FFS can we please get some sane gun regulation in this country?
This shouldn’t have been stopped by that judge.
You’re assuming judicial impartiality, which is not a safe or correct assumption. The GOP has a documented strategy of filling US federal courts with judges that sympathize with their views, and has been doing this for decades.
The GOP also doesn’t allow guns in their events.
But that’s par for the course for those arseholes.
What is sane about putting someone through training and interviews to get a license to carry a gun and then telling them they can’t carry it anywhere? This law was just a defacto ban and a blatant violation of your rights and it should be struck down.
“A well regulated militia…”
Proper training is important, and so is making sure that firearms aren’t in places they really have no place in being. In fact proper training should include stuff in regards to not having firearms in places they shouldn’t be. A law like this is because a lot of people don’t get proper training.
Firearms have no business being in a lot of places.
The law included all daycare and school grounds, college campuses, government and judicial buildings, medical facilities, public parks and playgrounds, correctional institutions, public transit, public demonstrations and gatherings, athletic and professional sporting facilities, public libraries, amusement parks, zoos and museums, places of worship, banks, polling places, gambling establishments, any place where alcohol is sold and any other privately owned commercial establishment that is open to the public — unless the business owner put up a sign saying guns are OK. (Source)
That’s not banning you from having a firearm, “anywhere,” it’s a ban on having one in specific locations. There’s no reason to carry a gun into a daycare, there’s no reason to carry a gun into a hospital, there’s no reason to carry a gun into a zoo, etc.
public transit
Sorry poor people, no self defense for you
There are other ways of defending yourself without a gun
You can use all sorts of things as a screwdriver, but you’ll get better results using the right tool for the job.
So you think the best way to defend yourself is with an object with the sole purpose of murder? Your first reaction goes to whelp, guess I’m killing someone today?
Yes, and I’m 100% sure you’d feel that way too if someone ever tried to kill you or someone you love. Just because you don’t like thinking about it doesn’t mean that bad things don’t happen to good people.
there are definitely good reasons to have a gun at a zoo.
Not by patrons of the zoo
You aint taking Harambeii out with whatever pistol you carry
I won’t dictate how you keep yourself safe. kindly extend the same courtesy.
Are you sure about that? You seem exactly like the type of person to dictate how someone keeps themselves safe or healthy.
I’m an anarchist. I believe you are capable of making your own decisions.
If you want fun go look up honey badger in zoos on YouTube. Mother truckers are hand raised by humans and they still give you the impression they are planning ways to eat everyone.
I think if you need a gun to visit a zoo you are either doing it wrong or going to far far more interesting zoos than I have gone too. Some of the lambs getting too frisky at the petting zoo? Maybe the giraffes are getting ideas?
A few of those are slightly more problematic than others. The biggest thing is that by combining all of them it effectively bans licensed firearms almost everywhere.
For instance, you can’t take transit, but you also can’t fuel up your car because they sell beer at gas stations.
What right is that? The bill of rights talks about a well regulated militia. So unless you are part of one I am not sure where you are coming from.
If you want to be willfully ignorant of what the founders were referring to then go ahead but it doesn’t change the fact that under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.
I don’t give a shit what the intent was. Look at the text. Are you part of a well-regulated militia? No? Then stop cosplaying as a real soldier. You can enlist in the guard if you want to have pretend time.
I don’t give a shit that you can’t parse English properly, commas matter.
See, that’s the same structure. The part after the comma stands on its own and the part before is there to explain what’s up.
It’s a natural right for everyone, the Constitution simply recognizes it and protects it.
Those three words aren’t in there by mistake. You can play games with commas all you want but that will not make those three words vanish.
You are not in a well regulated militia.
The words don’t need to vanish, they are perfectly fine. They just don’t mean what you think they do.
At the time, “well regulated” meant “well equipped”. And a militia is made up of regular citizens who are called up to take arms against an invader, like the minutemen. There’s nothing about a militia that implies they have any sort of formal training.
But don’t take my word for it. Read the federalist papers, they were written by the same folks as the bill of rights and go into great detail about what they intended.
I see so non-citizens are not part of the militia and hence can’t own guns? So permeant residents can’t own a gun?
You did say citizens.
Regular means what exactly? Be exact. Does it mean cops as well? How about vets? How about the elderly? How about people who could never possibly serve due to medical conditions? What about prisoners?
You did say regular.
Whoops, looks like I broke him
Answer the questions please
don’t be petulant
No. They’re stupid.
nope only gun fetishes here
Shit I own a few guns and the amount of gun fitish people here on lemmy is crazy to me
Edit: correct wording
I’m a gun owner as well but I am beyond tired of the constant mass shootings and the refusal to do anything about it in this country
Then say something. I don’t hear enough of people at the NRA saying they care about protection. If they did they would care that people are getting hurt and they have the power to fix it.
who the fuck is engaging with the nra, like asking why the kkk isn’t fighting for minority rights
I dunno man. They sure own a lot of guns.
and the kkk slave owners had a lot of minority slaves, still not seeing why anyone would validate the nra
We do. For example I am sure there are metal detectors for that courthouse. All these pro-NRA stuff is coming from people who aren’t threatened by guns. They are happy to impose regulations when it impacts themselves.
It seems to me people making laws creating gun free zones like this are hoping for some combination of:
- Nobody will bring guns into those places
- Fewer people will carry guns legally because the restricted areas make it too inconvenient
The former is obviously not true without creating a police state where people are subject to random searches, or searched on entry to any of the listed places. The latter probably is true to some degree, but with the following side effects:
- The people who obey the law are the most prudent and law-abiding firearms carriers. The ones who ignore it are less so, which makes me highly skeptical of any actual benefit.
- People will leave guns in cars to avoid violating the law. Car burglary is a noted problem, especially in California. Stolen guns tend to get used for things that aren’t very nice.
It is the second one 100%. The ideal default for these states, and probably most people on Lemmy is “no non-professional should be empowered to carry a loaded gun, period.” Since that became untenable after the Bruen decision, they came up with this play to run interference. They’re probably hoping for a reversal at the Supreme Court in the long term so they can go back to denying applications and likely scrapping ones they issued.
Does California have a problem of shootings committed by legal concealed-carry permit holders acting without premeditation?
No
Look man I’m not looking for a flame war here but I live in Texas, I myself own a firearm. How exactly do you determine at a glance who the “good guy with a gun” is? You simply can’t. It seems completely reasonable to restrict areas guns are allowed at which is something we already do with the 30.06 signs. Why do you need/want to carry a gun at a zoo, park, or for that matter Walmart? Before you say “for my personal protection” I want you to think for a moment. If you fired a shot at a zoo, and missed you very likely could hit a child. Plus at least here in Texas it’s completely normal to see metal detectors/no gun signs at the places this would have taken affect at.
How exactly do you determine at a glance who the “good guy with a gun” is? You simply can’t.
The “good guy with a gun” doesn’t use it unless their life is directly threatened with no retreat and the puts it away/ drops it so as to not be a threat to anyone else; emphasis on retreats first.
I have no idea, that’s a very specific and difficult statistic to try and research. Do you have the answer?
Did you even try?
https://www.pacificresearch.org/sb-2-a-law-in-search-of-a-crime/
In California, no shooting by a CCW holder has ever occurred at an existing protected location or one proposed by SB 2. In fact, concealedcarrykillers.org lists just 5 homicides having been committed by CCW holders in California in the last 24 years.
Yet, since 2013 there have been 19,249 homicides statewide, 70 percent of which were committed with firearms.
If no shooting has ever occurred from a CCW holder in those areas in 24 years, what value does having a gun in those locations add?
I get the whole constitutional right thing, but clearly these are safe places where having a gun doesn’t increase your personal safety.
So, why bring one?
No shootings with a licensed CCW involved, not no shootings in general. Shootings have happened and will continue to happen and for some reason a group of people demonstrably not involved are rendered defenseless because of it.
PRI is a right-wing political policy advocacy group. Do you have a nonpartisan source?
I don’t owe you that kind of research work. Do you have a source that would discredit or dispute what I’ve already offered?
Like I said your original request (statistics of “legal” CCW permit holder, without premeditation, discharging a firearm, in California) is incredibly specific, making it very difficult to find quality research. But here’s what I was able to find for you:
Johns Hopkins has this: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/study-finds-significant-increase-in-firearm-assaults-in-states-that-relaxed-conceal-carry-permit-restrictions
This one includes some good details as to why these studies are challenging, and what causes errors in the data: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/violent-crime.html
Here’s a summary from GVPedia (note the sources in the footnotes): https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/GVPedia-Permitless-Carry-Factsheet-Feb2022.pdf
Hopes this helps.
So what, are you sad that you can’t bring your toys to schools and parks?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked a California law that would have banned carrying firearms in most public places, ruling that it violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and deprives people of their ability to defend themselves and their loved ones.
It would have prohibited people from carrying concealed guns in 26 places including public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks and zoos.
U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney granted a preliminary injunction blocking the law, which he wrote was “sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.”
That decision said the constitutionality of gun laws must be assessed by whether they are “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
What is repugnant is this ruling, which greenlights the proliferation of guns in our hospitals, libraries, and children’s playgrounds — spaces, which should be safe for all," the governor said in a statement Wednesday evening.
Carney is a former Orange County Superior Court judge who was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush in 2003.
The original article contains 578 words, the summary contains 176 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The 2nd amendment needs to go but never will, because americans love guns more than they love their children
I don’t have any children, so if I don’t love my guns I wouldn’t have anything to love.
I feel it needs to stay and I love my children, but you do you.
deleted by creator
>americans love guns more than they love their children
[citation needed]
Source: endless shootings at school. All those parents who say we need even more guns.
can you provide literally any source to support your claim? because i don’t know how you can quantify “love” or the claim that a whole group of people has an amount of love for a set of artifacts and the amount of love they have for their progeny. but the paper would be fascinating to read.
Uvalde.
Those fuckers voted for the assholes blocking gun control right after a mass shooter ravaged their children in a school as the police cowered outside.
That’s just one instance of many.
Oh so no more gun bans in public places? They won’t even stop you if you, say, show up to the judge’s courthouse with a loaded rifle? That’s ok now?
According to the judge, it’s apparently just fine to show up armed at banks, Churches, and playgrounds like that’s a normal thing people do.
Why not have permanent NRA Conventions? No guns allowed there
While I’m in favor of reasonable gun laws, looking at the examples of prohibited places, I’d be rather concerned about the increased theft risk the law. Treated.
Responsible owners w/ carry permits won’t stop carrying. They will frequently need to secure those firearms within their vehicle, which is less than ideal.
Lawnis well intentioned but concerning regardless.
Inbreds thinking the govment taking ur freedom shooters away because they can’t wave their pistol around at Denny’s. What is this, communist china?