Federal Judge Calls California's Law Banning Carrying Firearms in Most Public Places 'Repugnant'

A California law that would have banned the carrying of firearms in almost all public places was blocked by a federal judge who called the law "repugnant."

Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law in September and it was set to go into effect on January 1. U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney granted a preliminary injunction, calling the law "sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court."

Other than that, what's not to like?

Indeed, the new law would have banned the carrying of firearms, even licensed firearms, in 26 specific public places, including, "public transportation, at public gatherings and special events, in parks and at playgrounds, in stadiums, arenas and casinos, in medical facilities, religious institutions or financial institutions, anywhere that liquor is sold and consumed, in all other private commercial spaces where the owner has not explicitly posted a sign to the contrary, and in many parking areas, among other places, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Newsom and California Democrats thought they could pull a fast one on the Second Amendment. The Bruen decision carved out a very small exception where concealed firearms could be banned. The so-called "sensitive places" exception included a few historically restricted places, not public spaces in general. Judge Carney was right. The repugnant way that California Democrats deliberately defied of the Supreme Court was indicative of a lack of respect for the law. 

Chuck Michel, an attorney for the plaintiffs who sued the state to block the measure, praised Carney’s ruling.

“California anti-gun owner 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,” he said in a statement. “This law was an attempt to make permits to carry a firearm to defend yourself or your family useless because permit holders wouldn’t be able to drive across town without passing through a prohibited area and breaking the law.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta tried to generate some hysteria among Californians about the decision, saying Carney’s decision, if allowed to stand, would “endanger communities by allowing guns in places where families and children gather.”

If Bonta thinks that there weren't concealed firearms in public places before this,he is remarkably dense. He speaks as of the act of carrying a licensed firearm is an act of violence and that families and children should run away screaming in terror at the prospect of someone with a firearm in the same area as they are.

He also said the state believes that SB 2 “adheres to the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in Bruen,” when it clearly does not. The "sensitive places" exception never meant the Moose Lodge in town or the local pub that chooses to serve alcohol. It would be illegal to carry a gun in both of those places under the new law.

Carney also said that focusing new gun restrictions on people who have permits to carry guns in the state made little sense from his perspective.

“Although the government may have some valid safety concerns, legislation regulating [concealed carry] permitholders — the most responsible of law abiding citizens seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights — seems an odd and misguided place to focus to address those safety concerns,” Carney wrote.

“They have been through a vigorous vetting and training process following their application to carry a concealed handgun,” he wrote. “The challenged SB2 provisions unconstitutionally deprive this group of their constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.”

California Democrats will keep trying. They will find other specious legal reasoning to ban firearms and federal judges will continue to slap them down.