A new California law that bans people from carrying firearms in most public places has once again been blocked from taking effect as a court challenge continues.

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.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2010·
        10 months ago

        Yep, the wild West had more and better gun control than modern society. How fucked up is that. That’s what 60 years of propaganda and brainly rot will do to you though. Most people who claim to be second amendment supporters need to learn basic English grammar. Commas don’t separate to distinct thoughts. They separate two linked subjects. Granted the second amendment is definitely a case of comma gore. As well as being an archaic and obtuse use of them.

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          84·
          10 months ago

          Modern grammatical functions aren’t sufficient to deduce the original intent of an article of that period. English was a far less standardized language at the time.

          A better way to ascertain that original intent would be to compare it to their other writings, like the Federalist Papers or correspondences.

          • Eldritch@lemmy.worldEnglish
            88·
            10 months ago

            Actually they 100% are. The usage of the comma in the English language has not changed in many hundreds of years. It’s pretty clear from the statement what the framers meant. You don’t need to look outside the statement. The words mean things all on their own. It’s not cryptic. It’s perfectly cogent and understandable.

            The framers intended there to be no standing or national army. And therefore set about in the second amendment to establish the armament of state militias for the protection of the people. No more, no less. The modern application of the second amendment is a warped bastardization no matter how you look at it.

            • FireTower@lemmy.world
              64·
              10 months ago

              They did intend for there to be no sizable standing army, but that doesn’t proclude the people from bearing arms for the purpose of self defense.

              “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…” -Adams, MA Ratifying Convention, 1788

              “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccari in Commonplace Book

              “The people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms” -Madison, Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2 Article on the Bill of Rights

              • TheMongoose@kbin.social
                42·
                10 months ago

                But don’t forget, the people saying those things didn’t have access to semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons, or anything much fancier than a musket. You can’t blindly apply laws written that long ago to the modern day because it’s something that those mythical founders just couldn’t even imagine.

              • Eldritch@lemmy.worldEnglish
                25·
                10 months ago

                So where in any of those quotes do they say that specifically to do with outside of the militia? In a militia, people always provided their own weapons. They held them privately and took them to drills and gatherings for the militia. Each. One of those quotes is completely in line with that concept.

                You’re going to need to show me some quotes. Outlining that they need to keep weapons personally to shoot their neighbors or people that they don’t like just for fun. Or something like Madison or pining how every American needs a gun to shove up their ass to keep warm during the winter or something. Because none of those quotes specifically say that this is intended for outside of the militia. Each and every quote can be interpreted with that in mind. Or you can go against the wording of the second amendment. And try to interpret this in ways that the founders did not intend, which is what we’ve done for many amendments. Some good, some bad.

                • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  21·
                  10 months ago

                  “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

                  “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

                  “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

                  “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

                  “I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

                  “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

                  “I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

                  “…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

                  “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

                  “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778 That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

                  Article XIII of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights of 1776 read: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

                  Massachusetts’s Declaration of Rights from 1780: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

                • Malfeasant@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  10 months ago

                  Because at the time, there was no concept of “inside” or “outside” the militia, other than women and children, who unfortunately didn’t warrant much consideration.

                  In any case, it’s quite clear - the 2a doesn’t say “the militia shall be allowed have guns” it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The militia is brought up more to underline the importance of this right - if we want to be able to defend ourselves (be it individually or collectively) we must have access to weapons.

                  • Eldritch@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    2·
                    10 months ago

                    Because at the time, there was no concept of “inside” or “outside” the militia

                    Then how can you in honesty or good faith hand wave away the talk of militia. You can’t.

                    In any case, it’s quite clear - the 2a doesn’t say “the militia shall be allowed to have guns” it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

                    False. This is the literal text of the 2nd amendment.

                    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

                    “A well regulated Militia”, primary subject. “being necessary to the security of a free State”, core thought. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, connected secondary subject. The militia being the people. “shall not be infringed.”, conclusion.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            24·
            10 months ago

            In which you find the Federalists arguing that a militia is only needed until there can be a standing army. And the Anti-Federalists arguing for state controlled militias as a counterbalance to any federal force. Nobody in those papers was arguing for 100 percent free carry and stand your ground laws. Guns were supposed to stay at home or in the armory unless required for a specific task.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      54·
      10 months ago

      SCOTUS literally made up history in their decision. (Gun laws have to have had an analogue in the 1792-1820 period) Guns were absolutely forbidden to carry around in most towns and cities. In fact the Sullivan Act that they specifically used this logic on was passed in 1911. And the courts didn’t have a problem with it until over a hundred years later.