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.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ ... -state-lawCalifornia 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.
With "intermediate scrutiny" thrown out and not automatically accepting the state's compelling interest, courts can't just rubber stamp state gun restrictions.