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
    24
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    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.

    • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You have far more confidence in people than I do. Hoping to never use it (except perhaps in that drunk fight with my neighbour)? I wouldn’t trust anyone who carries guns on the extremely remote probability that it will help them in a shooting/robbery.

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      One of my good buddies lives in North Las Vegas and has his CCW. He calls it a crackhead deterrent. I thought he was full of shit until I visited him, now I advocate for moving to a better neighborhood.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      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
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        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
          15
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          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
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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.

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

            Can’t help you there, again everything I said was my personal feelings on the matter being a Texan having talked to people about it a ton over the years.

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

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

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

      • teft@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re more likely to be targeted first in an attack if you have a visible weapon. Similar to how bank robbers will shoot the guards first if the guards have guns. If you have your weapon concealed you may be able to shoot the attacker before he is aware you have a weapon.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          As I keep saying, you and the multiple other people who have made this claim have yet to provide anything to back this up in the way of hard evidence. It doesn’t matter if it makes sense to you that a shooter would shoot the armed civilian first, but, yet again, when has this actually happened?

          • teft@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You wont find that research because no one wants to do that research. Also how would you? It will always be anecdotal. I can only tell you my experience as a former soldier. I would shoot anyone who i saw with a weapon if i were committing a crime with a gun. It’s just common sense.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              “Common sense” is the thing that made people think the sun orbited the Earth for thousands of years. Laws should be based on evidence, not “common sense,” which is why it isn’t surprising that most conservatives think “common sense” is behind everything they believe.

              https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/sources-of-guidance-on-right-and-wrong/common-sense/party-affiliation/republican-lean-rep/

              Why do so many of you here think we should make or strike down laws based on gut feelings?

              Also “no one wants to do the research” is nonsense. The ability to do the research has been blocked for a very long time. The government is literally not legally allowed to do the research.

              https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-violence/story?id=50300379

              You and the others here simply want to do what feels right to you regardless of evidence, lack of evidence, or consequences. I’m not talking about any one side on gun issues either. I’m talking about people like you who don’t care whether or not there is evidence about the effectiveness or lack thereof when it comes to any law, but especially gun laws when it comes to America.

              This isn’t a religious country, so why do you want your laws to be faith-based?

              (To all of you arguing with me: those links you see above? That’s what is called backing up your claims.)

              • teft@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                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@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  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@startrek.website
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    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.

      • misanthropy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, you’re more likely to be the first target and have someone attempt to disarm you. No one should know you have a concealed weapon unless they’re trying to kill you. Open carry is idiotic. Showing a gun if you’re not in fear for your life to the point where you’d shoot is brandishing, and it’s a felony.

        I carry daily. The only person in real life who even knows I own a gun is my father.