Messages
3,261
Reactions
9,348


In case any of you are interested in what the petty tyrants are up to, here is a brief summary of the mess that is going to be California's new CCW requirements. It's unclear to me if California has copied New York or if New York copied California...not that it really matters. This bill, however, is still in process and has not been approved by the legislature yet. It's a slam dunk that Governor Newsom will sign it once it hits his desk.

Note: If you're not familiar with Newsom, you should start paying attention to him. It's a safe bet he'll be running for POTUS in 2024 and will probably be a main contender given the caliber...or lack their of...of the other Dems running.


Like New York they made just about everywhere a "sensitive place" and they made the default for all buildings being that you can't carry unless the owner/operator has posted a sign saying it's ok.

In looking at all this, I have no idea how any licensing authority could get through all these requirements in any type of timely fashion. And the costs to the applicant would surely be burdensome. By my calculations and based on the current costs for a permit, a new applicant would be looking at roughly $800 in fees, classes, psych tests, etc., and around $400-ish for a renewal. Keep in mind CA permits are only good for two years.

They also included a bunch of junk data/studies, etc., referencing how evil guns are and CCW holders. :rolleyes:

Note that I have just tried to highlight the new additions or the particularly egregious requirements. A full background check is still required, must be 21, can't be a convicted felon, etc.

Highlights:
  • You can only carry a maximum of 2 guns. Your dreams of being John Wick are now over.
  • CCW Class requirement expanded from 8 hours to 16 hours. Renewal is now 8 hours, up from 4 hours
  • Psych Test can be required by issuing agency and cost can be up to $200
  • In person interview of applicant is required
  • Licensing department required to conduct THREE in person interviews with character references. One of these must be the applicant's cohabitant if applicable.
  • Licensing dept must review publicly available information of the applicant. (I don't know if this is social media or not. It doesn't say specifically that applicants must provide social media handles).
Can't carry in the following places (all of these are new except for schools):
  • Hospitals, nursing homes, medical offices, etc.
  • A bus, train, or other form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and a building, real property, or parking area under the control of a transportation authority supported in whole or in part with public funds.
  • A public gathering or special event conducted on property open to the public that requires the issuance of a permit from a federal, state, or local government
  • A playground or public or private youth center
  • A park, athletic area, or athletic facility that is open to the public
  • Real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or Department of Fish and Wildlife
  • Any area under the control of a public or private community college, college, or university
  • Casinos and Gambling establishments
  • Stadiums, Libraries, amusement parks, zoos, museums,
  • Churches and places of worship, unless the operator clearly displays a sign that it is acceptable.
And here is the catch all...so basically all buildings are now defacto illegal to carry in...

"Any other privately-owned commercial establishment that is open to the public, unless the operator of the establishment clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that license holders are permitted to carry firearms on the property."
 
Why are people surprised that 2A decisions are under attack from the left after all the attacks we've seen against Roe for the last 50 years. It's clear now that the SCOTUS is political, and the rulings depend on the ideology of the then current Justices.
 
Messages
1,308
Reactions
2,684
None of which would pass strict scrutiny, but "woke" be "woke". Swapping infringments might fly in the short term, but not much of a leg to stand on if challenged.

The line in the sand sure is more rapidly approaching if respective state legislators keep going off playing whiny child and thumbing their noses at the constitution.
 

Alexx1401

Messages
15,826
Reactions
38,165
Well again this is what the people who live there keep saying they want. So now "maybe" with crime out of control, and the win at the courts, maybe. Maybe a few more of those who voted for this will run down to try to get a permit now. When they get slapped in the face by the rules, from people they voted for, "maybe" some of them will see what they have been saying they wanted all this time and wake the hell up.
 
Messages
6,320
Reactions
16,702
Why are people surprised that 2A decisions are under attack from the left after all the attacks we've seen against Roe for the last 50 years. It's clear now that the SCOTUS is political, and the rulings depend on the ideology of the then current Justices.
Depends on if they adhere to what the constitution intended or not. People who read the constitution and apply it verbatim are not politically swayed. But when justices are appointed specifically because of their skin tone, yeah, that is a good indication their rulings might be politically motivated.
 
Messages
33,226
Reactions
114,737
Depends on if they adhere to what the constitution intended or not. People who read the constitution and apply it verbatim are not politically swayed. But when justices are appointed specifically because of their skin tone, yeah, that is a good indication their rulings might be politically motivated.
You forgot genitalia as being a pre-qualifier as well, you sexist!!


:rolleyes:
 

nwslopoke

Messages
3,873
Reactions
9,713
SCOTUS has always been political. The decisions being affected by which way the pendulum has swung - strict constructionists or implied fabricationists.
Well, "Stack the courts", Joe doesn't think so. He also doesn't think it's any of our business when asked.

Elections have consequences, said one puppet. unfortunately, he was correct.
 
Messages
722
Reactions
1,359
CA politicians have been proposing this for years. When it comes right down to it the Dem politicians don't want to give up their protections either.
When this is really in danger of becoming law is when they vote to give themselves an enhanced permit! A permit without any restrictions.
What I do see coming is a law allowing counties to set their own rules.
In the more restrictive ones you will be required to pass a background check ,pass a mental exam, and submit personal references with the Sherriff asking them if you can be trusted with a gun? They will also be using social media to look for posts that may have them looking deeper into your life.
Except for the social media , this is already in use some places in CA.
And by making the laws change at every county line, they can make everyone a violator.
The question that has not been answered is ... Will this be your public social media score? [ kind of like what is used in China?] or will they be able to require you to give them passwords?
Social Media is new enough that their is not set law on this. DR
 
Depends on if they adhere to what the constitution intended or not. People who read the constitution and apply it verbatim are not politically swayed. But when justices are appointed specifically because of their skin tone, yeah, that is a good indication their rulings might be politically motivated.
LOL "People who read the constitution and apply it verbatim are not politically swayed." Scalia read an entire clause out of the 2A because he didn't like it.
 

gmerkt

Messages
3,410
Reactions
6,864
You know, this proposal is actually good news for some California counties. Where permit issuance is one or two permits per year. Total.

I may have told this story before. A long time pal of mine was finance director in a southern California city. He bought police cars and other equipment for the PD. He did favors for the chief of police, like finding money for them when they otherwise ran out of funds. After one such rendering, the chief said to my pal, "Let me know if there is ever anything I can do for you." My pal said, "Well, you can get me a concealed carry permit." To which the chief answered, "That is the one thing that I can't do."

The review of publicly available material might open the door to regulatory shenanigans.

The prohibition against carrying on public transportation, that pretty much eliminates any sane person from using same. The deadbeats, scum and gangbangers that tend to habituate public transportation are the very kinds of threats against which a concealed weapon might come in very handy.
 
Messages
4,757
Reactions
5,321
Well again this is what the people who live there keep saying they want. So now "maybe" with crime out of control, and the win at the courts, maybe. Maybe a few more of those who voted for this will run down to try to get a permit now. When they get slapped in the face by the rules, from people they voted for, "maybe" some of them will see what they have been saying they wanted all this time and wake the hell up.
'Good' libs never wake up--

'Good lib'-- there's another oxymoron to add to my collection
 
How so? It does not say that the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
None of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights sets out a justification for the right enumerated, only the 2A. I guess Scalia just thought they got verbose when drafting the second amendment and that the prefatory phrase could be ignored as he did.
 

Upcoming Events

Vancouver Gunshow
Ridgefield, WA
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA
Rimfire Challenge
Canby, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top