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.
Excuse me? We’re not allowed to stop people from bringing their gun into the bank??
I believe the bank is allowed to prohibit it, the state isn’t allowed to prohibit it.
You’re worried about the people who have never once robbed a bank? Worry about the criminals without legal ccws.
How about no one else with a gun is allowed to bring it in, so that when the guards/cops start aiming at the people with the guns they won’t be aiming at the wrong people? Why do you need your gun in a bank? There are armed guards there. You don’t need to be a cosplay hero in a bank.
It’s a concealed carry license, not open carry, and you’re imagining a problem that I’m not even sure if it has ever happened in California, and if it has, it’s very rare.
What about the far more common event of a criminal targeting a person who is leaving the bank and going back to their car to rob them of their new withdrawal? They should be able to protect themselves against lethal force.
How common is that event?
It is common enough that bank employees are trained to open bank branches in pairs only after driving loops around the parking lot to check for hidden robbers, as standard branch opening procedure. Robbers have figured out that banks have money in them.
Armed robbery or all violent crime? Here’s some stats: https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/JTF_CrimeTrendsJTF.pdf
tl;dr: there’s a lot of crime in California, it’s tracked. There’s not a lot of cops and armed guards shooting people with legal ccws.
I’m talking about the thing you said was a more common event. I’m wondering how often people get robbed at gunpoint in the bank parking lot.
I don’t have stats on that particular situation, it’s not tracked, but I could find a video within 2 seconds of looking that happened within the last two years: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cQeM0ilep5U
And now having watched the video, it’s clear to me that a bank will not keep you safe. I think allowing people with ccws to carry into banks is a good idea, given this kind of thing “happens every day”.
I just figured since you’re telling me it’s a lot more common, you would have some stats to back that up. One example is a good start though. But again, why do you need a gun inside the bank?
It’s allowed in the vast majority of the country.
Like where? I live in TX and many, if not all banks have signage disallowing guns.
That’s the bank, not the state.
Texas really isn’t the gun friendly mecca people think it is, when it comes to gun rights it’s solidly “meh.” I don’t know of any states where banks are statutory sensitive locations other than CA and I think the current NY and CT bills. As far as Texas goes it is up to the bank and must be properly signed to have the force of law behind the sign. Many locations do not give the force of law to a posted sign unless it’s at a location with a specific prohibition already in the law.
https://i.redd.it/kfzw1o6k4b7b1.jpg
Businesses also have a broad right to refuse service and have people written up for trespassing if they refuse to leave. Having a gun is not a protected class. At that point hanging a sign saying no guns is completely enforceable unless the state requires some specific thing. For the record, states making gun owners a semi-protected class that requires specific signs and only at sensitive businesses is bullshit. Private businesses aren’t responsible to the Constitution and the state interest in protecting gun owners (who can just lock half the gun in their car) is nowhere near their interest in making sure the economy doesn’t split along racial lines.
Signs not having the force of law doesn’t make gun owners a protected class, it just puts an explicitly enumerated right on par with every other day to day activity. If you wear a fanny pack into a convenience store with a “no bags” sign you don’t go straight to jail and if you walk into a McDonalds without a shirt or shoes they have to ask you to leave before it’s the actual crime of trespassing. Guns are literally the only scenario where in some states ignoring a single sign on publicly open private property is an actual crime.
Fun Fact, if you ignore the No Guns sign the first thing that happens is you get asked to leave.
And again, private companies are not responsible to the Constitution. You do not have Constitutional rights in the court of Walmart.
So yes, requiring specific signs and telling some businesses they don’t qualify for signs is absolutely creating a semi-protected class. You are telling some private businesses they cannot refuse you service for carrying a gun, just like they couldn’t do so for you being black.
That’s not what this law says. This law says that if there isn’t a sign specifically permitting guns you leave in handcuffs on first contact without first being asked. Being asked to leave and refusing to being charged as trespassing is what is referred to as “signs not having the force of law” and is the default “protected class” scenario you’re talking about. In states that have stricter laws where signs have the force of law it is a crime even if they don’t ask you to leave.
I’m not talking about California’s law. I’m talking about states that require a sign to turn away people carrying, like Arizona. I think I’ve made that very clear by now.
Well, the bank is allowed to ban them. The court (operating under a ridiculous SCOTUS ruling) is saying it doesn’t think the government can ban them in private businesses or open areas.