Photo Credit: Sheila Fitzgerald/ Shutterstock
A California law that restricts carrying guns in specific public spaces faced a series of legal setbacks recently. Initially slated to be active from January 1, a U.S. District judge paused its implementation in mid-December. However, a federal appeals court intervened just before New Year’s Day, allowing the law to come into force temporarily.
This back-and-forth continued when, on a subsequent Saturday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals nullified the temporary hold, reinstating the district judge’s block on the law. California Governor Gavin Newsom’s spokesperson condemned this decision, stating it endangered Californians and undermined the state’s progress on gun safety.
The legal battle will progress as the 9th Circuit panel plans to hear arguments in April. This law, signed by Governor Newsom in September, prohibits carrying concealed firearms in various locations, including public parks, churches, and banks, regardless of possessing a concealed carry permit. Private businesses can allow guns by posting specific notices.
The California Rifle and Pistol Association challenged this law in court. Judge Cormac Carney, in granting the preliminary injunction, criticized the law as a broad infringement on the Second Amendment, indicating it could be permanently overturned as the case progresses.
This law responds to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, with California adjusting its concealed carry permit regulations accordingly. Governor Newsom remains committed to stringent gun control measures and has endorsed various bills aimed at curbing untraceable firearms, preventing firearm marketing to minors, and allowing lawsuits related to gun violence, drawing comparisons to a Texas anti-abortion law.
The California Attorney General, Rob Bonta, a Democrat, opposed Carney’s initial ruling and warned that allowing the block on the law to persist would jeopardize public safety, a sentiment echoed by the California Pistol and Rifle Association’s president, Chuck Michel. He emphasized the law’s potential to criminalize law-abiding gun owners traversing restricted zones, while arguing that armed citizens act as a deterrent to criminals.
