What is Good Moral Character?

[Chewy65]

I strongly suspect that Chuch Michel has been getting ready for the Gun Haters to play the GMC card, and I am not talking about a pickup truck. At some point he and the CPRA will lay it all out for us and the courts, but I wonder just what is this creature called "Good Moral Character" and how will it be measured in light of Bruen. Perhaps we will be informed by looking to immigration law where the U. S. Citizenship and Naturalization Service where GMC is a requirement for naturalization. Take a look at https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/...rt-f-chapter-1 and https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8...section-316.10

One thing that stands out to me is that for one to be of GMC they certainly need not be paragons of virtue. A person may be found to be of good moral character unless

So its okay to be often be a drunk, as long as not a habitual drunk, and a felony conviction mght be acceptable, is it isn't and aggravated feony. Gambling is fine, if it isn't hour principal source of income.

My point is not that taking nip now and then is evil or you are going to hell if you bet with friends over the weekend game. My point is you don't need to be an angel. Somehow I expect certian component of this State will practically start to require an applicant be able to walk on water if they are going to prove GMC.

[Brother_Hesekiel]

A person of good moral character needs to be a law abiding person. He or she has to be respectful to others. That means if you ever got a parking ticket or made a disrespectful post of Facebook, you've shown that you are not a person of good moral character and cannot be trusted with carrying a firearm in public. It's really that simple.

[Chewy65]

That is still too complex, Brother_Hesekiel. The DOJ is putting out guidance as to how good moral character is to be determined. The act of applying for a CCW raises an irrefutible presumption of a lack of GMC. Simple and cost effective.

[DaveInOroValley]

For California they should be basing GMC on the current Governor. That way everyone qualifies.

[P5Ret]

For California they should be base GMC on the current Governor. That way everyone qualifies.

Not being a cocaine snorting, alcoholic who bangs your best friends wife in your city hall office, isn't too high of a bar to set. So yeah I think that would be a good threshold.

[AWE]

Anyone think there is a connection between one of the drunktard male's only 2 in all of SFO age 80+ with a valid CCW may or may not have had a DUI up in NAPAVALLEY? And his speaker of housewife had to bail him out?

[IronsightsRifleman]

NO!
What was the definition of Good Moral Character that allowed limiting 2A rights circa 1789, and what are appropriate present-day analogs? That is the only path for legislation allowed under Bruen. The Supreme Court instructions could not be any clearer. Go find legislation from that era and start there.

Also, CFRs are regulations enacted by government agencies, not legislation enacted by elected representatives.

Definitions adopted long before or after 2A ratification: no.
Definitions unrelated to historical 2A restrictions: no.
Regulations not enacted by elected representatives: maybe, but not compelling without further reference.

Finally, it is likely that each state, city, and municipality across the nation had a few limitations on 2A. An attempt by the state to adopt a compiled list of hundreds of regulations would exceed the scope of the states' historical 2A controls and should be rejected by the courts accordingly.

[Chewy65]

Not being a cocaine snorting, alcoholic who bangs your best friends wife in your city hall office, isn't too high of a bar to set. So yeah I think that would be a good threshold.

All that is fine, as long as nothing is "habitual".

[Chewy65]

NO!
What was the definition of Good Moral Character that allowed limiting 2A rights circa 1789, and what are appropriate present-day analogs? That is the only path for legislation allowed under Bruen. The Supreme Court instructions could not be any clearer. Go find legislation from that era and start there.

Is this close enough?

The Naturalization Act of 1790 introduced the long-standing GMC requirement for naturalization. Any conduct or act that offends the accepted moral character standards of the community in which the applicant resides should be considered without regard to whether the applicant has been arrested or convicted of an offense. This begs the question, "What are those standards?"

In general, an applicant for naturalization must establish GMC throughout the requisite periods of continuous residence in the United States. In prescribing specific periods during which GMC must be established, Congress generally intended to make provision for the reformation and eventual naturalization of persons who were guilty of certain past misconduct.

[IronsightsRifleman]

Is this close enough?

Maybe, depending on two questions:
Is the definition now the same (or analagous) as it was then?
Can a reference be found supporting that this standard was used for regulating 2A rights?

[Cuba_001]

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

[ezaircon4jc]

GMC need also be applied to all the other Amendments equally.

[L84CABO]

Please show me where in the Second Amendment...or anywhere else in the COTUS...it says that a person must be of good moral character in order to exercise their right to bear arms?

GMC may be a requirement in the CA state law but it is NOT supported by the COTUS.

[ezaircon4jc]

Please show me where in the Second Amendment...or anywhere else in the COTUS...it says that a person must be of good moral character in order to exercise their right to bear arms?

GMC may be a requirement in the CA state law but it is NOT supported by the COTUS.

Or ANY other RIGHT!!!!

[SilveradoColt21]

Please show me where in the Second Amendment...or anywhere else in the COTUS...it says that a person must be of good moral character in order to exercise their right to bear arms?

GMC may be a requirement in the CA state law but it is NOT supported by the COTUS.

And that is why I think that it will not stand for too long