You don't have to show need, we'll turn you down for some other reason.

I guess like NJ, this is CYA in attempt to slow down a flood of other legal action?

Understand this… the “other legal action” wouldn’t have to be a straight up challenge to CA (or NJ, MD, CT, etc.) state law, but rather, a direct civil rights action in federal court, in which the individual defendants (not just the LEA or state) would NOT have qualified immunity.

This opinion was a game changer.

-Rob

Burton are you saying they could sue the attorney general personally? That is a game changer.

quote:

Originally posted by cee_Kamp:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...?ocid=BingNewsSearch

This may be CA's next intrusion, "good moral character”:

However, Bonta said that local officials can continue to enforce all other parts of California gun laws, including taking fingerprints, performing background checks, mandating training and requiring the applicant provide proof of “good moral character.”

Bonta’s advisory emphasized the importance of determining good moral character and said this should be based on “personal characteristics one reasonably expects of candidates for a public-carry license who do not pose a danger to themselves or others.”

Who, specifically, gets to determine if you are of good moral character?

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:


Who, specifically, gets to determine if you are of good moral character?

The issuing agency does- Sheriff or Chief of Police. At least here, they use your background check and traffic history to determine that. Our Sheriff is shall issue with self defense as sufficient "need".

There is already movement going on a bill that will likely attempt to restrict carry in other ways.

SB 918 - https://leginfo.legislature.ca...ll_id=202120220SB918

It will likely increase the places of special security as well as define standards to meet in order to obtain or renew a CCW. At this time, it only has some generic language that states intent. While the 2nd hearing for it was cancelled at the request of the author, I expect it to either be resuscitated or another bill gutted and amended very soon.

Better start working on your ESG and social credit score…

I do often identify as a polka dot lesbian attack helicopter so I should be safe to get a permit.

In all seriousness, I think they are peeling it back realizing what else they'd lose if challenged. It ain't over but this is a day of days.

Some departments require psych exams !

Short of constitutional carry, it needs to be state issued. Go to the DMV with your form. Not a felon? 21 or over? Take an 8 hour class ? Great. Stand here for your picture. No bullshit interviews and months of delays.

quote:

Originally posted by Anubismp:
In all seriousness, I think they are peeling it back realizing what else they'd lose if challenged. It ain't over but this is a day of days.

And/or hoping bad stuff does happen so they can say "See! We told you, we need more guns laws!"
But that's kind of a given, even without this, it's the default setting after all.

I'm happy for any progress made. And most of all, I'm grateful for the SCOTUS ruling that pegs the government to the constitution.

I'm just waiting for someone to take up the cause of SBRs and suppressors needing a tax and extra steps over other arms I can keep and bear. Also throw in the ATF's plan to categorize millions of braced pistols as sbrs.

Just a few days ago, naysayers on this board were posting about how nothing will change in blue states. Well whatdayaknow, here’s the second deep blue state to go shall issue. In two days!

I wonder if they’re worried about this:

quote:

Under 18 U.S.C. § 245, police officers and other public officials can face prison sentences for violating a person's civil rights while acting under the color of law.

Not from this DOJ, but the next one.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
You don't have to show need, we'll turn you down for some other reason.

I guess like NJ, this is CYA in attempt to slow down a flood of other legal action?

I agree, I'll believe it when I see the permits actually being approved .

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
You don't have to show need, we'll turn you down for some other reason.

I guess like NJ, this is CYA in attempt to slow down a flood of other legal action?

I agree, I'll believe it when I see the permits actually being approved .

I know outside of the Bay Area, it's been relatively easy to get a CCW permit especially in Sacramento county for a long time now.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
I know outside of the Bay Area, it's been relatively easy to get a CCW permit especially in Sacramento county for a long time now.

Sac county, like neighboring Yolo County (Davis ) are highly restrictive in their issuance of CCW permits. Unless you're a current resident and those outside of the city have a much easier time than those living within the city limits.
Bay Area counties like Napa, Solano and Sonoma are for the most part near-Shall Issue (compared to the rest of the SF Bay Area) through the Sherrif's office, unless you live in the city limits of Napa(not hard), Santa Rosa/Sebastopol(hard) or, Petaluma(hard) where you need to go through the PD.
CA CCW Map

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
Bay Area counties like Napa, Solano and Sonoma are for the most part near- Shall Issue

FIFY (as of last Thursday)

I wonder if CA will now recognize any reciprocity

quote:

Originally posted by SigSAC:
There is already movement going on a bill that will likely attempt to restrict carry in other ways.

SB 918 - https://leginfo.legislature.ca...ll_id=202120220SB918

It will likely increase the places of special security as well as define standards to meet in order to obtain or renew a CCW. At this time, it only has some generic language that states intent. While the 2nd hearing for it was cancelled at the request of the author, I expect it to either be resuscitated or another bill gutted and amended very soon.

Beat me to it. Cali and other socialist states will simply move on to restricting CCW virtually everywhere until that to is challenged at the SCOTUS. This filth will never give up or relinquish any control they have acquired.

This is true, but that's not going to work well any longer. Thomas painted the federal courts into a corner on 2A cases. They can't weasel around the 2A by what was known as two step analysis. They have to decide 2A cases directly and only on the language of the second amendment, which doesn't really give them much wiggle room to not enforce it as written.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by SigSAC:
There is already movement going on a bill that will likely attempt to restrict carry in other ways.

SB 918 - https://leginfo.legislature.ca...ll_id=202120220SB918

It will likely increase the places of special security as well as define standards to meet in order to obtain or renew a CCW. At this time, it only has some generic language that states intent. While the 2nd hearing for it was cancelled at the request of the author, I expect it to either be resuscitated or another bill gutted and amended very soon.

Beat me to it. Cali and other socialist states will simply move on to restricting CCW virtually everywhere until that to is challenged at the SCOTUS. This filth will never give up or relinquish any control they have acquired.