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.

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

    Buddy, you would euthanize the disabled and enslave women and minorities if you had the chance. You’re delusional if you think you can give me realistic gun statistics in the u.s. from a REPUTABLE source. Not to mention the endless wars we’ve had since the inception of the firearm. You’re just arguing in bad faith.

    And yeah, your claims about gun self defense just were debunked a long time ago, so fuck off.

    https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

    • theyoyomaster@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Says the person who wants to disarm the most vulnerable. Saying any study or statistic that doesn’t fit your preconceived narrative is literally the opposite of the scientific method and reality. Facts don’t care if you like them or not and you wanting vulnerable people to be vulnerable doesn’t give you the moral high ground.

      • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        There’s no viable statistics because there are laws specifically preventing them. You can pretend like you care about other people all you want. It’s clear that your don’t because you’re advocating for unlimited gun ownership and making bad faith arguments. If you cared about minorities, then you would advocate for gun rights to be restored to felons because many felons are minorities. If you looked at the link I posted you would realize that everything you’re saying has been debunked a long time ago. It’s all bullshit.

        • theyoyomaster@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m in a hotel on my phone so I don’t have access to my bookmarked links but it’s not like actual sources would change your approach to ignoring anything that doesn’t fit your view anyway.

          There aren’t laws against studying gun violence, the law is specifically against using public funds to promote gun control while pretending to be an a academic study, which is exactly what they were doing when the Dickey Amendment was passed. Before it was the abuses of “scientific” processed were absurd, with stuff like studies to see if guns increased suicide rates openly stating in their methodology “once we got our data set we deleted any that occurred outside the home because gun suicides are almost always at home.” This isn’t even P hacking, it’s just straight up deleting data so that only the answer you want is left. Even modern suicide studies still use gun suicides as their main proxy for gun ownership before “analyzing” the data to see if there is a correlation; surprisingly enough when you use your dependent variable as your independent variable you often get the answer you were looking for.

          There is plenty of valid data available, the issue is that whenever the scientific method is followed the researcher gets blacklisted, labeled as “disproven” and shunned from the academic community. If you go into it with the goal that only showing guns are bad is allowed and twist the data then you’re allowed to publish. If you do actual science and run real world data it always comes back in favor of gun ownership. So instead the gun grabbers stick to their lies and pretend the Dickey amendment is anything but a direct response to getting caught lying red handed.

          There’s plenty that can be done to reduce violent crime and suicides in the US, but taking away guns from law abiding citizens ain’t it.

          • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Show me a study that isn’t backed by the NRA or some similar or related group. If you had one, you would have posted it already.

            Your claims are proven false once again. Women are more likely to be killed in a dv situation if a gun is in the home. How are guns protecting women exactly? You’re talking out of your ass.

            “In particular, a 1993 study by Arthur Kellermann and his colleagues revealed an increased risk of homicide associated with presence of a firearm in a home.1 The Kellermann study and other similar investigations struck a nerve and began to receive widespread attention in newspapers and other media.”

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993413/