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.

  • theyoyomaster@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    9 months ago

    This is a specifically enshrined Constitutional right. That’s literally the purpose of the Bill of Rights and states don’t get to ignore them.

      • theyoyomaster@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        “The people.” Also the US Air Force but that’s a whole different matter. I literally just addressed this in a different post so I’ll just copy and paste.

        The “but it says well regulated militia” argument has never been in good faith or intended to be intellectual. It’s just a blatant fallacy that gets repeated over and over in echo chambers hoping to sway uneducated bystanders. It has never held water or been supported by any court case/precedent (to include Miller which was literally argued one-sided without opposition). It is absurd at face value that literally the 2nd right in the list of things the framers wanted to protect the citizens from their government is the government giving itself permission to have arms. It is never meant to make sense or be intellectual, it’s literally just circle-jerking to pretend that it gives them moral superiority for hating a right that they don’t like.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yes I’m the one arguing in bad faith but this copy pasta which never actually makes an argument isn’t