The ruling was the first on the issue since the U.S. Supreme Court last year limited the state’s ability to impose restrictions on firearms. California’s ban has been in place since 1989.
Despite the high court deciding state lawmakers may not eradicate a law-abiding individual’s right to concealed carry, the Golden State’s ban will remain in effect.
Fox San Francisco spoke with legal analyst Steven Clark, who said the appeals court ruling clarified the question hovering over the state’s “assault weapons” ban. “But the big question remaining was, does that apply to every type of firearm or weapon? The California court has said, no it doesn’t. Our AR-15 ban still stands.”
Clark predicted that there will be similar cases litigated across the country concerning laws that limit the “absolute right to own a firearm.” The particular circumstances in which this right applies, and the types of weapons courts believe it covers will also be decided.
It was the Third District Court of Appeals that issued the Friday ruling declaring that semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 may not be possessed or sold in California. The case revolved around Alex Bocanegra of San Jose, who was convicted of attempted murder when he shot a former friend with an “assault rifle.”
California gun owners clearly do not agree with the appeals court decision.
The outlet spoke with Mohamed Jamal, a Santa Clara gun owner who was at a local indoor range. He related that he has been the target of thieves on numerous occasions and believes he should be able to own any type of weapon to protect himself and his property.
“For protection, for self-protection. Just on the 1st of this month, I own a shop in San Lorenzo.” He explained that a “bunch of guys” recently drove their car into his shop and brandished weapons.
He said his experiences led him to own four weapons and he regularly practices shooting.
Unfortunately for Jamal, California is home to some of the most stringent gun laws in the nation. Gov. Gavin Newsom spearheaded a long list of measures that gun rights advocates are now forced to fight in court.
Earlier this year he endorsed a new law that would bar individuals from carrying concealed weapons in a broad array of locations. Everywhere from churches, public libraries, amusement parks, and zoos to playgrounds, banks, and all other privately owned businesses that cater to the public would be off limits.
An exception would only be made if the business owner displayed a sign announcing that concealed carry is allowed on the premises.
The law would also ban any Californian under 21 from getting a concealed carry permit. It added stipulations that those who hold permits must undergo more training, including on how to safely store and transport firearms.
California was on a short list of states that previously required residents to present a reason for needing to carry a concealed weapon in public. This onerous requirement meant that, to exercise their Second Amendment rights, people had to first prove that they faced some kind of threat.
The U.S. Supreme Court, however, swept that requirement away and in the process left gun control-dominated states like California scrambling to enact new laws to restrict law-abiding gun owners.
What is on the horizon, and anti-gun activists know this, is a case that will finally make its way to the high court concerning state restrictions on “assault weapons.” Until then, supporters of the Second Amendment must rely on the guidance from 2022’s Bruen decision to thwart the efforts of political leaders to strip their rights away.
