Newsom Vetoes Controversial Gender-Identity Bill in California

September 24, 2023 By David Zimmerman 5 Comments

Deviating from his past legislative support of transgender youth in California, Democratic governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have required parents to demonstrate affirmation of their child’s gender identity in custody court battles.

Under California Bill AB957, judges would have been legally obligated to specifically consider whether parents have affirmed their child’s gender identity or gender expression in determining “the health, safety, and welfare of the child.” The California State Assembly passed the bill along strictly party lines earlier this month, hoping to advance transgender rights in the state.

Newsom said in a statement late Friday night he appreciates “the passion and values” of Democratic assembly member Lori Wilson for authoring the bill but disclosed he couldn’t sign it.

“I share a deep commitment to advancing the rights of transgender Californians, an effort that has guided my decisions through many decades in public office,” Newsom wrote.

“That said, I urge caution when the Executive and Legislative branches of state government attempt to dictate – in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic – legal standards for the Judicial branch to apply,” he added. “Other-minded elected officials, in California and other states, could very well use this strategy to diminish the civil rights of vulnerable communities.”

Nonetheless, the California governor noted judges are still “required to consider a child’s health, safety, and welfare” in the context of their gender identity when hearing out parents in child custody cases, even if the bill wasn’t signed.

“Moreover, a court, under existing law, is required to consider a child’s health,
safety, and welfare when determining the best interests of a child in these
proceedings, including the parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity,” he concluded.

Following the governor’s veto, Wilson expressed her disappointment with the decision.

“I am extremely disappointed. I know the Governor’s record. He’s been a champion for the LGBTQ+ community for years and even before it was popular to do so,” Wilson said in a statement. “However, on this point, the Governor and I disagree on the best way to protect [Transgender, Gender-Diverse and Intersex] kids.”

She added her bill was intended “to give [the trans community] a voice, particularly in the family court system where a non-affirming parent could have a detrimental impact on the mental health and well-being of a child.”

Democratic state senator Scott Wiener, who co-authored the bill, also called out Newsom for rejecting it.

“This veto is a tragedy for trans kids here & around the country,” Wiener posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. “These kids are living in fear, with right wing politicians working to out them, deny them health care, ban them from sports & restrooms & erase their humanity. CA needs to unequivocally stand with these kids.”

“Governor Newsom has been such a staunch ally to the LGBTQ community. A true champion. Respectfully, however, this veto is a mistake,” he continued.

Click here to read the full article in the National Review

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Federal Judge Again Strikes Down California law Banning Gun Magazines of More Than 10 rounds

September 24, 2023 By Adam Beam Leave a Comment

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California cannot ban gun owners from having detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, a federal judge ruled Friday.

The decision from U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez won’t take effect immediately. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, has already filed a notice to appeal the ruling. The ban is likely to remain in effect while the case is still pending.

This is the second time Benitez has struck down California’s law banning certain types of magazines. The first time he struck it down — way back in 2017 — an appeals court ended up reversing his decision.

But last year, the U.S. Supreme Court set a new standard for how to interpret the nation’s gun laws. The new standard relies more on the historical tradition of gun regulation rather than public interests, including safety.

The Supreme Court ordered the case to be heard again in light of the new standards. It’s one of three high-profile challenges to California gun laws that are getting new hearings in court. The other two cases challenge California laws banning assault-style weapons and limiting purchases of ammunition.

Benitez ruled that “there is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity.” He said detachable magazines “solved a problem with historic firearms: running out of ammunition and having to slowly reload a gun.”

“There have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers,” Benitez wrote. “Yet, under this statute, the State says ‘too bad.’”

Bonta said larger capacity magazines are also important to mass shooters, allowing them to fire quickly into crowds of people without reloading. He said the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear the new standard for reviewing gun laws “did not create a regulatory straitjacket for states.”

“We believe that the district court got this wrong,” Bonta said. “We will move quickly to correct this incredibly dangerous mistake.”

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, praised Benitez for a “thoughtful and in-depth approach.”

“Sure, the state will appeal, but the clock is ticking on laws that violate the Constitution,” Michel said.

California has been at the forefront of gun restrictions in the United States. Last week, California became the first state to call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban assault weapons and gun sales to people under 21, among other changes.

Gov. Gavin Newsom called Benitez’s ruling “a radical decision.”

Click here to read the full article in AP News

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

Wildfire-prone California to consider new rules for property insurance pricing

September 23, 2023 By Adam Beam 7 Comments

California will let insurance companies consider climate change when setting their prices, the state’s chief regulator announced Thursday, a move aimed at preventing insurers from fleeing the state over fears of massive losses from wildfires and other natural disasters.

Unlike other states, California does not let insurance companies consider current or future risks when deciding how much to charge for an insurance policy. Instead, they can only consider what’s happened on a property in the past to set the price.

At a time when climate change is making wildfires, floods and windstorms more common, insurers say that restriction makes it difficult to truly price the risk on properties. It’s one reason why, in the past year, seven of the top 12 insurance companies doing business in California have either paused or restricted new business in the state.

On Thursday, California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said the state will write new rules to let insurers look to the future when setting their rates. But companies will only get to do this if they agree to write more policies for homeowners who live in areas with the most risk — including communities threatened by wildfires.

“Modernizing our insurance market is not going to be easy or happen overnight. We are in really unchartered territory and we must make difficult choices when the world is changing rapidly,” Lara said at a news conference.

The rule change could mean higher rates for homeowners who are already seeing dramatic increases. Eight insurance companies doing business in California have requested rate increases of at least 20% or higher this year, according to the California Department of Insurance.

Harvey Rosenfield, founder of the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and author of a 1988 ballot proposition that regulates insurance rates, said Lara’s announcement “will dramatically increase homeowner and renter insurance bills by hundreds or even thousands of dollars.”

But Lara said looking to the future to set rates doesn’t have to always be pessimistic. Insurers can also consider the billions of dollars the state has spent to better manage forests and the improvements homeowners have made to their homes to make them resistant to wildfires — all things insurers aren’t allowed to consider when setting rates under the current rules.

“Insurers have advanced a very powerful argument that the past is not as good a predictor of the future as it used to be,” said Amy Bach, executive director of United Policyholders, a national insurance consumer organization. “I think the (Insurance) department did what it needed to do to try to restore a viable market. We don’t have a viable market right now in this state in a lot of areas.”

California isn’t the only state that’s struggled to keep home insurance companies amid natural disasters. Officials in Florida and Louisiana, which deal with hurricanes and flooding, have fought to keep companies writing policies. A recent report from First Street Foundation said about one-quarter of all homes in the nation are underpriced for climate risk in insurance. Florida allows insurers to consider climate risk with restrictions. States with less regulated insurance markets have insurers who build current and future events into their models.

Wildfires have always been part of life in California, where it only rains for a few months out of the year. But as the climate has gotten hotter and dryer, it has made those fires much larger and more intense. Of the top 20 most destructive wildfires in state history, 14 have occurred since 2015, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Insurance companies have responded by not renewing coverage for many homeowners who live in areas threatened by wildfires. When that happens, homeowners who need insurance must purchase it from the California Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) Plan. All insurance companies doing business in California must pay into a fund to provide coverage from the FAIR plan.

People with mortgages often have to buy home insurance because their lender requires it. The number of people on California’s FAIR plan nearly doubled in the five years leading up to 2021, and that number has almost certainly increased even more in the past two years.

Lara said his plan is to require insurance companies to write policies for no less than 85% of their statewide market share in areas at risk for wildfires. That means if a company writes policies for 20 homes, it must write 17 new policies for homeowners in wildfire-distressed areas — moving those people off of the FAIR Plan.

“This is a historic agreement between the department and insurance companies,” Lara said.

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association, which represents insurers, called Lara’s actions “the first steps of many needed to address the deterioration” of the market.

“California’s 35-year-old regulatory system is outdated, cumbersome and fails to reflect the increasing catastrophic losses consumers and businesses are facing from inflation, climate change, extreme weather and more residents living in wildfire prone areas,” Denni Ritter, vice president for state government relations, said in a statement.

Jeremy Porter, a co-author of the First Street Foundation report on climate risk, said allowing insurers to consider climate change in their pricing might lead to more competition in the state’s insurance market.

“If this is implemented correctly, this would definitely allow insurers to come back into the market in California,” he said.

Some consumer groups, including Consumer Watchdog, say they are not opposed to insurance companies using a model to look to the future to set their rates. But they want to see what is in that model. It’s not clear if California’s new rules will allow that. State regulators will spend much of the next year deciding what the rule will be.

Click here to read the full article in AP News

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Legal Fights Over California’s Homeless Camps Expand to Supreme Court

September 23, 2023 By CalMatters 1 Comment

The California State Association of Counties and League of California Cities told justices that a string of federal court rulings over the last five years have made addressing health and safety concerns “unworkable.”

Fed up with homeless encampments, California local officials are seeking guidance from the nation’s most powerful judges.

In a legal brief filed Tuesday with the U.S. Supreme Court, the California State Association of Counties and League of California Cities told the justices that a string of federal court rulings over the last five years that restrict cities’ abilities to sweep camps and order residents off the streets have made addressing health and safety concerns “unworkable.”

“The State of California and its cities and counties are engaged in unprecedented efforts to address homelessness through the creation of significant new policy initiatives and funding investments,” the league and association wrote. “However, camping ordinances can be a useful tool in appropriate circumstances in addressing the complex conditions that exist in our homeless populations.”

California cities made a similar appeal in 2019, but the court declined to hear that case.

It all stems from a landmark 2018 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in an Idaho case that was binding on California local governments. Judges then decided that it’s unconstitutional to criminally penalize people camping in public when they lack “access to adequate temporary shelter.”

On Wednesday, more California officials weighed in. The state’s sheriff’s association and police chiefs association, as well as a group of Orange County cities, filed their own brief arguing the Idaho ruling “may have expanded the rights of those suffering from homelessness [while] the rights of business owners, taxpayers, children and other housed citizens to clean, safe, drug-free streets and public areas have been completely ignored.”

Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho filed his own brief, too. And San Diego, which recently began enforcing a sweeping new camping ban, will sign on to a brief being circulated by the city of Seattle, a spokesperson for Mayor Todd Gloria said.

Will Knight, decriminalization director at the National Homelessness Law Center, previously told CalMatters he doesn’t think the Supreme Court will take up the case, given that the question has not come up prominently in federal courts in other parts of the country. Knight criticized cities for trying to get around the technical boundaries of the Idaho ruling and said they should focus instead on expanding individualized housing options for residents.

Meanwhile, political pressure is mounting on cities to more strictly enforce their camping ban. Democratic big-city mayors and Gov. Gavin Newsom have blasted federal judges for rulings that halt encampment sweets.

On Tuesday, Ho sued the city of Sacramento, accusing it of inadequately enforcing a number of recent camping bans such as those near schools and of ignoring residents’ requests to safety issues at camps.

Click here to read the full article in OC Register

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

‘We’re hurting’: Murder Charge Announced in Deputy’s Slaying as Fiancée, Family Grieve

September 22, 2023 By Keri Blakinger 3 Comments

Four days after Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Ryan Clinkunbroomer was fatally shot in the head, his fiancée fought back tears as she spoke publicly for the first time about the man she planned to spend the rest of her life with.

Brittany Lindsey’s fairytale engagement ended in a nightmare Saturday night when Clinkunbroomer was shot in the head while driving a marked patrol car near the sheriff’s Palmdale station.

“Ryan was the best guy I’ve ever met,” Lindsey said at a joint news conference Wednesday with Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón and Sheriff Robert Luna. “I am so happy I was able to love him. It was not long enough.”

Lindsey’s and Clinkunbroomer’s families joined the district attorney and the sheriff to announce murder charges against Kevin Cataneo Salazar of Palmdale.

Behind her, Clinkunbroomer’s family cried quietly, and solemn-faced deputies from the Palmdale station lined one side of the crowded room inside the Hall of Justice.

“We’re hurting right now,” Luna said. “The family is hurting, this department is hurting.”

Though the news conference was called to publicly announce a murder charge against Cataneo Salazar, officials were tight-lipped when it came to releasing additional details about the case.

In a courtroom in Lancaster earlier in the day, Cataneo Salazar pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity in Clinkunbroomer’s fatal shooting.

The 29-year-old, whose family said he had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, faces one count of murder with special circumstances of lying in wait, firing from a car and personal use of a firearm, a .22-caliber revolver, in the shooting, according to the criminal complaint.

Cataneo Salazar’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

While prosecutors confirmed that the suspect had purchased a gun in the weeks before the killing, they did not clarify whether they believed he had purchased it legally. And though they acknowledged “unconfirmed” reports about his mental health history, they said the investigation was in the early stages and they were still collecting more documentation.

“We’re not being cagey; we’re simply protecting the integrity of the investigation,” Gascón said.

Though Luna said he hoped for “nothing less than the maximum punishment available under the law,” Gascón reiterated his past position on the use of the death penalty, seemingly confirming the ultimate punishment was not on the table.

“If I thought that seeking the death penalty was going to bring Ryan back to us, I would seek it without any reservation,” he said. “But it won’t.”

Gascón vowed not to seek the death penalty while running for district attorney in 2020. He made good on that campaign promise during his first day in office, when he barred prosecutors from seeking the death penalty in new cases.

Cataneo Salazar’s court appearance occurred as Clinkunbroomer’s body was escorted in a long procession of law enforcement motorcycles and marked patrol cars along the 10 Freeway from the county coroner’s office to a mortuary in Covina.

In Santa Clarita, Clinkunbroomer’s hometown, a memorial was set at the top of a 172-stair climb in Central Park, where a picture of the fallen deputy was being signed. The memorial was set to continue until sunset Wednesday.

A motive in the shooting is unclear, but Cataneo Salazar did not have a criminal record before his arrest Monday.

His mother, Marle Salazar, told The Times in an interview that her son had been diagnosed with schizophrenia about five years ago and the family had struggled with his illness for years. She said her son attempted suicide at least twice and was hospitalized on at least two occasions because of mental health crises.

She said she and the rest of her family were not aware that Cataneo Salazar had in the last year legally purchased a firearm, which experts said he should have been prohibited from doing considering his mental health history.

Salazar said she and her family had tried to make sure that her son was not a danger to himself or others, including safeguarding the firearms owned by her husband. But she said she was surprised to learn, after the shooting, that her son had been able to purchase a gun.

Cataneo Salazar’s most recent hospitalization was in September 2021, around the time sheriff’s deputies were called to the family’s home for a welfare check.

A law enforcement source said Cataneo Salazar’s record indicates he was barred from purchasing a firearm in California until 2026, possibly because of the 2021 hospitalization. That has raised questions as to how the 29-year-old was able to legally purchase a firearm.

Prosecutor David Ayvazian said officials were requesting records regarding Cataneo’s mental health history and previous calls to his home from sheriff’s officials.

But authorities declined to offer more details on the case, including questions about whether Clinkunbroomer was specifically targeted by Cataneo Salazar and about law enforcement’s previous encounters with him concerning his mental health.

Luna, too, said some of the information was being withheld to maintain the integrity of the case.

“There is public interest in that, but right now, our priority is to get this individual prosecuted to the full extent of the law,” he said. “We don’t want to put this out right now. And it’s not because we have something to hide. It’s because we need to get this individual prosecuted with the facts and evidence that we have.”

Asked about the special circumstance of lying in wait, prosecutors pointed to the video that shows a vehicle pulling up alongside Clinkunbroomer during the shooting.

“We believe the evidence is sufficient for conviction,” Ayvazian said. “If you’ve seen the video, and the way it’s been described as an ambush, that is consistent with the lying-in-wait theory of prosecution.”

Luna was asked about Cataneo Salazar’s mental health.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Teamsters Union March Shuts Down Sacramento Streets; Demanding Gov. Newsom Sign AB 316

September 22, 2023 By Katy Grimes 4 Comments

‘F**k Gavin Newsom’ was the Teamsters chant of the day

Tuesday in downtown Sacramento, police blocked off North/South streets near the Capitol all the way from 16th Street down to 3rd Street for a Teamsters Union Protest, causing a massive backup and forcing drivers trying to head south on the numbered streets onto northbound Interstate 5. I was stuck in it following a press conference with the Sacramento District Attorney just a few blocks away. What should have taken 5 minutes ended up taking 30 minutes after being forced onto the freeway. (I’m still irate…)

This was a debacle of epic proportions. But I want to know, who authorized the closure of all of these streets? The Mayor? The Capitol? Assembly Speaker or Senate President? Both?  And why do the Teamsters get to shut down Capitol City streets for a march?

The teamsters want Newsom to sign AB 316 to require a human driver in the cab of all autonomous trucks over 10,000 pounds. This could make the new driverless car technology obsolete in California, according to some business groups. Many tech companies in the industry have said if the bill passes they will leave the state as 22 others have already started implementing regulations to begin testing on roads. With no pathway for autonomy in California they don’t see why they would stay here, one business association representative told me.

The Teamsters’ concern is for their jobs, which is understandable. As the Globe reported:

While AB 316 was authored by Assemblywoman Aguiar-Curry, it was introduced with a bipartisan group of legislators, including Assemblymen Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale) and Ash Kalra (D-San Jose). Both parties have also had a few members each oppose the legislation throughout the year, leading to strange non-party coalitions. Democrats have largely been in favor of the bill because due to alleged safety benefits of the bill as well as massive support of the bill coming from unions such as the Teamsters. Republicans, meanwhile, have been mostly for AB 316 because of many rural areas wanting to keep trucking jobs.

“Lawmakers aren’t against technology, but we see the bill as a safer way for companies to test self-driving trucks,” said Lackey. “We want balance because we believe in people, and we believe in public safety. When surprises happen, physics is not your friend.”

Former Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, now with the California Labor Federation, was a prominent figure at the rally/protest, but she was overshadowed by Lindsay Dougherty, Western Regional VP Teamsters Local 399 who warned, “The governor should know he is in big trouble. We had to bring the General President out here to make him do the right thing.” She goes on: “Gavin Newsom would not take a meeting with our General President.” The crowd booed.

Dougherty lathered up the crowd as she called out Gov. Newsom for his “Bullshit.”

“You’re about to see some fucking rage if you don’t sign the bill,” Dougherty said.

“So, I’m going to end this with a chant,” Dougherty said. But it wasn’t the old leftist trope “Hey Hey Ho Ho, Gavin Newsom’s got to go…”  Lindsay yelled “Fuck Gavin Newsom” repeatedly. Some in the crowd joined her.

The rally/protest was video recorded and posted to Facebook – At the 27.30 minute mark you can hear Lindsay’s lovely chant – HERE ahead of introducing Lorena Gonzalez who commented, “I love having Lindsay around because nobody can complain about me saying ‘Fuck’ anymore.”

Gov. Newsom and his administration oppose AB 316: “Our state is on the cusp of a new era and cannot risk stifling innovation,” said Office of Business and Economic Development Director Dee Dee Myers earlier this year.

Dougherty told the crowd Newsom said he won’t sign the bill.

As the Globe reported:

“However, the bill also saw increased opposition come from within Newsom’s office. The Department of Finance came out against AB 316 over the cost to the state of $1 million yearly to operate it. Transportation officials have said that regulations should be up to the California Department of Motor Vehicles. Safety advisors said that self-driving cars were not causing many accidents. And, perhaps most critically, the Office of Business and Economic Development said that the state would be hurt economically, with driverless vehicle makers being more inclined to move out of state to develop and test new technology.”

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

Councilmembers Restart Conversation About Allowing Noncitizens to Vote in Santa Ana Elections

September 21, 2023 By Destiny Torres 1 Comment

At least two Santa Ana councilmembers said they think local voters should decide if noncitizen residents in the city should be allowed to vote in local elections.

Noncitizen residents make up about 24% of Santa Ana’s population, and nearly 20% of Orange County’s noncitizen resident population lives in Santa Ana, city officials quoted from US Census Bureau statistics. Immigrant residents, including noncitizen residents, in Orange County contributed $10.5 billion in taxes in 2018, according to the American Immigration Council.

But noncitizens can’t vote for the local lawmakers who help set the policies affecting their everyday lives, councilmembers Johnathan Hernandez and Benjamin Vazquez said in requesting their City Council colleagues consider putting on the November 2024 ballot the question of allowing residents who are not U.S. citizens to vote in local elections. The City Council is set to decide at its Tuesday night meeting whether or not to direct city staff to look into the options.

“We know that the right to vote isn’t set in stone. It’s an open book and we’re fighting to push it forward,” Vazquez said during a press conference Tuesday afternoon before the meeting. “The founding fathers of this country could not have imagined a world where the Black community, (community) of color or women had the right to vote. We have won those rights. Now, we ask that you see immigrants for their humanity with the rights that give them a role in the government in which they live.”

At least two Santa Ana councilmembers said they think local voters should decide if noncitizen residents in the city should be allowed to vote in local elections.

Noncitizen residents make up about 24% of Santa Ana’s population, and nearly 20% of Orange County’s noncitizen resident population lives in Santa Ana, city officials quoted from US Census Bureau statistics. Immigrant residents, including noncitizen residents, in Orange County contributed $10.5 billion in taxes in 2018, according to the American Immigration Council.

But noncitizens can’t vote for the local lawmakers who help set the policies affecting their everyday lives, councilmembers Johnathan Hernandez and Benjamin Vazquez said in requesting their City Council colleagues consider putting on the November 2024 ballot the question of allowing residents who are not U.S. citizens to vote in local elections. The City Council is set to decide at its Tuesday night meeting whether or not to direct city staff to look into the options.

“We know that the right to vote isn’t set in stone. It’s an open book and we’re fighting to push it forward,” Vazquez said during a press conference Tuesday afternoon before the meeting. “The founding fathers of this country could not have imagined a world where the Black community, (community) of color or women had the right to vote. We have won those rights. Now, we ask that you see immigrants for their humanity with the rights that give them a role in the government in which they live.”

Now, the conversation “is not about whether the city of Santa Ana has the legal power to do it or not. Today is about whether they have the political will to do it,” said Carlos Perea, executive director at the Harbor Institute for Immigrant and Economic Justice, who participated at Tuesday’s press conference with the two councilmembers.

Santa Ana has already been a leader in protecting civil rights and its immigrant and refugee communities with recent policies and this would continue that momentum, Hernandez said.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Sacramento Prosecutor Sues California’s Capital City Over Failure to Clean Up Homeless Encampments

September 21, 2023 By Tran Nguyễn 2 Comments

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Sacramento’s top prosecutor is suing the city’s leaders over failure to cleanup homeless encampments, escalating a monthslong dispute with leaders in California’s capital city.

County District Attorney Thien Ho announced the lawsuit Tuesday during a news conference in Sacramento, saying the city is seeing a “collapse into chaos” that he said reflects the “erosion of everyday life.” A group of residents and business owners also filed a companion lawsuit against the city.

Ho said his office had asked the city to enforce local laws around sidewalk obstruction and to create additional professionally operated camping sites, but that the city did not.

The lawsuit includes accounts from dozens of city residents living around 14 encampments. Some homeowners recounted being threatened with firearms at their front door and having their properties broken into and vandalized — which has driven some from their homes. Local business owners said they have spent thousands of dollars to upgrade their security systems after their workers were assaulted by homeless people, while calls to city officials seeking help have gone unanswered, the lawsuit said.

“This is a model for the people to stand up and hold their government accountable,” Ho said in an interview Tuesday. “All I’m asking is the city do its job.”

Sacramento County had nearly 9,300 homeless people in 2022, based on data from the annual Point in Time count. That was up 67% from 2019. Roughly three-quarters of the county’s homeless population is unsheltered, and the majority of that group are living on Sacramento streets.

Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg said Ho was politicizing the issue. The city has added 1,200 emergency shelter beds, passed ordinances to protect sidewalks and schools and has created more affordable housing, Steinberg said in a statement.

The city is trying to avoid “the futile trap of just moving people endlessly from one block to the next,” Steinberg said. People’s frustrations are “absolutely justified” but Ho’s actions are a “performative distraction,” he said.

“The city needs real partnership from the region’s leaders, not politics and lawsuits,” he said.

Homeless tent encampments have grown visibly in cities across the U.S. but especially in California, which is home to nearly one-third of unhoused people in the country.

Ho had threatened in August to file charges against city officials if they didn’t implement changes within 30 days. In a letter to the city, Ho demanded that Sacramento implement a daytime camping ban where homeless people have to put their belongings in storage between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m., among other rules.

City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood’s office has also repeatedly urged Ho to work with the city to address the issue, she said.

“It sadly appears the DA would rather point fingers and cast blame than partner to achieve meaningful solutions for our community,” Alcala Wood said in a statement.

Ho, elected in 2022 after vowing on the campaign trail to address the city’s homelessness crisis, said he’s asked the city to share real-time data about available shelter beds with law enforcement. He anticipates the lawsuit will go to trial and hopes a jury will agree with what he has proposed.

“This is a rare opportunity — a rare opportunity — for us to effectuate meaningful, efficient means of getting the critically, chronically unhoused off the streets,” Ho said.

Ho said he supports a variety of solutions including enforcing laws and establishing new programs to provide services to people facing addiction or mental health issues. He said he supports a statewide bond measure that would go toward building more treatment facilities. Voters will weigh in on that measure next year. He also backs the proposed changes in the state’s conservatorship system that would make it easier for authorities to mandate treatment for those with alcohol and drug use disorders.

The dispute between the district attorney and the city was further complicated by a lawsuit filed by a homeless advocacy group earlier this year that resulted in an order from a federal judge temporarily banning the city from clearing homeless encampments during extreme heat. That order is now lifted but the group wants to see it extended.

The attorney for the homeless coalition also filed a complaint with the state bar this month, saying Ho abused his power by pushing the city to clear encampments when the order was in place.

Ho’s news conference included testimony from residents who say the city is not providing resources to deal with homelessness. Emily Webb said people living an encampment near her home have trespassed on her property, blocked her driveway and threatened her family, but city officials have done little to clear the camp.

“We’re losing sleep and exhausted from this stress,” she said Tuesday. “We are beyond frustrated and no longer feel comfortable or safe in our home.”

Click here to read the full article in AP News

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

California Legislature Passes ‘Tyrannical’ Package of 12 Gun Control Bills

September 20, 2023 By Katy Grimes 9 Comments

‘The California Legislature chose to follow other hostile regimes desperate to restrict the rights of the people’

In June 2022, U.S. Supreme Court issued a critical decision in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen striking down a New York gun law that put unconstitutional restrictions on concealed carry of a gun out in public. And because this is the law of the land, California with its extremely restrictive gun laws, was put on notice.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion in the 6-3 ruling: “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”

“This ‘special need’ standard is demanding,” Thomas wrote. “For example, living or working in an area ‘noted for criminal activity’ does not suffice.” In 43 other states, Thomas noted, authorities are required to issue licenses to applicants who meet certain requirements, and officials do not have discretion to say no due to what they believe is an insufficient need.”

Despite being rebuked by the highest court in the country over gun control attempts last year, California Democrats continue to tell the people through unconstitutional legislation that you can’t defend yourself with a firearm… or at least they will limit who can carry, and where you can carry.

Last year, Senator Anthony J. Portantino’s (D–Burbank) annual gun control legislation restricting CCW permit holders, Senate Bill 918, appeared to be dead as it was placed on the suspense file in the Assembly Appropriations Committee – until he it moved out with 32 pages of 185 new amendments. However, SB 918 died in the Assembly.

Portantino came back in 2023 with Senate Bill 2, also sponsored by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta. SB 2 again illegally imposes restrictions on those seeking a California CCW permit.

Notably, Newsom, Bonta and Portantino know they are imposing to restrict those applying for CCWs, when virtually no crimes are committed by CCW holders, who are required to pass background checks by County Sheriffs.

Yet, CCW permit holders don’t commit mass shootings, they stop them. We’ve never had a positive comment from Gov. Newsom or Sen. Portantino on this statement.

Following the close of the 2023 California legislative session Friday, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) released the entire list of the 12 gun control bills which were passed by state lawmakers.

Notably, SB-2 was passed this year, which clearly violates the Supreme Court Bruen decision, enacts numerous “sensitive locations” where guns are banned, and changes requirements to obtain a concealed carry license.

The Globe spoke with gun advocate Craig DeLuz, host of Morning Coffee with Craig, publisher of 2A News, and candidate for California’s 6th Congressional District. DeLuz said pro gun groups now have to spend their money defending the U.S. Constitution.

DeLuz said considering the most notable mass shootings in California, as well as those shootings in the rest of the U.S., creating a “sensitive location” signals to anyone considering such an event, “that it’s a target rich environment and will be met with little resistance.” And DeLuz warned, “allowing local governments to decide on additional ‘sensitive areas,’ creates a different set of laws in one state, for when, where and how they can carry.”

De Luz reiterated Justice Thomas’ written decision in the New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case in which he clearly laid out what can and cannot be done, noting that there should never be a test to determine if someone is permitted to carry a gun, based on the 2nd Amendment.

And in the face of that decision, California lawmakers have shown they do not care about the Constitution, except when it protects their activities.

“The California Legislature chose to follow other hostile regimes desperate to restrict the rights of the people, flying in the face of the Second Amendment and recent Court decisions, by advancing multiple pieces of anti-rights legislation to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk,” FPC said.

“This tyrannical package shows the legislature’s utter disdain for peaceable People and their willingness to use state violence to squash their rights,” Richard Thomson, FPC’s Vice President of Communications said.

“FPC stands steadfast in opposition to the state’s destruction of fundamental rights. Threatening peaceable conduct with imprisonment, injury, and death is nothing new for the tyrants in Sacramento. FPC promises to continue to work behind enemy lines and be a voice for the People of the state.”

The FPC listed all of the bills that passed before the Friday 9/15/2023 legislative deadline:

  • SJR-7: Resolution for a federal constitutional convention to restrict firearms
  • AB-28: Enacts a gun and ammunition excise tax
  • AB-92: Makes it a misdemeanor for a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm to purchase, own, or possess body armor
  • AB-301: Authorizes a court considering a red flag petition to consider evidence of acquisition of body armor when determining whether grounds for a gun violence restraining order exist
  • AB-725: Requires lost and stolen reporting for “precursor parts”
  • AB-1089: CNC and 3D-printing of arms ban, prohibits sharing digital firearm plans
  • AB-1406: Authorizes DOJ to request a delay of the delivery of a firearm for up to 30 days in an “emergency” that caused DOJ to be unable to review purchaser’s eligibility
  • AB-1483: Deletes the private party transaction exemption to the 30-day prohibition, which prohibits a person from making more than one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period
  • AB-1587: Requires a merchant acquirer to assign to a firearms merchant a unique merchant category code
  • SB-2: Bruen response bill, enacts numerous “sensitive locations” where guns are banned, changes requirements to obtain a concealed carry license.
  • SB-368: Prohibits gun dealers from offering an opportunity to win an item of inventory in a game dominated by chance, exempts nonprofit organizations under certain circumstances
  • SB-452: Postpones handgun microstamping requirement to at least January 1, 2028

In June, California Governor Gavin Newsom, who pretends he isn’t running for President, proposed a 28th Constitutional Amendment to restrict gun national rights, and had the chutzpah to claim it will “leave the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition.”

“Firearms Policy Coalition will continue to restore the rights of the People in court, just as it has done in its lawsuits challenging California’s handgun roster and discriminatory fee-shifting regime, New Jersey’s Bruen response bill, and Illinois’ ‘assault weapon’ ban,” the the Firearms Policy Coalition said in a press statement. “And to all tyrants, like Gavin Newsom and his legislative co-conspirators, that push these immoral and unjust policies, we say simply this: ‘Fuck you. No.’”

In 2021, District Judge Roger T. Benitez threw out California’s 32-year ban on assault weapons, while also clarifying the deliberate and incorrect use of the label “assault weapon.”

Benitez noted that the California Legislature has not properly adjudicated their ban laws, and quotes former California Governor Pete Wilson’s 1998 priceless veto statement:

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Palmdale Man Arrested in Ambush Killing of LASD Deputy; Suspect’s Family Blames Mental Illness

September 20, 2023 By Josh Cain 4 Comments

A man accused of ambushing a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy, killing him with a shot to the head as he sat inside his patrol vehicle, was arrested early Monday, Sept. 18, after an hours-long standoff at his home in Palmdale, Sheriff Robert Luna said.

While Luna described the suspect — Kevin Cataneo Salazar, 29 — as a “coward” who likely targeted the deputy, 30-year-old Ryan Clinkunbroomer, because he was in law enforcement, Salazar’s family said the man was suffering from mental health issues.

“My brother did have schizophrenia,” said Yessica Salazar, the suspect’s sister, outside the family’s Palmdale house on Monday. “He had paranoia. He heard voices.”

She said the family had taken Kevin Salazar to the hospital before and tried to get him help. She said while his mental health issues did not justify the shooting and that she was praying for Clinkunbroomer’s family, she said her family wanted to give their side of the suspect’s story.

“Please don’t judge him as if he was a regular person,” Yessica Salazar said. “He is sick.”

Since Clinkunbroomer was found fatally injured inside his vehicle just steps from the Palmdale sheriff’s station on Saturday, Sept. 16, Luna and other officials have been searching both for the person behind the killing as well as the reason why they attacked the deputy.

Deputies surrounded Salazar’s home in the 37600 block of Barrinson Street starting in the early morning hours of Monday. After his family went outside, Salazar barricaded himself in the home and refused to leave, Luna said. At around 5 a.m., deputies fired tear gas inside the home, prompting Salazar to finally come out.

Los Angeles County jail records show he was arrested at 5:15 a.m. He was being held without bail. A law enforcement source, who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the case, said Salazar would be charged sometime in the next two days and was expected to appear in an Antelope Valley courtroom by Wednesday.

After Salazar was arrested, Luna said deputies found “numerous firearms” inside the home.

Salazar allegedly pulled up alongside Clinkunbroomer at around 6 p.m. Saturday after the deputy stopped his patrol vehicle briefly just outside the Palmdale Sheriff Station. Luna said Salazar suddenly opened fire on Clinkunbroomer, hitting him in the head, then sped off.

Luna said Salazar was the only suspect. He said someone came forward to the department to identify him Sunday after Luna spoke to the media. Earlier Monday, Luna said investigators were still trying to determine what led Salazar to allegedly shoot Clinkunbroomer. The sheriff heavily implied the deputy was targeted because he was a member of law enforcement.

“He was in a marked black and white, right in front of this station,” Luna said.

Neighbors who witnessed the standoff Monday morning described the scene as chaotic, with police vehicles and deputies suddenly packing their street before the sun came up.

Wilbur Cardona, who lives next door, said deputies evacuated him and his family.

“There was a lot of police activity over here, a lot of people with guns,” Cardona said. “It was scary.”

Cardona was familiar with Kevin Salazar, describing him as “a good person.”

“I would suspect nothing like that,” he said. “I wouldn’t see him doing such a thing.”

Clinkunbroomer worked for the Sheriff’s Department for eight years, serving at the Palmdale station since July 2018.

Clinkunbroomer, who went by “Clink” at the Palmdale Sheriff’s station where he’d worked since 2018, was described as caring deeply about his community.

“I could just see this light inside him,” said Raymond Wilson, 58, at a vigil held for Clinkunbroomer on Sunday. “He held this community in such regard and you could tell he wanted to make it even better. Safer.”

Clinkunbroomer was a third-generation member of law enforcement — both his father and grandfather also were deputies with the Sheriff’s Department. Family and coworkers said Clinkunbroomer had gotten engaged just four days before his death.

Click here to read the full article in the Press Enterprise

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,