350
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 59 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I'm sure gun people will be pissed at me for this, but wanting to have a concealed gun on you doesn't really make much sense to me if guns are supposed to be a deterrent. You aren't deterring anyone with your gun if no one knows you have it. Shouldn't you want to wear it where everyone can see it so they know not to try anything funny?

[-] ArgentRaven@lemmy.world 34 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I don't think guns are supposed to be a deterrent. Someone running to mug you isn't thinking clearly about the possible complications or repercussions.

A carried gun is a commitment to kill someone before you are killed in a life or death situation. Not too feel cool or show off, or brandish as a warning.

Plus if you dress like a cowboy, someone might try to mug you FOR that gun, making you a bigger target.

That's all pretty heavy, and the odds are low that you'd encounter that situation. So not a lot of people are willing to complicate their lives for it.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] skydivekingair@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago

The deterrent is the uncertainty of who may and may not have a gun on them. A lot of self defense is making yourself a harder target, the knowledge that a firearm might come into play and the victim may be proficient at using it makes anyone and everyone a harder target. It doesn’t mean desperate criminals won’t still make a move, but it should decrease the number of crimes attempted.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago

Again, it is already uncertain who may and may not have a gun on them.

but it should decrease the number of crimes attempted.

Is there any data to that effect or is that just wishful thinking?

[-] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 12 points 10 months ago

There's not good data on anything related to guns and it's frustrating.

Intuitively it makes sense that if there might be a bear in the woods some people aren't going to go into the woods because they're afraid of getting mauled by a bear. It almost certainly has an effect, but quantifying it is going to be hard and subject to bias and the real effect will always be subject to other unrecorded factors (e.g. maybe when they tested one group the bears were hibernating).

I personally don't think many people who aren't into gun culture or traumatized by guns give much thought to whether or not someone is going to have a gun in XYZ place ... which probably translates to a lot of crimes of passion or desperation (e.g. I need drug money so I'm going to go rob this gas station).

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

I personally don’t think many people who aren’t into gun culture or traumatized by guns give much thought to whether or not someone is going to have a gun in XYZ place … which probably translates to a lot of crimes of passion or desperation (e.g. I need drug money so I’m going to go rob this gas station).

Very well said and I am in agreement.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago

The deterrent is supposed to be the possibility of armed people. The idea is supposed to be that allowing people to legally carry concealed weapons means that any potential victim might have a gun.

On the other hand, many gun owners who support concealed carry oppose open carry for several reasons.

First off, they don't want to make them or their gun a target. They don't want someone trying to steal their gun, and they don't want to flag themselves as the first target for any kind of attack.

But another huge reason is that they feel like the only reason to carry openly in public is to make a political statement and carry around an implied threat. Most people who carry concealed consider themselves pretty normal people and they aren't interested in making statements or threatening others. They just carry a gun.

I'll occasionally carry my target postil concealed just to keep the gun secure while transporting it. It's usually in a safe at the house, but when I'm going to the range or leaving town I'll take it with me, and it's less-likely to get stolen off my hip than it is by having my car window smashed. Keeping it hidden on my person is just another part of firearm safety.

[-] Liz@midwest.social 24 points 10 months ago

I know you're getting blasted with replies. It's not supposed to be a deterrent. You carry concealed so that you can defend your life with deadly force without having to walk around pretending to be a badass all the time. Carrying a gun doesn't stop crime, it stops people when they make an attempt on your life.

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] Codilingus@sh.itjust.works 17 points 10 months 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 4 points 10 months 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.

[-] Liz@midwest.social 5 points 10 months ago

If you're drunk and carrying a gun you're doing it very wrong.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (33 replies)
[-] KnightontheSun@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

A gun person might say open carry can also make you a target.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Then guns are definitely not a deterrent.

There is no such thing as a deterrent that deters people who don't know about its existence, and if you're a target by openly carrying the thing you call a deterrent, that doesn't deter people either.

So maybe the argument that guns are a deterrent should be dropped by the people who want to carry their gun concealed about their person.

[-] KnightontheSun@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

Well, I believe the idea is that if you are wanting to start something and you know people are definitely carrying, but you don’t know who or how many is the deterrent.

I am not here to convince you.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

"I don't know if someone around me has a gun" doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent so far since that's the status quo regardless of the legality.

[-] skydivekingair@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Let me start by saying I appreciate this hasn’t devolved and does seem to be a civil discussion.

The idea is most citizens are law abiding and if it is illegal to conceal carry or barred by the establishment to carry then only three types of people would be a threat to someone who intends to cause violence. First a law enforcement officer, second another person intended to break the law with a weapon and last would be an individual with the attitude’rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6’. The possibility of those types being in the vicinity is much lower than when everyone can be capable of self defense with a firearm.

There are many more nuances involved: does the person carrying have training? Can the person carrying be more of a danger than the danger their presence prevents? Is the criminal logical/smart enough to know and understand that there is a risk of an armed populace when they enact their crimes? And many more variables that can be put into play that aren’t part of this discussion.

Thanks for reading.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
[-] TheHottub@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago

Story incoming...

When I was about 12 my family, a long with my uncle, went on a camping trip in Gorman California. The sun had just gone down and we had a fire and we're listening to the radio. My mom was in the trailer with my other siblings and my dad, uncle and I were heating up hot dogs by the fire.

These 2 men walk up to our fire out of the dark and sit down and start being super belligerent and creepy. They have knives and who the hell else knows what. They demand beer and hotdogs. My dad, asks them to leave after giving them both a beer and dog. They don't and keep getting more aggressive. They start talking about things like coming in to the trailer and what what else they can have.

My uncle starts to get brave and tell them to get the fuck out. They don't like that and become more aggressive and get out their seats to hurt him. MY Dad tells them he has more to drink in the trailer. He walks into the trailer and walks back out with 2 hand guns and points them at they guys and tells them to get the fuck out or die. I'd like to say it felt heroic seeing him do this, but I was so freaking scared out of my mind. The men leave and you can hear their motorcycles start up and they drive away.

Earlier that day my uncle kept making fun of my dad for being his guns. And telling him he doesn't need them. In the end, we absolutely did need them and it may have even saved our lives at most.

I don't have a moral of the story here. Just a story. I don't carry in public. I'm not even a huge gun guy. But I have one. And it goes with me camping.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] DaBPunkt@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

I never understood why the Americans have to carry a weapon at all. I can understand (to some degree) to want to own a weapon (to defend your home from other people with guns, going hunting, shooting cans, etc. pp), but to carry it outside while doing normal things like shopping, dinning, watching a movie?

[-] seedd@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

For robbers, rapists, kidnappers etc. They show up while doing "normal things" ..so.

[-] doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 10 months ago

Some carry while camping, on road trips, etc. Situations where you're likely to be alone and emergency services would take a long time to respond.

There's also plenty of paranoid or insecure people.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] JustAManOnAToilet@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

So they blocked the block blocking the Glock?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
350 points (96.1% liked)

News

23305 readers
3638 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS