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
  #1161  
Old 01-11-2024, 3:13 PM
21GunSalute 21GunSalute is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2022
Posts: 140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by haw1144 View Post
what does this mean (all this wordy legal jargon always confuses me)... here in Santa Clara County (and the City of San Jose), there are local ordinances that do not allow firearms in the county and city parks.

does the injunction now allow me to carry or do i still need to adhere to local laws?
These local ordinances could be challenged with a state wide injunction against SB2, as not being in compliance with State law, and wouldn?t pass the sniff test. Concealed is concealed. F?em!
Reply With Quote
  #1162  
Old 01-15-2024, 11:58 AM
Ishooter's Avatar
Ishooter Ishooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 835
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I think the injunction voids all local regulations on ccw in parks. The cities can challenge, but they'll lose for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #1163  
Old 01-15-2024, 2:31 PM
ugimports's Avatar
ugimports ugimports is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 6,111
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by haw1144 View Post
what does this mean (all this wordy legal jargon always confuses me)... here in Santa Clara County (and the City of San Jose), there are local ordinances that do not allow firearms in the county and city parks.

does the injunction now allow me to carry or do i still need to adhere to local laws?
Is there an exemption for Field Sports Park aka Metcalf which is a shooting range?
__________________
UG Imports - Fremont, CA FFL - Transfers, New Gun Sales
Closure Schedule: http://ugimports.com/closed
web: http://ugimports.com/calguns / email: sales@ugimports.com
phone: (510) 371-GUNS (4867)

Crowdsourced 2A Calendar

I AM THE MAJORITY!!!

Amazon Links Posted May be Paid Links
Reply With Quote
  #1164  
Old 01-15-2024, 7:32 PM
NorCalBusa NorCalBusa is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,417
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ugimports View Post
Is there an exemption for Field Sports Park aka Metcalf which is a shooting range?
And the older HUGE skeet range on the other side of 101 & south a bit (Coyote Valley Sporting Clays) which is now County owned (is my understanding)?
Reply With Quote
  #1165  
Old 01-19-2024, 9:00 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,471
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Column: California says its new gun law is about public safety. But what about these women?

Quote:
...The law, known as Senate Bill 2, was drafted as a workaround to a U.S. Supreme Court decision from 2022 that threw out a chunk of the state's - and the nation's - gun control regulations as unconstitutional, theoretically making it easier for people to obtain concealed-carry permits.

It was meant as a retaliatory blow to the Supreme Court, ostensibly designed to keep California from turning into Florida and other red states, where alarming permit-less carry laws mean there's no longer anything preventing people - trained or untrained - from strapping on a Glock and heading to the grocery store.

But SB 2, sponsored by state Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-Burbank), went further than the laws that were in place before the Supreme Court's decimation of common sense gun-control regulations.

Now, even Californians who have submitted to extensive background checks and participated in hours of training can't legally carry their firearms without running afoul of the list of banned places - which, let's be honest, are just about everywhere...

And there are parts of SB 2 that are good. The doubling of the amount of training needed to get a concealed-carry permit, from eight to 16 hours, for example, and deepening background checks to include social media scans and personal references.

But SB 2 is still flawed. Attempting to shadow-ban concealed-carry permits is not likely to reduce gun violence...

Chuck Michel, the general counsel for the California Rifle & Pistol Assn. who filed the suit over SB 2, said the law hurts more than just women who fear for their personal safety. He points to retired judges and prosecutors who may have dangerous enemies. People in the LGBTQ+ community facing rising hate crimes. And even jewelers who routinely carry gems and cash.

"There are certainly some individual circumstances where the need for that kind of permit is profound," Michel said...

"I would dissuade any woman, particularly a woman who has children, from buying a firearm. That's like the leading cause of death for very young children," said Sikivu Hutchinson, founder of the Women's Leadership Project in South L.A.

But she said she "absolutely understands it" as "a response of desperation and crisis."

Indeed, if some women have turned to arming themselves, it?s hardly ideal because of the dangers, but it unfortunately makes some sense - in California and across the country. Taking that right to carry away, whether it is offering real or only perceived safety, is another psychological harm piled on top of unforgivable policy failures...

So Senate Bill 2 is the worst kind of law, pulled together from the worst kind of legislative process. It's reactionary and clumsy and overzealous in way that dangerously plays right into Republican narratives about Democrats' love of bureaucratic overreach. And, in a year when the state is desperately trying to cut costs, it will cost us untold sums to defend as it makes its way through the courts.

Rather than a law that's clearly designed to score political points - and to give ambitious Democrats a platform to give a middle finger to the NRA and the right-wing politicians it backs - California needs laws that actually address the problem of public safety.

The state could, for example, double down on strengthening our system of removing guns from dangerous people. Or, it could make the concealed-carry permit process a state-run system, similar to driver?s licenses, instead of leaving it to individual counties to come up with their own procedures. And it could, and should, do a better job of investing in community-led anti-violence programs that can make a difference in the lives of the most afraid and the most vulnerable.

Because let?s be honest. It?s public safety - both the reality and the sometimes flawed perceptions of it - that ultimately is the reason that Californians keep buying guns. And that, in turn, makes us all less safe.
Reply With Quote
  #1166  
Old 01-20-2024, 6:08 AM
Heatseeker's Avatar
Heatseeker Heatseeker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Calaveras County
Posts: 1,862
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Did anyone catch this gem on the SF Chronicle site last week?


http://https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/sb-2-order-18596553.php

[/QUOTE] Gun owners in California will likely be allowed to carry their firearms in most public places until this summer, if not longer, now that a federal appeals court panel has blocked central provisions of a state law that banned carrying guns in schools, parks, libraries and other areas the law classified as ?sensitive.? [/QUOTE]

Not one mention of CCW anywhere in the article. I emailed Mr. Egelko to ask if the omission was ignorance or, more likely, fear mongering. Of course, there was no response.

I remember a time when the media accepted as their duty to report issues fairly by presenting both sides of an issue and reporting all the facts available. This is another example of how that is no longer the case.

He also called Chuck Michel "the founder of CRPA"....
__________________
If it ain't broke, keep fixin' it 'til it is...

Last edited by Heatseeker; 01-20-2024 at 6:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1167  
Old 01-20-2024, 7:40 AM
Preston-CLB's Avatar
Preston-CLB Preston-CLB is offline
Mountain Picker
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Tuolumne County
Posts: 2,169
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I've seen a few articles that do not mention the 'Concealed Carry' aspect. It's almost like they believe, or don't care that non-permitted CCW and open carry have been banned for a long time.

If they are ignorant, that can be fixed, but purposely omitting CCW is liberal fear mongering at its best.
-P
__________________
"If you want nice fresh oats, you have to pay a fair price. If you are satisfied with oats that have already been through the horse, well, that comes a little cheaper."
Reply With Quote
  #1168  
Old 01-20-2024, 9:57 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,090
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"So Senate Bill 2 is the worst kind of law, pulled together from the worst kind of legislative process. It's reactionary and clumsy and overzealous in way that dangerously plays right into Republican narratives about Democrats' love of bureaucratic overreach. And, in a year when the state is desperately trying to cut costs, it will cost us untold sums to defend as it makes its way through the courts."

Man, when you've lost the lost the L.A. times! I know this is an OP/ED, but still, the editors chose it for publication. And these writers are anything but pro-gun.
Reply With Quote
  #1169  
Old 01-20-2024, 10:01 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,090
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Preston-CLB View Post
I've seen a few articles that do not mention the 'Concealed Carry' aspect. It's almost like they believe, or don't care that non-permitted CCW and open carry have been banned for a long time.

If they are ignorant, that can be fixed, but purposely omitting CCW is liberal fear mongering at its best.
-P
I know, how sloppy and/or deliberate.

OTOH, I think most people that are even aware of what's going on know the difference.

Still, I wonder how many people will read this and say to themselves "Oh, I guess I can go out and carry my gun then" (w/o a permit).
Reply With Quote
  #1170  
Old 01-20-2024, 10:34 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,090
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"deepening background checks to include social media scans"

As quoted in the L.A. times article above by TRAPPED.

I don't think this is actually authorized by SB2. I find no mention of this in the bill. Can anyone confirm or refute?

There is no space in the new permitium to list your S.M. accounts.
Its easy enough for an investigator I suppose to track your social media accounts, but I am not aware that this is actually included in the bill text.
Reply With Quote
  #1171  
Old 01-20-2024, 2:27 PM
awiner's Avatar
awiner awiner is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 1,190
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
"deepening background checks to include social media scans"

As quoted in the L.A. times article above by TRAPPED.

I don't think this is actually authorized by SB2. I find no mention of this in the bill. Can anyone confirm or refute?

There is no space in the new permitium to list your S.M. accounts.
Its easy enough for an investigator I suppose to track your social media accounts, but I am not aware that this is actually included in the bill text.

Added in SB2

26202(b)(3) states

?A review of publicly available information about the applicant, including publicly available statements published or posted by the applicant.?
Reply With Quote
  #1172  
Old 01-20-2024, 3:02 PM
Preston-CLB's Avatar
Preston-CLB Preston-CLB is offline
Mountain Picker
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Tuolumne County
Posts: 2,169
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It's been my opinion, and surely that of most here, that SB-2 is wholly unconstitutional and should be struck down in its entirety.

Having to provide references, social media scans, etc. is just overkill and will be a big drain on IA's resources. All that will do is lengthen the time it takes to get a permit and fees will likely increase to cover the manhours of admin time.

At least we've had a win getting the 'sensitive locations' portion stopped for now.
-P
__________________
"If you want nice fresh oats, you have to pay a fair price. If you are satisfied with oats that have already been through the horse, well, that comes a little cheaper."
Reply With Quote
  #1173  
Old 01-20-2024, 5:11 PM
lastinline lastinline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Preston-CLB View Post
All that will do is lengthen the time it takes to get a permit and fees will likely increase to cover the manhours of admin time.
Exactly the intent. Make it as difficult, time consuming, expensive, and lengthy as possible is a built-in design feature. Plus having to willingly let some state sponsored goon paw through anything you posted on any public space in an effort to declare that you do not meet their subjective good moral character standard is as bad as it was before Bruen.
Reply With Quote
  #1174  
Old 01-21-2024, 9:48 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,090
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by awiner View Post
Added in SB2

26202(b)(3) states

?A review of publicly available information about the applicant, including publicly available statements published or posted by the applicant.?
Thanks for spotting that.

Yes, I suppose that could include social media posts.
What fun this will be for investigators.
Reply With Quote
  #1175  
Old 01-21-2024, 12:43 PM
lastinline lastinline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post

Yes, I suppose that could include social media posts.
What fun this will be for investigators.
Watching this video (courtesy of another member on this forum) sheds some light into the retaliatory nature of SB2, and that it is purely a reaction to Bruen in the form of a temper tantrum of gun control evil designed to give the middle finger to the Supreme Court and at the same time disarm citizens.
I wonder if the law enforcement investigators will relish the social media sifting, or see it as one more distasteful chore they do as part of the assignment? I doubt most any of them like to be bogged down in unproductive BS, as this is purely just that. The politicians sure like it though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMANdsDf5vU
Reply With Quote
  #1176  
Old 01-22-2024, 10:07 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,090
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lastinline View Post
Watching this video (courtesy of another member on this forum) sheds some light into the retaliatory nature of SB2, and that it is purely a reaction to Bruen in the form of a temper tantrum of gun control evil designed to give the middle finger to the Supreme Court and at the same time disarm citizens.
I wonder if the law enforcement investigators will relish the social media sifting, or see it as one more distasteful chore they do as part of the assignment? I doubt most any of them like to be bogged down in unproductive BS, as this is purely just that. The politicians sure like it though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMANdsDf5vU
I doubt most investigators are going to relish this at all.
It sounds like a tedious, boring assignment and waste of time, given that permit applicants have been vetted already in other ways.
Some people may have many accounts and thousands or tens of thousands of posts.

Which brings up a number of whole new questions. Being I'm not that computer savvy. If an investigator does a personal search. I assume they do that already (pre SB2). So in a personal search, that can lead to any social media accounts? How exactly does that work, question for the computer savvy here?
Reply With Quote
  #1177  
Old 01-22-2024, 10:11 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,090
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lastinline View Post
Watching this video (courtesy of another member on this forum) sheds some light into the retaliatory nature of SB2, and that it is purely a reaction to Bruen in the form of a temper tantrum of gun control evil designed to give the middle finger to the Supreme Court and at the same time disarm citizens.
I wonder if the law enforcement investigators will relish the social media sifting, or see it as one more distasteful chore they do as part of the assignment? I doubt most any of them like to be bogged down in unproductive BS, as this is purely just that. The politicians sure like it though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMANdsDf5vU
Even the L.A. times OP/ED article cited by TrappedinCalifornia above states that fact.

"It was meant as a retaliatory blow to the Supreme Court, ostensibly designed to keep California from turning into Florida and other red states"
Reply With Quote
  #1178  
Old 01-22-2024, 1:34 PM
XDJYo XDJYo is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal-East Bay
Posts: 5,942
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
I doubt most investigators are going to relish this at all.
It sounds like a tedious, boring assignment and waste of time,
given that permit applicants have been vetted already in other ways.
Some people may have many accounts and thousands or tens of thousands of posts.

Which brings up a number of whole new questions. Being I'm not that computer savvy. If an investigator does a personal search. I assume they do that already (pre SB2). So in a personal search, that can lead to any social media accounts? How exactly does that work, question for the computer savvy here?
I'm sure they will plump up the numbers to satisfy their DEI hires and we'll see a new cadre of blue and purple haired, multi-pierced, kale-munchin' tattoo'd, former barista employees in charge of our 2A.
__________________
Les Baer 1911: Premier II w/1.5" Guarantee, Blued, No FCS, Combat Rear, F/O Front, Checkered MSH & SA Professional Double Diamond Grips
Springfield Armory XD-45 4" Service Model
Springfield Armory XD9 4" Service Model (wifes).
M&P 15 (Mine)
Reply With Quote
  #1179  
Old 01-23-2024, 8:08 AM
Palmaris's Avatar
Palmaris Palmaris is offline
НАТО в Хату!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 4,062
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
Thanks for spotting that.

Yes, I suppose that could include social media posts.
What fun this will be for investigators.
Nobody post on social media under their original names, except some yo-yos on facebook. Yes, there is way to link internet profile to forum account, but it is require effort, time and costs money. Also there is time frame of 90 days for making ?decision?. Does it worth for investigators effort to do al that for regular John Doe? May be if they have some serious doubts, but not on regular basis. Much easier to restrict to implement by shrink review.
__________________
sd_shooter:
CGN couch patriots: "We the people!"

In real life: No one
Reply With Quote
  #1180  
Old 01-23-2024, 9:57 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,090
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Palmaris View Post
Nobody post on social media under their original names, except some yo-yos on facebook. Yes, there is way to link internet profile to forum account, but it is require effort, time and costs money. Also there is time frame of 90 days for making ?decision?. Does it worth for investigators effort to do al that for regular John Doe? May be if they have some serious doubts, but not on regular basis. Much easier to restrict to implement by shrink review.
That makes sense. I cannot imagine the wasting tons of man hours by scrutinizing every post on every forum.

The bill makes this somewhat subjective: "(3) A review of publicly available information about the applicant, including publicly available statements published or posted by the applicant" Does not mention social media specifically.

My guess is most investigators will make a general internet search based on your name and see if anything questionable comes up. Lots of things come up on your name if you do an internet search, even if you are a relative nobody. I think many investigators do that already. If something questionable does come up, they may do a deeper search.
Reply With Quote
  #1181  
Old 01-23-2024, 11:23 AM
XDJYo XDJYo is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal-East Bay
Posts: 5,942
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Palmaris View Post
Nobody post on social media under their original names, except some yo-yos on facebook. Yes, there is way to link internet profile to forum account, but it is require effort, time and costs money. Also there is time frame of 90 days for making ?decision?. Does it worth for investigators effort to do al that for regular John Doe? May be if they have some serious doubts, but not on regular basis. Much easier to restrict to implement by shrink review.
Some counties are taking upwards of 18 mos to issue and this was before the additional burdens of the 16 hour classes and psych eval. Those investigators have all the time in the world to pull up every single post here on CG, the 'gram, facebook, X, youtubes etc.

Besides, I'm sure there's somebody out there writing some sort of task for an AI bot to search all of the CCW applicants. Man, what a nightmare.
__________________
Les Baer 1911: Premier II w/1.5" Guarantee, Blued, No FCS, Combat Rear, F/O Front, Checkered MSH & SA Professional Double Diamond Grips
Springfield Armory XD-45 4" Service Model
Springfield Armory XD9 4" Service Model (wifes).
M&P 15 (Mine)
Reply With Quote
  #1182  
Old 01-23-2024, 1:58 PM
Palmaris's Avatar
Palmaris Palmaris is offline
НАТО в Хату!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 4,062
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XDJYo View Post
Some counties are taking upwards of 18 mos to issue and this was before the additional burdens of the 16 hour classes and psych eval. Those investigators have all the time in the world to pull up every single post here on CG, the 'gram, facebook, X, youtubes etc.

Besides, I'm sure there's somebody out there writing some sort of task for an AI bot to search all of the CCW applicants. Man, what a nightmare.
Goat Rodeo!
__________________
sd_shooter:
CGN couch patriots: "We the people!"

In real life: No one
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 10:29 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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