California’s law restricting firearms in public places is once again blocked
OAN’s Elizabeth Volberding
2:10 PM – Sunday, January 7, 2024
A recent California legislation that prevents people from carrying firearms in the majority of public places was once again obstructed from taking effect as a court case contesting it continues.
On Saturday, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel abolished a temporary hold on a lower court injunction which blocks the legislation.
In mid-December, a United States District judge temporarily blocked the California law that was supposed to go into effect on January 1st.
Then, on December 30th, a federal appeals court overturned the district judge’s decision, allowing the law to take effect on New Year’s Day while the legal battle raged on.
However, on Saturday, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit lifted the stay and reinstated the district judge’s decision to halt the legislation.
The law, which was signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom in September, forbids people from carrying a concealed weapon in 26 locations, such as zoos, churches, playgrounds, and public parks.
Regardless of whether the person is in possession of a concealed weapon permit, the ban is in effect. Privately owned companies that post signs indicating that firearms are permitted on their property are one exception.
On Saturday evening, Daniel Villaseñor, who is a spokesperson for Governor Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.), made a statement regarding the law.
“The ruling is a dangerous decision that puts the lives of Californians on the line. We won’t stop working to defend our decades of progress on gun safety in our state,” Villaseñor said.
In April, the 9th Circuit panel will be hearing arguments regarding the case.
The law was challenged in court by the California Rifle and Pistol Association. A preliminary injunction was granted to block it on December 20th by the United States District Judge Cormac Carney, who stated that the law was “sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.”
Carney additionally stated that firearms rights organizations are likely to succeed in determining it as unconstitutional, which would mean that it would be permanently overturned.
In response to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which sent several states struggling to enact their own laws, the law altered California’s concealed carry permit regulations.
According to that ruling, the test for determining whether gun laws are constitutional should be whether they are “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The California Pistol and Rifle Association’s president, Chuck Michel, said in an earlier statement before Saturday’s ruling that under the law, “gun permit holders wouldn’t be able to drive across town without passing through a prohibited area and breaking the law.”
Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
Joe Biden celebrates the arrest of Capitol protesters, a wrongful death lawsuit is filed for Ashli Babbitt and the Epstein files continue.
Texas Congressman Chip Roy asks “how can we do our fundamental duty of protecting our border when we keep writing checks to Ukraine and Israel for their border security.”
In a major blow to Biden’s Green New Deal, a giant offshore wind project that was in the works has been canceled off the coast of New York.
On January 22nd, Politico and USC are hosting a senate debate with only four candidates.
SpaceX sued a U.S. labor board to block its case accusing the company of illegally firing employees calling CEO Elon Musk “a distraction and embarrassment.”
ChatGPT was well on its way to becoming a household name even before 2023 kicked off.
Apple fell nearly 3% to a seven-week low after Barclays downgraded the shares on concerns demand for its devices will remain weak in 2024.
Bitcoin galloped past $45,000 for the first time since April 2022, buoyed by optimism around the possible approval of exchange-traded spot bitcoin funds.
rnrn
How has the legal battle affected the implementation of the law in California?
Title: California Legislation Restricting Firearm Carrying Blocked Again as Legal Battle Continues
Introduction
A recent California legislation aimed at imposing restrictions on carrying firearms in public places has faced another roadblock as it continues to be contested in court. On Saturday, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel lifted a temporary hold on a lower court injunction, preventing the legislation from going into effect. This article examines the legal battle surrounding the California law and its potential implications.
Background
Originally scheduled to take effect on January 1st, the California law faced a setback when a United States District judge temporarily blocked its implementation in mid-December. However, on December 30th, a federal appeals court overturned the district judge’s decision, allowing the law to take effect on New Year’s Day. This decision was short-lived as the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reinstated the injunction and halted the legislation on Saturday.
The Legislation
The law, signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom in September, prohibits individuals from carrying concealed weapons in 26 locations, including zoos, churches, playgrounds, and public parks. It applies to all individuals, regardless of whether they possess a concealed weapon permit. However, privately owned companies that display signs permitting firearms on their property are an exception to the ban.
Reaction to the Ruling
Daniel Villaseñor, a spokesperson for Governor Gavin Newsom, expressed concern over the ruling and its potential impact on Californians. He stated, “The ruling is a dangerous decision that puts the lives of Californians on the line. We won’t stop working to defend our decades of progress on gun safety in our state.”
Future Proceedings
In April, the 9th Circuit panel will hear arguments regarding the case, considering whether the law is constitutional or violates the Second Amendment. The California Rifle and Pistol Association challenged the law in court, leading to the preliminary injunction granted by United States District Judge Cormac Carney on December 20th. Judge Carney argued that the legislation is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defies the Supreme Court. He suggested that firearms rights organizations are likely to succeed in permanently overturning the law.
Implications and Response
The ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen by the United States Supreme Court influenced the changes made to California’s concealed carry permit regulations. The court’s decision prompted the law to undergo alterations aligning with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Critics, including the California Pistol and Rifle Association’s president, Chuck Michel, argue that the legislation restricts gun permit holders and risks them inadvertently violating the law while performing routine activities.
Conclusion
While the legal battle surrounding California’s legislation restricting firearm carrying continues, the law remains on hold. The outcome of the court case will determine its future and potentially shape the interpretation of the Second Amendment. As the debate unfolds, it is crucial to consider public safety, individual rights, and the nation’s historical perspective on firearm regulation.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...