2022 SB 1384 Min - Firearms: dealer requirements (Dealer CCTV + Liability Insurance)

[bwiese]

It's essentially the lowest limit that is offered, inexpensive, and something that any business/dealer should have anyway for their own protection and benefit, if in fact they are not also already contractually obligated to have at least $1 Million in liability limits by their landlord, vendors, or suppliers anyway. Included in that mix for its importance are mere kitchen-table dealers without a brick-and-mortar store.

That is not uncommon even for small-unit landlord liability

[bwiese]

Shouldn't Dave Min have significantly elevated car liability insurance? (DUI city dude...)

[rplaw]

^^^This!

Does this not violate CA law requiring consent from both parties to be recorded?

Does it not also violate the 1st and 4th Amendments of the Constitution?

If I cannot say what I think (risking retribution from the gov't), that infringes on my freedom of speech.



One could argue that our right to privacy and "freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government" is violated by this new law.
-P

^ this. The "must consent to police review of the recordings" is a mandate for blanket warrantless searches without sufficient cause.

And it's not just the shops, it's the customers who are also being "searched" without a warrant and surveilled for what is constitutionally protected speech and activities. Nor can the government claim that the speech is public and therefore the state doesn't need a warrant since the shop is private property. The activity is regarding legally possessed or acquired property which is also subject to Constitutional protections under the 2a as well as the 4a.

Why none of the 2A orgs are on this is a mystery. The only explanation I can think of is that perhaps they're waiting to file closer to the new year when the new law goes into effect.

[AlmostHeaven]

Why none of the 2A orgs are on this is a mystery. The only explanation I can think of is that perhaps they're waiting to file closer to the new year when the new law goes into effect.

Perhaps they are still collecting plaintiff candidates.

I understand the current situation must be difficult. After NYSRPA v. Bruen, all the Second Amendment organizations had to start juggling a total of over 60 different concurrent gun rights lawsuits.

[flyer898]

The injury is also to the customer. In California, the right to privacy is expressly set forth in the state constitution. The state will argue that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a retail location open to the public. Maybe for the video. The audio is something else - I do not want my random conversations with LGS employees recorded for law enforcement review. I think that is the crux of the privacy issue.

[ugimports]

The injury is also to the customer. In California, the right to privacy is expressly set forth in the state constitution. The state will argue that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a retail location open to the public. Maybe for the video. The audio is something else - I do not want my random conversations with LGS employees recorded for law enforcement review. I think that is the crux of the privacy issue.

Not sure if this article has any truth to it:
Source: https://recordinglaw.com/party-two-p...ecording-laws/

California?s principle recording law (Cal. Penal Code ? 632.) stipulates that it is a two-party consent state. In California, it is a criminal offense to use any device to record communications, whether they?re wire, oral or electronic, without the consent of everyone taking part in the communication. This means that in California you are not legally allowed to record a conversation you are taking part in unless all parties are in agreement. However, there are a few exceptions such as:
* Public conversations with no expectation of privacy

I suspect there's no expectation to privacy in a gun store, at the gun counter, where anyone else in the store can be listening already.

I think if you want privacy then you and said gun store employee would need to step into a private area such as an office or something..

[flyer898]

It is likely an issue that is dependent on the facts of each situation. However, the knowledge that one is being recorded for review by law enforcement is likely to chill speech and that implicates the First. Amendment.

[AlmostHeaven]

It is likely an issue that is dependent on the facts of each situation. However, the knowledge that one is being recorded for review by law enforcement is likely to chill speech and that implicates the First. Amendment.

Now that gun stores will have persistent invasive surveillance running, some people who previously would have visited will reconsider. Constitutionally protected activity that originally would have occurred will now be impeded. Thus, this legislation absolutely chills the free exercise of enumerated constitutional rights.