UPDATE below: Senate Bill 2 by Senator Anthony Portantino’s (D–Burbank), which is California’s response bill to New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, was signed into law Tuesday. SB 2 enacts numerous “sensitive locations” where guns are banned, and changes requirements to obtain a concealed carry license. SB 2 was also sponsored by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, and simply put illegally imposes restrictions on those seeking a California Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permit.
Notably, Newsom, Bonta and Portantino know they are imposing restrictions to those applying for CCWs, when virtually no crimes are committed by CCW holders, who are required to pass background checks by County Sheriffs, and take gun safety courses.
Remarkably, CCW permit holders don’t commit mass shootings, they stop them. We’ve never had a comment or even a reaction from Gov. Newsom, AG Bonta or Sen. Portantino on this fact. Instead they obsess on legal gun owners, seeking ways to limit Second Amendment protections.
Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation just announced:
Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) teamed up with Gun Owners of California (GOC) to promptly serve California AG Rob Bonta in a lawsuit challenging portions of SB 2, a bill that anti-gun Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Tuesday. This unconstitutional legislation was passed in response to the Bruen decision (which ended the state’s draconian “may-issue” policy), and among other provisions would:
- Enact highly restrictive “sensitive locations” where concealed carrying would be prohibited, including all private property unless expressly permitted by the owner;
- Require 16 hours of training;
- And significantly increase the costs associated with securing a permit.
This suit specifically goes after the “sensitive locations” provision of the law.
So that is strike one.
This is strike two.
Tuesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom also signed into law AB 28, “the Gun Violence Prevention and School Safety Act,” to tax the gun industry claiming to create a permanent funding source “for school safety and gun violence prevention programs” in California. Voter beware when politicians claim “school safety” – it’s usually there opposite.
According to Gov. Newsom, taxing legal gun owners even more for their legal purchases of a gun will put an end to crime and violence. Newsom and bill author Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), are silent on the staggering crime spiking in the state, and instead look to imposing unconstitutional gun control measures on legal gun owners.
AB 28 will impose an 11 percent excise tax on the sale of guns and ammunition by gun manufacturers and dealers and is expected to generate $160 million annually to fund school safety and violence prevention programs, including initiatives to prevent mass shootings, bolster firearm investigations, and remove guns from domestic abusers.”
AB 28 will also end world hunger.
Imposing excise taxes on enumerated rights is unconstitutional.
Justice Clarence Thomas’ clearly laid out in his written decision in the New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case in 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.
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.
Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation said several other anti-gun states have enacted similar unconstitutional legislation in response to the Bruen decision, and GOA and GOF are a part of litigation in several of these cases.
Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:
“This is just the latest assault on our rights in California. Just as concerning, Governor Gavin Newsom has already made his anti-gun intentions quite clear: he wants to effectively repeal the Second Amendment. Sadly, his acknowledgment that doing so would be the only way to enact more gun control did not dissuade him from violating his oath when he signed this law into effect, but we are fully prepared to fight back.”
Sam Paredes, on behalf of the board for GOF and in his role as the Executive Director of Gun Owners of California, added:
“Pro-gun groups in California have had success when pushing back on legislation like this – just look at our victory last week against the state’s magazine ban. And just like in that case, we are confident SB 2 will be overturned. I’ve been warning governors and legislatures across the country since the Bruen decision that these “response bills” will not stand, but unfortunately, many have still been pushed through. That won’t stop us however – states should fall in line, or we will make them.”
In June, Gov. Gavin Newsom, who pretends he isn’t running for President, proposed a 28th Constitutional Amendment to restrict national gun rights, and had the chutzpah to claim it will “leave the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition.” Don’t count on it.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas will consider a lawsuit by Second Amendment groups challenging New York’s strict concealed carry firearm laws, similar to California’s, Just the News reported.
“Thomas has scheduled a conference with the full court on Oct. 6 to weigh a challenge to a provision of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act on background checks for ammunition purchases, which went into effect a few weeks ago, according to the court’s calendar.
A pair of New York gun shop owners filed the lawsuit, arguing that the new background requirements would impact their business and deprive lawful gun owners of their Second Amendment rights.”
- Newsom v. DeSantis Debate: Identity Politics vs. Facts - November 30, 2023
- New Study Reveals BIG Divides Between Governors DeSantis & Newsom on Individual Liberties, etc. - November 30, 2023
- Oakland City Council Council Should Have Called for a Ceasefire – in Oakland - November 29, 2023