May v. Bonta: The Great Lavatory of Democracy gets sued to flush down its latest experiment

Mark Humphrey

California is a gorgeous state that’s being run into the ground by a bunch of buffoons antagonistic to freedom. Just yesterday, Cam wrote about California’s “carry killer” legislation, which is yet another unconstitutional law in a long series of post-Bruen tantrums by Democrat-controlled states across the country.


Besides intentionally creating a new minefield of sensitive places to trip up peaceable, lawful citizens, the legislation also creates a new “literacy test” burden, changing training requirements from the current no more than 16 hours of training to no less than 16 hours.

Pro-Bill of Rights Californians aren’t going to take it quietly. A new lawsuit – May v. Bonta – has been filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California. Plaintiffs include Gun Tubers Reno May and Anthony Miranda (“Armed Scholar”), Liberal Gun Owners Association (you read that right!), Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, among others. 

You can find the well-written filing here. This case is focused on the sensitive places aspect of the legislation. The plaintiffs have asked for declaratory and injunctive relief from the Court, and list a long series of complaints and make cogent arguments. Some excerpts from the introduction are:

  1. In NYSRPA v. Bruen, the Supreme Court provided its third statement in recent memory affirming that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right and reiterating that firearm regulations must comport with the original meaning of the amendment’s text […] the Court restated its dicta from DC v. Heller, enumerating a discrete category of so-called “sensitive places” where firearms presumptively may be prohibited, but only as a limited exception to the general rule that the Second Amendment secures a broad right to be armed […]

  2. […] the California legislature and governor have treated the central holding in Bruen as, at best, policy preferences rather than constitutional requirements. […] California’s newly passed Senate Bill 2 turns the Bruen decision on its head, making nearly every public place in California a “sensitive place” (in name only), and forbidding firearm carry even after someone has undertaken the lengthy and expensive process to be issued a concealed handgun license (“CCW permit”) […]

  3. California’s atextual, ahistorical, novel “sensitive places” include every park and playground, every hospital, all public transportation, any place that sells alcohol […]  SB 2 even transforms private businesses into “gun-free zones” by default, imposing an unprecedented affirmative duty on private business owners to post signage to authorize people exercising an enumerated constitutional right to enter the property.

  4. […] Bruen recognized a general right to be armed in public places, subject only to limited, historically valid exceptions. In defiance of that holding, California has made the right a rare exception […]

  5. [..] it is worth noting that SB 2 does nothing to impede criminals who, of course, will not bother to qualify for and obtain CCW permits and who certainly will not follow the law on “sensitive places” […].

  6. SB 2 creates a patchwork quilt of locations where Second Amendment rights may and may not be exercised, thus making exercise of the right so impractical and legally risky in practice that ordinary citizens will be deterred […]

  7. In short, if California must issue ordinary citizens CCW permits after Bruen, California has decided that it simply will render these permits effectively useless.

  8. Just as this complaint was being finalized, news broke that New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham had issued an emergency order suspending all carry in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County for thirty days, even with a valid CCW permit. […] SB 2 accomplishes almost the same thing as Governor Grisham’s blatantly unconstitutional Order, except on a permanent, statewide basis. […]


The filing also goes into detail about how overwhelmingly law-abiding CCW permit holders are, and cites examples of their effectiveness as first responders. It mentions the defeats New York’s similar law has received on the East Coast. 

Also included are the open contempt that California politicians (including how Newsom used air quotes when discussing the “right” to carry) expressed in the wake of the Bruen ruling, the failed 2022 attempt to pass the same legislation (SB 918), opposition from law enforcement, a takedown of the “vampire provision” declaring that all private businesses are by default “sensitive places” unless signage explicitly says that guns are allowed on premises.

The filing highlights how even after SB 918 failed to pass, there was no flood of violent crime from people who had only just received CCW permits for the first time, and how Gavin Newsom  dodged the journalist’s question about evidence of permit holders committing crimes. It mentions the counterproductive possible outcome of SB 2, such as the risk of theft of firearms, pointing out the high rate of car break-ins in San Francisco, and how the law will empower violent predators. 

The complaint is solid. But this is California we’re talking about, and there are plenty of gun control hacks in the judiciary who will never accept the fact that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The case will take years to resolve and a lot can change in the meantime. But that’s not an excuse to give up. Not quitting is 50% of winning, and we’re making a step in the right direction.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member