Appeals court allows California law to go into effect, restricting concealed carry in public places
A US appeals court Saturday paved the way for a California law banning the concealed carry of firearms in “sensitive places” to go into effect January 1, despite a federal judge’s ruling that it is “repugnant to the Second Amendment.”
The law – Senate Bill 2 – had been blocked last week by an injunction from District Judge Cormac Carney, but a three-judge panel filed an order Saturday temporarily blocking that injunction, clearing the path for the law to take effect.
The court issued an administrative stay, meaning the appeals judges did not consider the merits of the case, but delayed the judge’s order to give the court more time to consider the arguments of both sides. “In granting an administrative stay, we do not intend to constrain the merits panel’s consideration of the merits of these appeals in any way,” the judges wrote.
I said it in response to:
What did you mean if you weren't talking about mass shooters?
He's right... What he said doesn't automatically constitute a reference to mass shootings. When I read it, I didn't think of it in that regard.
That said, he's pulling the straw man out for you, or moving the goal posts, or whatever its called... He's not answering your questions and instead turning the argument against you by focusing on something you said wrong. He's arguing in bad faith.
After the beginning of his reply started off with saying he wasn't the one who brought up mass shootings, I didn't bother reading the rest of his post. I wasn't going to give a guy who can't believe his own words he wrote my time of reading the rest of his post. Before that post though, I don't think I moved a goal post anywhere. In fact, all I wanted was a simple response to the question I had asked about how it makes it safer at a park, which I believe no one answered.
Ok so you're both arguing in bad faith then, got it.
Before that post? No, you didn't, but I wasn't referring to that post, was I?
And you're right, no one answered it. Everyone in this thread needs to understand that the person they're talking to isn't going to do the work to change their own minds. You want to change someone's mind? Put in the work, show references. Show studies. Show articles. We can all argue on logic and suppositions until the cows come home, but when has that ever worked for you to change someone's mind on such a divisive subject?
I can Google a million articles about people getting shot with their own gun. Can you also do the same and show me something where the law abiding, gun carrying, citizen saved the day at a park? I bet you can. Prove it.
There will always be violence. Guns don't change that. The only thing they do is make the death toll go up faster. You want to reduce the number of deaths by gun? Reduce the number of guns. And I say that as a law abiding gun owner.
You articles are irrelevant because...pay attention now..... THIS LAW DOESNT GET RID OF A SINGLE GUN. Also, look at you as well, completely unable to provide an answer to my simple question, so you have to go off on a mini tirade of other junk to bury that fact away.
You're an idiot.
Edit to add: and the reason is because you are failing to see the correlation between what I wrote, why restricting guns is a good idea, and how it applies to the law in the OP. Like I said, you're arguing in bad faith and, at this point, INTENTIONALLY not engaging in the subject and are choosing to twist things around. I don't know why I expected you to be any different than any of the other gun nuts out there. Scream a little louder next time, it might change my mind.
Me scream a little louder? You're the one still commenting in an old post that you had already lost sway of opinion in and calling people idiots. Lol