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.
The US is so fucking dumb.
Let’s make murdering someone as easy as pointing and clicking, can’t be any consequences from that!
Its dumb to put all your women in a position where they are vulnerable to sexual assault. But any country without guns does just that.
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.
Do you really want to have said this? Seriously. I suggest you think it over. Read it out loud.
Then delete it.
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.
I dont really give a damn what the founding fathers intended. I give a damn about arming the general population.
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.
A militia can be 1 person.
Fine. Who is your commanding officer? Please show me your uniform because by international law you are a terrorist without it
I think it’s sad how you Americans have to defend themselves with a gun while police won’t do real shit.
Oh police will show up eventually and you’ll wish they hadn’t. There’s no situation that police can’t make worse.
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.
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
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.
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.
That violence is not from people who are legally carrying guns
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.
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
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.
Good. Y’all act like cats shouldn’t have claws.
What an embarrassing thing to have said.
Ad hominem
Do you have guns growing out of your hands?
(Even in asking sarcastically I can visualise it being a wet dream for many USians)
My natural predators do.
Do you suggest men/women/humans NEED guns ?
Because I don’t need one. I feel perfectly fine without one.
Just wait until your political opinion doesn’t align with the police.
What does it mean ? I live in a civilised society where the police works with rules and stuff and don’t use violence needlessly.
Must be nice.
deleted by creator
The point is that federal judges are finally doing their jobs and blocking unconstitutional laws.
You seem to have a lot of trust in the quality of your 3D printed guns. Seems rather misplaced…
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.
thats discrimination
Minimum age 25? How is the military going to steal high school kids then?
Same way as in all other countries?
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.
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?
Nah. We should draft the elderly. Earn those SS checks.
Men as in?
Can you elaborate on your question?
I think they’re questioning why women were not included
Ah, young men are responsible for the vast majority of mass shootings.
Profiling
