California’s Concealed Gun Carry Laws Put On Hold (AGAIN)

In what could best be described as a game of Judicial Ping Pong, two judges on a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Panel have blocked a California Law known as SB 2, which was signed into existence by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2023 and which would have prevented California citizens licensed for concealed weapons carry from doing so in what the bill described as sensitive places.

SB 2 was developed and enacted in reaction to a landmark United States Supreme Court decision New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022 that held that most laws regulating firearm ownership are legitimate only if they are firmly rooted in American history or analogous to some historical rule. The decision thereby eviscerated New York State’s overreaching laws on concealed weapons carry. California Democrats seeing that existing state laws governing concealed carry would similarly fall short of the new standard set by the SCOTUS decision, were able to rush the bill through and have it signed by the governor in rather expedited legislative fashion. 

While SB 2 no longer prohibited concealed carry in the state, it all but made it impossible for licensed Californians as it defined 26 “sensitive spaces” where weapons carry would be prohibited. These sensitive spaces are extensive and include public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks, casinos, stadiums, arenas, zoos and many other sites. Those arguing against SB 2 opined that with these 26 sensitive spaces on the books, just leaving your house with a weapon and driving across town would likely take you through a defined sensitive area and would render you in violation of the law.

In mid-December Federal District Court Justice Cormac Carney placed a temporary stay on SB 2 just before it was scheduled to take effect on January 1, by ruling that the law violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and deprives citizens the right to protect themselves and their loved ones. He wrote of the law:

“It is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.”

Soon thereafter on December 30, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court temporarily blocked Judge Carney’s injunction against SB 2 via an administrative stay and cleared the way for the provisions of the new law to take effect just two days later. Evidently, the administrative stay does not consider the merits of the case, but rather gives the court more time to consider the arguments on both sides of the case. The panel of judges wrote:

“In granting an administrative stay, we do not intend to constrain the merits panel’s consideration of the merits of these appeals in any way,” 

Just days later, the unnamed two-judge panel from the very same Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dissolved the previous stay and reinstituted Judge Carney’s original ruling which prevents SB 2 from going into effect.

Confused? Head spinning? Yeah, me too. Judicial ping pong in rather short order.

So, what happens next? Surely this is not the end of the political cat and mouse game being played out in the courts.

It seems like this Ninth Circuit Court three-judge panel will hear arguments from both sides in April with a ruling expected within a month or two after that. Until that hearing and ruling occur, implementing SB 2 remains on hold for California. And once that mid-year ruling is rendered, that should settle the fate of SB 2, right? Not so fast.

Should the three-judge panel after hearing arguments uphold the existing stay on SB 2, its provisions will not be enforceable, unless… a majority of the 29-judge Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals grants a new hearing before an eleven-judge panel which would then decide the fate of SB 2 once and for all. 

Hold that thought…

Then of course, there is the potential appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

It appears that the only way to swift justice and an ultimate decision from the courts these days is if you are a presidential candidate who gets kicked off the ballot in a state or two. Otherwise, count on a drawn out, convoluted process that only the greatest legal minds of our time might be able to comprehend and navigate in order to get to the judicial finish line.

And while the wheels of justice indeed churn slowly and hardly in a straight line, make no mistake—the politicians are going to have their say in an all but futile effort to sway the courts.

A spokesman for Governor Newsom’s office said:

“The court’s dangerous decision puts the lives of Californians on the line.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta had previously stated that if the Carney District Court ruling was allowed to stand: 

“it would endanger communities by allowing guns in places where families and children gather.”

Perhaps Newsom’s, Bonta’s and other California Democrats’ feelings on the matter might be heartfelt, yet they are hardly based upon constitutional principles. On the matter of concealed weapons carry it would appear that the winning constitutional argument falls with gun rights advocates and looming federal court hearings and rulings are likely to bear that out.

Additionally, the Ninth Circuit will certainly be busy in 2024 hearing other matters pertaining to gun rights and the Second Amendment. In addition to the issue of concealed carry, the court will also be entertaining arguments on the matter of the state’s 30-year-old ban on semi-automatic weapons, and on the more recent ban on “high capacity” gun magazines that are capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. Both of those laws were set aside by U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez out of San Diego whose rulings were stayed until the Court of Appeals could hear and rule on them.