SF Chronicle; The Supreme Court might not have struck down California gun restriction

[AlmostHeaven]

I guess Gavin doesn?t qualify then. Prior drug addict and adulterer.

Governor Newsom needs not personally carry any guns. He has a whole entourage of men, armed with weapons prohibited to ordinary citizens, defending him.

[natman]

It looks like the article it says that "Good Moral Character" is good to go and is legal.

"... actions indicating a possible propensity for violence, moral turpitude, drug and/or alcohol abuse, carelessness with weapons, and/or dishonestly"

SB2 removes GMC , but puts in it's place something very similar.

SCOTUS made it quite clear in Bruen:

Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, ?law-abiding, responsible citizens.? ...And they likewise appear to contain only ?narrow, objective, and definite standards? guiding licensing officials, ... rather than requiring the ?appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,? ?features that typify proper-cause standards like New York?s. NYSRPA V Bruen page 30, footnote 9

Rather than following SCOTUS' clear direction that criteria for issuing a CCW must be "narrow, objective, and definite", rogue states like CA and NY say Bruen removed subjective criteria for the REASON, but didn't address Good Moral Character, so we'll still use it as a catchall reason to deny whoever we feel like.

It's more of the same, rather than follow the rule of law, they do what they want and invent some excuse to justify it.

[Rickybillegas]

Unfortunately for Californians, this will probably go on for a while.
Counties and Municipalities that are 2nd amendment friendly will continue to determine GMC narrowly, while the Blue Issuing authorities will use it to strangle citizens with the most stringent GMC interpretations. Kind of how it was before Bruen with good cause.

I wonder if CRPA has aim at this in their impending suit against SB2.

[Bhobbs]

What SCOTUS says is irrelevant because lower courts don’t care what SCOTUS says, SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism and no desire to answer any direct challenge to their authority. Not to mention the tendency to load their rulings with gray areas large enough to drive a bus through and dicta that undermines their core holdings.

[Jimi Jah]

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Besides being wrong and making up law out of thin air, the SC cannot read nor comprehend English.

A 5th grader could do better.

Bring on the revolution. This government is tyranical.

[flyer898]

I read the decision: it is a tortured attempt to ignore Bruen, and it does ignore most other Supreme Court precedent. It would probably be counterproductive to take it up to the California Supreme Court; while this decision is binding on all state trial courts, it does not bind the Courts of Appeal in other districts. Were it to be affirmed by the California Supreme Court, it would be binding precedent in all California courts.
If we get what we are hoping for from the 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court it is effectively moot.
Just pray that Thomas and Alito stay healthy until we have a republican president.

[Rickybillegas]

I read the decision: it is a tortured attempt to ignore Bruen, and it does ignore most other Supreme Court precedent. It would probably be counterproductive to take it up to the California Supreme Court; while this decision is binding on all state trial courts, it does not bind the Courts of Appeal in other districts. Were it to be affirmed by the California Supreme Court, it would be binding precedent in all California courts.
If we get what we are hoping for from the 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court it is effectively moot.
Just pray that Thomas and Alito stay healthy until we have a republican president.

Which decision are you referring to, Bruen?
And when you refer to a 'tortured attempt' are you talking about CA SB2?

[Dan_Eastvale]

I believe CA or any other state should be able to ask SCOTUS directly if it does or doesn't. Yes or no.
Final answer
No trillions of hours and legal funds wasted trying to interpret what they said.

[AlmostHeaven]

I believe CA or any other state should be able to ask SCOTUS directly if it does or doesn't. Yes or no.
Final answer
No trillions of hours and legal funds wasted trying to interpret what they said.

The Supreme Court has not granted a certified question in decades.

[pacrat]

It looks like the article it says that "Good Moral Character" is good to go and is legal.

"... actions indicating a possible propensity for violence, moral turpitude, drug and/or alcohol abuse, carelessness with weapons, and/or dishonestly"

SB2 removes GMC , but puts in it's place something very similar.

Geeesh, that sounds exactly like a lot of YT videos covering LE across the country.

[DolphinFan]

How ironically they ignore that there is NO THT of a good moral character or any other requirement of the states CCW scheme.
The writer has an agenda.

[AlmostHeaven]

How ironically they ignore that there is NO THT of a good moral character or any other requirement of the states CCW scheme.
The writer has an agenda.

Hardly any journalists nowadays believe in anything other than far-left ideological tenants. The entire field has self-sorted to an extreme degree.