How do Supreme Court gun law decisions affect California?

The US Supreme Court on Thursday declared a New York law unconstitutional requiring residents to show a “special requirement” to qualify for a concealed-gun permit. Given that many states, including California, have similar laws and practices, the decision here has short- and long-term meaning.

Why: What exactly did the Supreme Court decide?

a: In the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority rejected a requirement in New York that applicants for concealed weapons permits must prove to the state’s satisfaction that they have “genuine and Explicit” itself is a defense claim rather than a general or unspecified security fear. The court found the requirement, which is subjective and argued to apply unequivocally in New York — and locally in the Bay Area — to unfairly restrict Second Amendment rights.

Why: How does California regulate concealed-gun permits?

a: The state’s Department of Justice issues permits, but they are processed by county sheriff’s offices and local police departments. State law gives the heads of those law-enforcement agencies full discretion over selection. Nearly half of California’s 58 counties have adopted an “issue issue” policy, meaning applicants who demonstrate proficiency in firearms use and safety, and who do not have serious criminal convictions, receive a permit overall. Huh. The other half, including many in the Bay Area and Los Angeles, implement a “can issue” policy where, like New York, they require applicants to show “good reason” as to why they should be able to carry a concealed gun. Should be. public.

Why: How could Thursday’s ruling affect what happens in California?

a: The decision means that Bay Area counties and other jurisdictions will no longer require applicants to provide reasons for requiring a concealed weapons permit beyond self-defense. This could mean a significant increase in the number of people obtaining permits and, by extension, publicly concealed weapons.

Whether this would require a change in state law is unclear. Donald Kilmer, a Second Amendment attorney who has sued Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith alleging that there was political bias in his office’s permit-issuing practices, believes that the law— Enforcement agencies can adjust without any statutory changes.

“They have to accept plain old, ordinary, vanilla self-defense with good reason,” Kilmer said.

But Bonta announced he is leading legislation, which could be heard by lawmakers as soon as Tuesday, that would codify that concealed carry guns are prohibited and have requirements for concealed-carry permits.

Why: Does this decision open the door to any California citizen who wants to carry a concealed handgun in public?

a: No, the permit will still be needed, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Thursday morning. The attorney general acknowledged the requirement to show “good reason” to obtain a permit is “likely to be unconstitutional” following the court’s ruling. But he said Californians would still need to obtain a permit, pass a background check, demonstrate firearms proficiency and safety, and show proof of employment or residency in the county that issued the permit.

Why: What are the restrictions still on carrying a concealed weapon in public?

a: The court’s ruling did not address the enforcement of gun prohibition in “sensitive places” – such as legislative buildings, courthouses and schools – and Justice Clarence Thomas indicated in a majority opinion that such restrictions were not challenged by Thursday’s ruling. will be given.

Kilmer said that private businesses that are not generally open to the public would still retain their right to ban firearms from their locations, in the same way that they would by implementing a “no shirt, no shoe, no service” policy. can. But public congregation places, and private businesses that are open to the public – such as shopping malls and grocery stores – are on “slightly more volatile ground” legally, and how this might be regulated is unclear.

Why: Who could benefit from Thursday’s decision besides gun-rights advocates?

a: Olu Orange, a convicted civil-rights attorney and director of the USC Dornsife Trial Advocacy Program, said he believed Justice Thomas’s argument was partly rooted in opposing government discretion that in practice black Americans Used to disarm.

Kilmer said the court’s decision could also be seen as an “anti-corruption ruling”.

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: