redd.it/kfzw1o6k4b7b1.jpg

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] Ikenshini@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

You're worried about the people who have never once robbed a bank? Worry about the criminals without legal ccws.

load more comments (16 replies)

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago

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

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024

248 points (98.1% liked)

News

23664 readers

4797 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world