Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

77
A proposal to strengthen California’s concealed-carry law in response to a Supreme Court decision expanding rights to carry firearms in public failed in the Assembly on Tuesday despite backing from Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic leaders.

But the bill isn’t dead yet. In what’s called reconsideration, lawmakers may vote on the bill again Wednesday, the final day of the legislative session and the last chance for state lawmakers to act on legislation and send it to the governor. Newsom worked with state Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) and state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta for months this year on Senate Bill 918, a contingency plan to keep in place a robust concealed-carry law in California after the Supreme Court in June determined that certain restrictions violated the 2nd Amendment.
Portantino added an urgency clause to the bill, meaning it needed a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of the Legislature. The Assembly fell two votes shy of that threshold with a 52-19 vote. Several moderate Democrats either abstained from or voted against the measure.

“I am disappointed but optimistic that we will get the votes for SB 918. This is too important an issue for California to sit on the sidelines. We need to act now to keep our communities safe,” Portantino said in a statement after the vote.
https://archive.ph/L3bMT

Portantino is the chief anti-gunner in the CA state senate since Kevin de Leon termed out.

The CA sheriffs being opposed is a big thing, since they issue most concealed carry licenses. The CA Police Chiefs Assn. has the bill on watch status, they haven't decided to support or oppose.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

78
The only thing I can think of is that the abuse of "good cause" to primarily issue to rich and politically connected people has back fired. Those same people probably didn't appriciate getting doxed and aren't interested in losing the ability to carry during their night at the opera. And their urgency to fuck us may end up fucking them with the higher vote requirement. It would be wonderful to see their overeagerness to screw the little gun owner be brought down by their own corruption. But, I still expect it to pass today.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

79
I sent off e-mails to my current members of the assembly and senate. They've voted against the bill, but I just wanted to express my opinion. Thanks to redistricting by a supposed "independent commission", I'll be in bluer anti-gun assembly and senate districts in January 2023. SB 918 is revenge for the Bruen decision and a very poorly written piece of legislation.

"Look at the guns, don't look at root causes or our drug problem or our homelessness problem..." They don't want to deal with complicated issues, they just want one-and-done so they can take credit at election time and raise more campaign money. The joys of living in a one party state.
Last edited by highdesert on Thu Sep 01, 2022 5:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

85
The California Legislature rejected a bill to strengthen the state’s concealed-carry law that Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic leaders crafted in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that expanded a person’s right to carry firearms outside the home. The legislation, Senate Bill 918, fell just two votes shy of passage in the Assembly on Tuesday evening. The Assembly agreed to hear the bill again Wednesday, the final day of the 2022 legislative session, through a process that’s called reconsideration. The bill faced headwinds from the outset, since state Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) added an urgency clause to the legislation so it could go into effect immediately, a change that required a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of the Legislature.

But the Assembly upheld its decision early Thursday morning with a final 52-23 vote, despite its proponents and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta spending the day in the state Capitol lobbying moderate Democrats who abstained or voted against the measure. The governor’s office did not respond to requests for comment on whether Newsom helped lobby for the final votes. “I’m legitimately surprised it didn’t pass,” Portantino said. He vowed to revive the measure in December, when lawmakers can start introducing legislation for the 2023-24 session. Bonta said the supermajority vote threshold made passing SB 918 more difficult. But he defended the urgency of implementing the legislation this year, arguing that those who pose a public safety risk need to be prevented from being issued a permit. “The longer it takes to get this bill into effect, the more people are at risk, every day,” he said. After the high court struck down New York’s restrictive concealed-carry law, a statute similar to those in California and other blue states, Newsom, Bonta and Portantino unveiled SB 918 as a backup plan that would allow California to continue to restrict who can get a license.
Newsom prioritized SB 918 as one of more than a dozen bills he requested this year to prevent mass shootings. He’s already signed several into law, including two major bills that establish a private right of action against the industry and limit firearm marketing to minors. Gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Assn. and Gun Owners of California, staunchly opposed the bill. They characterized SB 918 as a disingenuous effort to comply with Bruen, and argued that it would instead target law-abiding firearm owners while doing nothing to stop illegal gun activity.
Eugene Volokh, a UCLA School of Law professor, said it’s likely that some certain provisions of SB 918 would have been challenged, including the wide-ranging sensitive places list and the requirement to interview three character witnesses and review social media posts. “We don’t generally need three references to exercise a constitutional right. You don’t need three references to speak, you don’t need three references to marry, you don’t need three references to buy contraceptives, you don’t need three references to have children,” Volokh said.
https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... egislature
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

87
LA Times
Editorial: Democrats failed California by letting concealed-carry gun bill die
https://archive.ph/YAizU0
Portantino said he thought he had the necessary votes and was surprised his bill didn’t pass. But that suggests he hadn’t done enough to ensure it had robust support so that it couldn’t be tanked by one rogue Democrat. Portantino could have amended the bill so that moderate Democrats would support it, perhaps by scaling back the long list of places where guns would be banned. Or he could have removed the urgency clause so it could pass with a simple majority and take effect in January. Either approach would have been better than what we have now, which is no law at all.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) seemed uninformed about the prospects for the bill during a brief interview with an editorial writer after the late-night session ended. “I don’t really know why members stayed off,” he said.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

89
Rendon is disconnected from his members in the Assembly, it's become a circus. Yup passing new gun laws just seems to be a no brainer to them, it's a topic that they generally don't care what their constituents think about it. Now if they required three references for a driving license, they'd pay attention to their constituents. The joys of one party government.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest