California DOJ Memo OAG-2022-02: A Blueprint for Violating the Second Amendment”

[Cheekyfella]

🔥 HEADLINE:
“California DOJ Memo OAG-2022-02: A Blueprint for Violating the Second Amendment”

🧾 SIDE-BY-SIDE BREAKDOWN:

🧠 What Bruen Said (2022, SCOTUS):

> “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a ‘second-class right,’ subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”
— NYSRPA v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2156 (2022)



> “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”
— Bruen, at 2156



🔻 Key Holding: Subjective “may-issue” regimes violate the Second Amendment because rights cannot be dependent on discretionary approval by government officials.


---

🧾 What California’s OAG-2022-02 Memo Says:

> “Permitting authorities may still inquire into an applicant’s moral character and may deny a license if there is a lack of good moral character.”
— OAG-2022-02, p. 3



⚠️ The memo admits that "good cause" is unconstitutional, but then flips the denial tool to something even more subjective and undefined — “moral character.”


---

⚖️ THE CONFLICT:

SCOTUS (Bruen) Says… California DOJ Memo Says…

No discretion to deny based on “need” or “justification” Denials now based on “moral character” instead of “need”
Rights must be historically grounded, not invented post-hoc Vague, modern standards like “moral character” have no historical basis
Objective, shall-issue standards are required Subjective, still-may-issue-by-excuse system
Rights can’t be chilled or taxed Still costly, time-consuming, and uncertain



---

📢 TALKING POINTS YOU CAN USE:

California's memo is not compliance with Bruen—it’s subversion.

The memo tells law enforcement how to deny a constitutional right by switching from one unconstitutional method (“good cause”) to another (“moral character”).

There is no clear, objective definition of “good moral character” — making it ripe for abuse, just like before Bruen.

The state is attempting to retain gatekeeping power over an inalienable right, which is exactly what Bruen prohibited.

If you can’t be forced to prove you “need” to speak, vote, or go to church — you can’t be forced to prove you “deserve” to carry.



---

📝 Suggested Caption/Quote for Petition or Lawsuit:

> "California’s OAG-2022-02 memo is a roadmap for how to evade the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen and continue denying CCW permits based on arbitrary, undefined standards like 'moral character.' This is not compliance—it is state-sponsored resistance to the Constitution."

📄 CASE SUMMARY FOR ATTORNEY SUPPORT

Case: Vallejos v. Rob Bonta and Chad Bianco
Core Issue: Challenge to California’s unconstitutional CCW permitting scheme under Bruen


---

🔹 Client Background & Standing

I am a law-abiding citizen and a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL).

I currently hold a valid Arizona CCW permit and have passed all required state and federal background checks.

I applied for a California CCW in Riverside County and was ultimately denied, not due to disqualification, but based on subjective reasoning and false accusations that fall outside the lawful scope of the appeal process.

I even received a letter from the California DOJ Bureau of Firearms confirming that I am not a prohibited person under state or federal law.

I filed a formal appeal (BOF 1031), but the state still upheld the denial using vague and arbitrary standards, in clear contradiction to Supreme Court precedent in NYSRPA v. Bruen.



---

🔹 Constitutional Problem: State-Sanctioned Workaround to Bruen

After the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen (June 2022), which struck down New York’s “may-issue” scheme and required jurisdictions to adopt objective, non-discretionary shall-issue standards, California issued Information Bulletin OAG-2022-02 the very next day (June 24, 2022). This memo:

1. Acknowledges that “good cause” requirements are unconstitutional and must no longer be enforced.


2. Simultaneously instructs issuing agencies (sheriffs, police, etc.) to rely on “good moral character” as a continuing denial basis.


3. Claims that agencies may evaluate an applicant’s entire background under “totality of circumstances” to determine moral character—without defining any objective standards.


4. Offers no historical justification for such a subjective review process, which is now the required test under Bruen.



In practice, this means the State removed one unconstitutional barrier (“good cause”) and replaced it with another (“moral character”)—one that’s even broader, more subjective, and just as unconstitutional.


---

🔹 Why My Denial Was Unlawful

I met every objective statutory requirement: no criminal convictions, completed training, residency in Riverside County, background check clearance.

Yet my application was denied not for disqualification, but due to discretionary judgment by the sheriff’s office—a process that should’ve been struck down under Bruen.

The appeal was supposed to solely determine whether I was disqualified from owning or carrying a firearm. The DOJ admitted I was not. Still, they let the subjective denial stand.

This mirrors a systemic practice enabled by OAG-2022-02, which gives cover to issuing agencies that continue to deny law-abiding citizens for arbitrary reasons.



---

🔹 Legal Question for Litigation

Does the State of California violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by instructing local licensing authorities to continue denying carry permits using vague, discretionary standards like “moral character,” despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen?

> This is not a case about public safety or criminal behavior. It’s about a constitutional right being denied to a non-prohibited person, by state actors knowingly using legally invalid criteria.




---

🔹 Supporting Documents Available

My CCW denial and BOF 1031 appeal documentation.

DOJ letter confirming I am not a prohibited person.

Full text of OAG-2022-02 memo.

Timeline of relevant legal developments post-Bruen.

DOJ’s own acknowledgment that “good cause” cannot be enforced, yet denial persisted under a different name.



---

🔹 Relief Sought

Immediate injunctive relief ordering the issuance of my CCW.

Declaratory relief that OAG-2022-02 and its implementation violate Bruen and the Second Amendment.

Broader impact: strike down the scheme statewide to protect all similarly situated applicants in California.

🔥 Hey 2A family, I wanted to bring some serious attention to my federal case: VALLEJOS v. ROB BONTA and CHAD BIANCO, where I’m challenging the unconstitutional CCW permit scheme in California. The current process is costly, burdensome, and designed to price out and screen out law-abiding citizens—even those who can pass background checks and hold out-of-state permits.

I’m doing this pro se, without a lawyer, because no major 2A org wanted to step up. I truly believe this fight is for ALL of us, especially in states like CA where they continue to violate Bruen and treat the Second Amendment like a privilege.

🙏🏼 Raising awareness could be the spark we need for real change. Appreciate all that you’re doing for the 2A community!

Stay armed. Stay free. 💪🇺🇸

💰 Let’s break down how the CCW permit scheme became a full-blown business — not a public safety measure:

Most instructors charge $275 per person for a mandatory 16-hour class.

They cram in 20 to 25 students every weekend.

That’s $5,500 to $6,875 every weekend.

And guess what? These classes are sold out all year — 52 weekends straight.


Now here’s the math:

➡️ Weekly: $6,875
➡️ Monthly (4 weeks): $27,500
➡️ Yearly (52 weeks): $357,500

That’s one instructor clearing over 350k per year — just for “training” people to ask for permission to use their rights.

But here’s the real kicker:

🧀 The so-called “training” is a joke.

You watch some dated safety videos

Eat pizza and sip coffee

Sit through a sales pitch for carry insurance like USCCA

Then squeeze off a few rounds during a rushed, minimal range session


It’s not quality firearms instruction — it’s a glorified seminar with a price tag, all required just to maybe get your rights back.

They’re profiting off your oppression.
And because of the money involved, they’ve got zero interest in helping end this unconstitutional CCW scheme — it’s their golden goose.

Time to wake up, folks. The Second Amendment doesn’t come with a price tag.

[DolphinFan]

Good Luck in your appeal.