this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
227 points (97.1% liked)

News

23329 readers
4002 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Excuse me? We’re not allowed to stop people from bringing their gun into the bank??

[–] kn33@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago

I believe the bank is allowed to prohibit it, the state isn't allowed to prohibit it.

[–] theyoyomaster@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's allowed in the vast majority of the country.

[–] GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Like where? I live in TX and many, if not all banks have signage disallowing guns.

[–] capital@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

That’s the bank, not the state.

[–] theyoyomaster@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Texas really isn't the gun friendly mecca people think it is, when it comes to gun rights it's solidly "meh." I don't know of any states where banks are statutory sensitive locations other than CA and I think the current NY and CT bills. As far as Texas goes it is up to the bank and must be properly signed to have the force of law behind the sign. Many locations do not give the force of law to a posted sign unless it's at a location with a specific prohibition already in the law.

https://i.redd.it/kfzw1o6k4b7b1.jpg

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Businesses also have a broad right to refuse service and have people written up for trespassing if they refuse to leave. Having a gun is not a protected class. At that point hanging a sign saying no guns is completely enforceable unless the state requires some specific thing. For the record, states making gun owners a semi-protected class that requires specific signs and only at sensitive businesses is bullshit. Private businesses aren't responsible to the Constitution and the state interest in protecting gun owners (who can just lock half the gun in their car) is nowhere near their interest in making sure the economy doesn't split along racial lines.

[–] theyoyomaster@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Signs not having the force of law doesn't make gun owners a protected class, it just puts an explicitly enumerated right on par with every other day to day activity. If you wear a fanny pack into a convenience store with a "no bags" sign you don't go straight to jail and if you walk into a McDonalds without a shirt or shoes they have to ask you to leave before it's the actual crime of trespassing. Guns are literally the only scenario where in some states ignoring a single sign on publicly open private property is an actual crime.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Fun Fact, if you ignore the No Guns sign the first thing that happens is you get asked to leave.

And again, private companies are not responsible to the Constitution. You do not have Constitutional rights in the court of Walmart.

So yes, requiring specific signs and telling some businesses they don't qualify for signs is absolutely creating a semi-protected class. You are telling some private businesses they cannot refuse you service for carrying a gun, just like they couldn't do so for you being black.

[–] theyoyomaster@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Fun Fact, if you ignore the No Guns sign the first thing that happens is you get asked to leave.

That's not what this law says. This law says that if there isn't a sign specifically permitting guns you leave in handcuffs on first contact without first being asked. Being asked to leave and refusing to being charged as trespassing is what is referred to as "signs not having the force of law" and is the default "protected class" scenario you're talking about. In states that have stricter laws where signs have the force of law it is a crime even if they don't ask you to leave.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm not talking about California's law. I'm talking about states that require a sign to turn away people carrying, like Arizona. I think I've made that very clear by now.

[–] theyoyomaster@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

So you’re saying that there should be no gun owner exception to private property and it should be just like everything else where if you’re asked to leave and refuse it’s trespassing but a sign alone doesn’t make it a crime without a specific request from the property owner? Got it.

[–] Ikenshini@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're worried about the people who have never once robbed a bank? Worry about the criminals without legal ccws.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

How about no one else with a gun is allowed to bring it in, so that when the guards/cops start aiming at the people with the guns they won’t be aiming at the wrong people? Why do you need your gun in a bank? There are armed guards there. You don’t need to be a cosplay hero in a bank.

[–] Ikenshini@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It's a concealed carry license, not open carry, and you're imagining a problem that I'm not even sure if it has ever happened in California, and if it has, it's very rare.

What about the far more common event of a criminal targeting a person who is leaving the bank and going back to their car to rob them of their new withdrawal? They should be able to protect themselves against lethal force.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

It is common enough that bank employees are trained to open bank branches in pairs only after driving loops around the parking lot to check for hidden robbers, as standard branch opening procedure. Robbers have figured out that banks have money in them.

[–] Ikenshini@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Armed robbery or all violent crime? Here's some stats: https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/JTF_CrimeTrendsJTF.pdf

tl;dr: there's a lot of crime in California, it's tracked. There's not a lot of cops and armed guards shooting people with legal ccws.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I’m talking about the thing you said was a more common event. I’m wondering how often people get robbed at gunpoint in the bank parking lot.

[–] Ikenshini@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I don't have stats on that particular situation, it's not tracked, but I could find a video within 2 seconds of looking that happened within the last two years: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cQeM0ilep5U

[–] Ikenshini@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

And now having watched the video, it's clear to me that a bank will not keep you safe. I think allowing people with ccws to carry into banks is a good idea, given this kind of thing "happens every day".

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I just figured since you’re telling me it’s a lot more common, you would have some stats to back that up. One example is a good start though. But again, why do you need a gun inside the bank?

[–] Ikenshini@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

When you live in LA you hear about shit happening all the time.

Because going from your vehicle to the bank, and from the bank back to your vehicle is not safe. There's nowhere next to the bank to deposit your weapon before entering, therefore the only way to carry on the way to the bank requires being armed inside it too.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

So would you agree then that the state should be able to require you to check your guns at the door of the bank?

[–] FluorideMind@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The state? No. The Bank as a private business? Well they can certainly try.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago

So the state should not be able to regulate its militia?

[–] Ikenshini@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sure, if they provide the same level of security we have at airports, and jails, which have the same restrictions, that's fine by me. Disarming legal ccws and providing no security is reprehensible.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The armed guard isn’t enough?

[–] Ikenshini@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Unfortunately not, they're stuck in the building, and have no obligation to help you, they're there to protect the bank, not you. And you can see how well the "armed guard" helped in the YouTube video above: they weren't even armed nor were they there.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Well, the bank is allowed to ban them. The court (operating under a ridiculous SCOTUS ruling) is saying it doesn't think the government can ban them in private businesses or open areas.