Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 02-05-2023, 3:17 PM
TB89 TB89 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2022
Location: Azusa
Posts: 52
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
The process for this is called "recall". Been there, done that, failed miserably. Besides Newsome is just a tool (literally) of the leftist unions within the state. The problem is much deeper than the ****ty governor
I'm fairly ignorant on all the laws but I'm slowly but surely getting caught up. I'm not even fully moved in here yet after many many months of moving stuff from out of state. It's been a h*ll of a process. Didnt have to worry about all this before. Now I come here and I knew it was bad but not like this. This is absolutely pure insanity. Thankfully I dont plan to stay for more than 2-3 years for personal reasons. Then I'm gone, over to the Nevada line and never coming back.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 02-05-2023, 4:12 PM
Gravelman Gravelman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 123
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
Unless SCOTUS come to our rescue (and at least within a year or so), then it could be argued that Bruen actually made things worse for American citizens in liberal states. Before Bruen, widespread carry was the law except that few could get permits, except in counties with firearm friendly counties that interpreted "good cause" liberally.

But now, remember SB918 was the spawn of Bruen and now SB2 is the son of SB918. Concealed carry will be completely dead in this state, not for the few, but for everyone and that's what they want. In other words, Bruen will have accomplished precisely the opposite of what was intended.

Thomas, Alito, Kavenagh et all must know this. Lets hope they're brave enough to save us all.
SB918/2 have been in the works long before Bruen, that was just the point picked to drop them. These bills are part of a presidential campaign, purely political theater and I don’t think they actually care much if the bills pass or not. Whatever the outcome of SB2, I think the gov has a press release ready to spin the outcome for political gain.

Last edited by Gravelman; 02-05-2023 at 4:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 02-06-2023, 5:44 AM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 450
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

One of the (several) mindless restrictions that are hard to explain: This bill makes it illegal to have a firearm anywhere on the property of an airport, including a parking structure, even if the firearm is unloaded in a locked case. So how exactly are you supposed to get to the luggage check-in counter to travel with a legally declared firearm (unloaded, in a locked case)? The bill makes it impossible to get that firearm from point A to B, to the check-in counter where it is still legal to declare it in checked baggage.

And then the part that applies the 1000’ GFSZ to people with CCW permits … so you have a permit, and you carry while driving since carjackings are a real thing. So this idiot Portantino expects you to map out every school along your route ahead of time, pull over at the boundary and put your gun into a locked case (unloaded), proceed through the 1000’ school zone, then on the other side pull over again to re-arm yourself to continue on your way? Every time you encounter a school?

No, this bill is designed specifically to make it such a pain in the arse to carry, or so risky of getting cross-wise to the law, that people with CCW permits just stop carrying … or they carry illegally and are rendered ‘criminals’ and risk losing their right to own firearms for life (Exactly what liberals want).

Last edited by dawgcasa; 02-06-2023 at 6:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 02-06-2023, 7:29 AM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Both of the following issues raised involve the potential conflict of this bill with existing federal statutes. They’ve been addressed in the bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcasa View Post
One of the (several) mindless restrictions that are hard to explain: This bill makes it illegal to have a firearm anywhere on the property of an airport, including a parking structure, even if the firearm is unloaded in a locked case. So how exactly are you supposed to get to the luggage check-in counter to travel with a legally declared firearm (unloaded, in a locked case)? The bill makes it impossible to get that firearm from point A to B, to the check-in counter where it is still legal to declare it in checked baggage.
From the bill:
Quote:
171.5 (b) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess any firearm in any building, real property, or parking area under the control of an airport, except as provided for in subdivision (b), (c), or (e) of Section 26230.

171.5(e) Subdivision (b) shall not apply to, or affect, any person possessing an unloaded firearm being transported in accordance with Sections 1540.111(c)(2)(iii) and 1540.111(c)(2)(iv) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which require a hard-sided, locked container, so long as the person is not within any sterile area of an airport or a passenger vessel terminal.
Sections 1540.111(c)(2)(iii) and 1540.111(c)(2)(iv) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
/////////
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcasa View Post
And then the part that applies the 1000’ GFSZ to people with CCW permits … so you have a permit, and you carry while driving since carjackings are a real thing. So this idiot Portantino expects you to map out every school along your route ahead of time, pull over at the boundary and put your gun into a locked case (unloaded), proceed through the 1000’ school zone, then on the other side pull over again to re-arm yourself to continue on your way? Every time you encounter a school?
From the bill:
Quote:
(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm under any of the following circumstances:

(5) When the person holds a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6, who is carrying that firearm in an area that is within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school, but is not within any building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, or on a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to a building, real property, or parking area under the control of that public or private school. Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 from carrying a firearm in accordance with that license as provided in subdivisions (b), (c), or (e) of Section 26230.
That last bit about CA PEN 26230(e) is important:
Quote:
(e) Except in the places specified in paragraph (14) of subdivision (a) {colleges/universities} a licensee shall not be in violation of this section while they are traveling along a public right-of-way that touches or crosses any of the premises identified in subdivision (a) if the concealed firearm is carried on their person in accordance with the provisions of this act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law. Nothing in this section allows a person to loiter or remain in a place longer than necessary to complete their travel.
The cut-out of colleges and universities is important because they are not under the federal GFSZ definition (K-12).
/////////
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcasa View Post
No, this bill is designed specifically to make it such a pain in the arse to carry, or so risky of getting cross-wise to the law, that people with CCW permits just stop carrying … or they carry illegally and are rendered ‘criminals’ and risk losing their right to own firearms for life (Exactly what liberals want).
This is correct. Also, these folks are smart enough to recognize when the constraint is too tight and they add language to mitigate it.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 02-06-2023 at 7:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 02-06-2023, 8:34 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,102
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravelman View Post
SB918/2 have been in the works long before Bruen, that was just the point picked to drop them. These bills are part of a presidential campaign, purely political theater and I don’t think they actually care much if the bills pass or not. Whatever the outcome of SB2, I think the gov has a press release ready to spin the outcome for political gain.
You are right because SB918 was introduced in February 2022, months before the Bruen ruling. So I'm guessing they wrote the law in anticipation of the Bruen ruling. Once they knew SCOTUS was going to take the case, they decided to beat them to the punch.

I think you are right about the grandstanding too. The problem for us Californians of course is that we will probably go the way of NY. Which means the law passes. Then we get an injunction. Then a stay of the injunction. Then a circuit court review and ruling. Until SCOTUS steps in and save us states CA, NJ, NY. Meanwhile we are orphans.

We will be either obey their laws in between relief, or carry as felons during those periods.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 02-06-2023, 9:13 AM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravelman View Post
SB918/2 have been in the works long before Bruen, that was just the point picked to drop them. These bills are part of a presidential campaign, purely political theater and I don’t think they actually care much if the bills pass or not. Whatever the outcome of SB2, I think the gov has a press release ready to spin the outcome for political gain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
You are right because SB918 was introduced in February 2022, months before the Bruen ruling. So I'm guessing they wrote the law in anticipation of the Bruen ruling. Once they knew SCOTUS was going to take the case, they decided to beat them to the punch.
The record provides a different story.
SB 918, As Introduced on Feb 3, 2022, had nothing to do with CCW. It dealt with fees for ammunition purchases.

SB 918, Amended Jun 13, 2022 contained the first writings to limit CCW. The bill had already passed through the Senate and was in the Assembly. These amendments were taken in the Assembly (Second House) in a process of "gut and amend".

SB 918, Jun 29, 2022, Amendments brought the first mention of the SCOTUS ruling into the bill.
It is more probably that the authors behind the NY law saw the SCOTUS writing on the wall and lobbied the CA governor to support a similar bill on the West Coast. With their background following the arguments against the NY law, the true authors (not Portantino) were able to craft provisions which might bypass the pitfalls of the NY statute. The addition of the Urgency clause would have provided immediate enactment creating confusion and allowing a rehearing of the issues through a different venue.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 02-06-2023, 10:13 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,102
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
The record provides a different story.
SB 918, As Introduced on Feb 3, 2022, had nothing to do with CCW. It dealt with fees for ammunition purchases.

SB 918, Amended Jun 13, 2022 contained the first writings to limit CCW. The bill had already passed through the Senate and was in the Assembly. These amendments were taken in the Assembly (Second House) in a process of "gut and amend".

SB 918, Jun 29, 2022, Amendments brought the first mention of the SCOTUS ruling into the bill.
It is more probably that the authors behind the NY law saw the SCOTUS writing on the wall and lobbied the CA governor to support a similar bill on the West Coast. With their background following the arguments against the NY law, the true authors (not Portantino) were able to craft provisions which might bypass the pitfalls of the NY statute. The addition of the Urgency clause would have provided immediate enactment creating confusion and allowing a rehearing of the issues through a different venue.
As far as I can tell though, the SB918 is virtually identical to the Hochul bill.
So what do you mean by 'bypassing NY"? The only concession that SB918/SB-2 has made (as far as I know) to Bruen is the exemption for good cause. The rest of the opinion-ruling regarding concession to sensitive places but to be few and limited and historically justified is being ignored, like it doesn't exist. Too cute.

Probably the 'true authors' of the bill were the staff Lawyers of EveryTown and/or Giffords.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 02-06-2023, 11:00 AM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 450
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
Probably the 'true authors' of the bill were the staff Lawyers of EveryTown and/or Giffords.
Yes, it is no accident that almost identical legislative efforts have rolled out in NY, NJ, and now CA, that directly, egregiously, contradict the guidance in Bruen. Bruen effectively said the state cannot use good cause as a subjective mechanism as a stalking horse to implement the real goal: a ban. The amazing thing is that Respondents even stated in a brief that they could expand sensitive places due to language in Heller and Thomas chastised Respondents position in Bruen, saying expanding sensitive places would result in all cities becoming foreclosed to the 2nd amendment (Manhattan Island would become one large sensitive place). So what did the anti-gun lobby do? Push through legislation that is an even worse and more obvious ban, an explicit big middle finger to the Supreme Court, doing EXACTLY what Thomas said they could not do.

The anti-gun lobby has decided to abandon finesse and obfuscation. Their strategy now is that by DARING the courts with extremely aggressive measures, that somewhere those measures stick in favorable (liberal) circuits, and that it takes another decade for the Supreme Court to address the circuit splits. If the balance of the Court shifts during that time, those extreme measures stick as the new precedent. The only real hope is that because these laws are a direct and openly intentional AFFRONT to Bruen, that the appeal process to SCOTUS is rapid.

Last edited by dawgcasa; 03-12-2023 at 11:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 02-06-2023, 1:36 PM
Trapnellj's Avatar
Trapnellj Trapnellj is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Sac Metro
Posts: 26
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default What does the data show?

Why does the state not parade out and flaunt its data to show these new laws and restrictions actually work? How many convictions did the state have of CCW holders? How many people were arrested for illegally having a gun and convicted? How many red flag interventions were carried out that ultimately ended up with the legal gun owner surrendering their gun rights? How many CCW interactions did LEOs have? How many ammunition purchases and the quantity purchased against the number of "you cannot purchase ammo", not to be confused with DMV or DROS having incorrect information.

I am sure someone smarter than I can come up with a list of questions to ask but where is the data? Why is the data not talked about? Or does the data not match the story Newscum wants to tell.
__________________
Situational Awareness / Situational Advantage
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 02-06-2023, 1:41 PM
Roering's Avatar
Roering Roering is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 663
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishooter View Post
What are the chances that this won't pass? And if it passed, then what's the chance it'll be overturned in court?
The chances of this passing is very high. The chances of this being overturned is above average.

Long term this will not hold. History has shown that when CA overreaches they get their hand slapped by the courts. That takes a long time though.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 02-06-2023, 1:55 PM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 450
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapnellj View Post
Why does the state not parade out and flaunt its data to show these new laws and restrictions actually work? How many convictions did the state have of CCW holders? How many people were arrested for illegally having a gun and convicted? How many red flag interventions were carried out that ultimately ended up with the legal gun owner surrendering their gun rights? How many CCW interactions did LEOs have? How many ammunition purchases and the quantity purchased against the number of "you cannot purchase ammo", not to be confused with DMV or DROS having incorrect information.

I am sure someone smarter than I can come up with a list of questions to ask but where is the data? Why is the data not talked about? Or does the data not match the story Newscum wants to tell.
They don't parade out the data because it all goes against them. Studies of crime data show that CCW permit holders are eight times LESS likely than LEOs to shoot someone unlawfully. In the first year of the ammo background check there were almost 1M transactions ... with only 160 prohibited people blocked ... while 109,000 lawful gun owners were blocked because of 'system errors'.

Last edited by dawgcasa; 02-06-2023 at 4:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 02-06-2023, 3:29 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,847
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

According the VPC, there were three in California between 2007 and 2019, according to an article on the net, one of which was a dispute between neighbors that got out of control. There were no mass shootings by a CCW@ holder either. When the Legislature decided that CCW holders should not ba allowed any longer to carry on campus, not one incident of an accidental or intentional shooting on a California campus was demonstrated as the basis for the new law.

Debunking the VPCs claim of 1300 plus deaths, the Heritage foundation stated: "The anti-gun group defines “non-self-defense incident” to include virtually any fatality involving a concealed-carry permit holder, including ones that do not remotely resemble the type of intentional homicide evoked by the Violence Policy Center’s strong claims about public safety.

For example, roughly 40% of the deaths (534 of 1,335) are suicides. While tragic, firearm suicides are not what a term like “concealed-carry killer” brings to mind." Instead, Heritage reports "According to the data, America’s 18 million concealed-carry permit holders accounted for 801 firearm-related homicides over a 15-year span, which amounts to roughly 0.7% of all firearm-related homicides during that time. That percentage drops even lower if any of the defendants in the 72 cases still pending in court are determined to have acted in lawful self-defense." (This was as of November 2019)
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 02-06-2023, 6:05 PM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
As far as I can tell though, the SB918 is virtually identical to the Hochul bill.
Similar, but not identical. I won’t parse the two writings for you, but as an example, NY required the applicant to provide all social media accounts for review. SB 918 didn’t.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
So what do you mean by 'bypassing NY"? The only concession that SB918/SB-2 has made (as far as I know) to Bruen is the exemption for good cause. The rest of the opinion-ruling regarding concession to sensitive places but to be few and limited and historically justified is being ignored, like it doesn't exist. Too cute.
Again, the example above. California didn’t put the social media stuff in the bill. There are other examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
Probably the 'true authors' of the bill were the staff Lawyers of EveryTown and/or Giffords.
Since Everytown (funded by former NY City Mayor Bloomberg) set up an on-the-record call (including Brady, Giffords, and March for our Lives) in response to Bruen, and the presser and quoted John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action (an Everytown affiliate) and Eric Tirschwell, chief litigation counsel at Everytown Law, it’s a pretty sure bet Everytown’s crew wrote the law.+

The Giffords gave CA Prop 63 to control ammo.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 02-06-2023, 9:07 PM
CenterX's Avatar
CenterX CenterX is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sleep North SFO Bay
Posts: 1,701
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clb View Post
Time to hit the government emails for your folks in Sacramento
So we can get the absurd replies with holier than thou, smarter than thou blabber. We live in a Putin style democratic tyranny where salvation is moving to a different state in the crumbling union.

I’ll pass and wait for the courts to sort it out long after I’m dust in the wind.
__________________

- Aut Pax Aut Bellum - Volunteer LDW
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 02-06-2023, 9:16 PM
Eat Dirt's Avatar
Eat Dirt Eat Dirt is offline
CGSSA Specialist
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Riverside County / Hemet
Posts: 9,124
iTrader: 315 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CenterX View Post
So we can get the absurd replies with holier than thou, smarter than thou blabber. We live in a Putin style democratic tyranny where salvation is moving to a different state in the crumbling union.

I’ll pass and wait for the courts to sort it out long after I’m dust in the wind.
Time to get the list of phone numbers to call.....
And the Emails to Sacramento

Is there a form letter to copy and send out
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------

Tumbled BRASS For Sale

Just check my Long Running Thread : http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=262832
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 02-06-2023, 9:27 PM
DentonandSasquatchShow's Avatar
DentonandSasquatchShow DentonandSasquatchShow is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Southern California
Posts: 935
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

Will not comply!

FGN!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 02-07-2023, 5:50 AM
Ash359 Ash359 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 241
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

When politicians in Sacramento openly admit that they are ignoring the Constitution

https://youtu.be/rG5xWcV412E
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 02-08-2023, 5:47 AM
WithinReason WithinReason is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 711
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default Spreading Truth

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
According the VPC, there were three in California between 2007 and 2019, according to an article on the net, one of which was a dispute between neighbors that got out of control. There were no mass shootings by a CCW@ holder either. When the Legislature decided that CCW holders should not ba allowed any longer to carry on campus, not one incident of an accidental or intentional shooting on a California campus was demonstrated as the basis for the new law.

Debunking the VPCs claim of 1300 plus deaths, the Heritage foundation stated: "The anti-gun group defines “non-self-defense incident” to include virtually any fatality involving a concealed-carry permit holder, including ones that do not remotely resemble the type of intentional homicide evoked by the Violence Policy Center’s strong claims about public safety.

For example, roughly 40% of the deaths (534 of 1,335) are suicides. While tragic, firearm suicides are not what a term like “concealed-carry killer” brings to mind." Instead, Heritage reports "According to the data, America’s 18 million concealed-carry permit holders accounted for 801 firearm-related homicides over a 15-year span, which amounts to roughly 0.7% of all firearm-related homicides during that time. That percentage drops even lower if any of the defendants in the 72 cases still pending in court are determined to have acted in lawful self-defense." (This was as of November 2019)
This statistic certainly informs the discussion regarding firearm deaths in the U.S. It is clear that CCW permit holders have a miniscule impact on the rate of homicides in our nation. We need to drive this point home when contacting our legislators (and providing factual information to our family, friends, and community members).

Additionally, we must reach out to those impacted by stress, despair, etc. and encourage them to get professional help. This is particularly true for our veterans who may be experiencing hard times.

To me, exercising constitutional rights and caring for neighbors in need (especially vets) are hallmarks of what it means to be an American.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 02-08-2023, 9:52 AM
awiner's Avatar
awiner awiner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 1,190
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
The chances of this passing is very high. The chances of this being overturned is above average.

Long term this will not hold. History has shown that when CA overreaches they get their hand slapped by the courts. That takes a long time though.

I agree, however keep in mind with the severance-able clause. We will be fighting each point on its own merit, and just by finding one is unconstitutional, doesn’t mean the others get thrown out. This eventually could become a very long and drawn out litigation.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 02-08-2023, 9:06 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,847
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by awiner View Post
I agree, however keep in mind with the severance-able clause. We will be fighting each point on its own merit, and just by finding one is unconstitutional, doesn’t mean the others get thrown out. This eventually could become a very long and drawn out litigation.
There is nothing that says that multiple--indeed all--of the separate provisions cannot be challenged in a single law suit.
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 02-10-2023, 12:19 AM
N0b0dy's Avatar
N0b0dy N0b0dy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: CA
Posts: 80
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

SB 2 is headed to the “Public Safety” committee - the one that was asleep at the wheel for the past decade. Suggestions anyone? Like why the CA Sheriff’s Association opposed that bill last time? Or is this going to be just another unopposed photo op for Moms without action in their orange jump suits?

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...stNav=tracking
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 02-10-2023, 7:39 AM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N0b0dy View Post
SB 2 is headed to the “Public Safety” committee - the one that was asleep at the wheel for the past decade. Suggestions anyone? Like why the CA Sheriff’s Association opposed that bill last time? Or is this going to be just another unopposed photo op for Moms without action in their orange jump suits?

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...stNav=tracking
SB 918 had only one registered opposition statement and it was from the Gun Owners of America. That can be found at the end of the Assembly Floor Analysis.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 02-10-2023, 1:11 PM
ritter ritter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 799
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
SB 918 had only one registered opposition statement and it was from the Gun Owners of America. That can be found at the end of the Assembly Floor Analysis.
How does one make a "registered opposition statement?" I sent several opposition letters. Guess that doesn't count.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 02-10-2023, 2:40 PM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritter View Post
How does one make a "registered opposition statement?" I sent several opposition letters. Guess that doesn't count.
You register as a lobbyist. However, in days past, the analyses often contained a reference to “Private Citizen” in Support or Opposition.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 02-10-2023, 4:00 PM
ritter ritter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 799
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
You register as a lobbyist. However, in days past, the analyses often contained a reference to “Private Citizen” in Support or Opposition.
So got to have deep pockets in California to have a voice. My senator and assembly member don't even bother with a canned response when I send opposition letters. Representation? Not so much.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 02-14-2023, 6:20 PM
Ash359 Ash359 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 241
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Looks like Hawaii is trying to pass another copycat law.

Don't know if everyone is familiar with this channel. This guy is a member of the Supreme Court Bar and had been quoted by St. Benitez himself.

https://youtu.be/wgNlUs0VRjE
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 02-15-2023, 9:11 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,102
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash359 View Post
Looks like Hawaii is trying to pass another copycat law.

Don't know if everyone is familiar with this channel. This guy is a member of the Supreme Court Bar and had been quoted by St. Benitez himself.

https://youtu.be/wgNlUs0VRjE
No surprise. Hawaii is as anti 2nd amendment as any state in the US if not more. The surprise is it took them this long to propose it.

Like Ca., NJ, NY, it is a giant hissy fit that they know is unconstitutional per Heller and Bruen. They know they will lose eventually, if not this year, but in the meantime, they can throw their giant hissy fit at the expense of logic and prudence.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 02-15-2023, 9:19 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,102
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

BTW, one of the things that struck me when listening to Bonta pontificate regarding SB2 and private commercial property, was, and I quote "people don't need to take their guns shopping!"

It doesn't get any more ridiculous, illogical, elitist or condescending than that.
This is the mentality we're dealing with.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 02-15-2023, 1:53 PM
db556762 db556762 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 119
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What I don’t get about the pols stance on passing a highly restrictive where you can carry law is that before all this, the elitests freely gave permits to other elitites, judges, etc. They protected their own before.

If this passes, what will those “elites” do?
Carry anyway with a wink that the law/DAs won’t go after them? They will be on a super secret elitest CCW list?
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 02-15-2023, 2:09 PM
ritter ritter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 799
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by db556762 View Post
What I don’t get about the pols stance on passing a highly restrictive where you can carry law is that before all this, the elitests freely gave permits to other elitites, judges, etc. They protected their own before.

If this passes, what will those “elites” do?
Carry anyway with a wink that the law/DAs won’t go after them? They will be on a super secret elitest CCW list?
What they've always done. Node, wink and say these laws aren't intended to be enforced against your kind of people.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 02-15-2023, 11:05 PM
Ishooter's Avatar
Ishooter Ishooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 835
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Does this bill exempt politicians who are currently in their official seats, and their body guards?
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 02-16-2023, 7:55 AM
Usual_Suspect Usual_Suspect is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 295
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishooter View Post
Does this bill exempt politicians who are currently in their official seats, and their body guards?
Their body guards are Sworn Officers, so it doesn't apply to them.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 02-17-2023, 7:06 AM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 450
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
It doesn't get any more ridiculous, illogical, elitist or condescending than that.
This is the mentality we're dealing with.
I don’t think logic or constitutional law is part of their mental calculus at all. These liberals have a goal: eliminate guns among the civilian population. They aren’t stupid, just zealous. And they don’t really care that their laws are ridiculous, illogical, unconstitutional, whatever. All these things, all their public shirt ripping about gun violence and mass shootings, are simply kabuki theater to provide a thin veil of righteousness for the impressionable masses. The sad thing is that it is the minority and disadvantaged communities that are most racked by gun violence, and it is these very communities that keep voting for the liberal despots bent upon disarming lawful, responsible people in those communities. You wonder what it will take for them to wake up to the fact that it is these liberal Democrats that want to keep them in these failing communities and schools?
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 02-26-2023, 12:25 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Has anyone compared this year’s version of the bill to last year’s? If so, besides being non urgency this year to make it easier to pass, are there any substantial changes? Please PM me since I don’t get around here too often anymore. Thx!

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...d=202320240SB2

Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 02-26-2023, 1:20 PM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishooter View Post
Does this bill exempt politicians who are currently in their official seats, and their body guards?
Not all elected legislators receive state law enforcement protection.

CHP runs the Dignitary Protection Section (DPS) which operates from both Los Angeles and Sacramento and is responsible for the protection of state constitutional officers including: the Governor, First Lady, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Controller, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the State Insurance Commissioner. When directed by the Commissioner’s Office, DPS provides protective services to other elected officials.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 02-26-2023, 2:25 PM
NorCalBusa NorCalBusa is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,425
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Not all elected legislators receive state law enforcement protection.

CHP runs the Dignitary Protection Section (DPS) which operates from both Los Angeles and Sacramento and is responsible for the protection of state constitutional officers including: the Governor, First Lady, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Controller, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the State Insurance Commissioner. When directed by the Commissioner’s Office, DPS provides protective services to other elected officials.
Not the Attorney General? (Or just an oversight)
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 02-26-2023, 2:37 PM
Vinnie Boombatz's Avatar
Vinnie Boombatz Vinnie Boombatz is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 3,038
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
The chances of this passing is very high. The chances of this being overturned is above average.

Long term this will not hold. History has shown that when CA overreaches they get their hand slapped by the courts. That takes a long time though.
Takes a stroke of a pen to make it a law and then years of litigation and millions of dollars to overturn it.
__________________

Last edited by Vinnie Boombatz; 02-26-2023 at 2:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 02-26-2023, 3:04 PM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalBusa View Post
Not the Attorney General? (Or just an oversight)
No oversight…straight from the CHP.. The Assembly and Senate Sergeants-at-Arms offices may, in limited circumstances provide, dignitary protection for legislators when a need is identified.

The AG office has its own law enforcement arm of Special Agents. They cover the AG.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 02-26-2023, 5:39 PM
NorCalBusa NorCalBusa is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,425
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
No oversight…straight from the CHP.. The Assembly and Senate Sergeants-at-Arms offices may, in limited circumstances provide, dignitary protection for legislators when a need is identified.

The AG office has its own law enforcement arm of Special Agents. They cover the AG.
Got it- thanks
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 03-01-2023, 9:18 PM
LA123 LA123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Excuse my ignorance but is SB 2 a law yet or will it be voted on?
__________________
LA CCW:
Mailed app: 12/2021
Interview: 8/22
Livescan completed and cleared: 8/22
Firearm Livescan Completed: 8/8/22
Proceed to training email: 10/17/22
Sent training docs in: 10/17/22
Training doc received: 10/19/22
Call For Pick UP: 11/22/22
Picked up: 11/29/22
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:23 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy