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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-02-2022, 7:26 PM
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ's Avatar
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 982
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default People v. Velez (5th DCA) - California's current CCW scheme ruled constitutional

The 5th District Court of Appeal, a California appellate court, has held in People v. Velez (Dec. 2, 2022, F081839), that when the good cause requirement is severed, that California's CCW licensing scheme is constitutional under NYSRPA v. Bruen. So essentially, a Californian court has said that it still is constitutional to require a person to go through California's licensing process for a License to Carry, as long as good cause is not required. As a published opinion, this decision is binding on all California trial courts, regardless of how well or how poor is the reasoning. So do not expect any more decisions like People v. Diaz, which was heavily discussed at https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1809810

The opinion is at https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/d...ts/F081839.PDF

The relevant discussion is at pages 40 to 49.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-02-2022, 8:37 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,459
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Defendant also challenged the "good moral character" element, but the appeals court merely concluded that Bruen did not invalidate such a provision, only "good cause.". Of consequence, it did not engage in the history text an tradition analysis demanded by Bruen. I suspect a poor pleading job by appellate counsel, or in the alternative that the cases (now stayed) invalidating NY's GMC provisions had yet to be published when the briefs were written or the decision drafted.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-03-2022, 4:30 AM
press1280 press1280 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Defendant also challenged the "good moral character" element, but the appeals court merely concluded that Bruen did not invalidate such a provision, only "good cause.". Of consequence, it did not engage in the history text an tradition analysis demanded by Bruen. I suspect a poor pleading job by appellate counsel, or in the alternative that the cases (now stayed) invalidating NY's GMC provisions had yet to be published when the briefs were written or the decision drafted.
This is a straight up gangbanger case looking to use Bruen to excuse his client's stupidity to get out of some charges. Good moral character would need to be challenged by someone denied a permit on that basis. This guy aint it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-03-2022, 6:35 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 3,877
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
This is a straight up gangbanger case looking to use Bruen to excuse his client's stupidity to get out of some charges. Good moral character would need to be challenged by someone denied a permit on that basis. This guy aint it.
Agree! Furthermore, the discussion about whether or not CA's good cause and GMC requirements make CA's CCW licensing scheme unconstitutional is dicta! This gangbanger POS did not have standing! Also, making it some what difficult to challenge CA's good cause and GMC requirements is the fact that many sheriffs do not use these provisions to deny permits.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-03-2022, 1:08 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27,418
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Any real further change in CCW stuff will (other than regulatory trivia) likely be conducted in Federal courts.

The big battle will be GMC (Good Moral Character) having a varying threshold for issuance across the state and differing from the more 'standardized' GMC requirements for gov't employ (and armed gov't employ).

If someone is failing GMC for issuance [now that GC is gone] and yet there are armed public employees in that locale or even state with worse 'negative GMC characteristics' then there are problems.

The GMC fight may ulitmately involve finding the 'worst still-employed cop' (or deputy or armed guard or CHPpie etc) in the region or state. [This is even more true if issuance has a substantive training requirement/test which the GMC-denied applicant has already passed w flying colors.] This could get to be a very funny public 'Find Waldo' game.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-03-2022, 6:18 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 3,877
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Any real further change in CCW stuff will (other than regulatory trivia) likely be conducted in Federal courts.

The big battle will be GMC (Good Moral Character) having a varying threshold for issuance across the state and differing from the more 'standardized' GMC requirements for gov't employ (and armed gov't employ).

If someone is failing GMC for issuance [now that GC is gone] and yet there are armed public employees in that locale or even state with worse 'negative GMC characteristics' then there are problems.

The GMC fight may ulitmately involve finding the 'worst still-employed cop' (or deputy or armed guard or CHPpie etc) in the region or state. [This is even more true if issuance has a substantive training requirement/test which the GMC-denied applicant has already passed w flying colors.] This could get to be a very funny public 'Find Waldo' game.
Yes! If you look at the published GMC cases you will discovery that many, if not most, involve attorneys and the conduct required to fall below the standard is pretty bad. If my recollection is correct, multiple DUIs is not enough.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-04-2022, 12:31 PM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
✰ Very Special Agent
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 15,711
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
...

The GMC fight may ultimately involve finding the 'worst still-employed cop' (or deputy or armed guard or CHPpie etc) in the region or state. [This is even more true if issuance has a substantive training requirement/test which the GMC-denied applicant has already passed w flying colors.] This could get to be a very funny public 'Find Waldo' game.
"Sunshine Initiative" v2.0.
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-04-2022, 1:17 PM
OldGeek OldGeek is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sierra Mountains
Posts: 84
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

<snip>

"Any real further change in CCW stuff will (other
The GMC fight may ulitmately involve finding the 'worst still-employed cop' (or deputy or armed guard or CHPpie etc) in the region or state."

LOL
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-04-2022, 3:43 PM
Gator15 Gator15 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 105
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Eh, they danced around Bruen and basically said that you can't throw out the entirety of the permitting law if the good character requirement is unconstitutional. Plenty more to challenge, like the @$500 I have to pay for all the prerequisite fees, courses and background check.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-04-2022, 4:21 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27,418
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
Yes! If you look at the published GMC cases you will discovery that many, if not most, involve attorneys and the conduct required to fall below the standard is pretty bad. If my recollection is correct, multiple DUIs is not enough.
Yes, generally 'moral turpitude' matters.

If a cop/deputy loses his ability to carry thru some sorta misconduct,
that's the GMC threshold.

If a cop/deputy can still be armed (or retire armed!) despite ugly conduct
then that GMC is the bottom threshold.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-05-2022, 1:05 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,459
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Yes, generally 'moral turpitude' matters.

If a cop/deputy loses his ability to carry thru some sorta misconduct,
that's the GMC threshold.

If a cop/deputy can still be armed (or retire armed!) despite ugly conduct
then that GMC is the bottom threshold.
Multiple DUIs is enough for an attorney to lose his license, or at the very least have it suspended for a period of time measured in years. It is considered an act of moral turpitude.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-06-2022, 5:38 AM
Kokopelli's Avatar
Kokopelli Kokopelli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: "the drop edge of yonder"
Posts: 3,262
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gator15 View Post
Eh, they danced around Bruen and basically said that you can't throw out the entirety of the permitting law if the good character requirement is unconstitutional. Plenty more to challenge, like the @$500 I have to pay for all the prerequisite fees, courses and background check.
Bold part makes it difficult for the poor, people on a fixed income, or on Social Security, to exercise their rights. It stinks.
__________________
“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” - Ronald Reagan
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-06-2022, 5:55 AM
EustaceBaggs EustaceBaggs is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2022
Posts: 10
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The difference here is between a privilege and a right. The state may impose restrictions on a privilege (being an attorney) but not on being a prerequisite to exercise a right.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-10-2022, 4:18 AM
press1280 press1280 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well you would think if someone fails GMC then they'd be ineligible from even possessing, right?
How do you say someone has bad character to be able to carry a firearm yet is OK still owning one?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-12-2022, 11:10 PM
Libertarian777 Libertarian777 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 574
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

More BS.
These courts just make up crap.
While kavanaugh did say they can have permitting schemes, Bruen did not ONLY outlaw 'GC' requirements, Bruen removed ANY form of SUBJECTIVE permitting.

If you are not prohibited from owning a firearm you qualify.
Possibly they can argue about training requirements but THT will actually make even that requirement moot.

Hell some of the last around ratification even let criminals carry provided they post a bond
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-17-2022, 5:26 AM
EustaceBaggs EustaceBaggs is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2022
Posts: 10
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here is the issue with good moral character. The state uses that to determine whether it grants you PRIVILEGES, ie practicing law. Using it to allow you to defend your life converts a RIGHT to a PRIVILEGE and can't be tolerated under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-04-2023, 5:17 PM
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ's Avatar
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 982
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

On March 1, 2023, the California Supreme Court denied review in this case, People v. Velez, meaning no further review in this case about California's licensing scheme for CCW. But the California Supreme Court also ordered this case unpublished, meaning that there is no binding California court opinion about the constitutionality of California's licensing scheme. So I expect defense attorneys to continue to argue that prosecutions for violations of PC25400 and PC25850 to be unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-04-2023, 6:00 PM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,127
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Except that part of Diaz was Aaron?s.
It is Aaron?s v Municipal Court that says ?you don?t need a permit, government permission, to exercise an enumerated right.?

Where don?t apply for my First Amendment permit/license?
Am I required to take a background check of prior auditory verbal out or writing sample?
Do I need to pass a spelling and punctuation test?
Can I be limited to 10 words at a time?

See how that works?

Courts can say all they want, it comes down to the following sentence/statement;
? we to agree and hold consistent with Heller and McDonald that the second and 14th amendment protects and individuals to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-05-2023, 6:50 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,137
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

One question I have about California's CCW law:

What about non-residents? If there's a right to bear arms, surely that applies equally to non-residents who are visiting, and yet right now they have basically no way of getting a permit. I realize there's a 90 day business purpose permit, but I've never heard of it being issued, it's a ridiculous barrier to exercise of the right, and what about people who don't have a business purpose at all, such as a family visit?
__________________
"Weakness is provocative."
Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024

Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-05-2023, 7:30 PM
SpudmanWP SpudmanWP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 241
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Currently, there is no way that I know of to get a "visitor permit" in CA.

This will obviously be a great reason to force "national reciprocity" through court action since my rights don't disappear when I cross out of my home State's boundaries.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-06-2023, 10:23 AM
Superben104 Superben104 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 35
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Currently, non-residents will need to contact their issuing authority for their consideration. CCWLs have been issued to individuals who work in the state and/or active duty military members permanently stationed in California.

Until CA allows constitutional carry, no other state IA allows you to carry in the state.
__________________
10/03/2022 | App submitted
02/06/2023 | Interview
02/07/2023 | Livescan
02/12/2023 | Qualification
02/17/2023 | Permit Picked up
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-06-2023, 11:16 AM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,101
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
One question I have about California's CCW law:

What about non-residents? If there's a right to bear arms, surely that applies equally to non-residents who are visiting, and yet right now they have basically no way of getting a permit. I realize there's a 90 day business purpose permit, but I've never heard of it being issued, it's a ridiculous barrier to exercise of the right, and what about people who don't have a business purpose at all, such as a family visit?
Seems like a violation of the equal protection clause to me, but then so would be allowing LE to carry outside of their duties while limiting private citizens as had been the practice in parts of the country.

To the extent that it impacts U.S. citizens, it would also seem to implicate the privileges and immunities clause, even in its pre-14th Amendment form, as one of the privileges of citizenship covered by this particular legal term of art was keeping and bearing arms, so some modality for each is protected. To deny non-residents who are also citizens that ability to bear arms altogether outside of some unincorporated areas would seem to conflict with this.

I suspect lawsuits on this matter would need to be filed to get it addressed.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-06-2023, 2:55 PM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,175
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
Agree! Furthermore, the discussion about whether or not CA's good cause and GMC requirements make CA's CCW licensing scheme unconstitutional is dicta! This gangbanger POS did not have standing! Also, making it some what difficult to challenge CA's good cause and GMC requirements is the fact that many sheriffs do not use these provisions to deny permits.
I've been around long enough to remember when Heller told us about bearing arms in public (in a pocket...) and everyone said that was only "dicta."

Then along came Bruen and it turned out that it wasn't just dicta after all.


I keep asking myself if are people so caught up in their own versions of truth that they cannot understand that every word in an opinion is part of the opinion and a denial of the existence of those words is done at your own peril? The answer apparently is, yes.

My thinking has always been that if the court says something in an opinion they had a reason. I may not be correct when I interpret what the court says, but ignoring or twisting what the court says just to fit it within an ideology isn't the best idea anyone ever came up with.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

My Utubery
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 3:22 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, 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