As nearly ideal as the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision was, no one thought the states that exercise maximum control over who can fully exercise their Second Amendment rights — and who can’t — would go quietly. As we wrote here, it was always clear they weren’t going to just throw up their hands and start issuing concealed carry permits as freely as they do the other 43 states where the right to keep and bear arms is actually respected.
In response to Supreme Court ruling on right to carry gun in public, Sheriff Villanueva says “we’re retooling our operation to a shall-issue standard” & expects 50,000 CCW permits in LA County
As of today, LASD has issued 3,145 permits. Mid-2020, there were 155 active permits
— Alene Tchekmedyian (@AleneTchek) June 29, 2022
News like that was nice, but we knew the affected states would throw up as many hurdles and roadblocks to law-abiding citizens, 1) getting a carry permit and then, 2) legally carrying a firearm as the formerly may-issue states’ busy bureaucratic minds could come up with.
We hate to say we told you so, but . . .
California, where so many of these things seem to start, was quick to jump in to the deep end of the Second Amendment violating pool. Now that issuing counties can no longer reject carry permits because applicants didn’t present a good enough reason for wanting one, longtime gun rights foe state Senator Anthony Portantino was quick to come up with a bill to make the process as onerous as possible.
As Gun Owners of California puts it, legislators in Sacramento “don’t care what the Court did – nor do they care that CCW holders are the most law-abiding subsection of society.”
No one really thought they did. If (when) Portantino’s bill becomes law, it . . .
-
- 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.
Locations that will be off limits to carriers include . . .
-
- Anywhere alcohol is served
- Public transit, all airport buildings, hospitals, schools, medical facilities, nursing homes, parks, and more
Oh and . . .
And if that weren’t bad enough, a provision was also added that addresses alcohol use.  Legal CCW holders will be precluded from carrying while “under the influence” of any alcoholic beverage or medication. Take note of this: it does not mean legally impaired – it means any perceptible amount of alcohol or medication in one’s system. And yes – it covers all medications, not just the hard stuff such as those designated as legal narcotics (i.e. prescription painkillers), but every-day medicine for cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc.
So that’s nice. Take a Tylenol and go to jail.
Meanwhile, across the continent, they’ve been busy in the Empire State too, working out how to respond in kind. The New York legislature will be ramming through new carry restrictions as well. The idea is obviously to make carrying with a permit as legally ambiguous and perilous as possible.
From news12longisland.com . . .
The governor says she plans to expand the restrictions in “sensitive locations” where you can carry a gun, increase firearms training requirements and track how much ammunition is being sold.
New York will mimic like-minded left coasters by requiring a background check for each ammunition purchase.
As for actually getting a carry permit . . .
The new laws would also require more than 15 hours of what she is calling “in-person fire range training.”
And of course . . .
If approved by state lawmakers, places you would not be able to carry a concealed weapon would include on public transportation, parks and other places where children would be.
As expected. But the Governor says she also wants to “protect the rights of property owners who decide they don’t want firearms on the premises” from the Supreme Court’s “unconstitutional mandates.”
Again from news12longisland.com . . .
Hochul also says gun owners should not make any assumptions about where they can carry their weapons.
“The presumption is that private property owners will not want to have concealed carry weapons on their premises, but should they decide they do, they would actually affirmatively put a sign in their window…’Concealed carry weapons welcome here’ – otherwise the presumption will be in the state of New York that they are not.”
We haven’t seen the actual New York legislation and don’t expect to until it has become law. Just like in D.C., they’ll apparently have to pass it so we can find out what’s in it.
Most of these new requirements and limitations are blatantly unconstitutional. They were unconstitutional before Bruen and they’re far more clearly unconstitutional now thanks to Justice Thomas’s ruling. But that doesn’t matter.
Expect to see the same kind of legislative shenanigans from New Jersey, Hawaii and the rest.
Just like the city of Chicago following the McDonald decision, these states will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance. That means suing them and forcing them to show why their new heightened restrictions that limit the free exercise of Second Amendment rights aren’t plainly unconstitutional. It will take time, but it will happen…whether California, New York and the rest like it or not.
It doesn’t matter to them. It never did. The only way to stop this is to vote these traitors out of office and replace them with patriots. I’m not sure that can ever be done in these states. It will be a long time before the Constitution is actually respected or adhered to.
What needs to happen is the court needs to rule that permits are unconstitutional period. You don’t need to ask permission to exercise a right.
The article states that, as of yesterday, LASD had processed an additional 3090 permits since Villanueva began accepting applications back in Feb 2021. That’s fewer than 200 per month. I submitted my application in Jul 2021 at a time when there were reportedly fewer than 4000 in the hopper, and by the end of the year was told by LASD that there were more than 8000 backlogged. So even before Bruen, the person at the back of the line as of the end of 2021 won’t expect to receive approval until the end of 2023.
This is not sarcasm or exaggeration…the Deputy who interviewed me confirmed the rank-and-file’s frustration that their CCW Unit doesn’t have the manpower to handle this, and won’t any time soon due to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisor’s recent vote to withhold funding for hiring purposes.
50,000 applications? Unless the Demtards in control of CA & L.A. release their stranglehold on things, it’s all just words.
Also, the Dept went from about 10,000 uniformed in early 2020 to about 9000 now due to the Board and the Mayor both pushing for defunding. When the Board voted in April to override Villanueva’s decision to not enforce the COVID vaxx mandate, the result was a further reduction of a few hundred more Deputies.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/los-angeles-county-covid-vaccine-sheriff
When I was in the LASD Headquarters earlier this year waiting for my interview appointment, I personally witnessed two Deputies quit and surrender their badges. That was just in the span of less than an hour on that single day. When I mentioned my surprise to the uniformed Deputy in the room, he grimaced and said it had been like that already for weeks due to the severe loss in morale.
And now this week the City of West Hollywood voted to further defund the Dept, even as their local crime rate has soared to more than double??
“The only way to stop this is to vote these traitors out of office and replace them with patriots.”
OK- but where are you going to find those kind of people to run for office? And being “good” on guns doesn’t mean the candidate will have any financial, social or leadership experience or principles, nor even be likable enough to get a majority to vote for them.
We are doing better at finding candidates since DJT, but trying to run an honest, decent citizen against the slime buckets in office now requires someone who doesn’t mind being slandered, lied about, and outright vilified. That takes someone very special. The liars and cheats are always easier to find and run.
ILLannoy was forced. They’ve done a lot to “slow walk” it deliberately (& through shear ineptness)to roadblock it or deny it. The hated FOID was declared unconstitutional. Didn’t matter. They only understand being spanked or sued into poverty…
What do you all think about SCOTUS slapping down the EPA for creating laws? Can we now go after the ATF for their unconstitutional refs too?
coming today just before the d.c. dingbat is confirmed. potential for some groovy precedence there.
Key to WV v. EPA opinion was the resurrection of the “major cases” doctrine, which pretty well nukes Chevron deference where the agency is making “decisions of vast economic and political significance,” such as purporting to have the power to reorder the entire US economy to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Court won’t let them do that without clear evidence that Congress intended they would have it.
While SCOTUS is chipping away at Chevron, it hasn’t overruled it yet. And regretfully most of the stuff BATFE does probably won’t be anything close to what courts will consider a “major case” decision. I can imagine certain hypos that might (e.g., if EPA or BATFE purported to ban all lead ammunition, or declare that all semiautomatic weapons are machine guns because they could be converted to full auto), but by and large Chevron deference is going to be with us in most cases, at least for the near future.
LKB –
The 3 remaining cases were just granted cert., vacated, and remanded back to the district courts.
Does that mean when they rule it applies nationally, or just in those districts?
“Justices Send Assault Weapon, Magazine Bans Back to Lower Courts”
“The cases are Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Bruck, U.S., No. 20-1507, Young v. Hawaii, U.S., No. 20-1639, Bianchi v. Frosh, U.S., No. 21-902, and Duncan v. Bonta, U.S., No. 21-1194.”
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/justices-send-assault-weapon-magazine-bans-back-to-lower-courts
That’s good… This could be interesting!
I think Maryland previously, through very tortured logic, said AWBs were allowed by Heller. Will they try to push it again and send it back up, or fold and fall in line with a “whoops, we were wrong, AWB is unconstitutional!”
It will be interesting then if the states can’t outright ban mags and semi-autos what they will try to add road blocks for them.
Geoff,
For citation purposes, courts have a “hierarchy” of precedence. If you are anywhere in the US, SUPPOSEDLY a SCOTUS decision is “controlling authority”. A decision by the 9th Circus is “controlling authority” for federal district courts in the 9th . . . unless overruled by SCOTUS or a subsequent 9th Circus ruling. A ruling by a federal district court in your jurisdiction is “persuasive authority” – not binding, but should be followed. A ruling by another Circuit Court of Appeals (other than the 9th) is also “persuasive authority”. For federal courts (district and circuit), the rulings of STATE courts as to STATE laws is supposedly “controlling authority”, but often isn’t. State courts mostly follow the same hierarch for court rulings within their state.
What’s the old saying? “It’s complicated.” In reality, clown courts like the 9th Circus will perform gymnastics that would put Simone Biles to shame to circumvent, ignore, or “re-interpret” rulings they don’t like. Anyone who thinks that the issues litigated are now “resolved” by Bruen, Dobbs, Kennedy, the Maine school choice case, or WV vs. EPA is listening to their own bulls***. But every incremental improvement moves the Overton Window. The Left has been playing that game for years. It’s about time libertarians/conservatives/constitutionalists got serious about playing it back at them.
In NYS you can’t fire a handgun unless that actual gun is listed on your permit . So a live fire class to get a permit is not possible at this time . She’s also calling for a background check to buy handgun ammo, something that was in the Safe Act, until the State Police said that’s not possible as no system for that exists .
So maybe you can get a permit, if you are rich enough to afford it. Definitely want to make it hard for the poor, minorities, single parents, etc. I guess those training classes aren’t going to be free and provided by the government are they…
It should be required then that all police, politicians, body guards, security, judges, military, federal employees also have to submit to these new rules or they also can’t touch or carry a gun, fair is fair right? Though I would prefer the opposite.
You can rent pistols if you have any kind of pistol permit and I think Albany county allows you to buy and use a pistol at the range (kept on site) before you get your permit issued but yes they are trying to make a silly process harder.
“In NYS you can’t fire a handgun unless that actual gun is listed on your permit . So a live fire class to get a permit is not possible at this time ”
Great point and very correct.
I think the state is going to have its hands full with expanded training. They have to offer it to not just new applicants, but depending on if they grandfather current CC holders to that group as well. And all the while making sure that they do it in a timely manner, as I would THINK a lack of timeliness would be actionable.
At this point the delay in having a process and pending lawsuits will slow things down for a while to the detriment of anyone without a permit
The left wing anti-Constitution BS will never stop unless the “authorities” are escorted from their offices in handcuffs. Which means the left wing anti-Constitution BS will never stop.
The shallow knee-jerk reactions by the blues is pretty much admission that their barriers were never put in place to enhance “safety” but to discourage exercising the right.
Elements of racism and genocide inherent with Gun Control ooze from the pores of pencil neck closet perverts like the democRat anthony portantino.
These people know better than you or I how unconstitutional these idea are. They will exploit the legal system – and the long time it takes to resolve issues – to their advantage.
Dragged kicking and screaming is not a metaphor. They are holding out for a change in the court, that will eventually revisit these issues and will eventually eliminate the 2nd Amendment.
These are not honorable people. Their tactics have no place in a civil society that is governed by the rule of law.
I have to wonder if these changes, coming immediately on the heels of the SCOTUS decision, wouldn’t open up the lawmakers to direct civil lawsuits for depravation of civil rights. Normally, lawmakers have immunity from such acts, however, increasing the requirements (including doubling training time and costs) less than a week after the ruling would call in to question the compelling government motive.
That’s about the only peaceful mechanism for stopping this, IMO…
Your spelling error is humorous. No, you can’t sue a depraved politician. I think the redundancy in terms makes him immune.
LOL, whoops! Yeah, we kinda expect our politicians to be depraved, unfortunately…
Still a commie state. Kind of funny that a state like CA – which has the highest gas tax in the US – is now offering a $1,000 check to citizens of their state for “fuel price relief”. So, obviously, you could just lower your state tax to begin with. But of course, there are people who feel like $1,000 makes up for the increased taxes – which is doesn’t. Math is hard though…
Also, in b4 they turn “responsible” gun owners into the new media target.
I am ok with this..
Really no hear me out.
If this is a requirement, then all armed guards, and police must also pay up and sit in said training. If not, then no I don’t agree with it.
They must be forced to eat their own dog food.
I mean forget the fact the decision actually discusses the fact that getting a permit can not be expensive or onerous, so on it’s face these new hurdles are illegal.
Who you live with should not determine whether you can have armed self defense.
Yes kicking and screaming is right.
Meanwhile nearly half the country is constitutional carry, or easy permitting.
Don’t forget you need to qualify by serial number on each firearm, max two for CA.
Police officers go through ore intensive firearms training through POST than these new law proposals require. Not that it matters; many cops hate guns so much they can’t hit the broad side of a barn.
Yea, just type in “Held at gunpoint for open carry”. Some of the most cringe incidents with cops that obviously have very little firearms training. The worst one was with a female officer and a shotgun. Red Coat AF!
@Daniel,
Maximum three gunns.
That property owner provision . . . Apartment dwellers and renters are shyt out of luck unless the landlord puts up a sign that authorizes tenants to conceal carry. Figure the odds on that!
Not sure that is right, as the tenant has possession and control of the leased premises, not the landlord. Where it will really bite is that you cannot go into ANY place of business unless it has a sign posted. Not the bank, grocery store, deli, you name it. THE INTENT AND EFFECT OF THIS PROVISION IS TO RENDER ANY URBAN AREA IN NYS (AND CALIFORNIA WHICH IS PROPOSING AN IDENTICAL PROVISION) A SENSITIVE PLACE. It does not matter to these people that SCOTUS specifically warned that the state could not turn the entire island of Manhattan into a sensitive place, these bills do precisely that. And it will take a decade for them to be overturned not withstanding that they come nowhere close to complying with the standard of review–history, text and tradition. And we will be right back where we started–the cops and the criminals will be armed, and the rest of us will be victims.
@Paul,
Mark is correct. CA’s rental law goes back decades, long before the Demtards gained control of Sacramento. CA recognizes any place you occupy as your de facto “residence” for the duration of the term of rental. This includes any property rented, from any local, state, or private agency, be it an actual apartment or simply a campsite. CCW permit not needed as long as you’re on the actual property in question and not brandishing.
I know this well because I’ve had two separate brushes with unruly campers who verbally issued threats against me and Mrs Haz, and displayed deadly weapons. In one of them, I had to present my own gunn to show them the folly of their decision to threaten us. In the other, I retained my gunn concealed but was able to contact the local Sheriff, and within the hour Deputies arrived, confirmed the other campers were a threat, and forced them out.
The sexually liberated are afraid of being shot because of their sexual orientations. But they want other people to be forced to take care of their security fears. Instead of them getting weapons and learning how to use them properly. The drug legalization crowd are afraid of being robbed at gunpoint. So instead of learning how to protect themselves with their own firearms. They want everybody’s guns taken from them. But of course criminals always have guns. They always find a way to get them.
They always said, “if we can just legalized drugs there will be no reason for black dope dealers to carry guns”.
The most productive thing that could be done to allay everyone’s fears, would be to start a National Firearms education program. In public schools and colleges. But in LA County they banned a Firearms education class at the community college level. But they did allow a class on how to be a pornographic film star. And it was taught by a porn star.
Sex and drugs are two of the highest priorities for the leadership and most of the voters in the state of California. Forest fires, the lack of water, and a lack of dependable, reliable electricity are not the priorities, of most people in the state of California.
But the voters voted for proposition 47. They made it legal to steal in the state of California. It’s in the state constitution now. Unless you are stealing from the rich. Then you will still be arrested. But it’s okay, it’s acceptable to steal from the middle class and the poor. The police will not intervene.
And California does not have a second amendment in it’s state constitution. It never has.
McDonald v. Chicago says it does now, it just happens to be the one in the BOR.
“If approved by state lawmakers, places you would not be able to carry a concealed weapon would include on public transportation, parks and other places where children would be.”
Which means if you have children you can’t carry at home or anywhere your kids are with you. Or… anywhere a child may be which is about 99% of anywhere public in a city. In short, denial of the right by arbitrary restriction sgain.
They are going to drag this out as long as possible. Not only because they do not want to comply, but also as a stall tactic hoping for a second term in the white house to stack up their justices in SCOTUS.
With the current resistance to sensible SC. rulings, I have to wonder if perhaps the left knows something the rest of us don’t. Could it be they know the fix is in and they will have enough control over government authority that this is not a problem, but a minor set back.
Several states made changes to election rules and procedures that were not authorized by their state legislatures as required by the Constitution.
One more thing: the new concealed carry laws in California are intended to “equalize” the issuance of permits across the state. It used to be that the Sheriff had the discretion to determine whether an applicant had “good cause,” and that varied from the same standard applied in NY (where only people who had a demonstrable special need greater than the average Joe had GC) to “self defense is good enough.” AS a result a number of counties, especially those in northern California, were essentially “shall issue” while large southern urban areas and the Bay Area were virtually no issue. Because the required showing for “good moral character” now include mandatory provisions for character references, face to face interviews of family members, etc., and since being lawfully entitled to purchase firearm is not enough to establish GMC, the obvious intent is to significantly limit the number of permits issued in the “shall issue” counties, a long held desire of the Legislature. Plus, with the same presumptoon that all businesses are gun free zones without a “gunz welcome here” poster in the window, there will be no point in carrying a concealed weapon any place but in your car. These proposals are so restrictive–more restrictive than current law–that getting a CCW is pointless. Of course.
Those character references are illegal on their face. The Bruen decision specifically rejected “good character” requirements as unconstitutional. There really should be a penalty for openly defying the SC in this manner.
Well, the State will argue that that commentary was not a part of the holding so they are not bound by it. But I have to go back and read all the concurrences that I haven’t gotten to yet.
Well, good.
Make it as onerous as possible. The worse and more restrictive and exclusive it is, the easier it will be to show it is in direct conflict with the Bruen ruling and get the whole morass tossed. Hopefully, anyway
The medication provision is rather clever. That playground is almost unlimited. Starting with any decision that affects your personal health, to any degree. Heck, even decisions to drive a motor vehicle can be negatively influenced when any medication is taken. Or use power tools. Or kitchen implements. Or knives.
Or….
I read that provision today. The California ver sion in any event refers specifically to a number of provisions of the Health & Safety Code, and they all deal with some rather heavy hitting drugs in the bennies and meth categories, plus of course opiates.
“I read that provision today. The California ver sion in any event refers specifically to a number of provisions of the Health & Safety Code…”
Did you read both with an eye toward how things can be warped to put people at risk of adverse action?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander…..make politicians pass these hurdles every time they introduce a bill or file for office.
if i lived in california
id say
“thats fine”
just as long as the same restrictions
are imposed on “a womans right to choose”
Portatino looks like somebody you wouldn’t want near your kids.
Sacrifices have to be made to exercise your constitutional rights.
Spending $42,000 to carry a gunm is one of those sacrifices.
“Spending $42,000 to carry a gunm is one of those sacrifices.”
$45,000 will weed out more undesirables, and increase the value of the sacrifice, adding to one’s virtue list on the headstone.
I wanna slap that smug smile right off.
It just shows that to the liberal democrats gun owners are way beyond second class citizens.