A new California law banning licensed gun owners from carrying their firearms into a range of public places took effect Monday, despite an ongoing legal challenge to its legitimacy.

A federal district judge last month struck down large parts of the law as unconstitutional and issued an order blocking the law from taking effect while gun owners challenged the law in court. But a federal appeals court temporarily halted that order Saturday.

Whether the law will ultimately survive the lawsuit and remain in effect in the long term remains uncertain, but for now, licensed gun owners must comply.

The law, known as Senate Bill 2, prohibits licensed gun carriers from carrying their firearms at public gatherings and special events, in parks and playgrounds, in stadiums, arenas and casinos, in medical facilities, religious institutions and financial institutions, in public transport and many parking lots, among other things.

California Legislature passes concealed carry limits, averting a potential Supreme Court battle

It also prevents them from taking their firearms anywhere liquor is sold and consumed, and in other private commercial spaces where the owners have not explicitly posted a sign to the contrary.

The law applies to concealed carry permit holders in major urban centers such as Los Angeles. But it also affects open-carry permit holders in rural, less populated parts of the state.

State leaders and advocates for greater gun control say the restrictions are just common sense and apply only to “sensitive places” where guns don’t do business. Many gun owners, including the plaintiffs in the case, argue that the law is so onerous that the list of restricted areas is so long that it essentially makes it impossible for them to carry their firearms outside the home.

The law was passed by the California legislature and signed by the governor. Gavin Newsom last year in response to several mass shootings, including in Half Moon Bay and Monterey Park, and a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that restricted gun control measures nationally.

Healing a shattered community: Survivors of the Monterey Park shooting return to dance

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen believed that strict restrictions on concealed carry permits in states such as New York and California amounted to unconstitutional restrictions on people’s right to self-defense, and that gun laws that are not deeply rooted in American history, or analogous to some historical law, are generally unconstitutional.

It also said certain laws, including those banning guns in sensitive places such as courtrooms and schools, remained in place.

In response, California and other liberal states rushed to enact new gun laws that were similar enough to Bruen to survive new legal challenges. Senator Anthony Portantino (D-Burbank) introduced SB 2 as a means to expand the list of “sensitive places” under California law. Gun owners have been charged in protest.

A federal judge blocks California law banning guns in many public places

On Dec. On October 20, U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney sided with the gun owners, writing that the law’s “coverage is sweeping, violates the Second Amendment, and openly defies the Supreme Court.”

Instead of finding a smart solution for Bruen, Carney, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said the new law clearly conflicted with it. He said a ban order was justified because those suing the state would likely win their case and suffer “irreparable harm” if they were not allowed to carry their firearms in the meantime.

But

on Dec. 22, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office filed an emergency motion asking the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to halt or “stay” Carney’s decision pending an appeal.

“A stay is necessary to allow the State to enforce the associated provisions of this statute, which the Legislature has determined will reduce gun violence in certain sensitive locations where other constitutional rights are exercised or that target particularly vulnerable populations, such as children,” says Bonta. desk wrote.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, consisting of Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Jay S. Bybee and Andrew D. Hurwitz, granted Bonta’s request, but noted that the stay was administrative only and did not affect a other, and made a decision from the appeal. judge on the merits of the case.

Rawlinson was appointed by President Clinton, Bybee by President George W. Bush and Hurwitz by President Obama.

Gov. Gavin

Newsom issued a statement praising the appeals panel’s temporary injunction and calling Carney’s ruling in the lower court “dangerous.”

California law that removes guns from people under restraining orders survives lawsuit

“Californians overwhelmingly support efforts to ensure places like hospitals, libraries and children’s playgrounds remain safe and gun-free,” Newsom said.

Chuck Michel, attorney for the gun owners in the case, said Monday that he will ask the appeals court for an urgent decision on the merits. He said he believes this decision will once again block the new state law as an illegal “ruse” to bypass Bruen.

He said every day the law is in effect hurts his licensed customers.

“The people who have these licenses have them for a reason,” he said. “Some of them are under direct threat, and now they are limited in their ability to protect themselves and their families.”