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

[Capybara]

It's safe to throw out ANY claims of our Commie overlords about preventing "Crime" "Mass Shootings" or anything having to do with saving lives via their convoluted, punitive, insulting and selective firearms laws. Their guns laws have only one purpose, complete civilian disarmament. Once you look at everything they do through with that in mind, it all makes sense.

I've always said, if the state could get away with it, without any legal or PR ramifications, they would send DOJ death squads to the doors of every law abiding gun owner in the state and either disarm and imprison us or exterminate us. They just can't get away with it. Yet. View everything they say and do through that lens because it's the truth. They are obviously terrified of civilian firearms ownership.

[Rickybillegas]

As I'm starting to go through this SB2 which will soon become law, I am struck by all the undecipherable 'legalese'. Now, I know this is a legal legislative document, so it has to be in legal language, however, to the lay person and I dare say (with due respect to LEO) it is hopelessly complicated and even sloppy. There is a number of portions that are imprecise. How are law enforcement officers suppose to enforce this?

I suppose some agencies will conduct seminars or conduct classes for patrol personnel how to enforce, but I bet there will be different interpretations.

And we common folk are suppose to memorize all this #$#@!!!?

I know, I know, that's part of the plan, to entrap us into getting arrested.

[marcusrn]

I call dudy squat on these fowkers!!

[Capybara]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

I know, I know, that's part of the plan, to entrap us into getting arrested.

You're thinking about logical and practical considerations about an Unconstitutional farce that was designed to punish and imprison us.

If you think about it, law abiding gun owners are easily the most hated humans in the state of California by the state of California. Compared to us, illegals, homeless, gang bangers, petty criminals, union organizers, organized crime, drug dealers, felons, politicians, all of the dregs of society, are being rewarded, praised and entitled, while we are being doxxed and having our civili rights taken away. That is clearly not enough, now with SB 2, they want to be able to arrest us, imprison us and make us prohibited persons for life for daring to try to protect our lives. What is wrong with this picture?

[lairdb]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

I haven't scoured through the whole bill in detail, but I think you will still be able to carry in your car and public sidewalks (expect near school zones and a few other exceptions), also on non-commercial property.

The school zone matter alone makes most urban areas effectively no-go. Here's a map of school zones in San Francisco:


Similarly, as a mental exercise, please name any day in the last week where you left your house without setting foot on any commercial property.

[NateTheNewbie]

Originally Posted by lairdb

The school zone matter alone makes most urban areas effectively no-go. Here's a map of school zones in San Francisco:

How'd you create that map? I'd love to see it where I live.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by NateTheNewbie

How'd you create that map? I'd love to see it where I live.

He did it the old fashioned way (like most of us) he stole it.

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by lairdb

The school zone matter alone makes most urban areas effectively no-go. Here's a map of school zones in San Francisco:


Similarly, as a mental exercise, please name any day in the last week where you left your house without setting foot on any commercial property.

Originally Posted by NateTheNewbie

How'd you create that map? I'd love to see it where I live.

What struck me is how it made SF look like a set of intestines. Which reminds me, what does the City of SF and a set of intestines have in common?

[Rickybillegas]

The latest edition of the bill still allows carry within the 1000' zone, but i think it's amended to exclude sidewalks immediately adjacent to.


(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm under any of the following circumstances:
"(5) 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. Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 from carrying a firearm in accordance with that license as provided in subdivisions (b), (c), or (e) of Section 26230.

I think before it was ok to be on the adjacent sidewalk

[Rickybillegas]

Also, this part of the bill exempts you while traveling through:

"(e) 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."

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by lairdb

The school zone matter alone makes most urban areas effectively no-go. Here's a map of school zones in San Francisco.

Not to defend it but, SB2 contains provisions allowing transit of CCW holders through GFSZ areas.

Sec 6.

626.9 (c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm under any of the following circumstances:

(5) When the person holds a valid license to carry the firearm []

Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 from carrying a firearm in accordance with that license as provided in subdivisions (b), (c), or (e) of Section 26230.

SEC 27.

26230(e) Except in the places specified in paragraph (14) of subdivision (a), {colleges/universities} 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.

ETA: Ricky’s got it.
That map is more of a representation of the constraints on individuals carrying under LEOSA and out-of-state licenses.

And remember, school sites aren’t circular. For convenience, the map finds the center of the site and then scribes a 1k-foot circle. The Zone will be larger than that.

Originally Posted by lairdb

Similarly, as a mental exercise, please name any day in the last week where you left your house without setting foot on any commercial property.

Yesterday. Today will probably qualify, too.

[Kt90]

Im curious other opinions on this section also.

(26) Any other privately-owned 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 licenseholders 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.

The wording of privately owned commercial establishment vs just a commercial establishment. Larger stores like Vons, Albertsons, Home Depot, Lowes, are all publicly traded companies so are publicly owned. Would this mean they?re not restricted? I may be reading to far into it but the words are usually chosen carefully.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lairdb]

Originally Posted by Kt90

Im curious other opinions on this section also.

(26) Any other privately-owned 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 licenseholders 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.

The wording of privately owned commercial establishment vs just a commercial establishment. Larger stores like Vons, Albertsons, Home Depot, Lowes, are all publicly traded companies so are publicly owned. Would this mean they?re not restricted? I may be reading to far into it but the words are usually chosen carefully.

Publicly traded does not mean publicly owned; in fact, it pretty much inherently means privately owned. (By millions of individual private owners, who can buy and sell their ownership stakes in a public marketplace, but they are still private owners and it is still privately owned.)

[Kt90]

Originally Posted by lairdb

Publicly traded does not mean publicly owned; in fact, it pretty much inherently means privately owned. (By millions of individual private owners, who can buy and sell their ownership stakes in a public marketplace, but they are still private owners and it is still privately owned.)

Well it was wishful thinking. Trying to find a way to justify nearly 1k and 3-4 days off work for a permit to carry in your car is hard. But that?s the goal I?m sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rickybillegas]

But then we get into a discussion of what is a 'commercial establishment'?
presumably a 'mercantile' property'? Or are office buildings/property included?

"(26) Any other privately-owned 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 licenseholders 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."

Almost every other 'prohibited' place begins with "A ___________and parking area" However this one does not. So are the parking areas off limits? This is what I mean by imprecision and the confusion all ths will entail.

I imagine some people in parking lots will be ok'd in the event of contact with LE, and others will not be, becasue of the confusion.

[michaelh1951]

It passed the senate, no surprise

[Aragorn]

So, serious question: what are y?all planning to do once this passes?

Carry as usual; don?t carry at all; or something in between?

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Aragorn

So, serious question: what are y?all planning to do once this passes?

Carry as usual; don?t carry at all; or something in between?

Serious answer: Yes.

It?s too early to start gnashing teeth and clutching pearls on this.

Depending on the effective date, the response is different, but - -

If an Urgency measure is passed, the bill becomes law immediately after signing and filing with the Secretary of State. I expect 2A legal representation will be on the court house steps with a motion to stay the legislation pending litigation. I expect the stay will be granted and it will be interesting to hear the State input on why it?s so urgent without citing hundreds of cases where CCW holders have committed crimes.

Situation normal for who knows how long.

If no Urgency clause, then the effective date will be Jan 1, 2024. Plenty of time to enjoin.

If the law isn?t enjoined, then I?ll assess future actions in the future.

Too many alligators on my butt to worry about the ones in the eggs.

[Supersapper]

Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee

What struck me is how it made SF look like a set of intestines. Which reminds me, what does the City of SF and a set of intestines have in common?

I just can't leave that one hanging:

On their best day both have crap in them and on their worst day both are so overflowing that it produces s*** and causes a stink.

[Paladin]

Yesterday it was referred to the Assembly’s Public Safety committee.

[Ishooter]

What's the chance that this law (once it's passed), be challenged in court and get overturned quickly? Wishful thinking.

[awiner]

Originally Posted by Ishooter

What's the chance that this law (once it's passed), be challenged in court and get overturned quickly? Wishful thinking.

What ever happens quickly in California ? Takes years into decades for appeal after appeal.

All we can how for is some type of stay pending litigation.

[Rickybillegas]

Originally Posted by Ishooter

What's the chance that this law (once it's passed), be challenged in court and get overturned quickly? Wishful thinking.

It probably won't be 'overturned' quickly, but as DVRJON suggested, it will be challenged immediately (like the same day?) and very possibly granted a preliminary injunction by Federal judge (Benitez?).

CRPA Spokesman has stated they will be ready to file a complaint virtually the same day. They've had almost a year to prepare for this. Others may file also.

However, if a temp injunction is granted, of course the state will file an appeal, and there, the long road begins.

Look to NY and NJ as how this will play out. Both got temporary injunctions within weeks. NJ still has theirs in effect after months. NY on the other hand got a maybe 2 months relief and then was stayed by 2nd circuit, and there it lies waiting to be ruled on.

My terms may be a bit off, I'm not an attorney; just watching things closely.

[jake_eizy]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

It probably won't be 'overturned' quickly, but as DVRJON suggested, it will be challenged immediately (like the same day?) and very possibly granted a preliminary injunction by Federal judge (Benitez?).

CRPA Spokesman has stated they will be ready to file a complaint virtually the same day. They've had almost a year to prepare for this. Others may file also.

However, if a temp injunction is granted, of course the state will file an appeal, and there, the long road begins.

Look to NY and NJ as how this will play out. Both got temporary injunctions within weeks. NJ still has theirs in effect after months. NY on the other hand got a maybe 2 months relief and then was stayed by 2nd circuit, and there it lies waiting to be ruled on.

My terms may be a bit off, I'm not an attorney; just watching things closely.

If California follows NJ and a temporary injunction is filed, does that mean the laws are no longer in affect? and does the same apply when the case is "stayed"? Does any one know if the supreme court has shown interest into NY/NJ situation? If so, a supreme court ruling would trickle through to CA?

Sorry if this has all been answered already. I am a Bruen CCW and just starting to follow this bill closely.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by jake_eizy

If California follows NJ and a temporary injunction is filed, does that mean the laws are no longer in affect? and does the same apply when the case is "stayed"? Does any one know if the supreme court has shown interest into NY/NJ situation? If so, a supreme court ruling would trickle through to CA?

Sorry if this has all been answered already. I am a Bruen CCW and just starting to follow this bill closely.

If an enacted statute is enjoined or a decision on a statute is stayed the provisions of the statute or decision cannot be enforced during that enjoinment or stay. If the Supreme Court rules on a case the ruling applies throughout the US. The difficulty though is that the rulings are usually specifically tailored to the issues raised in the specific court case.

As an example, Bruen did not do away with licensing CCWs. It found NY's law to be unconstitutional due to the requirement for "Proper Cause" or a specific reason for wanting a CCW. This was almost immediately translated to CA CCW processes to remove the requirement for 'Just Cause' in the issuance of CCWs in CA.

The major impact of Bruen was the Court's determination that the two-step interest balancing process being used by lower courts to evaluate Constitutional issues of law was improper and installed the Text/History/Tradition model in its place. That caused the current workload in the lower courts to increase as they were directed to reconsider all of these such cases within then new context.

[Rickybillegas]

What happened in both NY and NJ was that within weeks of the new laws going into effect, the laws were 'stayed' by federal judges pending further review. But not the entire laws. The judges stayed only certain parts that were (in their opinion) very likely to be unconstitutional.

So, a judge has the right to enjoin certain parts of the law and not others, not the whole thing.

The most controversial thing is the so called 'sensitive places', which are overly broad and will be eventually overturned in parts. Particularly the odious 'private commercial establishments' which will need to place signs allowing carry rather than the default. Nobody argues, even the plaintiffs that private property owners do not have the right to designate their property 'gun free'. But for the state to impose that decision for them by forcing them to take a position is the height of conceit and state sponsored oppression.

So, yes certain parts of the law will be non-enforceable if a judge stays them as long as the stay remains in effect.

[jake_eizy]

Ok thank you Ricky and DvrJon, that all makes sense.

Is there a document or summarization what the judges in NY and NJ have put a stay on? My biggest concern is the loss of private businesses, parks (IE walking the dog), and public transport. Is there any guesses on what state judge would enact a stay/enjoined and what parts of the bill are more or less likely to get stayed/enacted?

[Rickybillegas]

Originally Posted by jake_eizy

Ok thank you Ricky and DvrJon, that all makes sense.

Is there a document or summarization what the judges in NY and NJ have put a stay on? My biggest concern is the loss of private businesses, parks (IE walking the dog), and public transport. Is there any guesses on what state judge would enact a stay/enjoined and what parts of the bill are more or less likely to get stayed/enacted?

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any synopsis for the timelines for the NY and Nj CCW lawsuits. The only way I have been able to figure out what has been going on is to google the names of the 3 Federal judges who have so far dealt with these cases (Sinatra NY, Suttaby NY, and Bumb, NJ.)
Google them in relation to the concealed permit cases and you will have to read through the media articles and figure out the dates and the opinions.

However, just to give the $2.00 version of their effects, they have opined that 'most' of the so called 'sensitive places' these states are designating are bogus and unconstitutional other than certain government buildings, schools and other areas where children specifically gather (as opposed to where children might be)(and a few other places). There are simply no proper historical analogues that correspond within the time period of establishing the constitution.

These state attorney generals are straining to dig up laws that correspond with their designs, and they are presenting laws established well beyond the deliberations, and formations of said constitution in a desperate attempt to convince a judge who might be open to their position. That fails on it's face the Bruen test and they are being called out on it so far by these judges.
They are blatantly ignoring majority opinion that sensitive places cannot extend to wide stetches of public spaces.

[Mithrandir13]

Newscum and californezuela democrats are *****bags!

[Sparrow Dynamics]

Originally Posted by Aragorn

So, serious question: what are y?all planning to do once this passes?

Carry as usual; don?t carry at all; or something in between?

This speech from John Lovell "Courageous Virtue to my Fellow Outlaws" might be some help in making these very personal decisions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUIx3YyY-7k Starting at 34:35 for about 1 minute, also the intro to the speech speaking about "rules" starts at 1:33. This is a topic that is much deeper to ponder than just a "yes or no" poll.

[awiner]

Tomorrow, Tuesday June 27th, The Assembly Committee on Public Safety will be hearing (and voting) on SB 2 - Anti-Carry Bruen Response Bill at 9:00 AM Pacific.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by awiner

Tomorrow, Tuesday June 27th, The Assembly Committee on Public Safety will be hearing (and voting) on SB 2 - Anti-Carry Bruen Response Bill at 9:00 AM Pacific.

I guess this is it.

There is no way the hopelessly anti-gun assembly won't pass this legislation.

[awiner]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

I guess this is it.

There is no way the hopelessly anti-gun assembly won't pass this legislation.

It still needs to move through to the full assembly, before most certainly, where it will pass.

[johnnyv5]

What happened? Did it pass through? I was watching but didn't understand wtf happened.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by johnnyv5

What happened? Did it pass through? I was watching but didn't understand wtf happened.

Time to Catch Up:

It was heard and passed in the assigned Assembly Policy Committee (Public Safety) now it will be referred to the Assembly Fiscal Committee (Appropriations*) where it will be heard based on its fiscal impacts.

When passed by Fiscal, it will be referred to Second Reading on the Assembly Floor (no voting or commentary is allowed).

When Second Reading is completed, it will be referred to Assembly Floor Third Reading. At this point it can be presented and debated prior to vote. (The author, Portantino, is a Senator so he cannot present on the Floor of the Assembly. He will use a Co-Author from the Assembly - probably Reggie Jones-Sawyer - to present the Bill). When passed, if there were no amendments in the Assembly, the Bill will be engrossed and sent to the Governor for signature. That would put the law into effect on 1/1/24.

If there are amendments in the Assembly, the Bill will be referred back to the Senate for review/concurrence with the amendments. Again, 1/1/24 would be the operative date.

I expect that the author will send the Bill to Assembly Third reading with an Urgency Amendment. (That is what happened last year, but he had also gutted a bill and dropped all of SB 918 into the Assembly without full committee hearings. The Bill failed by one vote.) Inserting Urgency at this point will have allowed all previous actions to have been approved by a simple majority vote. Once Urgency is proposed as an amendment, the Assembly Floor will vote on the Urgency Amendment which will require a 2/3rds majority vote to pass.

When passed, the Assembly Floor will then vote on the full Bill, now requiring a 2/3rds vote. If the Urgency Amendment fails, the Assembly will vote on the body of the Bill with a simple majority required and if passed it will be engrossed and sent to the Governor. That would also put the law into effect on 1/1/24.

If the Urgency Amendment and the amended bill are approved in the House, the amended Bill returns to the Senate for a Floor debate and vote on the Bill as amended, requiring a 2/3rds vote because of the Urgency Clause. That would put the law into effect immediately upon signing by the Governor and filing by the Secretary of State.

Future Dates:
*-28 Jun, Wednesday: Next Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing (Don't know if they can get it on the Agenda)

-14 Aug: The Legislature will adjourn as soon as the Budget is completed and reconvene on Aug 14.

-1 Sep is the last day for Bills to clear Fiscal Committees.

-8 Sep is the last day to amend Bills on the Floor.

[johnnyv5]

Thank you for that info. Very helpful.

[ritter]

Thanks much, Dvrjon!

[AlmostHeaven]

It is sad how there are so many steps at which the legislation could be stopped, but because the California state legislature is so deeply stacked with anti-gun tyrants, gun control bills sail through every single committee.

[Rickybillegas]

This is taking a lot longer than I thought (not a bad thing). I thought we would all be in carry permit hell by now. I will enjoy these last few weeks of relative freedom, and the figure out then what I can/can't do.

There will be a lot more 'can't do' than 'can do's'. In fact, the list will be inverted from what it is now, (long list of cant do's, will become a short list of 'can do's')

I'm still holding out a tiny hope that there will be a few amendments before passage, but extremely unlikely.

[AlmostHeaven]

Not a single court has upheld the default private property carry prohibition when other states such as New York and New Jersey have passed laws containing the provision, so perhaps there is some hope of the worst part of the law being enjoined.