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.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yep, the wild West had more and better gun control than modern society. How fucked up is that. That’s what 60 years of propaganda and brainly rot will do to you though. Most people who claim to be second amendment supporters need to learn basic English grammar. Commas don’t separate to distinct thoughts. They separate two linked subjects. Granted the second amendment is definitely a case of comma gore. As well as being an archaic and obtuse use of them.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Modern grammatical functions aren’t sufficient to deduce the original intent of an article of that period. English was a far less standardized language at the time.

      A better way to ascertain that original intent would be to compare it to their other writings, like the Federalist Papers or correspondences.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        In which you find the Federalists arguing that a militia is only needed until there can be a standing army. And the Anti-Federalists arguing for state controlled militias as a counterbalance to any federal force. Nobody in those papers was arguing for 100 percent free carry and stand your ground laws. Guns were supposed to stay at home or in the armory unless required for a specific task.