Yesterday a US District Judge in California left no ambiguity our doubt about his thoughts on California’s efforts to limit the right to keep and bear arms by enacting SB2 following the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney blocked most of the law in an injunction issued last night the May v. Bonta.
…California will not allow concealed carry permitholders to effectively practice what the Second Amendment promises. SB2’s coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court. The law designates twenty-six categories of places, such as hospitals, public transportation, places that sell liquor for on-site consumption, playgrounds, parks, casinos, stadiums, libraries, amusement parks, zoos, places of worship, and banks, as “sensitive places” where concealed carry permitholders cannot carry their handguns. SB2 turns nearly every public place in California into a “sensitive place,” effectively abolishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding and exceptionally qualified citizens to be armed and to defend themselves in public.
How’s this for being direct? As Judge Carney rightly noted . . .
CCW permitholders are among the most responsible, reliable law-abiding citizens. They have been through a vigorous vetting and training process following their application to carry a concealed handgun. The challenged SB2 provisions unconstitutionally deprive this group of their constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.
Pretty much. The injunction blocks enforcement of the law that criminalized even licensed concealed carry in 26 categories of locations the state arbitrarily designated as “sensitive places.” Judge Carney pointed out that . . .
SB2 turns nearly every public place in California into a “sensitive place,” effectively abolishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding and exceptionally qualified citizens to be armed and to defend themselves in public.
As the Firearms Policy Coalition put it in announcing the victory . . .
“This is a great day for Californians and human liberty,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Today’s decision is yet another FPC win preventing tyrants like Attorney General Bonta from putting you in prison for exercising your fundamental rights. The court’s decision is both well-reasoned and the required result under the Constitution and binding Supreme Court precedent. As an aside, we hope Governor Hair Gel is getting used to losing so much and look forward to hearing him cry harder as we dismantle California’s immoral and unconstitutional gun control regime.”
The Second Amendment Foundation was also a party to the suit. Alan Gottlieb said . . .
“SB2 is not only an affront to the right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “it’s an insult to the intelligence of every honest citizen in the Golden State. It amounts to a massive prohibition on legal carry throughout the state, which runs counter to what the U.S. Supreme Court said in its Bruen ruling last year. Thankfully, Judge Carney sent a message to Gov. Newsom and anti-gun-rights state lawmakers that they can’t get away with this.”
The suit was filed by a group of Second Amendment rights organizations. Similar orders have been issued blocking the same types of “sensitive places” carry bans in Hawaii, Maryland New Jersey and New York.
Merry Christmas, Governor Newsom.
Governor Hair Gel, lol. His gay little routine in front of the mirror is probably the most useful thing he gets accomplished each day. And, God knows his hair is useless.
RE: “They have been through a vigorous vetting and training process following their application to carry a concealed handgun. The challenged SB2 provisions unconstitutionally deprive this group of their constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.”
A win for “This Group?” Sounds a whole lot like Jim Crow Gun Control thinking. All other citizens who have not participated in a concealed carry permit scam where the state takes a Constitutional Right from the citizenry and sells it back to them were ignored and remain Defenseless. And the state continues to get away with fraud. Bottom line…It’s citizens getting plucked without even a kiss.
Thank you DebbieW, you hit the nail on the head.
The permitting process under SB2 was not at issue in this lawsuit, although it is in another. Moreover, Bruen implicitly recognizes a state’s right to regulate through the permitting process, within Constitutional limitations, the qualifications of citizens to carry concealed firearms.
“…Bruen implicitly recognizes a state’s right to regulate through the permitting process, within Constitutional limitations, the qualifications of citizens to carry concealed firearms.”
I *really* hope Justice Thomas has some ideas on dealing with those states hell-bent on making it as difficult as possible to carry, with onerous costs and ‘training requirements’ to exercise a fundamental civil right…
So is the stuff that he has under it, A worthless and ant-i constitutional POS.
these days they expect to lose on most of these restrictions…they’ve even admitted as much…but they just keep throwing them out there…
FPC President Brandon Combs calling Newsom “hair gell” is as unprofessional as an officer of the law screaming ” Get down , get The FUCK down.”
Or other non professional explicitives.
And a ‘judge says’ doesn’t really mean anything anymore, check out how the anti constitution states treat the Supreme Court.
At this point, it’s get whatever you can while you can. This applies to both the judiciary and looters.
Hey possum, cry harder.
Cry harder,?,, why because states do not give the Supreme Courts dessisions any validation.
A “judge” said Trump incited the Insurrection that never was, and Colorado Supreme Court says he can’t be on their ballot because of it… So, I guess it depends on the judge, the ruling and who/what is affected by it… Hair Gel, Gov Hollywood, Newsance or Scum sucking Progressive Liberal are ALL appropriate for that feckless POS… 380,000 former CA residents will agree with me and his bullshit policies have gifted CA a $65 billion deficit… Merry Christmas indeed…
“A “judge” said Trump incited the Insurrection that never was, and Colorado Supreme Court says he can’t be on their ballot”
“Section 3 of the Fourteenth amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary.”
-Congressional Research Service, updated September 7, 2022.
All this was settled back in 1866, when Senators Reverdy Johnson and Lot Morrill clarified whether the 14th Amendment they were drafting would apply to presidents and vice presidents.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A1Ze5qIYyuY
No conviction in court needed. Guilty until you prove yourself innocent. Against a doj weaponized against the fascist lefts opponents.
We will have a Nuremberg 2.0. And you will be invited to attend, miner.
“Fourteenth amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction”.
I look forward to SCOTUS clarifying what takes priority – an amendment violating the due process clause, or the actual due process clause.
“Fourteenth amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction”.
The 14th amendment also gave congress the power to enforce it via appropriate legislation – which they did – and that legislation requires levied criminal charges and conviction.
MajorLiar,
You LYING sack of excrement. First of all, the 14th arguably doesn’t even APPLY to the presidency (read it, you illiterate @$$hole), but it DOES expressly empower Congress to pass laws to enforce the 14th. NOW, go read 18 U.S.C. 2830, you farking, drooling moron. Oh, and where does “due process” come into the picture, you fascist sh*thole??
Every time I think I couldn’t hate or despise you any more, you come along and prove me wrong. I hope you die the death you deserve, you Leftist/fascist @$$hole.
“First of all, the 14th arguably doesn’t even APPLY to the presidency (read it, you illiterate @$$hole)“
Temper, temper…
Fortunately, we have the actual record of the debate regarding this amendment, and the individuals who drafted the amendment disagree with you:
“The Johnson–Morrill Exchange
During the floor debates over the Joint Committee’s final version of Section 3, a momentous exchange occurred—at least for our purposes. Magliocca testified about it at the Colorado trial and many briefs and law review articles address it.
Sen. Reverdy Johnson was concerned about the draft. He commented that former rebels “may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you omit to exclude them?”
Sen. Lot Morrill responded: “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words “or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.”
Johnson, apparently mollified, walked back his statement: “Perhaps I am wrong as to the exclusion from the Presidency; no doubt I am; but I was misled by noticing the specific exclusion in the case of Senators and Representatives.”
The committee approved Section 3 in its final form the next day.
Referencing the Johnson – Morrill exchange, Magliocca wrote in his law review article (and he expressed similar conclusions in his testimony in October): “Congress did not intend (nor would the public have understood) that [former Confederate president] Jefferson Davis could not be a Representative or a Senator but could be President.”
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/for-whatever-reason-will-the-colorado-supreme-court-apply-the-constitutional-insurrectionist-bar-to-presidents
“Section 3 of the Fourteenth amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary.”
-Congressional Research Service, updated September 7, 2022.
The original intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment is clear, and anyone who believed in the ‘text and tradition’ of the constitution would not question that the president is included under the purview of the 14th amendment.
Of course, the conservatives only spout their ‘originalist text and tradition’ bullshit when it serves them.
“We will have a Nuremberg 2.0“
How happy you must be it’s already happening! And the prison sentences for seditious conspiracy are rolling right along:
“Tarrio was sentenced in September to 22 years in federal prison, the longest sentence given to any Jan. 6 defendant to date. His co-defendants included Joe Biggs, who was sentenced to 17 years, while Zachary Rehl was sentenced to 15 years and Ethan Nordean 18 years“
Just remember, miner. Your side set these rules. When it is your turn in the dock don’t whine.
What was his name? Robespierre?
MINOR49er, Your Congressional Research outfit is a Leftist orgin. hardly a reputible source.
In this country inspite of your take in the matter, Trump has NOT been covicted of “insurrecction”. At best the Colorado Supreme Court decision is questionable at best and probably unconstitutional. You see in this country to be convicted you have to have been tried and CONVICTED. Neither has yet happened.
You Leftists are so bent on getting rid of Trump, you trump up whatever you can. (no pun intended).
“A “judge” said Trump incited the Insurrection that never was, and Colorado Supreme Court says he can’t be on their ballot because of it…”
The SCotUS will slap that down so fast ‘minor’s’ head will break the speed of sound…
one would hope so…reeks of desperation….
Maryland along with most socialist states implemented ‘sensitive places’ restrictions in response to the Bruen ruling. These people (democrats) are chomping at the bit to install to install CCP governance over you plebeians.
Just another court decision…To be ignored. As long as they are allowed.
Eventually the talking will become kinetic action, as it always does. The outcome, however, is uncertain. and it’s that uncertainty that scares people.
There isn’t enough desire, courage or resolve for any action to take place. Even as people’s doors are kicked in and they are taken away in handcuffs. They will continue to say it isn’t bad enough yet or it surely can’t get that bad. Just as the Jews did in 1903s-40s Germany. Simply because it’s easier to pretend freedom exists, than to fight to ensure it exists.
Time for a repost..
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
Darkman, America isn’t 1930s Germany. This path toward total tyranny is waking up many, and won’t be … allowed.
Yaay now Californians can defend themselves with one of the three guns on the approved list
Yes and no. SB2 doesn’t actually take effect until 1/1/2024. The existing law is massively less restrictive. (The only reason for the new law was to attempt to eliminate concealed carry in the state, as the judge clearly recognized, despite the absence of evidence that licensees pose any sort of a threat to public safety.) By the time the new year rolls around, Bonta will have filed his appeal and sought a stay from the Ninth Circuit, which stay will allow the new law to go into effect. The Ninth will apply a balancing test to the injunction and determine that the State’s interest in public safety outweighs the rights of citizens to carry dangerous weapons in public and grant the stay pending appeal.
Omaha, Ne will be going thru the courts soon. Mayor Stothert signed an executive order for this same thing after Nebraska passed constitutional carry. this case sets a precedence, hopefully omaha gets squashed in court.
Meanwhile, in Illannoy, with its bought and paid for supreme court……
As one can see by the historical evidence below the Supreme Court was dead wrong on the Bruen Decision.
There was a myth that everyone carried guns in the Old West. In fact towns like Tombstone had more gun ban laws than they do today. And Wyatt Earp fought at the OK Corral over enforcing no guns in the town.
In the movies, it seems like every cowboy, cowhand, and dubious wandering stranger carries a revolver or a rifle. In reality, guns were heavily regulated in many towns and cities on the frontier. Most people did own guns in the West, but when it came to entering a town, you either had to leave your weapon at home or hand it over to local authorities. Dodge City, a famously wild frontier town in Kansas, had a large sign in the middle of town reading: “The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Prohibited.” Indeed, the gunfight at the O.K. Corral in Tombstone, Arizona — the most famous shootout in the history of the Old West — reached a head when lawman Wyatt Earp ordered a group of cowboys to drop their weapons in accordance with local laws. According to Adam Winkler, a specialist in U.S. constitutional law, “Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today.
https://historyfacts.com/us-history/article/7-myths-about-the-wild-west/
Yes, petty tyrants have a long history of disarming everyone in sight to “protect” innocents from criminals, who don’t pay any more attention to signs then than they do now. Thank you for once again proving that all gun control does is disarm law abiding citizens to make them easier targets for criminals. Then, rather than demand their guns back, petty tyrants are free to offer “solutions” that are more power grabs.
Gun control is just an immoral power grab.
And again, dacian, yes some towns had laws against carrying weapons. But any citizen with the funds could order any firearm, including Gatling guns and artillery. straight through the mail. No questions asked.
We will have that level of freedom again. In large part thanks to fascists like you and miner.
Tombstone was a town, not a state, and in fact was in a territory and not a part of a state at the time. There were no such restrictions outside of town. Whether or not townspeople carried arms is one thing, but ranchers typically did. Tombstone was distinguished on this basis by the Supreme Court.
Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today.
AND, it was just as UNconstitutional then as it is now…
dacian, the DUNDERHEAD. Pure unadulterated HORSE PUCKY! The problem with you Lefties is you can’t seem to be able to comprehend the English language. What part of “shall not be infringed”, don’t you understand?
When Justdice Thomas wrote that “history” could be used to justify restrictions, he was REFERRING to the time that the 2nd Amendment was written? That was done in Tombstone has no value at to when the 2nd Amendent was written, in spite of your invalid protestations.
Have you ever been able to figure out the firing sequence of a cartridge yet? It’s really very simple if you are a “firearms expert”. But then you are not a firearms expert but you certainly are a bull s h i t artist.
the prohibition of carrying in town only applied to part of the town in Dodge city…the area below the “deadline”…. where most of the rowdy cowboys gathered …
𝗠𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝗕2 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗖𝗪 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tZ76A5c2Mc
This Sheriff says in his address that he’s not opposed to most of the changes to CA’s application process for CCW. Interesting…so he’s okay with putting applicants through a subjective psychological evaluation and making them pay for this?
@sorrynotsorry, but this comes to mind:
“No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
– Murdock v. Penn, 319 US 105
“If the State converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
– Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262
NY only blocked a handful of those places like churches – we’re still screwed in a big chunk of locations.
It also overruled restrictions on carry on private property such as private businesses, which I would suggest is a huge chunk of area where carry is still permissible, as it was before the new law. The judge in California did the same.
“we’re still screwed in a big chunk of locations.”
The gun right’s orgs are working on it.
Have you considered financially supporting them to speed the process?
Geoff PR,
About eight years ago I supported my state’s preeminent gun rights organization–and then I witnessed a disturbing sequence of events.
My state:
— had/has a LONG list of “prohibited locations”
— preeminent gun rights org. pressed our legislature to overturn them
— legislature passed a law to overturn them
— governor vetoed that law
— legislature had ample votes to override the veto
— legislature refused to override the veto
— preeminent gun rights org. stopped pressing our legislature
That ordeal convinced me that all of the machinations for and against gun rights were nothing more than political theater intended to garner press coverage and donations. Now add the fact that my state’s preeminent gun rights organization has filed ZERO lawsuits. The result: I have withdrawn financial support for my state’s preeminent gun rights organization.
Now if only the SC would bring charges against these law makers and force them to stop making laws that go against their decisions or said lawmakers go to jail for a long time.
Merry Solstice and a happy Yule.
I’ve got the best yule in Missouri.
Show me.
This case is not an actual “win”, but only the first steps in the appeals dance. Indeed, “Bruen” shows us that even an SC decision favoring 2A supporters isn’t a “win”. A “win” for 2A will only come when the number of people trying to overturn the Second Amendment via simple regulation/legislation is so small they are too embarrassed to admit their stance.
EFF bonta and gruesome in their bidens! DRY!
Huh. I wonder when the firearms rights organizations in my state will file a lawsuit to block my state’s rather large list of “prohibited locations”–all but one of which are on California’s SB2 list which the judge just enjoined.
This rebuke bounces right off the wooden heads that will just rewrite the law and enact it all over again. These Juges who ignore or willfully violate Supreme Court decisions need to be called to DC and explain their actions to the Court. Then punitive responses imposed.
Comments are closed.