California moves to limit where firearms maybe carried and who can have them

Democrats are always looking for ways to get around the Constitution and the Rule of Law.  The Supreme Court ruled you have a right to protect you via concealed weapon and no State can take away your rights.  California of course, the West Coast Stalinist State does not believe in the Supreme Court or the Rule of Law.  It is illegal to help illegal aliens—yet we use our tax dollars to give them food stamps, health care, education and more.  We use take dollars to force people to buy expensive cars they can not afford.

“Days after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed more people to carry concealed weapons, California lawmakers on Tuesday moved to limit where firearms may be carried and who can have them, while struggling to stay within the high court’s ruling.

They aim to restrict concealed carry to those 21 and older; require applicants to disclose all prior arrests, criminal convictions and restraining or protective orders; require in-person interviews with the applicant and at least three character references; and allow sheriffs and police chiefs to consider applicants’ public statements as they weigh if the individual is dangerous.

“We’re going to push the envelope, but we’re going to do it in a constitutional way,” said Democratic Sen. Anthony Portantino.

Sacramento Democrats, themselves protected by armed guards, want to continue making you a victim. 

California moves to limit where firearms-may-be-carried-and-who-can-have-them

Ktla, 6/29/22    

Days after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed more people to carry concealed weapons, California lawmakers on Tuesday moved to limit where firearms may be carried and who can have them, while struggling to stay within the high court’s ruling.

They aim to restrict concealed carry to those 21 and older; require applicants to disclose all prior arrests, criminal convictions and restraining or protective orders; require in-person interviews with the applicant and at least three character references; and allow sheriffs and police chiefs to consider applicants’ public statements as they weigh if the individual is dangerous.

“We’re going to push the envelope, but we’re going to do it in a constitutional way,” said Democratic Sen. Anthony Portantino.

It’s the latest example of California, where Democrats hold sway, pushing back against recent decisions by conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices. On Monday, lawmakers advanced a gun control measure modeled after a recent high court ruling in a Texas abortion case, and adopted a ballot measure that would enshrine a right to abortion in the California Constitution.

The Supreme Court last week rejected a New York law requiring that people seeking a license to carry a gun in public demonstrate a particular need, such as a direct threat to their safety. California is among a half-dozen states with a similar requirement, and Attorney General Rob Bonta said the ruling renders that portion of California’s law immediately unconstitutional.

But lawmakers won’t act on the replacement legislation until August, after they return from a monthlong summer recess and make further amendments. And even then they won’t seek to impose the new standards immediately, which would require a two-thirds vote, instead waiting to have the legislation take effect in January.

New York, meanwhile, plans a special session of its legislature Thursday to consider gun legislation that could also impose new requirements for a carry permit, perhaps as many as 20 hours of mandatory live-fire training, along with a substantial list of areas where carrying is prohibited.

The California legislation was advanced Tuesday by the Assembly Public Safety Committee on a 5-2 vote over the objections of gun owners rights advocates who said it goes too far and predicted that it, too, would be ruled unconstitutional.

“This amendment is not improving California’s concealed carry laws — it’s in defiance of this court opinion,” said Daniel Reid, the National Rifle Association’s Western regional director. “We’re seeing a complete redrafting of places where law-abiding citizens can carry in the state of California. It’s an incredibly confusing patchwork.”

He said lawmakers are using a “shell game” to substitute new rules for the one outlawed by the Supreme Court.

The proposed legislation would bar concealed weapons from schools and universities, government and judicial buildings, medical facilities, public transportation, any place where alcohol is sold and consumed, public parks and playgrounds, and special events that require a permit.

No other state uses those kind of restrictions, said Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California.

“This bill will never become law,” he said.

The proposal would allow anyone whose application is denied to receive a hearing before a Superior Court judge.

Applicants would be required to provide fingerprints each time they apply for a permit, regardless of whether they have previously submitted their fingerprints to the state Department of Justice, which opponents called redundant and designed to drive up the cost and bureaucracy of obtaining a license.

It also would require the applicant to be the licensed owner of the specific firearm for which they seek a license, which opponents said would make it more difficult for spouses to be licensed for weapons they jointly own, potentially putting them in legal jeopardy.

Bonta said the Supreme Court ruling doesn’t undermine other requirements of California’s law, including that those seeking to carry concealed weapons demonstrate “good moral character.”

Sheriffs and police chiefs are required to perform background checks before issuing permits. The applicant must have training in carrying a concealed weapon, must live or work in the city or county where they are seeking the permit, and the sheriff or police chief may require psychological testing.

California officials issued about 40,000 permits last year, down from more than 100,000 during the peak year of 2016, according to information newly posted on the state Department of Justice’s website.

Orange County had by far the most, at more than 65,000, followed by Fresno and Sacramento counties with more than 45,000 permits. By contrast, Los Angeles County, with about a quarter of the state’s population, issued about 3,600 permits, and San Francisco just 11.

But the database for some period also publicly disclosed the names and other identifying information on the state’s permit holders, in what the California Rifle and Pistol Association called an “unconscionable breach” of confidential information.

Bonta’s office said it was investigating the exposure of personal information, adding that “any unauthorized release of personal information is unacceptable.”

About Stephen Frank

Stephen Frank is the publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week. He has also served as a guest host on radio talk shows. He is a fulltime political consultant.

Comments

  1. Otis Needleman says

    And the criminals laugh as they do as they please. At the rate things are going, we’ll all be criminals in due time – then we’ll have actual rights. Criminals in CA have more rights than their victims or the law-abiding.

  2. Sure looks like the criminals in Sacramento are protecting other of their ilk. A it like banning sober drivers from the road so they won’t be killed by the drunken drivers. Place more hurdles for the average citizen in contravention of the 2A which states that citizens rights to bear arms shall not be infringed. Commiefornia is closer to the rules of China or Russia than to the US Constitution.

  3. This is just the beginning – Newsom is angling for the Presidency in 2024, when every dumb law in California will be a national law by executive order.

  4. Yes, we need more gun free zones so the shooters will know where to kill. No worries about anyone else being armed, right?

  5. Stan Anderson says

    I see that AG Bonbon has ruled himself out of every obtaining a concealed carry permit. He could never demonstrate his “good moral character” because he has no morals to demonstrate.

    I seem to remember that many years ago, one of the requirements to vote in a Deep Southern state or community was to estimate the number of beans in a large jar. The test was ruled unconstitutional. So be it with many of the proposed requirements in the new law.

  6. Really??? says

    Interesting that this is the next move.

    I cannot get a CCW permit even though I have had multiple treats from an 2x excon and his kids. They regularly have fire arms in the house and their autos.

    There are not enough police in my city to enforce traffic violations let alone protect people like me from intimidation and / or potential harm. Yet the Left does not care about the honest citizens.

  7. I guess the folks in Sacramento do not feel that they need to be beholden to the Constitution. Funny, I think they made a pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Now, it seems that they want to get in the way of the common citizen from “protection” in any way they can even if they ignore the rule of law and principals.

    And Newsome goes on TV in Florida and says come to California for Freedom. What a NERD and liar. But, California keeps electing these idiots.

Speak Your Mind

*