guns

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: Gavin Newsom, guns, Legislature

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: California Politics, guns, Legislature

Federal appeals court opens way to block California law on gun marketing to children

September 15, 2023 By Staff 4 Comments

A federal appeals court on Wednesday opened the way to block a California law that bans gun ads aimed at children, saying it went too far in restricting lawful speech.

Sporting and gun rights groups and the publisher of a youth shooting magazine had sought an injunction to temporarily stop the law from taking effect, arguing that it blocked the marketing of legal gun events and recruitment for safe and responsible youth sport-shooting and hunting programs.

A lower court denied that request. But on Wednesday a three-member panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision.

That sends the issue back to the lower court for reconsideration.

The measure was signed into law last year. It bars marketing of firearm-related products “in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.”

In its ruling, the appellate court said the law was likely to violate the First Amendment right to free speech and “does not directly and materially advance California’s substantial interests in reducing gun violence and the unlawful use of firearms by minors.”

“There was no evidence in the record that a minor in California has ever unlawfully bought a gun, let alone because of an ad,” the opinion’s summary said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned the ruling, citing advertising by a gun-maker that sells a version an AR-15 style rifle that is smaller and lighter and advertised as being “geared toward smaller enthusiasts.”

“The court is fighting to protect marketing weapons of war to children,” Newsom said in a statement. “It is pure insanity.”

Newsom said he and Attorney General Rob Bonta are looking at options for challenging the ruling.

The law was one of several gun control measures passed by the Democratic-controlled state Legislature last year after the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense — a major expansion of gun rights.

Click here to read the full article in AP News

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: California Politics, Gun rights, guns

Newsom Proposes U.S. 28th Amendment on Gun Control

June 10, 2023 By Phil Willon and Taryn Luna 7 Comments

UC law dean calls the governor’s plan ‘terrible’

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday called for a U.S. constitutional amendment on gun control that would ban assault weapons and mandate background checks and waiting periods for purchasing firearms, a proposal that has little chance of passing in a nation deeply divided on the issue.

For Newsom’s proposed 28th Amendment to be considered, legislatures in two-thirds of the states must vote in favor of a constitutional convention. Republicans currently control more than half of the nation’s state legislatures, some of which have recently taken action to reduce gun restrictions.

Newsom’s announcement is likely to be politically popular among national Democrats and in California, which has some of the toughest gun control restrictions in the nation. It could further the liberal governor’s efforts to expand his political influence on some of the most pivotal and controversial issues facing the country.

The proposal comes after Newsom in March launched a federal political action committee, dubbed the Campaign for Democracy, which he said he created to boost Democrats before the 2024 election and push back on Republican leaders who “ban books,” “kidnap migrants” and “stoke racism.”

Newsom’s proposed amendment on gun restrictions, which he announced Thursday on NBC’s “Today” show, would outlaw the civilian purchase of assault weapons, raise the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21, mandate universal background checks for gun purchases and institute a “reasonable waiting” period for all gun purchases.

“The 28th Amendment will enshrine in the Constitution common sense gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support — while leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition,” Newsom said in a statement Thursday morning.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the school of law at UC Berkeley, called Newsom’s plan a “terrible idea.”

Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, an amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of Congress or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed in a constitutional convention under that process.

“To me, what’s really frightening about it is we’ve never had a constitutional convention under that procedure of Article V,” Chemerinsky said.

“No one knows would it be limited to just the 2nd Amendment, or could it do anything? Could they do abortion or rewrite the Constitution? How is it going to be constituted? What are its rules?”

Chemerinsky said calls for constitutional conventions from conservatives have gained traction over the years, including a proposal to mandate a balanced federal budget. He said a balanced budget would devastate social programs, and liberals have argued against it by saying a constitutional convention is unprecedented and dangerous.

By endorsing the process for gun control, Newsom is eroding that argument, he said.

Chemerinksy also made the case that it’s unnecessary. Newsom’s gun control proposals could be carried out by state legislatures or Congress and would not violate the 2nd Amendment, he said. If Congress or lawmakers don’t have the political will to enact the measures through legislation, he said, they won’t do so through a constitutional amendment.

“That’s why I think that Newsom is making a huge mistake in calling for a constitutional convention,” Chemerinsky said. “It’s incredibly unlikely, because I can’t imagine two-thirds of the states calling for this and three-quarters of the states approving changing the 2nd Amendment when you’ve got a majority of states controlled by Republican legislatures, and it’s dangerous to be opening the door to giving credence to the idea of a constitutional convention.”

Newsom’s aides said the governor is calling for a constitutional convention after federal courts struck down several of California’s gun control measures. While rejecting the state’s 30-year ban on assault rifles in 2021, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez compared the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle to a Swiss Army knife and called it “good for both home and battle.”

“If judges are taking radical approaches, the only recourse is to change the actual Constitution,” said Anthony York, a spokesperson for Newsom.

But Chemerinsky pointed out that none of the changes Newsom is proposing have been addressed by the Supreme Court yet.

“So maybe the Supreme Court will say these things violate the 2nd Amendment, but it hasn’t happened yet,” said Chemerinsky, who predicted the high court would at the least continue to allow background checks.

Newsom said he is working with the state’s Democratic-controlled Legislature to make California the first state to call for the constitutional convention.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) did not comment Thursday. Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) commended Sen. Aisha Wahab (D-Hayward), the lawmaker who intends to draft California’s resolution to carry out Newsom’s plan.

The governor intends to travel to other states to make the pitch over the summer, his aides said.

Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher accused Newsom of chasing the national spotlight.

“Newsom’s proposal is a poorly thought out, attention-seeking stunt from a governor desperate to distract from his ever-growing record of failure,” Gallagher tweeted.

Click here to read the full article in LA Times

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: California Politics, guns, Newsom

Court Rejects Challenge to California’s Disclosure of Certain Gun Owner Records to Researchers

January 14, 2023 By Eugene Volokh Leave a Comment

From Judge Larry Alan Burns’ decision today in Doe v. Bonta (S.D. Cal.):

Five California registered gun owners have filed suit to prevent Rob Bonta, Attorney General of the State of California, from enforcing a California law that permits the State to disclose their personal identifying information to bona fide research institutions for the ostensible purposes of preventing gun violence, shooting accidents, and suicide….

The gun owners, all of whom are law abiding citizens who passed background checks, raise four claims. First, they argue that AB 173 violates—or at minimum, chills—their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Second, they maintain that disclosing their personal identifying information to non-government researchers violates privacy protections guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth Amendment. Next, they assert that AB 173 violates their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by retroactively expanding access to their restricted personal information. Their final claim, applicable only to applicants for concealed weapon permits (“CCW”) and holders of such permits, is that federal law preempts AB 173 insofar as AB 173 authorizes disclosure of their social security numbers to third parties in derogation of the federal Privacy Act of 1974….

The court rejected the Second Amendment challenge:

Bruen didn’t undo all preexisting gun regulations. Licensing requirements, fingerprinting, background checks, and mandatory gun safety training courses exist in many states and operate as prerequisites to exercising the right to possess and carry firearms. The legitimacy of these longstanding and common regulations was recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and in McDonald v. Chicago (2010)—a point acknowledged by Bruen….

What one gleans from these qualifications is that there is a difference between prohibiting a right and regulating the right; so long as the regulation of the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t amount to a prohibition of the right, the regulation is permissible. Read together, Heller, McDonald, and Bruen establish that “the Second Amendment is neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check.” Rather, the cases collectively confirm that the Second Amendment permits laws and regulations that precondition the right to keep and bear arms on the obligation to comply with such ministerial tasks as providing personal identifying information and submitting to a background check—provided that the overall regulatory regime is neither overly discretionary nor overly burdensome. Laws requiring gun owners to comply with such ministerial tasks are presumptively valid and don’t violate the plain text of the Second Amendment….

While Plaintiffs acknowledge the legitimacy of these regulatory prerequisites to gun ownership and possession, and expressly disclaim any purpose “to contest the statutory and regulatory scheme governing the collection of personal information in connection with firearms and ammunition transactions,” they maintain that disclosure of such information to third party researchers denies ordinary citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Central to Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims is the premise that sharing their personal information with outside gun research organizations jeopardizes their personal privacy and physical security. Plaintiffs hypothesize that if their identities are publicly revealed, they will be harassed, subjected to reprisals, and exposed to heightened risks of their homes being burglarized or becoming victims of violence. Notwithstanding that DOJ protocols and the California Penal Code forbid any approved research organization from publicly disseminating the personal information of gun owners, Plaintiffs argue that their information may still be hacked. They also surmise that renegade researchers—hostile to their Second Amendment rights—could surreptitiously release their information to the public. Either possibility, according to Plaintiffs, presents a threat of infringement to their Second Amendment rights.

The trouble with both arguments is that they are entirely speculative and predictive of harm that is completely attenuated from the plain text and core protections of the Second Amendment. Starting with the possibility of hacking, to date, there has been no claim—not to mention any evidence—that personal information supplied by the DOJ to either the UC Davis or Stanford research organizations has been hacked. And the probability of hacking, though it can never be completely foreclosed, has been greatly reduced by the requirement that all bona fide research organizations follow strict data security protection protocols set by the FBI and DOJ.

Even without such protocols in place, the Court is dubious that the threat of hacking alone is sufficient to state a Second Amendment infringement claim. The only personal information to which the research organizations have access is information previously collected by the DOJ. No doubt recognizing the State’s incontrovertible right to collect personal information from gun owners, Plaintiffs haven’t argued—nor could they—that the mere collection of such information violates their Second Amendment rights by improperly subjecting them to the threat of hacking. Nor have they presented evidence that there is any greater threat that data will be hacked from the research organizations than from the DOJ itself. Indeed, the only known unauthorized disclosure of gun owner data was the June 27 mishap for which the DOJ was entirely at fault.

Plaintiffs’ other fear—that dissident researchers might intentionally breach DOJ protocols by publicly leaking their personal information—is equally unsubstantiated. Again, to state the obvious, the possibility of a recusant, ideologically motivated employee gaining access to Plaintiffs’ personal information isn’t a risk that is peculiar to the UC Davis and Stanford gun research organizations. No doubt there are state employees, perhaps even some within the DOJ, with ideological axes to grind. But the mere possibility of misbehavior by a rogue activist isn’t sufficient to prove that Plaintiffs will be deterred from exercising their Second Amendment rights. This tenuous possibility existed when Plaintiffs first supplied their personal information to the State so they could lawfully acquire firearms, purchase ammunition, or obtain a CCW permit. Unfortunately, rogue actors are a problem every society must grapple with in this technological age.

Additionally, the speculative possibility of hacking or insider malfeasance existed prior to the adoption of AB 173 and didn’t prevent Plaintiffs from acquiring firearms and ammunition or obtaining or renewing CCW permits. Before AB 173’s adoption, all five Plaintiffs in this case were registered California gun owners and one was granted a CCW permit. The limited disclosure of private information for research purposes permitted by AB 173 doesn’t expose Plaintiffs to any novel risks or impose new burdens on them. Nor do these disclosures amount to an “abusive” practice that prevents Plaintiffs from acquiring additional firearms or ammunition or applying for or renewing a CCW permit in the future.

Plaintiffs’ alternative argument is that even if AB 173 doesn’t directly violate the Second Amendment, disclosure of their personal information to the research organizations chills their exercise of the right. A “chilling effect” on the exercise of a constitutional right occurs when a person seeking to engage in constitutionally protected activity is deterred from doing so by government regulations not specifically prohibiting the protected activity. The test is an objective one that asks whether a person of ordinary firmness would be deterred from exercising the protected right….

But considering the categorical prohibition on publicly disseminating any personal identifying information that the DOJ has imposed on the research organizations, the enhanced risks Plaintiffs fear are no more likely than the risks posed by many other California laws that compel citizens to furnish publicly available personal information. These include property title and land ownership registries, electoral rolls, and court documents. Applications for CCW permits and records of issuance of such permits are likewise considered public documents open to inspection in California unless the public interest clearly weighs against their disclosure. The pervasiveness of such publicly available personal information weighs strongly against the objective reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ “chilling effect” claim.

For these reasons, the Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment facial challenge to AB 173 fails. Permitting gun owners’ information to be shared under strict privacy protection protocols for legitimate research purposes is merely a limited extension of the “presumptively lawful regulatory measures” that permit states to collect information from gun and ammunition purchasers and CCW permit applicants in the first place. Ancillary regulations like these don’t restrict conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment and are permissible….

Click here to read the full article in Reason.com

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: 2nd Amendment, California, guns

Judge to Halt Provision Making California Gun Suits Costlier

December 18, 2022 By Julie Watts and Adam Beam 1 Comment

A federal judge on Friday said he will block a provision in a new California law to take effect next year that gun advocates argued was designed to hinder anyone from challenging the state’s famously restrictive gun laws.

U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez said he would issue the injunction requested by gun clubs as soon as possible to halt the provision that would force people who file lawsuits over California’s gun laws to pay the government’s legal fees if they lose. The judge announced his plans during a federal hearing in San Diego.

The ruling will block only the provision and not the entire law, which bans the sale of some assault weapons and allows private citizens to sue people who violate those rules. The law is modeled after a Texas measure passed in 2021 that aimed to enforce that state’s ban on most abortions by empowering private citizens to enforce the ban by filing lawsuits in civil court.

Benitez said the fee provision would have a “chilling effect” on the public’s right to challenge the government in court because people would not want to take the risk of being liable for expensive legal fees.

“I can’t think of anything more tyrannical,” Benitez said.

Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom convinced the state Legislature to pass the law after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Texas law to stay in effect. Newsom has said he believes the Texas law to be unconstitutional but if the Supreme Court allows it to stand, then California will take the same idea and use it for their purposes.

In addition to banning the sale of some assault weapons, the law also will prohibit parts that can be used to build weapons, guns without serial numbers, or .50-caliber rifles.

In court on Friday, Newsom’s lawyers noted California does not plan to enforce the fee provision unless the Texas law is upheld.

Benitez, who was appointed to the court by former Republican President George W. Bush, dismissed that argument.

“We’re not in a kindergarten sandbox. It’s not about, ‘Mommy he did this to me so I should be able to do this to him,’” Benitez said.

The judge asked the government’s attorney, Tom Willis, if he would be willing to pay the legal fees of the plaintiffs who asked for the injunction to the provision. Willis said he didn’t understand the question.

Benitez shot back that he was wise to not answer because no attorney would want to take on such a risk of personally paying the other side’s legal fees if they lose.

Gun advocates said the law, while not in effect, is already causing attorneys to think twice about taking on such cases.

Joshua Dale, one of the lawyers representing a San Diego area gun club that sued over the provision, said it has placed attorneys like him in an “ethical dilemma” over whether to serve their clients and risk losing.

“I’m terrified of this law,” he told the court. “It would be absolutely devastating to pay the state’s attorney fees. I’ve got kids. I’ve got a mortgage. I could never pay $50,000 or $100,000 without emptying my 401(k) account.”

Click here to read the full article in AP News

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: California Politics, Gavin Newsom, guns, Legislature

San Jose gun owners to be fined up to $1,000 for breaking new firearm law

October 20, 2022 By Gabriel Greschler 11 Comments

“A $1,000 fine for simply exercising your God-given right to keep and bear arms unless you bow down, buy insurance, and kiss their ring is simply atrocious,” said one opponent about the city’s new rules

San Jose’s new gun control law just got a bit stricter.

Gun owners in the nation’s 10th largest city who disobey a requirement to carry liability insurance and pay a yearly fee will have to fork over up to $1,000 in fines as part of San Jose’s unique and controversial push to combat gun violence — a novel legislative approach that has triggered a challenge in federal court and has 2nd Amendment supporters up in arms.

The insurance and fee requirements — first approved by council members in January — make San Jose the first city in America to impose such rules against gun owners.

Proponents of the new mandate, championed by Mayor Sam Liccardo since 2019, argue that it will motivate safer gun handling and help counter the public cost of gun violence, which health officials found in a May report amounts to $72 million a year for Santa Clara County.

But opponents, who filed a lawsuit against the requirements moments after the council passed them in January, argue that the rules are unconstitutional, burdensome and that the city hasn’t proven they will prevent gun violence. Plaintiffs in the ongoing lawsuit are the Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights, the state’s Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and San Jose resident Mark Sikes.

The new fines approved Tuesday by the San Jose City Council brought a scathing response from the gun rights association.

“San Jose is hell-bent on disarming law-abiding gun owners anyway possible, at least as far as they can get away with in the courts,” wrote NAGR’s Policy Director Hannah Hill. “And a $1,000 fine for simply exercising your God-given right to keep and bear arms unless you bow down, buy insurance, and kiss their ring is simply atrocious.”

She added, “That’s why we’re suing to overturn this unconstitutional ordinance, and we look forward to rescuing law-abiding San Jose gun owners from these greedy, anti-gun council members.”

SAN JOSE, CA - January 26: Attorney Harmeet Dhillon speaks during a press conference at City Hall in San Jose, Calif., on Jan. 26, 2022. National Association for Gun Rights and San Jose resident Mark Sikes filed a lawsuit against the City of San Jose's newly passed ordinance requiring San Jose residents to obtain firearm liability insurance and pay a fee. (Dai Sugano/Bay Area News Group) — SAN JOSE, CA – January 26: Attorney Harmeet Dhillon speaks during a press conference at City Hall in San Jose, Calif., on Jan. 26, 2022. National Association for Gun Rights and San Jose resident Mark Sikes filed a lawsuit against the City of San Jose’s newly passed ordinance requiring San Jose residents to obtain firearm liability insurance and pay a fee. (Dai Sugano/Bay Area News Group)

The penalties passed on Tuesday escalate for each offense. A gun owner’s first and second violation will cost them $250 and $500, respectively. A $1,000 fine will be levied against a third and any future infraction. The city’s police department will be in charge of enforcing the fines.

“City staff is moving forward with regulations needed to implement this first-in the-nation law to reduce gun deaths and injuries with a careful, balanced approach,” the mayor wrote in a statement. “I look forward to seeing this up and running next year.”

The mayor has been formulating the new gun rules ever since the mass shooting at the now-defunct Gilroy Garlic Festival in 2019 — and pressure further mounted after a gunman massacred his fellow colleagues at a Valley Transportation Authority rail yard last year.

January’s Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance, which sparked national headlines amid rising concerns about gun violence across the country, requires firearm owners in the city to purchase a gun, homeowner’s or renter’s liability insurance policy which covers any damages as a result of negligent or accidental use.

The ordinance also mandates that gun owners pay a $25 fee every year to a nonprofit that will distribute funds to mental health and suicide prevention services for those who own a firearm or live with someone who does. The nonprofit is being set up by local health officials and academics will provide a bi-annual report on its work.

Researchers estimate that San Jose has between 50,000 and 55,000 gun owners, which would garner the nonprofit over $1 million a year.

Though the fines on Tuesday were approved by councilmembers unanimously on consent, January’s law was opposed by Councilmember Dev Davis. Councilmembers Pam Foley and Matt Mahan, a candidate for mayor running against County Supervisor Cindy Chavez, opposed the nonprofit fees.

Click here to read the full article at the Mercury News

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: 2nd Amendment, California Politics, guns

California Takes Aim at Supreme Court’s Concealed Gun Ruling

June 30, 2022 By Don Thompson 3 Comments

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Days after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed more people to carry concealed weapons, California lawmakers on Tuesday moved to limit where firearms may be carried and who can have them, while struggling to stay within the high court’s ruling.

They aim to restrict concealed carry to those 21 and older; require applicants to disclose all prior arrests, criminal convictions and restraining or protective orders; require in-person interviews with the applicant and at least three character references; and allow sheriffs and police chiefs to consider applicants’ public statements as they weigh if the individual is dangerous.

“We’re going to push the envelope, but we’re going to do it in a constitutional way,” said Democratic Sen. Anthony Portantino.

It’s the latest example of California, where Democrats hold sway, pushing back against recent decisions by conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices. On Monday, lawmakers advanced a gun control measure modeled after a recent high court ruling in a Texas abortion case, and adopted a ballot measure that would enshrine a right to abortion in the California Constitution.

The Supreme Court last week rejected a New York law requiring that people seeking a license to carry a gun in public demonstrate a particular need, such as a direct threat to their safety. California is among a half-dozen states with a similar requirement, and Attorney General Rob Bonta said the ruling renders that portion of California’s law immediately unconstitutional.

But lawmakers won’t act on the replacement legislation until August, after they return from a monthlong summer recess and make further amendments. And even then they won’t seek to impose the new standards immediately, which would require a two-thirds vote, instead waiting to have the legislation take effect in January.

New York, meanwhile, plans a special session of its legislature Thursday to consider gun legislation that could also impose new requirements for a carry permit, perhaps as many as 20 hours of mandatory live-fire training, along with a substantial list of areas where carrying is prohibited.

The California legislation was advanced Tuesday by the Assembly Public Safety Committee on a 5-2 vote over the objections of gun owners rights advocates who said it goes too far and predicted that it, too, would be ruled unconstitutional.

“This amendment is not improving California’s concealed carry laws — it’s in defiance of this court opinion,” said Daniel Reid, the National Rifle Association’s Western regional director. “We’re seeing a complete redrafting of places where law-abiding citizens can carry in the state of California. It’s an incredibly confusing patchwork.”

He said lawmakers are using a “shell game” to substitute new rules for the one outlawed by the Supreme Court.

The proposed legislation would bar concealed weapons from schools and universities, government and judicial buildings, medical facilities, public transportation, any place where alcohol is sold and consumed, public parks and playgrounds, and special events that require a permit.

No other state uses those kind of restrictions, said Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California.

“This bill will never become law,” he said.

The proposal would allow anyone whose application is denied to receive a hearing before a Superior Court judge.

Applicants would be required to provide fingerprints each time they apply for a permit, regardless of whether they have previously submitted their fingerprints to the state Department of Justice, which opponents called redundant and designed to drive up the cost and bureaucracy of obtaining a license.

It also would require the applicant to be the licensed owner of the specific firearm for which they seek a license, which opponents said would make it more difficult for spouses to be licensed for weapons they jointly own, potentially putting them in legal jeopardy.

Bonta said the Supreme Court ruling doesn’t undermine other requirements of California’s law, including that those seeking to carry concealed weapons demonstrate “good moral character.”

Sheriffs and police chiefs are required to perform background checks before issuing permits. The applicant must have training in carrying a concealed weapon, must live or work in the city or county where they are seeking the permit, and the sheriff or police chief may require psychological testing.

California officials issued about 40,000 permits last year, down from more than 100,000 during the peak year of 2016, according to information newly posted on the state Department of Justice’s website.

Click here to read the full article at AP News

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: California Politics, CCW, guns, Legislature

California’s Gun Restrictions Are a Failure

April 7, 2022 By Dan Walters 6 Comments

Inevitably, last weekend’s horrendous fusillade of bullets on a downtown Sacramento street that left six people dead and at least a dozen wounded generated demands for new gun controls in state that already has the nation’s most restrictive firearms laws.

However, if anything, what happened just two blocks from the state Capitol underscores the folly of believing that “gun violence” can be meaningfully reduced by trying to choke off the supply of firearms – any more than the prohibition of liquor or the war on drugs succeeded.

The state’s gun laws have hassled law-abiding hunters and gun hobbyists and some are in danger of being declared unconstitutional. However, Californians already own more than 20 million rifles, shotguns and handguns and are buying hundreds of thousands more each year.

Nor have these laws prevented the lawless from obtaining weapons via theft, smuggling from other states or the illicit manufacture of untraceable “ghost guns.” Indeed, state restrictions have made the black market even more lucrative, mirroring the side effects of Prohibition and the decades-long drug war.

Initial evidence indicates that those who fired more than 100 rounds in a street crowded with bar and nightclub patrons probably were violating one or more gun laws. The two brothers that police arrested and are suspected of involvement in the mass shooting were charged with illegal possession of weapons – one for possession of an illegal fully automatic firearm.

So why, if California’s much-vaunted gun control laws have failed to choke off the supply of legal and illegal weapons, do politicians continue to claim that enacting even more will have an effect?

Some may believe it, the evidence notwithstanding, while others want to appear to be doing something about a problem because they don’t have any other answers. And those who propose and enact new gun laws are often woefully ignorant about guns or even existing laws.

In the aftermath of the shooting, Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg lamented to a radio interviewer about California’s difficulty in reducing the number of guns, saying, “You just have to go to a gun show in Reno to buy an assault weapon without a background check and come right back to California.”

Advocates of more laws often cite a “gun show loophole” but it’s a myth. Under federal law, one must be a resident of Nevada and undergo a federal background check to legally buy a gun in Reno.

Moreover, while California professes to have banned “assault weapons,” the state’s definition of them involves cosmetic features, rather than their lethality. Perfectly legal semi-automatic rifles that lack those features are available for sale everywhere in the state.

The newest effort at gun control in California, backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, would authorize personal lawsuits against the manufacturers and sellers of illegal assault rifles or ghost guns, mirroring a new Texas law allowing suits against those who perform abortions.

Click here to read the full article at CalMatters

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: California Politics, Gavin Newsom, guns, Legislature

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

Federal appeals court opens way to block California law on gun marketing to children

Newsom Proposes U.S. 28th Amendment on Gun Control

San Jose gun owners to be fined up to $1,000 for breaking new firearm law

California’s Gun Restrictions Are a Failure

Recent Posts

Connect With CPR On Twitter