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.
Okay. Finally. Some evidence.
Now, after reviewing the first one and before reviewing the others- would it be fair to say that, like the first one and the man talking about the issue in the first video, the problem is not openly carrying, but openly carrying with a holster that would make it easy to steal from?
Because that is a different argument.
The other videos comment on why open carry is not a good idea. Open carry while is done by police, do have proper retention holsters. That in itself can cause issues, but open carry does make you a target.
Okay, which of those videos best explains why it is a bad idea even with a retention holster? Because, again, otherwise the argument is not ‘open carry is less safe,’ it’s ‘open carry a certain way is less safe,’ which is something I think no one will argue with you about.
https://youtu.be/idgT9HBiJiM?feature=shared
Try this one, dude is targeted for the firearm being valuable. Retention or not, you become a target. That’s the whole issue, visibility of the firearm. To me, open carry does not deter crime, I’d say it’s asking to be targeted. Same with those idiots who drive around with the gun stickers on their trucks… they’re fucking idiots.
That sounds like an argument for not having valuable things in places where people can easily steal them, not that open carry is inherently less safe.
We’ve also gone from “someone coming in to shoot the place up is going to target the armed civilian first” to “this man was specifically targeted for his valuable gun.” A little disingenuous, don’t you think?