California's ban on openly carrying guns is unconstitutional, appeals court rules
8 months ago by return2ozma to c/news
'Murica...
I'm so grateful to live in a civilised country
Y'all get a mass shooting and immediately try to fix shit. I'm legit jealous of y'all's :: checks my notes:: basic decency
We've got our fuckwits
Unfortunately, stupidity is celebrated in the US
America seems to be proud of the things it should be ashamed of as a society
That last line hurts as a native, mainly cause it's so true.
I always find it interesting how they talk about history and tradition in these rulings as if bans on open carries haven't been around since the 1800s.
I'm a gun person and even I'm taken aback when I see someone open carrying. I don't carry, open or concealed, for a myriad of reasons. Mainly I'm gigantic and trained to fight, but also I'm not a fucking paranoid nut case. The only exception is when I go hiking or camping. Never needed it and hope I never do.
But then you hear idiots talk about "I wish a mfer would give me a reason!"and I realize I'm in the pretty small minority.
But then you hear idiots talk about "I wish a mfer would give me a reason!"and I realize I'm in the pretty small minority
They always say that and yet when there's a shooting they're never around to stop them.
They're addicted to the idea of using violence and being a hero for it.
Ikr! I consider people who want to shoot other people complete cowards.
Sack of hammers looking for a nail. They’re cowards steeped in fear. Always subscribing to that hyper-readiness doctrine spread by self-defense wingnuts that have you looking out for “bad guys” everywhere you go. Because you never know. They could win the “I defended myself” lottery when some rando argues with them on the street over a public parking spot they wanted, gets in their face and out comes the gun. Because you never know, he might have gotten violent.
It's hard to imagine the remorse one would be forced to carry after willingly shooting another human being.
Even killer cops have a first murder, which must either break them or drive them deeper into abuse.
It seems horrifying to me.
They’re all Rittenhouse-ers. Deliberately not avoiding or walking away from escalating situations. Then they get the support from their “I woulda shot the fucker, too” network of gun nut pals.
Well the California one is from the 60's and was a direct reprisal to the Black Panthers. I think most historical carry bans applied to concealed carry. The only historical carry ban I can think of was some small "Wild West" towns would make you check your guns when you rolled in, but I'm not sure if that applied to folks that lived there.
Pretty much. After they gutted the first half of the amendment, it was only the right to “keep & bear,” and open carry is simply “bearing arms.”
No. Not specifically SCOTUS. This has been a team effort. Conservatives have been working on this for decades. SCOTUS is just the final step. The blood will be on the hands of all republicans whose votes allowed this to happen.
Democrats aren't completely blameless either. This was a group effort, and a rare bipartisan move by both parties.
I mean Obama expanded gun rights during his presidency, specifically lifting restrictions for Amtrak and national parks.
Yes, but the occasional support for gun rights among democrats is nothing like the monolithic support for it from the GOP. Pointing out this failing on Obama's part is like pointing out a rain drop falling in the ocean.
That has less (or nothing) to do with open carry and more to do with tighter gun laws in general.
The number of people who commit shootings often do so with illegal firearms or otherwise violating some firearms laws.
Banning open carry is not the solution. It may be part of a solution but it would not be sufficient.
It may be part of a solution but it would not be sufficient.
Being part of the solution is one step towards a complete solution and certainly better than doing nothing at all.
I feel uneasy looking at our police openly carrying guns. I don't know how Americans look at the average Joe and say, "I trust he's going to keep that in its holster unlike the one who didn't two days ago." 🥴
We typically don’t. Someone exercising open carry in public (especially in a non-rural town/city) are generally viewed as a cosplaytriot who has totally confused being a prepared badass with being a paranoid dickhead.
They may argue this, but that’s the general attitude.
The new rule is everything has to be consistent with the nations “history and tradition” so they’re probably just gonna roll all those back 😬
Lol get fucked Reagan. Aight let's create some black and white panther cells again and stick em in the capitol.
I'm down for Panthers, just without segregation.
That Bruen case was absolute nonsense. They argued that if no regulations on guns existed in a certain arbitrary time period, that it is unconstitutional to ever have a gun regulation. And then they got the history totally wrong. There were plenty examples of regulations on stuff like open carry. So they got the facts totally wrong!
What, you expect good faith from those scheming assholes?
They're charlatans who pretend to channel the dead Founders. Except (A) The founders didn't agree on much; (B) Many of them spoke at length about the need to keep laws updated to meet modern needs; and (C) The conclusions reached by this bullshit process of divination are always exactly in line with the demands of modern conservative politics, and have little to do with the original intent, to the extent that such a thing can ever have been said to exist.
What a coincidence.
I'm a gun owner with a license to carry, though I rarely do.
Open carry bothers me, because it's carrying an implied threat. If I'm carrying (usually because I'm going to the range and think the gun is more likely to be stolen from my car than my hip), I don't want to be carrying a threat. If I accidentally cut someone off in line, I want them to let me know instead of being afraid I'll shoot them. If I'm being unreasonable, I want someone to speak up.
The truth remains you're packing heat. Being an unknown "threat" doesn't change that fact. Your argument seems irrational: you want everyone to assume the falsehood that you're not carrying when you are.
I know there's nothing I can do about anyone if they shoot me. That doesn't stop me from approaching police or anyone who may carry a weapon. I know they won't shoot me unless they want a murder conviction.
I don't know about neurological disorders.
I've read California outlawed it soon after the Black Panthers started openly carrying. Knowing who's packing heat doesn't seem wrong to me. Seems like transparency.
if the point of a good guy with a gun is to stop the bad guy with a gun, why would the good guy make himself the first target?
open carry is dumb and has no self defense purpose, it's solely to stroke egos.
If open carry is legal then any psycho could commit mass murder at any second, and no cops or anybody could do anything until after they start opening fire. On the other hand, if it is illegal then cops could step in at the first sight of a gun.
If open carry is legal then any psycho could commit mass murder at any second, and no cops or anybody could do anything until after they start opening fire.
If it was illegal, they'd just conceal it until they started shooting. Pretty sure that's how most attacks already happen.
On the other hand, if it is illegal then cops could step in at the first sight of a gun.
They could, but as above, a shooter would probably have it concealed. Even with legal open carry, a cop should step in as soon as a gun is brandished. But really, when has a cop ever stepped in to prevent a shooting? Even in Uvalde, a whole department full of cops outside a school of children being murdered still did nothing.
(I don't personally have a strong opinion on whether open carry should be legal or illegal. I think we should have stricter requirements for ownership at all.)
Are you mistaking being armed with open carry?
if it is illegal then cops could step in at the first sight of a gun.
Wouldn't the concealed carrier open fire immediately or even before exposing their weapon? Are we talking about a split-second difference if any?
Most mass shootings are done with a rifle, which is a bit more difficult to conceal. And yeah if everything goes to plan for the shooter and they keep it concealed then it would only be a matter of seconds, but there's always a chance that cops, given the opportunity for guns to be something to be on the lookout for, will be able to step in sooner.
199k
I went shooting once with some friends. It wasea pretty good experience but I have zero desire to ever own a gun. I don't understand these people who want to open carrry.
I own a gun and I’m afraid to open carry because of the liability. A gun weighs so much more when you’re around people you don’t know. You don’t ever not feel it on your hip. And I think that’s a good thing. You should feel that weight. Because it’s a responsibility.
Yeah I can imagine. It was stressfull just holding and shooting the guns at the range. I agree having one out and about should be everpresent in your mind.
California is where this battle started. It took a hefty dose of racism to get gun control passed their. F*** Reagan!
reagan also railed against sagaftra and secured his own agreement, at the expense of the other actors.
Remember fire arms are for the rich and if you try to have them debate a gov program to give everyone a fire arm to embrace their 2nd amendment right they will back track real quick. Every time a pour community is given fire arms you will hear the right ask for gun regulations faster then ever.
Fuck this, fuck all of this. I grew up with guns as a kid, and this is just nonsense. I don't own guns as an adult, and none of this makes sense. The United States had more guns per capita than any other nation, and we have more mass shootings than any other nation. In this case, causation is correlation.
I'd rather know that someone has a gun on them, I'd rather them ban concealed carry. Guns generally give me the heebie-jeebies, I prefer to know who to avoid in public situations and make sure to keep out of my life.
Hmm, only took 25 years to get to this point.
At least if they're open carrying, you know who to avoid and keep an eye on? Also, they can be denied service at businesses, and should be.
@lemmy.world
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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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.
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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.
go to feed...
save