SAF sues Cali over sensitive places

[swinokur]

SAF SUES CALIFORNIA OVER

‘SENSITIVE PLACES’ LEGISLATION



BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit in California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the freshly inked Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), which makes nearly every public place in the state a “sensitive place” and forbids the carrying of firearms even by citizens who have gone through the lengthy and expensive process of obtaining a concealed handgun license.



SAF is joined by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, the California Rifle & Pistol Association and eleven private citizens. Named as Defendant is California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys C.D. Michel, Sean A. Brady and Konstadinos T. Moros at Michel & Associates in Long Beach, and Donald Kilmer, Law Offices of Don Kilmer, Caldwell, Idaho.



“SB 2 is designed to frustrate and ultimately discourage individuals from exercising their right to bear arms by creating a patchwork of locations where Second Amendment rights may, or may not, be exercised,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “That is not how constitutional rights work. SAF is happy to add California to the list of states that we have sued for adopting so-called ‘Bruen Response Bills’ that make it impractical, if not impossible for people to exercise their rights by essentially making carry permits useless.”



“Under SB 2,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “legally armed California citizens might be able to carry on some streets and sidewalks, and in a few private businesses that post signs allowing legal carry on their premises. Overall, however, SB 2 is a massive prohibition on legal carry throughout the Golden State, which runs counter to what the U.S. Supreme Court said in its Bruen ruling last year, and which Gov. Gavin Newsom and anti-gun-rights state lawmakers are desperately trying to get around.”



“The right to keep and especially bear arms is under direct attack via SB 2,” Kraut observed. “California continues its trend of ignoring rights safeguarded by the Constitution. Such disregard cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.”





The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

 

[TI-tick]

Hum,
MD, CA, NY, and IDK what other states all seem to come up with similar new laws post Bruen, to effectively neuter carry, a civil right.

Wonder if discovery would disclose communication between the various states to deprive citizens of their 2A right be considered a RICCO crime?

 

[RFBfromDE]

That only works one way.

 

[Allen65]

Hum,
MD, CA, NY, and IDK what other states all seem to come up with similar new laws post Bruen, to effectively neuter carry, a civil right.

Wonder if discovery would disclose communication between the various states to deprive citizens of their 2A right be considered a RICCO crime?

Lawyers at Everytown are providing the drafts for these bills; that's why they're almost identical. We saw that during the hearings on SB-1, where Sen. Waldstreicher deferred almost all specific questions about the bill during the JPC hearing to the Everytown attorney who was on Zoom video.

I doubt you'd be able to build a RICO case, because lobbying in favor or against a bill up for consideration in a legislature is 1A protected speech, no matter how unconstitutional or morally vacuous the bill may be. It's not like having a discussion on how to run a racket extorting money from local businesses, which would not be protected speech because it is planning for a criminal conspiracy.

 

[TI-tick]

Lawyers at Everytown are providing the drafts for these bills. We saw that during the hearings on SB-1, where Sen. Waldstreicher deferred almost all specific questions about the bill during the JPC hearing to the Everytown attorney who was on Zoom video.

Ok, so link Everytown's MD BS to CA's BS and now we have a repeated attempt to deprive US citizens of their civil rights. And who is paying for Everytown?

Can somebody call the FBI on this?

Oh that's right; FJB!

 

[coinboy]

Federal judge blocks California law that would have banned carrying firearms in most public places

A federal judge has blocked a California law that banned carrying firearms in most public places, ruling that it violates the 2nd Amendment.

apnews.com

 

[swinokur]

JUDGE ISSUES PRELIM. INJUNCTION AGAINST CA ‘SENSITIVE PLACES’ LAW​

BELLEVUE, WA – Noting that California’s “sensitive places” law severely restricting lawful concealed carry is “sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court,” a federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against the law’s enforcement.



It is a major victory for the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a federal lawsuit filed in September. The case is known as May v. Bonta. Sharing the victory are Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, the California Rifle & Pistol Association and eleven private citizens. They are represented by attorneys C.D. Michel, Sean A. Brady and Konstadinos T. Moros at Michel & Associates in Long Beach, and Donald Kilmer, Law Offices of Don Kilmer, Caldwell, Idaho.



U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney at the Central District of California handed down his 43-page decision Wednesday. In his ruling, the judge noted, “The right to self-defense and to defend one’s family is fundamental and inherent to our very humanity irrespective of any formal codification…For many years, the right to bear arms, and so necessarily the right to self-defense, was relegated to second-class status.” That all changed when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down three landmark rulings over the course of 14 years, ending with the June 2022 Bruen decision.



But California lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom essentially ignored the high court, and as Judge Carney noted, defied the rulings on Second Amendment rights. Senate Bill 2, designating virtually all private property open to the public as “sensitive places” was adopted.



“SB2 is not only an affront to the right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “it’s an insult to the intelligence of every honest citizen in the Golden State. It amounts to a massive prohibition on legal carry throughout the state, which runs counter to what the U.S. Supreme Court said in its Bruen ruling last year. Thankfully, Judge Carney sent a message to Gov. Newsom and anti-gun-rights state lawmakers that they can’t get away with this.”



SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut added, “SB 2 is deliberately designed to frustrate and ultimately discourage individuals from exercising their right to bear arms by creating a patchwork of locations where Second Amendment rights may, or may not, be exercised. We’re delighted that Judge Carney saw through this sham.”

 

[dblas]

Lawyers at Everytown are providing the drafts for these bills; that's why they're almost identical. We saw that during the hearings on SB-1, where Sen. Waldstreicher deferred almost all specific questions about the bill during the JPC hearing to the Everytown attorney who was on Zoom video.

I doubt you'd be able to build a RICO case, because lobbying in favor or against a bill up for consideration in a legislature is 1A protected speech, no matter how unconstitutional or morally vacuous the bill may be. It's not like having a discussion on how to run a racket extorting money from local businesses, which would not be protected speech because it is planning for a criminal conspiracy.

If Etown is indeed writing these bills and providing them, it sure would be nice to sue them in some way, for conspiracy or something with regards to subverting the Constitution. (I know, I'm starting to sound like some folks that don't understand the Constitution or the judicial system)

A guy can dream.

 

[dblas]

Ok, so link Everytown's MD BS to CA's BS and now we have a repeated attempt to deprive US citizens of their civil rights. And who is paying for Everytown?

Can somebody call the FBI on this?

Oh that's right; FJB!

As much as I roll my eyes when people post the "deprevation of Rights" angle, I kind of agree in this case, if the dots could be connected.

 

[emerald]

This constant passing of legislation targeting a group of people who are not a source of any significant criminal activity, especially given all of the criminal activity and legislation that encourages such activity, is beyond words.

 

[Bob A]

Ok, so link Everytown's MD BS to CA's BS and now we have a repeated attempt to deprive US citizens of their civil rights. And who is paying for Everytown?

Can somebody call the FBI on this?

Oh that's right; FJB!

Alas, the FBI is complicit in the conspiracy. Along with a big chunk of the O'Biden Administration.

There was a time within living memory when the Government could be shamed when it was found to be crooked, and engaged in criminal enterprises. That time has passed, along with the majority of citizens who would be outraged by the current excesses and criminality.

Now that a large voting bloc is dependent on the Govt for their welfare, and much of the rest of the voting public is thoroughly disgusted, while both parties are enriched by graft to the extent that honest candidates are nearly impossible to field, the nation has fallen into the hands of amoral predators in public office, and in the upper reaches of the civil service.

 

[swinokur]

Just in FPC










Firearms Policy Coalition

LEGAL ALERT: Just now in our lawsuit challenging California's new carry bans: 1) The Ninth Circuit *motions* panel sent the state's motion to stay our preliminary injunction to the lawsuit's *merits* panel. 2) The motions panel issued a *temporary* stay on our preliminary injunction until the merits panel makes a decision on California's motion. What this means: 1) All of California's law will take effect on January 1st unless the merits panel denies the state's motion to stay. 2) There is no timeline for when the merits panel has to make a decision. It could come in a few hours, days, or even weeks. You can read more about our lawsuit here: https://firearmspolicy.org/carralero











Firearms Policy Coalition

@gunpolicy


LEGAL ALERT: Just now in our lawsuit challenging California's new carry bans: 1) The Ninth Circuit *motions* panel sent the state's motion to stay our preliminary injunction to the lawsuit's *merits* panel. 2) The motions panel issued a *temporary* stay on our preliminary injunction until the merits panel makes a decision on California's motion. What this means: 1) All of California's law will take effect on January 1st unless the merits panel denies the state's motion to stay. 2) There is no timeline for when the merits panel has to make a decision. It could come in a few hours, days, or even weeks. You can read more about our lawsuit here: https://firearmspolicy.org/carralero

 

[emerald]

So the PI to stop the law gets put on hold, and the law goes into effect as planned. Why is it even when we win, we still loose? Never seems to be that the people infringing on our rights have to wait. As I read this, I think about the whole MoCo cr@p and how we couldn't get anything to put them on hold while we waited, but here they manage to put a preliminary win on hold. Messed up. And yes, I understand that this is all how the legal process works, the 9th circuit is very liberal etc., but somehow, it always feels like it works better for them than us.

 

[rbird7282]

As far as I'm concerned, a law should not take effect while it's in the court system

 

[emerald]

As far as I'm concerned, a law should not take effect while it's in the court system

Doesn't seem right, does it? Especially when there's a PI on it. I would argue if there's enough wrong with it for a PI, then NO, it should not go into effect until it's worked out!

 

[yellowfin]

So the PI to stop the law gets put on hold, and the law goes into effect as planned. Why is it even when we win, we still loose? Never seems to be that the people infringing on our rights have to wait. As I read this, I think about the whole MoCo cr@p and how we couldn't get anything to put them on hold while we waited, but here they manage to put a preliminary win on hold. Messed up. And yes, I understand that this is all how the legal process works, the 9th circuit is very liberal etc., but somehow, it always feels like it works better for them than us.

The long term effect of the left having bought the law schools decades ago and our own side not even understanding the fight, only challenging on the downstream side and only since 2008.

 

[swinokur]

9CA Merits panel has dissolved the previous stay so carry is once again allowed in Cali

 

[Muleskinner]

The long term effect of the left having bought the law schools decades ago and our own side not even understanding the fight, only challenging on the downstream side and only since 2008.

Nothing that any 2A advocacy group has done has stopped gun control anywhere.
And until the SCOTUS proclaims the 2A means what it says the fight will go on in perpatude.

Until a leftwing SCOTUS decides the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to civilians...and THAT will happen one day...

 

[Boondock Saint]

Nothing that any 2A advocacy group has done has stopped gun control anywhere.

False.

 

[Fate]

9CA Merits panel has dissolved the previous stay so carry is once again allowed in Cali

Until it goes en banc and the circus act continues. CA doesn’t take losses well.