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.

    • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      If the republicans dropped abortion 100% or the democrats dropped guns 100% either could win nationally in a landslide.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        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?

        • Kepabar@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.

        • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          No, but if they 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.

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t think it is productive to talk about gun regulation and abortion in the same conversation.

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            It’s only a stupid argument if you don’t care about children being shot up in schools. Me, I care about that.