LOS ANGELES (AP) — A new California law that bans people from carrying firearms in most public places was once again blocked from taking effect Saturday as a court case challenging it continues.
A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel dissolved a temporary hold on a lower court injunction blocking the law. The hold was issued by a different 9th Circuit panel and had allowed the law to go into effect Jan. 1.
Saturday’s decision keeps in place a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney blocking the law. Carney said that it violates the Second Amendment and that gun rights groups would likely prevail in proving it unconstitutional.
The law, signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, prohibits people from carrying concealed guns in 26 types of places including public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks and zoos. The ban applies regardless of whether a person has a concealed carry permit.
Firearms were banned in most towns in the Old West, for obvious reasons.
Yep, the wild West had more and better gun control than modern society. How fucked up is that. That’s what 60 years of propaganda and brainly rot will do to you though. Most people who claim to be second amendment supporters need to learn basic English grammar. Commas don’t separate to distinct thoughts. They separate two linked subjects. Granted the second amendment is definitely a case of comma gore. As well as being an archaic and obtuse use of them.
Modern grammatical functions aren’t sufficient to deduce the original intent of an article of that period. English was a far less standardized language at the time.
A better way to ascertain that original intent would be to compare it to their other writings, like the Federalist Papers or correspondences.
Actually they 100% are. The usage of the comma in the English language has not changed in many hundreds of years. It’s pretty clear from the statement what the framers meant. You don’t need to look outside the statement. The words mean things all on their own. It’s not cryptic. It’s perfectly cogent and understandable.
The framers intended there to be no standing or national army. And therefore set about in the second amendment to establish the armament of state militias for the protection of the people. No more, no less. The modern application of the second amendment is a warped bastardization no matter how you look at it.
They did intend for there to be no sizable standing army, but that doesn’t proclude the people from bearing arms for the purpose of self defense.
But don’t forget, the people saying those things didn’t have access to semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons, or anything much fancier than a musket. You can’t blindly apply laws written that long ago to the modern day because it’s something that those mythical founders just couldn’t even imagine.
-Belton Flintlock Repeater https://youtu.be/E2kIPmuXMWU?si=
-Puckle Gun https://youtu.be/GPC7KiYDshw?si=
-Girardoni Air Rifle https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?si=
-Chambers Machine Gun https://youtu.be/rCuVMx5h1x0?si=
Neither did tyrants or criminals
They had cannons and bombs, yet those didn’t get special mention…
So where in any of those quotes do they say that specifically to do with outside of the militia? In a militia, people always provided their own weapons. They held them privately and took them to drills and gatherings for the militia. Each. One of those quotes is completely in line with that concept.
You’re going to need to show me some quotes. Outlining that they need to keep weapons personally to shoot their neighbors or people that they don’t like just for fun. Or something like Madison or pining how every American needs a gun to shove up their ass to keep warm during the winter or something. Because none of those quotes specifically say that this is intended for outside of the militia. Each and every quote can be interpreted with that in mind. Or you can go against the wording of the second amendment. And try to interpret this in ways that the founders did not intend, which is what we’ve done for many amendments. Some good, some bad.
Because at the time, there was no concept of “inside” or “outside” the militia, other than women and children, who unfortunately didn’t warrant much consideration.
In any case, it’s quite clear - the 2a doesn’t say “the militia shall be allowed to have guns” it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The militia is brought up more to underline the importance of this right - if we want to be able to defend ourselves (be it individually or collectively) we must have access to weapons.
Then how can you in honesty or good faith hand wave away the talk of militia. You can’t.
False. This is the literal text of the 2nd amendment.
“A well regulated Militia”, primary subject. “being necessary to the security of a free State”, core thought. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, connected secondary subject. The militia being the people. “shall not be infringed.”, conclusion.
Yes, the militia was not a separate concept from the people, they were used interchangeably, there was no inside vs outside the militia. I’m glad we agree
In which you find the Federalists arguing that a militia is only needed until there can be a standing army. And the Anti-Federalists arguing for state controlled militias as a counterbalance to any federal force. Nobody in those papers was arguing for 100 percent free carry and stand your ground laws. Guns were supposed to stay at home or in the armory unless required for a specific task.
There’s far more support behind that right from the founding fathers than a comma.
Username checks out. You are a case study for exactly what I was talking about.
Are you an unnatural horrific creature?
Only to those who lack logic.
even back then common sense was a thing so
You could also just move and change your name and no one would know.