These shotguns look mighty high end to me! Maybe I should go on Welfare out here! (Oh Hell No!) Grumpy
Category: California
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Gun makers and dealers in California will be required to block firearms sales to anyone they have “reasonable cause to believe is at substantial risk” of using a gun illegally or of harming themselves or others, under a new law that Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Tuesday that he had signed.
It’s a subjective requirement that goes farther than current background checks or prohibitions on selling guns to people prohibited from owning them.
The regulation is part of the new law creating a good conduct code for gun makers and dealers that also allows anyone who suffers harm from violations to sue.
The bill was one of more than a dozen adding to California’s already strict gun regulations that were sent to Newsom, a Democrat, by state lawmakers before they left for their monthlong summer recess.
The National Rifle Association said the requirements are vague and represent an attempt to hold gun dealers and makers liable for the actions of others. The new law, the group said, “seeks to frustrate law-abiding gun owners” with the goal of driving gun makers and dealers “out of business with frivolous litigation.”
The state’s firearm industry standard of conduct, starting in July 2023, will require those making, importing or selling guns to “take reasonable precautions” to make sure the weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands through sales or thefts.
That includes having “reasonable controls” to prevent sales to arms traffickers, straw buyers, those prohibited from owning guns, and anyone deemed to be at “substantial risk” of using the gun improperly.
The law is patterned after a New York measure that took effect last year to skirt a 2005 federal law blocking most liability lawsuits against gun-makers or dealers.
The New York measure declared such violations a “public nuisance,” taking advantage of a federal exemption that allows lawsuits when gun makers break state or local laws regulating the sale and marketing of firearms.
Delaware and New Jersey just enacted similar laws, and all contain provisions requiring firearms dealers to act responsibly, said Tanya Schardt, senior counsel and director of state and federal policy at the Brady gun control advocacy organization that sought the laws.
“There may be indicators or things that you see beyond just passing the background check that indicate to the dealer that they shouldn’t sell the gun,” she said.
“I would say the California law is more specific,” Schardt said. “But substantively I think it creates the same set of requirements, the same standards with regards to engaging in safe business practices.”
“It’s not asking someone to be psychic,” she added, but to take reasonable precautions in the same way that an automobile dealer could be liable for selling to a customer who is clearly drunk, for instance.
“It’s not creating liability, it’s not expanding liability beyond what’s reasonable … which is really the same standard that every other industry is measured against,” she said.
A federal judge in May rejected a challenge to the New York law by gun manufacturers and sellers.
Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, expects the California law will be challenged on the argument that it violates the federal law.
“The ability to be sued for doing something bad is already there,” he said, noting that gun makers and dealers are liable for any illegal activity. “This is the anti-gun side’s way of looking for a deep pocket.”
The law will allow the California attorney general, city and county attorneys and victims of gun code of conduct violations to sue gun retailers or manufacturers for civil damages.
“Nearly every industry is held liable when their products case harm or injury. All except one — the gun industry,” Newsom said in a video Tuesday announcing that he had signed the bill on Monday.
With the new law, he said, “gun makers will finally be held to account for their role in this crisis.”
California’s law allows gun makers and dealers to also be sued for alleged violations of other laws, including false advertising, unfair competition or deceptive acts or practices.
“Hitting their bottom line may finally compel them to step up to reduce gun violence by preventing illegal sales and theft,” said the bill’s author, Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting.
The law will also prohibit manufacturers and retailers from making, importing or selling guns or related products that are “abnormally dangerous and likely to create an unreasonable risk of harm.”
That could include kits for building untraceable “ ghost guns,” “ bump stocks ” that increase the rate of fire for semi-automatic weapons, or “ bullet button ” assault weapons that allow for rapid reloading.
The California Legislature starts their Summer recess today, but not before a busy week full of defiant action against the recent Supreme Court victory in the NRA case of NYSRPA v. Bruen. The legislature passed several anti-gun bills out of policy committees and passed eight anti-gun bills onto the Governor’s desk, two of which he signed yesterday immediately after receiving them. With this swift action, the NRA is continuing to fight these proposals and looking at all available options including litigation. Contact Governor Newsom at (916) 445-2841 and urge him to veto AB 311, AB 1594, AB 1769, AB 2156, SB 915, and SB 1327!
Signed by the Governor
Assembly Bill 1621, introduced by Assembly Member Mike Gipson (D-65), expands what is considered a “precursor part” under existing law and requires serial numbers on those parts. Further, it expands the definition of “firearm” for purposes of criminal and regulatory penalties to include “precursor parts.” And finally, it prohibits the possession, transfer, sale, or advertising of milling machines that have the sole or primary purpose of manufacturing firearmsto anyone other than licensed firearm manufacturers or importers. . *AB 1621 was passed with an urgency clause meaning it went into effect immediately.
Assembly Bill 2571, introduced by Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-16), bans advertising or marketing firearms or ammunition in a way that is “attractive to minors,” replacing the language in current law banning specifically “advertis[ing] to minors.” This legislation is so broadly worded that it will be devastating to conservation, safety, and education efforts throughout the state. *AB 2571 was passed with an urgency clause meaning it went into effect immediately.
Passed by the Legislature and Will Soon Be Eligible for the Governor’s Consideration:
Assembly Bill 311, introduced by Assembly Member Christopher Ward (D-78), prohibits the display or sale of any “precursor firearm parts” at gun shows on the Del Mar Fairgrounds of the 22nd District Agricultural Association.
Assembly Bill 1594, introduced by Assembly Member Phil Ting (D-19), creates a private right of action against firearm industry members for failure to implement “reasonable” controls. This intentionally vague term can subject the industry to crippling lawsuits regardless of whether there is any actual violation of law.
Assembly Bill 1769, introduced by Assembly Member Steve Bennett (D-37), prohibits officers, employees, operators, lessees, or licensees of the 31st District Agricultural Association from entering into any agreement to allow for the sale of any firearm, firearm parts, or ammunition on property or buildings that comprise the Ventura County Fair and Event Center or properties in Ventura County and the City of Ventura that are owned, leased, operated, or occupied by the District.
Assembly Bill 2156, introduced by Assembly Member Buffy Wicks (D-15), reduces the number of firearms a private citizen can manufacture in a year from 50 to no more than three. In addition, it prohibits private citizens from using 3D printing to make firearms, precursor parts, or magazines.
Senate Bill 915, introduced by Senator Dave Min (D-37), bans state officers or employees, operators, lessees, or licensees from entering into any agreement to allow for the sale of any firearm, firearm precursor parts, or ammunition on property that is owned, leased, occupied, or operated by the state.
Senate Bill 1327, introduced by Senator Robert Hertzberg (D-18), creates a private right of action that allows individuals to file civil suits against anyone who manufactures, distributes, transports, sells, or imports firearms banned in California, as well as precursor firearm parts. Current law already allows for remedies for illegal activities by firearm dealers and manufacturers.
Passed by the Assembly Public Safety Committee
Senate Bill 918, introduced by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25), was amended to defy the recent Supreme Court ruling placing significant reforms on California’s existing conceal carry laws. Some of the provisions include: significantly expanding gun-free zones, requiring signage for private businesses where you “can” carry, doubling training requirements, and maintaining the ability to do in-person interviews, psychiatric evaluations, and allowing “time place, and manner” restrictions on permits. *SB 918 will be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 3.
Passed by the Senate Public Safety Committee
Assembly Bill 1227, introduced by Assembly Member Marc Levine (D-10), was gutted and amended to contain language from Assembly Bill 1223. It places an excise tax of 10% on the sales price of a handgun, and places an 11% excise tax on the sales price of all long guns, rifles, firearm precursor parts and ammunition. These taxes are to be collected from California retailers and placed in a newly created fund for appropriation by the state legislature. *AB 1227 will be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 1.
Assembly Bill 2870, introduced by Assembly Member Miguel Santiago (D-53), expands California’s gun violence restraining order to allow additional reporters, to now include roommates, dating partners, and additional family members, out to the 4th level of consanguinity and affinity (this could include out to the first cousin in-law or a great-great-grandparent). *AB 2870 has been referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee but has not been scheduled for a hearing at this time.
Passed by the Assembly Judiciary Committee
Senate Bill 505, introduced by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-9), makes a person who owns a firearm strictly civilly liable for each incident of property damage, bodily injury, or death resulting from the use of the firearm. Additionally, the legislation requires a firearm owner to obtain and continuously maintain insurance as well as keep evidence of this coverage with the firearm at all times. *SB 505 will be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 3.
Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your email inbox for further updates.
Source: Carolyn Kaster/AP Photo
When it comes to gun violence, Democrat-run states love to blame the issue on the firearm itself, calling for strict gun control measures.
Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) signed two gun control laws that prohibit the marketing of guns to minors and strengthen restrictions on so-called “ghost guns.”
Bill AB 2571 bans gun manufacturers from marketing guns in a way that “reasonably appears to be attractive to minors,” while bill AB 1621 strengthens requirements for the microstamping of unserialized firearms, or “ghost guns.”
In a video statement, Newsom berated conservatives and the Supreme Court for their stance on guns.
“From members of Supreme Court to right-wing Republicans all across this country, have you no common decency, respect, or even common understanding?” Newsom said.
While holding a gun similar to an AR-15 rifle that is apparently marketed for children, the Democratic governor tried to justify his strict laws by saying it shouldn’t be necessary for him to have to pass them since keeping firearms out of children’s hands is a “common understanding.”
“The kids should not have one of these,” Newsom said, adding, “This is an AR-15. This is a weapon of war, weapon of mass destruction, but you’re out there promoting and allowing marketing of these weapons of war to our kids.”
Newsom continued to call out the Supreme Court for “rolling back gun safety protections” while touting his state for having the strictest gun laws in the country.
Gun owners with a Concealed Carry Weapon permit in California had their information — including names, addresses, and race — exposed on Monday after Attorney General Rob Bonta launched a 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal.
Available through the state’s OpenJustice Data Platform — which has since gone offline in response to the data exposure — Bonta said in a statement on Monday that the firearms dashboard would “improve transparency and information sharing” for gun-related data, including public access to data on firearms in California, and information about CCW permits and Gun Violence Restraining Orders.
“We are investigating an exposure of individuals’ personal information connected to the DOJ Firearms Dashboard,” the California Department of Justice told The Reload. “Any unauthorized release of personal information is unacceptable.”
“We are working swiftly to address this situation and will provide additional information as soon as possible.”
President of the California Rifle & Pistol Association Chuck Michel told The Reload, “vindictive sore loser bureaucrats have endangered people’s lives and invited conflict by illegally releasing confidential private information.”
Michel said the association is working with several legislators and sheriffs to determine the extent of the damage caused by the doxing of law-abiding gun owners.
“Litigation is likely,” he said.
The Reload reported a database for Los Angeles County that showed the personal information of 244 judge permits, seven custodial officers, 63 people with a place of employment permit, and 420 reserved officers.
The report revealed the personal data of 2,891 people with standard concealed carry licenses in Los Angeles County.
The Fresno County Sheriff’s office confirmed that the data breach included names, ages, addresses, Criminal Identification Index numbers, and license types. Despite the state disabling access to the portal, there are concerns that bad actors have copied the information and circulated it around social media and other parts of the internet.
Twenty-four hours before the leak, Bonta said of the portal, “transparency is key to increasing public trust between law enforcement and the communities we serve.”
“As news of tragic mass shootings continue to dominate the news cycle, leaving many with feelings of fear and uncertainty, we must do everything we can to prevent gun violence,” he said. “One of my continued priorities is to better provide information needed to help advance efforts that strengthen California’s commonsense gun laws.”
He added the announcement “puts power and information into the hands of our communities by helping them better understand the role and potential dangers of firearms within our state.”
If anyone had their information compromised as a result of the data breach, the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office asks that you make an online report.
 |
| Earlier this week, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that he would be releasing firearms data via the California DOJ’s Firearms Dashboard Portal. That data contained gun owners’ names, dates of birth, gender, race, driver’s license numbers, addresses, and NRA-ILA sued the California DOJ in January to stop it from releasing gun owners’ information to university professors for “research purposes.” Throughout this litigation, the Cal DOJ has maintained that it has “robust policies and procedures in place to ensure that personally identifying information is not disclosed to the public,” and that it had “instituted three steps to ensure that personal identifying information is not publicly disclosed.” And just this week Attorney General Bonta declared that the: “DOJ seeks to balance its duties to provide gun violence and firearms data to support research efforts while protecting the personal identifying information in the data the Department collects and maintains.” The court, understandably, relied on those repeated assurances and declined to issue a temporary restraining order blocking the Cal DOJ from releasing gun owners’ information. But those promises turned out to be empty, and those safeguards turned out to be nonexistent. That is why NRA-ILA asked the court to reconsider its decision on the temporary restraining order. Whether the leak was the result of malice or extreme negligence, the Cal DOJ must be held accountable for its shortcomings. NRA-ILA will continue to prosecute this case until that happens. The case is captioned Doe v. Bonta. |
 |
| The California Legislature starts their Summer recess today, but not before a busy week full of defiant action against the recent Supreme Court victory in the NRA case of NYSRPA v. Bruen. The legislature passed several anti-gun bills out of policy committees and passed eight anti-gun bills onto the Governor’s desk, two of which he signed yesterday immediately after receiving them. With this swift action, the NRA is continuing to fight these proposals and looking at all available options including litigation. Contact Governor Newsom at (916) 445-2841 and urge him to veto AB 311, AB 1594, AB 1769, AB 2156, SB 915, and SB 1327!
Signed by the Governor Assembly Bill 1621, introduced by Assembly Member Mike Gipson (D-65), expands what is considered a “precursor part” under existing law and requires serial numbers on those parts. Further, it expands the definition of “firearm” for purposes of criminal and regulatory penalties to include “precursor parts.” And finally, it prohibits the possession, transfer, sale, or advertising of milling machines that have the sole or primary purpose of manufacturing firearmsto anyone other than licensed firearm manufacturers or importers. . *AB 1621 was passed with an urgency clause meaning it went into effect immediately. Assembly Bill 2571, introduced by Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-16), bans advertising or marketing firearms or ammunition in a way that is “attractive to minors,” replacing the language in current law banning specifically “advertis[ing] to minors.” This legislation is so broadly worded that it will be devastating to conservation, safety, and education efforts throughout the state. *AB 2571 was passed with an urgency clause meaning it went into effect immediately. Passed by the Legislature and Will Soon Be Eligible for the Governor’s Consideration: Assembly Bill 311, introduced by Assembly Member Christopher Ward (D-78), prohibits the display or sale of any “precursor firearm parts” at gun shows on the Del Mar Fairgrounds of the 22nd District Agricultural Association. Assembly Bill 1594, introduced by Assembly Member Phil Ting (D-19), creates a private right of action against firearm industry members for failure to implement “reasonable” controls. This intentionally vague term can subject the industry to crippling lawsuits regardless of whether there is any actual violation of law. Assembly Bill 1769, introduced by Assembly Member Steve Bennett (D-37), prohibits officers, employees, operators, lessees, or licensees of the 31st District Agricultural Association from entering into any agreement to allow for the sale of any firearm, firearm parts, or ammunition on property or buildings that comprise the Ventura County Fair and Event Center or properties in Ventura County and the City of Ventura that are owned, leased, operated, or occupied by the District. Assembly Bill 2156, introduced by Assembly Member Buffy Wicks (D-15), reduces the number of firearms a private citizen can manufacture in a year from 50 to no more than three. In addition, it prohibits private citizens from using 3D printing to make firearms, precursor parts, or magazines. Senate Bill 915, introduced by Senator Dave Min (D-37), bans state officers or employees, operators, lessees, or licensees from entering into any agreement to allow for the sale of any firearm, firearm precursor parts, or ammunition on property that is owned, leased, occupied, or operated by the state. Senate Bill 1327, introduced by Senator Robert Hertzberg (D-18), creates a private right of action that allows individuals to file civil suits against anyone who manufactures, distributes, transports, sells, or imports firearms banned in California, as well as precursor firearm parts. Current law already allows for remedies for illegal activities by firearm dealers and manufacturers. Passed by the Assembly Public Safety Committee Senate Bill 918, introduced by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25), was amended to defy the recent Supreme Court ruling placing significant reforms on California’s existing conceal carry laws. Some of the provisions include: significantly expanding gun-free zones, requiring signage for private businesses where you “can” carry, doubling training requirements, and maintaining the ability to do in-person interviews, psychiatric evaluations, and allowing “time place, and manner” restrictions on permits. *SB 918 will be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 3. Passed by the Senate Public Safety Committee Assembly Bill 1227, introduced by Assembly Member Marc Levine (D-10), was gutted and amended to contain language from Assembly Bill 1223. It places an excise tax of 10% on the sales price of a handgun, and places an 11% excise tax on the sales price of all long guns, rifles, firearm precursor parts and ammunition. These taxes are to be collected from California retailers and placed in a newly created fund for appropriation by the state legislature. *AB 1227 will be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 1. Assembly Bill 2870, introduced by Assembly Member Miguel Santiago (D-53), expands California’s gun violence restraining order to allow additional reporters, to now include roommates, dating partners, and additional family members, out to the 4th level of consanguinity and affinity (this could include out to the first cousin in-law or a great-great-grandparent). *AB 2870 has been referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee but has not been scheduled for a hearing at this time. Passed by the Assembly Judiciary Committee Senate Bill 505, introduced by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-9), makes a person who owns a firearm strictly civilly liable for each incident of property damage, bodily injury, or death resulting from the use of the firearm. Additionally, the legislation requires a firearm owner to obtain and continuously maintain insurance as well as keep evidence of this coverage with the firearm at all times. *SB 505 will be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 3. |
Wednesday, June 29, 2022
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov
SACRAMENTO – The California Department of Justice has announced that personal information was disclosed in connection with the June 27, 2022 update of its Firearms Dashboard Portal. Based on the Department’s current investigation, the incident exposed the personal information of individuals who were granted or denied a concealed and carry weapons (CCW) permit between 2011-2021. Information exposed included names, date of birth, gender, race, driver’s license number, addresses, and criminal history. Social Security numbers or any financial information were not disclosed as a result of this event.
Additionally, data from the following dashboards were also impacted: Assault Weapon Registry, Handguns Certified for Sale, Dealer Record of Sale, Firearm Safety Certificate, and Gun Violence Restraining Order dashboards. DOJ is investigating the extent to which any personally identifiable information could have been exposed from those dashboards and will report additional information as soon as confirmed.
“This unauthorized release of personal information is unacceptable and falls far short of my expectations for this department,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “I immediately launched an investigation into how this occurred at the California Department of Justice and will take strong corrective measures where necessary. The California Department of Justice is entrusted to protect Californians and their data. We acknowledge the stress this may cause those individuals whose information was exposed. I am deeply disturbed and angered.”
On the afternoon of June 27, 2022, DOJ posted updates to the Firearms Dashboard Portal. DOJ was made aware of a disclosure of personal information that was accessible in a spreadsheet on the portal. After DOJ learned of the data exposure, the department took steps to remove the information from public view and shut down the Firearms Dashboard yesterday morning. The dashboard and data were available for less than 24 hours.
In the coming days, the Department will notify those individuals whose data was exposed and provide additional information and resources. California law requires a business or state agency to notify any California resident whose unencrypted personal information, as defined, was acquired, or reasonably believed to have been acquired, by an unauthorized person.
DOJ asks that anyone who accessed such information respect the privacy of the individuals involved and not share or disseminate any of the personal information. In addition, possession of or use of personal identifying information for an unlawful purpose may be a crime. (See Cal Penal Code Sec. 530.5.)
We are communicating with law enforcement partners throughout the state. In collaboration, we will provide support to those whose information has been exposed.
In an abundance of caution, the Department of Justice will provide credit monitoring services for individuals whose data was exposed as a result of this incident. DOJ will directly contact individuals who have been impacted by this incident and will provide instructions to sign up for this service.
Any Californian may take the following steps to immediately protect their information related to credit:
- Monitor your credit. One of the best ways to protect yourself from identity theft is to monitor your credit history. To obtain free copies of your credit reports from the three major credit bureaus go to https://www.annualcreditreport.com.
- Consider placing a free credit freeze on your credit report. Identity thieves will not be able to open a new credit account in your name while the freeze is in place. You can place a credit freeze by contacting each of the three major credit bureaus:
-
- Equifax: https://www.equifax.com/personal/credit-report-services/credit-freeze/; 888-766-0008
-
- Experian: https://www.experian.com/freeze/center.html; 888-397-3742
-
- TransUnion: https://www.transunion.com/credit-freeze; 800-680-7289
- Place a fraud alert on your credit report. A fraud alert helps protect you against the possibility of someone opening new credit accounts in your name. A fraud alert lasts 90 days and can be renewed. To post a fraud alert on your credit file, you must contact one of the three major credit reporting agencies listed above. Keep in mind that if place a fraud alert with any one of the three major credit reporting agencies, the alert will be automatically added by the other two agencies as well.
- Additional Resources. If you are a victim of identity theft, contact your local police department or sheriff’s office right away. You may also report identity theft and generate a recovery plan using the Federal Trade Commission’s website at identitytheft.gov. For more information and resources visit the Attorney General’s website at oag.ca.gov/idtheft.
AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki
The Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen on Thursday didn’t simply shoot down New York’s onerous “good-cause requirement” in the gun permit application process. It set up similar laws in other states for likely revocation.
One of those states is California, where they have their own requirement that applicants must show a “good cause” or “special need” before a carry permit is issued. State Attorney General Rob Bonta sent out a letter on Friday to law enforcement and government attorneys noting the change and saying that the state’s current “may issue” regime should be able to be converted to a “shall issue” regime with few modifications. So that’s good news, right?
Not so fast. As Eugene Volokh points out at Reason, Bonta pivoted from signaling compliance with the new SCOTUS ruling to identifying another way to deny permits to people with no criminal record. He claims that the ruling will not impact the existing requirement for applicants to be able to demonstrate that they are “of good moral character.” On that basis, the state can start snooping around to see if you hold any unauthorized opinions or are prone to demonstrate “hatred and racism.” And how would they know that? Well, by going through your social media accounts, of course.
Other jurisdictions list the personal characteristics one reasonably expects of candidates for a public-carry license who do not pose a danger to themselves or others. The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department’s policy, for example, currently provides as follows: “Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction.” [Emphasis added.]
As a starting point for purposes of investigating an applicant’s moral character, many issuing authorities require personal references and/or reference letters. Investigators may personally interview applicants and use the opportunity to gain further insight into the applicant’s character. And they may search publicly-available information, including social media accounts, in assessing the applicant’s character. [Emphasis added.]
As Volokh goes on to explain, this entire scheme appears to be completely unconstitutional. It’s a violation of the First Amendment before we even begin to examine how it would hold up under the Second Amendment. The government is not allowed to restrict your actions or suspend your Constitutional rights based on the viewpoints you express, even if they are unpopular with the current regime.
This is an even more critical distinction to make in an era where the government is busy redefining words and appointing people to decide what is or isn’t “misinformation.” If you spoke out against the violence on display during the BLM riots, you’ve already been defined as a “racist.” Based on that alone, the California AG could determine that you are of insufficiently good moral character to be approved for a permit. If you applauded the overturning of Roe v Wade you are no doubt already on a list of “haters” of some sort so you can be similarly denied.
Volokh correctly describes the words “hatred” and “racism” as being “potentially extraordinarily broad and vague terms.” Of course they are. And that’s more true than ever in the current climate as I described above.
The problem is that this clause has been on the books in California for years. Nobody really noticed it, however, because the state government was too busy denying carry permits to people because of their supposed lack of a “good cause.” They didn’t need to bother checking into your “good moral character” because most people never made it that far in the process. And the ruling in Bruen didn’t address this point.
What that means is that if California simply begins denying carry permit applications in massive numbers based on this clause, a challenge will have to be brought against them and the whole process will have to start all over again. The Bruen case had been grinding its way through the courts since 2018 before finally reaching a conclusion last week. If someone has to start over from scratch in California, the state will be able to continue flaunting the Constitutional rights of citizens for years to come.