As Expected, ‘May-Issue’ States Are Going to Have to be Forced Into Compliance With the Supreme Court’s Bruen Ruling

0
45


California State Rep. Anthony Portantino (Twitter)

As nearly ideal as the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision was, no one thought the states that exercise maximum control over who can fully exercise their Second Amendment rights — and who can’t — would go quietly. As we wrote here, it was always clear they weren’t going to just throw up their hands and start issuing concealed carry permits as freely as they do the other 43 states where the right to keep and bear arms is actually respected.

News like that was nice, but we knew the affected states would throw up as many hurdles and roadblocks to law-abiding citizens, 1) getting a carry permit and then, 2) legally carrying a firearm as the formerly may-issue states’ busy bureaucratic minds could come up with.

We hate to say we told you so, but . . .

California, where so many of these things seem to start, was quick to jump in to the deep end of the Second Amendment violating pool. Now that issuing counties can no longer reject carry permits because applicants didn’t present a good enough reason for wanting one, longtime gun rights foe state Senator Anthony Portantino was quick to come up with a bill to make the process as onerous as possible.

As Gun Owners of California puts it, legislators in Sacramento “don’t care what the Court did – nor do they care that CCW holders are the most law-abiding subsection of society.”

No one really thought they did. If (when) Portantino’s bill becomes law, it . . .

    • Increases (doubles) the costs for licensing and processing for CCW applications.
    • Doubles the amount of time required for training classes from 8 to 16 hours for the initial application and from 4 to 8 hours for a renewal.
    • Mandates that the class cover mental health resources.
    • Mandates a written exam demonstrating knowledge of class contents.
    • Requires face to face interview with law enforcement plus recommendations from three different character witnesses.
    • Requires face-to-face interview of residential “co-habitant.”
    • Encourages (does not mandate) local authorities to require a mental health evaluation to be conducted by a psychologist.

Locations that will be off limits to carriers include . . .

    • Anywhere alcohol is served
    • Public transit, all airport buildings, hospitals, schools, medical facilities, nursing homes, parks, and more

Oh and . . .

And if that weren’t bad enough, a provision was also added that addresses alcohol use.  Legal CCW holders will be precluded from carrying while “under the influence” of any alcoholic beverage or medication. Take note of this: it does not mean legally impaired – it means any perceptible amount of alcohol or medication in one’s system. And yes – it covers all medications, not just the hard stuff such as those designated as legal narcotics (i.e. prescription painkillers), but every-day medicine for cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc.

So that’s nice. Take a Tylenol and go to jail.

Meanwhile, across the continent, they’ve been busy in the Empire State too, working out how to respond in kind. The New York legislature will be ramming through new carry restrictions as well. The idea is obviously to make carrying with a permit as legally ambiguous and perilous as possible.

From news12longisland.com . . .

The governor says she plans to expand the restrictions in “sensitive locations” where you can carry a gun, increase firearms training requirements and track how much ammunition is being sold.

New York will mimic like-minded left coasters by requiring a background check for each ammunition purchase.

As for actually getting a carry permit . . .

The new laws would also require more than 15 hours of what she is calling “in-person fire range training.”

And of course . . .

If approved by state lawmakers, places you would not be able to carry a concealed weapon would include on public transportation, parks and other places where children would be.

As expected. But the Governor says she also wants to “protect the rights of property owners who decide they don’t want firearms on the premises” from the Supreme Court’s “unconstitutional mandates.”

Again from news12longisland.com . . .

Hochul also says gun owners should not make any assumptions about where they can carry their weapons.

“The presumption is that private property owners will not want to have concealed carry weapons on their premises, but should they decide they do, they would actually affirmatively put a sign in their window…’Concealed carry weapons welcome here’ – otherwise the presumption will be in the state of New York that they are not.”

We haven’t seen the actual New York legislation and don’t expect to until it has become law. Just like in D.C., they’ll apparently have to pass it so we can find out what’s in it.

Most of these new requirements and limitations are blatantly unconstitutional. They were unconstitutional before Bruen and they’re far more clearly unconstitutional now thanks to Justice Thomas’s ruling. But that doesn’t matter.

Expect to see the same kind of legislative shenanigans from New Jersey, Hawaii and the rest.

Just like the city of Chicago following the McDonald decision, these states will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance. That means suing them and forcing them to show why their new heightened restrictions that limit the free exercise of Second Amendment rights aren’t plainly unconstitutional. It will take time, but it will happen…whether California, New York and the rest like it or not.





Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here