Gun control bill is rejected
The Democrat-led measure would have bolstered the state’s concealed-carry law.
SACRAMENTO — The California Legislature has rejected a bill to strengthen the state’s concealed-carry law. The legislation was crafted by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic leaders in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that expanded a person’s right to carry firearms outside the home.
The legislation, Senate Bill 918, failed to pass the Assembly Thursday morning, with a 52-23 vote, despite its proponents and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta spending the day in the state Capitol lobbying moderate Democrats who abstained or voted against the measure. The governor’s office did not respond to requests for comment on whether Newsom helped lobby for the final votes.
Thursday’s revote, which came through a process called reconsideration, followed one Tuesday evening in the Assembly in which the legislation fell just two votes shy of passage.
The bill faced headwinds from the outset, since state Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) added an urgency clause to the legislation so it could go into effect immediately — a change that required a twothirds majority vote in both houses of the Legislature.
“I’m legitimately surprised it didn’t pass,” Portantino said.
He vowed to revive the measure in December, when lawmakers can start introducing legislation for the 2023-24 session.
Bonta said the supermajority vote threshold made passing SB 918 difficult. But he defended the urgency of implementing the legislation this year, arguing that those who pose a public safety risk need to be prevented from being issued a gun permit.
“The longer it takes to get this bill into effect, the more
people are at risk, every day,” he said.
After the high court struck down New York’s restrictive concealed-carry law, a statute similar to those in California and other blue states, Newsom, Bonta and Portantino unveiled SB 918 as a backup plan that would allow California to continue to restrict who can get a license.
The U.S. Supreme Court in June ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen that “may issue” laws — which give broad authority to local licensing officials to reject applications — violate the constitutional right to bear arms for self-protection, rendering unconstitutional California’s requirement that an applicant demonstrate “good cause” to obtain a permit.
Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said states could still prohibit guns in “sensitive places,” including schools and government buildings, as long as the list isn’t overly expansive. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted that states are generally free to make objective licensing requirements, such as firearms training, fingerprinting and background checks.
Gun control advocates saw an opening in those caveats to strengthen California’s concealed-carry law, within what they said were the confines of the Bruen decision.
The proposal would have classified dozens of places in California as “sensitive,” including courts, hospitals, airports, public transportation, bars, public parks, libraries and churches.
As a way to replace the former “good cause” mandate, SB 918 would have required local licensing officials, primarily sheriffs’ departments, to run through a list of criteria to ensure that an applicant was “qualified.”
Officials would have had to conduct in-person interviews with applicants, speak with at least three character references and review social media and other publicly available statements to determine if those applying for permits were a danger to the public or themselves.
Newsom prioritized SB 918 as one of more than a dozen bills he requested this year to prevent mass shootings.
He has already signed several into law, including two that establish a private right of action against the industry and limit firearm marketing to minors.
The National Rifle Assn. and Gun Owners of California staunchly opposed SB 918. They characterized the bill as a disingenuous effort to comply with Bruen and argued that it would target law-abiding firearm owners while doing nothing to stop illegal gun activity.
Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law, said it’s likely that certain provisions of SB 918 would have been challenged, including the wide-ranging list of sensitive places and the requirement to interview three character witnesses and review social media posts.
“We don’t generally need three references to exercise a constitutional right. You don’t need three references to speak, you don’t need three references to marry, you don’t need three references to buy contraceptives, you don’t need three references to have children,” Volokh said.
Bonta said he was confident the bill would have fit into Bruen’s legal boundaries.
“We were preparing for a Bruen decision that was potentially going to be something that we were not excited about,” he said. “And we wrote this very thoughtfully to comport with the constitutional regime that was pronounced by Bruen, and we’ll defend it in court. Whatever the court decides, we’ll comply with what the court decides. But we think we are on very strong ground.”