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.
A gun person might say open carry can also make you a target.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
I can understand your points here, but I still don’t understand, and maybe it’s just me, how not knowing who around has a gun makes everyone safer than knowing that you have armed people around in case there’s a problem.
Like someone else said, everyone they know conceals as a deterrent from mugging. I’m no mugger, but I know I’d be a lot less likely to mug someone I saw was carrying a gun.
I’d like to see some actual hard data that having legal concealed weapons actually makes people safer than having them out in the open.
Sure, but if you were a mass shooter you’d take out the guy with a holster on his hip first.
Maybe I’m putting too much thought into this, but if I were a mass shooter, I would avoid shooting up the place where I saw someone with a gun in a holster.
Especially if you knew there was a damn good chance others were carrying that you couldn’t see, too.
I agree. Nukes only work as a deterrent (for example) because the countries that have them “open carry” them. A concealed-program nuke is only good for after the fact revenge on a country that attacks you or an ally/neighbor. Just like a gun.