Despite being rebuked by the highest court in the land over gun control attempts, California Democrats are still trying to tell the people through dubious legislation that you can’t defend yourself with a firearm… or at least they will limit who can carry, and where you can carry.
The latest gun control legislation, Senate Bill 918 by Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge), appeared to be dead as it was placed on the suspense file in the Assembly Appropriations Committee August 3rd – until yesterday when it moved out with 32 pages of 185 new amendments.
The Supreme Court issued a critical decision in June striking down a New York gun law that puts 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.
On behalf of Democratic California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Senate Bill 918 was introduced in February in anticipation of the Supreme Court decision.
“This strikes me as clearly unconstitutional under the First Amendment, even apart from the Second amendment,” UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh wrote at Reason.com about SB 918. “The government can’t restrict ordinary citizens’ actions—much less their constitutionally protected actions—based on the viewpoints that they express.”
“Senate Bill 918 seeks to remove the right to protect oneself and family by preventing law abiding citizens, regardless of their background, from being able to carry a firearm outside the home,” Rick Travis, Legislative Director of the California Rifle and Pistol Association told the Globe.
About Senate Bill 918
SB 918 creates a new issuing process for concealed carry weapons licenses (CCW licenses) following the June 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
According to Sen. Portantino, SB 918 “seeks to address the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Bruen case wherein it rejected a good cause standard for the issuance of a CCW license.”
In New York, gun carry permit applicants were required to provide justification or “proper cause,” for why they had to defend themselves, rather than just general self defense. But the Supreme Court overturned this requirement in the 6-3 decision.
“SB 918’s changes to the CCW licensing process will improve a system that, according to the legislative findings and declarations, is consistent with the history of the Second Amendment and protects the public from the scourge of gun violence,” Portantino said.
According to Gun Owners of California, Sen. Portantino proposed the following changes to CCW statute in California in SB 918:
- Increases (doubles) the costs for licensing and processing for CCW applications.
- Doubles the amount of time required for training classes from 8 to 16 hours for the initial application and from 4 to 8 hours for a renewal.
- Mandates that the class cover mental health resources.
- Mandates a written exam demonstrating knowledge of class contents.
- Requires face to face interview with law enforcement plus recommendations from three different character witnesses.
- Requires face-to-face interview of residential “co-habitant.”
- Encourages (does not mandate) local authorities to require a mental health evaluation to be conducted by a psychologist.
- Prohibits a non-CCW legal firearms owner from driving within 1,000 feet of a school with an unloaded handgun inside the vehicle’s locked trunk. These PROPOSED DELETIONS are unrelated to CCW, as they apply only to non-CCW holders.
- The bill also prohibits a legal CCW holder from carrying in the following “sensitive areas”:
- Anywhere alcohol is served.
- Public transit, all airport buildings, hospitals, schools, medical facilities, nursing homes, parks, and more.
“There are of course other problems here as well,” Attorney Volokh wrote. “Mere arrest history, without proof that the arrestee actually engaged in illegal conduct, strikes me as inadequate to justify denying Second Amendment rights.”
Gun Owners of California reminds us that “the burden has always fallen on the government to prove an individual is not of ‘good moral character’ – the new regulations place the burden on the applicant.”
What are the amendments that aren’t already covered in this extensive bill? These are just a few:
- adds a psychological testing requirement
- spouses cannot carry a gun licensed to their spouse
- 29 different specified locations a CCW licensee cannot carry including a building, or parking area under the control of a public or private hospital or hospital affiliate, mental health facility, nursing home, medical office, urgent care facility; A bus, train, or other form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and a building, real property, or parking area under the control of a transportation authority supported in whole or in part with public funds; A park, athletic area, or athletic facility that is open to the public and a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to those areas; A building for gambling or gaming of any kind whatsoever, including, but not limited to, casinos, gambling establishments, gaming clubs, bingo operations, facilities licensed by the California Horse Racing Board, or a facility wherein banked or percentage games, any form of gambling device, or lotteries, other than the California State Lottery, are or will be played; A polling place, voting center, precinct, or other area or location where votes are being cast or cast ballots are being returned or counted, or the streets or sidewalks immediately adjacent to any of these places (and many more).
- Allows local governments to outlaw CCW licensees.
- A charge of contempt of court.
- Also requires places of worship to add signage notifying parishioners that the Church, Synagogue, Mosque or other, allows CCW licensees. “A church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship, including in any parking area immediately adjacent thereto, unless the operator of the place of worship clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that license holders are permitted to carry firearms on the property. Signs shall be of a uniform design as prescribed by the Department of Justice and shall be at least four inches by six inches in size.”
“There is no such thing as a gun free zone. A person intent on criminal violence will not be deterred because of a ‘no guns’ sign or an anti-gun law,” the NRA explained in 2020. “The only consequence of such measures is to ensure law-abiding citizens are disarmed and vulnerable.”
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion in the 6-3 ruling. “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.”
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” Justice Thomas wrote. “That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
“Senate Bill 918 is nothing short of tyrannical overreach to force his ideology on law abiding people who still believe in the framer’s intent,” said Rick Travis of the CA Rifle and Pistol Association. “Governor Newsom and his allies will stop at nothing to remove the right of the people to defend themselves. He is signing bills that are known constitutional violations and does not care.”
“Additionally, the bill forces public places of business to display whether or not they support the Second Amendment, thus causing many businesses to worry about what position this places them in when living in an anti-gun state like California. Not since the 1930’s has a government sought to oppress people by using signs to force them to denounce their beliefs as SB 918 does.”
Travis added, “It is ironic that contempt of court is a reason for not issuing given that the whole bill is in contempt of the Supreme Court Of The United States.”
SB 918 amendments
