The state of California is not friendly toward the Second Amendment. This is nothing new, though. We all know that the Golden State is where your gun rights go to die.
Yet after the Bruen decision, their ability to impact people’s gun rights are, at least in theory, greatly diminished.
However, this is a state that doesn’t really care about the Supreme Court, either, apparently.
Despite being rebuked by the highest court in the land over gun control attempts, California Democrats are still trying to tell the people through dubious legislation that you can’t defend yourself with a firearm… or at least they will limit who can carry, and where you can carry.
The latest gun control legislation, Senate Bill 918 by Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge), appeared to be dead as it was placed on the suspense file in the Assembly Appropriations Committee August 3rd – until yesterday when it moved out with 32 pages of 185 new amendments.
“This strikes me as clearly unconstitutional under the First Amendment, even apartfrom the Second amendment,” UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh wrote at Reason.com about SB 918. “The government can’t restrict ordinary citizens’ actions—much less their constitutionally protected actions—based on the viewpoints that theyexpress.”
“Senate Bill 918 seeks to remove the right to protect oneself and family by preventing law abiding citizens, regardless of their background, from being able to carry a firearm outside the home,” Rick Travis, Legislative Director of the California Rifle and Pistol Association told the Globe.
The initial bill heavily restricted where people could carry, but it was a list that likely might have survived judicial scrutiny.
The amendments, however, create a list that boggles the mind. Among other things, that list includes public transportation, but it goes well beyond that.
Yet the law itself is still problematic because it maintains a “good moral character” requirement, a tool that you can bet California officials will use to keep guns out of the hands of millions of law-abiding citizens.
After all, we’ve spent how many years being called “racist” because we support the Second Amendment? Do you really think that’s going to disappear when someone applies for a permit? Of course it won’t. That advocacy may well be used against them as evidence they’re “unfit” for a permit.
Now, yes, this is blatantly unconstitutional, but why would anyone find that surprising? This is California, the land that is notorious for ignoring the Constitution.
Yet even there, this law was basically dead. It was in the process of being forgotten, only to come back from the grave with all these amendments.
Maybe the problem was that it wasn’t a bad enough gun control bill, so they needed the amendments to spice it up for California anti-gunners. Who knows?
Regardless, if this passes–there’s no doubt Gov. Gavin Newsom will sign it–it will be challenged and, at least in parts, will eventually be overturned as unconstitutional.
In the meantime, though, how many lives will be lost because people who wanted to carry a gun simply couldn’t and remain law-abiding?