I don’t see a thread on this already, which is surprising, so I’m starting this one
SB2 essentially tries to wordsmith an end-run around Bruen by defining pretty much everywhere in public as a “sensitive place“. Note that this rolled back the ability to carry in public that had existed previously up until the law was enacted. Previously If you had a carry permit in California, you could carry on in a number of places affected by this law.
May v Bonta and Catallero (sp?) v Bonta won injunctions against the law in fed district court.
The state of California got the ninth circuit to issue an administrative stay against the injunction(s). Even though the injunction actually preserved the status quo while the law was being litigated.
The stay was referred to a three member merit panel for further consideration. That panel has now dissolved the stay, so the injunction is now in effect and permit holders can carry the same as they always have while the law is being litigated. Curiously, the panel vote seem to be 2 to 0, because apparently one of the members was absent but I guess it didn’t matter since the two remaining ones voted together to dissolve the stay.
SB2 essentially tries to wordsmith an end-run around Bruen by defining pretty much everywhere in public as a “sensitive place“. Note that this rolled back the ability to carry in public that had existed previously up until the law was enacted. Previously If you had a carry permit in California, you could carry on in a number of places affected by this law.
May v Bonta and Catallero (sp?) v Bonta won injunctions against the law in fed district court.
The state of California got the ninth circuit to issue an administrative stay against the injunction(s). Even though the injunction actually preserved the status quo while the law was being litigated.
The stay was referred to a three member merit panel for further consideration. That panel has now dissolved the stay, so the injunction is now in effect and permit holders can carry the same as they always have while the law is being litigated. Curiously, the panel vote seem to be 2 to 0, because apparently one of the members was absent but I guess it didn’t matter since the two remaining ones voted together to dissolve the stay.