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

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Infinitetrax

Are all the ?sensitive places? still in the bill?

Yes. As of today, the bill is unchanged since Mar 1.

Post 338 by unusedusername.

[PaIadin]

Is anyone else bothered by the lackluster media coverage on this bill?

Similar to 918, the media "suspiciously" seems to leave out that sensitive areas include parking lots of most shopping centers and banks in their stories on the issue.

It seems suspect that for other laws they will go out and interview people that could be impacted, no matter how slight, but for this law it's just silence.

Why not interview a small business shop keeper that can no longer carry a pistol to the night deposit box for the bank?

How about a person that will be prohibited from carrying on a hike?

Perhaps a story about a church that already permits carry but has a dentist, a liquor store that sells Mega Millions, or a restaurant that sells beer / wine in the same parking lot.

[CitaDeL]

Originally Posted by PaIadin

Is anyone else bothered by the lackluster media coverage on this bill?

Similar to 918, the media "suspiciously" seems to leave out that sensitive areas include parking lots of most shopping centers and banks in their stories on the issue.

It seems suspect that for other laws they will go out and interview people that could be impacted, no matter how slight, but for this law it's just silence.

Why not interview a small business shop keeper that can no longer carry a pistol to the night deposit box for the bank?

How about a person that will be prohibited from carrying on a hike?

Perhaps a story about a church that already permits carry but has a dentist, a liquor store that sells Mega Millions, or a restaurant that sells beer / wine in the same parking lot.

You forget which side the media is on.

Only criminals and cops solve their problems with guns.

[Rickybillegas]

Originally Posted by PaIadin

Is anyone else bothered by the lackluster media coverage on this bill?

Similar to 918, the media "suspiciously" seems to leave out that sensitive areas include parking lots of most shopping centers and banks in their stories on the issue.

It seems suspect that for other laws they will go out and interview people that could be impacted, no matter how slight, but for this law it's just silence.

Why not interview a small business shop keeper that can no longer carry a pistol to the night deposit box for the bank?

How about a person that will be prohibited from carrying on a hike?

Perhaps a story about a church that already permits carry but has a dentist, a liquor store that sells Mega Millions, or a restaurant that sells beer / wine in the same parking lot.

Yes, this is going to be a gigantic mess, which is one of the reasons law enforcement is probably against this. A gigantic headache for not just permitees, but for law enforcement, business owners and property owners to name some.

[taperxz]

This bill was just passed in the Senate

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

Yes, this is going to be a gigantic mess, which is one of the reasons law enforcement is probably against this. A gigantic headache for not just permitees, but for law enforcement, business owners and property owners to name some.

I got lost in the discussion as to how difficult it will be, and how much time it will take, to implement this new law, other than that some parts may take a few years.
However, since it costs no money, I rather suspect the new carry limitations will take effect immediately. Do we know yet when the effective date of this bill will be? That will be really important to know and publicize. My experience is that an awful lot of gun owners do not pay attention to what goes on in Sacramento. I assume a bust in a no carry zone is grounds for revocation, and that increased revocations is one of the reasons for the restrictions. There is no actual evidence of any increased risk of harm in the record of hearings, except "more guns means more gun crime." Um hmm.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by TruOil

I got lost in the discussion as to how difficult it will be, and how much time it will take, to implement this new law, other than that some parts may take a few years.
However, since it costs no money, I rather suspect the new carry limitations will take effect immediately. Do we know yet when the effective date of this bill will be? That will be really important to know and publicize. My experience is that an awful lot of gun owners do not pay attention to what goes on in Sacramento. I assume a bust in a no carry zone is grounds for revocation, and that increased revocations is one of the reasons for the restrictions. There is no actual evidence of any increased risk of harm in the record of hearings, except "more guns means more gun crime." Um hmm.

If buried in the Budget: July 1.
If an Urgency Clsuse is added, effective upon signature.
If no Urgency: 1/1/2024

[Helmut]

Its going to be a spicy summer in CA I feel. Imagine not being able to carry in sensitive spaces when the spice gets spicey.

[abinsinia]

here's the video of the vote,

https://www.senate.ca.gov/media/sena...20230525/video

starts at minute 24.

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

here's the video of the vote,

https://www.senate.ca.gov/media/sena...20230525/video

starts at minute 24.

Those democrats just base it all on emotion and not statistics and logic

Glad for those that spoke out agains SB2.

[Sennasixty8]

Thanks for the link!

Clearly CCW holders have never been involved in a Mass shooting, other than preventing or reducing the casualties on both a national and local level.



SB2 must be struck down.

[N0b0dy]

The video is frustrating. Clearly, Portantino does not care about Bruen or the constitution when he repeatedly calls California CCW a “privilege” instead of a right. I wish the few Senators who spoke out against it would have had better arguments about specifics such as the ridiculous inclusion of parking spaces in the list sensitive places.

[CitaDeL]

Originally Posted by N0b0dy

The video is frustrating. Clearly, Portantino does not care about Bruen or the constitution when he repeatedly calls California CCW a ?privilege? instead of a right. I wish the few Senators who spoke out against it would have had better arguments about specifics such as the ridiculous inclusion of parking spaces in the list sensitive places.

How is Portantino wrong?

A revocable carry license is a privilege. Licensing converts a right into something the government can regulate. Shall not be infringed does not apply when you trade the right for the license.

If we stop compromising with people in government who think that the second amendment doesnt mean what it says, we might get somewhere.

[Capybara]

Originally Posted by PaIadin

Is anyone else bothered by the lackluster media coverage on this bill?

Similar to 918, the media "suspiciously" seems to leave out that sensitive areas include parking lots of most shopping centers and banks in their stories on the issue.

It seems suspect that for other laws they will go out and interview people that could be impacted, no matter how slight, but for this law it's just silence.

Why not interview a small business shop keeper that can no longer carry a pistol to the night deposit box for the bank?

How about a person that will be prohibited from carrying on a hike?

Perhaps a story about a church that already permits carry but has a dentist, a liquor store that sells Mega Millions, or a restaurant that sells beer / wine in the same parking lot.

The media is owned and ran by the Commies, why would they report on something that highlights their leaders tyranny?

[Rickybillegas]

Originally Posted by Sennasixty8

Thanks for the link!

Clearly CCW holders have never been involved in a Mass shooting, other than preventing or reducing the casualties on both a national and local level.



SB2 must be struck down.

An interesting poll was released yesterday by CNN. Besides the usual (skewed?) results about guns control. The poll said that 36% of those polled felt less safe with gun owners carrying in public, while 32% said they feel safer with people carrying. Of course the article framed it as 'Americans split over feeling safer with people carrying'. But then admitted that the rest of the 32% said they don't feel safer or less safe. That means 64% do not feel less safe with people carrying.

To me surprising result. Doesn't make a hoot of difference either way, because rights are not based on polls as much as the media would like them to be.

Still, I found that result surprising and encouraging.

[TruOil]

Comments from people in other states suggest that after a while, even openly carried firearms go unnoticed or unremarked, and most CCWers are invisible. Without showing that there is an increase in crime in other states that have gone shall issue or so-called con carry associated with persons legally carrying undermines the "more guns more gun crime" narrative. The one down side are the well-publicized road rage incidents involving firearms, without recognition that those incidents have been occurring all along with baseball bats and tire irons.

[mshill]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Comments from people in other states suggest that after a while, even openly carried firearms go unnoticed or unremarked, and most CCWers are invisible. Without showing that there is an increase in crime in other states that have gone shall issue or so-called con carry associated with persons legally carrying undermines the "more guns more gun crime" narrative. The one down side are the well-publicized road rage incidents involving firearms, without recognition that those incidents have been occurring all along with baseball bats and tire irons.

With half the states having permit less carry I'm sure that if "blood was running in the streets" they would have found it by now.

[Ash359]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

An interesting poll was released yesterday by CNN. Besides the usual (skewed?) results about guns control. The poll said that 36% of those polled felt less safe with gun owners carrying in public, while 32% said they feel safer with people carrying. Of course the article framed it as 'Americans split over feeling safer with people carrying'. But then admitted that the rest of the 32% said they don't feel safer or less safe. That means 64% do not feel less safe with people carrying.

To me surprising result. Doesn't make a hoot of difference either way, because rights are not based on polls as much as the media would like them to be.

Still, I found that result surprising and encouraging.

Do you have a link to that poll? It could come in handy but I can't find it.

[Kt90]

Originally Posted by Ash359

Do you have a link to that poll? It could come in handy but I can't find it.

Think it?s this one.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/05/26/p...aws/index.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Teachu2]

I've been meaning to join CRPA. This just reminded me, and the wife and I just joined.

[Rickybillegas]

Originally Posted by TruOil

I got lost in the discussion as to how difficult it will be, and how much time it will take, to implement this new law, other than that some parts may take a few years.
However, since it costs no money, I rather suspect the new carry limitations will take effect immediately. Do we know yet when the effective date of this bill will be? That will be really important to know and publicize. My experience is that an awful lot of gun owners do not pay attention to what goes on in Sacramento. I assume a bust in a no carry zone is grounds for revocation, and that increased revocations is one of the reasons for the restrictions. There is no actual evidence of any increased risk of harm in the record of hearings, except "more guns means more gun crime." Um hmm.

Revocation of your permit will be the least your problems.
Portantino wants you charged with a crime, either a misdemeanor or a felony.

[Capybara]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

Revocation of your permit will be the least your problems.
Portantino wants you charged with a crime, either a misdemeanor or a felony.

The Commies want you a prohibited person for life. Easy to way to eliminate lawful gun owners. Plus then, they'll send you to prison where it will be impossible to even be an unlawful gun owner.
It's a gun grabbers wet dream, double down on disarmament.

[bruss01]

Originally Posted by Capybara

The Commies want you a prohibited person for life. Easy to way to eliminate lawful gun owners. Plus then, they'll send you to prison where it will be impossible to even be an unlawful gun owner.
It's a gun grabbers wet dream, double down on disarmament.

Que the quote :


"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

[johnnyv5]

From the text of the bill, seems like it'll only be a misdemeanor if caught in "sensitive place"?

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by johnnyv5

From the text of the bill, seems like it'll only be a misdemeanor if caught in "sensitive place"?

That?s enough to be put on probation and have a 10-yr firearm prohibition.

[MajorSideburns]

The bill makes the entire state a sensitive place. What is even the point of a CCW now?

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by MajorSideburns

The bill makes the entire state a sensitive place. What is even the point of a CCW now?

That is the whole point of these bills.

States like New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and California used to deny carry permits to ordinary law-abiding citizens. The Supreme Court ruled in Bruen that concealed carry was a right, and permits must be issued using objective standards.

Now, these states are defying the spirit of the ruling by making permits useless in practice.

[Rickybillegas]

Originally Posted by MajorSideburns

The bill makes the entire state a sensitive place. What is even the point of a CCW now?

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.

But this bill will be struck down. We will probably get an injunction soon after the bill goes into effect. How long that will last is anyone's guess.
In NY, they got relief from two judges (Suttaby and Sinatra) that lasted 7-8 weeks total. Now, the 2nd Circuit is considering it with a stay.
In New Jersey, however, Judge Bumb has injuncted certain parts since January.

We have to hope that SCOTUS will intercede on some of the sensitive places at least in the next year or so. An emergency appeal was denied in January, but believe me, SCOTUS knows exactly what's going on.

One last thought. This week I believe the bill is going through the assembly.
It has already had one reading and 'held at desk'. We have to hope some assembly people will ask for some changes before the bill is finalized.
This is the last chance to make changes before this bill becomes law.

[Ash359]

One point you can make to your assemblyman is that this law will result in a great deal more guns being left in cars.

Which is where a huge number of guns get stolen from, making the situation much worse.

Also, think about the domestic abuse survivor who has a restraining order against his/her ex and a CCW license. This law will make her much more vulnerable.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by Ash359

One point you can make to your assemblyman is that this law will result in a great deal more guns being left in cars.

Which is where a huge number of guns get stolen from, making the situation much worse.

Also, think about the domestic abuse survivor who has a restraining order against his/her ex and a CCW license. This law will make her much more vulnerable.

I made those very points to my reps. I received no reply whatsoever. Shocker.

This will also result in a whole lot more gun sightings as carriers don/doff at their cars to comply. Neat.

[Rickybillegas]

So far three Federal court judges have ruled many of the 'sensitive places' unconstitutional (Sinatra, Suttaby, and Bumb). No Court or Judge has yet found these sensitive places constitutional. 2nd Circuit is considering these now. If 2nd circuit makes an unconstitutional ruling, an emergency appeal to SCOTUS is likely as in Jan. Then, it will not be interlocutory and very possible that SCOTUS will intercede (As Thomas and Alito encouraged plaintiffs).

Deliverance from the worst of this is on our side. Patience will be required.
Remember how long it took for some of us to get our permits. Some of us as long as 9-15 months, even more. We had to be patient and wait. We might have to wait again like before.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

Deliverance from the worst of this is on our side. Patience will be required. Remember how long it took for some of us to get our permits. Some of us as long as 9-15 months, even more. We had to be patient and wait. We might have to wait again like before.

There's nothing to do except wait, unfortunately. Seeing as the idiot masses of California keep electing supermajority Democratic state legislatures and "progressive" tyrant governors into office, and the California Supreme Court has ruled that there is no right to keep and bear arms at all, the only possibility of relief is from the Federal judiciary.

Pray that the Republican-appointed Justices live for decades to come.

[Usual_Suspect]

The usual political delay tactics. Portotino knows it's unconstitutional, I will put $$$ on a bet saying the majority of those who voted yes know it's unconstitutional. They also know it will take years for it to work it's way through the courts and be found unconstitutional. Look at standard magazines, long guns that are popular, the roster, all delay tactics. The Legislature knows the 9th will side with them, hope the 9th drags their feet, then hope it will sit at SCOTUS awaiting a date, and even longer for the opinion. It's the typical wash, rinse, repeat.

[AlmostHeaven]

There is not enough political will or capital to implement such a policy, but you know what we really need?

National preemption of all gun laws. The Federal laws are currently the floor. They should also be the ceiling.

Make these leftist state legislatures as able to enact new gun control as city councils in Virginia.

[mk2dave]

Originally Posted by Usual_Suspect

The usual political delay tactics. Portotino knows it's unconstitutional, I will put $$$ on a bet saying the majority of those who voted yes know it's unconstitutional. They also know it will take years for it to work it's way through the courts and be found unconstitutional. Look at standard magazines, long guns that are popular, the roster, all delay tactics. The Legislature knows the 9th will side with them, hope the 9th drags their feet, then hope it will sit at SCOTUS awaiting a date, and even longer for the opinion. It's the typical wash, rinse, repeat.

*emphasis mine

I think (hope might be a better word) exactly the opposite will happen. The SC stated in Bruen that efforts to circumvent will be addressed in an expedited manner.

I see this getting signed, but stayed. But I also have been known for being overly optimistic.

[EM2]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

There is not enough political will or capital to implement such a policy, but you know what we really need?

National preemption of all gun laws. The Federal laws are currently the floor. They should also be the ceiling.

Make these leftist state legislatures as able to enact new gun control as city councils in Virginia.

Ahem, been there, done that.

[WithinReason]

So, today I applied for a membership with CRPA. While I have donated in the past, it seems to me that there will be an upcoming lawsuit against SB 2, and CRPA will be leading the fight.

[PaIadin]

Originally Posted by Usual_Suspect

The usual political delay tactics. Portotino knows it's unconstitutional, I will put $$$ on a bet saying the majority of those who voted yes know it's unconstitutional. They also know it will take years for it to work it's way through the courts and be found unconstitutional. Look at standard magazines, long guns that are popular, the roster, all delay tactics. The Legislature knows the 9th will side with them, hope the 9th drags their feet, then hope it will sit at SCOTUS awaiting a date, and even longer for the opinion. It's the typical wash, rinse, repeat.

Just want to point out that Portotino is getting paid by YOUR tax dollars.

The states attorneys that will defend this law?
Paid for by your tax dollars.

The executive hotel suite the attorneys will get by the federal courthouse?
Your tax dollars.

Their gourmet meals?
Your tax dollars.

Their morning avocado toast and Kombucha?
Your tax dollars.

Any legal settlement and attorney fees for our attorneys?
Yup, your money.

Finally, when this state has to make up for the legal seattlement in the next budget?
Well, their is hand of the government in your wallet taking more of YOUR money to pay for their mistakes till they bleed you dry.

Keep this in mind when your budget gets tight and you have to cut back. The government is getting fat off of your sweat.

I wish I could treat Portotino and his ilk like the robbers they are.

[dawgcasa]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

An interesting poll was released yesterday by CNN. Besides the usual (skewed?) results about guns control. The poll said that 36% of those polled felt less safe with gun owners carrying in public, while 32% said they feel safer with people carrying. Of course the article framed it as 'Americans split over feeling safer with people carrying'. But then admitted that the rest of the 32% said they don't feel safer or less safe. That means 64% do not feel less safe with people carrying.

To me surprising result. Doesn't make a hoot of difference either way, because rights are not based on polls as much as the media would like them to be.

Still, I found that result surprising and encouraging.

Studies of crime data from Texas and Florida (states with prolific issuance of CCW permits, thus a large sample set) showed that the probability of any person walking around in public being criminally shot (i.e., an unjustified shooting) by a CCW permit holder is about equivalent to their odds of being struck by lightning. In fact, they would be eight times MORE likely to be unlawfully shot by a LEO.

[Rickybillegas]

Originally Posted by dawgcasa

Studies of crime data from Texas and Florida (states with prolific issuance of CCW permits, thus a large sample set) showed that the probability of any person walking around in public being criminally shot (i.e., an unjustified shooting) by a CCW permit holder is about equivalent to their odds of being struck by lightning. In fact, they would be eight times MORE likely to be unlawfully shot by a LEO.

And our gov., Att. Gen, and our legislators are aware of this.
Which proves (at least to me), it's not about saving lives, at least not this bill.