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
  #401  
Old 08-11-2022, 3:09 PM
Lanejsl Lanejsl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 333
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thethreegs View Post
Almost positive that majority of IA's that were "may issue" prior to Bruen all fully endorse this bill. LAPD certainly does.
I’m not so sure about that. With Bruen, IA’s are more likely to be sued. They even point this out in the bills’s analysis.

Of course, it’s not really the issuance of a license that is at issue with this billl. It’s that it virtually eliminates carry in the state.
Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 08-11-2022, 4:35 PM
ezaircon4jc's Avatar
ezaircon4jc ezaircon4jc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Read this in the county forum:

Quote:
If SB 918 passes (which sounds like it likely will) then BESIDES the fact that you are effectively not allowed to carry almost anywhere, but the new guidelines in application would be:

Minimum 16 hour CCW course (8 hours for renewals)

Course must include written exam

3 personal references (at least one must be a cohabitant if you have one, and at least one must be a parent or current or former romantic partner)

Agency is required to interview all 3 personal references

Agency is required to review publicly available information about you (including public social media posts, etc)

Renewal fees can be as high as new permit fees

License amendments $20 (up from $10)

Issuing agencies may require a psych evaluation, and you'll have to pay up to $200 for that
Hmmmm.... I would never qualify. Both parents have passed and I've been married over 45 years to the same babe and haven't had a former "romantic partner" (if that's what a girlfriend can be called) for over 47 years. I'm sure I won't be the only one.
Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 08-11-2022, 6:25 PM
cdtx2001's Avatar
cdtx2001 cdtx2001 is offline
Hooligan
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Over Here
Posts: 6,578
iTrader: 73 / 100%
Default

If this passes, I'm going constitutional carry. If one has to ask for this much permission to bear arms, it's no longer a right, but a privilege.
__________________
Custom made Tail Gunner Trailer Hitch for sale.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...php?p=17820185

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side kid" -Han Solo

"A dull knife is as useless as the man who would dare carry it"
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 08-11-2022, 6:58 PM
EM2's Avatar
EM2 EM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,392
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdtx2001 View Post
If this passes, I'm going constitutional carry. If one has to ask for this much permission to bear arms, it's no longer a right, but a privilege.
Agreed
I carried for 5 years without a permit before Fresno county got a CCW friendly sheriff, and I will do it again.
__________________
F@$% Joe Biden
F@$% OSHA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redeyedrider View Post
First they came for Trump and i said nothing because I wasn't a Trump supporter...........
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 08-11-2022, 7:43 PM
CheapBloke's Avatar
CheapBloke CheapBloke is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Oleoresin Capsicum
Posts: 2,807
iTrader: 58 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdtx2001 View Post
If this passes, I'm going constitutional carry. If one has to ask for this much permission to bear arms, it's no longer a right, but a privilege.
All the gangbangers and criminals do it all the time. Just like anyone else, the only time they get in trouble for it is getting caught by the Police.

Conclusion: don't get caught by the people that would trample your rights for a paycheck.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
__________________
WTB ENCORE BARRELS.
Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 08-11-2022, 8:00 PM
master lee master lee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 193
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2 View Post
Agreed
I carried for 5 years without a permit before Fresno county got a CCW friendly sheriff, and I will do it again.
Amen brother. Protecting your family and your rights is worth the risk.

Last edited by master lee; 08-11-2022 at 8:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 08-11-2022, 8:20 PM
21GunSalute 21GunSalute is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2022
Posts: 95
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

With all of the lawsuits that will be filed between CA and NY, and a likely STAY/INJUNCTION this stupid state runs the real and likely risk of all of this non- permitting CCW permit structure in SB918 and NY’s version from being completely struck down and thrown out. The audacity of this legislature to push and try and pass this crap, right after the release of the very likely deliberate release of CCW holders personal info, is beyond disgusting. The backlash will be severe. These completely unconstitutional so called laws will be ignored and will open the flood gates to people basically saying “Fu—- it” and they will no longer have any enforceable permitting laws as a result, I mean what is the point? Bad guys DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS,.CA and NY take away any ability for Law abiding citizens to protect themselves with this sham of of permit structure,.will be ignored,.and make all law abiding citizens,..now essentially criminals for trying to protect themselves in public places, where most crimes are committed, as they try and go about their lives.

Last edited by 21GunSalute; 08-11-2022 at 8:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 08-11-2022, 9:26 PM
Aragorn's Avatar
Aragorn Aragorn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 291
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The entire question hangs on this 'severe backlash' you expect will come, and come immediately it must, not from us here in the gun rights community, but from The US Supreme Court.

It needs to be swift... it needs to be unprecedented .. and it needs to breathe fire. But will this happen?

We do not have years to wait. The nation will not survive. And as you say, people in both CA and NY will just defy this and many will carry anyway in utter contempt and defiance of these clearly illegitimate, unconstitutional laws AND in the face of ever increasing risks of violent crime.
__________________
Admin. Glendora Concealed Carry
Gun Owners of America, Life Member
2nd Amendment Foundation, Life Member
Lone Star Gun Rights, Member
Arizona Citizens Defense League, Life Member
NRA Benefactor Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 08-12-2022, 5:01 AM
B yond's Avatar
B yond B yond is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Here I am!
Posts: 575
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'd love to see every single person who votes for this and the greasy governor who signs it held in contempt by SCOTUS.

I can dream, right?
__________________
"What concealed weapon? This identifies as an emotional support device."
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 08-12-2022, 7:14 AM
Lanejsl Lanejsl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 333
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by master lee View Post
Amen brother. Protecting your family and your rights is worth the risk.
I think more people will carry without a permit when this gets signed into law. As is typical of Sacramento, it will have the opposite effect of what they want: the government will no longer be able to tack who does and does not have a permit because they've forced people into the shadows.

If you have to use your firearm in a self defense situation you will most likely go to jail with a felony for a long time, if you choose to carry without a permit. That's probably still better than losing a spouse, or child to a bad guy though.

Last edited by Lanejsl; 08-12-2022 at 7:15 AM.. Reason: Typos
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old 08-12-2022, 7:18 AM
Lanejsl Lanejsl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 333
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 21GunSalute View Post
With all of the lawsuits that will be filed between CA and NY, and a likely STAY/INJUNCTION this stupid state runs the real and likely risk of all of this non- permitting CCW permit structure in SB918 and NY’s version from being completely struck down and thrown out. The audacity of this legislature to push and try and pass this crap, right after the release of the very likely deliberate release of CCW holders personal info, is beyond disgusting. The backlash will be severe. These completely unconstitutional so called laws will be ignored and will open the flood gates to people basically saying “Fu—- it” and they will no longer have any enforceable permitting laws as a result, I mean what is the point? Bad guys DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS,.CA and NY take away any ability for Law abiding citizens to protect themselves with this sham of of permit structure,.will be ignored,.and make all law abiding citizens,..now essentially criminals for trying to protect themselves in public places, where most crimes are committed, as they try and go about their lives.
Bing. The DOJ will other LE will no longer have a grasp on who and who does not have a carry permit. Congratulations Sacramento! Pretty sure this is not what they want.
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 08-12-2022, 7:32 AM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 5,791
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B yond View Post
I'd love to see every single person who votes for this and the greasy governor who signs it held in contempt by SCOTUS.

I can dream, right?
Raids on certain SCOTUS judges next
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 08-12-2022, 7:48 AM
B yond's Avatar
B yond B yond is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Here I am!
Posts: 575
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 21GunSalute View Post
Bad guys DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS,.CA and NY take away any ability for Law abiding citizens to protect themselves
Per SCOTUS, the supreme law of the land is that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and the right to bear those arms in public for self-defense shall not be unduly denied.

The LAW is that they cannot do this. They're doing it anyway.

You're right. Bad guys don't follow laws. CA and NY lawmakers are bad guys.
__________________
"What concealed weapon? This identifies as an emotional support device."
Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old 08-12-2022, 7:50 AM
thethreegs thethreegs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 398
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

N/A

Last edited by thethreegs; 08-29-2022 at 2:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old 08-12-2022, 8:43 AM
JDoe JDoe is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,143
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default California DOJ push new CCW law SB 918

Quote:
Originally Posted by thethreegs View Post
Unfortunately, on paper it would seem like everyone would take this as the signal to start carrying regardless of the unconstitutional insubordination by the state of California, for their own protection and right. However, the near majority who take the time, money, and effort to jump through the hoops for a CCW, are the type of people who have entirely too much to lose to break any such law.

It's the same reason why police/military would never go against following orders, no matter how questionable - even if it meant disarming their own community, rounding up people and arresting their own, etc. They have families to raise, they have pensions to work towards, and nothing in the world is more important than taking care of their family. Even at the expense of your country's future and your community. It's a variant on a pair of handcuffs but made of gold.

Under this new unconstitutional law, if it gets signed, and it probably will, a CCW holder will not be able to carry in very many places. Rendering CCW worthless.


#Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
#Let’s go Brandon!
#FJB
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 08-12-2022, 8:57 AM
EM2's Avatar
EM2 EM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,392
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanejsl View Post
I think more people will carry without a permit when this gets signed into law. As is typical of Sacramento, it will have the opposite effect of what they want: the government will no longer be able to tack who does and does not have a permit because they've forced people into the shadows.

If you have to use your firearm in a self defense situation you will most likely go to jail with a felony for a long time, if you choose to carry without a permit. That's probably still better than losing a spouse, or child to a bad guy though.
I think you may misunderstand their intent.
Here, I am borrowing this from TKM, posted in another thread, should provide some insight into their REAL INTENT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TKM View Post
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
__________________
F@$% Joe Biden
F@$% OSHA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redeyedrider View Post
First they came for Trump and i said nothing because I wasn't a Trump supporter...........
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old 08-12-2022, 8:57 AM
thethreegs thethreegs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 398
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

N/A

Last edited by thethreegs; 08-29-2022 at 2:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #418  
Old 08-12-2022, 9:50 AM
michaelh1951 michaelh1951 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 126
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

My bet is the very second 918 passes, Gruesome will sign it and Bonta will tell all the sheriffs to immediately cease processing of any unissued permits. Bonta probably already has composed an email and is sitting with his finger on the SEND button.

Simultaneously, of course, all currently valid permits will become nearly useless.

Hopefully CRPA is ready to walk into federal court a minute later and ask for a TRO.
Reply With Quote
  #419  
Old 08-12-2022, 9:51 AM
Rustlin’ Jack Rustlin’ Jack is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 86
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanejsl View Post

If you have to use your firearm in a self defense situation you will most likely go to jail with a felony for a long time, if you choose to carry without a permit. That's probably still better than losing a spouse, or child to a bad guy though.
I think that the outcome would be better than you think. While a charge of carrying a concealed firearm without a permit would certainly be raised, if everything past the point of mere possession is done legally, as in a good shoot scenario, charges should not be filed. Even if they are considered or filed, there’s no case to win there.

Compare the situation to driving a car without a license. If the driver is hit by someone running a stop sign, it is still the other driver’s fault for the accident. The only liability for the unlicensed driver is driving while unlicensed.

Or, someone carries a switchblade knife, which is illegal. They use it to defend themself. The possession of the knife is the problem, but not the use.
Reply With Quote
  #420  
Old 08-12-2022, 10:29 AM
Lanejsl Lanejsl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 333
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rustlin’ Jack View Post
I think that the outcome would be better than you think. While a charge of carrying a concealed firearm without a permit would certainly be raised, if everything past the point of mere possession is done legally, as in a good shoot scenario, charges should not be filed. Even if they are considered or filed, there’s no case to win there.

Compare the situation to driving a car without a license. If the driver is hit by someone running a stop sign, it is still the other driver’s fault for the accident. The only liability for the unlicensed driver is driving while unlicensed.

Or, someone carries a switchblade knife, which is illegal. They use it to defend themself. The possession of the knife is the problem, but not the use.
Good point, and it does probably depend on your county. I happen to live in a red county (Thank goodness).
Reply With Quote
  #421  
Old 08-12-2022, 10:36 AM
Max Power!'s Avatar
Max Power! Max Power! is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 373
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

This bill is now in the daily file for Monday Aug 15.
Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 08-12-2022, 10:59 AM
rmklaw rmklaw is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Posts: 9
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Given that SB 918 is overly broad, creates legal uncertainty, and it is likely unconstitutional, the issue now is whether or not any of the 2A protection advocates/associations will file for a Declaratory Judgment and Injunction.
Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 08-12-2022, 11:23 AM
1911-CV 1911-CV is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 479
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default Join with victim's groups and business?

Seems like there should also be an outcry from all the victim's groups and businesses. Folks who successfully navigated the old process to get their CCW's to protect their lives are now equally *****ed. Going to the bank with your bag of cash for deposit with all bank property off-limits? Easy pickings for the bad guys.

Alert the media, CA Governor to put victims at risk!
Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 08-12-2022, 11:30 AM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,842
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I'll be filing a suit under 42 US Code Section 1983 for Deprivation of Rights under color of law.

I will ask for punitive damages and that the legislator be barred from holding elected office. I will serve ALL legislators who voted for said unconstitutional legislation and the Governor for signing.

Under The Constitution Anything NOT in it is a States Right under the 10th Amendment.

Under McDonald, the 2A was Incorporated unto the States, Therefore States have NO 10th Amendment Right to Regulate the 2A.

The NYSRPA v Bruen decision said, "We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a hand-gun for self-defense outside the home." That was the decision, not a concurring or dissenting OPINION. Opinions are NOT law, only Decisions are.

Under Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, Alabama, the SCOTUS determined, "According to Shuttlesworth, faced with an unconstitutional restriction
on his constitutional right, defendant was free to engage "with impunity in the exercise of the right. .. "

Finally, 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights, states, "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable."

It is my understanding that under 42 USC 1983, there is NO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, for the legislator violating the right(s).

I will ask for Tens of Thousands of dollars per each defendant in punitive damages and for proper redress, ask that the legislator be barred from ever holding elected office ever again.

EVERYONE should call the legislators who support SB-918 and put them on notice that they too will pursue a private right of action for Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law IF the Governor signs it into law.

Last edited by DolphinFan; 08-12-2022 at 11:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 08-12-2022, 11:43 AM
jrr jrr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 642
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I have wondered about this tactic. I think the legislative history and comments/debate surrounding this law shows that they know very well it is likely unconstitutional and a deprevation of rights. Their own legislative analysis says so. So to proceed anyway is a willful violation of an established civil right, i.e. the right estanblished in NYSPRA to bear arms in public for self defense.

Change it from "bear arms" to vote or practice a religion and this type of willful violation of rights would be completely unacceptable by the general public.

I don't know, I am not a civil rights attorney. But it sounds good. Some sort of change in tactics is needed.

Edit- not gonna fly......
U.S. SUPREME COURT GUARANTEES IMMUNITY FOR LOCAL LEGISLATORS

The United States Supreme Court held in Bogan et al. v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 118 S.Ct. 966, 140 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998) that local legislators (i.e. members of a city council and the city mayor) have absolute immunity from personal liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983 ("§1983" actions) when acting in their legislative capacity.

Last edited by jrr; 08-12-2022 at 11:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 08-12-2022, 11:49 AM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,989
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911-CV View Post
Seems like there should also be an outcry from all the victim's groups and businesses. Folks who successfully navigated the old process to get their CCW's to protect their lives are now equally *****ed. Going to the bank with your bag of cash for deposit with all bank property off-limits? Easy pickings for the bad guys.

Alert the media, CA Governor to put victims at risk!
Now that folks that navigated the old process are equally screwed it's time to do something? Where was the outcry when the few had their goodies and only everyone else was being equally screwed?

Can there be some realistic perspective here? Suddenly now it's all about bad guys going after people carrying bags of cash to the bank? What about the mother walking to the ATM for some cash to buy some groceries, what about the waitstaff at some eatery going home with their tip money? What about all those people without some special privilege who paid up to be treated unequally and with special consideration? What about those who aren't blessed by the few declaring them worthy of being able to carry?

What about the person walking down the street with 20 bucks in their pocket? They don't factor into the right of self protection?

Friends in need are friends indeed.

A lot of now hear this for CCW holders, very little for everyone else but by all means, everyone start making phones calls. Where were you when it was time to make those phones call for everyone else?

You is plural in case things get in a tight wad.





.

Where was the outcry before? Right, not until it knocks on your door and then include others.
__________________
Don't worry, it will never pass...How in the hell did that pass?

Don't get stuck on Stupid, read a Sticky!


Think past your gun.

Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.
Not losing is not a Victory if everything stays the same.
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 08-12-2022, 11:52 AM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,842
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrr View Post
I have wondered about this tactic. I think the legislative history and comments/debate surrounding this law shows that they know very well it is likely unconstitutional and a deprevation of rights. Their own legislative analysis says so. So to proceed anyway is a willful violation of an established civil right, i.e. the right estanblished in NYSPRA to bear arms in public for self defense.

Change it from "bear arms" to vote or practice a religion and this type of willful violation of rights would be completely unacceptable by the general public.

I don't know, I am not a civil rights attorney. But it sounds good. Some sort of change in tactics is needed.

Edit- not gonna fly......
U.S. SUPREME COURT GUARANTEES IMMUNITY FOR LOCAL LEGISLATORS

The United States Supreme Court held in Bogan et al. v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 118 S.Ct. 966, 140 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998) that local legislators (i.e. members of a city council and the city mayor) have absolute immunity from personal liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983 ("§1983" actions) when acting in their legislative capacity.


But they are not members of city council or mayor. They are Assembly and Senate members.

And IF not then WHO does the law apply?
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 08-12-2022, 12:11 PM
Ca2AZ Ca2AZ is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2022
Posts: 29
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default There is something we can do..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanejsl View Post
Also they added an urgency clause making it effective as soon as the Newsome signs it.
A sliver of hope here. Because it is now an urgency measure, it requires 2/3rds of each the Assembly and the Senate in order to pass.

Of the 80 members of the Assembly the breakdown is 60-D, 19-R, 1-I. They need 54 votes to pass the assembly, so we should focus on reaching out to the Dem Assembly members who are moderate, or facing a tough re-election bid come November.

Likewise in the Senate, they will need 27 votes and the current breakdown is 31-D, 9-R.

I know it seems like a long shot, but if everyone posting on the forum directed their energies to posting in these members email inbox, it could move the needle.
__________________
AZ CCW Timeline:
5/27/22- Hand delivered complete application
6/1/22- USPS money order cashed
6/2/22- Permit approved after calling
6/8/22- Permit Received

LA County CCW Timeline:
3/28/22- Dropped off application in person
4/11/22- Money Order cashed
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 08-12-2022, 12:15 PM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,821
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc View Post
Read this in the county forum:

If SB 918 passes (which sounds like it likely will) then BESIDES the fact that you are effectively not allowed to carry almost anywhere, but the new guidelines in application would be:

-3 personal references (at least one must be a cohabitant if you have one, and at least one must be a parent or current or former romantic partner)

Hmmmm.... I would never qualify. Both parents have passed and I've been married over 45 years to the same babe and haven't had a former "romantic partner" (if that's what a girlfriend can be called) for over 47 years. I'm sure I won't be the only one.
Someone on the "county board" needs to read more carefully....
Quote:
(2) Interviews with at least three character references, at least one of whom must be a person described in subdivision (b) of Section 273.5, if applicable, and at least one of whom must be the applicant’s cohabitant, if applicable.
Quote:
CA PEN 273.5. (a) Any person who willfully inflicts corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a victim described in subdivision (b) is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(b) Subdivision (a) shall apply if the victim is or was one or more of the following:

(1) The offender’s spouse or former spouse.

(2) The offender’s cohabitant or former cohabitant.

(3) The offender’s fiancé or fiancée, or someone with whom the offender has, or previously had, an engagement or dating relationship, as defined in paragraph (10) of subdivision (f) of Section 243.

(4) The mother or father of the offender’s child.
So, unless you are an offender under these provisions, you don't have information to provide.

In your case, your spouse is the "cohabitant"
__________________
"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
  #430  
Old 08-12-2022, 12:41 PM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,821
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca2AZ View Post
A sliver of hope here. Because it is now an urgency measure, it requires 2/3rds of each the Assembly and the Senate in order to pass.

Of the 80 members of the Assembly the breakdown is 60-D, 19-R, 1-I. They need 54 votes to pass the assembly, so we should focus on reaching out to the Dem Assembly members who are moderate, or facing a tough re-election bid come November.

Likewise in the Senate, they will need 27 votes and the current breakdown is 31-D, 9-R.

I know it seems like a long shot, but if everyone posting on the forum directed their energies to posting in these members email inbox, it could move the needle.
A couple of problems:

First: Portantino and Newsom have already counted the votes. Anybody deserting the anti-gun efforts at this time will face the wrath of Portantino and Newsom...crappy office and no staff.

(Jim Cooper may "non-vote" as he is the Sheriff-elect of Sacramento County (1/1/2023))

Second: Legislators don't care about voters who don't live in their districts. If you live in the district and aren't their party, they also don't care what you think.

Third: This is the second of California's "FU" to the SCOTUS. Newsom will bundle the remaining gun bills, gather the usual suspects around him and have a major signing event linking these efforts with the previous firearms bill allowing civil lawsuits against gun companies which was modeled after Texas' abortion law which SCOTUS upheld.

Before the ink is dried there should be legal action filed. But this bill has a severance clause which, if any portion of the bill is found unconstitutional, preserves the rest of the provisions. So, the filing would have to be sufficiently specific so as to challenge fully all of the provisions. Possibly a TRO pending full filing?
__________________
"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
  #431  
Old 08-12-2022, 12:52 PM
JDoe JDoe is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,143
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default California DOJ push new CCW law SB 918

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrr View Post
I have wondered about this tactic. I think the legislative history and comments/debate surrounding this law shows that they know very well it is likely unconstitutional and a deprevation of rights. Their own legislative analysis says so. So to proceed anyway is a willful violation of an established civil right, i.e. the right estanblished in NYSPRA to bear arms in public for self defense.

Change it from "bear arms" to vote or practice a religion and this type of willful violation of rights would be completely unacceptable by the general public.

I don't know, I am not a civil rights attorney. But it sounds good. Some sort of change in tactics is needed.

Edit- not gonna fly......
U.S. SUPREME COURT GUARANTEES IMMUNITY FOR LOCAL LEGISLATORS

The United States Supreme Court held in Bogan et al. v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 118 S.Ct. 966, 140 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998) that local legislators (i.e. members of a city council and the city mayor) have absolute immunity from personal liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983 ("§1983" actions) when acting in their legislative capacity.

Does “legislative capacity” include making unconstitutional laws? That they know and acknowledge are unconstitutional?



#Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
#Let’s go Brandon!
#FJB No
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 08-12-2022, 1:33 PM
rmklaw rmklaw is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Posts: 9
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In my humble opinion, a challenge should be limited to the "KISS" principle...keep it simple st....... I personally believe that SB 918 is deficient for many reasons in addition to constitutionality, such as "vagueness."

For example, as a CCW permit holder, after passage of SB 918, do you have certainty of where you can or cannot carry for sure, and where if found carrying, you would be charged under the statute?

I read and re-read SB 918, and could not get that certainty, and I would be concerned of unwarranted prosecution. Generally, that level of vagueness could give cause to seeking a Declaratory Judgment before testing the law (risky proposition). The Declaratory Action would also request injunctive relief. The simpler and cleaner you make it for a judge, the better the chances. Just my 5 cents.

Does anyone know if the various 2A organizations plan any challenges?
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 08-12-2022, 1:53 PM
Lanejsl Lanejsl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 333
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2 View Post
I think you may misunderstand their intent.
Here, I am borrowing this from TKM, posted in another thread, should provide some insight into their REAL INTENT.
Yikes. Scary stuff. Forgot about that line.
Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 08-12-2022, 1:56 PM
Lanejsl Lanejsl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 333
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca2AZ View Post
A sliver of hope here. Because it is now an urgency measure, it requires 2/3rds of each the Assembly and the Senate in order to pass.

Of the 80 members of the Assembly the breakdown is 60-D, 19-R, 1-I. They need 54 votes to pass the assembly, so we should focus on reaching out to the Dem Assembly members who are moderate, or facing a tough re-election bid come November.

Likewise in the Senate, they will need 27 votes and the current breakdown is 31-D, 9-R.

I know it seems like a long shot, but if everyone posting on the forum directed their energies to posting in these members email inbox, it could move the needle.
I wonder what Assemblyman Cooper, soon to be Sacramento Sheriff has to say about this.
Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 08-12-2022, 2:01 PM
Lanejsl Lanejsl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 333
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
A couple of problems:

First: Portantino and Newsom have already counted the votes. Anybody deserting the anti-gun efforts at this time will face the wrath of Portantino and Newsom...crappy office and no staff.

(Jim Cooper may "non-vote" as he is the Sheriff-elect of Sacramento County (1/1/2023))

Second: Legislators don't care about voters who don't live in their districts. If you live in the district and aren't their party, they also don't care what you think.

Third: This is the second of California's "FU" to the SCOTUS. Newsom will bundle the remaining gun bills, gather the usual suspects around him and have a major signing event linking these efforts with the previous firearms bill allowing civil lawsuits against gun companies which was modeled after Texas' abortion law which SCOTUS upheld.

Before the ink is dried there should be legal action filed. But this bill has a severance clause which, if any portion of the bill is found unconstitutional, preserves the rest of the provisions. So, the filing would have to be sufficiently specific so as to challenge fully all of the provisions. Possibly a TRO pending full filing?
On the severability issue, I could see a scenario where the permitted establishments and interview requirements are found to be an undue burden on a constitutional right but the training requirements the bill requires remain in the law.

Last edited by Lanejsl; 08-12-2022 at 2:01 PM.. Reason: Typos
Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 08-12-2022, 2:07 PM
Fightonrob Fightonrob is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 87
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanejsl View Post
On the severability issue, I could see a scenario where the permitted establishments and interview requirements are found to be an undue burden on a constitutional right but the training requirements the bill requires remain in the law.
You've been spot on with your posts. Is there any real chance this doesn't get the votes to pass?
Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 08-12-2022, 2:31 PM
michaelh1951 michaelh1951 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 126
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DolphinFan View Post
[/B]

But they are not members of city council or mayor. They are Assembly and Senate members.

And IF not then WHO does the law apply?
As I understand, it applies strictly to state officials. And in this case they are exactly the ones at blame
Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 08-12-2022, 2:49 PM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,821
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanejsl View Post
I wonder what Assemblyman Cooper, soon to be Sacramento Sheriff has to say about this.
I suspect he will keep his mouth shut and register as non-voting. The Legislature adjourns in less than 3 weeks and he has a little more than 4 months until he pins on his stars.

No reason to rock the boat and jeopardize his future leverage on the local commies.
__________________
"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
  #439  
Old 08-12-2022, 2:50 PM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,821
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanejsl View Post
On the severability issue, I could see a scenario where the permitted establishments and interview requirements are found to be an undue burden on a constitutional right but the training requirements the bill requires remain in the law.
I think that's right.
__________________
"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
  #440  
Old 08-12-2022, 3:10 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,335
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmklaw View Post
In my humble opinion, a challenge should be limited to the "KISS" principle...keep it simple st....... I personally believe that SB 918 is deficient for many reasons in addition to constitutionality, such as "vagueness."

For example, as a CCW permit holder, after passage of SB 918, do you have certainty of where you can or cannot carry for sure, and where if found carrying, you would be charged under the statute?

I read and re-read SB 918, and could not get that certainty, and I would be concerned of unwarranted prosecution. Generally, that level of vagueness could give cause to seeking a Declaratory Judgment before testing the law (risky proposition). The Declaratory Action would also request injunctive relief. The simpler and cleaner you make it for a judge, the better the chances. Just my 5 cents.

Does anyone know if the various 2A organizations plan any challenges?
How does this certainty sit with you: under existing law, holders of CCWs were exempt from the GFSZA 1000' exclusion zone except for being on a campus of a school or university. The new law as amended narrows the exemption as follows:

(4) 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 not in, or on the grounds of, in 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, but within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school.

As I read this, it is a public offense to drive past a school on the road while lawfully carrying a concealed firearm. So even if you have a CCW, you will have to give every school or university a one-block buffer zone where you cannot lawfully enter when armed unless your firearm is unloaded and in a locked container (I assume). So get out your maps and good luck! (P.S. you are not supposed to have any luck. If your place of residence is anything like mine, most of the high schools and many of the elementary and junior highs are located on major transportation routes. Both colleges on the edge of town would require a diversion literally for miles to avoid the exclusion zone.

And here is the list of "sensitive places" where you can only go if your gat is restrained in a locked container lest it jump out and start shooting people:


26230. (a) A person granted a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person pursuant to Section 26150, 26155, or 26170 shall not carry a firearm on or into any of the following:
(1) A place prohibited by Section 626.9.
(2) A building, real property, or parking area under the control of a preschool or childcare facility, including a room or portion of a building under the control of a preschool or childcare facility. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the operator of a childcare facility in a family home from owning or possessing a firearm in the home if no child under child care at the home is present in the home or the firearm in the home is unloaded, stored in a locked container, and stored separately from ammunition when a child under child care at the home is present in the home so long as the childcare provider notifies clients that there is a firearm in the home.
(3) A building, parking area, or portion of a building under the control of an officer of the executive or legislative branch of the state government.
(4) A building designated for a court proceeding, including matters before a superior court, district court of appeal, or the California Supreme Court, parking area under the control of the owner or operator of that building, or a building or portion of a building under the control of the Supreme Court.
(5) A building, parking area, or portion of a building under the control of a unit of local government, unless the firearm is being carried for purposes of training pursuant to Section 26165.
(6) A building, real property, and parking area under the control of an adult or juvenile detention or correctional institution, prison, or jail.
(7) A building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public or private hospital or hospital affiliate, mental health facility, nursing home, medical office, urgent care facility, or other place at which medical services are customarily provided.
(8) A bus, train, or other form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and a building, real property, or parking area under the control of a transportation authority supported in whole or in part with public funds.
(9) A building, real property, and parking area under the control of a vendor or an establishment where intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption on the premises.
(10) A public gathering or special event conducted on property open to the public that requires the issuance of a permit from a federal, state, or local government and sidewalk or street immediately adjacent to the public gathering or special event but is not more than 1,000 feet from the event or gathering, provided this prohibition shall not apply to a licensee who must walk through a public gathering in order to access their residence, place of business, or vehicle.
(11) A playground or public or private youth center, as defined in Section 626.95, and a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to the playground or youth center.
(12) A park, athletic area, or athletic facility that is open to the public and a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to those areas, provided this prohibition shall not apply to a licensee who must walk through such a place in order to access their residence, place of business, or vehicle.
(13) Real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or Department of Fish and Wildlife, except those areas designated for hunting pursuant to Section 5003.1 of the Public Resources Code, Section 4501 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, or any other designated public hunting area, public shooting ground, or building where firearm possession is permitted by applicable law.
(14) Any area under the control of a public or private community college, college, or university, including, but not limited to, buildings, classrooms, laboratories, medical clinics, hospitals, artistic venues, athletic fields or venues, entertainment venues, officially recognized university-related organization properties, whether owned or leased, and any real property, including parking areas, sidewalks, and common areas.
(15) A building, real property, or parking area that is or would be used for gambling or gaming of any kind whatsoever, including, but not limited to, casinos, gambling establishments, gaming clubs, bingo operations, facilities licensed by the California Horse Racing Board, or a facility wherein banked or percentage games, any form of gambling device, or lotteries, other than the California State Lottery, are or will be played.
(16) A stadium, arena, or the real property or parking area under the control of a stadium, arena, or a collegiate or professional sporting or eSporting event.
(17) A building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public library.
(18) A building, real property, or parking area under the control of an airport or passenger vessel terminal, as those terms are defined in subdivision (a) of Section 171.5.
(19) A building, real property, or parking area under the control of an amusement park.
(20) A building, real property, or parking area under the control of a zoo or museum.
(21) A street, driveway, parking area, property, building, or facility, owned, leased, controlled, or used by a nuclear energy, storage, weapons, or development site or facility regulated by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(22) A church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship, including in any parking area immediately adjacent thereto, unless the operator of the place of worship clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that license holders are permitted to carry firearms on the property. Signs shall be of a uniform design as prescribed by the Department of Justice and shall be at least four inches by six inches in size.
(23) A financial institution or parking area under the control of a financial institution.
(24) A police, sheriff, or highway patrol station or parking area under control of a law enforcement agency.
(25) A polling place, voting center, precinct, or other area or location where votes are being cast or cast ballots are being returned or counted, or the streets or sidewalks immediately adjacent to any of these places.
(26) Any other privately-owned commercial establishment that is open to the public, unless the operator of the establishment clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that license holders are permitted to carry firearms on the property. Signs shall be of a uniform design as prescribed by the Department of Justice and shall be at least four inches by six inches in size.
(27) Any other place or area prohibited by other provisions of state law.
(28) An area where firearms are prohibited under federal law.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a licensee may transport a firearm and ammunition within their vehicle so long as the firearm is locked in a lock box, as defined in subdivision (y) of Section 4082 of Title 11 of the California Code of Regulations, and the lock box is a firearm safety device, as defined in Section 16540, that is listed on the department’s Roster of Firearm Safety Devices Certified for Sale pursuant to Sections 23650 and 23655.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), except under paragraph (21) or (28) of subdivision (a), a licensee prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm into the parking area of a prohibited location specified in subdivision (a) shall be allowed to:
(1) Transport a concealed firearm or ammunition within a vehicle into or out of the parking area so long as the firearm is locked in a lock box.
(2) Store ammunition or a firearm within a locked lock box and out of plain view within the vehicle in the parking area.
(3) Transport a concealed firearm in the immediate area surrounding their vehicle within a prohibited parking lot area only for the limited purpose of storing or retrieving a firearm within a locked lock box in the vehicle’s trunk or other place inside the vehicle that is out of plain view.
(d) Except in the places specified in paragraph (14) of subdivision (a), 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.
(e) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the carrying of a firearm where it is otherwise expressly authorized by law.

Last edited by TruOil; 08-12-2022 at 3:21 PM..
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 2:47 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical