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
      27
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      11 months ago

      Then guns are definitely not a deterrent.

      There is no such thing as a deterrent that deters people who don’t know about its existence, and if you’re a target by openly carrying the thing you call a deterrent, that doesn’t deter people either.

      So maybe the argument that guns are a deterrent should be dropped by the people who want to carry their gun concealed about their person.

      • KnightontheSun@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Well, I believe the idea is that if you are wanting to start something and you know people are definitely carrying, but you don’t know who or how many is the deterrent.

        I am not here to convince you.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          11 months ago

          “I don’t know if someone around me has a gun” doesn’t seem to be much of a deterrent so far since that’s the status quo regardless of the legality.

          • skydivekingair@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Let me start by saying I appreciate this hasn’t devolved and does seem to be a civil discussion.

            The idea is most citizens are law abiding and if it is illegal to conceal carry or barred by the establishment to carry then only three types of people would be a threat to someone who intends to cause violence. First a law enforcement officer, second another person intended to break the law with a weapon and last would be an individual with the attitude’rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6’. The possibility of those types being in the vicinity is much lower than when everyone can be capable of self defense with a firearm.

            There are many more nuances involved: does the person carrying have training? Can the person carrying be more of a danger than the danger their presence prevents? Is the criminal logical/smart enough to know and understand that there is a risk of an armed populace when they enact their crimes? And many more variables that can be put into play that aren’t part of this discussion.

            Thanks for reading.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              I can understand your points here, but I still don’t understand, and maybe it’s just me, how not knowing who around has a gun makes everyone safer than knowing that you have armed people around in case there’s a problem.

              Like someone else said, everyone they know conceals as a deterrent from mugging. I’m no mugger, but I know I’d be a lot less likely to mug someone I saw was carrying a gun.

              I’d like to see some actual hard data that having legal concealed weapons actually makes people safer than having them out in the open.

              • JustAManOnAToilet@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                11 months ago

                I’d be a lot less likely to mug someone I saw was carrying

                Sure, but if you were a mass shooter you’d take out the guy with a holster on his hip first.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Maybe I’m putting too much thought into this, but if I were a mass shooter, I would avoid shooting up the place where I saw someone with a gun in a holster.

          • Rob@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I agree. Nukes only work as a deterrent (for example) because the countries that have them “open carry” them. A concealed-program nuke is only good for after the fact revenge on a country that attacks you or an ally/neighbor. Just like a gun.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

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

        The study used FBI annual cross-sectional time-series county crime data for all 3,054 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992. Although many recent crime studies have used proxies for deterrence, such as police expenditures or general levels of imprisonment, this study used arrest rates by type of crime, and also, for a subset of data, conviction rates and sentence lengths by type of crime. 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.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I already gave you my issue with this link you gave and its author. Why do you think pasting it a second time will change what I said?

        • Herbal Gamer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          thus making it less attractive for criminals to commit crimes when they came into direct contact with victims.

          Unless they have a gun themselves, of course.