Carralero v. Bonta (California's Sensitive Places Restriction-Bruen Response Bill)

[Rickybillegas]

The Carralero case was just transferred to the same judge as May v Bonta.
Basically, they are combining the cases.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...99875.13.0.pdf

I consider that a good thing. Judge Carmac Carney seems like a good Judge and I'll take my chances with him.

[Rickybillegas]

You have encapsulated exactly why I think people who confidently point to the fourth box as an unassailable backstop effectively advocate for taking on extreme risks of outright failure. Right now, the vast majority of the country still retains most Second Amendment rights using electoral and judicial means. Accelerationists who act as if abandoning the ballot and jury boxes will get the gun rights community to final victory faster only fool themselves.

If you try anything, you will die. And very possibly take some of your family and loved ones with you.
At the very least, you will languish in Prison and denied all human rights and due process, like some of the Jan. 6th participants.

[AlmostHeaven]

If you try anything, you will die. And very possibly take some of your family and loved ones with you.
At the very least, you will languish in Prison and denied all human rights and due process, like some of the Jan. 6th participants.

Indeed, we live in dangerous times.

[darkwater34]

Stepping on egg shells

I agree these are very dangerous times, without the Second Amendment the Constitution of the United States is just a historical artifact.

[darkwater34]

Welcome to California

You are speaking logic, and logic is not part of their equation.
Emotion, anger and spite are what they are after.

I truly believe they are aware of the accuracy of your synopsis, but they don't care. Why do I think this? Because, even some of the more honest MSM sources have conceded that this is aimed at law abiding citizens, and at least one interviewer called out Newsome on the fact that permit holders are statistically not a genuine threat. And I bet they know also, their SB2 will result in more stolen firearms to the bad guys. Of course it will.

At the end of the day, they just don't care. They will have their revenge on Bruen, the 2nd amendment in general and nothing will stop them except the federal courts.

That's why Newsome has been on a verbal rampage lately on the federal courts.

No not logic and yes this law is not for criminals to abide, it is to create criminals out of law abiding citizens .

[Rickybillegas]

No not logic and yes this law is not for criminals to abide, it is to create criminals out of law abiding citizens .

I think this is one way they plan to disarm a few thousand Californians.
Get them cited or arrested for 'sensitive places' violations and possible automatic revocation of their carry permit. Once your permit is revoked it will be very hard to get it back.

It's a win-win situation for them. Either most permit holders will stop carrying in fear for violating the sensitive place ordinance (which is a de-facto revocation of your permit), or many of them will be caught in defiant violation, or inadvertent violation, not knowing, because the law is written to be unclear, not only to permit holders but LEO as well.

I know most carriers will not be caught no matter what they do, one way or the other, because 'concealed means concealed'. But there are times when you will have to disclose. Any interaction with LEO requires you to disclose. Not many times, perhaps, but enough to clog the courts further with these violations.

A lot of this is going to depend on your IA. I think quite a number of them are just not going to take this too seriously. Most won't say that openly.

On the other hand, L.A., Sacramento, Santa Clara, et I think like SB2 and will be all on board to punish violators.

[Rickybillegas]

"On the other hand, L.A., Sacramento, Santa Clara, et I think like SB2 and will be all on board to punish violators."

They never wanted to give out permits in the first place, so this is a win-win for them too.

And another thing. If this SB2 thing holds or a while, CCW applications will slow down to a crawl again, almost like it was before Bruen or even less.
That's a huge win-win for Newsome-Bonta-Portantino.

Win-win for IA's as they can almost eliminate their permit departments.

Despite all this, I remain optimistic. SB2 will be at least partially enjoined for a lot longer than SB2 is in effect if it even ever is.

[AlmostHeaven]

"On the other hand, L.A., Sacramento, Santa Clara, et I think like SB2 and will be all on board to punish violators."

They never wanted to give out permits in the first place, so this is a win-win for them too.

And another thing. If this SB2 thing holds or a while, CCW applications will slow down to a crawl again, almost like it was before Bruen or even less.
That's a huge win-win for Newsome-Bonta-Portantino.

Win-win for IA's as they can almost eliminate their permit departments.

Despite all this, I remain optimistic. SB2 will be at least partially enjoined for a lot longer than SB2 is in effect if it even ever is.

Not a single judge in any jurisdiction has upheld the default private property carry prohibition. Every other provision hangs in the air and could go either way, but I expect the most insane aspect of the law will not stand for long.

[XDJYo]

"On the other hand, L.A., Sacramento, Santa Clara, et I think like SB2 and will be all on board to punish violators."

They never wanted to give out permits in the first place, so this is a win-win for them too.

And another thing. If this SB2 thing holds or a while, CCW applications will slow down to a crawl again, almost like it was before Bruen or even less.
That's a huge win-win for Newsome-Bonta-Portantino.

Win-win for IA's as they can almost eliminate their permit departments.

Despite all this, I remain optimistic. SB2 will be at least partially enjoined for a lot longer than SB2 is in effect if it even ever is.

Here is a response by Contra Costa County's sheriff regarding the status of the applications in process.

From the CoCoCo CCW thread: "We are currently processing applications with live scans completed in January 2023. Please expect a longer wait time. When your application is pulled in Permitium, you will see an update on your order tracker. In the meantime, the order tracker will remain stagnant. We apologize for the delay."

[AlmostHeaven]

Here is a response by Contra Costa County's sheriff regarding the status of the applications in process.

From the CoCoCo CCW thread: "We are currently processing applications with live scans completed in January 2023. Please expect a longer wait time. When your application is pulled in Permitium, you will see an update on your order tracker. In the meantime, the order tracker will remain stagnant. We apologize for the delay."

A right delayed is a right denied.

[Rickybillegas]

Washington gun law TV has an excellent summation of the practical (interest balancing) aspects of concealed carry in general from argument in the May vs Bonta suit.

He cites Texas, Mn, Fl, Wis, Illinois data re: permit carriers in recent years and incidents involving violent crime. The numbers are miniscule to the degree of being almost shocking, something in the order a fraction of a percent, way below the average citizen.

Now, I know we all know this and are preaching to the choir here, and we all know that Newsome-Bonta-Portantino know all this too. They keep citing skewed studies that suggest violent crime goes up with 'shall issue' laws.

The only way to reconcile these two diametrics in my view is despite the dishonest data analysis, there is other contributing factors, such as more stolen guns, more self defense incidents included in the data as 'crime' or something like that. Remember how the medical community (it has been proved) skewed the COVID data by including every death that had a covid positive test was listed as 'COVID' (even if it was a motorcycle crash, or heart attack).

So, despite what we all know, it's important and included in May vs Bonta to buttress their case for argument but also perhaps for the judges who insist on wandering into 'interest balancing' territory.

[AlmostHeaven]

Washington gun law TV has an excellent summation of the practical (interest balancing) aspects of concealed carry in general from argument in the May vs Bonta suit.

He cites Texas, Mn, Fl, Wis, Illinois data re: permit carriers in recent years and incidents involving violent crime. The numbers are miniscule to the degree of being almost shocking, something in the order a fraction of a percent, way below the average citizen.

Now, I know we all know this and are preaching to the choir here, and we all know that Newsome-Bonta-Portantino know all this too. They keep citing skewed studies that suggest violent crime goes up with 'shall issue' laws.

The only way to reconcile these two diametrics in my view is despite the dishonest data analysis, there is other contributing factors, such as more stolen guns, more self defense incidents included in the data as 'crime' or something like that. Remember how the medical community (it has been proved) skewed the COVID data by including every death that had a covid positive test was listed as 'COVID' (even if it was a motorcycle crash, or heart attack).

So, despite what we all know, it's important and included in May vs Bonta to buttress their case for argument but also perhaps for the judges who insist on wandering into 'interest balancing' territory.

"Gun violence research" consists of nothing other than civilian disarmament propaganda masquerading as scientific findings. Nearly every major conclusion claimed by the activist academics as fact contains such huge caveats as to instead qualify as outright lies.

1. The United States experiences over 600 mass shootings per year. Every incident in which four people are injured in a firearm-related incident counts, including criminals hurt during the execution of illegal activity.

2. Guns are the number one killer of kids in America. This misleading talking point categorizes 18 to 19-year-old adults as children and does not exclude deaths that occurred as a result of engaging in criminal behavior.

3. States with stricter gun safety laws have lower rates of gun violence. The R^2 correlation between weapon restrictions and gun violence is below 0.5, which flatly fails to meet the standard of a statistically significant finding.

[SpudmanWP]

That study on kids also excludes infants (0-1).

[AlmostHeaven]

That study on kids also excludes infants (0-1).

Wow. This further strengthens my assertion that the study authors deliberately twisted data to generate a flashy anti-gun political narrative.