LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge on Wednesday blocked a California law that would have banned carrying firearms in most public places, ruling that it violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and deprives people of their ability to defend themselves and their loved ones.

The law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September was set to take effect Jan. 1. It would have prohibited people from carrying concealed guns in 26 places including public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks and zoos. The ban would apply whether the person has a permit to carry a concealed weapon or not. One exception would be for privately owned businesses that put up signs saying people are allowed to bring guns on their premises.

U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney granted a preliminary injunction blocking the law, which he wrote was “sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.”

The court case against the law will proceed while the law is blocked. The judge wrote that gun rights groups are likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional, meaning it would be permanently overturned.

https://apnews.com/article/california-g ... 350647c0b6

https://old.reddit.com/r/news/comments/ ... hat_would/

I support permitless open carry and permitted concealed carry.

CDFingers

The same federal judge Cormac Carney ruled last March that parts of California's Unsafe Handgun Act were unconstitutional in the Boland v Bonta case. Carney was appointed to the Central CA district court by Bush. The Sacrament Bee did an analysis on SB 2 which is now on hold.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/ ... 43768.html

May v Bonta
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67 ... ert-bonta/

California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced that his office will file an appeal of a district court decision issued in two companion cases, May v. Bonta and Carralero v. Bonta, enjoining certain provisions of Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) that prohibit the carry of concealed weapons in certain sensitive places including places where people gather, such as playgrounds and youth centers, places of worship, libraries, and parks, among other public places.

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/ ... rohibition

Great news. SB2 is not only unconstitutional, it renders a CCW useless. The state is taking out their frustrations with Trump and Bruen on its most law abiding citizens, including domestic violence survivors, hate crime survivors, sexual assault survivors, judges and attorneys - people that have a true and daily need to be armed (plus the rest of us 250,000 permit holders). Fuck that and fuck them. Of course, Bonta has already promised appeal to CA9, so get ready for the stay.

The state is forcing 250,000 plus people who have gone through the permitting process to make a choice: continue to carry where their license allowed them to prior to 2024 and risk a felony or waive their right to self protection.

I used to be ok with permitting concealed carry, provided it is objectively implemented and doesn't take months and isn't overly expensive. California has made me rethink that position.

What SB2 does is make it so that even if you manage to get through the background check and training process, you may carry on public roadways and some sidewalks. That's it. That's all. It makes CCW useless, increases administrative handling of arming and disarming all day long and results in guns left in cars at all places.

Further, CA is making new certification requirements for CCW trainers. Ay present, it doesn't appear that any currently certified trainers will meet the requirements. It is CA's way of throttling the permitting process even further.

At this point, I no longer support licensing requirements for CCW. The state (and others) introduce continuous fuckery into a system that wasn't broke to begin with. There has been zero evidence brought forth by permitting agencies that there are problems associated with CCW. Indeed, the opposite has been stated in writing.

This is nothing more than a persecutory maneuver by the state. They can't handle the responsibility of permitting such a disfavored right.

featureless wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 8:14 am The state is taking out their frustrations with Trump and Bruen on its most law abiding citizens, including domestic violence survivors, hate crime survivors, sexual assault survivors, judges and attorneys - people that have a true and daily need to be armed (plus the rest of us 250,000 permit holders). Fuck that and fuck them.

Yep. Pure grandstanding to fuck with the undesirables (that would be us).

Your list of potential victims is predicated on two ideas:

1. We have a right to self defense.

2. Gun ownership/CCW has a practical net-good effect on your safety.

Both of these are denied by the orthodox D politicians, although most loudly the latter. Exceptions for themselves, cops, and the wealthy who can afford private security, of course.

I've always favored licensed conceal carry because of the training requirements, which I think are necessary. While I recognize that 27 out of our 50 states have legalized permitless carry, I still see a need for some training. However training can be defined in many ways, it doesn't have to be classroom training, online training would suffice for permitless carry. I just think that anyone who carries a firearm should understand the legal liability in using a firearm in their state in any situation.

highdesert wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 1:40 pm I've always favored licensed conceal carry because of the training requirements, which I think are necessary. While I recognize that 27 out of our 50 states have legalized permitless carry, I still see a need for some training. However training can be defined in many ways, it doesn't have to be classroom training, online training would suffice for permitless carry. I just think that anyone who carries a firearm should understand the legal liability in using a firearm in their state in any situation.

I totally agree. However, California is proving it can't fairly implement training requirements and is on the path of making access to required training yet another bottleneck. I therefore am of the opinion that licensing will only continue to be abused by the state to deny people their right. Especially poor people.

featureless wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 1:45 pm

highdesert wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 1:40 pm I've always favored licensed conceal carry because of the training requirements, which I think are necessary. While I recognize that 27 out of our 50 states have legalized permitless carry, I still see a need for some training. However training can be defined in many ways, it doesn't have to be classroom training, online training would suffice for permitless carry. I just think that anyone who carries a firearm should understand the legal liability in using a firearm in their state in any situation.

I totally agree. However, California is proving it can't fairly implement training requirements and is on the path of making access to required training yet another bottleneck. I therefore am of the opinion that licensing will only continue to be abused by the state to deny people their right. Especially poor people.

I agree featureless, CA legislators want to limit the number of licensed concealed carriers to almost zero. They don't want any concealed carrier to make a bad shoot for fear they'll be blamed and that it would jeopardize their reelection. Shame they don't look at law enforcement the same way, if they were so concerned with police recruitment we'd have better candidates. Yes the poor are treated as second class citizens just because they're poor.

While I have my reservations about permitless carry, I think it’s the least bad option. I don’t trust Wal Street politicians to be impartial when it comes to licensing requirements. They only want the rich and those they deem to be politically reliable to be able to carry firearms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would say "should," but it's a bit strong; what could happen if we continue to pursue root cause mitigation with respect to improper gun use, is two things. First, it will become less necessary to carry, and second, fewer people would oppose permitless open carry. I still think concealed carry should require a permit and training. That's because you could carry into places that would not allow open carry by choice. When it's open, it's open, and everyone can see. Concealed carry, while strategically strong, still frightens people unnecessarily when it pops up in unexpected places.

CDFingers

The fact that it "scares" some people is exactly why I carry concealed, to be discreet and considerate to others. That shouldn't require a government "permission slip", though I certainly do encourage getting firearms training.

Then you have areas like Maryland and DC that use court rulings saying, "you must allow at least one of either open or concealed carry." After the Bruen decision, that directly affected Maryland. The Democrats, very grudgingly, implemented shall-issue for concealed-carry, while keeping permitless open-carry verboten. DC does even worse; open carry is outright banned. So, the only way to carry legally in either of those jurisdictions is to get a concealed handgun permit. And it's shall-issue, so we would normally think, "that's great!"

But....

Have you seen the fees to meet the carry permit requirements for either jurisdiction? Just to apply for it? You're looking at upwards of $400 for each one. Just for the ability to carry. And it's 16 hours. That's two working days.

Now, consider if we had requirements of even $200 to, say, apply for the ability to vote. Or even an English-language literacy demonstration test of one day. Just one day. Just consider that. That's half the requirement to get the carry permit in either Maryland or DC. What would the likely response be, folks?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

The pen is mightier than the sword, as Hitler and many others have proved throughout history, time and again. I suspect most here would say that Pres. Trump also has proved how mighty that pen (and microphone) are. But we don't apply Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests to either the right of free speech or the right to vote.

These high fees in Maryland and DC clearly are designed to disenfranchise people who aren't affluent. Sadly, that means a lot of brown-skinned folks. But the ones implementing these fees, they've got money. Their friends have money. Their affluent white-collar employees have money; those folks can pay those fees.

I readily stipulate that carry permits are expensive, too much so. Yet one interesting thing happens to the folks who get a permit: they're the most law abiding folks you could ever meet. It's possible that that actual and measurable fact could be leveraged against the high cost. It is not an equal comparison to suggest a high cost to vote compared to the high cost to carry concealed. Only currently in anti abortion states can a vote be traced directly to the death of someone, in those cases, women. Guns, though, undeniably can deal death at a distance for anyone from anyone. The comparison does not track well.

When we look at the history of gun regulations, concealed carry permits come in right near the top of the most common regulations. I think this asks for careful consideration about the regulations. Yet we also cannot deny that tying training to getting a permit is a good thing. I think to bridge those inconsistencies we would need to institute firearms training in schools, using air rifles and pistols until the student turned eighteen when they'd go to .22 LR rifles and pistols. I envision intra mural competitions much like the ball sports enjoy now. Competition fosters improvement in learning. Once the various cases make their ways to their ends, we can see by and large what various states will tolerate. For my part in California, I will push for air gun classes and competitions and for the adding to curriculum where appropriate the forty second lesson of The Four Rules. As a retired teacher, I see education as a solution to many problems, and helping to solve the improper use of guns is one.

CDFingers

We used to have that sort of firearms training as a regular thing in schools, even in California, back in the day. By the time I came around, it was pretty much all gone in our school district, and I learned later that the same was true in various Bay Area school districts by then. It's really unfortunate. The adults with an anti-2A agenda ended up depriving kids of what they themselves had the opportunity to learn as schoolchildren.

The problem with tying carry to training is that we're not talking about a privilege like driving on public roadways. Rather, we're talking about a Constitutionally enumerated right. Furthermore, we're talking about a right that has been repeatedly denied to anyone who wasn't White. To me, that's a Big, Hairy Problem. It's a literacy test for a Constitutional right. No bueno. And that's one big reason why I *do* see requiring "training" or requiring high fees to vote (a Constitutional right) as a fair and totally appropriate comparison to the same for keeping and bearing arms (another Constitutional right).

Again, I don't discourage training. Rather the opposite; I heartily encourage it. Marksmanship programs like what CDFingers talks about, and that was the norm for a whole lot of American schools not so long ago, are a really good idea and should be promoted. There's a Boy Scout Merit Badge for marksmanship. The problem is that no school that I'm aware of, especially a public school, would endorse that. Rather, all those teachers and staff members and administrators would have conniption fits about the very suggestion of such helpful programs. So, unfortunately, the education angle in K-12 schools, on a general level, is exceedingly unlikely. I wish that weren't the case.

We've got only a few days left until this law goes into effect. Will CA9 stay the injunction? I'm betting so.

Worth noting, we lost the Baird case on open carry today. Sorry, CDFingers. California will continue to ban open carry despite there being no historical support for doing so. Fuck SCOTUS, eh?!

Apparently, an open carry permit system that applies to about 5% of Californians and that has never issued a permit is totally constitutional. What a shit show our judiciary is.

CowboyT wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2023 9:59 pm We used to have that sort of firearms training as a regular thing in schools, even in California, back in the day. By the time I came around, it was pretty much all gone in our school district, and I learned later that the same was true in various Bay Area school districts by then. It's really unfortunate. The adults with an anti-2A agenda ended up depriving kids of what they themselves had the opportunity to learn as schoolchildren.

The problem with tying carry to training is that we're not talking about a privilege like driving on public roadways. Rather, we're talking about a Constitutionally enumerated right. Furthermore, we're talking about a right that has been repeatedly denied to anyone who wasn't White. To me, that's a Big, Hairy Problem. It's a literacy test for a Constitutional right. No bueno. And that's one big reason why I *do* see requiring "training" or requiring high fees to vote (a Constitutional right) as a fair and totally appropriate comparison to the same for keeping and bearing arms (another Constitutional right).

Again, I don't discourage training. Rather the opposite; I heartily encourage it. Marksmanship programs like what CDFingers talks about, and that was the norm for a whole lot of American schools not so long ago, are a really good idea and should be promoted. There's a Boy Scout Merit Badge for marksmanship. The problem is that no school that I'm aware of, especially a public school, would endorse that. Rather, all those teachers and staff members and administrators would have conniption fits about the very suggestion of such helpful programs. So, unfortunately, the education angle in K-12 schools, on a general level, is exceedingly unlikely. I wish that weren't the case.

My son earned Rifle and Shotgun Merit Badge in Scouts using my old Marlin .22 for practice. I did not have a shot gun at the time.

CDFingers

CDFingers wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 1:42 amMy son earned Rifle and Shotgun Merit Badge in Scouts using my old Marlin .22 for practice. I did not have a shot gun at the time.

CDFingers

I envy your son. Would that I'd had that opportunity at my Boy Scout troop. They were no more willing than my schools were. And from what I hear in the Bay Area, it's only gotten worse. Sucks, doesn't it?

Seems we both agree that it shouldn't be like that. Education is power.

I went to high school in the 1980s, so no in school firearms training. But I did learn through the Boy Scouts. It was a blast. A buddy of mine went to a regular rifle marksmanship activity at a public range (I think maybe associated with local National Guard armory, not sure). I think it was run by DNR? NRA? National Guard? I have no idea, but it was wide open to anyone and if memory serves was either free or close to it.

I don't see widespread firearms training in the schools coming back in a big way, but having free and wide open training like I and my buddy had is a good alternative. In my area, all of the high schools have trap shooting teams and no one blows a gasket over that.

cooper wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 7:16 pm I went to high school in the 1980s, so no in school firearms training. But I did learn through the Boy Scouts. It was a blast. A buddy of mine went to a regular rifle marksmanship activity at a public range (I think maybe associated with local National Guard armory, not sure). I think it was run by DNR? NRA? National Guard? I have no idea, but it was wide open to anyone and if memory serves was either free or close to it.

I don't see widespread firearms training in the schools coming back in a big way, but having free and wide open training like I and my buddy had is a good alternative. In my area, all of the high schools have trap shooting teams and no one blows a gasket over that.

Yeah, it wasn’t something I recall in the mid to late 1970’s when I was in High School, but I do recall rifles in racks in pickup trucks parked in the school parking lot. No one thought it was peculiar.
My exposure to firearms was at Boy Scout summer camp in Massachusetts of all places.

CA9 has stayed the injunction. As of Monday, all us folk with CCW my be allowed to carry on some streets and sidewalks.

Fuck you, CA9. You fucking fucks. And fuck you CA legislature. And especially, fuck you Newsom.

featureless wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 8:12 pm CA9 has stayed the injunction. As of Monday, all us folk with CCW my be allowed to carry on some streets and sidewalks.

Fuck you, CA9. You fucking fucks. And fuck you CA legislature. And especially, fuck you Newsom.

I do really sympathize and can’t forgive the democratic party for doing this to y’all.

The 9th Circuit is an example of a federal appeals court dominated by Democratic appointees. If Democrats were given the opportunity and the vacancies, that's just what the US Supreme Court would look like and they would overturn the Bruen, Heller and McDonald rulings. They'd interpret gun ownership in the 2A as only applying to an organized militia/National Guard. Gun control laws nationwide would be upheld by a Democratic dominated US Supreme Court. AW and semi autos would be banned along with mag and caliber restrictions, welcome to UK type gun laws.

Here's St. Ronnie about Mulford:

Governor Ronald Reagan, who was coincidentally present on the capitol lawn when the protesters arrived, later commented that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will." In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act "would work no hardship on the honest citizen."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

As we have seen many times in these forum pages, the "needs" argument is spurious. Nonetheless it is made "by both sides," and to remind folks, made by rich white guys who can afford to pay a guy with a gun and a permit. And to cull from yet other threads, many times we have seen that neo liberals are not our friends. This is true. The argument may be more class based than party based, but we do see more shit bags in pile of R's than we do in the pile of D's when you take all the parties' values lumped together in one big pile of shit.

CDFingers

It was in the med 1960s, I was living on an Air Base in Arkansas where our Boy Scout troop was allowed to use the firearms range and the .22LR rifles to learn to shoot and the safe practices of firearm handling. Later in Fort Worth I was in high School that had a Jr.ROTC unit and I was on the rifle team. We shot Remington 40X target rifles if memory serves me correctly. Long after I graduated the Principal change and the new one had a fit that there was guns on campus and a ROTC unit teaching warfare. It was remove after it had been there since before WWII.

Firearm safety and use should be taught in firearm safety class in PE as much as driver safety and handling should be taught in Drivers Ed.

I was happy when Texas passed the CHL that allowed people to quailfy for a license to carry a firearm in certain areas after going through a class and showing they have the knowledge to handle and use a firearm AND the responsibility that comes with that privilege. I was not as happy when the laws changed that allowed almost anybody to carry without any demonstration of knowledge of safe handling or responsibility of carrying a firearm.

As for Ronnie Raygun, I dropped my NRA Membership when he was elected president. and I saw the NRA shift from being a firearm advocating group with education to a political rightwing group that just kept pushing for more donations and less programs supporting education and training.

The Boy Scouts firearm instructions material had NRA support in some manner. I remember NRA being noted. These were likely originally printed post WW2 as the pictures looked a bit old and the uniform style of the Boy Scouts depicted was older than the 1970’s uniforms.

So, a few days into compliance with this horseshit. Wherever I go that is not my house, I have to get out of the car, open the trunk, remove my handgun from pants or "purse", secure in lock box, close trunk and go about whatever. Leave doing whatever and do same process in reverse. How long do you suppose it is before I get contacted by LEO for an exposed gun report? How long before an observant thief breaks into the car and steals the lockbox (it is cable locked to the frame)? One more illegal gun on the streets then.

My options are 1) do not comply and risk everything that goes along with that, or 2) leave the gun at home (which isn't an option) or 3) carry on with this bullshit routine.

How many people who currently have CCWs do you suppose will continue to bother getting a CCW and just carry illegally? The state and the circuit court has pushed this wonderful decision on us.