California leaders pledge new law to address gun ruling

[ificandream]

Source: By DON THOMPSON/AP

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California legislators will consider a new law within days to keep dangerous people from carrying concealed weapons in public, Gov. Gavin Newsom and his top law enforcement official said Thursday after a U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidated the most populous state’s current law.

The high court struck down a New York law requiring that people seeking a license to carry a gun in public demonstrate a particular need, such as a direct threat to their safety. California is among a half-dozen states with a similar requirement.

Newsom in a tweet called the ruling a “dangerous decision from a court hell bent on pushing a radical ideological agenda and infringing on the rights of states to protect our citizens from being gunned down in our streets, schools, and churches.”

Attorney General Rob Bonta said the high court’s ruling still leaves states with the right to limit concealed carry permits to those who meet legal standards to safely possess firearms.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-health-california-gun-politics-15b280f3d2a8f1f52accd33e020abb3b

[roamer65]

1. NY and CA had new laws cued up and ready to go.

Good planning on their part.

[Polybius]

6. If they hold up

They probably will be struck down.

[NickB79]

2. And this is exactly how to go forward

The outrage today on DU has been over the top, frankly. So many members thinking the court gave anyone in the US unlimited rights to carry guns wherever and whenever (it did not), comparisons to the Wild West in Times Square, etc. In reality, 41 of 50 states already have laws that conform to the new USSC ruling, including liberal states like here in Minnesota.

Blue states can set a high bar for obtaining a CCW, including months of training, extensive background checks, accuracy testing, written testing, etc. That is fully legal even with the SCOTUS ruling.

[dsc]

3. until it isn't

you can bet that gun nuts will sue over those requirements in coming years and if just one of Kavanaugh or Roberts agrees that the requirement is too onerous it will go.

[NullTuples]

9. Exactly right. Precedent and consistency mean nothing to this Court.

[kelly1mm]

10. 'months of training' ummm, probably not. Nor could CA make the fee, say for example $50,000 for a

permit. So the states will not be allowed to put an undue burden of permit applicants.

[The Mouth]

16. To a degree

They cannot impose many restrictions on a Constitutional right. Anything more than a basic background check and some minimal paperwork will be easily thrown out.

Making it harder to get a gun than it is to vote will fail in court. And you can't charge someone to exercise a constitutional right, poll taxes got thrown out.

You can't set a higher bar for getting a gun permit than you can to vote, or publish a book.

[C Moon]

4. This new ruling is also going to cause police to be on edge.

One of the stupidest things this conservative SCOTUS has ever done.

[cstanleytech]

5. There is no Constitutional right to have the right to drive a car or to

be granted a license to do so.
Perhaps part of the answer to some of the problem could be resolved by using that?
Say by requiring anyone that wants to keep said drivers license to have to "update" the information on what guns they own for the license every time they buy a new gun?
It cannot be made as a law though as SCOTUS can throw a law out rather this would be part of the new requirements for a drivers license.

If a person choose not to update their information though then they are choosing to forfeit their drivers license and if they fail to update their license within 30 days of any changes they risk a 10 thousand dollar fine and up to 5 years in prison for each time their failed to update their license.

[gladium et scutum]

8. apples and oranges

the right to drive a car is granted by the State. The right to own a firearm is granted by the Constitution of the United States.

[Mawspam2]

11. There were no cars when the Constitution was written.

There also were no cartridge bullets, much less ARs or AKs.

Why are ordinary citizens are prohibited from owning nuclear/biological/chemical arms? It's my Constitutional right! Expecting a ruling any day now.

[MicaelS]

13. Utter nonsense.

Comparing WMDs to small arms is why advocates of gun control are not listened to.

[Mawspam2]

17. I would counter that an AR-15 is a weapon of mass destruction.

[Dysfunctional]

14. There were means of transport such as carriages and they were not put in the Constitution.

[Cha]

7. TY & CA Leaders! Oh & Rot in Hell, Extreme 5!

💙💛

[MicaelS]

12. This SCOTUS ruling is NY / CA and other states own fault.

Any wealthy / powerful / famous person could get a permit in these states. The average person, slim chance indeed. This created resentment that led to this ruling.

As long as a person does not have a criminal record, is not adjudicated mentally ill, and can pass an appropriate class, they should be allowed to have a permit.

[zanana1]

15. Resentment has no place on the Supreme Court.

The SCOTUS is supposed to be an impartial body.

[Zeitghost]

18. CA CCW is county by county

Some are shall issue, in others they are extremely difficult to obtain. If there is a state wide requirement to articulate a specific threat, it is not enforced in many areas.