Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

151
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta on Thursday pledged to work with the governor and lawmakers to pass new gun control legislation “to keep Californians safe” in response to a Supreme Court ruling that weakens requirements to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon in the state. “While this decision is no doubt a setback for the safety of Americans, it also affirmed the rights that states maintain to protect our people,” Bonta said. “It leaves us with options to protect our families, and we intend to use those options.” Bonta said a state requirement for gun owners to provide “good cause” to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon is likely unconstitutional under the Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen. The attorney general reminded Californians that carrying a loaded firearm in most public spaces is still generally prohibited without a license issued by local law enforcement. Requirements to obtain a license, such as a background check, a firearms safety course, and proof of residency, employment or business in a local area, remain in effect.

State leaders for weeks have been considering ways to respond in anticipation of the high court ruling that challenges limitations on eligibility for concealed weapons licenses in California.
California lawmakers plan to amend and pass Senate Bill 918 from state Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) in response to the ruling. The legislation will specify the places weapons cannot be carried and clarify qualifications for obtaining a license, Bonta said.

“So in California, we’re going to make it clear that an assessment of dangerousness is an essential element of the concealed carry application,” Bonta said. “The assessment is going to be robust, including looking at arrests, convictions, restraining orders and other publicly available information that might suggest that a person poses a danger to themselves or to others.” Gov. Gavin Newsom also weighed in Thursday, pushing back on the “radical decision” from the Supreme Court.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ ... -state-law

With "intermediate scrutiny" thrown out and not automatically accepting the state's compelling interest, courts can't just rubber stamp state gun restrictions.
Last edited by highdesert on Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

153
featureless wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:08 pm Fun fact: the majority of California counties are already virtually shall issue. There are people legally carrying all over the state all the time, even in those counties that find it abhorrent. Where's the blood in the streets? Political flexing to "solve" a non existent problem.
Yup. Glad to see this decision here in CA. Maybe we can get rid of the stupid pistol registry too.
Crow
Minute Of Average

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

155
The new sheriff in my county has tightened up on licenses, during the pandemic LA area residents with vacation homes in the San Bernardino Mtns applied for licenses in my county. The county c/c paperwork states that your privacy can't be guaranteed as they contact neighbors and employers. CA needs a new process, maybe something through DMV and not local sheriffs offices. I'm sure though that the Dem dominated legislature will still throw in restrictions that will end up in court, extract the last pound of flesh.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

156
The county c/c paperwork states that your privacy can't be guaranteed as they contact neighbors and employers
Wow, thats messed up. I don't want my neighbors knowing if I have guns or not. Well some anyway. OK most have seen me walking around open carry on my property and walking the dog kinda semi open carry/CC.
But still thats a violation of my rights to privacy.
Pence makes no sense

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

158
tonguengroover wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:25 am
The county c/c paperwork states that your privacy can't be guaranteed as they contact neighbors and employers
Wow, thats messed up. I don't want my neighbors knowing if I have guns or not. Well some anyway. OK most have seen me walking around open carry on my property and walking the dog kinda semi open carry/CC.

But still thats a violation of my rights to privacy.
I agree but that's CA, a state still obsessed with the right to privacy, but they will violate it if you apply for a concealed carry license.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

161
I wouldn't read "permitless carry" into this decision, it wasn't the issue presented to the court. It's aimed at NY State and the five other "may issue" states (California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey and indirectly Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island. It's not a challenge to all state licensing, just subjective state licensing though this opens up other legal challenges.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

163
sikacz wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:39 am The link in the newer thread FPC was pretty good at outlining what this decision means and where it will likely go.
I'll put the FPC link here also.
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/bruen-faq

The Bruen opinion only mentions "constitutional carry" once and that's in a footnote where it mentions 25 states allow it.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

164
This one interests me,
Q: Does this mean that people can carry guns into stores, coffee shops, and other public businesses?

A: As a practical matter, this decision is likely to mean that peaceable people must be allowed to carry in most public places. The Court said, "Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a 'sensitive place' simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department." Under the Court's analysis, there would seem to be a limited number of places where governments may be able to impose location-based restrictions, but the decision does appear to leave untouched specific questions of what those are. We will be actively litigating such restrictions and look forward to restoring the human right to bear arms.
I would like to be able to carry without concern some shop can deny my right to carry. I would also like to see the lifting of the ban on carry within the premises of the post office. Especially if I’m licensed by the state, why would the state even at federal level be able to deny my right to carry.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

165
sikacz wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 9:23 am This one interests me,
Q: Does this mean that people can carry guns into stores, coffee shops, and other public businesses?

A: As a practical matter, this decision is likely to mean that peaceable people must be allowed to carry in most public places. The Court said, "Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a 'sensitive place' simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department." Under the Court's analysis, there would seem to be a limited number of places where governments may be able to impose location-based restrictions, but the decision does appear to leave untouched specific questions of what those are. We will be actively litigating such restrictions and look forward to restoring the human right to bear arms.
I would like to be able to carry without concern some shop can deny my right to carry. I would also like to see the lifting of the ban on carry within the premises of the post office. Especially if I’m licensed by the state, why would the state even at federal level be able to deny my right to carry.
Yes, "Do No Gun Signs” Have the Force of Law?" varies by state outside of the usual restricted government buildings and schools. In AZ the signs do have force of law, but in CA, NV, ID, OR and WA they don't. In UT a home owner can prohibit guns on their property and churches can, but otherwise no. It's a hodge-podge of laws the result of "who pressured the most legislators".

Since USPS has a reputation of employees going "postal" I wonder if they'd ever allow them in their facilities.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

166
If your carrying and want to go into an establishment and you see a NO GUN sign that means either you go back and leave your gun in your car or go elsewhere. I hate leaving my gun in my car so I go elsewhere. However it MUST be a correct NO GUN sign. https://www.frontiercarry.org/carry-basics-az.html
Most times though I am CC'ing and just go in anyways. If they detect my buldge and ask me to leave I might, however most never see it.
Biggest problem is restaurants that serve/sell alcohol, so you cannot take a gun in there unless you have a CC permit and are not drinking.
Pence makes no sense

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

167
tonguengroover wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:49 am If your carrying and want to go into an establishment and you see a NO GUN sign that means either you go back and leave your gun in your car or go elsewhere. I hate leaving my gun in my car so I go elsewhere. However it MUST be a correct NO GUN sign. https://www.frontiercarry.org/carry-basics-az.html
Most times though I am CC'ing and just go in anyways. If they detect my buldge and ask me to leave I might, however most never see it.
Biggest problem is restaurants that serve/sell alcohol, so you cannot take a gun in there unless you have a CC permit and are not drinking.
I obey correct signs, not ones that do not follow state guidelines. Those places that have no official sings will never know since I carry concealed.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

168
highdesert wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:16 am
sikacz wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 9:23 am This one interests me,
Q: Does this mean that people can carry guns into stores, coffee shops, and other public businesses?

A: As a practical matter, this decision is likely to mean that peaceable people must be allowed to carry in most public places. The Court said, "Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a 'sensitive place' simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department." Under the Court's analysis, there would seem to be a limited number of places where governments may be able to impose location-based restrictions, but the decision does appear to leave untouched specific questions of what those are. We will be actively litigating such restrictions and look forward to restoring the human right to bear arms.
I would like to be able to carry without concern some shop can deny my right to carry. I would also like to see the lifting of the ban on carry within the premises of the post office. Especially if I’m licensed by the state, why would the state even at federal level be able to deny my right to carry.
Yes, "Do No Gun Signs” Have the Force of Law?" varies by state outside of the usual restricted government buildings and schools. In AZ the signs do have force of law, but in CA, NV, ID, OR and WA they don't. In UT a home owner can prohibit guns on their property and churches can, but otherwise no. It's a hodge-podge of laws the result of "who pressured the most legislators".

Since USPS has a reputation of employees going "postal" I wonder if they'd ever allow them in their facilities.
I just think not being able to even leave my gun in the parking lot of a post office is just not right, especially when they have removed many of the outdoor mailboxes. You have no choice, but to get out of your car and enter a post office building.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

171
Bonta said in an article I posted earlier that the legislature has been discussing this. They knew that SCOTUS would overturn the "may issue" system, they'll do the minimum to meet the SCOTUS ruling and they better be prepared for additional litigation on other gun restrictions. I'm sure that Newsom is fighting to protect his 2018 gun control initiative that helped him win the state house.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

175
highdesert wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:06 am
sikacz wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:43 am newsom and harris are two Californians that I’d prefer never to see as president.
Same here, I'd never vote for either of them.
Harris won't make it through the primaries, but Gavin will primary Biden from the left. I heard him today at the abortion bill signing ceremony, and he was riffin' presidential shit there. I think Gavin will be the nom. He will eat Desantis alive and shit out his bones via streaming.

CDFingers
Image
Image
.
If I had a gun for every ace I've drawn
I could arm a town the size of Zhytomyr

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron