Unfortunately there’s stiff competition for the title of “Most Anti-2A State in the U.S.” these days, but California is definitely among the top contenders. While San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins refused to file charges against the armed security guard who shot and killed a shoplifter who fought with him, the state’s Bureau of Security and Investigative Services has now issued fines for the guard over alleged violations of state regulations.

Michael Earl-Wayne Anthony was found to be carrying a concealed firearm without a permit to do so, per the BSIS. He also was not wearing required patches showing that he was working as private security during the incident.

[Banko] Brown, a 24-year-old Black transgender man, was shot dead at a San Francisco Walgreens on April 27. Brown was allegedly shoplifting, and Anthony confronted him as he was leaving the store.

…

Anthony was fined $1,000 for carrying a concealed gun without a permit. The BSIS said he had the gun in a zippered pouch on a tactical vest he was wearing over his sweatshirt.

In addition, he was hit with two $250 fines for uniform violations.

“Michael Earl-Wayne Anthony was involved in a shooting while on duty wearing a sweatshirt that did not have bureau-approved patches on each shoulder that read “private security” and included the name of the company by which Anthony was employed,” BSIS said.

The guy was forced to draw his firearm to defend his life, but it sure looks like the state’s anti-gun regime was intent on punishing him somehow, and this is the best they could come up with; $1,500 in fines for not adhering to a couple of the provisions in the voluminous regulations promulgated by the state.

If Anthony had a GoFundMe to help cover those fines I’d be happy to kick in a couple of bucks, because this reeks of bureaucratic baloney gone bad. I’m not surprised by the BSIS’s moves, though I am curious why Anthony was fined for not having the bureau-approved patches when it sounds like it was the company who employed Anthony who should have made sure that his uniform had all of the proper patches. Are security guards just supposed to create these patches themselves on their own dime?

Again, this feels like nothing more than an attempt to punish Anthony for what authorities deemed a lawful act of self-defense. Since the San Francisco D.A. declined to prosecute, the state is stepping in with this ticky-tack nonsense and ensuring that Anthony’s at least out more than a thousand dollars for daring to defend himself.

Things are already tough enough for retailers in San Francisco, and this move by the BSIS (emphasis on BS) is only going to make it more difficult to find people willing to serve as armed security; which, now that I think about it, is probably one of the reasons why these fines were handed down to begin with. Not only could you potentially face criminal charges for acting in self-defense, but even if you’re cleared of wrongdoing by police and prosecutors the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services could hit still you in the wallet for what amounts to a dress code violation.

There has to be a better way to make a living in San Francisco. I hear the city’s in need of syringe sweeper-uppers and human excrement disposal technicians, both of which would probably come with less danger and legal liability than standing guard over the city’s retail establishments these days. Regardless of what Brown chooses to do for employment going forward, I hope for his sake this fine doesn’t cause him any undue stress or economic harm… and if he’s looking to relocate I know some good realtors in the still-free state of Virginia.