How does all of this make you feel about relying on politics and the courts to protect your family? How can the government be so fickle with your right to life? Maybe it’s time your family takes control, with a F.I.R.S.T. Family Trust?
[GOOD NEWS 01/06/2024: On emergency expedited motion, Ninth Circuit merits panel today dissolved the administrative stay of Judge Carney’s preliminary injunction. So SB2’s sensitive places restrictions are again enjoined, to the extent of his order. Great news for CCW holders! Bad news for Gov. Noisome, who only days ago gloated about the administrative stay, which unlike most stays that preserve status quo would, by allowing implementation of his “common sense” SB2, have suddenly barred tens of thousands of highly-vetted CCW holders from most public carry. I found out about today’s order while visiting a bunch of parks and businesses down in Solvang with my family. If I had carried as California law has allowed for decades (not saying whether I did so), then I would have been guilty of a felony, then at some point during the trip while at a park or bakery or fudge shop, I would have suddenly been absolved of this felony. Where is the “common sense” here? Suddenly disarming everyone while the litigation plays out? Or letting highly-vetted citizens continue to carry as they have for decades, without incident, while the litigation plays out?]
[IMPORTANT UPDATE 12/30/23: I tried to be optimistic and went out on a “fragile limb” predicting the Ninth Circus would leave this injunction in place. Really thought this would be different because the injunction simply maintains the status quo against the rapaciously unconstitutional SB2. Yet they did it anyway, they issued an administrative stay on the injunction and now we must look to the merits panel to reverse that. May take awhile, who knows how long. So my recommendation is comply with SB2 for now. That means your CCW is basically worthless at this point. But you can use this opportunity for some good by lobbying every local business you patronize, including the church you attend, to put up a compliant sign allowing CCW in the establishment. If they refuse to put up the sign, inform them that you will no longer patronize the establishment.]
A major decision was reached yesterday by US District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney of the Central District of California, in the case of May v. Bonta, granting a preliminary injunction (PI) against a long list of sensitive places restrictions on concealed carry that were to go into effect on January 1, 2024, due to enactment of SB2, which added draconian section 26230 to our California Penal Code. This is a huge victory by CRPA and at least for now relieves concealed carry permit (CCW, or license to carry a concealed weapon) holders from the threat of a major change in lifestyle due to these unconstitutional restrictions effectively making concealed carry impractical in public. Separate litigation is attacking administrative requirements under the new law which generally make getting a CCW more difficult and expensive [putative benefits of removing the good cause and moral character requirements are really no benefit at all because they are already unconstitutional under Bruen], but this injunction at least prevents the law from making CCW’s worthless.
For list of restrictions and a vivid sense of the injustice and collective danger we’ve narrowly avoided, see:
Noisome Signs SB2, Establishing Opportunity Zones for BLM, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda
Not all of the restrictions were challenged, so the PI only halts enforcement of the following restrictions:
(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (15), (16), (17), (19), (20), (22), (23), (26); also (5) as to parking areas and public appurtenant areas
CCW’s in California are issued either by your local county sheriff, or in some cases by your local municipal police chief. In many counties, cities will contract with their county sheriff to handle this process. There is no such arrangement in SLO, and if you live in an incorporated city in this county you must apply with your local police chief. For example, in my case I reside in Morro Bay and I had to apply with MBPD. When my CCW was denied on unconstitutional grounds related to my run for city council (yes, I am considering litigation), I then had to obtain my CCW from our local sheriff. But I had to apply first with the police chief in this Stalinist little version of San Francisco.
Of course, the State can appeal to the Ninth Circus, but there is a lot of 2A litigation in the works right now and while some judges have been playing games, ignoring Bruen, it seems recently there has been a change in attitude and some of these judges might be gradually realizing that resistance is not only futile but very costly in terms of political capital, let alone human life. I’ll even go out on a fragile limb and say that the left may have jumped the shark with its recent Colorado Supreme Court decision removing Trump from the ballot. They are losing heavily in key demographics and attacking popular 2A rights will hurt them more. So this PI may actually stick, and the same result should obtain in just about every pending 2A case, given the clear standard in Bruen.
Judge Carney’s order granting this PI is a brutal smackdown of this State’s concerted all-hands executive-legislative-judicial insurrection against SCOTUS and our Constitution:
“SB2’s coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court. … 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.”
Judge Carney applied Bruen, noting that the Second Amendment’s plain text covered the conduct of the plaintiffs, and then proceeded to analyze whether the State met its burden of showing a relevant or closely analogous national historical tradition of gun control (most significantly from 1791, secondarily from 1868). For months I heard in gun forums that the State’s research uncovered zillions of old laws providing a historical basis for modern gun control, yet the State went into this case with everything they had and Judge Carney smacked down all of their historical examples as either not relevantly similar to a new restriction exacting a burden not comparably similar, or outside the relevant timeframe close to adoption of 2A (1791) or 14A (1868), or otherwise not showing a national historical tradition, for example with the laws of territorial governments. The court also pointed out how the restrictions would frustrate public carry, making defense of self and others in public areas nearly impossible, and noted historical traditions in many jurisdictions which actually required citizens to be armed at public gatherings.
