In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment right to carry guns for self-defense outside of the home. But California is looking to circumvent that right by imposing dubious restrictions on where citizens can carry guns.
Other states have tried this route and each has been struck down by various courts. But that didn't stop Governor Gavin Newsom and Democrats in the state legislature from trying.
S.B. 2, signed into law by Newsom in September and effective January 1, 2024, recognizes the right of individuals to carry firearms for self-protection. But it limits the discretion of licensing authorities to a ludicrous degree. In fact, S.B. 2 notes that the changes made legal in Bruen would allow "individuals to carry firearms in most public areas," according to Reason.com's Jacob Sullum.
Very true, so what's the problem? Too much freedom.
The law will make virtually every place in California a "sensitive place" where firearms are banned, and "forbidding firearm carry even after someone has undertaken the lengthy and expensive process to be issued a concealed handgun license," as stated in a lawsuit challenging the law..
California's gun-free zones "include every park and playground, every hospital, all public transportation, any place that sells alcohol (which, in California, includes most gas stations and convenience and grocery stores), all land under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or the Department of Fish and Wildlife (with exceptions for hunting), libraries, churches, banks, and many more."
S.B. 2 "even transforms private businesses into 'gun-free zones' by default, imposing an unprecedented affirmative duty on private business owners to post signage to authorize people exercising an enumerated constitutional right to enter the property."
As a result, says the complaint in May v. Bonta, "Californians who desire to exercise their enumerated right to carry are essentially limited to some streets and sidewalks (so long as those public places are not adjacent to certain other 'sensitive' places), plus a few businesses willing to post a 'guns allowed' sign at the risk of potentially losing other customers by doing so." The law "creates a patchwork quilt of locations where Second Amendment rights may and may not be exercised, thus making exercise of the right so impractical and legally risky in practice that ordinary citizens will be deterred from even attempting to exercise their rights in the first place."
In order to pass constitutional muster, S.B. 2 will have to show its restrictions are "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." That means "all law-abiding, competent adults" have "the right to carry firearms and ammunition for self-defense in all public areas that have not historically been considered 'sensitive places.'"
Just before S.B. 2 passed in California, similar restrictions were struck down in New Jersey and New York. Since then, Hawaii and Maryland have also blocked the new restrictions on where guns can be carried.
This isn't surprising. The left looks for ways to get around laws they don't like. In this case, it appears they've failed.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member