A US appeals court Saturday paved the way for a California law banning the concealed carry of firearms in “sensitive places” to go into effect January 1, despite a federal judge’s ruling that it is “repugnant to the Second Amendment.”

The law – Senate Bill 2 – had been blocked last week by an injunction from District Judge Cormac Carney, but a three-judge panel filed an order Saturday temporarily blocking that injunction, clearing the path for the law to take effect.

The court issued an administrative stay, meaning the appeals judges did not consider the merits of the case, but delayed the judge’s order to give the court more time to consider the arguments of both sides. “In granting an administrative stay, we do not intend to constrain the merits panel’s consideration of the merits of these appeals in any way,” the judges wrote.

  • ArgentRaven@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t think guns are supposed to be a deterrent. Someone running to mug you isn’t thinking clearly about the possible complications or repercussions.

    A carried gun is a commitment to kill someone before you are killed in a life or death situation. Not too feel cool or show off, or brandish as a warning.

    Plus if you dress like a cowboy, someone might try to mug you FOR that gun, making you a bigger target.

    That’s all pretty heavy, and the odds are low that you’d encounter that situation. So not a lot of people are willing to complicate their lives for it.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      A carried gun is a commitment to kill someone before you are killed in a life or death situation. Not too feel cool or show off, or brandish as a warning.

      In what world are you living in where someone comes up to you with a gun, in an attempt to kill you and you have time to remove your gun from wherever you’re concealing it, remove the safety and aim it before the person trying to kill you can kill you?

      • Kepabar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It certainly happens.

        Just last week I saw a video where a man ran up with a gun to start a robbery. A woman whipped a handgun out of her purse and shot him.

        The idea that personal firearms can’t be used for self defense is a silly argument.

          • Kepabar@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s no different, both scenarios are threats to your life until the point the trigger is pulled (then it goes from threat to attempt).

            • gmtom@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean I literally said attempt in my comments so…

              And basically anything can be a “threat” to your life. But I doubt even an American would agree with shooting someone because they cut you off in traffic.

      • ArgentRaven@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not sure that it’s worth the time to describe different scenarios to you when you don’t understand how safeties work.

        Instead, I suggest looking at the Active Self Protection YouTube channel.

      • PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Earth. This happens frequently on Earth. Perhaps it may shock you to find this out, but most criminals and thieves are not trained with firearms, and are not very good at shooting. Unless they’re already aiming at you and intent on murdering you, instead of just robbing you, or scaring you, they’re probably going to miss the first shot or two.

        In what world are you living where protecting yourself and your family is not important?

        • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          most criminals and thieves are not trained with firearms, and are not very good at shooting.

          Neither are plenty of legal gun owners.

          While some states require a small amount of education regarding firearms safety before purchase, I can’t think of one that requires marksmanship training or a demonstration of skill as a prerequisite to owning a weapon.

          Owning a gun legally doesn’t mean you know how to use it competently.

          • skyspydude1@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            At least when I got my CPL in Colorado, we had a very basic marksmanship requirement of getting 5 shots in row within a 12in circle at 7 yards. Because we had good instructors, they made us do it 5 times. IMO it’s an absolute joke of a requirement and should be higher, but sadly we still shot more rounds for that class than what’s required by a lot of police departments for a firearms qualification.

        • gmtom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          In what world are you living where protecting yourself and your family is not important.

          One where the general populace isn’t armed to the teeth? So I don’t have to worry about random crackheads shooting me.

          • Kepabar@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think the issue in the US is that there are so many guns per capita and the population is so anti authority that it will take generations of confiscation before you’ll get a majority of personal firearms out of personal hands.

            And in the meantime you’ve removed the right for individuals to have the opportunity to defend themselves in dangerous situations.