DEMOCRATS TRY AGAIN WITH GUN BILL
New version strives to comply with court on concealed carry
Five months after a highprofile gun control bill died amid Democratic infighting in Sacramento, California lawmakers are trying to revive the legislation to strengthen the state’s restrictions on who can carry loaded firearms in public.
The legislation was filed in response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down restrictive concealed-carry laws as unconstitutional. The 6-3 decision sent California and a handful of other states scrambling to rewrite their laws governing how people get licensed to carry concealed weapons.
Gov. Gavin Newsom and a coalition of top Democrats got behind a bill last year that they said would comply with the Supreme Court decision barring states from making people show a “special need” for concealedcarry permits while still maintaining stringent protocol for issuing them.
Gun rights advocates earned a victory on the final night of the session when bickering among Democrats tanked the measure.
Newsom vowed to work with lawmakers on another proposal this year, Senate Bill 2, saying that it was one of his priorities and that he was resolved to sign it.
“Gun safety saves lives. More guns, more lives lost,” Newsom said during a news conference Wednesday in Sacramento. “We fell short last year. That’s not going to
happen this year.”
Newsom joined Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, and Attorney General Rob Bonta at the news conference, where they detailed how they plan to get this year’s version signed into law. To start, the new version of the legislation includes a procedural change from last year’s bill that makes it easier to pass.
The Democratic trio are expected to argue that a recent wave of mass shootings in the state warrants bold action, and attempt to draw
a distinction between California’s gun laws to those in Republican-led states like Texas and Florida, the latter of which is considering legislation to allow residents to carry concealed firearms without a permit.
But rather than changing the legislation to respond to criticism that it was too restrictive to meet the Supreme Court’s newly defined constitutional standard, Democrats are plowing forward with essentially the same bill as before.
Portantino’s bill, like last
year’s, includes a lengthy list of sensitive places where firearms would be prohibited, such as government buildings and schools, medical facilities, public transit, places of worship, parks, playgrounds and bars.
It requires a robust licensing protocol for local officials — largely sheriffs’ departments — to follow when issuing permits, including in-person interviews with applicants, obtaining three character references and reviewing social media and other publicly available statements
to identify safety risks.
The bill also prohibits concealed-carry licenses to anyone under 21, the same age required to purchase a handgun in California, and adds new firearms training and storage regulations.
Proponents say these rules would thread the needle between honoring the court’s decision and making sure guns don’t fall into the hands of dangerous people. But it’s a risky strategy.
The Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen focused on whether “may-issue” laws were constitutional — laws that granted licensing authorities broad discretion over who can publicly carry a firearm. Most states have “shall-issue” laws on their books, meaning permits are granted once an applicant meets the licensing criteria.
Firearm owners had argued that New York’s requirement for applicants to demonstrate “proper cause” for a permit — such as for self defense — had violated their Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court’s conservative justices agreed, and struck down the law as an infringement on a person’s right to self-defense outside the home, immediately rendering California’s “good cause” standard as similarly impermissible.
Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that these laws inhibit “law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”
States could still prohibit firearms in or near a limited few sensitive places that have been off limits and are therefore “settled,” Thomas wrote, including schools, government buildings or polling places. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts argued that states were still allowed to require objective licensing criteria, such as firearms training, fingerprinting and background and mental health checks.
Portantino said SB 2 follows the court’s guidance on sensitive places and licensing rules, and that the legislation falls within those outlined legal boundaries.