A new California law that prohibits licensed gun owners from carrying firearms in many public places has again been blocked (meaning it cannot be enforced) as legal challenges move forward in federal courts.
The law prohibits concealed carry permit holders and those with open carry permits in more rural parts of the state from carrying firearms in spaces that California lawmakers deemed “sensitive.”
Prohibited places include any place that sells and serves liquor; on public transportation and in many parking lots; at public gatherings, special events, parks, playgrounds, stadiums, arenas, casinos, medical facilities, religious and financial institutions; and in any other private commercial space where the owners have not explicitly posted a sign permitting the carrying of weapons.
Opponents of the law argue that the list is so long that it essentially prevents them from leaving their homes with their guns and makes their permits worthless, and diminishes their ability to defend themselves in public, a right they say is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. (People without permits, who are not part of the lawsuit, generally cannot carry firearms in any public place in California.)
A federal district judge stopped major parts of the law from taking effect last month, calling it “repugnant” and unconstitutional. An administrative panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed the judge’s ruling on Dec. 30, allowing the law, known as Senate Bill 2, to take effect as scheduled on Jan. 1.
However, on Saturday, another Ninth Circuit appeals panel issued its own order reversing the administrative panel and restoring the lower court’s ruling while proceedings continue.
The latest order, issued by a court clerk without the names of the judges listed, freezes state law once again as the case proceeds. The Ninth Circuit appeals panel will consider the state’s appeal, including during arguments in April.
A spokesperson for Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office called the latest decision “dangerous” in a statement and said it “puts the lives of Californians at risk.”
“We will not stop working to defend our decades of progress on gun safety in our state,” the spokesperson said.
Chuck Michel, an attorney for gun owners who sued the state over the law, applauded the ruling and said it preserves “the status quo” for responsible gun owners.
“If this new law had gone into effect, it would reverse decades of allowing [concealed-carry weapon] “The headlines (but not the general public) may lead them to places where the need for self-defense may be most acute,” Michel wrote in a statement.
“So the politicians’ ploy to circumvent the Second Amendment has been stopped for now,” he said. “Now we will focus on stopping it for good.”
The legal battle is one of many unfolding in courts across the country in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. against Bruen in 2022.
In Bruen, the high court held that strict limits on concealed carry permits in states like New York and California amounted to unconstitutional restrictions on people’s Second Amendment right to self-defense.
The court also held that gun laws that are not deeply rooted in American history, or are not analogous to some historical law, are generally unconstitutional. Some gun laws, such as those that have traditionally prohibited carrying weapons in sensitive places such as schools and courthouses, remain valid, the court noted.
Last year, California lawmakers passed SB 2 in response to the Bruen decision and several mass shootings, including in Half Moon Bay and Monterey Park. Lawmakers argued that the bill, sponsored by state Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-Burbank), was permissible under the Bruen decision because it simply expanded the list of places considered sensitive under California law.
Gun owners sued in response and won a victory on December 20 when U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney issued an injunction.
Carney, an appointee of President George W. Bush, wrote that SB 2’s “coverage is broad, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.” He said SB 2 clearly conflicted with the Bruen decision, and that an injunction blocking it was warranted because gun owners would likely win their case against the state and suffer “irreparable harm” if they were not allowed to carry their weapons. of fire in the meantime.
California Lawyer. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office appealed, asking for a stay to allow the state law to take effect while the court case continued. An administrative panel of the Ninth Circuit granted that stay, but now, with Saturday’s order, the law is once again blocked while the case moves forward.
