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.
The US is so fucking dumb.
Let’s make murdering someone as easy as pointing and clicking, can’t be any consequences from that!
America was founded by guns and it is chock full of them. There is no way to put that genie back in the bottle.
There literally is, it’s called a constitutional amendment and they’ve been enacted many times before.
Of course, there’s not the political will for it, because, like I said, The US is so fucking dumb.
As the previous person said there is no way to get it done. Yes there is something called a constitutional amendment, but if there is no realistic way to get it passed then effectively there is no way to get it done.
As the previous person said there is no way to get it done
The “we’ve tried nothing and were all out of isdeas” approach…
I mean, I think California just tried something. New York, D.C., New Jersey, Illinois/Chicago, and some other places too.
Yes, because the US is so fucking dumb.
“Hey guys, they passed a constitutional amendment. We better turn all our guns in.”
-Like 4 Americans
Guns wouldn’t disappear overnight ofc. But make owning guns illegal, arrest people who own them and create buyback programs. It might take some time. It might be super fast.
But you know what for sure wouldn’t solve anything? Doing nothing.
If people want to be felons that’s their choice, but it’s absurd to suggest any armed resistance would occur, or matter, in such an instance
Australia did it and it worked pretty well for them. You just make gun ownership illegal, ask for them back in a reasonable timeframe, and then tell the cops to stop murdering unarmed black people for a minute to go chase down the rest of the guns that weren’t turned in at the end of the process. Then when youre done, you disincentivize bad actors by ramping up the penalties for gun possession significantly, and actually enforce those laws.
It’s not hard, just needs to be done.
Like I said:
The US is so fucking dumb
But you can’t change the constitution!!!
I think guns and abortion are great distractions because both sides will never stop fighting for them.
Meanwhile, we’re all getting fucked as the disparity in wealth continues to grow.
People can care about more than one issue.
If the republicans dropped abortion 100% or the democrats dropped guns 100% either could win nationally in a landslide.
So you’re saying if Democrats just ignore mass shooting problems after god knows how many dead schoolchildren, it’s worth it for the win?
No one said ignore mass shootings.
Just gun control in areas it’s unpopular.
There are other methods of attacking the problem than gun control. They won’t be as effective, but they will be more tolerated by the average American voter.
Take the Florida governorship. DeSantis won out by the skin of his teeth the first go around.
The reason Andrew Gilliam lost was he kept going on about bringing an assault weapons ban to Florida. Such a ban would have never made it though the legislature, so it was an empty promise on top of an unpopular one.
So he shot himself in the foot for no gain and we have been stuck with pudding fingers ever since
Democrats need to understand to pick their battles and read the room.
No, but if they stopped actively encouraging them to generate political capital and focused on things that would actually prevent them rather than scapegoating legal and constitutionally protected gun ownership it would not turn away a massive amount of otherwise swing voters.
But will they discuss more than one issue at a time? It’s still completely valid to point out how asinine and unnecessary some conversations are. Eating up room is a valid deflection strategy, after all.
I don’t think it is productive to talk about gun regulation and abortion in the same conversation.
I’m not saying you should mix convos… I’m saying stop dragging out the stupid ones. The other poster is fully correct when they say some conversations are beyond meaningless and are absolutely used to distract people from bigger issues.
Sure there is. It’s easy.
Just start giving black people guns.
The so-called second amendment absolutists will be calling for draconian gun control measures within a week.
I’m pro gun and I want most black people to own guns.
We already do that. They’re perfectly welcome to defend themselves and even more so given our police.
They aren’t.
And aside from that, that’s not the point. The point is that, historically, when black people start arming themselves even the NRA starts calling for gun control.
Yes, that’s because gun control is racist and classist.
Not wanting schools shot up is racist and classiest apparently.
No that’s because the NRA is racist. (And a lot of gun owners, aka the Republican ones, are racist.)
Gun control ends up being racist and classist because that’s the gun control that gets bipartisan support.
“Arm the homeless”
Its dumb to put all your women in a position where they are vulnerable to sexual assault. But any country without guns does just that.
Please do go ahead and post your sources.
Yeah, you have none, because you don’t care about women, you care about you personally being able to own a gun so you can get a half chub sometimes.
Do you really want to have said this? Seriously. I suggest you think it over. Read it out loud.
Then delete it.
Very well. Let’s see your evidence that rape goes down when gun ownership goes up.
Also I kinda wonder if the purpose of guns is to stop rape why does the constitution talk about a well-regulated militia? Those 3 words are not there by accident. Unless of course you are retorconning a justification because you can’t deal with this being a frontier society temporary provision over 2 centuries ago. Hey go ahead and prove me wrong. Show me the federalist papers that goes into how the 2A was to stop rape. Tell us all how women in the late 17th century were using concealed muskets.
Every time I read this type of backwards logic I wonder why no one has considered making guns only legal for people who have a higher chance of being raped. Kid is living with stepfather? Give him a Glock. Oh she is between 16 years old and 40? Give her an assault rifle. Trans woman? Maybe some grenades. Male 18-80? Nah you are fine.
i like guns but don’t a bunch of other states have bans like this? how could it be unconstitutional in Cali but not in the other states that have had laws like this for years
The CA law went further than other states. It for example it included most places as sensitive places (including random things like gas stations that sell lottery tickets) and required businesses to post a sign to allow people to carry on their premises.
In the list of the top ten most likely places for violent crime to occur in the US, gas stations and convenience stores are 3rd or 4th depending on the year. Not so random.
That violence is not from people who are legally carrying guns
No, a few states passed this in response to Bruen. All of them have been challenged but this is the first to get a ruling.
I think it’s sad how you Americans have to defend themselves with a gun while police won’t do real shit.
Oh police will show up eventually and you’ll wish they hadn’t. There’s no situation that police can’t make worse.
Not wanting to die from an ectopic pregnancy = not found in the Bill of Rights
Wanting to carry around a machine whose only task is murder = covered in the Bill of Rights
Makes perfect sense
Settler-colonial white supremacist patriarchal society founding a country didn’t care about rights of women, but they did care about ensuring the settlers would be armed for their planned displacement and genocide of the indigenous population across the rest of the continent.
Good. Y’all act like cats shouldn’t have claws.
What an embarrassing thing to have said.
Ad hominem
Do you have guns growing out of your hands?
(Even in asking sarcastically I can visualise it being a wet dream for many USians)
My natural predators do.
Do you suggest men/women/humans NEED guns ?
Because I don’t need one. I feel perfectly fine without one.
Just wait until your political opinion doesn’t align with the police.
What’s the point of this? Anyone can 3D print a firearm inside their home. Not only that, but criminals don’t follow laws.
The point is that federal judges are finally doing their jobs and blocking unconstitutional laws.
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.
thats discrimination
Minimum age 25? How is the military going to steal high school kids then?
Same way as in all other countries?
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.
Men as in?
Can you elaborate on your question?
I think they’re questioning why women were not included
Ah, young men are responsible for the vast majority of mass shootings.
Profiling
Nah. We should draft the elderly. Earn those SS checks.
