California’s SB 2 Update: Repugnant to the Second Amendment

On Wednesday, December 20, 2023, United States District Judge Cormac J. Carney issued a Preliminary Injunction against certain “sensitive places” provisions of California’s SB 2 law scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2024. In a brutal rebuke, Judge Carney wrote “SB2’s coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.”

Few comments better characterize California’s childish Bruen response law than the temper tantrum reaction to the injunction from the Governor.

“Defying common sense, this ruling outrageously calls California’s data-backed gun safety efforts ‘repugnant’. What is repugnant is this ruling, which green lights the proliferation of guns in our hospitals, libraries, and children’s playgrounds — spaces, which should be safe for all. California will keep fighting to defend our laws and to enshrine a Right To Safety in the Constitution. The lives of our kids depend on it.”

You’ll notice the Governor had to get in a pitch for his yet-to-be-announced Presidential campaign platform of adding a 28th Amendment to repeal your natural rights protected by the Second Amendment.

This is of course a huge victory, even if it turns out to be short lived. Enjoined are:

· Hospitals, mental health facilities, nursing homes, medical offices, urgent care facilities, and other places where medical services are customarily provided,
· Public transportation,
· Establishments where intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption on the premises,
· Public gatherings and special events,
· Playgrounds and private youth centers,
· Parks and athletic facilities,
· Department of Parks and Recreation and Department of Fish and Wildlife property, except hunting areas,
· Casinos and gambling establishments,
· Stadiums and arenas,
· Public libraries,
· Amusement parks,
· Zoos and museums,
· Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship,
· Financial institutions, and
· Any other privately owned commercial establishment that is open to the public, unless the operator clearly and conspicuously posts a sign indicating that license holders are permitted to carry firearms on the property.
· “Parking areas” made a “sensitive place.”

Note the order does not enjoin schools, state or local public buildings, airports and legislative offices. Nor does it prevent the implementation of new instructor rules which immediately ban up to 95% of the instructors currently providing conceal carry firearm training in the state today.

A few quotes from the order (references removed):

SB2 turns nearly every public place in California into a “sensitive place,” effectively abolishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding and exceptionally qualified citizens to be armed and to defend themselves in public.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. It “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” both inside the home and outside it. The text’s “right to ‘bear arms” refers to the right to ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’

That the vast majority of conceal carry permit holders are law-abiding. Indeed, CCW permitholders are not responsible for any of the mass shootings or horrific gun violence that has occurred in California. And herein lies the problem: despite ample opportunity for an evidentiary hearing, the State has failed to offer any evidence that law-abiding responsible citizens who carry firearms in public for self-defense are responsible for an increase in gun violence.

CCW permitholders are among the most responsible, reliable law-abiding citizens. They have been through a vigorous vetting and training process following their application to carry a concealed handgun.

The California State Sheriffs’ Association that “[i]nstead of focusing on a law-abiding population, efforts should address preventing gun crimes committed by those who disobey the law and holding them accountable.”

What’s next:

Here is the next critical piece coming from the California Attorney General’s comments. “We believe the court got this wrong, and that SB2 adheres to the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in Bruen. We will seek the opinion of the appellate court to make it right.”

And this is where things will get funky. They don’t call the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the Nutty Ninth for nothing. A three-judge panel could go either way depending on the draw of the judges. However, an en banc panel, given the Ninth’s “creative interpretation” of evidentiary rules and Supreme Court precedent, would unquestionably rule to uphold SB 2. While the Preliminary Injunction is factually and legally correct, it may not survive the purely political judgement from the Nutty Ninth. This Preliminary Injunction is good news, but it ain’t over yet.

As a reminder, the ONLY way to keep more gun control laws from being passed is to STOP electing people who will not protect our natural, constitutionally protected rights.

Bob

Read the ruling at: https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023-12-20-Order-Granting-Plfs-MPI.pdf

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunsSaveLives, #GunVote, #NoToSB2, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com