Livid Legislators Try to Thwart SCOTUS Gun Ruling
They Can Try, But They Won’t Win the Legal War
Have you ever seen smoke literally come out of a Leftist’s ears?
Let’s be real – it’s been happening a lot in the past weeks and it was on full display at the State Capitol yesterday in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. So what triggered the Democrats ire? It was hearing GOC read from the SCOTUS decision on NYSRPA v Bruen decision that declared CCW conditions (such as those we have in California) are unconstitutional. And we called it: because they got the ultimate beat down from the highest court in the land they are going to throw every CCW restriction at the wall to see what sticks.
Reeling from the Bruen decision, it took no time at all for the Left to get to work; with legislative deadlines looming, amendments to SB 918 were drafted, admittedly written late at night and in extreme haste. Anti-gun Senator Portantino was eager, however, to get a committee vote on the bill before the Legislature heads off for their summer recess this Friday, July 1. It’s only because GOC has spent years developing longstanding, established relationships at the Capitol that we were able to actually read the amendments and prepare for testimony before they were made public yesterday.
GOC’s Executive Director Sam Paredes was front and center at the hearing and witnessed members squirm in discomfort as he read Justice Thomas’ words in the SCOTUS decision – and why SB 918 is in direct conflict. The bottom line is, they don’t care what the Court did – nor do they care that CCW holders are the most law-abiding subsection of society.
With a representative from the Department of Justice playing backup, Senator Portantino proposed the following changes to CCW statute in California:
- Increases (doubles) the costs for licensing and processing for CCW applications.
- Doubles the amount of time required for training classes from 8 to 16 hours for the initial application and from 4 to 8 hours for a renewal.
- Mandates that the class cover mental health resources.
- Mandates a written exam demonstrating knowledge of class contents.
- Requires face to face interview with law enforcement plus recommendations from three different character witnesses.
- Requires face-to-face interview of residential “co-habitant.”
- Encourages (does not mandate) local authorities to require a mental health evaluation to be conducted by a psychologist.
It’s important to note that the burden has always fallen on the government to prove an individual is not of “good moral character” – the new regulations place the burden on the applicant.
The bill also prohibits a legal CCW holder from carrying in the following “sensitive areas”:
- Anywhere alcohol is served.
- Public transit, all airport buildings, hospitals, schools, medical facilities, nursing homes, parks, and more.
And if that weren’t bad enough, a provision was also added that addresses alcohol use. Legal CCW holders will be precluded from carrying while “under the influence” of any alcoholic beverage or medication. Take note of this: it does not mean legally impaired – it means any perceptible amount of alcohol or medication in one’s system. And yes – it covers all medications, not just the hard stuff such as those designated as legal narcotics (i.e. prescription painkillers), but every-day medicine for cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc.
In spite of their seething anger at the SCOTUS 2A ruling – not to mention the fact that the author admitted the amendments had errors – the committee gleefully passed the bill on a party-line vote, believing somehow that they are sticking it to the Supreme Court. Assemblyman Quirk even came up with a strangely ignorant analysis of the Supreme Court, stating that it is not their job to interpret the Constitution. (He needs to check out Marbury v. Madison  which established the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution.) The bill will now heads to the Assembly Appropriations Committee and after that, will be heard by the full Assembly.
The good news is that in his brilliant execution of Constitutional intent with regard to the 2nd Amendment and the right to carry a concealed firearm, Justice Thomas fully anticipated what the anti-gun zealots would do – and he addressed each one in his ruling. By doing so, he gave us plenty of fodder to undo their plans to ultimately foil the decision.
Portantino and his looney toon compatriots will ultimately loose in court. In the process, however, they will clog the judicial system needlessly and cost the taxpayers untold millions of dollars. What’s more, they will most likely pay all our legal fees, which will simply add to the healthy bank accounts of numerous litigators.
GOC will continue to pound the floors of the State Capitol in opposition to SB 918 and every other recklessly outlandish piece of legislation they throw our way. Stay tuned!
In another phenomenal development, California gun owners have been put at risk by the Attorney General’s office after a new “dashboard” disclosed the personal data of every CCW holder – AND all individuals with a registered so-called “assault weapon” in the state.
GOC Executive Director Sam Paredes stated that “AG Bonta is either grossly negligent, completely incompetent or criminally liable. If this is his idea of increasing public trust, we’re screwed. For endangering the lives of 10s of thousands of law-abiding Californians, Bonta should resign.” This is a continuing story with potential legal ramifications – there will certainly be much more to come in the days ahead.
I really feel for the poor souls who still live in California. I encourage everyone to leave the state as soon as possible. When the entire population is movie stars and illegals perhaps something will give; in the meantime start packing! I did.
Heard, yet there are many incredible people still here and GOC is fighting for them every day. We’d love some encouragement!
In addition to the points you make, the PROPOSED DELETIONS in Section 7(c) of SB 918 (text below) would prohibit a non-CCW legal firearms owner from driving within 1,000 feet of a school with an unloaded handgun inside the vehicle’s locked trunk. These PROPOSED DELETIONS are unrelated to CCW, as they apply only to non-CCW holders.
Bottom Line: those who live, work, or commute within as far as 2-3 blocks from a school, and do not have a CCW, would be criminalized for the innocent transport of an unloaded handgun inside a locked vehicle trunk if the vehicle passed within 1,000 feet of a school while driving between home and work, to a shooting range, to a hunting trip, etc. etc.
From SB 918
SEC. 7. Section 626.9 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
(b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (e), shall be punished as specified in subdivision (f).
(“School zone” means an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school.)
(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the firearm is otherwise lawful.
(2) PROPOSED DELETION: When the firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle.
PROPOSED DELETION: This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in accordance with state law.
You are correct; this was brought up in Assembly Public Safety and it is our understanding that additional amendments will be forthcoming. The bill will be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee sometime in August (after the summer recess) and we anticipate even more changes…
With their supermajority the legislature dropped all pretense of being representatives of your average Californian years ago. To see the proposed bills that are being heard these days (especially from Scott Weiner) you’d think CA is just one big college town – drink until 4am, bring street drugs to share at a party, etc..
All this while allowing billions to go to State Prison inmates, allowing the homeless to run wild and setup camps wherever and the revolving ‘no bail’ door for pretty much everything short of Train Wrecking. The “Data Leak” was like the cherry on top for my year, whether it was intentional or just Sacramento’s habitual ineptitude we’ll never know.
Dear Sam Paredes, GOC Executive Director,
I very much appreciated this post and your efforts. As I am sure you are well informed, you are clearly aware that California is trying to implement, SB918 currently in review in its legislature, which would effectively deny all current CCW holders their ability to carry pretty much anywhere, with this new draconian tyrannical bill they’ve drafted and is in assembly. This effectively invalidates a CCW, which is their goal clearly, as a backlash to the Supreme Court ruling, with text below for example, among other items:
8) A bus, train, or other form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and a building, real property, or parking area under the control of a transportation authority supported in whole or in part with public funds.
(26) Any other privately-owned commercial establishment that is open to the public, unless the operator of the establishment clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that license holders are permitted to carry firearms on the property. Signs shall be of a uniform design as prescribed by the Department of Justice and shall be at least four inches by six inches in size.
Both of these and several others limiting aspects of this unconstitutional bill would effectively, as cited in the Bruen case, essentially declare the whole island of Manhattan a “Sensitive place”. Now we would need signage allowing it?, or the CCW holder would be effectively denied from carrying, along with all of these public places they are proposing where crime often, such as late nights on BART for example. When I think of all of the places one would carry concealed and could no longer carry, this is 100% in clear defiance of the SC ruling. Text from the ruling as cited:
To be clear, even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster. For example, courts can use analogies to “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible. Id., at 626. That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause require- ment as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department. Pp. 17–22.
This bill was debated in committee in late June this year, and I am convinced it was not nearly scrutinized as it should have been, for what this would do to current CCW holders. (Starts at around 1hr 23min) The audacity to try and pass it off as supposedly in compliance with the Bruen ruling is comical at best. This bill is effectively thumbing their noses at the ruling!
Then there is of course the releasing of CCW personal info that the CA DOJ supposedly inadvertently made insecure recently, which seems very much to be a malicious backlash at current CCW holders (including many CA judges), and to discourage others from applying, as a form of punishment to current CCW holders and applicants, as a result of the SC Bruen case ruling. CA seems to think it doesn’t need to follow the law anymore.
Point being, it is my belief all of these events, are connected in some insidious fashion and tapestry of outright hatred for gun owners and law abiding citizens. I also read that New York put many of these changes into law and California would appear to have been coordinating with them to try and circumvent the ruling in cahoots with similar language in their respective bills. That law goes into effect Sept 1, and I truly hope the SC or some other federal judge will invoke an immediate stay or injunction on all of it, to block its tyrannical nature for the sake of both CCW holders in these states. Below is a recent event, where a CCW law abiding citizen helped thwart a bad situation from getting much much worse, which I think speaks to the very heart of why CCW holders should not have restrictions, once the applicants have been properly vetted as not being a convict or criminal, and have the proper training.
“A man with a rifle walked into an Indiana mall and opened fire in a food court Sunday evening. A law-abiding citizen with a permit to carry a handgun responded in seconds and was able to shoot and kill the suspect, ending the rampage.
The Greenwood Police Department said a lone suspect entered the food court area of the Greenwood Park Mall, located on Highway 31 on the south side of Indianapolis, around 1800 local time. The suspect was armed with a rifle and several magazines of ammunition and immediately began firing. He was identified as an adult male, and police have yet to release a motive.
The suspect killed three people and injured two during the rampage but was stopped short by a 22-year-old man carrying a gun lawfully. Police have not shared the man’s name, but local authorities are already calling the citizen who stopped the shooter a “real hero.”
In closing, I do so hope that either the Supreme Court, 9th circuit in CA, can put an immediate stop or stay in place in both New York and California, to this direct attack on CCW holders which a direct assault on our rights as law abiding citizens. In both states and both cases, these bills/laws are effectively spitting in the faces, and in direct defiance to the SC’s important ruling for our country. I hope and pray that our rights and the SC ruling will be upheld as intended in the NYSRPA v. Bruen case, and not unconstitutionally blocked by a bunch of bureaucrats that seem more interested in “laws for thee, and not for me”. My biggest issue administratively with these sorts of unconstitutional laws rammed thru, is that law abiding citizens, have to fight, in many cases, for years to undue what is clearly in violation of their rights enumerated in the 2nd amendment and important cases law like this, especially right after you issued the ruling.
The awareness needs to be raised very high, and a huge bright light needs to be shined on this now, before they attempt to push this thru. I would recommend a class action lawsuit by CA citizens against the State of California.