The law, which was set to take effect Jan. 1, would have prohibited people from carrying concealed guns in 26 places, including public parks, churches, banks and zoos.
It seems to me people making laws creating gun free zones like this are hoping for some combination of:
Nobody will bring guns into those places
Fewer people will carry guns legally because the restricted areas make it too inconvenient
The former is obviously not true without creating a police state where people are subject to random searches, or searched on entry to any of the listed places. The latter probably is true to some degree, but with the following side effects:
The people who obey the law are the most prudent and law-abiding firearms carriers. The ones who ignore it are less so, which makes me highly skeptical of any actual benefit.
People will leave guns in cars to avoid violating the law. Car burglary is a noted problem, especially in California. Stolen guns tend to get used for things that aren’t very nice.
It is the second one 100%. The ideal default for these states, and probably most people on Lemmy is “no non-professional should be empowered to carry a loaded gun, period.” Since that became untenable after the Bruen decision, they came up with this play to run interference. They’re probably hoping for a reversal at the Supreme Court in the long term so they can go back to denying applications and likely scrapping ones they issued.
It seems to me people making laws creating gun free zones like this are hoping for some combination of:
The former is obviously not true without creating a police state where people are subject to random searches, or searched on entry to any of the listed places. The latter probably is true to some degree, but with the following side effects:
It is the second one 100%. The ideal default for these states, and probably most people on Lemmy is “no non-professional should be empowered to carry a loaded gun, period.” Since that became untenable after the Bruen decision, they came up with this play to run interference. They’re probably hoping for a reversal at the Supreme Court in the long term so they can go back to denying applications and likely scrapping ones they issued.