A new year has begun, and with it have come some new restrictions on our liberty. While we were joyously ringing in the new year, a dangerous CA law quietly went into effect that does nothing to deter criminals but only further infringes on our right to keep and bear arms. Essentially, this law is a further erosion of the 2nd Amendment.
According to Jurist, Legal News and Commentary, Juris.org, December 31, 2023:
“California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 2 in September, along with over 20 other bills to regulate the use of firearms in the state. SB 2 limits public places where people with concealed carry permits may carry their handguns to defend themselves. Specifically, SB 2 lists 26 ‘sensitive places’ where concealed carry permit holders cannot carry handguns.”
Some examples of “sensitive places” according to the bill are churches, libraries, parks, playgrounds, and banks. These new restrictions apply not only to the buildings themselves, but also to the parking lots and the sidewalks around the buildings. What does this mean for a law-abiding citizen who jumped through the legal hoops to get a concealed carry permit? In short, it means that not only can they not have their gun on their person, but they also can’t even leave it in their car if parked in one of these locations. Essentially, Newsom has said, you can conceal carry, but only in your own home. How long will it be before that is no longer an option either?
Many concealed carry permit holders will go along with these new guidelines, but let’s think about it. How many criminals or people with an intent to commit mass murder will stop and say to themselves, “Oh yeah. There is a new law, so I better not go into that building with my gun”? Yeah right! The only person this new law will “deter” is the law-abiding citizen who is now even more regulated in the ability to “keep and bear” his or her legally-obtained gun.
Over the years, as stalwart 2nd amendment defenders have tried to fight back against any limits to gun ownership, the argument by those advocating for “some restrictions” has been something like this: It’s “just a little modification” and it will never completely take away a person’s right to own a firearm. What we are starting to see is that these supposedly “little” changes have slowly been letting the camel put his nose into the tent to keep warm. Now, with each new restriction, the camel has moved further into the tent. We are gradually losing this battle inch by inch.
The philosophical concept of the Dialectic demonstrates that when there is compromise to the “Thesis” (individual gun ownership), the inevitable result is movement toward the “Antithesis” (no gun ownership). The result of this movement is called the “Synthesis”, which then becomes the new Thesis. This new Thesis (individual gun ownership, but with more regulations) is now closer to the Antithesis (no gun ownership). In other words, with every new attempt to weaken the 2nd amendment, those with an agenda against individual gun ownership already have an easier job since the starting point (the Thesis) has gradually moved closer to their side. The camel is already further inside our tent.
If we look carefully at the wording of the 2nd Amendment, notice that the amendment itself doesn’t grant the right. The right is assumed. The wording is: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government.” The amendment’s purpose is merely to make sure that the civil government doesn’t infringe upon that right. Our founding fathers understood that rights come from God. The governing documents are there to protect those rights, not to bestow them.
The inaccurate thinking that the government gives us the right to keep and bear arms has led to an erosion of the protection. Once we fall for this type of thinking (that the government “gives us permission” versus the government protecting a God-given right), it is much easier for us to accept the government putting more restrictions on their permission–or even taking away the permission entirely.
So now the camel is comfortably living in our tent and asking for another bowl of ice cream. We have allowed our elected officials to compromise on so many “little things” regarding the protection of our right to own guns that we now have that right in name only.
It is well past time that we stop our elected officials (at both the state and federal level) from continuing down this path. We need to speak out and hold them accountable. Do you know how your state representatives voted on this issue? Look up their vote and then contact them to either thank them for their position or question them as to why they supported these actions. When the next election comes around, remember to vote accordingly. Some CA legislature seats are won or lost by only a few thousand votes. We need to vote those who supported this bill out of office before they do more damage to our rights. And they can take their camel with them!
Editing: Jenna Hermle, IPS Editor
Research Contributor: Chris Dow, Friend of IPS