Page 1 of 4

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

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:36 am
by DispositionMatrix
Statement from the California AG's office elaborating on the state's “good moral character” requirement that, of course, was not part of the NYSRPA v. Bruen case since NYSRPA v. Bruen was a New York case.
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/l ... 022-02.pdf

Issuing authorities are still going to ask why applicants want to carry, and they allow for several subjective disqualifiers. It appears the intent may be to expand the “good moral character” requirement to take over the heavy lifting from "good cause" to enforce a shmay issue policy.

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

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:41 am
by featureless
Please, let's share that facts of what "subjective" means. It's not an alternative fact. Or fake news.

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

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:12 am
by highdesert
The legislature needs to rewrite the Penal Code statutes making the whole process objective. I'm sure Bonta's office must have been bombarded with requests for legal clarification so this is a temporary patch. They might have dropped "good cause" to conform to Bruen, but "good moral character" is just as subjective and different jurisdictions can interpret it differently. It smacks of upper middle class are eligible, but lower middle class aren't. Riverside County's is full of subjective criteria, Sacramento's is more objective. CRPA will be out lobbying the legislature and so will CA law enforcement and law enforcement is much more powerful with CA legislators. A lot of court cases ahead.

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

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:40 pm
by jc57
Hmm... good moral character. So does that open it up for questions about religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, or other things that some groups consider not moral and others do? Who, in the legal sense, is the arbiter of morality?

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

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:52 pm
by featureless
jc57 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:40 pm Hmm... good moral character. So does that open it up for questions about religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, or other things that some groups consider not moral and others do? Who, in the legal sense, is the arbiter of morality?
Yeah, kinda the reason SCOTUS just issued an opinion saying subjective criteria is not ok. But, California is going to California: Oh, we totally get "good cause" is unconstitutional. So we'll go with "good moral character."

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

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:35 pm
by wings
Look, don't get optimistic. This Supreme Court will totally uphold a Good Moral Character clause so long as it can explicitly consider race, religion, and economic caste.

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

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:17 am
by SubRosa
Pretty simple in Ca: Would you let Trump have a gun?

Hellova Litmus test...

SR

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

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:06 am
by highdesert
Looked again at my county's CCW application,
I accept and assume all responsibility and liability for, injury to, or death of any person, or damage to any property which may result through an act or omission of either the licensee or the agency that issued the license. In the event any claim, suit or action is brought against the agency that issued the license, its chief officer or any of its employees, by reason of, or in connection with any such act or omission, the licensee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the agency that issued the license, its chief officer or any of its employees from such claim, suit, or action.

I understand that the acceptance of any application by the licensing authority does not guarantee the issuance of a license and that fees and costs are not refundable if denied. I further understand that if my application is approved and I am issued a license to carry a concealed weapon, that the license is subject to restrictions placed upon it and that misuse of the license will cause an automatic revocation and possible arrest and that the license may also be suspended or revoked at the discretion of the licensing authority at any time. I am aware that any use of a firearm may bring criminal action or civil liability against me.
https://sbcsdccw-az.azurewebsites.us/pr ... cation.asp

I doubt that the "hold harmless" clause would survive a court test.

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

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:37 pm
by wings
Wait, is that legalese for "if I get a CHL and kill someone and get held civilly liable for damages, I can't sue the Sheriff for giving me a license" ???

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

Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:10 pm
by DispositionMatrix
Here is the bill updating California's carry regime.
SB918.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 20220SB918

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

Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:19 pm
by featureless
If granted a permit, you may carry on some sidewalks around the block and back to your car. Should work great. Especially if you're a judge or LEO going out for dinner or something.

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

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:26 am
by DispositionMatrix
featureless wrote:If granted a permit, you may carry on some sidewalks around the block and back to your car. Should work great. Especially if you're a judge or LEO going out for dinner or something.
Unless I read the bill incorrectly, special classes are exempt.

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

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:31 am
by featureless
DispositionMatrix wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:26 am
featureless wrote:If granted a permit, you may carry on some sidewalks around the block and back to your car. Should work great. Especially if you're a judge or LEO going out for dinner or something.
Unless I read the bill incorrectly, special classes are exempt.
Of course they are.

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

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2022 10:06 am
by highdesert
DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:10 pm Here is the bill updating California's carry regime.
SB918.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 20220SB918

It's full of so much garbage, it's a very rough draft which was started 2/3/2022. Including studies is bullshit, they are not definitive. Portantino and McCarty are known anti-gunners.

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

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2022 10:45 am
by featureless
As I said over on Discord, the state is playing a really dangerous game that's going to get people killed. The DOJ data dump exposed approximately 200,000 CCW holders. Because of the "good cause" history, a lot of those people are domestic violence, hate crime and rape survivors. The state just provided their addresses and gun collections to anybody with an intent to find that information. Now the state is looking to restrict the sensitive places to make CCW useless for the people that really fucking need it. I intend to tell my senator just that.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:30 pm
by TrueTexan
If you're going to enact a CHL permit, I still say look to Texas for the model. We may not have done other thing correctly but we did do this correctly. You apply to the state DPS, very similar to getting a driver license, You have a background check with finger prints. You have to go to a half day education class on the laws and responsibility of carrying a firearm. You have to show proficiency with shooting a handgun. Then you are issued the CHL. and are good to go. There is no going to the local sheriff and begging or contributing to his reelection campaign to get approval. Even though you don't have to have a CHL to carry in Texas it does have advantages such as not needing to have to wait for approval to buy guns. Show your CHL and all is good. Still have to fill out the forms for the FFL records. Also having the class in informative and hopefully gets people to realize the responsibility they have in carrying a weapon Handgun.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 2:00 pm
by sikacz
TrueTexan wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:30 pm If you're going to enact a CHL permit, I still say look to Texas for the model. We may not have done other thing correctly but we did do this correctly. You apply to the state DPS, very similar to getting a driver license, You have a background check with finger prints. You have to go to a half day education class on the laws and responsibility of carrying a firearm. You have to show proficiency with shooting a handgun. Then you are issued the CHL. and are good to go. There is no going to the local sheriff and begging or contributing to his reelection campaign to get approval. Even though you don't have to have a CHL to carry in Texas it does have advantages such as not needing to have to wait for approval to buy guns. Show your CHL and all is good. Still have to fill out the forms for the FFL records. Also having the class in informative and hopefully gets people to realize the responsibility they have in carrying a weapon Handgun.
Agree.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:15 pm
by highdesert
sikacz wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 2:00 pm
TrueTexan wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:30 pm If you're going to enact a CHL permit, I still say look to Texas for the model. We may not have done other thing correctly but we did do this correctly. You apply to the state DPS, very similar to getting a driver license, You have a background check with finger prints. You have to go to a half day education class on the laws and responsibility of carrying a firearm. You have to show proficiency with shooting a handgun. Then you are issued the CHL. and are good to go. There is no going to the local sheriff and begging or contributing to his reelection campaign to get approval. Even though you don't have to have a CHL to carry in Texas it does have advantages such as not needing to have to wait for approval to buy guns. Show your CHL and all is good. Still have to fill out the forms for the FFL records. Also having the class in informative and hopefully gets people to realize the responsibility they have in carrying a weapon Handgun.
Agree.

I agree Texas has a simple but thorough process. Similar to Arizona where the the state DPS issues concealed weapons permits which requires firearms training. I submitted two sets of fingerprints and within 90 days I had the CWP, every five years I submit a renewal request and pay the fee and they send me a new CWP. Utah is similar their DPS handles it, but requires training from their approved instructors.

CA will probably leave it with the county sheriffs or technically any police chief in the state can issue them but they don't. They'll come up with a convoluted system with subjective elements and it will be hung up in court. I doubt they'll extend reciprocity to any other state, they don't trust anyone with an out of state license.

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

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2022 10:16 pm
by DispositionMatrix
"Good moral character" has been changed to "qualified person" for obvious reasons.

The bill also expands restrictions by location. Carry will be banned by default at any privately-owned commercial establishment open to the public at which a sign specifically allowing carry is not posted, the obvious goal being to expose those businesses to being subjected to shame campaigns and, if anyone were to get shot by criminals therein, lawsuits. So it's effectively a total ban on carry unless one is completely away from civilization.

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

Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2022 12:38 am
by featureless
Yup. It's a bullshit punitive bill. There wasn't a problem with the existing carry law (other than good cause abuses). Now, the state would prohibit carry essentially anywhere other than some public roads. And require psych eval, 3 character interviews and social media review, all subjective criteria. I wrote a letter to my senator for all the good it will do.

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

Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:55 am
by highdesert
DispositionMatrix wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 10:16 pm "Good moral character" has been changed to "qualified person" for obvious reasons.

The bill also expands restrictions by location. Carry will be banned by default at any privately-owned commercial establishment open to the public at which a sign specifically allowing carry is not posted, the obvious goal being to expose those businesses to being subjected to shame campaigns and, if anyone were to get shot by criminals therein, lawsuits. So it's effectively a total ban on carry unless one is completely away from civilization.
Agree, one gun rights organization in AZ where "no guns" signs are legal, started posting lists of restaurants by city and other establishments where those signs were posted and people boycotted those businesses, I can see that happening on a much bigger scale in CA. Remember too that CA allows counties and cities to preempt state gun law so their ordinances can be even stricter.

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

Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2022 8:55 am
by CDFingers
DispositionMatrix wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 10:16 pm "Good moral character" has been changed to "qualified person" for obvious reasons.

The bill also expands restrictions by location. Carry will be banned by default at any privately-owned commercial establishment open to the public at which a sign specifically allowing carry is not posted, the obvious goal being to expose those businesses to being subjected to shame campaigns and, if anyone were to get shot by criminals therein, lawsuits. So it's effectively a total ban on carry unless one is completely away from civilization.
Much better, qualified person. Naturally we'd want to find the list of features.

CDFingers

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

Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2022 9:31 am
by wings
My local range has a sign up. "This is NOT a gun-free zone." You'd think it goes without saying.

Even with a CHL, in a rural part of a gun-friendly state, the only places I could carry are my home, car, range - maybe a few assorted stores. Oh, and obviously hiking.

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

Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:44 am
by highdesert
From reading the draft bill, the state leaves granting a concealed carry license to county sheriff's and police chiefs, the state doesn't want to assume that responsibility. However unless "qualified person" means the same thing in every single county and city that licenses concealed carriers, then we're back to a subjective determination like "good cause". They're pushing for a lawsuit where the courts will make the law.

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

Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2022 11:13 am
by sikacz
highdesert wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:44 am From reading the draft bill, the state leaves granting a concealed carry license to county sheriff's and police chiefs, the state doesn't want to assume that responsibility. However unless "qualified person" means the same thing in every single county and city that licenses concealed carriers, then we're back to a subjective determination like "good cause". They're pushing for a lawsuit where the courts will make the law.
Qualified person should refer to federal requirements and what is defined or addressed in the constitution and bill of rights. In other words, if you’re not a prohibited person under federal law they need to give you your license once you pass the states testing requirements if any.