Appeals court allows California law to go into effect, restricting concealed carry in public places | CNN
www.cnn.com
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.”

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
      42·
      10 months ago

      For one, people get uncomfortable around someone open carrying in public, so it’s more polite to have it concealed.

      I don’t know that we should be basing our gun laws around what makes people comfortable. On either side of the equation. They should be based on data that allowing or disallowing something regarding guns is safe for the general public and effective when it comes to crime and self-defense. Or at least that is what I think and I would be open to hearing an argument against that beyond an overly-broad interpretation of the Second Amendment where all gun regulations should be nullified.

      And the second reason is that if someone was planning on starting something, openly carrying a gun just makes you the first target. Concealed carry gives the element of surprise

      This is another thing I have seen people claim here several times without data and, at the risk of offending some, I would again like to see some data which actually supports this claim.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          61·
          10 months ago

          Of course there is a need for data. Just because something sounds logical to you doesn’t mean it is true. Shouldn’t we be making laws on what is true and not what feels true?

          If want data, feel free to find some, don’t respond to every argument put into this thread with “I’d like to see some data”

          It is not my job to back up other people’s claims. Why do you think I should accept your claim or anyone else’s because you think it’s logical?

        • BURN@lemmy.world
          42·
          10 months ago

          There is absolutely a need for data. This is why everyone says the pro-gun sides have no arguments. There’s no concrete data you can point to just “much logic”, which means nothing in conversations where facts need to be brought up.