Richards v. Newsom-challenge to SB1384-dealer A/V recording

[Drivedabizness]

Unfortunately, states have a form of sovereign immunity that almost certainly precludes winning these types of damages.

Does that immunity cover Deprivation of rights claims???

[Sgt Raven]

Unfortunately, states have a form of sovereign immunity that almost certainly precludes winning these types of damages.

Does that cover the 'Takings Clause'?

[AlmostHeaven]

Does that immunity cover Deprivation of rights claims???

No, but forcing firearm dealers to acquire audiovisual recording equipment and storage systems likely does not fall under federal protections for deprivation of constitutional rights.

Does that cover the 'Takings Clause'?

I entirely disagree with the California statute, but standing Supreme Court Takings Clause jurisprudence does not consider the imposition of additional unwanted equipment installations as mandatory requirements for business operations to qualify as unconstitutional takings.

[Drivedabizness]

No, but forcing firearm dealers to acquire audiovisual recording equipment and storage systems likely does not fall under federal protections for deprivation of constitutional rights.



I entirely disagree with the California statute, but standing Supreme Court Takings Clause jurisprudence does not consider the imposition of additional unwanted equipment installations as mandatory requirements for business operations to qualify as unconstitutional takings.

How about forcing people to be videotaped/facially scanned simply for exercising their rights? Could they "record" you voting? Or are you GUARANTEED the right to vote your conscience??

[AlmostHeaven]

How about forcing people to be videotaped/facially scanned simply for exercising their rights? Could they "record" you voting? Or are you GUARANTEED the right to vote your conscience??

I believe these instances certainly have unenumerated right to privacy violation arguments. The Supreme Court would need to weigh in on the matters explicitly for uniform nationwide standards.

[michaelh1951]

Well I've been thinking on visiting an FFL for a little handgun and being 70 with medical conditions I should wear a mask so I won't get Covid there as well as scarf and hat because it's cold out.

Don't forget the ski goggles, or at least sunglasses

[ProfChaos]

No, but forcing firearm dealers to acquire audiovisual recording equipment and storage systems likely does not fall under federal protections for deprivation of constitutional rights.



I entirely disagree with the California statute, but standing Supreme Court Takings Clause jurisprudence does not consider the imposition of additional unwanted equipment installations as mandatory requirements for business operations to qualify as unconstitutional takings.

SCOTUS seems pretty lax on allowing states to dictate how to govern business licenses. However I would hope that SCOTUS would view that having it for one type of business and not others would be course for alarm.

[AlmostHeaven]

SCOTUS seems pretty lax on allowing states to dictate how to govern business licenses. However I would hope that SCOTUS would view that having it for one type of business and not others would be course for alarm.

No doubt, the state will bring forth some sort of interest-balancing argument paired with total denial that the law implicates the Second Amendment at all.

[Elgatodeacero]

What is the point of video recording? This seems absurd given all the forms and background checks we have to complete? Is this just to drive up costs? I really do not understand the point of this law.

[Carl88]

What is the point of video recording? This seems absurd given all the forms and background checks we have to complete? Is this just to drive up costs? I really do not understand the point of this law.

it's about power and control so these commies with micro penises can feel powerful

[ProfChaos]

What is the point of video recording? This seems absurd given all the forms and background checks we have to complete? Is this just to drive up costs? I really do not understand the point of this law.

Bingo. Tens of thousands of dollars in equipment and more paperwork for a small "ooops" could cost them their license.

[ritter]

Seems we might do well to challenge this under the California Constitution's right to privacy.

[Sgt Raven]

Seems we might do well to challenge this under the California Constitution's right to privacy.

California is a 2 party recording State. Since this law requires clear recording of all conversations, attack it from that angle.

[taperxz]

No, but forcing firearm dealers to acquire audiovisual recording equipment and storage systems likely does not fall under federal protections for deprivation of constitutional rights.



I entirely disagree with the California statute, but standing Supreme Court Takings Clause jurisprudence does not consider the imposition of additional unwanted equipment installations as mandatory requirements for business operations to qualify as unconstitutional takings.

It does when the owner of the store and equipment are forbidden to use any of it for any purpose.

[AlmostHeaven]

What is the point of video recording? This seems absurd given all the forms and background checks we have to complete? Is this just to drive up costs? I really do not understand the point of this law.

Anything to chill the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms counts as noble to California Democrats.