A new California law that bans people from carrying firearms in most public places has once again been blocked from taking effect as a court challenge continues.

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.

  • Eldritch@lemmy.worldEnglish
    87·
    10 months ago

    Actually they 100% are. The usage of the comma in the English language has not changed in many hundreds of years. It’s pretty clear from the statement what the framers meant. You don’t need to look outside the statement. The words mean things all on their own. It’s not cryptic. It’s perfectly cogent and understandable.

    The framers intended there to be no standing or national army. And therefore set about in the second amendment to establish the armament of state militias for the protection of the people. No more, no less. The modern application of the second amendment is a warped bastardization no matter how you look at it.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      54·
      10 months ago

      They did intend for there to be no sizable standing army, but that doesn’t proclude the people from bearing arms for the purpose of self defense.

      “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…” -Adams, MA Ratifying Convention, 1788

      “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccari in Commonplace Book

      “The people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms” -Madison, Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2 Article on the Bill of Rights

      • TheMongoose@kbin.social
        42·
        10 months ago

        But don’t forget, the people saying those things didn’t have access to semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons, or anything much fancier than a musket. You can’t blindly apply laws written that long ago to the modern day because it’s something that those mythical founders just couldn’t even imagine.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.worldEnglish
        25·
        10 months ago

        So where in any of those quotes do they say that specifically to do with outside of the militia? In a militia, people always provided their own weapons. They held them privately and took them to drills and gatherings for the militia. Each. One of those quotes is completely in line with that concept.

        You’re going to need to show me some quotes. Outlining that they need to keep weapons personally to shoot their neighbors or people that they don’t like just for fun. Or something like Madison or pining how every American needs a gun to shove up their ass to keep warm during the winter or something. Because none of those quotes specifically say that this is intended for outside of the militia. Each and every quote can be interpreted with that in mind. Or you can go against the wording of the second amendment. And try to interpret this in ways that the founders did not intend, which is what we’ve done for many amendments. Some good, some bad.

        • Malfeasant@lemmy.world
          1·
          10 months ago

          Because at the time, there was no concept of “inside” or “outside” the militia, other than women and children, who unfortunately didn’t warrant much consideration.

          In any case, it’s quite clear - the 2a doesn’t say “the militia shall be allowed to have guns” it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The militia is brought up more to underline the importance of this right - if we want to be able to defend ourselves (be it individually or collectively) we must have access to weapons.

          • Eldritch@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            10 months ago

            Because at the time, there was no concept of “inside” or “outside” the militia

            Then how can you in honesty or good faith hand wave away the talk of militia. You can’t.

            In any case, it’s quite clear - the 2a doesn’t say “the militia shall be allowed to have guns” it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

            False. This is the literal text of the 2nd amendment.

            A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

            “A well regulated Militia”, primary subject. “being necessary to the security of a free State”, core thought. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, connected secondary subject. The militia being the people. “shall not be infringed.”, conclusion.

            • Malfeasant@lemmy.world
              1·
              10 months ago

              Yes, the militia was not a separate concept from the people, they were used interchangeably, there was no inside vs outside the militia. I’m glad we agree

              • Eldritch@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                10 months ago

                So you’re saying the 2nd amendment concerns the militia? It’s funny then that you all constantly insist that 2/3 of the text of the second amendment doesn’t exist.