US appeals court allows California to bar guns in most public places

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Reuters

December 30, 2023 4:09 PM EST


Dec 30 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Saturday cleared the way for a California law that bans the carrying of guns in most public places to take effect at the start of 2024, as the panel put on hold a judge's ruling declaring the measure unconstitutional.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals suspended a Dec. 20 injunction issued by a judge who concluded the Democratic-led state's law violated the right of citizens to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

The three-judge panel issued an administrative stay that put the injunction on hold until a different 9th Circuit panel can consider whether to issue an even longer pause while the litigation plays out.

The measure, which was set to take effect Jan. 1 after being signed into law in September by Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom, was enacted after a landmark ruling in June 2022 by the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court that expanded gun rights nationwide. The Supreme Court in that case struck down New York's strict gun permit regime and declared for the first time that the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment protects a person's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-appeals-court-allows-california-bar-guns-most-public-places-2023-12-30/

[Nictuku]

1. Go 9th Circuit!!!

We all know it will be appealed though. *sigh*

[FBaggins]

15. This one won't be appealed

It’s a very short term procedural move. It will be replaced before an appeal could even get to SCOTUS.

Now - if the eventual ruling leans this way - it will be appealed (and probably overturned)

[cstanleytech]

2. Probably won't survive SCOTUS. That's why I advocate the States pass laws that to own guns you must be a member of

the State's militia. Then the State can have rules on what guns are legal for the members to own as well as if they are allowed to carry them in public as a member of the militia plus the State can then decide if a person can join the militia.

[TexasDem69]

3. 2d Amendment protects rights of the "people"

Not the militia, so this wouldn’t work. On edit, here’s an excerpt:

“a. ‘Right of the People.’ The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a ‘right of the people.’ The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase ‘right of the people’ two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people’). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.”

[cstanleytech]

6. It specifically says though that it's because we need a "well regulated Militia". A State can create said militia

which means if you don't join it that you're shit out of luck when it comes to owning a gun. Mind you I think that some exceptions could be made for certain guns for those that enjoy hunting but when it comes to semi automatic and other weapons they could and should be restricted to militia personal.

[TexasDem69]

7. Well, sort of

It says the right of every person in the U.S. (the people) to keep and own firearms shall not be infringed. And it says that’s because a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It does not say that you have to be a militia member to own a firearm, just that you have to be part of the “people.”

[cstanleytech]

9. It specifically says that it's written that way due to the need for said militia. If a State is running a militia that

is well run the Constitutional obligation is met and there is nothing in the Constitution that says the State cannot the bar the ownership of a gun to anyone that's not a member of the well run militia.

[FBaggins]

14. Right or wrong (wrong) - that reading is inconsistent with current SCOTUS precedent

They’ve clearly ruled that 2A recognizes an individual right distinct from militia membership.

[EX500rider]

18. Have they ever ruled differently in the past?

Also if the authors of the clause meant you had to be in a militia to own firearms they would have started enforcing that after it passed.

[FBaggins]

19. Differently? Yes. But nothing like this.

As for the FFs enforcing it that way… it’s worth remembering that there was no applying to become part of the militia. By law all able-bodied adult men were automatically in the militia. Which, of course, also rubbishes the theory that California can make you apply for a militia spot and reject gun ownership for those who don’t

[EX500rider]

20. Indeed, with the Militia Act of 1903 still law, all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45 are in the Reserve Militia

[cstanleytech]

23. It could be argued that the militia in question is that of one run by the State. That means the State should

be able to make decisions on who can join, what weapons they may own and where they can rightfully carry them.
After all when the 2nd was written we had very little in the way of a standing army.

[EX500rider]

17. All able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45 in the US are already members of the Reserve Militia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. The 1903 act repealed the Militia Acts of 1795 and designated the militia (per Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 311) as two classes: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, comprising state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support

[republianmushroom]

4. Good

[Hekate]

5. Hallelujah for the 9th Circuit

[NickB79]

8. If it didn't fly in New York, it won't fly in California

The USSC will have only two options: strike down CA's law, or reverse itself on the 2022 NY ruling that was based on a law just like CA's.

And everyone knows it will not reverse itself.

[Marthe48]

25. Majority of the court are already backwards

leading the way back to chaos and disaster.

[Kalifornia9]

10. I don't see the pistol packin' dipshits, generally

In California as compared to other adjacent states. It's part of why I'm back for good.
By the way, I'm not new but I'm also not revealing who I am other than a life long dem. Please don't "welcome me to DU".

[twodogsbarking]

11. Keep up the work.

[tavernier]

12. I know that the second amendment applies to citizens on public property

But what if owners of all stores and businesses declared that it was their right to disallow any guns on their properties? In other words, in that case, if a nut job decided to go full Wyatt Earp, could he only do it on a public sidewalk, not inside any property under private ownership?

Just a thought, ever since I saw the open carry dude flaunting his pistol in Big Lots. What if Big Lots corporate ownership had a sign posted stating “ you are welcome to shop here, but this is private property, and we do not allow weapons in our stores for the safety of ourselves and other customers.”

Would it be in their rights to do that?

I know, I know. Another stupid question by Tavernier. But these are the kinds of things that I think about at 3 o’clock in the morning when the pizza I ate at midnight is waking me up.

[BumRushDaShow]

13. That has been an issue the "no restrictions" crowd

especially in states with open carry/no permit needed/"constitutional carry" laws. What can and has happened is that the state laws have already trumped the federal laws that have tended to allow wild wild west use, although some have restrictions.

So in some states, private property owners can restrict guns on the premises if the state law allows it (and even then, some may still have exceptions - e.g., I saw where OK had such a law coming into effect).

I know Scalia used to be a big "private property" advocate but I don't know if his old minion Thomas is as vested in that (or whether Alito, the new overseer, cares either way on the property subject).

[tavernier]

21. Thanks!

Helpful

[FBaggins]

16. Private property owners can always restrict guns on their own property

Exceptions for law enforcement of course … but the only difference is whether the default is “you can’t bring a gun on someone else’s property without permission “ or “you can bring it unless they post a notice that you can’t”

[tavernier]

22. Thanks!

Good to know

[hunter]

24. How is "law enforcement" an exception?

I've told cops they were not welcome on my property. Politely of course, I'm not crazy.

I've seen cops who have neither the temperament nor the skills to use guns wisely. I've seen cops shoot people who didn't need to be shot. I've seen cops do stupid things with guns.

There's no reason law enforcement should be automatically excluded from anyone's "potential idiot with a gun" list.

[FBaggins]

28. It depends on their reason for being there

"Sorry - I don't permit guns on my property" won't get you very far if they're investigating a crime with reasonable suspicion, are chasing someone else, or have a warrant (etc)

[hunter]

29. Just saying "no" has got me so far that I'll probably never serve on a jury in this county.

That was for an incident that happened back in 'nineties. Both the cops and the "bad guy" had guns.

It seemed to me, in the heat of the moment, that the cops were eager to shoot the guy. This pushed me into my angry school teacher mode, just as if they'd been idiot young men fighting in my classroom.

The police did manage to catch the guy without shooting him, and I don't feel bad at all for getting in their way.

I've got more stories like that. I've lived and worked in some rough places, the kinds of places cosplaying gun fetishists have fox news fueled fantasies about but wouldn't go anywhere near.

Personally, I don't let anyone I'd care to shoot live in my head and this has kept me out of a lot of trouble.

In my experience once the guns come out everything is fubar.

[marble falls]

27. Absolutely. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

[marble falls]

26. A small but significant start.