After being blocked by a federal judge in December, California’s new comprehensive gun restrictions have gone into place after the federal appeals court put an order on the previous injunction preventing its implementation. This law came in response to the national prevalence of gun violence as well as two shootings in California: Half Moon Bay and Monterey Park. While the Constitutionality of these restrictions is certainly questionable, its potential to reduce gun violence and keep Californians inherently safer is not.
U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney, who was responsible for the ruling that put the primary injunction in place, reasoned that the bill’s “coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.” Judge Carney referred to the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which established that gun restrictions are constitutional only when there is a tradition of similar regulation in U.S. history. There is a serious problem with this ruling because the historical context does not provide for the burgeoning issue that is modern gun violence.
The Bruen decision is now the foundation for the rejection of contemporary gun regulations, gutting most attempts at gun control. Since its inception, the Supreme Court’s decision has affected over a dozen state and federal laws, at least in part. This decision is the most impactful decision regarding guns in this decade, and it’s to the detriment of public safety for the sake of alignment with a Constitution that has proven itself unable to protect Americans from gun violence.
This ruling gave birth to what is known as the “Bruen Test” which has upended the judicial review of gun regulation in the U.S. Courts, now consider the similarity of regulations to those of historical laws on weapons. Essentially, modern-day assault rifles equivocate to weapons from the 1700s. The Bruen decision has been accurately described as anti-innovative and automatically prevents “innovative responses to challenges today that deal with gun violence.” With U.S. v Rahimi pending, a case that will determine whether those under domestic violence restraining orders can buy firearms, the U.S. Supreme Court’s penchant for expanding gun rights turns the safety of the American people into a painfully unethical experiment.
California’s new gun regulation law, Senate Bill 2, was a victim of the “Bruen Test.” The law’s survival is still tenuous as a legal battle in the court system continues. Opponents of the bill claim that the bill is so restrictive that gun owners are unable even to leave their houses with their guns. More specifically, this law “precludes licensed gun carriers from having 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, on public transportation and in many parking areas, among other spaces.” It’s unclear why guns were ever in many of these spaces in the first place.
Californians overwhelmingly favor putting legislation such as this in place. After the fatal and tragic shootings of Half Moon Bay and Monterey Bay, it’s no wonder why. The fact that the Bruen ruling invalidates the will of Californians to legislate gun safety in this state is beyond unreasonable. Additionally, the fact that Second Amendment rights repeatedly and unabashedly take precedence over the physical safety of citizens is not only morally wrong but dishonorable and shameful. When any court is willing to ignore the undeniable harm being done to the American people by this ruling, the American values they stand for are already dead.
As various forms of gun legislation make their way to the superior courts, the Bruen ruling will continue to assist in knocking them down. Gun regulation is a necessity in a country that is plagued by shootings in the very spaces where everyone has a right to feel safe. Responsible gun owners who own guns as a self-defense measure should welcome regulations that will keep firearms away from those who endanger them and others. Senate Bill 2 will not endanger gun owners by leaving them defenseless, but invalidating it will leave many Californians and Americans unprotected.
