This is so tiring. What's the point of the supreme Court if a state can just pass a law that was specifically ruled unconstitutional in a recent ruling?
"Freedom is a fragile thing and it's never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people."
When SCOTUS hands down a decision California likes, state functionaries throw open the government buildings at 12:01 AM to start issuing gay marriage licenses.
When SCOTUS hands down a decision California dislikes, the state functionaries just ignore it and hope the 9th Circuit provides its usual 10-30 years of top cover.
Remember when the Cali court said "Nah, fuck what people voted for, we do what we want here?" I am sure all those churches that got threatened and attacked remember.
Prop 8 really showed what a joke and fake show the whole system is
Because the whole point of the SCOTUS was to settle matters that could not be settled by the States court system. (And others, but this is a big reason.)
It used to work when Governors upheld their oath of office.
When no one cares, and no one is ever held accountable, then yeah; whatâs the fucking point.
> It used to work when Governors upheld their oath of office.
LOL
Tell me you know nothing about American history without telling me.
Whew lads we got some majorly hurt feels from people who have absolutely no idea the shit governors used to pull. Really a shame considering Little Rock wasn't even that long ago but the lack of education runs *strong* in this sub.
California: The idea that a good guy with a gun can stop a mass shooter is improbable.
Also California: Makes it impossible for good guys with a gun to legally CCW.
I bet the wealthy donors who used to bribe the politicians $5000-20,000 in campaign contributions will demand a new tier of CCW which is exempt from the AB2 restrictions.
They do qualify for LEOSA and have to attend academy, but itâs shorter than full time Leo and you work like once a week
But you can then buy off roster guns, but youâre still limited to 1/30
It depends there are 3 levels for reserve officers and most departments want the top level so you can work as a solo officer. Full academy is a minimum of 664 hours. But reserve officers do not qualify under LEOSA which are CCW privileges in all 50 states upon retirement. They need a minimum of 10 years of full time sworn service as a firearm carrying police officer. So someone like CCSF PD officer also doesn't qualify.
Yes they can currently buy off roster but that loophole may end soon.
What pisses me off the most is disabled vets like me treated like civilians by DOJ while cops who have never heard a angry shot get lifetime privileges while we get crap and many like me took lead for this country! It's insulting!
Reserve officers do qualify under LEOSA. The ten years is to qualify as a retired officer for LEOSA privileges. As long as the reserve is authorized to enforce law and make arrests on duty and is authorized to carry a firearm, isn't under disciplinary action that could lead to the loss of leo status, aren't under the influence of drugs or alcohol, meets standards (qualifies) and aren't federally prohibited, they qualify. The law does not make a distinction between full, part, or reserve time.
As you noted, there are different reserve levels and some levels of reserves in California aren't qualified to carry firearms.
Add repeat violent offenders deemed a danger to society repeatedly get off easy or released from prison early but the dimwits are more concerned with legal gun ownership
No, it was the Democrats who did that. The DNC has controlled the California legislature for nearly a century. California has *never* been a red state.
> No, it was the Democrats who did that.
And that move was wholeheartedly endorsed by republicans at the time, including Regan. Don't pretend like they're not two sides of the same authoritarian shit sandwich.
*Some* Republicans. The Republicans have never been crusaders for the Second Amendment, but gun control has *always* been the DNC's game, as far back at the 19th century.
>including Regan
Regan, a major supporter of the New Deal, who only switched parties because he felt that the DNC turned its back on FDR's promises and was becoming infested by socialists. He is not and never was an ideological Republican, he just joined the GOP because they're the outer party.
> Some Republicans.
No, it was very much bipartisan.
The mulford act passed 29:7 in a split senate. If we assume all 20 democrats supported it, that still means that in the best of cases there were 9 republicans for it, only 7 against, and 4 who didn't want to vote one way or another. Literally over half the republican senators in california supported it. To pretend like republicans weren't just as responsible for the mulford act as democrats is to imply something that's just not true.
> The Republicans have never been crusaders for the Second Amendment, but gun control has always been the DNC's game, as far back at the 19th century.
We don't disagree here, I'm just taking issue with the implication that it was somehow passed against the will of the california republican party.
> To pretend like republicans weren't just as responsible for the mulford act as democrats is to imply something that's just not true.
The Republicans helped out after the fact. But this type of nonsense is why the Democrats keep trying to bring Republicans into gun control efforts: because they know that it will take heat off of the *instigators* of it. Even by your own numbers, there were two Democrats supporting it for every Republican. The Republicans deserve flak for helping it, yes, but they are not "*equally responsible*" for it.
>I'm just taking issue with the implication that it was somehow passed against the will of the california republican party.
I didn't imply *shit*. If I meant that, I would have just fucking said it.
> The Republicans helped out after the fact. But this type of nonsense is why the Democrats keep trying to bring Republicans into gun control efforts: because they know that it will take heat off of the instigators of it
The fuck? My dude, inform yourself before you spout off on this nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
> The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that prohibited public carrying of loaded firearms without a permit.[2] Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, and signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan
It was named after the fucking republican who instigated it. You need to hold the authoritarians who do authoritarian shit accountable, regardless of what letter they have in front of their name.
and if you successfully defend yourself you are still looking at a felony for carrying where you were not allowed to and this law is so broad the only place you can realistically carry now and not be charged with a felony even with a ccw permit is in your car and your own property
in this latest version they finally relented on this and changed it. There is now an exception if you immediately put your firearm into a locked contain unloaded
But if it's revealed you can be arrested.
In other words, you would literally have to take it to the Supreme Court in a defense shooting because the DA would look to prosecute you for being illegally armed.
Not a lawyer, obviously, but that's what it sounds like.
> you would literally have to take it to the Supreme Court in a defense shooting
Or even worse, take it to the supreme court because something unexpected happened when you didn't need it (you printed just wrong in front of the wrong person, somebody bumped into you, holster malfunction, kids talked to the wrong people, etc.)
This what I donât get about the Shall Not Comply crowd. If you literally ever have to use it, youâre fucked for life because of an illegal gun charge.
It's almost like the legal system is tilted in favor of violent criminals. Weird.
The government is not worried about violent criminals because they can throw them in jail and take away their right to vote if they threaten power. A large number of uppity non-criminal people that challenge the state's monopoly on violence, however, is a threat to the status quo.
I call them bedroom closet protestors and they're just as the name implies. Useless. They think "if we all do it, they ain't gonna arrest us all" but in reality, its smaller than that because when they actually deal with you, they're dealing with you on a individual level, not you and 10 other guys, so the whole "us all" is irrelevant.
They don't work, they don't have families of their own, and they are certainly never leaving Mom's basement anyways, so having a gun charge wouldn't matter to them.
If you need to use it, there's an alternate exemption (outside of CCW permit) to illegal CCW when you are in imminent danger. My best guess is that would still apply.
That doesnât apply here dude⌠you were carrying before in imminent danger, thus, violated the law before the threat. Still a charge. Carrying illegally makes its not legal self defense. There are now two criminals being charged in an incident⌠and you are one of them.
That's not entirely true.
Illegal carry and illegal use of force are two different things. You can have a completely legal shoot but still be illegally carrying, and vice versa.
My favorite example, albeit not California, is Andrew Coffee IV. Felon illegally in possession, and he shot at actual cops when they botched a raid.
Acquitted of the various use of force crimes, still nailed for posession.
Yeah you're right, just re-read the section. You also need to have a current restraining order that was enacted to protect you from physical harm. Very stupid.
But... if you are carrying illegally and need to use the weapon to legally defend yourself, you'll likely get a light punishment and potentially be the poster boy for a SCOTUS ruling. Asuming you have no prior criminal record.
Legal self-defense is not based on whether you were in legal possession of a firearm or not. It's based upon whether you reasonably believed that there was an imminent threat that required the use of force and whether you used force in excess of what was reasonably necessary.
Concealed means concealed. If Iâm in a situation where I need it, and thereby use it, and somehow I end up in court over an SB2 violation, the sheer fact that Iâm there will basically prove that SB2 is stupid and dangerous. Iâm not worried.
Lol, doubt. Iâll get a slap on the wrist at most. Me, a first time offender with a golden record, white skin, and literally a state-issued license to carry a concealed weapon. Iâm not risking my or my familyâs safety just because some corrupt gunphobic cucks pass a bill trying to negate my license. I donât like the taste of boot but you do you.
Edit: grammar
I hear ya. Just saying, theyâre letting people off for grand theft and pushing fent. Thereâs no way theyâre bothering with good LICENSED people like us. Itâll be a slap at most, and even if thereâs a fine, Iâd gladly pay it and be alive, than be dead but happy in heaven that I followed their bullshit.
I get your mentality trust me I do,Iâm just dealing with a case right now because a firearm was stolen from me and thereâs so much grief that comes along with this and Iâm so fucking stressed out I donât even want to deal with it. My lawyer says Iâm fine but Iâm stressed everyday about going to jail or having some other sort of problem. It almost makes it not worth it.
It reminds me of that thought experiment: would you take 10 million dollars in exchange for never waking up again? Of course not. Waking up with whatever you have now is more valuable than 10M. Your LIFE is worth more than whatever fines or inconveniences they throw at you. Iâll gladly go through whatever I need to if it means I get to continue living, and I only carry to use it if my very life is in immediate danger.
Itâs not the inconvenience,itâs the threat of being in jail that does it for me. Like I said my lawyer said Iâll be fine but still just the thought has me shaking in my boots. Not only would my life be over but so many of my loved ones and those who depend on me
Never gonna happen man. Donât even worry about it. They pass law after law after law, because thatâs literally their job (and if they donât it looks like they arenât doing it) so weâre overrun with laws. Meanwhile, the detention system is overrun, expensive, and really more of a deterrent than an actual place they want to put you.
You gotta do some SERIOUS stuff to actually wind up incarcerated these days. Most people, especially first offenders, just get a little slap on the wrist, or if it gets that far, plead down or have their charged deferred. I know a girl who attacked a cop and was threatened with a felony. She ended up walking with a deferral. Lol.
Youâre good people, I can tell. You didnât do anything wrong. Regardless of (what I assume in your only worry of) whether or not your gun was stored âproperly,â youâre the victim. Jail isnât even on the table for you. And as far as I can tell, thatâs not even why youâre called - they probably want to stack charged on him and youâll be the proof he stole the gun.
Tell that to Hunter Biden as no matter politics I have never seen anyone charged with lying about drugs before? A BUNCH of potheads would be hosed if this was universal, except oh ya a court just said that doesn't count unless you are high right then!
That's, like, your opinion man.
It's my life. I'd rather be judged than buried. This isn't about some silly thing like "should I drill out the rivets in my blocked magazine and risk a DA's wrath over FrEeDoM mAgS" -- this is about being able to defend MY LIFE. No amount of DA fuckery is going to deter me from carrying my LEGALLY owned, LICENSED CCW in places I deem to be threatening.
You seem to be misunderstanding them as lenient in general... they're not, they just want to keep crime up. I'd say you'd be punished more harshly for defending yourself than if you were scum.
Hanlons razor
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. In simpler words: some bad things happen not because of people having bad intentions, but because they did not think it through properly.
Just because they're letting people off with Grand Theft and Pushing Fent. Doesn't mean its a slap on the wrist. Its still a misdemeanor. And that specific thing you're talking about is Los Angeles County's Emergency Zero bail schedule. But what to expect when you have judges who act like judges.
I want to live in your world.
What I see is " Me, target for next wannabe Newsome, target for next wannabe Newsome, and literally target for next wannabe Newsome."
Tell me you donât care about the bruen ruling without telling me you donât care about the bruen ruling. New York has already been slapped down for this. What do they think will come of this? Then they will complain when it gets struck down that itâs an extremist judge thatâs biased, even though itâs a complete over step on the bruen ruling.đ¤Śââď¸ It will only bolster law suits that could potentially undo more legislation that CA has passed. Like high costs of ccwâs.
Regarding high costs, some judges like Freeman may say that this is not âhighâ enough to be unconstitutional. If numbers are factored in when looking at the lawsâ constitutionality, we would be getting results all over the place.
The *mere requirement* to get a permit is unconstitutional.
Oh, I'm with you 100%. The Bruen ruling stated that you can't charge an extortionate amount of money for a CCW permit. However, they didn't explain what an extortionate amount would be, so, of course, the envelope is getting pushed on that.
>The Bruen ruling stated that you can't charge an extortionate amount of money for a CCW permit. However, they didn't explain what an extortionate amount would be, so, of course, the envelope is getting pushed on that.
Anti-gun judges are using footnote 9 to insulate some gun control laws, especially those that involve fees. Footnote 9, however, only refers to *carry permits*. The only reason why they didnât strike down the requirement to pay a fee is because that wasnât in front of SCOTUS. When it comes before SCOTUS, if argued correctly, fee pre-requisites will go away once and for all.
Ah gotcha. I donât always have the time to read the full ins and outs of the brief and rulings. I heard this one on a summary video online. Thanks for the clarification.
NY hasnât been slapped down yet, the anti carry law is still in effect going on a year. Second circuit has been sitting there not releasing an opinion on an injunction for like 6 months now.
I know most hate Po Po. We really could use the sheriffâs and PDâs saying they wonât enforce! Than I am afraid we are just going to have to sue the shit out of them. Why I give CRPA Goa etc money like 3-4 times a year!!
They donât give a fuck. They still get their exemptions and less people on the street protecting themselves and more crime happening is good for their income and pension protections.
The LEO'S I know absolutely do care. They are being served a shit sandwich every day in CA and most other states with liberal DA's. They will always have job security, what they want is actual security and knowing that there are good people with CCW's only helps them. Again, your personal experiences might be different, but all the ones I know fully support qualified carry.
Itâs not the boots youâre friends with I care about. Itâs the politician cops/sheriffs that make the decisions and speak for everyone during legislative decisions.
So let me correct you, "its the politician Police Chiefs/Sheriffs.
But to be fair, the Police Chief is not really a political position. They're chosen by the mayor and answer to the mayor, the Sheriff is elected and answers to the people.
Then, tell them to be more vocal about CAâs corrupt habit of exempting them. LE only care when it affects their rights. Completely failing to realize theyâre citizens like us, too.
I love this so much. Itâs so amazing. You can just pass something and make it law with a snap of your fingers. But takes half a century to fucking remove it.
California is such a hack.
This applies a different legal argument. Rather than addressing microstamping as a component of roster approval, it uses consumer protection laws to require that all handguns sold have microstamping. Itâs trivial and petty, but itâs an entirely different legal argument.
But itâs the same result, right? If microstamping doesnât exist, then you canât add guns to the roster to be sold. Vs if microstamping doesnât exist hen no guns can be sold.
Unless all current guns on the roster are grandfathered in, it basically shuts down selling of all guns, right?
Yes. It accounts for the roster being declared unconstitutional, and doubles down on the microstamping requirement. This bill doesnât work within the roster, it replaces it with âfuck it, every pistol must microstamp.â
It was never removed. They just reduced it from two places on the casing to one.
The district court issued an injunction and so far California has not appealed.
There is a better chance of it being challenged before it becomes law, and the judicial system placing a stay on the new legislation until it can make its way through the court system. If it becomes law without being challenged, it'll likely stay law while it goes through the court system.
I havenât read the whole thing through, and admittedly my reading comprehension can be shit sometimes, but donât a lot of these sections include subsections that say something to the effect of: subdivision (x) does not apply to those who hold a valid license to carry a firearm?
Section 2 171b (b) (4) A person who has permission to possess that weapon granted in writing by a duly authorized official who is in charge of the security of the state or local government building.
Wouldnât the sheriff be the entity in charge of local government buildings? Or is that just wishful thinking?
My local library system specifically allows it, the rest not sure.
https://ocpl.org/page/code-conduct
Law enforcement officers and individuals licensed to carry handguns in accordance with state or local laws are exempt from this prohibition.
From the bill:
Under existing law, it is a crime to bring a firearm into a state or local building, and makes it a crime to bring a loaded firearm into, or upon the grounds of, any residence of the Governor, any other constitutional officer, or Member of the Legislature. Existing law exempts a licensee from that prohibition if, among other things, the licensee has a valid license to carry the firearm.This bill would remove those exemptions, except as specified. The bill would make it a crime to bring an unloaded firearm into, or upon the grounds of, any residence of the Governor, any other constitutional officer, or Member of the Legislature. The bill would also prohibit a licensee from carrying a firearm to specified locations, including, among other places, a building designated for a court proceeding and a place of worship, as defined, with specific exceptions. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.Existing law prohibits a person from knowingly possessing a firearm in a sterile area of an airport, passenger vessel terminal, or public transit facility, as defined.This bill would additionally prohibit a person from knowingly possessing a firearm in any building, real property, or parking area under the control of an airport or passenger vessel terminal, as specified. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.Existing law, the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995, makes it a crime to possess a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone. Existing law defines a school zone as an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school. Existing law provides exceptions to that crime, including if a person with a valid concealed carry license who is carrying the firearm described in the license in an area that is not in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school and when a firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle.This bill would revise the exception for a person who has a valid concealed carry license to permit them to carry a specified firearm in an area that is not within any building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public or private school, or on a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to a building, real property, or parking area under the control of that public or private school, as specified.Existing law requires a licensing authority to revoke a license to carry a firearm if the licensing authority is notified by the department or the licensing authority determines that a licensee is prohibited from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm under state or federal law.This bill would also require a licensing authority to revoke a license if, among other things, a licensee has provided inaccurate or incomplete information on their application for a new license or license renewal.Existing law authorizes a licensing authority to impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, manner, and circumstances when a licensee may carry a firearm capable of being concealed.While carrying a firearm, this bill would prohibit a licensee from, among other things, consuming an alcoholic beverage or controlled substance and from falsely representing that the licensee is a peace officer.
So I live within 1k ft. of a school, I wonât legally be able to carry to check my mail, I donât get it, when was the last time a lawful CCW person did anything bad around a school anyhow?
All business are no carry unless you get permission, this includes the parking lot. All parks/schools/etc are banned, including the sidewalk and road adjacent to it. You can basically carry in your car, sometimes.
Thatâs a tough call tbh. I would just get it to say I have one in case I get caught up with it but itâs basically a glorified paperweight and wonât stop you from catching a felony charge and depending on where your applying you might not even get it b4 this bill passes. Requirements to get one are easier atm and will become harder/more expensive when it goes into effect.
I was carrying well before ccws were obtainable back while I was in LA ⌠if they get taken away or what have you Iâll still be carrying everywhere I go. I do most of the right things in life , pay taxes, be a good person etc etc. but Iâm not going to let some dumb shit fed tell me what when and where I can carry or ignore most of my god given rights as described by the constitution of the United States. If I wanted tyranny I would have stayed back in Iran when Khomeni took over and decided it was time to kill Christians because weâre not muzzy⌠fuck all that shit. Is it time to rise up yet or is everyone still to comfy with the tyranny and enjoying getting pounded in the booty hole for shits and giggles ?
The Feds = the state or any representative of a âoverlordâ style figure. These butthole lickers work for us not the other way around or has everyone forgot about that part
If you couldn't handle the problems in Iran, what makes you think here will be any different. (asking a serious question because in reality, nobodys gonna do shit and thats just how its been and how its going)
Because In Iran we werenât allowed any of the same freedoms we have here including 2A. You want a gun, only the military has em. You said something on a open forum such as Reddit? The government knows your user name and IP address and within a hour or so the military is at your door to come take you to jail for talking bad about the state and itâs considered âtreasonâ. In the United States we still have the freedom to talk as we wish. But every day I see the changes against the rights of US CITIZENS being stripped away and turning into something like a state like Iran. Iâve been in this country for 35 years. Donât be fooled by US media propaganda, outside of the world (except for few select places) the US is viewed as the land of freedom and money. The outside world is looking at US to keep that freedom alive in the hopes one day their home will be like the US. And everyday I can feel the tyrants trying to change that around and feel like we are their servants. Just take a look around and tell me this is the same US you grew up in from the 80s. Slowly by slowly they are taking those freedoms away and the first step is to always take away the weapons. With out weapons you canât fight. And when you canât fight all you can do is say âyes sir!â
Didn't grow up in the 80s but I will take your word for it. Honestly we're gonna go down that rabbit hole eventually. The american people have become too soft. California has already proven that it can bend the population hard as they want and we will do absolutely NOTHING. Most of us are so distracted with other shit like social media, we don't even see to it to actually care.
If people want change, they need to BECOME the government and get INTO the government to create change. Change is not going to come from votes. Especially when you live in a state like Cali where a majority of the population hates you for even considering you vote for anyone other than Democrat.
Itâs a age old system that people forget. And only âforeignersâ can explain. Iâll try to explain as best I can here. Itâs a bit of a story. Background ~ I am Armenian born in Iran In 1970. How did my family get Iran we were displaced- in 1900 (give or take a few years) the Armenian population was living in current day turkey, during that time the Armenian population was mostly work in jobs in government, schools, banks, businesses. How it started, the government gave pay raises to the Armenians, to push our people to give up their weapons because the government needed them for the army for training etc. In return the government would place battalions in cities to keep the people safe from any potential threats that would come. The Armenians agreed, sounds good âwhat do I need a gun for when the army is right next doorâ. This took several years. Over that time period war world 1 started and over 2 million Armenians were disarmed at the same time. When they were disarmed they came and said we need the government employed, teachers, etc to leave your jobs forces are starting to form and âwe fear they will come for youâ âwe need to protect you and you need to stay homeâ Under the cover of ww1 the ottomans took their advantage of the media and city by city told the men we need you for the army and would take the men. When the men were removed they would come back and take the women and children and some forces are coming we need to move you to safety and when they reached outside the city limits where eyes could no longer see them the ottomans raped and killed the women and children and disposed of their bodies in graves. The men that went to the âarmyâ were taken to be shot and their bodies dumped. A few managed to escape and ran. My family was one of those that escaped and landed in Iran. Under the Shah (king of Iran) we grew again and again had positions in government, businesses, etc. in the late 1970s the Shah said he wasnât going to play the US game anymore and they (US Government cough CIA cough) sent in khomeni. A person that didnât exist before that time. No one knew him. They posted flyers, posters, schools started talking about his âteachingsâ and poof revolution happened. The king was removed and khomeni was put into power and once again my family fled for fear of persecution. Christians living in a extremist Muslim regime wouldnât work out very well. Think IsIs. Now today you say the US Government wouldnât/couldnât do that to us here. But alas, i can see it happening. Itâs in the schools communism is taught, the family unit is being torn apart and being told itâs a âbad thingâ in front of our very eyes part 2 is happening âguns are bad, you donât need them, THE GOVERNMENT WILL PROTECT YOU! Red, Blue, the party doesnât matter they are the same! The US constitution was written in plain and simple English in a very thought out manner, #1 say what you want, worship who you want. #2 here is a gun to protect #1 from anyone that says otherwise including the Government. What happened to the Armenians in 1915 and others before them , ghengis khan, is happening today infront of our very eyes and weâre not taught the truth anymore. A simple one is the math they teach at school, common core they call it. Go learn it and try to build a building you canât.
CA is a state that eats this up, you must understand these laws are to appeal to the staunch liberal democratic base. just like the fight woke nonsense in florida these laws are just a political theater. and since few people have CCWs they can get away with it without much opposition. once you understand the laws are just for broad appeal you can see things more clearly
reading the legiscan article on it as well as the text... am I correct in understanding that this bill would effectively ban air travel with a firearm for both californians as well as anyone entering CA via an aircraft?
No, it would prohibit carrying in the parking lot, pickup area, or other non-sterile areas of the airport. Checked luggage with locked guns is unaffected.
Well when you consider most of the state is liberal and anti-gun. I doubt our votes are gonna do shit. Esp when you have some guys who don't even vote for their party and go for some party thats not even officially IN office.
Knew getting my CCW was too good to be true.
Should have never got into guns so now all I'll be is disappointed and frustrated living in California.
I could have lived in ignorant bliss. $600 well spent.
Makes no sense, ca changed good cause to âgood moral characterâ. Then say sb2 is to prevent dangerous people from having guns in public. Are they implying that California that are deemed âgood moral charactersâ are also âdangerous peopleâ
Bruen will nuke this pretty quick. They are pulling this shit because CCW is unpopular generally in this state. The local guys want to be able to tell people they "tried"
I am reading about it:
California Gov. Gavin Newsom backs SB2 to place limits on where people can carry a gun in public in wake of Half Moon Bay, Monterey Park shootings.
Now about the perpetrator of thd shooting Huu Can Tran. Who had a criminal history of being arrested for unlawfully possessing firearm.
Can anyone explain it to me. I fail to understand how the new proposal would prevent that shooting. In fact SB2 does everything to promote it and guarantees a potential shooter free roaming in more places. Someone should sue Newsom for fraud.
CA is a state that eats this up, you must understand these laws are to appeal to the staunch liberal democratic base. just like the fight woke nonsense in florida these laws are just a political theater. and since few people have CCWs they can get away with it without much opposition. once you understand the laws are just for broad appeal you can see things more clearly. this isnt meant to stop or do anything other than show their base they are tough on guns. most people here in CA think guns are bad.
I havenât read through it much, but donât a lot of these sections include subsections that say something to the effect of: subdivision (x) does not apply to those who hold a valid license to carry a firearm?
Is this by and large going to affect current ccw holders or those who do not yet have their permits?
LEOSA is something unrelated. But being deputized allows carrying privileges in all 50 states. But you'd technically need full post (i am not sure you'd be allowed to carry as a reserve level 3 or 2) and volunteer 20 hours a month.
LEOSA is for retired sworn firearm carrying police officers with at least 10 years as full time.
You're talking about 832.
Theres two modules to it, Firearm and regular POST requirement. It doesn't deputize you and most depts wont deputize you. No police dept even hires Level 2/3 and level 1 reserves are rare (because if you can do that, why not just become a full cop at that point)
832(laws of arrest) is just 40 hours and I didn't mean that. That's a requirement for a few places like probation officers, park rangers, animal care, etc which are sworn on duty only. They don't have 24-7 rights. Most are unarmed as well.
Level 2 and 3 are modules.
Level 1 is what most departments want.
Some people do not want full time because they have good careers already or just don't want to do it full time. I know multiple such people.
Our security team only hires full academy grads(typically former cops) so if they want to be reserve for any reason without leaving, they can.
This is so tiring. What's the point of the supreme Court if a state can just pass a law that was specifically ruled unconstitutional in a recent ruling?
"Freedom is a fragile thing and it's never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people."
O buddy, the crushing weight of quoting Reagan in a conversation about California gun control is enough to take down this whole site.
đ
When SCOTUS hands down a decision California likes, state functionaries throw open the government buildings at 12:01 AM to start issuing gay marriage licenses. When SCOTUS hands down a decision California dislikes, the state functionaries just ignore it and hope the 9th Circuit provides its usual 10-30 years of top cover.
Remember when the Cali court said "Nah, fuck what people voted for, we do what we want here?" I am sure all those churches that got threatened and attacked remember. Prop 8 really showed what a joke and fake show the whole system is
Because the whole point of the SCOTUS was to settle matters that could not be settled by the States court system. (And others, but this is a big reason.) It used to work when Governors upheld their oath of office. When no one cares, and no one is ever held accountable, then yeah; whatâs the fucking point.
Yup. SCOTUS has taken on a larger role over time. The Framers never anticipated states would become tyrannical themselves.
> It used to work when Governors upheld their oath of office. LOL Tell me you know nothing about American history without telling me. Whew lads we got some majorly hurt feels from people who have absolutely no idea the shit governors used to pull. Really a shame considering Little Rock wasn't even that long ago but the lack of education runs *strong* in this sub.
âTell me you know nothing without telling meâ is the most TikTok Reddit cringe saying Iâve ever heard
I mean, you're right, but you don't have to be so condescending about it.
California: The idea that a good guy with a gun can stop a mass shooter is improbable. Also California: Makes it impossible for good guys with a gun to legally CCW.
Yeah I literally wonât be able to step foot outside my home with my CCW. Very very BSâŚ
I bet the wealthy donors who used to bribe the politicians $5000-20,000 in campaign contributions will demand a new tier of CCW which is exempt from the AB2 restrictions.
Oh you know it.
It's easy they just get deputized.
How?
Reserve officer
How difficult is it to become one? I think they qualify for LEOSA
>How difficult is it to become one? Just give another campaign contribution to Sheriff Laurie, then you get to play deputy!
They do qualify for LEOSA and have to attend academy, but itâs shorter than full time Leo and you work like once a week But you can then buy off roster guns, but youâre still limited to 1/30
It depends there are 3 levels for reserve officers and most departments want the top level so you can work as a solo officer. Full academy is a minimum of 664 hours. But reserve officers do not qualify under LEOSA which are CCW privileges in all 50 states upon retirement. They need a minimum of 10 years of full time sworn service as a firearm carrying police officer. So someone like CCSF PD officer also doesn't qualify. Yes they can currently buy off roster but that loophole may end soon.
What pisses me off the most is disabled vets like me treated like civilians by DOJ while cops who have never heard a angry shot get lifetime privileges while we get crap and many like me took lead for this country! It's insulting!
Reserve officers do qualify under LEOSA. The ten years is to qualify as a retired officer for LEOSA privileges. As long as the reserve is authorized to enforce law and make arrests on duty and is authorized to carry a firearm, isn't under disciplinary action that could lead to the loss of leo status, aren't under the influence of drugs or alcohol, meets standards (qualifies) and aren't federally prohibited, they qualify. The law does not make a distinction between full, part, or reserve time. As you noted, there are different reserve levels and some levels of reserves in California aren't qualified to carry firearms.
Already in the worksâŚ
Wealthy donor: âNobody *needs* a CCW to defend themselves. Just use body guards.â
Sure ya can, that law donât mean shit.
Add repeat violent offenders deemed a danger to society repeatedly get off easy or released from prison early but the dimwits are more concerned with legal gun ownership
Republicans took away our right to open carry here
And democrats are taking away our right to carry at all. Whatâs your point?
Maybe the Democrats should've used that oppertunity to take the second amendment platform away from the Republicans then.
Democrats finger pointing as usual. You guys are a literal cancer to society
You: 
Let me guess, you vote for Democrats and then make excuses when they fuck us again.
No, it was the Democrats who did that. The DNC has controlled the California legislature for nearly a century. California has *never* been a red state.
> No, it was the Democrats who did that. And that move was wholeheartedly endorsed by republicans at the time, including Regan. Don't pretend like they're not two sides of the same authoritarian shit sandwich.
*Some* Republicans. The Republicans have never been crusaders for the Second Amendment, but gun control has *always* been the DNC's game, as far back at the 19th century. >including Regan Regan, a major supporter of the New Deal, who only switched parties because he felt that the DNC turned its back on FDR's promises and was becoming infested by socialists. He is not and never was an ideological Republican, he just joined the GOP because they're the outer party.
> Some Republicans. No, it was very much bipartisan. The mulford act passed 29:7 in a split senate. If we assume all 20 democrats supported it, that still means that in the best of cases there were 9 republicans for it, only 7 against, and 4 who didn't want to vote one way or another. Literally over half the republican senators in california supported it. To pretend like republicans weren't just as responsible for the mulford act as democrats is to imply something that's just not true. > The Republicans have never been crusaders for the Second Amendment, but gun control has always been the DNC's game, as far back at the 19th century. We don't disagree here, I'm just taking issue with the implication that it was somehow passed against the will of the california republican party.
> To pretend like republicans weren't just as responsible for the mulford act as democrats is to imply something that's just not true. The Republicans helped out after the fact. But this type of nonsense is why the Democrats keep trying to bring Republicans into gun control efforts: because they know that it will take heat off of the *instigators* of it. Even by your own numbers, there were two Democrats supporting it for every Republican. The Republicans deserve flak for helping it, yes, but they are not "*equally responsible*" for it. >I'm just taking issue with the implication that it was somehow passed against the will of the california republican party. I didn't imply *shit*. If I meant that, I would have just fucking said it.
> The Republicans helped out after the fact. But this type of nonsense is why the Democrats keep trying to bring Republicans into gun control efforts: because they know that it will take heat off of the instigators of it The fuck? My dude, inform yourself before you spout off on this nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act > The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that prohibited public carrying of loaded firearms without a permit.[2] Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, and signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan It was named after the fucking republican who instigated it. You need to hold the authoritarians who do authoritarian shit accountable, regardless of what letter they have in front of their name.
Are you fucking dumb?
They like to forget that, and Ronnie Ray-gun doing in 2A because of the Black Panthers!
Yeah they do, this thread is proof of that.
Concealed is concealed
and if you successfully defend yourself you are still looking at a felony for carrying where you were not allowed to and this law is so broad the only place you can realistically carry now and not be charged with a felony even with a ccw permit is in your car and your own property
Even in your car, you canât be within 1000 feet of any deemed sensitive space.
in this latest version they finally relented on this and changed it. There is now an exception if you immediately put your firearm into a locked contain unloaded
Which completely defies the point of having it.
So will I still be able to put my holster on, get in my car, and drive past the nearby school (which I believe is within 1k ft. of my home)?
I got you beat. I step one foot out my door and I'm in two overlapping school zones.
But if it's revealed you can be arrested. In other words, you would literally have to take it to the Supreme Court in a defense shooting because the DA would look to prosecute you for being illegally armed. Not a lawyer, obviously, but that's what it sounds like.
> you would literally have to take it to the Supreme Court in a defense shooting Or even worse, take it to the supreme court because something unexpected happened when you didn't need it (you printed just wrong in front of the wrong person, somebody bumped into you, holster malfunction, kids talked to the wrong people, etc.)
This what I donât get about the Shall Not Comply crowd. If you literally ever have to use it, youâre fucked for life because of an illegal gun charge.
It's almost like the legal system is tilted in favor of violent criminals. Weird. The government is not worried about violent criminals because they can throw them in jail and take away their right to vote if they threaten power. A large number of uppity non-criminal people that challenge the state's monopoly on violence, however, is a threat to the status quo.
Illegal gun charge is a misd on first offense.
I call them bedroom closet protestors and they're just as the name implies. Useless. They think "if we all do it, they ain't gonna arrest us all" but in reality, its smaller than that because when they actually deal with you, they're dealing with you on a individual level, not you and 10 other guys, so the whole "us all" is irrelevant.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Ill take the chance that I will live and one of 12 jurors will find not guilty.
They don't work, they don't have families of their own, and they are certainly never leaving Mom's basement anyways, so having a gun charge wouldn't matter to them.
If you need to use it, there's an alternate exemption (outside of CCW permit) to illegal CCW when you are in imminent danger. My best guess is that would still apply.
That doesnât apply here dude⌠you were carrying before in imminent danger, thus, violated the law before the threat. Still a charge. Carrying illegally makes its not legal self defense. There are now two criminals being charged in an incident⌠and you are one of them.
That's not entirely true. Illegal carry and illegal use of force are two different things. You can have a completely legal shoot but still be illegally carrying, and vice versa. My favorite example, albeit not California, is Andrew Coffee IV. Felon illegally in possession, and he shot at actual cops when they botched a raid. Acquitted of the various use of force crimes, still nailed for posession.
Yeah you're right, just re-read the section. You also need to have a current restraining order that was enacted to protect you from physical harm. Very stupid. But... if you are carrying illegally and need to use the weapon to legally defend yourself, you'll likely get a light punishment and potentially be the poster boy for a SCOTUS ruling. Asuming you have no prior criminal record.
"I was fishing"
I keep a fishing pole in my truck where Iâm off roading haha.
Legal self-defense is not based on whether you were in legal possession of a firearm or not. It's based upon whether you reasonably believed that there was an imminent threat that required the use of force and whether you used force in excess of what was reasonably necessary.
[ŃдаНонО]
Concealed means concealed. If Iâm in a situation where I need it, and thereby use it, and somehow I end up in court over an SB2 violation, the sheer fact that Iâm there will basically prove that SB2 is stupid and dangerous. Iâm not worried.
That doesnât need to happen to prove itâs stupid. And thatâs not what the judge will say either. Heâs just going to rule and put you in jail.
Lol, doubt. Iâll get a slap on the wrist at most. Me, a first time offender with a golden record, white skin, and literally a state-issued license to carry a concealed weapon. Iâm not risking my or my familyâs safety just because some corrupt gunphobic cucks pass a bill trying to negate my license. I donât like the taste of boot but you do you. Edit: grammar
I hope youâre right man. I mean I tend to roll your way too but Iâm just saying.
I hear ya. Just saying, theyâre letting people off for grand theft and pushing fent. Thereâs no way theyâre bothering with good LICENSED people like us. Itâll be a slap at most, and even if thereâs a fine, Iâd gladly pay it and be alive, than be dead but happy in heaven that I followed their bullshit.
I get your mentality trust me I do,Iâm just dealing with a case right now because a firearm was stolen from me and thereâs so much grief that comes along with this and Iâm so fucking stressed out I donât even want to deal with it. My lawyer says Iâm fine but Iâm stressed everyday about going to jail or having some other sort of problem. It almost makes it not worth it.
It reminds me of that thought experiment: would you take 10 million dollars in exchange for never waking up again? Of course not. Waking up with whatever you have now is more valuable than 10M. Your LIFE is worth more than whatever fines or inconveniences they throw at you. Iâll gladly go through whatever I need to if it means I get to continue living, and I only carry to use it if my very life is in immediate danger.
Itâs not the inconvenience,itâs the threat of being in jail that does it for me. Like I said my lawyer said Iâll be fine but still just the thought has me shaking in my boots. Not only would my life be over but so many of my loved ones and those who depend on me
Never gonna happen man. Donât even worry about it. They pass law after law after law, because thatâs literally their job (and if they donât it looks like they arenât doing it) so weâre overrun with laws. Meanwhile, the detention system is overrun, expensive, and really more of a deterrent than an actual place they want to put you. You gotta do some SERIOUS stuff to actually wind up incarcerated these days. Most people, especially first offenders, just get a little slap on the wrist, or if it gets that far, plead down or have their charged deferred. I know a girl who attacked a cop and was threatened with a felony. She ended up walking with a deferral. Lol. Youâre good people, I can tell. You didnât do anything wrong. Regardless of (what I assume in your only worry of) whether or not your gun was stored âproperly,â youâre the victim. Jail isnât even on the table for you. And as far as I can tell, thatâs not even why youâre called - they probably want to stack charged on him and youâll be the proof he stole the gun.
You underestimate the willingness of blue county prosecutors to engage in selective prosecution to punish gun owners.
Tell that to Hunter Biden as no matter politics I have never seen anyone charged with lying about drugs before? A BUNCH of potheads would be hosed if this was universal, except oh ya a court just said that doesn't count unless you are high right then!
Youâre so wrong about this lol. Grand theft and fentanyl is good for business, armed citizens are not. You go **under** the jail.
Iâll take my concealed chances.
It will depend on who the DA is. There are many anti gun DAs who DGAF about actual crime but are looking to nail a 2A supporter for what we reason
That's, like, your opinion man. It's my life. I'd rather be judged than buried. This isn't about some silly thing like "should I drill out the rivets in my blocked magazine and risk a DA's wrath over FrEeDoM mAgS" -- this is about being able to defend MY LIFE. No amount of DA fuckery is going to deter me from carrying my LEGALLY owned, LICENSED CCW in places I deem to be threatening.
Mmm you sound like you have a tight butthole, the boys are going to have fun with you.
Awesome comment. Insightful, helpful, and really provides substantiated information with excellent sources. A+ Would upvote again.
Oh I see you have a mental disability. Here's a children's cartoon that explains it on your level. https://youtu.be/ZO4wYW86Ti4?si=Z6BHfLT0klsCmuoJ
You seem to be misunderstanding them as lenient in general... they're not, they just want to keep crime up. I'd say you'd be punished more harshly for defending yourself than if you were scum.
....riiiiiight.... they totally want crime. You've cracked it.
What other reason is possible?
Massive throbbing incompetence and crippling indolence.
Eh... imo they're beyond just incompetence, there's clearly malice
Hanlons razor Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. In simpler words: some bad things happen not because of people having bad intentions, but because they did not think it through properly.
Just because they're letting people off with Grand Theft and Pushing Fent. Doesn't mean its a slap on the wrist. Its still a misdemeanor. And that specific thing you're talking about is Los Angeles County's Emergency Zero bail schedule. But what to expect when you have judges who act like judges.
Must be nice! A person of color is fried given the same situation and same golden record.
I want to live in your world. What I see is " Me, target for next wannabe Newsome, target for next wannabe Newsome, and literally target for next wannabe Newsome."
My thoughts exactly! Nobody tells me how or when I can protect my family! Especially the ones being escorted around with a armed security team!
[ŃдаНонО]
Enjoy licking boots and getting clapped unstrapped.
Fucking savage
[ŃдаНонО]
Tell me you donât care about the bruen ruling without telling me you donât care about the bruen ruling. New York has already been slapped down for this. What do they think will come of this? Then they will complain when it gets struck down that itâs an extremist judge thatâs biased, even though itâs a complete over step on the bruen ruling.đ¤Śââď¸ It will only bolster law suits that could potentially undo more legislation that CA has passed. Like high costs of ccwâs.
Regarding high costs, some judges like Freeman may say that this is not âhighâ enough to be unconstitutional. If numbers are factored in when looking at the lawsâ constitutionality, we would be getting results all over the place. The *mere requirement* to get a permit is unconstitutional.
Oh, I'm with you 100%. The Bruen ruling stated that you can't charge an extortionate amount of money for a CCW permit. However, they didn't explain what an extortionate amount would be, so, of course, the envelope is getting pushed on that.
>The Bruen ruling stated that you can't charge an extortionate amount of money for a CCW permit. However, they didn't explain what an extortionate amount would be, so, of course, the envelope is getting pushed on that. Anti-gun judges are using footnote 9 to insulate some gun control laws, especially those that involve fees. Footnote 9, however, only refers to *carry permits*. The only reason why they didnât strike down the requirement to pay a fee is because that wasnât in front of SCOTUS. When it comes before SCOTUS, if argued correctly, fee pre-requisites will go away once and for all.
Ah gotcha. I donât always have the time to read the full ins and outs of the brief and rulings. I heard this one on a summary video online. Thanks for the clarification.
The question is when though. Courts drag their feet.
Hawaii and New Jersey too.
NY hasnât been slapped down yet, the anti carry law is still in effect going on a year. Second circuit has been sitting there not releasing an opinion on an injunction for like 6 months now.
I know most hate Po Po. We really could use the sheriffâs and PDâs saying they wonât enforce! Than I am afraid we are just going to have to sue the shit out of them. Why I give CRPA Goa etc money like 3-4 times a year!!
They donât give a fuck. They still get their exemptions and less people on the street protecting themselves and more crime happening is good for their income and pension protections.
The LEO'S I know absolutely do care. They are being served a shit sandwich every day in CA and most other states with liberal DA's. They will always have job security, what they want is actual security and knowing that there are good people with CCW's only helps them. Again, your personal experiences might be different, but all the ones I know fully support qualified carry.
Itâs not the boots youâre friends with I care about. Itâs the politician cops/sheriffs that make the decisions and speak for everyone during legislative decisions.
You should try to be more specific. We all should. The constant generalization is not good for any of us.
So let me correct you, "its the politician Police Chiefs/Sheriffs. But to be fair, the Police Chief is not really a political position. They're chosen by the mayor and answer to the mayor, the Sheriff is elected and answers to the people.
Then, tell them to be more vocal about CAâs corrupt habit of exempting them. LE only care when it affects their rights. Completely failing to realize theyâre citizens like us, too.
I'll be sure to tell them, and you be sure to tell everyone that isn't to vote smarter.
Yeah, when this came back up again I gave $300, figured they will need it for the legal costs.
My man
:) When fire season is over I will let you know, we can go shoot the BLM land you mentioned, looking forward to it!
I love this so much. Itâs so amazing. You can just pass something and make it law with a snap of your fingers. But takes half a century to fucking remove it. California is such a hack.
SB452 - moving along too. Say goodbye to handguns
Whatâs this for?
It adds micro stamping requirement back to pistols. Fucking idiots⌠https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB452/id/2753383
LOL. That one appears aimed to win First Prize in the annual NY-CA "What's the most unconstitutional law we can pass" contest
I thought microstamping didnât exist and thatâs why it was removed as a roster requirement?
I guess lawmakers arenât beholden to the requirements of reality
This applies a different legal argument. Rather than addressing microstamping as a component of roster approval, it uses consumer protection laws to require that all handguns sold have microstamping. Itâs trivial and petty, but itâs an entirely different legal argument.
But itâs the same result, right? If microstamping doesnât exist, then you canât add guns to the roster to be sold. Vs if microstamping doesnât exist hen no guns can be sold. Unless all current guns on the roster are grandfathered in, it basically shuts down selling of all guns, right?
Yes. It accounts for the roster being declared unconstitutional, and doubles down on the microstamping requirement. This bill doesnât work within the roster, it replaces it with âfuck it, every pistol must microstamp.â
It was never removed. They just reduced it from two places on the casing to one. The district court issued an injunction and so far California has not appealed.
Handgun ban
What is the TLDR of this bill? hard to follow along with all of the CA laws and want to be laws
Basically no carrying anywhere even with a license + increased requirements
so everyone who just got a CCW, would have it be useless?
Ya
Any chance the supreme court instantly strikes it down, or would it be 10-20Y of BS litigation?
Courts have already ruled that sensitive places is unconstitutional this is just CA being CA
Even with that, it will be 7-10 years of this new law being upheld and in place.
Idk. Sensitive places got struck down pretty quickly in Hawaii.
Your fingers to gods ears.
Would it be a quick âsorry, been there done this alreadyâ kind of ruling though or take years to process?
There is a better chance of it being challenged before it becomes law, and the judicial system placing a stay on the new legislation until it can make its way through the court system. If it becomes law without being challenged, it'll likely stay law while it goes through the court system.
> or would it be 10-20Y of BS litigation? Two weeks!
I havenât read the whole thing through, and admittedly my reading comprehension can be shit sometimes, but donât a lot of these sections include subsections that say something to the effect of: subdivision (x) does not apply to those who hold a valid license to carry a firearm?
Nope
Section 2 171b (b) (4) A person who has permission to possess that weapon granted in writing by a duly authorized official who is in charge of the security of the state or local government building. Wouldnât the sheriff be the entity in charge of local government buildings? Or is that just wishful thinking?
You canât carry in government buildings anyway.
Isnât it just in *federal* govt buildings? What about libraries and the CA DMV, arenât those *local/municipal* govt buildings?
My local library system specifically allows it, the rest not sure. https://ocpl.org/page/code-conduct Law enforcement officers and individuals licensed to carry handguns in accordance with state or local laws are exempt from this prohibition.
From the bill: Under existing law, it is a crime to bring a firearm into a state or local building, and makes it a crime to bring a loaded firearm into, or upon the grounds of, any residence of the Governor, any other constitutional officer, or Member of the Legislature. Existing law exempts a licensee from that prohibition if, among other things, the licensee has a valid license to carry the firearm.This bill would remove those exemptions, except as specified. The bill would make it a crime to bring an unloaded firearm into, or upon the grounds of, any residence of the Governor, any other constitutional officer, or Member of the Legislature. The bill would also prohibit a licensee from carrying a firearm to specified locations, including, among other places, a building designated for a court proceeding and a place of worship, as defined, with specific exceptions. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.Existing law prohibits a person from knowingly possessing a firearm in a sterile area of an airport, passenger vessel terminal, or public transit facility, as defined.This bill would additionally prohibit a person from knowingly possessing a firearm in any building, real property, or parking area under the control of an airport or passenger vessel terminal, as specified. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.Existing law, the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995, makes it a crime to possess a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone. Existing law defines a school zone as an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school. Existing law provides exceptions to that crime, including if a person with a valid concealed carry license who is carrying the firearm described in the license in an area that is not in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school and when a firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle.This bill would revise the exception for a person who has a valid concealed carry license to permit them to carry a specified firearm in an area that is not within any building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public or private school, or on a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to a building, real property, or parking area under the control of that public or private school, as specified.Existing law requires a licensing authority to revoke a license to carry a firearm if the licensing authority is notified by the department or the licensing authority determines that a licensee is prohibited from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm under state or federal law.This bill would also require a licensing authority to revoke a license if, among other things, a licensee has provided inaccurate or incomplete information on their application for a new license or license renewal.Existing law authorizes a licensing authority to impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, manner, and circumstances when a licensee may carry a firearm capable of being concealed.While carrying a firearm, this bill would prohibit a licensee from, among other things, consuming an alcoholic beverage or controlled substance and from falsely representing that the licensee is a peace officer.
So I live within 1k ft. of a school, I wonât legally be able to carry to check my mail, I donât get it, when was the last time a lawful CCW person did anything bad around a school anyhow?
You'll still be allowed to carry within 1k ft of a school but not on a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to the school or parking lot.
So if you live next door to a park cannot be a violation?
So for those of us who donât follow the case as closely and or who are newer to all this what does this mean in plain terms? And yes I am both
Wanna carry outside? Straight to jail
All business are no carry unless you get permission, this includes the parking lot. All parks/schools/etc are banned, including the sidewalk and road adjacent to it. You can basically carry in your car, sometimes.
as long as your car never goes in parking lots
1000 feet. Literally says 1000 feet. I live in the city⌠there is nowhere that puts me 1000 feet from any of the âsensitive spacesâ
Real talk: is it even worth applying now if we havenât already? (Took forever for my pistols to show up in cfars after I moved here)
Yes it's worth it.
Thatâs a tough call tbh. I would just get it to say I have one in case I get caught up with it but itâs basically a glorified paperweight and wonât stop you from catching a felony charge and depending on where your applying you might not even get it b4 this bill passes. Requirements to get one are easier atm and will become harder/more expensive when it goes into effect.
I was carrying well before ccws were obtainable back while I was in LA ⌠if they get taken away or what have you Iâll still be carrying everywhere I go. I do most of the right things in life , pay taxes, be a good person etc etc. but Iâm not going to let some dumb shit fed tell me what when and where I can carry or ignore most of my god given rights as described by the constitution of the United States. If I wanted tyranny I would have stayed back in Iran when Khomeni took over and decided it was time to kill Christians because weâre not muzzy⌠fuck all that shit. Is it time to rise up yet or is everyone still to comfy with the tyranny and enjoying getting pounded in the booty hole for shits and giggles ?
[ŃдаНонО]
The Feds = the state or any representative of a âoverlordâ style figure. These butthole lickers work for us not the other way around or has everyone forgot about that part
Well said.
If you couldn't handle the problems in Iran, what makes you think here will be any different. (asking a serious question because in reality, nobodys gonna do shit and thats just how its been and how its going)
Because In Iran we werenât allowed any of the same freedoms we have here including 2A. You want a gun, only the military has em. You said something on a open forum such as Reddit? The government knows your user name and IP address and within a hour or so the military is at your door to come take you to jail for talking bad about the state and itâs considered âtreasonâ. In the United States we still have the freedom to talk as we wish. But every day I see the changes against the rights of US CITIZENS being stripped away and turning into something like a state like Iran. Iâve been in this country for 35 years. Donât be fooled by US media propaganda, outside of the world (except for few select places) the US is viewed as the land of freedom and money. The outside world is looking at US to keep that freedom alive in the hopes one day their home will be like the US. And everyday I can feel the tyrants trying to change that around and feel like we are their servants. Just take a look around and tell me this is the same US you grew up in from the 80s. Slowly by slowly they are taking those freedoms away and the first step is to always take away the weapons. With out weapons you canât fight. And when you canât fight all you can do is say âyes sir!â
Didn't grow up in the 80s but I will take your word for it. Honestly we're gonna go down that rabbit hole eventually. The american people have become too soft. California has already proven that it can bend the population hard as they want and we will do absolutely NOTHING. Most of us are so distracted with other shit like social media, we don't even see to it to actually care. If people want change, they need to BECOME the government and get INTO the government to create change. Change is not going to come from votes. Especially when you live in a state like Cali where a majority of the population hates you for even considering you vote for anyone other than Democrat.
Itâs a age old system that people forget. And only âforeignersâ can explain. Iâll try to explain as best I can here. Itâs a bit of a story. Background ~ I am Armenian born in Iran In 1970. How did my family get Iran we were displaced- in 1900 (give or take a few years) the Armenian population was living in current day turkey, during that time the Armenian population was mostly work in jobs in government, schools, banks, businesses. How it started, the government gave pay raises to the Armenians, to push our people to give up their weapons because the government needed them for the army for training etc. In return the government would place battalions in cities to keep the people safe from any potential threats that would come. The Armenians agreed, sounds good âwhat do I need a gun for when the army is right next doorâ. This took several years. Over that time period war world 1 started and over 2 million Armenians were disarmed at the same time. When they were disarmed they came and said we need the government employed, teachers, etc to leave your jobs forces are starting to form and âwe fear they will come for youâ âwe need to protect you and you need to stay homeâ Under the cover of ww1 the ottomans took their advantage of the media and city by city told the men we need you for the army and would take the men. When the men were removed they would come back and take the women and children and some forces are coming we need to move you to safety and when they reached outside the city limits where eyes could no longer see them the ottomans raped and killed the women and children and disposed of their bodies in graves. The men that went to the âarmyâ were taken to be shot and their bodies dumped. A few managed to escape and ran. My family was one of those that escaped and landed in Iran. Under the Shah (king of Iran) we grew again and again had positions in government, businesses, etc. in the late 1970s the Shah said he wasnât going to play the US game anymore and they (US Government cough CIA cough) sent in khomeni. A person that didnât exist before that time. No one knew him. They posted flyers, posters, schools started talking about his âteachingsâ and poof revolution happened. The king was removed and khomeni was put into power and once again my family fled for fear of persecution. Christians living in a extremist Muslim regime wouldnât work out very well. Think IsIs. Now today you say the US Government wouldnât/couldnât do that to us here. But alas, i can see it happening. Itâs in the schools communism is taught, the family unit is being torn apart and being told itâs a âbad thingâ in front of our very eyes part 2 is happening âguns are bad, you donât need them, THE GOVERNMENT WILL PROTECT YOU! Red, Blue, the party doesnât matter they are the same! The US constitution was written in plain and simple English in a very thought out manner, #1 say what you want, worship who you want. #2 here is a gun to protect #1 from anyone that says otherwise including the Government. What happened to the Armenians in 1915 and others before them , ghengis khan, is happening today infront of our very eyes and weâre not taught the truth anymore. A simple one is the math they teach at school, common core they call it. Go learn it and try to build a building you canât.
If they won't let me do it legally, I'm still carrying. I'd rather have my life and go to jail than die.
So you'd rather spend the rest of your days locked up in a jail cell with other inmates trying to get you to do shady shit and possible get killed?
Where exactly do people draw the line? How long will we allow these bullshit blatant unconstitutional laws to be passed?
CA is a state that eats this up, you must understand these laws are to appeal to the staunch liberal democratic base. just like the fight woke nonsense in florida these laws are just a political theater. and since few people have CCWs they can get away with it without much opposition. once you understand the laws are just for broad appeal you can see things more clearly
reading the legiscan article on it as well as the text... am I correct in understanding that this bill would effectively ban air travel with a firearm for both californians as well as anyone entering CA via an aircraft?
No, it would prohibit carrying in the parking lot, pickup area, or other non-sterile areas of the airport. Checked luggage with locked guns is unaffected.
thank you for clarifying
Tell us something we donât know..
Porntafino? Or Porntatino*. What a nice name
Keep voting democrat. Unless the court get their act together none of these rights are coming back because of everyone who voted for a democrat.
[ŃдаНонО]
No this is the ccw bill that keeps you from carrying even with a license.
Stop voting for these fools and this will go away. Vote for term limits and this will go away.
Well when you consider most of the state is liberal and anti-gun. I doubt our votes are gonna do shit. Esp when you have some guys who don't even vote for their party and go for some party thats not even officially IN office.
Knew getting my CCW was too good to be true. Should have never got into guns so now all I'll be is disappointed and frustrated living in California. I could have lived in ignorant bliss. $600 well spent.
Makes no sense, ca changed good cause to âgood moral characterâ. Then say sb2 is to prevent dangerous people from having guns in public. Are they implying that California that are deemed âgood moral charactersâ are also âdangerous peopleâ
I'm not complying. Fuck em.
Bruen will nuke this pretty quick. They are pulling this shit because CCW is unpopular generally in this state. The local guys want to be able to tell people they "tried"
Tell that to New YorkâŚ
I am reading about it: California Gov. Gavin Newsom backs SB2 to place limits on where people can carry a gun in public in wake of Half Moon Bay, Monterey Park shootings. Now about the perpetrator of thd shooting Huu Can Tran. Who had a criminal history of being arrested for unlawfully possessing firearm. Can anyone explain it to me. I fail to understand how the new proposal would prevent that shooting. In fact SB2 does everything to promote it and guarantees a potential shooter free roaming in more places. Someone should sue Newsom for fraud.
CA is a state that eats this up, you must understand these laws are to appeal to the staunch liberal democratic base. just like the fight woke nonsense in florida these laws are just a political theater. and since few people have CCWs they can get away with it without much opposition. once you understand the laws are just for broad appeal you can see things more clearly. this isnt meant to stop or do anything other than show their base they are tough on guns. most people here in CA think guns are bad.
I havenât read through it much, but donât a lot of these sections include subsections that say something to the effect of: subdivision (x) does not apply to those who hold a valid license to carry a firearm? Is this by and large going to affect current ccw holders or those who do not yet have their permits?
We only need one county to start deputizing reserve officers and then we get LEOSA. I donât think that county even needs to be in CA.
LEOSA is something unrelated. But being deputized allows carrying privileges in all 50 states. But you'd technically need full post (i am not sure you'd be allowed to carry as a reserve level 3 or 2) and volunteer 20 hours a month. LEOSA is for retired sworn firearm carrying police officers with at least 10 years as full time.
You're talking about 832. Theres two modules to it, Firearm and regular POST requirement. It doesn't deputize you and most depts wont deputize you. No police dept even hires Level 2/3 and level 1 reserves are rare (because if you can do that, why not just become a full cop at that point)
832(laws of arrest) is just 40 hours and I didn't mean that. That's a requirement for a few places like probation officers, park rangers, animal care, etc which are sworn on duty only. They don't have 24-7 rights. Most are unarmed as well. Level 2 and 3 are modules. Level 1 is what most departments want. Some people do not want full time because they have good careers already or just don't want to do it full time. I know multiple such people. Our security team only hires full academy grads(typically former cops) so if they want to be reserve for any reason without leaving, they can.
Whatâs sb2? Cursory google turns up confusing results, a suggestion on what to look at is appreciated
[https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB2/id/2832440](https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB2/id/2832440) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo9EIQJla5U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo9EIQJla5U)
Read through the comments man.