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.

  • teft
    3•1 year ago

    Sorry by common sense i meant my military training common sense would lead me to shoot anyone with a gun if i were committing a crime with a gun.

    Squid, we have different views, thats fine but im just trying to explain my point of view. You obviously have me confused with someone else as ive not argued for anything faith based at all. Im not a conservative and you assuming that is probably why youre thinking people are arguing in bad faith. When i said no one wants to do the research that includes the US govt. i gave no justifications as to why no one wants to do research.

    • Flying Squid
      -1•1 year ago

      No, I’m not assuming you are a conservative. I am saying these “common sense” arguments are faith-based much like a lot of conservative thinking, which is why I am saying it shouldn’t be done.

      Doesn’t it strike you as even a little odd that, despite multiple people telling me that a shooter will take out the armed civilian first, not a single person has actually given an example of this? I’m not talking about a statistical survey, I’m talking about even one example.

      The only answer I have received so far from anyone that doesn’t rely on “this makes sense to me even though I can’t prove it” is the person who says it isn’t about a deterrent, it’s about feeling safe. And I wish that’s what everyone else had said because at least you don’t need evidence for that sort of claim. On the other hand, it’s a little hard to justify laws based on what makes you feel safe considering that’s a big impetus for the drug war.

      • teft
        1•1 year ago

        Most people arent going to research a social media comment to justify a belief that doesnt matter. So no, i dont find it even a little odd.

        • Flying Squid
          -1•1 year ago

          to justify a belief that doesnt matter.

          Thank you for admitting that evidence and data doesn’t matter to you when it comes to the law, all that matters is your faith-based belief. That was my point.

          • teft
            4•1 year ago

            Man, people must really love you if you twist words like that. The comment was meant in the general sense not the specific argument we’re having about weapons. Im not responding past this because you obviously just want to argue. Good day.

            • Flying Squid
              -3•1 year ago

              So in the “general sense” people shouldn’t supply evidence for their claims. I see.

              Amazing how many people in this thread just twist themselves into pretzels rather than just say they can’t back up their claim and just want the law to reflect what they feel is right.

              Although admittedly “no one is going to back up what they say on Lemmy because it doesn’t matter” is a new one. Why even be in a news community if you don’t care about evidence?