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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    I’m sure gun people will be pissed at me for this, but wanting to have a concealed gun on you doesn’t really make much sense to me if guns are supposed to be a deterrent. You aren’t deterring anyone with your gun if no one knows you have it. Shouldn’t you want to wear it where everyone can see it so they know not to try anything funny?

    • Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I know you’re getting blasted with replies. It’s not supposed to be a deterrent. You carry concealed so that you can defend your life with deadly force without having to walk around pretending to be a badass all the time. Carrying a gun doesn’t stop crime, it stops people when they make an attempt on your life.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Carrying a gun doesn’t stop crime, it stops people when they make an attempt on your life.

        It can cause an attempt on your life if an assailant gets it. Or if you feel suicidal. The most dangerous gun is the one you own. The safest thing is to buy a gun and mail it to Alaska.

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          I also agree. If you own a gun, the person you’re most likely to shoot with it is yourself (statistically speaking). After yourself, it’s loved ones. A gun is a massive responsibility and you need to take that seriously in order to not fall victim to the patterns that create those statistics.

      • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        How fragile and distrusting of other people does someone have to be to feel the urge to carry a gun around on their person at all times? Granted America can be a bit (lol) dystopian but to warrant a gun on your hip to go to Trader Joe’s? That’s some scared person behaviour. For a nation that wants to come across as being the confident cowboy there really is a scared child behind it all.

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          I think there are quite a few scared people carrying guns around in the US, and that’s very unfortunate. In fact, if you’re carrying because you’re afraid, you should reevaluate your situation. It’s just another tool you can carry around, one that you’re very, very unlikely to need.

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            In fact, if you’re carrying because you’re afraid, you should reevaluate your situation

            Tell that to my (former) neighbors in Chicago. It was a poor neighborhood. There was gang activity. Most of the people that lived there have been on the same street for 30+ years. They couldn’t afford to move, and cops DNGAF because the neighborhood was 98% black. What’s to “re-evaluate”? You can’t move, cops sure as fuck aren’t going to save your ass when trouble comes calling, and the violence is real. Even without guns, three young gang members in the alley will fuck you up.

            I’ve got five fire extinguishers in my home, but I’ve never had a house fire.

            • Liz@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Yeah yeah, I hear you, but there’s a difference between rational fear and irrational fear. You know full well I was talking about folks who live in safe neighborhoods. Even then, you should be practiced enough that you’re not walking around paranoid and anxious all the time. It doesn’t do you any good to shoot at noises in the dark.

              • freeindv@monyet.cc
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 years ago

                There’s a difference between the reality he’s expressing and the made up hateful strawman you’re beating up in your head

                • Liz@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  What? I’m honestly not sure what you think is in my head. I was referring to people who are scared to live life in what is actually a safe area?

          • ZMonster@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            I think there are quite a few scared people carrying guns around in the US, and that’s very unfortunate.

            See “US Police” for more information.

        • freeindv@monyet.cc
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          What a hateful way to look at it. Self defense is a basic human right and being prepared to do the right thing doesn’t make you “scared”

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          I totally agree! If there was a tool I could carry around that made me invulnerable I’d carry that instead. A “proper” person who has decided to carry a gun should also be carrying pepper spray and a med kit. You can argue about the utility of a taser, but they’re very uncommon for people to carry. They should also have significant practice with any tool they decide to carry. Oh, and they should practice de-escalating and disengaging from various “bad” situations. The priority should be to do everything you can to avoid using your gun. If you are forced to use it, that’s a bad, rare, and regrettable situation, and you had really better be able to tell yourself you did everything right.

    • xor@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      if someone sees your gun, they can take it with a surprise rock to the head attack.
      also if a decent percentage concealed carry, then crazy people will maybe consider that before doing crazy things?
      (i don’t agree with that just playing devils advocate)

    • Codilingus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Everyone I know that carries does so concealed. They don’t care about deterrents or whatever, they’re just taking a precaution they hope to never use. Like being mugged or attacked. Source: Texas.

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        One of my good buddies lives in North Las Vegas and has his CCW. He calls it a crackhead deterrent. I thought he was full of shit until I visited him, now I advocate for moving to a better neighborhood.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Wouldn’t you be less likely to be mugged or attacked if the potential mugger or attacker saw you had a gun? This is sort of what I’m saying…

        • Codilingus@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          IMO, a lot of people see the open carrying types to just be people cosplaying badasses. The type that has spent basically 0 time training to use it, outside maybe taking it to a range and firing off a hundred rounds. They see it as a gun to be stolen?

          The only time I see open carry that seems to make sense in all of this is shop workers/cashier. I’ve been in stores that have a reputation based on what they sell to get hit by robbers, and the guy working is carrying outside his belt. Like a smoke shop or liquor store for example.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            I’d like to see some actual data to support this. Much like I’d like to see some data that concealed carry actually has a negative effect on crime.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 years ago

              https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/does-allowing-law-abiding-citizens-carry-concealed-handguns-save

              The most conservative estimates show that the adoption of “shall issue” right-to-carry firearm laws reduced murders by 8 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assault by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent. Although the initial drop in crime was often small, the longer the law was in effect, the larger the drop in crime over time. The benefits of concealed handguns were not limited to those who used a handgun in self- defense. By virtue of the fact that handguns were concealed, criminals were unable to tell whether a potential victim was equipped to strike back, thus making it less attractive for criminals to commit crimes when they came into direct contact with victims. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduced the murder rate for women by approximately three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduced the murder rate for men. Further, the study found that the increased use of guns in heated traffic disputes and the increased number of accidental handgun deaths was insignificant compared to the lives saved from violent crime that was prevented.

    • misanthropy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      You have a fundamental misunderstanding. I don’t carry to deter anyone, I carry because I’m physically disabled and humans are animals.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      If a person with a gun decides they’re going to start shooting, are they going to shoot the other person with a gun first, or last?

      A law like this doesn’t stop criminals so much as it let’s them not worry about being shot at. It doesn’t stop a criminal from having a gun. It stops everyone else from having a gun.

      Explain to me how it makes a park safer to not allow concealed weapons in it. I’ll listen to your reasoning. No big wall of text with 50 reasons that would take ages to go over. Just explain to me how a law that stops a law abiding citizen from having a concealed weapon in a park will make it safer.

      • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Shooting a weapon is always a risk. Not allowing weapons takes that risk away.

        A concealed gun isn’t going to do shit when the mugger is already holding you at gunpoint.

        I’ve never understood why you’d want a gun. The risks of guns being everywhere just seems a lot more obvious than the rare situations where they’d actually be useful.
        Guns are far more likely to be used for bad than good, that’s why you want as little as possible guns around…

        • jackoneill@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          That’s simply untrue. On several different occasions I’ve avoided getting mugged/carjacked/robbed because I saw someone who looked like they were coming my way with intent and their hand in their pocket or just starting to draw it out, so I pulled out my own and in each case they turned around and walked away, presumably to find an easier target. Same with the multiple times armed junkies broke into my house - they see my gun, and they run rather than proceeding to do whatever the fuck they were going to do. I am a cripple, so I’m not gonna be able to fight - it’s this or nothing. Not just me, but my wife and son as well.

          Yes, guns are bad. Yes, less guns is good! Total agreement. Unfortunately, life is not so black and white. In the US we have SO MANY GUNS, and so many available illegally, and cheaply, that any of these gun laws are only stopping law abiding citizens like myself from having a tool to defend ourselves with, as a criminal is going to be carrying wether it’s legal or not for him to as it’s readily available.

          Australia and the UK, shit even Canada, are so different in this respect (guns per capita and availability and cheapness of black market guns specifically) that you really can’t compare policy - what works there isn’t necessarily going to work here.

          So what’s the answer, you say? Lots of things!

          We have a lot of gun laws on the books in regards to background checks/greymarket/gunshow sales/etc that are simply not enforced, or not enforced well. Enforce them! Make the checks more strict, stop letting folks with mental issues buy guns, etc.

          Want a gun? You should have to take a mandatory safety course for that specific type of gun (shotgun, revolver, semi auto pistol, etc - just like classes on your drivers license). You should have to pass a test and renew it regularly, similar to CCW permits on most states. Let’s make it so that if you ARE a law abiding citizen carrying a gun, you know how to safely use the kind of gun you carry, can shoot reasonably accurately with it, have been taught your local self defense laws, have been taught trigger discipline, and have been taught how to check your fucking backdrop before you pull the trigger so you don’t put other innocents at risk when defending yourself.

          Do something to limit the number of new guns brought into the system. The ones we got are here, can’t really do much about that without people losing their collective shit. But we ought to be able to slow down the numbers of new ones made available to the public, via extra taxes, limits on how many guns a person can purchase in a time period, I don’t know really, this is a hard one, but I think it’s the way we need to do it so we don’t just fuck over the average citizen - gradually.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          The law doesn’t actually do anything to remove guns from criminals. These areas aren’t secure to get into. There’s no controlled entrances or frisking or metal detectors. There’s nothing that prevents a criminal from having a concealed weapon there. So you think someone that would pull out and use a gun not in self defense is going to worry about our be deterred by having an extra charge of having the gun at the zoo?

  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Imagine, if you will, a law that restricted your right to free speech on any public property, or on any private property that didn’t affirmatively give you permission. Or religion. Or any other right. Sure, you have the right to free speech, but only in your own home, and not even online unless your ISP specifically says it’s okay, and not by phone unless the phone company gives permission. You okay with that? If not, why would you be okay with this?

  • DaBPunkt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    I never understood why the Americans have to carry a weapon at all. I can understand (to some degree) to want to own a weapon (to defend your home from other people with guns, going hunting, shooting cans, etc. pp), but to carry it outside while doing normal things like shopping, dinning, watching a movie?

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Americans believe they live in a post-apocalypse where a shootout could start at any moment.

      Self-fulfilling prophecy.

  • Allero@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Let’s just finally accept, for God’s sake, that guns in general cause more trouble than safety.

    Can’t comprehend those of Americans constantly sticking to their guns.