LOS ANGELES (AP) — A new California law that bans people from carrying firearms in most public places was once again blocked from taking effect Saturday as a court case challenging it continues.
A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel dissolved a temporary hold on a lower court injunction blocking the law. The hold was issued by a different 9th Circuit panel and had allowed the law to go into effect Jan. 1.
Saturday’s decision keeps in place a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney blocking the law. Carney said that it violates the Second Amendment and that gun rights groups would likely prevail in proving it unconstitutional.
The law, signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, prohibits people from carrying concealed guns in 26 types of places including public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks and zoos. The ban applies regardless of whether a person has a concealed carry permit.
I just figured since you’re telling me it’s a lot more common, you would have some stats to back that up. One example is a good start though. But again, why do you need a gun inside the bank?
When you live in LA you hear about shit happening all the time.
Because going from your vehicle to the bank, and from the bank back to your vehicle is not safe. There’s nowhere next to the bank to deposit your weapon before entering, therefore the only way to carry on the way to the bank requires being armed inside it too.
So would you agree then that the state should be able to require you to check your guns at the door of the bank?
Sure, if they provide the same level of security we have at airports, and jails, which have the same restrictions, that’s fine by me. Disarming legal ccws and providing no security is reprehensible.
The armed guard isn’t enough?
Unfortunately not, they’re stuck in the building, and have no obligation to help you, they’re there to protect the bank, not you. And you can see how well the “armed guard” helped in the YouTube video above: they weren’t even armed nor were they there.
The state? No. The Bank as a private business? Well they can certainly try.
So the state should not be able to regulate its militia?