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.

The law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September was set to take effect Jan. 1. It would have prohibited people from carrying concealed guns in 26 places including public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks and zoos. The ban would apply whether the person has a permit to carry a concealed weapon or not. One exception would be for privately owned businesses that put up signs saying people are allowed to bring guns on their premises.

  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    39
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The US is so fucking dumb.

    Let’s make murdering someone as easy as pointing and clicking, can’t be any consequences from that!

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      America was founded by guns and it is chock full of them. There is no way to put that genie back in the bottle.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        59
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There literally is, it’s called a constitutional amendment and they’ve been enacted many times before.

        Of course, there’s not the political will for it, because, like I said, The US is so fucking dumb.

        • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Hey guys, they passed a constitutional amendment. We better turn all our guns in.”

          -Like 4 Americans

          • novibe@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Guns wouldn’t disappear overnight ofc. But make owning guns illegal, arrest people who own them and create buyback programs. It might take some time. It might be super fast.

            But you know what for sure wouldn’t solve anything? Doing nothing.

          • crusa187@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Australia did it and it worked pretty well for them. You just make gun ownership illegal, ask for them back in a reasonable timeframe, and then tell the cops to stop murdering unarmed black people for a minute to go chase down the rest of the guns that weren’t turned in at the end of the process. Then when youre done, you disincentivize bad actors by ramping up the penalties for gun possession significantly, and actually enforce those laws.

            It’s not hard, just needs to be done.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            If people want to be felons that’s their choice, but it’s absurd to suggest any armed resistance would occur, or matter, in such an instance

        • andrewta@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          As the previous person said there is no way to get it done. Yes there is something called a constitutional amendment, but if there is no realistic way to get it passed then effectively there is no way to get it done.

          • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            As the previous person said there is no way to get it done

            The “we’ve tried nothing and were all out of isdeas” approach…

            • SheDiceToday@eslemmy.es
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean, I think California just tried something. New York, D.C., New Jersey, Illinois/Chicago, and some other places too.

        • chitak166@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think guns and abortion are great distractions because both sides will never stop fighting for them.

          Meanwhile, we’re all getting fucked as the disparity in wealth continues to grow.

            • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If the republicans dropped abortion 100% or the democrats dropped guns 100% either could win nationally in a landslide.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                So you’re saying if Democrats just ignore mass shooting problems after god knows how many dead schoolchildren, it’s worth it for the win?

                • Kepabar@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  No one said ignore mass shootings.

                  Just gun control in areas it’s unpopular.

                  There are other methods of attacking the problem than gun control. They won’t be as effective, but they will be more tolerated by the average American voter.

                  Take the Florida governorship. DeSantis won out by the skin of his teeth the first go around.

                  The reason Andrew Gilliam lost was he kept going on about bringing an assault weapons ban to Florida. Such a ban would have never made it though the legislature, so it was an empty promise on top of an unpopular one.

                  So he shot himself in the foot for no gain and we have been stuck with pudding fingers ever since

                  Democrats need to understand to pick their battles and read the room.

                • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  No, but if they stopped actively encouraging them to generate political capital and focused on things that would actually prevent them rather than scapegoating legal and constitutionally protected gun ownership it would not turn away a massive amount of otherwise swing voters.

            • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              But will they discuss more than one issue at a time? It’s still completely valid to point out how asinine and unnecessary some conversations are. Eating up room is a valid deflection strategy, after all.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t think it is productive to talk about gun regulation and abortion in the same conversation.

                • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not saying you should mix convos… I’m saying stop dragging out the stupid ones. The other poster is fully correct when they say some conversations are beyond meaningless and are absolutely used to distract people from bigger issues.

      • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure there is. It’s easy.

        Just start giving black people guns.

        The so-called second amendment absolutists will be calling for draconian gun control measures within a week.

      • doppelgangmember@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Here’s a solution:

        Ban straw sales/gun show loopholes, improve auditing/background checks, do gun buybacks above rate, and ban AR sales after X date. Bought before the date, you’re grandfathered in but can’t sell/gift the weapon.

    • Sorgan71@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      Its dumb to put all your women in a position where they are vulnerable to sexual assault. But and country without guns does just that.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Please do go ahead and post your sources.

        Yeah, you have none, because you don’t care about women, you care about you personally being able to own a gun so you can get a half chub sometimes.

      • Pratai@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you really want to have said this? Seriously. I suggest you think it over. Read it out loud.

        Then delete it.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Very well. Let’s see your evidence that rape goes down when gun ownership goes up.

        Also I kinda wonder if the purpose of guns is to stop rape why does the constitution talk about a well-regulated militia? Those 3 words are not there by accident. Unless of course you are retorconning a justification because you can’t deal with this being a frontier society temporary provision over 2 centuries ago. Hey go ahead and prove me wrong. Show me the federalist papers that goes into how the 2A was to stop rape. Tell us all how women in the late 17th century were using concealed muskets.

        Every time I read this type of backwards logic I wonder why no one has considered making guns only legal for people who have a higher chance of being raped. Kid is living with stepfather? Give him a Glock. Oh she is between 16 years old and 40? Give her an assault rifle. Trans woman? Maybe some grenades. Male 18-80? Nah you are fine.

        • Sorgan71@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I dont really give a damn what the founding fathers intended. I give a damn about arming the general population.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fine forget about intent. What does the text say? Because the text says that it is for a well-regulated militia. You are not part of a militia so you don’t get a gun. If you want to cosplay as a soldier go enlist in the guard.

  • bedrooms@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think it’s sad how you Americans have to defend themselves with a gun while police won’t do real shit.

    • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh police will show up eventually and you’ll wish they hadn’t. There’s no situation that police can’t make worse.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s great that we Americans have the right to effective self defense, because our police are mostly worthless. It sure would suck worse to not have the right to effective self defense AND have worthless police.

  • CthulhuOnIce@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    i like guns but don’t a bunch of other states have bans like this? how could it be unconstitutional in Cali but not in the other states that have had laws like this for years

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      The CA law went further than other states. It for example it included most places as sensitive places (including random things like gas stations that sell lottery tickets) and required businesses to post a sign to allow people to carry on their premises.

      • swiftcasty@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        In the list of the top ten most likely places for violent crime to occur in the US, gas stations and convenience stores are 3rd or 4th depending on the year. Not so random.

        • Fal@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          That violence is not from people who are legally carrying guns

    • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, a few states passed this in response to Bruen. All of them have been challenged but this is the first to get a ruling.

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not wanting to die from an ectopic pregnancy = not found in the Bill of Rights

    Wanting to carry around a machine whose only task is murder = covered in the Bill of Rights

    Makes perfect sense

    • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Settler-colonial white supremacist patriarchal society founding a country didn’t care about rights of women, but they did care about ensuring the settlers would be armed for their planned displacement and genocide of the indigenous population across the rest of the continent.

    • Traister101
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You seem to have a lot of trust in the quality of your 3D printed guns. Seems rather misplaced…

  • Tilted@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Well regulated militia. If it’s working as intended, then we must change it.

    I suggest a minimum age of 25 for men. Yearly training requirements, and a tax.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well regulated?

      Does anyone actually believe that the current situation in any way resembles a “well regulated militia”?

      What you have is a heavily armed anarchy. And the results are terrifying.

      • GooseFinger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        When our Bill of Rights was written, “well regulated” meant well functioning and well equipped.

        I’d rather see our government spend their time, energy, and money on promoting safe firearm ownership than continue pushing their take on gun control. Tax breaks or stipends for purchasing gun safes, taking classes, and teaching basic firearm safety in school would take very little work on their part and would benefit literally everyone, gun owners and non gun owners alike.

        It’s fine if you disagree with the premise of our 2A, but realistically, any country’s Constitution/equivalent document only holds water while the government agrees to let it. At any point, anyone or any party can legally take office, and then say “to hell with your rights.”

        How would you/your country’s people guarantee your rights without a way to enforce them?