If the goal of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and his band of rabid gun grabbers was to simply overwhelm law-abiding gun owners with the sheer volume of laws, it dramatically failed.
And that’s due to gun rights organizations stepping up and being counted. Newsom’s signatures were barely dry Wednesday when the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of California and several influential individual plaintiffs formed a coalition to block the state’s latest overreach.
Newsom’s press conference was telling. The governor had the gall to describe the new 11% excise tax on the purchase of firearms and ammunition imposed by AB 28 as a “sin tax.” These are taxes on certain goods and services deemed by some to be harmful to society.
Alcohol and tobacco immediately come to mind.
It is worth noting that Newsom’s description of his excise tax on Second Amendment rights does not apply to an actual “sin.” The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution for a reason.
Then there’s SB 2. This egregious act not only makes it more difficult for citizens to acquire a carry permit but adds severe restrictions on where this fundamental right may be exercised.
The law is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2024, and if it is allowed to proceed it will be virtually impossible for a lawful carry permit holder to travel without running afoul of one of the new gun-free zones.
A motion was immediately filed by CRPA to block SB 2 from taking effect. This gave California officials until Nov. 3 to file their opposition to the injunction request. CRPA then receives 17 days to reply to the state’s position before a hearing with U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney on Dec. 4.
There is reason for optimism with Judge Carney considering the motion. He sided with CRPA in a previous lawsuit against California’s Unsafe Handgun Act. He granted the organization’s motion to preliminarily enjoin the law that blocked state gun owners from acquiring weapons with the most modern technology.
In the case of SB 2, California’s motivation is obvious.
The state is simply retaliating against the U.S. Supreme Court’s clear ruling last year in the Bruen decision. Justices by a 6-3 majority found that laws suppressing the right to legally bear arms outside the home violate the Second Amendment.
There will always be so-called “sensitive places,” but justices ruled that state and local governments may not go overboard with these designations.
However, that’s exactly what California and a handful of other states violently opposed to gun rights are doing. This is setting up a clear showdown looming with the high court once again.
The foolishness of these laws cannot be overstated. In the history of the world, there has not been one violent criminal who refrained from carrying a weapon somewhere because it was designated as a “sensitive place.” No, these laws are only followed by law-abiding citizens, because they are the only ones who bother to get a carry permit in the first place.
These gun-free zones only make it harder for the good people of California to defend themselves. The right to keep and bear arms clearly extends to outside of the home, as the Supreme Court ruled. There need not be a specific danger to be addressed by carrying a weapon — the right to self-defense is enough.
Multiple similar laws in other states such as Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Hawaii have already been enjoined. There is a better than fair chance that California will find its place on this roster.
