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.

  • Tilted
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    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.

      • Tilted
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Same way as in all other countries?

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • GooseFinger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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?