What is Good Moral Character?

[AWE]

If GMC is the baseline for CCW's it disqualifies all Politicians in California.

The guy in this article admits to sleeping with his best friend's wife and entering a treatment program after showing up at the hospital for an officer who was fatally shot intoxicated. All on record I wonder if he has a CCW Crazy but true. GMC is irrelevant.

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/newsom-enters-outpatient-alcohol-rehab/article_d22457d1-2007-56bc-8260-afeb6296457c.html

And unlisted run for president check.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6anO63fQyVc

[Chewy65]

This Good Moral Character concept intrigues me more than it should and so I asked myself why it should. I think to a large degree it is because of the failure of California law to define GMC, which I have heard was purposely done to give issuing authorities the widest possible discretion over who may exercise the rght. I have to wonder just how this can be, since, as Mr. Justice Thomas just pointed out, the right to keep and bear arms is not a second class Contitutional right.

If it be a Constitutional right, are we not entitled to minimal due process before we can be deprived and should that not require that GMC be clearly defined? I believe it must, but I realize that others will argue that it has been defined in the regulations of the officers required to administer California's CCW law; the Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. I don't feel that meets constitutional muster. One reason being that I believe the duty of the Legislature cannot be delegated to the chief law enforcement officers of the counties. Also, even if that were permitted the result could be that the same person would be considred of Good Moral Character in one county but not another. This smacks to me of a denial of equal protection that is compounded by the fact that a person may not be considered of gmc in the county in which they reside, call it Los Angeles County, with the result being that they be denied a permit, but the resident of a neighboring county, perhaps Orange, who could not meet the same standard applied in Los Angeles, might be issued a permit that would allow them to carry in Los Angeles.

I may not be around when it happens, but would love to see how SCOTUS deals with GMC. Especially given the discriminatory history of gun law regulaton.

[tsmithson]

CA is consistent in making everyone a criminal and/or offender for a word.
Then they get to decide who the want to PERSECUTE.

[Alan Block]

This will be interesting in SF. GMC is topsy turvy there.

[baggss]

This Good Moral Character concept intrigues me more than it should and so I asked myself why it should. I think to a large degree it is because of the failure of California law to define GMC, which I have heard was purposely done to give issuing authorities the widest possible discretion over who may exercise the right. I have to wonder just how this can be, since, as Mr. Justice Thomas just pointed out, the right to keep and bear arms is not a second class Constitutional right.

The ruling by SCOTUS only just happened. GMC (along with GC) has been around for well over 20 years in this state. It didn't just come about on the day of the ruling or because of the ruling. It has been in use by many IAs that issued for "Self Defense" = Good Cause for a number of year. My IA has used it since 2014 to "weed out the undesirables". None of that makes the use of an otherwise subjective evaluation constitutional.

If it be a Constitutional right, are we not entitled to minimal due process before we can be deprived and should that not require that GMC be clearly defined? I believe it must, but I realize that others will argue that it has been defined in the regulations of the officers required to administer California's CCW law; the Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. I don't feel that meets constitutional muster. One reason being that I believe the duty of the Legislature cannot be delegated to the chief law enforcement officers of the counties. Also, even if that were permitted the result could be that the same person would be considered of Good Moral Character in one county but not another. This smacks to me of a denial of equal protection that is compounded by the fact that a person may not be considered of gmc in the county in which they reside, call it Los Angeles County, with the result being that they be denied a permit, but the resident of a neighboring county, perhaps Orange, who could not meet the same standard applied in Los Angeles, might be issued a permit that would allow them to carry in Los Angeles.

This is, in essence, the same argument we've had for years about the Good Cause requirement. If its not clearly defined for all citizens and utilized the same way state wide (one could argue nation wide) then the right is being relegated to second class status. How can I, a resident of Ventura County, easily acquire a CCW when residents of Santa Barbara county are effectively completely denied the same opportunity simply because their Sheriff "doesn't want to"?

The current state of Ca GMC requirement fails for the exact same reason that the GC requirement failed. The next question is, even if GMC is well defined (it wont be) and utilized equally across all IAs statewide (it wont be), how can it be constitutional if it still requires a subjective evaluation by a government employee. Answer: It isn't. How the fight to stop that form happening will unfold in states like Ca and NY will be interesting to watch.

I may not be around when it happens, but would love to see how SCOTUS deals with GMC. Especially given the discriminatory history of gun law regulation.

I feel like they already have. The new standard of evaluation gives the GMC requirement no legs to stand on since there is no history of such a requirement. The question is, will the lower courts bother to enforce it?

[Chewy65]

It's topsy turvy because California's law was designed to enable local sheriff's the broadest possible discretion to determine who deserved a permit. Does that sound similar to what we learned in Bruen regarding how wrong it is to reserve permits for "proper" cause. Same with California's required "good" cause. The discretion lays in now proper must it be and what is proper. Same with goodness. I don't know how to phrase the argument, but it just seems that one need merely be of ordinary moral character to exrcise a second amendment right, while it is permissable to withold permits from persons conficted of violent felonies.

[19K]

It’s going to be challenged as soon as people are denied for GMC. https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1656626900

[baggss]

It’s going to be challenged as soon as people are denied for GMC. https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1656626900

Keep in mind that SB 918 does away with both GC and GMC and instead refers to one having to be "a qualified person". The requirements for being a "qualified person" are a lot like what has been used by some IAs to show lack of GC and lack of GMC. They are, however, both somewhat well defined and overall worse simultaneously.

[Chewy65]

Keep in mind that SB 918 does away with both GC and GMC and instead refers to one having to be "a qualified person". The requirements for being a "qualified person" are a lot like what has been used by some IAs to show lack of GC and lack of GMC. They are, however, both somewhat well defined and overall worse simultaneously.

SB 918 is important stuff to keep an eye on, but it's not the law. One thing that it does do is it suggests that the legislature has for some time expected that the gmc and gc requiements were unconstitutional and it did nothing to amend the currently unconstitutional law.

[19K]

Keep in mind that SB 918 does away with both GC and GMC and instead refers to one having to be "a qualified person". The requirements for being a "qualified person" are a lot like what has been used by some IAs to show lack of GC and lack of GMC. They are, however, both somewhat well defined and overall worse simultaneously.

three character referencespublicly available statements published or posted by the applicant.
(d)In determining whether an applicant is a qualified person to receive or renew a license, nothing in this section precludes the licensing authority from relying on factors other than those listed in subdivision (a) or (b) or from engaging in investigative efforts in addition to those listed in subdivision (c).

[theLBC]

i am not sure why drinking and gambling might still be the main focus.
when friends of mine were going through security clearance, i was not surprised at questions about drug use and gambling, because that is how the enemy might gain leverage, or how an individual might be vulnerable...

but as far as "moral character", apparently it doesn't matter if you're a pervert or deviant?

[Chewy65]

I revise what I just said, sort of. It looks as if this will soon be voted upon. See the attached text found here.

[johncage]

good moral character requirement=presumption of guilt for thought crimes which must be disproved through provision of "evidence" ie private information that isn't any of the government's business.

[baggss]

SB 918 is important stuff to keep an eye on, but it's not the law. One thing that it does do is it suggests that the legislature has for some time expected that the gmc and gc requiements were unconstitutional and it did nothing to amend the currently unconstitutional law.

Don't disagree at all. My point was they are changing the phrasing to try and skirt the ruling. It's not the law, yet, but odds are it will be in the next several months and it will go into effect immediately upon being signed Gavin.

three character referencespublicly available statements published or posted by the applicant.
(d)In determining whether an applicant is a qualified person to receive or renew a license, nothing in this section precludes the licensing authority from relying on factors other than those listed in subdivision (a) or (b) or from engaging in investigative efforts in addition to those listed in subdivision (c).

They are absolutely subjective, and I'm sure that was the intention.

[sbo80]

"GMC" should just be the same questions that are already on the 4473. I can't see a Constitutionally accepted regime where you can legally purchase a gun, but can't get a permit to carry it. It's either yes to both or no to both.