New CCW laws: California

[Lawdog Dago Dom]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/02/01/new-gun-laws-california-aims-to-limit-concealed-weapons-this-time-will-it-stick/

[Ranger Dan]

Paywall, post the article please.

[Eyesa Horg]

I can only hope that state just slips off into the ocean.

[Blackwater 53393]

Goobernor Nuisance and the Atrocity General should be criminally prosecuted for intentionally violating and conspiring to violate the civil rights of the citizens of the Socialist Nation of California!!

 

 

 

Edited February 3 by Blackwater 53393

[Lawdog Dago Dom]

8 hours ago, Ranger Dan said:

Paywall, post the article please.

California aims to limit concealed weapons. This time will it stick_.pdf

[John Kloehr]

And the actual legislation:

 

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB2

 

That is a long read....

[J.D. Daily]

From the article: "Concealed firearms would be banned at hospitals, churches, parks and on public transportation. They also would be prohibited at privately owned businesses that are open to the public — unless a business posts a conspicuous sign welcoming guns."

I have said it before the legislative actions of the states which had may issue bearing laws Bruen mooted would be to delay the inevitable.  NY, NJ & CA have ignored Thomas's text that warned that laws that have broad list of sensitive places will be judged as unconstitutional infringements.  Also, it would be hard to argue that including locations that weren't sensitive under the mooted bearing statutes would be difficult to convincingly argue they are now sensitive.  Also, the State determining that churches are sensitive locations is constitutionally suspect since it interferes the free exercise of religion.  I doubt that all privately owned businesses would have to affirmatively allow carrying firearms by conspicuously posting a sign will fly.  The 2nd circuit 3 judge panel stayed the preliminary injunction issue by the district court judge hearing a case challenging NY's revised Sullivan law & SCOTUS denied plaintiff's appeal of stay allowing NY to enforce the revised law.   This doesn't imply that SCOTUS would not grant cert to an appeal of the 2nd circuits final ruling.  The reason is the 2nd's stay opinion had no argument supporting the stay.  The opinion didn't follow Bruen's 1 step test that requires infringements to meet 2A text or have historical (pre Reconstruction) analog.  The the briefs submitted by the NYAG & amicus briefs supporting NY used analogs that discriminated based on ethnicity or religion. WON'T FLY post Brown v Board of Education.  Another example cited are laws that required "dangerous people" to post a bond to carry in some towns.  The problem with that is that if the dangerous person posted a bond they regain their right to bear firearms.

P.S.  At least in CA & Hi the delaying actions shouldn't take years & years; because, in the 9th Circus all 2A cases are assigned to judge "Saint" Benitez & he isn't on team anti 2A.  Thomas's opinion was written to provide very narrow guardrails for Federal district & circuit court judges judging 2A cases.  No more goofy opinions from 9th circus en banc panels.