The three-judge panel suspended the lower court injunction, which was based on the determination that the new statute violated Californians’ Second Amendment rights.
Reuters reported the appeals court “issued an administrative stay that temporarily put the injunction on hold until a different 9th Circuit panel could consider pausing the lower court judge’s order for even longer.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who is obviously angling for higher office, issued a statement applauding the upholding of “common sense” gun laws. But are they really common sense?
Though the Supreme Court in Bruen clearly confirmed the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense outside of the home, state and local governments have busily tried to legislate the law of the land out of existence. California designated most public locales as “sensitive places,” meaning that a law-abiding gun owner could hardly drive across town without breaking the law.
The lower court ruling by U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney was flawless. In his Dec. 20 decision, he noted that the statute “turns nearly every public place in California into a ‘sensitive place,’ effectively abolishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding and exceptionally qualified citizens to be armed and to defend themselves in public.”
Even permit holders are not allowed to exercise their rights.
It also reversed the normal procedure across the nation for allowing gun owners to carry in privately owned businesses open to the public. Standard operating procedure is for these owners to post signage alerting patrons that concealed weapons are prohibited.
Now in California, the opposite is true. For a carry permit holder to legally possess their weapon in one of these establishments, there must be a clear sign that firearms are allowed.
The appeals court action is a setback for gun rights in a state that has endured many. The hope now is that the egregious decision on staying the injunction is overturned, though the likelihood of that result is not great in California.
