Federal judge blocks California law that would ban carrying firearms in most public places
A new California law that would have banned people from carrying firearms in most public spaces was temporarily blocked by a federal judge Wednesday just over a week before the law was set to take effect.
U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law and wrote in his decision that the law’s “coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.” The law was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September as part of California Democrats' efforts to implement gun restrictions following numerous mass shootings.
It would have prohibited people from carrying firearms in 26 places, including public parks, public demonstrations and gatherings, amusement parks, churches, banks, zoos, and “any other privately owned commercial establishment that is open to the public," according to the bill. The law was scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1.
Newsom, who has pushed for stricter gun measures, said in a statement Wednesday that the state will "keep fighting to defend (its) laws and to enshrine a Right to Safety in the Constitution."
"Defying common sense, this ruling outrageously calls California's data-backed gun safety efforts 'repugnant.' What is repugnant is this ruling, which greenlights the proliferation of guns in our hospitals, libraries, and children's playgrounds — spaces, which should be safe for all," the governor said in the statement.
Gun silencers or solvent traps:Why homemade gun devices are back in ATF's crosshairs
California gun measure already faced legal challenge
The law was part of nearly two dozen gun control measures Newsom had signed on Sept. 26, which have since faced legal challenges. The governor had previously acknowledged that the laws might not be able to survive the challenges due to the U.S. Supreme Court's new standard for interpreting the Second Amendment.
Wednesday's decision marked a victory for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, which had already sued to block the law.
"California progressive politicians refuse to accept the Supreme Court's mandate from the Bruen case and are trying every creative ploy they can imagine to get around it," Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said in a statement to the Associated Press. "The Court saw through the State's gambit."
Michel added that under the law, gun permit holders "wouldn't be able to drive across town without passing through a prohibited area and breaking the law."
Is America's gun problem fixable?Maybe if we listened to Jose Quezada
Gun measure followed Supreme Court's decision
California Democrats had advocated for the law — which would have overhauled the state's rules for concealed carry permits — in light of the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The Supreme Court had struck down a New York law in June 2023 that required state residents to have "proper cause" to carry a handgun in public. The consequential ruling further divided Americans as the country reeled from multiple mass shootings, including the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, which left 19 children and two teachers dead.
Supporters of the Second Amendment had commended the decision while gun control advocates denounced it, saying the decision would only jeopardize public health and drive more gun violence.
Supreme Court and guns:This man fudged his income to put his family on food stamps. Should he be denied a gun?
Contributing: John Fritze and Sara Chernikoff, USA TODAY; The Associated Press