California’s Post-Bruen Concealed Carry Restrictions Bill Has Failed by One Vote

By
Dan Zimmerman
-
70
◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

A measure that would have enacted more than three dozen new restrictions [on concealed carry in California] failed by one vote as lawmakers adjourned. Democratic Sen. Anthony Portantino, who pushed for the bill along with Attorney General Rob Bonta, promised to reintroduce the legislation on the day lawmakers reconvene in December after the November election.

“California was made less safe tonight by not passing the bill to make us consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision,” Portantino said. “It’s unfortunate, it’s sad, it’s surprising.”

The Supreme Court in June overturned a New York law requiring that people seeking a license to carry a gun in public demonstrate a particular need, such as a direct threat to their safety.

California is among a half-dozen states with similar requirements that are scrambling to make adjustments under the ruling that made their existing laws unenforceable, with New York proceeding with its new limits even as California’s effort failed.

The goal was to “push the envelope” without triggering another Supreme Court reversal, Portantino previously said of his bill.

Bonta also said “the safety of Californians” is at risk without a replacement.

“There would be a huge influx of applicants now that the ‘just cause’ component has been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and not enough safety precautions for the individuals who are seeking that,” Bonta said as he unsuccessfully pushed for the bill’s passage. “If this bill doesn’t pass, people who haven’t had a comprehensive safety evaluation can get a concealed weapon and bring it into (sensitive) places” like schools, playgrounds, voting booths and sports stadiums.

Bonta called the failed measure “a completely constitutional response that promotes the safety of Californians from gun violence.”

— Don Thompson in California fails to replace concealed weapon ruling

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

70 COMMENTS

    • All of you pay attention and you will learn something today.

      California will be getting this eventually passed. Progress will be made, as progressivism marches on. And that future is a violence free, gun free future, where being gay and taking part in drag, and getting support for gender reassignment, as an adult or child, is not a sin, and no one has the opinion that it’s a sin.

      • I thought that we were talking about firearms law.

        You are the one who needs to learn something. Anything.

      • That was actually a pretty decent troll. Not quite over the top, but pushing the envelope. Good job!
        Goo

        • Except for admitting that he’s a groomer our fake dacian pretty much captures the essence of the real dacian.

      • …. and this is actually a world you want to live in? Except for the “violence free” part, this is hell on Earth. Proof that “progress” does not always mean “improved”.

      • Dacian the LORD always leaves a remnant. And after your communists you love so much take over they will kill you for smoking the baloney pony. You can still repent,turn away from your sin, and accept JESUS is LORD

      • dacian the demented dips***,

        “California will be getting this eventually passed.” Yeah, and Clarence Thomas, armed with the ACTUAL Constitution, is going to slam dunk their sorry @$$es into the weeds. Gruesome Newsom, the Hair Gel Gubernator, and his persons of hench, Bonta, Portantino, et al., will buy a few years while that works its way through the SCOTUS docket. Newsom, Bonta, and Portantino KNOW their “new” proposal is unconstitutional – three years’ SOCIAL MEDIA review???? AYFKMRN???? But, for Leftist/fascists like you and them, “the end justifies the means”.

        Eff off, you Leftist/fascist clown. Bruen is clear, and “personality evaluations” are just “demonstrate special danger” in another costume. Your goal, the goal of ALL Leftist/fascists, is to disarm innocent, law-abiding Americans (who, not coincidentally, do not agree with your Leftist/fascist agenda).

        Be a fascist all you want, but at least be HONEST about it, you lying s***weasel.

      • Yep. that’s what the Bible refers to as The End Times. We know it well and are trying to postpone it as long as possible.
        You might want to rethink your stance.

      • dacian, the Dunderhead. This is going to shock you. There are some Democrats, admittedly very few who realize that the Constitution is the law of the land. The Supreme Court has decided the matter of NYSRPA v Bruen and decided that for the THIRD TIME that “shall not be infringed” means something. You see that is the problem with you Leftists you change meanings of words to suit your own agenda and purpose.
        It seems that California at this time has such a person in the Senate. Thank God! In essence thanks to that Senator, California is SAFER, because its citizens can have firearms to defend themselves. Gun Free Zones do not apply to the criminal element. This is something you anti-gun radical Lefties can’t seem to grasp.

  2. “Bonta called the failed measure ‘a completely constitutional response that promotes the safety of Californians from gun violence.’ ”

    Its sad the human species can not laugh as hard as this comedic farce statement invokes.

  3. “Bonta called the failed measure “a completely constitutional response that promotes the safety of Californians from gun violence.””

    If he thinks that’s constitutional, he’s delusional.

    I was hoping it would pass, only to be bitch-slapped by St. Thomas in ‘Bruen 2’… 🙁

    • “…If this bill doesn’t pass, people who haven’t had a comprehensive safety evaluation can get a concealed weapon and bring it into (sensitive) places” like schools, playgrounds, voting booths and sports stadiums. [emphasis mine to make my point below]

      If I’m reading the punctuation of the article’s text correctly, AG Bonta purportedly said the words within the quotations, and the author (Don Thompson) added the emphasized words on his own. He makes an egregiously erroneous claim that CCW holders in CA can take their gats onto school grounds and sports stadiums. A CCW holder must obtain written permission from a head school official specifically allowing the weapon on the grounds, else it is a violation of existing law. See CA P.C. §626.9. And I’d love to know which sports stadium doesn’t have security, metal detectors, and “No Weapons” policies to the hilt already. Mrs Haz will be attending a concert this weekend to see a top Country Music singer, and the list of entrance rules she just received is extensive.

      • Bonta is an ass and a liar. He lies to make it LOOK LIKE he is saving Californians from a fate worse than death. The new law that is supposedly in line with Bruen was, like NY’s new law that went into effect today, significantly more restrictive than existing law. It doubled the required training from 8 hours to 16, plus two hours of range time and a session on mental health, test to follow, it made a requirement from one county of three references a statewide requirement, it increased the investigation by the issuing agency, it required new fingerprints on renewal (which occurs every other year) for no apparent reason, as originally drafted (but later changed), it banned concealed carry on any sidewalk or street adjacent to a school or university (the effect of which would have been to ban carry), and so on. To be fair, a “good moral character” requirement was mostly dropped as was the “good cause” requirement.

    • So bobblehead Bonta thinks vetted concealed carriers are a safety threat but criminals, drug dealers, and gang and cartel members are not?

      What are they smoking, snorting, drinking, and injecting in Sacramento?

    • Awaiting moderation.

      It must have been the reference to Sacramento law makers recreational pharmaceutical use.

  4. “Bonta called the failed measure “a completely constitutional response that promotes the safety of Californians from gun violence.”

    This guy is a lawyer? If so he must have got his degree from the Acme Diploma Company.
    It appears that he believes if you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough it becomes fact.

    • Maybe he got it from Yale, where the core ‘principle’ is that the law means whatever you can convince a jury it means.

      • “Maybe he got it from Yale, where the core ‘principle’ is that the law means whatever you can convince a jury it means.”

        Proving once again that Alice’s Rabbit was right all along.

  5. Enough of them realized that if they passed it just before an election they’d lose elections. So their plan is to wait until the day after the election, pass it then, and hope voters forget before the election after that.

    • This is precisely how it will play out. The voters will forget and the wheels of progress will continue to grind citizens into subjects.

      • Busy body Jim Crow Gun Control democRats will just have to go pound sand. One way or another and in the end the right of self defense stays and the stinking Rats go.

  6. Bonta hides the fact under the current law there, people can obtain firearms, and take them into schools, malls, theaters, parks and sewers.

    • Lately I’ve been carrying a 92A1 with three 17 round magazines and a trunk gun that shall remain anonymous. I want a “pack” of Chicago “teens” to come get my car. Got enough for all of them and even their mothers when they show up talking bout how their angel babies are good kids just trying to get a little money for college to be doctors and such.

      • I understand wanting justice to come to evil doers who deserve it, especially when they seem all to often to get away with it. But don’t desire to be attacked so you can defend yourself, don’t look for trouble. Despite your best efforts, you or yours could be killed or injured. Even if you survive, whether a good shot or not, you may be arrested in the aftermath as things get sorted out, attacked in the media, lampooned by a biased prosecutor. Hopefully no conviction, but that doesn’t mean it won’t ruin your life in legal fees, therapy sessions, lost job of wages, civil trials, etc. Possibly worse if someone finds posts that seem to be “itching for a fight.”

        • Unspoken,

          Agree, totally. Only a hothead wishes for/goes looking for a confrontation. Being prepared for one does not equal “wishing for” one. I sincerely hope I NEVER have to pull my gun in my own (or my family’s) defense. If that becomes a necessity, I am physically and mentally prepared (as best I can be) for that eventuality.

  8. To all of the California posters I am happy for you and get everything you can while you can they will come back for more and I would rather have only one state as crazy as here to fight in the courts.

  9. “If this bill doesn’t pass, people who haven’t had a comprehensive safety evaluation can get a concealed weapon and bring it into (sensitive) places” like schools, playgrounds, voting booths and sports stadiums.

    Criminals could always do this; they don’t follow the law. Progs are absolutely mentally ill if they don’t see this.

    • They are worried these law abiding concealed carriers, who have to pay fees and 8 hours training and background checks for their license and special approved safe handguns and ammo checks, will suddenly go rouge in one of these so-called sensitive areas?

      There lies the fallacy of gun free zones or sensitive areas. We have a right to bear arms, so why aren’t we trusted to do so? Outside of that, the state is giving you permission after thoroughly checking you out. If we are safe to carry in the house, car, Walmart, gas station, or restaurant, why not the voting booth, school, park, or college campus? There is no difference for the law abiding, they still aren’t going to kill or cause harm. And for those intent to kill, of course they will do so regardless. Security theater, nothing more.

      • One of the remarkable aspects of the increasing restrictions on CCWs over the last several years is that there has been NO EVIDENCE presented to any of the Legislative committees that ANY licensee has engaged in a rogue act, for example not one incident of a shooting on a school campus by a licensee. What these guys sell is the FEAR that SOMETHING might happen, because GUNZ! You hear it all the time: “The more guns there are in the street, the more gun violence we will have.” (They even have expert witnesses who will say this, though the evidence is lacking.) It is the “Wild West blood in the streets” mantra, no more. Funny how that never seems to happen in states with loosened restrictions.

    • Johnny Le Blanc,

      Progressives do see it. I posted about this very notion in the last few days.

      Progressives openly admit that violent criminals will carry firearms into sensitive places no matter what signs are posted or what laws are in effect–and Progressives do not intend/expect their efforts to reduce criminal activity.

      Rather, Progressives want to disarm good citizens in “sensitive places” allegedly to “reduce the casualty count when a violent criminal attacks”. Progressives create that allegation on the claim that (a.) righteous armed defenders will shoot bystanders, and (b.) responding police and other armed defenders will shoot armed defenders.

      Note that their allegation and supporting claim does not have to be factual. Rather, their claim has to be plausible enough to maintain the support of voters who are sympathetic to civilian disarmament.

  10. What is this “comprehensive safety evaluation” and is it administered to students like standardized tests or by doctors as part of a physical?

    Seems like such an evaluation would be important to a healthy and safe society.

    Of course, there’s always the chance that this is complete bullshit but why would politicians be spreading bullshit?

    • Meanwhile in half the states(!)constitutional carry reigns. Where are all the bloodbaths Elijah Dicken???

  11. Hmmm, “California has been made less safe”? Really? Like the crime from CCW holders is running rampant among the few Red rural counties vs. San Francisco and L.A.? As a Calif. CCW holder who just renewed their permit (with the required training) it’s unbelievable that Portantino thinks that we’re the problem. Look in the mirror dude, and do something about the real crime problem happening in your liberal cities. I honestly thought they would pass this P.O.S. legislation, and it would be the last time I renew. It still may be the case because stupidity never sleeps at the Capitol. That said, it still may be my last time renewing because I’ll be outta here. Don’t worry Red States, I will not be one the Cali’s bringing bad ideas, I will enjoin your fight to keep you from being Californicated.

    • What The Hell?! (in California),

      Please seriously consider moving to a “purple” state and help tilt it toward red status.

      • Yes, what uncommon_sense said. All it would take to make several states consistently red is for just the people leaving California to move there. There are millions of conservative voters living in Commiefornia. We only need at least 50,000 to move to the right locations. That would ensure freedom within those states and it would give an easy majority in the US Senate and Presidential elections.

        • possum,
          You missed the part about fighting for rights in all of the purple states and the country as a whole.

          Pick your battles. If it isn’t working, reassess and make changes. Whatever they’re doing in California, it isn’t coming close to winning. The win came from the Supreme Court which was made possible from a national vote.

          Bravery doesn’t equal intelligence.
          Don’t fight hard and lose.
          Fight smart and win.
          California is lost, and the country is next. Stop the bleed.

        • I am able to fight in NY because of job and ability to move when I have my 30 in for pension. Then it’s off somewhere nice to not spend as much in taxes around less crazy people and try to offset jerks moving in to change things. Not everyone has as good (relatively speaking) an option here.

        • I feel for you guys behind enemy lines. The only thing keeping the tyrants from completely overrunning everyone there is a few reasonable judges. We don’t get more reasonable judges without a conservative US Senate and President. We don’t get that without more red states. It’s a numbers game. The dems understand that. That’s why they imported millions of illegals in less than two years of Puppet rule. They have a plan. We should have one too.

        • Dude don’t listen to possum. Most people don’t desire to live in the shithouse. I wasn’t impressed with commiefornia in the 80’s and I’m still not.

        • Possum, I’ve been fighting the fight day in and day out. Not just on firearms, but for my livelihood. I have to deal with these leftest dingleberries on a daily basis, always “seeking permission” to provide a product that everyone needs (a home). It gets old after four decades of the fight, and I can damn well decide when I need some breathing room for myself. Before you start throwing the coward word around, you can come step into someone’s boots that are muddy from the slog. That “seeking permission” thing hit me on a recent trip to Florida. My wife, and I would be going around “is it okay if we do this, or that?”. The common response was “go ahead, why are you asking?”. We realized that we’ve identified with our captors in Cali, and that we shouldn’t have to ask for permission for everything. We went forward and instead said “it’s Florida” whenever we had the urge to ask.

    • I wasn’t going to renew if the new law passed. With no place where it would be legal to carry, what would be the point? For example, to go into a bank, business or grocery store, not only would you have to disarm, you would have to UNLOADED your firearm and place it in a secure, locked container. If I recall correctly, they wanted ammo transported in a locked container even if you didn’t have a firearm, e.g. going to the LGS and picking up ammo (after a mini background check) would require you to take it home in a locked container. Which I do not have in my SUV, and most folks don’t have in their pickups either. I mean, really?

    • They’ll get the bill to pass on the next try by finding several dissenting voters and offering a suitcase contract.

  12. love it
    when democrats say
    that less guns
    equals less crime
    theyre the modern flat earthers
    completely disconnected from reality

  13. Well, the Big (rotten & corrupt) Apple’s almost identical criminal violation ‘under color of law’
    of the 2nd/A with a total deprivation of your rights and in middle finger defiance to Bruen…

    goes into enforcement mode today. It’s even worse than the previous conditional CC issue! Thanks to a Marxist judge.

    The only way, now, is to ramp up registration of Conservative ANTI-Marxist voters and get out the vote this November to take back congress away from these totalitarian dictators, and then reverse all the legislative action of these treasonous trends. Everybody has to get involved somehow, someway to help.

    Marxist liberalism is like a cancer tumor that is rapidly metastasizing throughout the body politic until it kills it. The only way to ‘cure’ it to surgically remove it completely at the polling ‘hospital’.

    • It had nothing to do with a “Marxist” judge and everything to do with the wrong plaintiff. If it had been a qualified plaintiff, the judge would have granted the preliminary injunction as to many of the worst provisions, such as the ban on business carry, the social media disclosure, and more. And he wrote a 68 page opinion that I haven’t had the opportunity to read yet telling NY all about what he thought was wrong with their law.

      In legal terms, it was a procedural dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, not a ruling on the merits.

  16. What is it about these people that causes them to believe that not having a permit to carry concealed will cause the potentially violent criminal to NOT carry a concealed firearm? Such legislation can do nothing to prevent even one single crime, at best it provides a penalty, but by then someone is STILL dead or injured.

  17. Some pretty important context here… it only failed because they attempted to ram it through on an emergency basis which required a significant supermajority… when it comes up during the regular session, it WILL pass with a simple majority.

    One can hope NY gets its willy-wonka slapped down by the courts before then mooting the issue, but I doubt it.

Comments are closed.