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.
Wouldn’t you be less likely to be mugged or attacked if the potential mugger or attacker saw you had a gun? This is sort of what I’m saying…
IMO, a lot of people see the open carrying types to just be people cosplaying badasses. The type that has spent basically 0 time training to use it, outside maybe taking it to a range and firing off a hundred rounds. They see it as a gun to be stolen?
The only time I see open carry that seems to make sense in all of this is shop workers/cashier. I’ve been in stores that have a reputation based on what they sell to get hit by robbers, and the guy working is carrying outside his belt. Like a smoke shop or liquor store for example.
I’d like to see some actual data to support this. Much like I’d like to see some data that concealed carry actually has a negative effect on crime.
The most conservative estimates show that the adoption of “shall issue” right-to-carry firearm laws reduced murders by 8 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assault by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent. Although the initial drop in crime was often small, the longer the law was in effect, the larger the drop in crime over time. The benefits of concealed handguns were not limited to those who used a handgun in self- defense. By virtue of the fact that handguns were concealed, criminals were unable to tell whether a potential victim was equipped to strike back, thus making it less attractive for criminals to commit crimes when they came into direct contact with victims. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduced the murder rate for women by approximately three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduced the murder rate for men. Further, the study found that the increased use of guns in heated traffic disputes and the increased number of accidental handgun deaths was insignificant compared to the lives saved from violent crime that was prevented.
There’s two main reasons. For one, people get uncomfortable around someone open carrying in public, so it’s more polite to have it concealed. A common mentality is that people who OC (open carry), do so for the attention, not protection.
And the second reason is that if someone was planning on starting something, openly carrying a gun could make you the first target, either for attack or for theft of your gun.
For one, people get uncomfortable around someone open carrying in public, so it’s more polite to have it concealed.
I don’t know that we should be basing our gun laws around what makes people comfortable. On either side of the equation. They should be based on data that allowing or disallowing something regarding guns is safe for the general public and effective when it comes to crime and self-defense. Or at least that is what I think and I would be open to hearing an argument against that beyond an overly-broad interpretation of the Second Amendment where all gun regulations should be nullified.
And the second reason is that if someone was planning on starting something, openly carrying a gun just makes you the first target. Concealed carry gives the element of surprise
This is another thing I have seen people claim here several times without data and, at the risk of offending some, I would again like to see some data which actually supports this claim.
There isn’t need for data, it’s just logic.
If you were going to rob a store and the person ahead of you openly has a gun on their hip, you’re either going to leave, take them out, or steal their weapon.
If your’re the one openly carrying, every person within arms reach could be a threat, and you’ll never know how much OCing actually deterred any action.
If want data, feel free to find some, don’t respond to every argument put into this thread with “I’d like to see some data”
You’re more likely to be targeted first in an attack if you have a visible weapon. Similar to how bank robbers will shoot the guards first if the guards have guns. If you have your weapon concealed you may be able to shoot the attacker before he is aware you have a weapon.
As I keep saying, you and the multiple other people who have made this claim have yet to provide anything to back this up in the way of hard evidence. It doesn’t matter if it makes sense to you that a shooter would shoot the armed civilian first, but, yet again, when has this actually happened?
You wont find that research because no one wants to do that research. Also how would you? It will always be anecdotal. I can only tell you my experience as a former soldier. I would shoot anyone who i saw with a weapon if i were committing a crime with a gun. It’s just common sense.
No, you’re more likely to be the first target and have someone attempt to disarm you. No one should know you have a concealed weapon unless they’re trying to kill you. Open carry is idiotic. Showing a gun if you’re not in fear for your life to the point where you’d shoot is brandishing, and it’s a felony.
I carry daily. The only person in real life who even knows I own a gun is my father.
