Category: A Victory!
Categories
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
In the coming years, it is likely you will encounter people in San Francisco carrying concealed weapons.
A Supreme Court ruling from last year forced localities to soften permitting rules. In short, the court ruled that “may issue” laws — in which officials have broad discretion to deny a person seeking a concealed weapon permit — violate the Second Amendment. Areas with “may issue” laws must now transition to “shall issue” laws, in which the permit-seeker is entitled to a permit unless they are deemed unfit to carry a weapon.
As a result, San Francisco has begun the process of granting new licenses. Previously in the city, an individual had to demonstrate “good cause” for obtaining a permit, such as working in areas with high rates of violent crime. The city seldom found that individuals met the “good cause” standard, which resulted in very few concealed carry permits in San Francisco.
That “good cause” standard has now been replaced by a more lax interim policy with only four requirements. First, the individual — whether a San Francisco resident or a resident of another county who works in San Francisco — must legally own the firearm they seek to carry. From there, if the individual can complete a firearms safety course, as well as pass both a psychological test and a background check, they will be granted a permit.
The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office told SFGATE that the psychological exam consists of a multiple choice test and an interview conducted by Law Enforcement Psychological Services (LEPS), a screening service the city uses for police and other law enforcement officers. LEPS did not immediately respond to an SFGATE request for a copy of the multiple choice test.
For the background check, the sheriff’s office will not only conduct the standard California Department of Justice background check used for firearm purchases, but, according to the new policy, will also review “materials such as citations, arrests, convictions, civil lawsuits, employment discharges, military discharges, license denials, license revocations, other actions indicating a possible propensity for violence or moral turpitude, drug and/or alcohol abuse, carelessness with weapons, and/or dishonesty to determine whether the applicant is a law abiding, responsible citizen.”
Unless something comes up in that background check that calls into question “whether the applicant is a law abiding, responsible citizen,” the city must issue the permit. San Francisco Sheriff Paul Miyamoto told KGO that the city is currently reviewing 72 permit applications, and expects between 100 and 200 over the next year.
Lawmakers at both the city and state level are seeking restrictions on where individuals with permits can carry concealed firearms. At the state level, Gov. Gavin Newsom has thrown his support behind legislation that would raise the minimum age for acquiring a permit from 18 to 21 and add new training and storage requirements.
Of course, any of those restrictions could be struck down by the courts as well. On age requirements, the 9th Circuit of Appeals has already invalidated a previous California requirement that individuals be 21 to purchase semiautomatic weapons. It’s not a stretch to believe that reasoning could apply to concealed weapons permits as well.
In addition to softening permitting rules for concealed carry, last year’s Supreme Court ruling prescribed a new test for lower courts in Second Amendment cases: For a gun control measure to be constitutionally permissible, it must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, one of the country’s leading Second Amendment scholars, told SFGATE last summer that in the case last year, New York City had provided historical analogues used to justify its permitting rules.
“The court says they’re looking to history and tradition, but New York presented plenty of history on restrictions on concealed carry that the court dismissed as outliers or not historically relevant,” he said. “The court claimed it was using history, but it looked like politics as usual to me.”
Categories
Huzaah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Care to guess who got robbed soon after this video was posted? Grumpy
Feb 4 (Reuters) – A federal law prohibiting marijuana users from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Oklahoma has concluded, citing last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights.
U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick, an appointee of former Republican President Donald Trump in Oklahoma City, on Friday dismissed an indictment against a man charged in August with violating that ban, saying it infringed his right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.
Wyrick said that while the government can protect the public from dangerous people possessing guns, it could not argue Jared Harrison’s “mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm.”
He said using marijuana was “not in and of itself a violent, forceful, or threatening act,” and noted that Oklahoma is one of a number of states where the drug, still illegal under federal law, can be legally bought for medical uses.
“The mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation supports,” Wyrick wrote.
Laura Deskin, a public defender representing Harrison, said the ruling was a “step in the right direction for a large number of Americans who deserve the right to bear arms and protect their homes just like any other American.” She called marijuana the most commonly used drug illegal at the federal level.
The U.S. Department of Justice did not respond to request for comment but is likely to appeal.
The decision marked the latest instance of a court declaring a gun regulation unconstitutional after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority in June ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.
That ruling, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, announced a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
On Thursday, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited that decision in declaring unconstitutional a federal law barring people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. —
California lawmakers held an oversight hearing on Tuesday to figure out how to improve the state’s Armed and Prohibited Persons System, also known as APPS, which is a program that is supposed to keep guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous people.
The program has faced criticism for using antiquated systems and having the workload outweigh the manpower.
“California leads with some of the most stringent gun laws, but gun violence is a daily reality for communities across our state,” Assm. Reggie Jones-Sawyer said. “We know gun violence across California requires stronger action.”
The APPS program, which only exists in California, places legal gun owners on a list of people who are prohibited from having weapons if they are convicted of a felony, violent misdemeanor, have a restraining order against them or for a mental health reason. The program has been in place since 2001 and uses the state’s Automated Firearms System, which tracks in state registration of firearm owners across the state. The California Department of Justice oversees the APPS program.
“The program has been plagued with numerous challenges since its introduction,” said Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris in Tuesday’s hearing, noting there were 24,000 people on the APPS list. “That is just not good enough,” she said.
Tuesday’s oversight hearing included lawmakers from the Assembly Public Safety Committee and Administrative Review Committees.
The CA DOJ was still in the process of putting together its latest data, which is expected to release sometime in the spring, so the agency used numbers from its 2021 report in Tuesday’s hearing.
CA DOJ officials said of the 24,000 people on the APPS list, 10,000 of them were still in the process of being investigated to have weapons taken away. Another 14,000 are considered “pending cases,” meaning the investigations were exhausted because of reasons including agents being unable to clear weapons, unable to locate the person, or those on the list moved out of state. Officials said they expected the 10,000 figure to remain consistent, noting prohibited people land on the list daily.
The CA DOJ has 73 special agents dedicated to taking weapons away from those prohibited from having them every day. Officials said 56 special agents are currently doing the work while the agency tries to fill 17 vacant positions, noting turnover is high when other large law enforcement agencies have better pay.
Former California Highway Patrolman and Republican Assm. Tom Lackey said law enforcement retention and recruitment go beyond pay.
“Morale amongst law enforcement is low right now; all agencies are having trouble because the incentive has been thwarted,” Lackey said. “Everybody hurts when we demonize an entire profession for conduct of a few.”
San Diego’s police department and city attorney’s office have a state-leading gun violence restraining order program. The state has earmarked $1 million for the agency to help train other local agencies across the state.
Sgt. Thomas Dillon and Chief Deputy City Attorney Nicole Crosby suggested lawmakers consider approving resources to create regional APPS/Gun Violence Restraining Order task forces. They noted this will help boost manpower and streamline communication between agencies.
“We have a great relationship with DOJ but the burden of firearms collection falls on local law enforcement,” Crosby told lawmakers.
“The biggest concern we have is to maintain accurate information in a timely manner,” Dillon told lawmakers, who noted the APPS system uses old technology and requires the use of several state databases to gather information on a prohibited person.
Republican Assm. Laurie Davies introduced a bill, Assembly Bill 303, that would create a new database for the APPS system.
Tuesday’s hearing was informational, meaning no votes or action was taken. It’s possible state lawmakers could address the system’s issues through legislation or the state budget process.