2023 SB 2 Portantino Carry Restrictions: It's back!

[Ishooter]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

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.

Thanks for the clarification. It seems like senators and assembly members aren't exempt.

[Helmut]

Looks like it was amended and is basically a copy and paste of SB918.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by LA123

Excuse my ignorance but is SB 2 a law yet or will it be voted on?

It is not law; it is a bill going through the First House (introduced in the Senate) of the Legislature.

[Dvrjon]

March 1, 2023, amendments are administrative cleanup only; no new entries to constraints.

They are adding Principle Co-Authors:

Introduced by Senator Portantino
(Principal coauthors: Senators Blakespear and Bradford)
(Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bonta, Gipson, McCarty, Petrie-Norris, and Wicks)

and Co-authors:
(Coauthor: Senator Min)(Coauthors: Senators Ashby, Becker, Dodd, Eggman, Min, and Skinner)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Wendy Carrillo and Gabriel) Wendy Carrillo, Connolly, Gabriel, Haney, Lee, McKinnor, Santiago, Ting, and Ward)

[Rickybillegas]

The first senate floor hearing is now set for March 28.

Here is (IMHO) an estimated best and worst case scenarios for how this will all go down from best case to worst:

1. Best case; enough reasonable assembly members will respect the Bruen
decision enough to pressure the sponsors to amend the most obviously
unconstitutional aspects. (Forget the senate, they are all in on this).
Not likely at all, but possible.

2. The bill passes without urgency and takes effect Jan. 1, 2024. Buys time
for rulings around the country to take effect. Not binding on Ca. of
course, but might have influence on our regional courts. If they don't
have enough votes to pass urgency, or so close that they don't want to
gamble like they did last year.

3. SCOTUS intercedes on Antonyuk this year as they strongly indicated they
might, pending 2nd circuit. An emergency hearing on Antonyuk that
could affect other states if SCOTUS decides to address the issue binding
on other states.

4. SB-2 passes with urgency, takes effect this spring, any injunction that
may issue is stayed and must go through the months to years process
winding it's way until SCOTUS intervenes, hopefully sooner, but SCOTUS
may not intervene through emergency appeal. Then we are stuck with
SB-2 possibly for years.

Any others have thoughts on the possible scenarios?

[Paladin]

Only 10 days until Senate Pubic Safety committee hearings begin.

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Only 10 days until Senate Pubic Safety committee hearings begin.

Keep this in mind - but know that with today's decision, Newsom is going to rubber stamp ALL anti-2nd Amendment legislation this year, no matter how frivolous or if they think it will crash and burn in court - and he's going to convey that to the rest of the tyrants in Sacramento in kind.

Count on it.

---

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Only 10 days until Senate Pubic Safety committee hearings begin.

Tomorrow things start to move publicly, with public hearings beginning.

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Tomorrow things start to move publicly, with public hearings beginning.

After what happened in Nashville today, this stuff will shoot through committees faster than Newsom's imaginary Bullet Train!

---

[ritter]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Tomorrow things start to move publicly, with public hearings beginning.

Is there an opportunity/way to provide comment at the hearings or are only lobbyists allowed? I've tried the write your rep approach and don't even get a canned response.

[NateTheNewbie]

In case you want to watch/listen, the committee hearing will be livestreamed. Click the link below and scroll down to "Public Safety". As of 9:34, they haven't gotten started.

https://www.senate.ca.gov/calendar

[Dvrjon]

Senate Analysis is up.
-Go to: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...d=202320240SB2
-Select: Bill Analysis
-Select: 03/24/23- Senate Public Safety
-Discussion begins on Page 9.

Opposition:

Arcadia Police Officers’ Association; Burbank Police Officers’ Association; California Coalition of School Safety Professionals; California State Sheriffs’ Association; Claremont Police Officers Association; Corona Police Officers Association; Culver City Police Officers’ Association; Deputy Sheriffs’ Association of Monterey County; Fullerton Police Officers’ Association; Los Angeles School Police Officers Association; Murrieta Police Officers’ Association; Newport Beach Police Association; Orange County Sheriff’s Department; Palos Verdes Police Officers Association; Place County Deputy Sheriffs Association; Pomona Police Officers’ Association; Riverside Police Officers Association; Riverside Sheriffs’ Association; Santa Ana Police Officers Association; Upland Police Officers Association

According to the California State Sheriffs’ Association:
On behalf of the California State Sheriffs’ Association (CSSA), we regret to inform you that we must oppose Senate Bill 2, which would impose significant new restrictions on the issuance of licenses to carry concealed firearms (CCW) and establish overly broad limitations on where and when a licensed individual may carry a concealed firearm.

Overall, and despite the inclusion of some provisions that came at our request, this approach remains a significant restriction on the ability of law-abiding citizens to be licensed to carry concealed. The circumstance of a CCW holder committing a crime is exceedingly rare yet this bill imposes overreaching provisions that will likely be challenged in court, leaving uncertainty in issuance procedures. Instead of focusing on a law-abiding population, efforts should address preventing gun crimes committed by those who disobey the law and holding them accountable.

To address the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Bruen, which struck down “good cause” requirements in CCW statutes, a bill could have been offered that simply eliminated that constitutionally infirm provision. Instead, SB 2 creates an unnecessarily complicated, burdensome, and overreaching licensing scheme that invites judicial scrutiny and seems destined to be struck down, in part or in whole. The new workload resulting from vetting procedures and a codified judicial appellate process for persons denied a CCW license will burden issuing authorities, court officers, and the judiciary toward little to no increase in public safety.

SB 2 also fails to resolve the longstanding issue of not being able to record joint ownership of a firearm. By not accommodating persons who lawfully and jointly own a firearm to be able to list that same firearm on multiple CCWs, the law will likely encourage the proliferation of gun purchases. Further, the bill greatly restricts when and where licensees may carry concealed and could severely restrict the exercising of the right. Again, individuals who go through the process to carry concealed legally are exceedingly unlikely to violate the law, yet SB 2 turns much of the state into “no- carry” zones that will do nothing to foster public safety.

[NateTheNewbie]

Good showing from CA Sheriff's Association and many law enforcement agencies in opposition this morning.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by ritter

Is there an opportunity/way to provide comment at the hearings or are only lobbyists allowed? I've tried the write your rep approach and don't even get a canned response.

Show up, find the hearing room, check in with the Sergeant at Arms to speak or, if there are many speakers, you?ll just line up on a wall. When that happens, the Chairman often allows only the identification of the speaker and whether they support or oppose the bill.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

Show up, find the hearing room, check in with the Sergeant at Arms to speak or, if there are many speakers, you?ll just line up on a wall. When that happens, the Chairman often allows only the identification of the speaker and whether they support or oppose the bill.

Thanks. Best way to find a calendar of events?

[Rickybillegas]

This is wonderful that all these Law enforcement agencies have come out against SB2. Our county Sherrif is on record stating that "law enforcement knows that permit holder are not part of the crime problem. We see almost no permit carriers breaking the law and usually if that for minor offenses unintentionally"

I have no illusions that this will stop the politicians, but maybe it could sway a very few on the fence who have honest doubts and want to follow the constitution (there actually are a few?). Maybe if only to push for a few obvious amendments.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by ritter

Thanks. Best way to find a calendar of events?

Senate Events

Senate Daily File
Assembly Daily File

SB2 will have to go through Senate Public Safety Committee and Senate Fiscal Committee.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

Senate Events

Senate Daily File
Assembly Daily File

SB2 will have to go through Senate Public Safety Committee and Senate Fiscal Committee.

Thank you. First look indicates they make it ridiculously difficult to find out when a specific bill is to be heard.

[DolphinFan]

I thought the analysis placed more weight on the dissent than the supporters.
The question is, will they listen and accept the THT, objective criteria.
It appears they still test the boundaries of ?sensitive places?.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

I thought the analysis placed more weight on the dissent than the supporters.
The question is, will they listen and accept the THT, objective criteria.
It appears they still test the boundaries of ?sensitive places?.

Also, will they place more weight on a special interest group or the group charged with enforcing the law? The analysis does note constitutionality is questionable.

[nedgun]

Originally Posted by NateTheNewbie

Good showing from CA Sheriff's Association and many law enforcement agencies in opposition this morning.

But none from San Diego County!

[NateTheNewbie]

In fact, someone from the San Diego Mayor?s office was there to voice support for the bill.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

This is wonderful that all these Law enforcement agencies have come out against SB2. Our county Sherrif is on record stating that "law enforcement knows that permit holder are not part of the crime problem. We see almost no permit carriers breaking the law and usually if that for minor offenses unintentionally"

I have no illusions that this will stop the politicians, but maybe it could sway a very few on the fence who have honest doubts and want to follow the constitution (there actually are a few?). Maybe if only to push for a few obvious amendments.

The Legislature is more concerned about the opinions of big city mayors--the places where the votes are--than the opinions of the small number of Sheriffs around the state. This is not a bill about crime control, it is a bill about carry control, designed to make it as difficult and expensive as possible to obtain a permit, and then nearly impossible to lawfully carry in urban areas. "More guns means more gun crime." So they say--an that is all that matters. They know the bill ill be challenged, but as with all similar laws, they are willing to make the legal process as long, difficult, and expensive for challengers as possible. Gunz is badd, m'kay?

[bonzai272]

Wonder what the excuse will be when this crap passes and it has no positive effect on gun crime rate.

[CitaDeL]

Originally Posted by bonzai272

Wonder what the excuse will be when this crap passes and it has no positive effect on gun crime rate.

They will have arrest statistics and gun seizures to tout to media. Every carry licensee that is apprehended in places they shouldn't be will disarmed and charged with a crime.

See? California is getting guns off the streets!

[Toybasher]

Originally Posted by bonzai272

Wonder what the excuse will be when this crap passes and it has no positive effect on gun crime rate.

"We didn't ban guns hard enough!" They'll then probably start requesting stop and frisk of all CCW permit holders when their license plates are spotted parked in sensitive places, etc.

[EM2]

Originally Posted by bonzai272

Wonder what the excuse will be when this crap passes and it has no positive effect on gun crime rate.

You assume they believe that they owe us any explanation.
In any case, I thought we all understand that none of these antigun laws are about reducing crime rates.

[bonzai272]

Well said, sadly, good points made.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by bonzai272

Wonder what the excuse will be when this crap passes and it has no positive effect on gun crime rate.

No excuses necessary. All that is necessary is that there is a decrease in the number of licensed individuals in the state. Because that is the purpose of this bill.

[ezaircon4jc]

You guys understand that these public hearings are solely to check a box, right? They don't care what we think, they just have to fulfill a requirement.

[Strafer]

FWIW, I did call in to the Safety Committee hearing to voice my opposition. Along w several other members of CRPA. I was glad to hear several sheriff's/sheriff representatives chime in to oppose as well.

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by Strafer

FWIW, I did call in to the Safety Committee hearing to voice my opposition. Along w several other members of CRPA. I was glad to hear several sheriff's/sheriff representatives chime in to oppose as well.

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk

Thanks for the update.

How was the turnout for opposition?

[clb]

Not possibly going to sway the pre set result...

[ppt]

Here is the SB2 video from 3/28/23
https://www.senate.ca.gov/media/sena...20230328/video

[Dvrjon]

A representative of Aaron Reed and Associates stood in opposition to SB2. That lobbying firm represents PORAC (Peace Officers Research Association of California) whose President submitted a Declaration in the Boland Case against the handgun Roster.

So, although PORAC isn’t currently listed in opposition, they may also be lined up against this bill.

[DolphinFan]

Unfortunately so many valid points not able to be communicated because of the way the system works. Walking up to only state support of opposition is disingenuous.

We must be allowed to explain WHY.

[Rickybillegas]

Steady as she goes.

SB2 is moving along. Re-referred to Senate sub committee hearing scheduled for April 10.

Anybody guess when this might come to vote in assembly for final approval?
May, June?

Also, right now there is no urgency, so when it passes, won't take effect till Jan. 1 2024. So doesn't really matter when it passes, unless they know for certain they have the votes for urgency, then they will add that. However, they tried that last year and got burned. So (IMHO) if they are even 2-4 plus votes for urgency they will not add urgency or else they risk backfire and look like doofuses again.

[bonzai272]

Yeah it will not go under urgency this time.

[WithinReason]

Originally Posted by bonzai272

Yeah it will not go under urgency this time.

Agreed.

[db556762]

If it passes without urgency and enactment isn?t until 2024, can the law be challenged before that date and a PI put in place?
Or do we have to wait until the law is active?