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

[Ocdlaw]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

In the statement it singles out schools, colleges, places of worship and places of protest or demonstration. It omits 'places of business'. If they keep places of business out of their actual bill, it won't be nearly as bad as the last one SB918.

The places of business, or 'private property' is by far the worst restriction, since that is almost everywhere.

Of course as others have said, this is just a place holder.
I'm hoping after talking to all the new members, Portantino realizes the
places of business thing is a no deal. Here's hoping that is the case.
Since whatever the bill is, it is almost certain to pass and then go through the endless lawsuit/court process. As per NY, we know some judge will put a an injunction, and then another anti-gun will issue a stay pending trial, and then Meanwhile, we will have to live with the bill as approved by state until someday it's ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

One of my dearest friends was murdered in church just months ago in Orange County. I’ve carried in church ever since. I don’t understand why people who hate churches are so obsessed with making church members vulnerable. Oh, wait, I just answered my own question.

[Packy14]

Originally Posted by SharedShots

Hope is not a plan. Before you can see the wisdom in others you must first realize and understand why the status quo that doesn't work, doesn't produce yet uses vast resources constitutes the foundation of your belief system.

Losing becomes a habit and for some a badge of honor. It relies upon the compassion and sympathy for the permanent victim class, something gun owners who support the 2nd/A are slowly becoming.

When you realize that gun owners who support the 2nd/A as more than privilege are a diminishing demographic and that lawsuits against laws only serve to help create more laws you'll have learned.

Why is it that like some others who mimic each other, you'll support the fight over CCWs, knowing that it's a fact that the CCW is a privilege subject to arbitrary feelings on individuals and not throw your support to even finding other solutions? First, accept that the current strategy is flawed and perhaps not the best way or even the way that has the greatest potential for success to insure rights may be exercised and then you'll be in a position to discuss alternatives. Until then, its nothing more than the smiling man who is set in his ways, will never change or learn but pretends to be interested in what others have to say.

Change what your family, friends and neighbors think AND influence them to do more than nod and smile but instead openly speak about the 2nd/A not as it relates not to Muh Guns, some AWB, magazines, the roster and CCWs but rather how without it none of the other rights they have mean anything and that exercising the right and having the right are not the same. The state will not change in a short time but we didn't get to this point in a short time. Its so predictable for people to sit around watching something happen over decades and then marvel at the "We Won" when a court renders a decision. They want the same gratification so long as they must do nothing other than claim support and send money to someone else.

The motto for some should be "I was there, I support the 2nd/A because I sit on my *** and let lawyers deal with it". Things are the way they are because of lawyers who long ago gave up their profession and noble responsibility and instead saw power and money that comes from the pursuit of process.



Let go of the Status Quo!

Welcome to my block list where you can ramble on forever and I’ll never know.

[SharedShots]

Originally Posted by Packy14

Welcome to my block list where you can ramble on forever and I’ll never know.

Thanks for the quote, each one helps.






.

[michaelh1951]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

What is your “best solution”? What is your recommendation for, “…any other type of effort”?

Twenty-five words or less, please.

No reason to clog up the thread for this bill.

Thanks.

This bill will pass, no way to stop it entirely, but fight to avoid the immediate urgency implementation. This gives a year to fight it in court. I don't see a better plan.

[mk2dave]

I'm feeling pretty confident. After all, if ya'll gonna expel this much energy bickering among yourselves, then I can only imagine how much you're directing towards the opposition.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by michaelh1951

This bill will pass, no way to stop it entirely, but fight to avoid the immediate urgency implementation. This gives a year to fight it in court. I don't see a better plan.

EXACTLY!!!

[Paladin]

SF Examiner on 2A, SCOTUS, NYSRPA, CA CCWs and Sacto response.

https://www.sfexaminer.com/our_partn...0b8c9fab0.html

[DolphinFan]

That was a very honest article

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by michaelh1951

This bill will pass, no way to stop it entirely, but fight to avoid the immediate urgency implementation. This gives a year to fight it in court. I don't see a better plan.

Who will be leading the legislative fight against it: NRA-ILA? CRPA? GOA/GOC? FPC? some other group?

We have to make sure it does NOT get urgency status!

[TruOil]

I suspect that even if Portantino has second thoughts after what is happening in NY and Or, the Governor will push him to propose a clearly unconstitutional ban much like the law that did not pass last session. Unfortunately, the trial court decisions in NY have been stayed pending appeal, even though those appeals are from an order issuing a preliminary injunction, and not a judgment on the merits. Those cases will likely be delayed indefinitely to allow the law to remain in place as long as possible before it too must bite the dust. WE need all the help we can get. The sooner St. Benitez rules on the pending remands, the better.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Unfortunately, the trial court decisions in NY have been stayed pending appeal, even though those appeals are from an order issuing a preliminary injunction, and not a judgment on the merits.

The stay of the PI in Antonyuk 2 was appealed to SCOTUS yesterday.

Those cases will likely be delayed indefinitely to allow the law to remain in place as long as possible before it too must bite the dust. WE need all the help we can get. The sooner St. Benitez rules on the pending remands, the better.

”Speedy” Benitez will take those four cases on Feb 20th.

So, help is on the way, but it’s always better to kill bad legislation before it becomes law than to count on the courts to kill it after.

[splithoof]

Originally Posted by Paladin

So, help is on the way, but it’s always better to kill bad legislation before it becomes law than to count on the courts to kill it after.

Yes, very true.
Look how long the citizenry has suffered under Roberti-Roos. Over three decades.

[SharedShots]

Originally Posted by Paladin

The stay of the PI in Antonyuk 2 was appealed to SCOTUS yesterday.

”Speedy” Benitez will take those four cases on Feb 20th.

So, help is on the way, but it’s always better to kill bad legislation before it becomes law than to count on the courts to kill it after.

It's always better to avoid the proposed legislation in the first place by denying support for it though a changed voting population, however; that takes more than status quo thinking and effort.

Reaction is always slower than action, hope is not a plan and a good defense can be overcome through persistence and attrition. The status quo waits, then reacts and basks in the limelight look at me heroics.

When your rights count, lawsuits are only decades away.

Action is measured in minutes, reaction in decades.





.

[Lanejsl]

Originally Posted by Paladin

The stay of the PI in Antonyuk 2 was appealed to SCOTUS yesterday.

”Speedy” Benitez will take those four cases on Feb 20th.

So, help is on the way, but it’s always better to kill bad legislation before it becomes law than to count on the courts to kill it after.

Why does everybody think Benitez has the last say in the outcome. Everyone knows this will not go our way when the state appeal. Geesh.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

Why does everybody think Benitez has the last say in the outcome. Everyone knows this will not go our way when the state appeal. Geesh.

Because everyone knows this will go our way if SCOTUS takes an appeal from a CA9 loss. Geesh.

[bergmen]

Originally Posted by clb

Time to hit the government emails for your folks in Sacramento

A complete waste of time, they absolutely could not care less what we think.

Dan

[Lanejsl]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Because everyone knows this will go our way if SCOTUS takes an appeal from a CA9 loss. Geesh.

...in 14 years again.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

...in 14 years again.

NYSRPA v Bruen took about 4 years from District Court to SCOTUS win.

SCOTUS is considering taking the Antonyuk 2 PI appeal right now.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1837575

Trump justices have changed the game in a good way.

[Warbonnet]

Originally Posted by SharedShots

Of course ,it's back and it will continue to come back over and over until they get it done.

At this point I don't believe the libtard dems in Sacramento actually care if these get done or not. They keep bringing them back because it satisfies the infantile expectations of their base, and that means that even if struck down, they can reassign blame to SCOTUS... and currently that means blame Trump and MAGA people.

Originally Posted by SharedShots

It's hard to accept that most Californians don't care about your CCW, how could they not think it's better when you with your CCW are out there protecting the American way of life.

These people, and the millions more of now indoctrinated younger Americans do not give a hoot about "The American way of life". They look to nations like Sweden, China, and anywhere where they want the state to have full control of their lives; they are willing to be led around by the nose...although a masked nose. Just as long as they get their free stuff, and the newest iPhone with all the apps, they are happy and content while worshiping the "new god" of climate protection.

California is a lost state. Those of us who still live here are basically as "Wolverines" from the film Red Dawn. This is our home, and it is now in enemy territory.

I enjoyed the passion in your post. I just think we need to start acting as cynical as they do, but in the opposite direction. This new "placeholder" should be ignored. If they really feel every public place should be considered "sensitive" then they need to start with dealing with the open drug use, illegal aliens, and criminals near schools, parks, churches, and other public buildings.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

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

Here’s a link to a page that links to a lot more than just its text (e.g., it’s status): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...d=202320240SB2

[Lanejsl]

Originally Posted by Paladin

NYSRPA v Bruen took about 4 years from District Court to SCOTUS win.

SCOTUS is considering taking the Antonyuk 2 PI appeal right now.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1837575

Trump justices have changed the game in a good way.

I appreciate your optimism and I am aware of how long it took for Bruen to move through the district court to SCOTUS.

But before Bruen, remind us how long it took SCOTUS to hear a 2A case?

Hint... a long time.

And relative to the PI appeal of the Antonyuk case. Crickets. Still waiting. We will see.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

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

Originally Posted by Paladin

Here’s a link to a page that links to a lot more than just its text (e.g., it’s status): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...d=202320240SB2

Those appear to be identical links…

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

I appreciate your optimism and I am aware of how long it took for Bruen to move through the district court to SCOTUS.

But before Bruen, remind us how long it took SCOTUS to hear a 2A case?

Hint... a long time.

That was because we did not have a pro RBA majority on SCOTUS: Kennedy was commonly thought to be against it and even Roberts wasn’t a sure bet. Now we have a pro RBA majority even if Roberts wimps out.

And relative to the PI appeal of the Antonyuk case. Crickets. Still waiting. We will see.

And when was the PI appeal fully briefed? Jan 5th. And you’re posting about crickets 4 days later and 2 of those days were a weekend?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

Those appear to be identical links…

Appearances can be deceiving.

[TruOil]

No text yet. Perhaps the Dems are waiting for the NYS cases to run their course, or they plan on dumping this on us late in the session so that it can hustled through the process will little time for debate--a la NYS.

[Lanejsl]

Originally Posted by TruOil

No text yet. Perhaps the Dems are waiting for the NYS cases to run their course, or they plan on dumping this on us late in the session so that it can hustled through the process will little time for debate--a la NYS.

This is not uncommon. The legislative deadline to amend bills isn’t for another two months. Also, this bill couldn’t be heard in committee anyhow before 30 days from the time of introduction. Policy committees have until May 5th to hear bills. Lots of time to jerk us around. They are trying to craft a measure that doesn’t get law enforcement to come out in opposition the bill this time.

[Lanejsl]

Originally Posted by Paladin

That was because we did not have a pro RBA majority on SCOTUS: Kennedy was commonly thought to be against it and even Roberts wasn’t a sure bet. Now we have a pro RBA majority even if Roberts wimps out.

You were saying? Motion DENIED.https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...2a557_0pm1.pdf

And when was the PI appeal fully briefed? Jan 5th. And you’re posting about crickets 4 days later and 2 of those days were a weekend?

You were saying? Motion DENIED.

[1911-CV]

The Supremes let NY's restrictive new law take effect (didn't overturn an Appeals Court decision on a PI) while the challenges work their way through the legal system.

Bad news as the new rules are worse than the batch that was ruled against in Bruen.

Watch our legislature follow along...

Yes, you can have a CCW. It will cost you more, put you through more hoops to get, and won't let you carry anywhere... but you can get one.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by Usual_Suspect

"Over the past several years, a wealth of empirical studies have shown that crime is higher when more people carry firearms in public places."

Note the word "empirical", which means "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

Which means there is no factual proof, it's based on opinion.

No, empirical does, in fact, imply it is evidence based.

The proof failure is not because "empirical" means "opinion", rather, because evidence gathering is just that. Evidence, not proof.

And even if the evidence is good (not cherry picked, no confirmation bias, etc), empirical evidence often shows correlation, not causation.

To wit:

crime -> more carry or
more carry -> crime

[ritter]

Originally Posted by 1911-CV

The Supremes let NY's restrictive new law take effect (didn't overturn an Appeals Court decision on a PI) while the challenges work their way through the legal system.

Bad news as the new rules are worse than the batch that was ruled against in Bruen.

Watch our legislature follow along...

Not what we were hoping for. However, there's a chance the NY District Court and/or CA2 issue an actual opinion prior to CA moving this along too far. SCOTUS did essentially tell CA2 to tread carefully and invited another appeal to intervein if it doesn't. Not ideal, but a lot better than a straight denial.

[mural9999]

These legislators have legions of volunteer lawyers from all the anti-gun groups helping them craft legislation. They will introduce draconian rules. And it will pass. They personally have nothing to loose and everything to gain in signally their virtual and pacifying their far left base.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by mural9999

These legislators have legions of volunteer lawyers from all the anti-gun groups helping them craft legislation. They will introduce draconian rules. And it will pass. They personally have nothing to loose and everything to gain in signally their virtual and pacifying their far left base.

There is a huge caveat to this. If the Second and Third start upholding injunctions against these laws--and the Supreme Court has signaled that interim appeals WILL be handled expeditiously or else, then the other liberal circuits as well as the legislatures in those states will sit up and take notice. I also think the Supreme Court has implied that it will play an active role in assuring that Bruen is observed, especially what the liberal circuits did to Heller and McDonald.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

You were saying? Motion DENIED.

If Mark Smith says we did well before SCOTUS, I believe him.

https://youtu.be/TR3qhC0_tN0

If you claim to be more qualified than he is, let’s hear it. (crickets….)

This debate belongs in the Antonyuk2 thread and is Off Topic in this thread.

[Rickybillegas]

I read an article a few days ago about the LGBT community concerned about their safety and how a good number of them are applying for ccw. Also, that there are a number of new LGBT members of the Ca. legislature.

I'm hoping our legislature pays attention and that the new LGBT members vote no on SB-2. That may be enough to get us under the 2/3 at least for urgency. Remember, last time it only lost by one vote. Super close.

[Lanejsl]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

I read an article a few days ago about the LGBT community concerned about their safety and how a good number of them are applying for ccw. Also, that there are a number of new LGBT members of the Ca. legislature.

I'm hoping our legislature pays attention and that the new LGBT members vote no on SB-2. That may be enough to get us under the 2/3 at least for urgency. Remember, last time it only lost by one vote. Super close.

That would be great but I have a really hard time believing the LGBT groups will come out in official opposition to the bill.

[Rickybillegas]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

That would be great but I have a really hard time believing the LGBT groups will come out in official opposition to the bill.

You may be right, but remember, it may only take one 1, or 2 , or 3 coming to our side to vote against urgency.

Also, they may be in favor of most of the language, but be inclined against some of the most restrictive aspects.

Like last year, this bill will be tossed around and amended before votes are actually taken. With a number of new legislators, Bonta and Portantino will need to get every new one on their side.

[Capybara]

When will the final vote and passing or failing of this mess of a bill take place?

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Capybara

When will the final vote and passing or failing of this mess of a bill take place?

Apr 28 is the last day for bills to be heard in Policy Committees. If this goes to Fiscal, that’s another step. In between, it has to go back to the Floor for 2d and 3d Readings and then to the Assembly.

They’re busy swapping office perks for votes in both the Senate and the Assembly as well as trying to read the tea leaves from New York.

[Ash359]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

That would be great but I have a really hard time believing the LGBT groups will come out in official opposition to the bill.

There is an organization called Pink Pistols

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Ash359

There is an organization called Pink Pistols

The founder of the Pink Pistols killed himself with a gun (not a good look) in the same year that Pink Pistols merged with Operation Blazing Sword.

Operation Blazing Sword still has a presence in CA.