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.

  • Codilingus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Everyone I know that carries does so concealed. They don’t care about deterrents or whatever, they’re just taking a precaution they hope to never use. Like being mugged or attacked. Source: Texas.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wouldn’t you be less likely to be mugged or attacked if the potential mugger or attacker saw you had a gun? This is sort of what I’m saying…

      • Codilingus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        IMO, a lot of people see the open carrying types to just be people cosplaying badasses. The type that has spent basically 0 time training to use it, outside maybe taking it to a range and firing off a hundred rounds. They see it as a gun to be stolen?

        The only time I see open carry that seems to make sense in all of this is shop workers/cashier. I’ve been in stores that have a reputation based on what they sell to get hit by robbers, and the guy working is carrying outside his belt. Like a smoke shop or liquor store for example.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’d like to see some actual data to support this. Much like I’d like to see some data that concealed carry actually has a negative effect on crime.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/does-allowing-law-abiding-citizens-carry-concealed-handguns-save

            The most conservative estimates show that the adoption of “shall issue” right-to-carry firearm laws reduced murders by 8 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assault by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent. Although the initial drop in crime was often small, the longer the law was in effect, the larger the drop in crime over time. The benefits of concealed handguns were not limited to those who used a handgun in self- defense. By virtue of the fact that handguns were concealed, criminals were unable to tell whether a potential victim was equipped to strike back, thus making it less attractive for criminals to commit crimes when they came into direct contact with victims. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduced the murder rate for women by approximately three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduced the murder rate for men. Further, the study found that the increased use of guns in heated traffic disputes and the increased number of accidental handgun deaths was insignificant compared to the lives saved from violent crime that was prevented.