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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      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).

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        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.

    • PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      By saying it’s already uncertain, you’ve immediately made an assumption. Congratulations, you’re just as biased as the rest of us. Nothing you said so far has been supported by evidence.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Are you saying you can be certain that someone doesn’t have a gun concealed on their person where concealed carry is illegal?

        Otherwise, I don’t think it’s an assumption.

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’d say the crime rates in no carry zones vs like… Red bits of Texas would be an indicator. No idea what those are but the number of stories out of Texas like “robber shot by 3 different people during hold-up”… Yeh.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        Those stories are curated by the media. That is not good data any more than all the crime reports the media makes is an indication of the crime rate which has been dropping for years.

    • PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s assumed that no one is armed in California because of all the unjust laws here. No thief is going to hesitate thinking “what if my target has a gun…”

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s assumed

        That’s sort of the crux of the issue here- this all seems to be based on assumptions rather than data. And even my merely asking for data has apparently been a step too far for some people judging by the downvotes.

        I realize that guns in general are a hotbutton issue, but I really don’t think asking for data on concealed carry being a deterrent to crime is unreasonable when questioning the legality of it…

        • PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          I don’t think you asked for anything. I think you made your own assumptions and they’re incorrect. Have a nice day.

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

            I literally have asked for data and evidence over and over. Just view the comment thread. Do I need to start showing you screenshots with accompanying links? Because we can start with higher up in this very comment chain:

            https://lemmy.world/comment/6318617

            And what specifically have I assumed? Please quote an assumption I have made.