Categories
Categories
A Beretta Model 70S in .380 ACP
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.
Vice President Kamala Harris weighed in on the Supreme Court of the United States decision to strike down New York’s restrictions on concealed carry firearms permits and uphold the Second Amendment, saying that the ruling contradicted both commonsense as well as the U.S. Constitution.
On Thursday, The Daily Wire reported that the court ruled 6-3 in favor of gun rights in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. Thursday’s decision is the widest expansion of gun rights in more than a decade, according to The Wall Street Journal.
In reaction, Kamala Harris tweeted, “Today’s Supreme Court ruling on guns is deeply troubling as it defies commonsense and the Constitution. Lives are at stake.”
“Congress should pass the bipartisan gun safety proposal immediately and continue to do more to protect our communities,” she added.
Harris’ comments echoed President Joe Biden’s reaction to the decision.
Thursday morning, Biden released a statement saying that he was “deeply disappointed” in the court for its decision in the case.
“This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all,” he added.
Biden concluded by calling “Americans across the country to make their voices heard on gun safety.”
“Lives are on the line,” he warned.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion and argued that New York’s requirement that citizens must demonstrate a need for concealed carry was unconstitutional.
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion,” Thomas wrote. “It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
The court also found that the law violated the 14th amendment.
“New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms,” Thomas wrote.
While Harris may have thought the decision was in defiance of the Constitution, others praised the ruling.
House Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) tweeted, “The Supreme Court makes it clear: Stripping law-abiding citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights is unconstitutional. Big win for freedom!”
Congressman Tom Tiffany (R-WI), added, “The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right. Thi #SCOTUS decision upholds that truth and signals to all gun-grabbing Leftists that the rights of law-abiding citizens will NOT be infringed upon.”
As explained by Fox News’ Shannon Bream — an attorney and journalist — Today’s #SCOTUSopinion does NOT mean people can simply start carrying guns wherever/whenever they want. States can still require licenses/permits, but the criteria for getting them must be objective.”
Tim Pearce contributed to this story.
3:38
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) spoke with Breitbart News about the current push for gun control in the House and warned us to be ready to see gun controllers “go after ammunition and ammunition manufacturers.”
Biggs noted a number of gun controls have been passed by the Democrat-controlled House, and even though those controls have not passed the Senate he believes the House will pass even more.
He explained, “I expect some additional gun control legislation to come out of the House. I expect there will be an attempt to do an ‘assault weapons’ ban, I think they’re going to continue to try to eliminate liability protections on gun manufacturers, and I think they’re also going to go after ammunition and ammunition manufacturers.”
Biggs then talked about gun control in the Senate, where he said, “When gun control reared its head again, after Uvalde, I expected 20 members of Senate Republicans to cave and give things like red flag laws and whatever else that the House pushing. But I’m sure what, if anything, is going to get out now, because it has taken so long and they have no language.”
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., speaks during the Due Process Denied news conference on the January 6 trials and DC jail treatment outside the Capitol on Wednesday, June 15, 2022. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, is in the background. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
He added, “When you have no language to look at, they start working off what is called a framework, and that leads to infighting where some Senators want certain things but not other things, and that indicates a lack a consensus.”
And Biggs stressed the more time passes the less chance there is consensus will occur.
He also noted the way Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) was booed on Friday at the Texas GOP Convention, and said, “That response indicates that gun owners are not real pleased with the Republicans that are undermining the Second Amendment.”
Biggs emphasized the launch of a watchdog group, the Arizona Second Amendment Coalition, a coalition of people he has pulled together to stay on top of the fight for Second Amendment rights.
Members of the coalition include elected officials, student advocates, individuals who work in the firearm industry, and members of pro-2A groups like the DC Project, among others.
Rep. Andy Biggs, a Republican from Arizona, listens during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Dallas, Texas, U.S., on Friday, July 9, 2021. (Dylan Hollingsworth/Bloomberg via Getty)
Biggs said, “We’re trying to make it a broad-based coalition where we talk about challenges to the exercise of Second Amendment rights. Whether that is an ATF challenge, something the Biden administration is doing, or what policies–local, state, and federal–that may either positively or negatively impact the Second Amendment.”
On January 3, 2022, Breitbart News reported Biggs stressing that carrying a gun for self-defense is part of being a “free American.”
Biggs said, “When you start talking about my wife or me or someone else, we’re talking about self-defense, and the first liberty is the right to life. So, if you can’t defense yourself against the bad guys you start looking like the 12 cities in America that have the highest homicide rate in their history.”
He then added, “You don’t want to look like that. You don’t want to look like Venezuela. You want to be a free American and the way to be free and reduce crime is to allow people to carry guns.”
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio and a Turning Point USA Ambassador. Follow him on Instagram: @awr_hawkins. Reach him at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
