![](https://californiaglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/shutterstock_1458654980-1210x642.jpg)
Guns and ammo. (Photo: Kiattipong/ShutterStock)
California Legislature Passes ‘Tyrannical’ Package of 12 Gun Control Bills
‘The California Legislature chose to follow other hostile regimes desperate to restrict the rights of the people’
By Katy Grimes, September 18, 2023 3:51 pm
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:
There are no assault weapon experiences of other states or cities recited. There are no public hearings described. There is one indication, however: Senate Bill 23 was said to be similar to Assembly Bill 2560, which was passed the previous year, but vetoed by California Governor Pete Wilson. Governor Wilson issued a statement with his veto criticizing AWCA’s prohibited-features approach and offered this analogy: “If this bill’s focus were high speed sports cars, it would first declare them ‘chariots of death’ and then criminalize possession of Ramblers equipped with racing stripes and wire wheels.”
- Temecula School District Staff Cut Lights and Video During Public Board Meeting - August 31, 2024
- Three New ‘Practical Guides’ Are Available on California Laws - August 31, 2024
- Gov. Newsom’s Office Insists Budget is ‘Balanced’ – No Deficit - August 30, 2024
“SB-452: Postpones handgun microstamping requirement to at least January 1, 2028” –
How many times can a legislature beat a dead horse? In California the number of times is limitless. There are two reasons for that.
Reason #1- They get paid taxpayer money to do it.
Reason #2- They like beating dead horses. They must. They’ve been beating this one since 2007.
That tiny townhome right across the border in NV (Reno, VC, etc.) is looking better.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.
-Mao Zedong-
AB-1587 is the scariest of all.
The problem that there is no penalty of cancelling parts of the constitution. Newsom can just wave his wand and scribble out any amendment he wants with impunity.
Voting in California is a national joke.
Exactly, there is no punishment for writing and passing legislation that conflicts with our constitutional rights. Thats why they will continue to “beat a dead horse” until they get what they want.
A reader suggested this:
Maybe it’s time for the California Legislative Responsibility Act, where any new regulation must show timely measurable positive results or it must be repealed, and any lawmaker who authored or sponsored three or more repealed regulations gets a four-year time-out.
I’d vote Yes if there was a ballot initiative to add a California Legislative Responsibility Act to the state Constitution.
Of course, Newsom sponsored SB 2. Newsom is a Communist. He was the one who locked down California longer than any other state, and refused to give up emergency powers when both the State Senate and State Assembly passed a bill to limit his powers.