The two available members of this panel voted on this order. The third member of the assigned panel was unavailable to consider these pending matters.

Kismet Jackson used to carry her handgun just about everywhere in San Bernardino County. To get her nails done. To pick up her prescription. To hang out with her grandchildren. For her, it was all about staying safe. “Being out and about, you just want to protect yourself,” explained Jackson, an Air Force veteran and member of the National African American Gun Assn. “The biggest thing for me [is] walking to my car, and someone puts a gun to my head and tells me give them what I don’t have.” Lately, though, she has felt anything but safe. At the beginning of this month, after a flurry of lawsuits, California began enforcing a controversial law banning guns in “sensitive” public places. It’s a long list that ranges from parks to stadiums to parking lots to public transportation to churches to anywhere alcohol is sold to commercial buildings without signage explicitly allowing firearms.

The push by California to take away her ability to legally carry a gun, after years of complying with an already-strict vetting process, has her feeling downright “shook” about her safety — and she suspects that pales in comparison to what some other women are feeling. Women who, in an effort to reclaim their lives and conquer their fears after surviving domestic violence, decided to buy a gun and get a concealed-carry permit. Or women of color who are understandably so afraid of police brutality that they feel as if they have no choice to defend themselves from intimate partner violence. Or, perhaps most of all, women who have been let down by a criminal justice system that is supposed to seize firearms from abusers, but too often doesn’t. “They got a little bit of their confidence back. They felt a little more comfortable with going out in public,” Jackson said of such women. “And now [California] has just snatched that out from underneath them.”

The last non-self-defense homicide committed by a concealed- carry permit holder took place in 2019 in Modesto, and the assailant was charged and convicted. The second most recent happened in 2010 — a Southern California security guard who killed his ex-girlfriend and her new partner. In Fresno County, the sheriff said there hasn’t been a crime involving any of its roughly 12,300 concealed-carry permit holders in at least two years — and Fresno has one of the highest number of permit holders in the state. Chuck Michel, the general counsel for the California Rifle & Pistol Assn. who filed the suit over SB 2, said the law hurts more than just women who fear for their personal safety. He points to retired judges and prosecutors who may have dangerous enemies. People in the LGBTQ+ community facing rising hate crimes. And even jewelers who routinely carry gems and cash. “There are certainly some individual circumstances where the need for that kind of permit is profound,” Michel said. Even if you think that’s a paranoid or specious argument that inflates the need for more guns on our streets, consider this: Despite millions of dollars and countless hours spent crafting and defending SB 2, government officials can’t — or won’t — say how many people in the state have concealed-carry permits. A few non-government sources we found estimate there are at most 200,000 people with active permits (which are valid for only two years), and an additional 100,000 pending since the Supreme Court decision — still a small fraction of California’s 3.3 million legal gun owners. But when we asked Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office for the number of active permits in their system, they told us they would need to compile that figure and it would involve a Public Records Act request. How do you argue this rule meaningfully reduces gun violence without even being willing to openly talk about how many people it involves?

What we do know from Bonta’s office is that in 2022, there were more than 23,000 active and pending cases in the state’s Armed and Prohibited Persons System, which tracks Californians who own legally registered firearms but have lost the right to possess them. About 4,000 of those cases involved a restraining order and nearly 5,000 more had to do with concerns over the owners’ mental health. Agents with the state Department of Justice, often working with local law enforcement agencies, managed to retrieve just 1,437 guns from those potentially dangerous people that year, which is considered a success based on the abysmal statistics of previous years.

“It makes me sad,” Maggie Martin told us. “They have gone to gun classes. They have done the work. They have done all the things to become proficient and now they are not given the option.” Martin knows firsthand how the system fails women. She’s a gun instructor in Florida who specializes in women’s self-defense, and she is a survivor of intimate partner violence. Like so many women, she never thought it could happen to her — until she met her “knight in shining armor” on a dating app. Eight months into a relationship, it was clear he was a controlling abuser, but getting away from him was scary, she said. She called police, but they told her — as too often happens — there was nothing they could do, and that their involvement might make the situation worse. When she finally did leave, he harassed her by driving by her house and calling her over and over again until. In 2019, she began carrying a weapon regularly after her mother saw a segment on television about a woman killed by her abuser. “I remember thinking, ‘I can’t do that to my mom,’ ” Martin said. “And that was the moment I decided I was not going to die.”

highdesert wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 8:51 am

Kismet Jackson used to carry her handgun just about everywhere in San Bernardino County. To get her nails done. To pick up her prescription. To hang out with her grandchildren. For her, it was all about staying safe. “Being out and about, you just want to protect yourself,” explained Jackson, an Air Force veteran and member of the National African American Gun Assn. “The biggest thing for me [is] walking to my car, and someone puts a gun to my head and tells me give them what I don’t have.” Lately, though, she has felt anything but safe. At the beginning of this month, after a flurry of lawsuits, California began enforcing a controversial law banning guns in “sensitive” public places. It’s a long list that ranges from parks to stadiums to parking lots to public transportation to churches to anywhere alcohol is sold to commercial buildings without signage explicitly allowing firearms.

The push by California to take away her ability to legally carry a gun, after years of complying with an already-strict vetting process, has her feeling downright “shook” about her safety — and she suspects that pales in comparison to what some other women are feeling. Women who, in an effort to reclaim their lives and conquer their fears after surviving domestic violence, decided to buy a gun and get a concealed-carry permit. Or women of color who are understandably so afraid of police brutality that they feel as if they have no choice to defend themselves from intimate partner violence. Or, perhaps most of all, women who have been let down by a criminal justice system that is supposed to seize firearms from abusers, but too often doesn’t. “They got a little bit of their confidence back. They felt a little more comfortable with going out in public,” Jackson said of such women. “And now [California] has just snatched that out from underneath them.”

The last non-self-defense homicide committed by a concealed- carry permit holder took place in 2019 in Modesto, and the assailant was charged and convicted. The second most recent happened in 2010 — a Southern California security guard who killed his ex-girlfriend and her new partner. In Fresno County, the sheriff said there hasn’t been a crime involving any of its roughly 12,300 concealed-carry permit holders in at least two years — and Fresno has one of the highest number of permit holders in the state. Chuck Michel, the general counsel for the California Rifle & Pistol Assn. who filed the suit over SB 2, said the law hurts more than just women who fear for their personal safety. He points to retired judges and prosecutors who may have dangerous enemies. People in the LGBTQ+ community facing rising hate crimes. And even jewelers who routinely carry gems and cash. “There are certainly some individual circumstances where the need for that kind of permit is profound,” Michel said. Even if you think that’s a paranoid or specious argument that inflates the need for more guns on our streets, consider this: Despite millions of dollars and countless hours spent crafting and defending SB 2, government officials can’t — or won’t — say how many people in the state have concealed-carry permits. A few non-government sources we found estimate there are at most 200,000 people with active permits (which are valid for only two years), and an additional 100,000 pending since the Supreme Court decision — still a small fraction of California’s 3.3 million legal gun owners. But when we asked Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office for the number of active permits in their system, they told us they would need to compile that figure and it would involve a Public Records Act request. How do you argue this rule meaningfully reduces gun violence without even being willing to openly talk about how many people it involves?

What we do know from Bonta’s office is that in 2022, there were more than 23,000 active and pending cases in the state’s Armed and Prohibited Persons System, which tracks Californians who own legally registered firearms but have lost the right to possess them. About 4,000 of those cases involved a restraining order and nearly 5,000 more had to do with concerns over the owners’ mental health. Agents with the state Department of Justice, often working with local law enforcement agencies, managed to retrieve just 1,437 guns from those potentially dangerous people that year, which is considered a success based on the abysmal statistics of previous years.

“It makes me sad,” Maggie Martin told us. “They have gone to gun classes. They have done the work. They have done all the things to become proficient and now they are not given the option.” Martin knows firsthand how the system fails women. She’s a gun instructor in Florida who specializes in women’s self-defense, and she is a survivor of intimate partner violence. Like so many women, she never thought it could happen to her — until she met her “knight in shining armor” on a dating app. Eight months into a relationship, it was clear he was a controlling abuser, but getting away from him was scary, she said. She called police, but they told her — as too often happens — there was nothing they could do, and that their involvement might make the situation worse. When she finally did leave, he harassed her by driving by her house and calling her over and over again until. In 2019, she began carrying a weapon regularly after her mother saw a segment on television about a woman killed by her abuser. “I remember thinking, ‘I can’t do that to my mom,’ ” Martin said. “And that was the moment I decided I was not going to die.”

https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... nce-newsom

It's a long article, just a few snippets. SB 2 was placed on hold by a panel of the 9th Circuit.

Martin said. “And that was the moment I decided I was not going to die.”

featureless wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 12:20 pm Yup. This isn't common sense. It's persecution.

sikacz wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 12:23 pm

featureless wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 12:20 pm Yup. This isn't common sense. It's persecution.

And unwittingly green lights violence against vulnerable people.

highdesert wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 1:07 pm

sikacz wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 12:23 pm

featureless wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 12:20 pm Yup. This isn't common sense. It's persecution.

And unwittingly green lights violence against vulnerable people.

San Bernardino where Kismet Jackson lives is a high crime area. Last stats I saw, LA County-USC Medical Center was #1 in CA for gunshot cases and Arrowhead Medical Center in San Bernardino County was #2.

That there are still 23,000 prohibited people mostly felons with guns in CA, shows it's not a priority for Bonta or Newsom. That's been a scandal for years and voters keep reelecting Democrats to statewide office.

The famous case where SCOTUS stated that the police have no obligation to protect members of the public, was a domestic violence case.

CDFingers wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 3:19 pm And in some states women have been forced to surrender their bodily autonomy to The State. What's wrong with that picture?

CDFingers

California may enforce its recent ban on guns in “sensitive places” when it comes to parks and playgrounds, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, casinos, stadiums, amusement parks, zoos, libraries, museums, athletic facilities and the parking areas associated with them, a federal appellate court ruled Friday. However, the state may not enforce similar restrictions in hospitals or other medical facilities, on public transit, at places of worship or financial institutions, or in the parking areas associated with or shared by those places, the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined. It also may not enforce its ban on guns at all events requiring a permit, or on visitors carrying guns onto any private property where the owner has not posted signs explicitly allowing them, the panel ruled. The appellate panel — which simultaneously issued similar findings relating to laws in Hawaii — issued its ruling in response to broad injunctions by lower courts that had blocked the bans from taking effect amid ongoing litigation over the laws.

The panel noted that some locations where it rejected statewide bans, such as banks and churches, could still bar visitors from carrying guns based on existing property laws, but the state governments could not unilaterally and universally do so for them. It said owners of private property are similarly free to ban firearms on their property. “For the places where we hold that the states likely may not prohibit the carry of firearms, the practical effect of our ruling is merely that private-property owners may choose to allow the carry of firearms,” Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber wrote for the panel. “Owners of hospitals, banks and churches, for example, remain free to ban firearms at those locations.” Gov. Gavin Newsom claimed partial victory — and said the state would continue fighting to drive down gun violence. Gun advocates characterized the ruling as a partial win, as well. “This partially favorable decision from the Ninth Circuit shows how far we’ve come over the past decade. But this case, and our work to restore the right to bear arms, is far from over,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, which helped bring the challenge against the laws. “FPC will continue to fight forward until all peaceable people can fully exercise their right to carry in California and throughout the United States.”

Graber, an appointee of President Clinton, was joined in the decision by Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder, an appointee of President Carter; and Circuit Judge Jennifer Sung, an appointee of President Biden. The ruling was the latest to apply the historical test for gun laws set out in 2022 by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen. There, the high court said that gun laws are legitimate only if they are rooted in the nation’s history and tradition or sufficiently analogous to some historical law. Graber’s opinion parsed through an array of historical laws to determine whether lower court injunctions blocking many of the states’ bans on guns in sensitive places should stand, or if they should be reversed based on historical precedent. In doing so, the ruling divided public places into those where guns may be banned, such as parks; and those where they may not be based on a lack of similar restrictions in the past, such as places of worship.

That partition highlighted a reality under Bruen’s “history and tradition” test that gun control advocates have denounced as preposterous: that it precludes leaders from crafting modern gun laws to address modern realities of gun violence, such as mass shootings at places of worship. Billy Clark, senior litigation attorney at the gun control advocacy group Giffords Law Center, said the decision “further illustrates that it is constitutional to keep guns out of sensitive places” — but also more evidence of the “chaos” in 2nd Amendment law caused by the Bruen decision. Adam Kraut, executive director of the gun rights advocacy group Second Amendment Foundation, said California’s expansion of “sensitive places” where guns are banned “goes beyond what the Supreme Court contemplated when it mentioned them in Bruen,” and said his group will continue to fight such bans in court.

highdesert wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2024 4:27 pm Agree featureless, Democrats have abused their one party status in California, I gave up voting for California Democrats long ago. Hope a future Republican president cleans out the 9th Circuit and Congress abolishes senior status on US circuit and district courts. The federal judiciary needs term limits.

Hope FPC and SAF take this case to SCOTUS.

featureless wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2024 5:15 pm Further, California is making gun laws so difficult to comply with, even the best intentioned gun owners are inadvertently breaking gun laws pretty regularly. The incentive to comply with the laws gets to be less and less since you're eventually going to get jammed up and lose the right anyway, regardless of care and diligence. So, why would one go to the bother? Why would one spend 16 hours of class time, countless additional hours of paperwork and training, thousands of dollars in equipment, fees and training to carry some few places legally with the add on pain in the ass if disarming constantly throughout a trip? Seems the state is disincentivizing the legal approach in favor of encouraging saying fuck the permit as the far easier and, indeed, safer path. Good luck with that approach!