How is California going to deal with the SCOTUS invalidating a big chunk of gun control? (legal, weapons)

[BBMW]

The SCOTUS just overturned a provision of gun control in NYS. This allowed the denial of carry permits to people the government deem not necessary to have such a permit. This will no longer be allowed. California also has such a provision, which will now be equally invalid.

One wonders if there will be a rush to get permits, and how the various levels of government will try to respond.

https://nypost.com/2022/06/23/suprem...ealed-weapons/

[2020's YouTube Vlog]

I'm scared, personally

[saibot]

What does it mean, "people the government deem not necessary to have such a permit"? What criteria does the government use to decide who "needs" to have a permit, and why is it their call?

[Igor Blevin]

Kicking and screaming. That is how California will deal with it.

I lived in San Franciso for 12 years, not counting the first 10 from birth. I wouldn't live in San Francisco on a bet, but I wish I was there today. The sobbing, hand ringing, and hysterics going on today must be delicious. CCW in San Francisco. If anybody lives in SF, please tell these folks to back off the ledge. Jumping is not worth it.

The hilarious part will be when the smash and grabs stop because the store staff are armed instead of defenseless. Oh, not overnight, but when you see some stores no longer victimized because the owners are armed, you just watch... It will spread from store to store.

A lot of Asian people have no fear of gun ownership and a lot of retail in San Francisco is Asian owned. Recall the Korean gentlemen with AR15s on the roof of their store during the Rodney King riots.

[Igor Blevin]

Originally Posted by 2020's YouTube Vlog

I'm scared, personally

And the scared make for submissive victims. The armed criminals want you scared and compliant.

It is only when law-abiding people have weapons to fight back, do the criminals become scared.

As for me, I would rather the criminals be afraid than good law-abiding peolpe like you.

[BBMW]

In Cali, I believe its whatever the county sheriff or city police chief/commissioner want it to be. Up in rural norther CA it isn't hard get a carry permit. In LA I hear it's almost impossible.

Originally Posted by saibot

What does it mean, "people the government deem not necessary to have such a permit"? What criteria does the government use to decide who "needs" to have a permit, and why is it their call?

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Igor Blevin

Kicking and screaming. That is how California will deal with it.

I lived in San Franciso for 12 years, not counting the first 10 from birth. I wouldn't live in San Francisco on a bet, but I wish I was there today. The sobbing, hand ringing, and hysterics going on today must be delicious. CCW in San Francisco.

Well one thing we're not going to do is put on halloween costumes and storm the U.S. Capitol building hoping to kill the Vice President, and usurp the government like spoiled brats because we didn't get our way, that's for damn sure.

Talk about hysterics.

[CA4Now]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the rights of gun owners to carry a loaded weapon in public, ruling that the 2nd Amendment right to “bear arms” overrides laws in New York and California that restrict who may legally take guns when they leave home.

The ruling casts legal doubt on some of California’s gun laws, considered among the strictest in the nation.

...in 43 states, lawful gun owners may carry a firearm in public. Some require a permit, others do not. However, six blue states require concealed carry permits and only issue them to those who can show a “good cause” or special need to be armed.

The standards differ county by county, depending on the views of top law enforcement officials. In addition to New York and California, permits are strictly limited in Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and the District of Columbia.

Under the court’s opinion, states like California may require permits for carrying a concealed gun, but they may not require lawful gun owners to show a special need to have such a weapon.

Thomas agreed local governments could restrict guns in or near “sensitive places,” such as schools, government buildings or polling places.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...apon-in-public

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by Igor Blevin

...but when you see some stores no longer victimized because the owners are armed, you just watch...

There's no requirement to hold a CCW permit in your own place of business. Owners can (and do) do that already.



But I agree that the state's response to this will be apoplectic. Then again, the ruling isn't automatically binding outside of NY but if I recall, various legal challenges here have been on hold pending that decision. We'll see what happens. If good cause goes away completely, I'm guessing the state will throw up roadblocks on the other end of it, mainly by way of redefining (broadly) what is and isn't a sensitive place. So maybe issuance in California becomes more aligned with 90% of the rest of the country, but where you can actually carry becomes more and more limited by way of state action.


It's too early to really make a prediction though.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Thomas agreed local governments could restrict guns in or near “sensitive places,” such as schools, government buildings or polling places.

Right but those examples are already "sensitive" in California. The state legislature will likely write laws that allow private businesses to decide and give it teeth under force of law.