That's not at all what's happened.
SB2 was one of over 20 firearm bills that Gov. Gavin "Glamor Only" Newsom signed last September. SB2 lists a staggering 26 different types of places where those who hold California hard-to-get concealed carry permits would not be allowed to carry.
If anyone is curious--and wants to be thankful again that they live in Texas--the text of this lovely state senate bill can be found here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 2320240SB2
It includes some statements--presented as fact--that y'all will enjoy. For example:
The new law was scheduled to go into effect January 1, but the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California had issued a preliminary injunction last month blocking SB2. The judge, Cormac Carney, ruled that SB2 did not meet the two-stage test as defined by SCOTUS in the Bruen case (i.e., does the plain text of the 2A allow the state's regulation and, if the regulation would otherwise be allowed under the 2A plain text, is the law "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation"?).Over the past several years, a wealth of empirical studies have shown that crime is higher when more people carry firearms in public places.
Broadly allowing individuals to carry firearms in most public areas increases the number of people wounded and killed by gun violence.
Widespread carrying of firearms also impedes the exercise of other fundamental rights. When firearms are present in public spaces, it makes those places less safe, which discourages people from attending protests, going to school, peacefully worshiping, voting in person, and enjoying other activities.
Widespread public carry also intimidates those who hope to peacefully worship.
Carrying firearms impedes the exercise of other rights of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, including the right to protest and vote.
Broad public carry laws also impede the ability of law enforcement to ensure the public’s safety.
Following the (correct) District Court ruling by Cormac Carney, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals then issued a stay to Carney's ruling.
What's happened now is that the 9th has dissolved its own stay...meaning that the injunction from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California is back in place and the law won't go into effect this month.
However, the way I read the whole thing, the 9th Circuit's dissolution of its stay isn't the definitive win that some websites and blogs are touting. Basically, the 9th Circuit only "unstayed" its own stay, which means Judge Carney's preliminary injunction is back in place. No new laws right now, but California Attorney General Rob Bonta is going to proceed with the state's appeal...which will go back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
His argument is (or at least was) that Judge Carney and the district court incorrectly interpreted the Bruen test. You can wade through some of this in a PDF that's on the Firearms Policy Coalition's website, but I gather that, basically, Bonta argues that:
- California has a long history of regulating places where the carrying of firearms is restricted or prevented, making the new laws "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation";
- That Bruen did not prevent restrictions to carry in defined "sensitive places," that in fact it included language noting that the decision did not negate longstanding "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings";
- And that a 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (New York City) decision has already set post-Bruen precedent that upholds a state law that contained "similar" locational carry restrictions.
So I don't think Californians--or we--should start cheering just yet. The 9th already showed it was willing to stay Judge Cormac Carney's preliminary injunction.
If I was a betting man, I'd wager a dollar that the 9th will eventually rule in favor of the California attorney general, and then the 9th's ruling will have to be appealed to SCOTUS. I think the core problem is that the District Court found that SB2 did meet the first requirement of the "Bruen Test." At issue now will be whether or not California can prohibit carry in described "sensitive places." Admittedly, what they're trying to restrict is carrying almost everywhere that you might define as "public," but I believe this is still far from decided.
This issue potentially has broad-reaching ramifications. If it goes to SCOTUS and the decision is that the states can claim any declared locations they want—e.g., any crosswalk at a roadway intersection that has a streetlight—as prohibited to licensed carry, it...wouldn't be good.