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.

  • Zomboomafoo@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    There’s two main reasons. For one, people get uncomfortable around someone open carrying in public, so it’s more polite to have it concealed. A common mentality is that people who OC (open carry), do so for the attention, not protection.

    And the second reason is that if someone was planning on starting something, openly carrying a gun could make you the first target, either for attack or for theft of your gun.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      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.

      • Zomboomafoo@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        There isn’t need for data, it’s just logic.

        If you were going to rob a store and the person ahead of you openly has a gun on their hip, you’re either going to leave, take them out, or steal their weapon.

        If your’re the one openly carrying, every person within arms reach could be a threat, and you’ll never know how much OCing actually deterred any action.

        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”

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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?

          • Zomboomafoo@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Logic isn’t subjective.

            I didn’t enter into this conversation to contribute to some well researched discussion that you keep demanding from everyone that doesn’t agree with you. You seemed like you wanted perspective from someone who understood the pro-gun position. I provided it, goodbye.

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

              Logic is as subjective as you allow the premises you are working from be. Which is why logic is different than fact.

        • BURN@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          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.