What Constitution? California AG admits he is ok violating the 1st and 2nd Amendments because…well, guns.

Share:

SACRAMENTO, CA – In light of the recent Supreme Court ruling in NYSRPA vs. Bruen, which many 2nd Amendment advocates call a huge win, California Attorney General Rob Bonta has made a shocking admission.

California can determine your moral fitness for concealed carry permits by looking at your Constitutionally protected rights to free speech under the 1st Amendment.

Are those his exact words? No. But he pointed to other existing avenues for denial currently written into California Penal Code that was not expressly covered by the Bruen decision.

The Bruen decision makes “good cause” determinations by law enforcement for concealed carry permit issuance unconstitutional. Bonta released a legal alert stating that all law enforcement agency with issuance power in the state immediately stand down from enforcing the “good cause” aspect.

“First, effective immediately, issuing authorities should no longer require proof of good cause for the issuance of a public-carry license.

Issuing authorities may still inquire into an applicant’s reasons for desiring a license to the extent those reasons are relevant to other lawful considerations, but denial of a license for lack of “good cause” now violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments under the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen.”

So far, so good, right?

The alert from Bonta’s office continues.

“Second, issuing authorities should continue to apply and enforce all other aspects of California law with respect to public-carry licenses and the carrying of firearms in public.”

So, what are some of these existing aspects of California law that the AG is referencing?

The alert points to three guidelines.

The issuing authorities must still require proof that:

1). the applicant is of good moral character,

2). the applicant is a resident of the relevant county or city (or has their principal place of business or employment in that county or city),

3). the applicant has completed a course of training.

It is the first of those three aspects that should alarm Californians.

How exactly does one determine “good moral character?”

Bonta provides those details.

“…issuing authorities should recognize that Bruen does not eliminate the duty or authority of local officials to protect the communities that they know best by ensuring that licenses are only issued to individuals who—by virtue of their character and temperament—can be trusted to abide by the law and otherwise ensure the safety of themselves and others.”

Ok, so how do we evaluate character and temperance, given that Bonta claims “‘good moral character’ is a distinct question that requires an independent determination”?

Read that again. He is leaving it up to the discretion of the local authorities having jurisdiction to make decide for themselves if they want to issue permits.

So, what types of things might they look into in reaching this “independent determination?”

Bonta is leaving that up to each agency to decide for their residents and potential applicants.

For example, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office looks at five categories in determining whether or not to deny an application. One of which is, are there “any arrests in the last 5 years, regardless of disposition?”

If so, they can deny you.

And they lean on verbiage in Bruen to make this justification. It references law abiding citizens.

The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department has a longer list of criteria to assist with answering the “character” question.

“Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction,” the alert informs its readers. 

Have you ever forgotten it was your week to bring the post-game snacks for your son’s Little League team? That is questionable reliability.

Denied!

Is there still a $47 charge-off from a collection agency for late fees at Blockbuster from 2003? Dang. That might be considered a lack of observance of fiduciary duties.

Denied.

You only make $34,350 annually. Is that really fiscal stability given that half that amount is going to put gas in your car?

Again, denied.

Are you…never mind. We could do this all day. You are probably getting the picture.

But some of these criteria are harder to evaluate.

Candor. Diligence. Discretion. Trustworthiness. Absence of hatred or racism.

How are these evaluated and determined?

Bonta explains it.

“As a starting point for purposes of investigating an applicant’s moral character, many issuing authorities require personal references and/or reference letters. Investigators may personally interview applicants and use the opportunity to gain further insight into the applicant’s character.”

Ok.

Is that all?

And here it is folks. Remember the second sentence of this article?

California can determine your moral fitness for concealed carry permits by looking at your Constitutionally protected rights to free speech under the 1st Amendment.

“And they may search publicly-available information, including social media accounts, in assessing the applicant’s character.”

Did you post a photo to Instagram of an American flag flying in front of your house? That could be seen by someone in the decision-making process to find a “flaw” in your moral character.

The Stars and Stripes might be offensive to your neighbor who came here illegally for another country. So, flying it and posting about it is just hateful and racist.

Denied.

You told your Twitter followers that you are grateful that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade? You may be construed as a sexist.

Denied.

Do you still have that picture of you in a MAGA hat on Facebook? Oops…extremist.

More denial.

Yes, these illustrations were typed in a sarcastic tone, but it doesn’t mean that these types of scenarios won’t play out in counties all over California.

To close out the state’s approach, Bonta says that because the “good cause” litmus has been deemed unconstitutional, California will no longer employ it.

Except, he also points out just exactly how they will continue to use it. He said in a press conference that the state is going to continue doing what it has been doing for many, many years.

Why would he be so brazen about continuing the same restrictive infringements on the 2nd Amendment?

“Today’s decision does not change the facts,” he said of Bruen. More guns in more places means more people die as a result of gun violence. Period. Full stop. That is settled. That is undisputable.”

“Finally, we note that it remains reasonable—and constitutional—to ask applicants why they are interested in carrying their firearms in public. Although applicants do not need to demonstrate good cause for the issuance of a license, an applicant’s reasons for seeking a license may alert authorities to a need for psychological testing, be considered as part of the ‘good moral character’ requirement, or provide information relevant to other statutory requirements.”

Did you catch it. If not, read it again.

We cannot use proof of “good cause” as a reason for denial, but we can (and probably will) use it to determine which “good moral character” loophole we will use to deny you.

You want to carry concealed outside your home for personal protection for yourself and your family, even though you have never felt threatened by anyone in your community? What sane person would feel the need to do that? We better flag your application and send you for a psych eval.

None of this will ever happen, right? After all, the individuals responsible for the approvals and denials are members of law enforcement.

That is a fair question and thought process. And one that I would share about the integrity of the overwhelming majority of members of the law enforcement community.

But the decision-makers in most locations in California are sheriffs. These are elected officials. Politics will absolutely come into play.

Joe Biden has constantly stated that the 2nd Amendment is “not absolute.” The Bruen decision says it is.

California says it doesn’t care either way, it is going to continue denying people their constitutional rights.

"I'm being treated unfairly": Accused cop-killer complains that defense lawyers keep dropping his case

US Veteran: Joe Biden just said the 2nd Amendment is not absolute. The words of the amendment prove otherwise.

WASHINGTON, DC – In addressing the mass casualty shooting at a Uvalde, Texas elementary school, President Joe Biden declared that a very specific section of the United States Constitution was limited, amiss, bad, censurable, defective, faulty, flawed, or imperfect.

What he actually said was, “The 2nd Amendment’s not absolute.”

The list in the opening sentence are all antonyms of absolute.

So he must have been referring to one of those words when he said that it was not absolute.

One should have confidence the words of the Amendment itself make it absolute.

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That sounds absolute to most people.

It doesn’t say that it shall not be infringed, until the government finds a way to make it infringeable.

The President went on by regurgitating his often debunked talking points that the 2nd Amendment has always had limitations.

“When it was passed, you couldn’t own a cannon, you couldn’t own certain kinds of weapons,” he falsely stated. 

He doubled down.

“The idea that an 18-year-old can walk into a store and buy weapons of war designed and marketed to kill is I think just wrong,” Mr. Biden said. “Just violates common sense. Even the manufacturer, the inventor, of that weapon, thought that as well. You know, where’s the backbone?”

When it was ratified on December 15, 1791, not only was there no law preventing private ownership of cannons, the Constitution actually carved out provisions for private ownership of cannons. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 allows Congress to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.”

Mr. President, perhaps you would benefit from a quick history lesson and some Constitutional perspective.

The War of 1812  began on June 18, 1812, almost 21 years after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment you frequently prove to know nothing about. President James Madison issued approximately 500 letters of Marque.

These letters allowed private citizens to legally commit acts of piracy. They did so by the individual citizen purchasing cannons and arming their vessels with cannons. The letter only made legal the acts of piracy. It did not do anything to open a temporary loophole for private citizens to purchase cannons…because they could already do so.

During that nearly three year war, American naval forces had roughly 1,200 cannons spread across 65 ships. The privateers, on the other hand, deployed more than 15,000 cannons.

Ok, well maybe you could own cannons, but not other weapons of war, right?

The President certainly seems to think so.

Reality, however, showed that private citizens could and did own the same types of weapons that the US military had access to, at least until the National Firearms Act of 1934. Private citizens were permitted to own Gatling guns if they could afford to by one. In fact, they still can, as it is not classified as a machinegun.

In short, the arguments being thrown about by the President, Hollywood, the hosts on The View, and countless blue-check Twitter accounts, that we were never meant to have military grade weapons are patently false.

Their go-to statement of “the founding father’s never intended…” just do not pass the logic and common sense filter.

Sadly, so many people blindly believe much of what they read because they refuse to do a little research on a topic.

But, hey, Joe Biden has been in politics forever and done absolutely nothing worthwhile. So, he must know what he is talking about, right?

On the topic of how long Joe Biden has been at it, there was less time between Abraham Lincoln’s second inauguration and Biden’s birth than there was between Biden’s birth and his own inauguration.

The man spent two years working as a lawyer before entering politics. Aside from those two years and Donald Trump’s four years in office, he has been in politics his entire professional life. You would think that somewhere in those 49 years in office, he would have learned that what he is spouting about the 2nd Amendment is blatantly false.

Or maybe he has and just doesn’t care.

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

Share:
Submit a Correction
Related Posts