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
    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.