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

[DolphinFan]

I wonder what part can be supported by the Text/History/Tradition between 1790-1869.
This is the court mandated interpretive method.
They clearly haven’t read the historical calendar provided to Judge Benitez.
None of their proposal can be supported by the THT.
Finally, we already take a test and perform a safety check before purchase and at pickup that should satisfy their safety and testing requirements.
Since no one requires permission to exercise an enumerated right, it will be difficult to uphold a permit system unless the permit is issued at time of transfer.
How can one exercise their right in California based on the following statement,
“We to agree and now hold consistent with Heller and McDonald that the 2nd and 14th amendment protects an individual to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense”
I’d you can possess a handgun you can carry it for self defense outside the home.
YOU determine the mode of carry, and since open carry is unlawful in CA CCW is the default.
80% or more of the existing firearms laws on the books are unconstitutional. And since they just don’t fall off, they all need to be individually challenged.
It will take some time to clean up the mess created.

[Ishooter]

What are the chances that this won't pass? And if it passed, then what's the chance it'll be overturned in court?

[N0b0dy]

This will pass for sure, the question is whether they have the votes to pass it on an urgency basis. It would be better if this drags out until next year due to what is currently happening in the courts in NY and NJ.

Time to call our representatives and hope that some of the newly elected ones aren’t eager to cast one of their first votes for an unconstitutional law.

Judge Bumb in the Siegel v Platkin case in NJ ended one of here recent orders with the following statement: “While the Legislature may disagree with Bruen, it may not disobey it.” - That message clearly wasn’t received here in California.

[CitaDeL]

Once this passes, carry licenses are worthless.

[MJRichardson]

Does anyone think that the criminals are worried about this passing?!

[ritter]

Importantly, NJ's similar law has now been enjoined (may be appealed, don't know). NY's similar law was also enjoined, appealed to CA2, stayed without analysis, appealed to SCOTUS who told CA2 to get their act together. While none of this is definitive, it is telling that judges are finding these restrictions unsupported by history and tradition. I expect we'll see the same path here in CA with a lower court enjoining and CA9 staying with the thinnest of logic.

All that to say, there are court opinions to cite to your reps. Please do so. If we can stop it before the courts, it's worth the time and energy. Even if its a really slim chance. I'm virtually certain most of the CA legislature slurps up Bonta's legal drippings of "it's totally good with Bruen" with no exposure to what is actually required under Bruen. Teach em.

[N0b0dy]

Last time it failed because there were several democrat lawmakers that refused to vote for it and later cited constitutional concerns in interviews. And that was before we had any of the rulings in NY or NJ. Some of them are gone now. I really think it’s well worth the effort to reach out to our reps especially in the more conservative counties. If Portantino is not sure he can get a supermajority, he has no choice but to wait for it to become law in Jan 2024. That might buy CRPA et all enough time to get some better rulings from the courts on the East Coast to strengthen their case.

[gant]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

Once this passes, carry licenses are worthless.

I’m thinking of just not even getting my CCW anymore


I’m already in the training phase I still need to purchase a firearm then take a class and qualify and I’ll have permit but now what’s the point 🤷🏾*♂️🤷🏾*♂️🤷🏾*♂️🤷🏾*♂️

[norcalplinker1]

Originally Posted by TruOil

"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."

This is hardly limited, and is a massive trap for the unwary. You cannot drive down any street adjacent to a school--which means you have to be a block over from each and every portion of a school. And which requires you to know where each and every school is. How many of them are located along major thoroughfares? How many schools are there in LA or San Francisco, and do you know where each and every single one of them is, or at least enough to plot a route to avoid any you may pass, before leaving home? I can tell you this: I live in a relatively small town, but there are schools along every single large street, and there is no way I can get from my house to my office without violating this law. No my friend, the law is designed to make it as difficult as possible to carry a firearm in your vehicle in any city or town, but to sound "reasonable" while robbing you of your right.

That would make my entire town a no go zone. Both exits from my house take me by a school and the entire town is a school zone. Even the highway would be off limits. I'll surrender my permit if this passes. No point having it if I can't leave my house.

[lastinline]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

Once this passes, carry licenses are worthless.

Actually, they are WORSE than useless, in that anyone who has a permit is likely to find themselves in a searchable database, hosted by the MSM, whom will encourage all kinds of intrusions into their personal lives from many angles. Imagine a interactive map that shows CCW licensees when doing real estate searches, school searches, traffic conditions, shopping, etc., etc. The possibilities are endless. And just wait until the medical profession starts gaining access…..they could even send your neighbors info in the mail on how to “red flag” you if they are not comfortable with you having a permit.

[wannabefree]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

Once this passes, carry licenses are worthless.

If this actually becomes law and sticks anyone holding a CCW will be a target and all our data will be put into a data base. If pulled over by police we could be flagged.
On the other hand if we are all going to be felons what difference will it make if caught. In Ca they don't prosecute felons they just catch and release or will they only prosecute otherwise law abiding citizens who stand up for there rights.
Personally I am in my senior years and don,t have much patience for the system (ie courts) to sort this out. I will be dead before that happens.

[Rickybillegas]

Take heart fellow Calgunners. things are moving fast. NY got an injunction within a couple of months, even though it was stayed, hearings begin in March.
NJ got an injunction about 5 weeks after enactment.

SCOTUS has strongly indicated they are watching closely and will probably intervene this year.

This bill will pass, then hopefully we get an injunction within weeks and then on to appellate court.

[TruOil]

Portantino failed to make note of the fates of the NY and NJ laws with similar "everywhere is a sensitive place" language. Maybe he was assured by the attorneys for those states that they anticipate winning in the end. (As if.)

[FullMetalJacket]

Yes, this will pass. And, yes, we'll have to fight it in court. But there's little chance it's going to pass Constitutional muster.

If we give up, they win.

If we keep pushing for our rights, they will lose.

I'm still getting my permit, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

[N0b0dy]

^^^ THIS ^^^

[igs]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

SCOTUS has strongly indicated they are watching closely and will probably intervene this year.

Another BS intervention? They were the ones that said there can be sensitive places to begin with and started this whole thing.

Are there 1st amendment sensitive places too???

[chris]

Originally Posted by Rgarbarino

At the press conference Bonta actually said SB2 is "Bruen Compliant".... we'll see.

[NorCalBusa]

In the news;
https://californiaglobe.com/articles...s-in-new-bill/

Gov. Newsom, Democrats Targeting Legal Gun Owners Rather than Felons in New Bill
Governor announces new efforts to advance critical ‘gun safety’ legislation while ignoring thousands of felons who own or possess illegal firearms

By Katy Grimes, February 1, 2023 2:43 pm

“Had Senate Bill 2 or its predecessor Senate Bill 918 been in effect it would not have stopped the tragic incidents it claims to, but it would put more Californians in harms way.”

That is what Rick Travis of the California Rifle and Pistol Association told the Globe about Governor Gavin Newsom’s, Attorney General Rob Bonta’s and Senator Anthony Portantino’s (D-La Cañada Flintridge), press conference Wednesday morning announcing a bill aimed at adding restrictions to California’s concealed carry permit requirements and gun ownership.

Gov. Gavin Newsom announcing new gun legislation. This is yet another attempt by the California Governor to infringe on the constitutional rights of legal gun owners, while letting felons out of prison early, and ignoring felons with illegal guns.

[NorCalBusa]

In the news;
https://californiaglobe.com/articles...s-in-new-bill/

Gov. Newsom, Democrats Targeting Legal Gun Owners Rather than Felons in New Bill
Governor announces new efforts to advance critical ‘gun safety’ legislation while ignoring thousands of felons who own or possess illegal firearms

By Katy Grimes, February 1, 2023 2:43 pm

“Had Senate Bill 2 or its predecessor Senate Bill 918 been in effect it would not have stopped the tragic incidents it claims to, but it would put more Californians in harms way.”

That is what Rick Travis of the California Rifle and Pistol Association told the Globe about Governor Gavin Newsom’s, Attorney General Rob Bonta’s and Senator Anthony Portantino’s (D-La Cañada Flintridge), press conference Wednesday morning announcing a bill aimed at adding restrictions to California’s concealed carry permit requirements and gun ownership.

Gov. Gavin Newsom announcing new gun legislation. This is yet another attempt by the California Governor to infringe on the constitutional rights of legal gun owners, while letting felons out of prison early, and ignoring felons with illegal guns.

[Usual_Suspect]

Originally Posted by gant

I’m thinking of just not even getting my CCW anymore


I’m already in the training phase I still need to purchase a firearm then take a class and qualify and I’ll have permit but now what’s the point 🤷🏾*♂️🤷🏾*♂️🤷🏾*♂️🤷🏾*♂️

This is how they win, making you believe they will prevail and your CCW will be worthless, one less here, one less there. Get yours and be counted as one more, not one less.

[EM2]

Originally Posted by Usual_Suspect

This is how they win, making you believe they will prevail and your CCW will be worthless, one less here, one less there. Get yours and be counted as one more, not one less.

I cannot say to what he may have in mind, but I took it to mean that he would proceed to carry, just without the permit.

I too am considering not renewing my permit and simply carrying regardless.
I have had a permit for over 15 years, and carry everywhere I go, but since the CCW data release and the Bruen case I am rethinking my position.

We are in a cultural and political war, and if we do not start TAKING BACK our Rights we are going to lose them.

[boredin818]

Originally Posted by EM2

I cannot say to what he may have in mind, but I took it to mean that he would proceed to carry, just without the permit.

I too am considering not renewing my permit and simply carrying regardless.
I have had a permit for over 15 years, and carry everywhere I go, but since the CCW data release and the Bruen case I am rethinking my position.

We are in a cultural and political war, and if we do not start TAKING BACK our Rights we are going to lose them.

I'm sure the penalty for carrying without a permit would be much worse than carrying with a permit in a "non carry" zone.

[Rickybillegas]

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.

[SafetyFirstDude]

I have my in-person CCW interview this month in Feb (IA LAPD). The benefit to going forward and not waiting for SB2 to be overturned is that I can avoid the extra 8 hours of training (and the extra cost) and also avoid the 3 character references and social media snooping.

I figure I'll get my CCW before it SB2 passes in the spring (LA Times estimates spring).

Once it passes, and I have my CCW already, is there any possibility they will force me to add 8 more training hours to reach 16 and submit 3 character references, etc?

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

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.

Nonsense! The Circuit courts, in jurisdictions where this BS has been enacted, have issued TROs almost before the ink was dry. What makes you think that the same would not happen in CA?

Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh et all must know this. Lets hope they're brave enough to save us all.

There are 25 states that allow concealed carry without a permit and if you include open carry the number is even greater. Thus, most of us do not need to be "saved." Furthermore, Bruen has given you the weapon needed to slay the anti 2A Marxist in CA.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by SafetyFirstDude

I have my in-person CCW interview this month in Feb (IA LAPD). The benefit to going forward and not waiting for SB2 to be overturned is that I can avoid the extra 8 hours of training (and the extra cost) and also avoid the 3 character references and social media snooping.

I figure I'll get my CCW before it SB2 passes in the spring (LA Times estimates spring).

Once it passes, and I have my CCW already, is there any possibility they will force me to add 8 more training hours to reach 16 and submit 3 character references, etc?

Yes, when you are forced to renew in 2 years. However, by that time the 16hr training, character references and social media requirements may be gone as inconsistent with Bruen.

[igs]

Originally Posted by Usual_Suspect

This is how they win, making you believe they will prevail and your CCW will be worthless, one less here, one less there. Get yours and be counted as one more, not one less.

They already won by making you believe you need a CCW to begin with.

[1911-CV]

Originally Posted by norcalplinker1

That would make my entire town a no go zone. Both exits from my house take me by a school and the entire town is a school zone. Even the highway would be off limits. I'll surrender my permit if this passes. No point having it if I can't leave my house.

As noted several times, this is not correct. Let's focus on the real issues.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by 1911-CV

As noted several times, this is not correct. Let's focus on the real issues.

Are you claiming or asserting the what TruOil posted in post #106 and what norcalplinker1 quoted and commented on is not correct?

[Dan_Eastvale]

I CCW everywhere.
In my kid’s schools too
Allowed by state law

CCW WILL prevent or limit mass shootings

[EM2]

Originally Posted by boredin818

I'm sure the penalty for carrying without a permit would be much worse than carrying with a permit in a "non carry" zone.

Perhaps
Everything is a risk benefit analysis, and when you consider I have been daily carrying for the last 15 years with a permit, and about 5 years prior without a permit, and have been around many people doing many activities and have never been outed while carrying.
No one seems to notice, or cares, and I am now an upper middle age white guy who dresses clean, drives proper, and does not ever interact with law enforcement.
My risk of being caught is quite low.
At what point does a law abiding person realize the rule of law is dead and therefore fully embrace Liberty.
In some ways the collapse of the rule of law is quite literally, liberating.

[Ewok55]

Note how Bonta tries to tie this into the mass shootings. The mass shooters were not legally carrying. Had some people been legally carrying in the places they shot up, most likely there would have been a lot fewer victims. Does he think we are stupid?

[Capybara]

Originally Posted by Ewok55

Note how Bonta tries to tie this into the mass shootings? Does he think we are stupid?

I think the fact that he doxxed between 200k and 250k of us who have CCWs last year would indicate what he thinks of law abiding gun owners. He would like to exterminate us and would do so with extreme prejudice, if he could get away with it. Stupid isn't really a factor. The fact that we exist is the factor.

[CitaDeL]

Posters here seemed to have picked their side.

Licensed carry and the keep and bear of the Bill of Rights cannot occupy the same space. They are opposites. They are not the same thing, since a license converts a right to a privilege.

Defense of a revocable license where the licensee is subject to state imposed regulations like training and 'sensitive places' limitations that eliminates 90% of public spaces, is a total rejection of the second amendment.

You must ask yourselves, where the states got the authority to regulate the right to bear by licensing. The states were not delegated this power. The states are bound to the Bill of Rights by the Constitution, through the 14th amendment since 1866.


California thinks it delegated this power to sheriffs and police in the 1920s. But they cannot delegate powers they have never possessed. If you think the state can delegate powers they do not have, to agents of the state to wield under color of law, you are the enemy of the Bill of Rights- and particularly the second amendment.

So, if you want to keep your permission slip from a government that sold to you the rights you already have, bear in mind it is to the government you owe your fealty when they snatch it from you after you accidentally disobey.

[DolphinFan]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

Posters here seemed to have picked their side.

Licensed carry and the keep and bear of the Bill of Rights cannot occupy the same space. They are opposites. They are not the same thing, since a license converts a right to a privilege.

Defense of a revocable license where the licensee is subject to state imposed regulations like training and 'sensitive places' limitations that eliminates 90% of public spaces, is a total rejection of the second amendment.

You must ask yourselves, where the states got the authority to regulate the right to bear by licensing. The states were not delegated this power. The states are bound to the Bill of Rights by the Constitution, through the 14th amendment since 1866.


California thinks it delegated this power to sheriffs and police in the 1920s. But they cannot delegate powers they have never possessed. If you think the state can delegate powers they do not have, to agents of the state to wield under color of law, you are the enemy of the Bill of Rights- and particularly the second amendment.

So, if you want to keep your permission slip from a government that sold to you the rights you already have, bear in mind it is to the government you owe your fealty when they snatch it from you after you accidentally disobey.

BEAUTIFULY WRITTEN

[TB89]

Originally Posted by Capybara

We knew it was coming back. They said it was coming back. They continue to ignore SCOTUS and the Constitution in writing these insane, piece of trash infringements on the law of the land. Gun owners whine, nobody else cares, the tyrants get what they want, we get hosed.

Business as usual in Commifornia.

yes but how can Newsom keep ignoring SCOTUS like this without punishment? Can they block him for running for a higher office outside the state? Can they force the feds to make him appear in court? Can they charge him federally? I mean tbh he should be arrested. This isnt a direct democracy we are living in, it's a Constitutional Republic. Furthermore why doenst SCOTUS or someone in the Federal Gov make it so that if you dont abide by the Constitution the State gets barred from federal funds and military protections?

[NorCalBusa]

Originally Posted by TB89

yes but how can Newsom keep ignoring SCOTUS like this without punishment? Can they block him for running for a higher office outside the state? Can they force the feds to make him appear in court? Can they charge him federally? I mean tbh he should be arrested. This isnt a direct democracy we are living in, it's a Constitutional Republic. Furthermore why doenst SCOTUS or someone in the Federal Gov make it so that if you dont abide by the Constitution the State gets barred from federal funds and military protections?

I'm leaning towards SCOTUS ordering all Newsom and Bonta's protection details to be unarmed and their personal information be released similarly to the CCW database.

[clb]

Gawd that'd ROCK

[TB89]

Originally Posted by NorCalBusa

I'm leaning towards SCOTUS ordering all Newsom and Bonta's protection details to be unarmed and their personal information be released similarly to the CCW database.

but real talk cant something be done to either remove him from office or put him behind bars on legal grounds for this?

[mshill]

Originally Posted by TB89

but real talk cant something be done to either remove him from office or put him behind bars on legal grounds for this?

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