California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

1
Statement from the California AG's office elaborating on the state's “good moral character” requirement that, of course, was not part of the NYSRPA v. Bruen case since NYSRPA v. Bruen was a New York case.
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/l ... 022-02.pdf

Issuing authorities are still going to ask why applicants want to carry, and they allow for several subjective disqualifiers. It appears the intent may be to expand the “good moral character” requirement to take over the heavy lifting from "good cause" to enforce a shmay issue policy.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

3
The legislature needs to rewrite the Penal Code statutes making the whole process objective. I'm sure Bonta's office must have been bombarded with requests for legal clarification so this is a temporary patch. They might have dropped "good cause" to conform to Bruen, but "good moral character" is just as subjective and different jurisdictions can interpret it differently. It smacks of upper middle class are eligible, but lower middle class aren't. Riverside County's is full of subjective criteria, Sacramento's is more objective. CRPA will be out lobbying the legislature and so will CA law enforcement and law enforcement is much more powerful with CA legislators. A lot of court cases ahead.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

5
jc57 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:40 pm Hmm... good moral character. So does that open it up for questions about religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, or other things that some groups consider not moral and others do? Who, in the legal sense, is the arbiter of morality?
Yeah, kinda the reason SCOTUS just issued an opinion saying subjective criteria is not ok. But, California is going to California: Oh, we totally get "good cause" is unconstitutional. So we'll go with "good moral character."

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

8
Looked again at my county's CCW application,
I accept and assume all responsibility and liability for, injury to, or death of any person, or damage to any property which may result through an act or omission of either the licensee or the agency that issued the license. In the event any claim, suit or action is brought against the agency that issued the license, its chief officer or any of its employees, by reason of, or in connection with any such act or omission, the licensee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the agency that issued the license, its chief officer or any of its employees from such claim, suit, or action.

I understand that the acceptance of any application by the licensing authority does not guarantee the issuance of a license and that fees and costs are not refundable if denied. I further understand that if my application is approved and I am issued a license to carry a concealed weapon, that the license is subject to restrictions placed upon it and that misuse of the license will cause an automatic revocation and possible arrest and that the license may also be suspended or revoked at the discretion of the licensing authority at any time. I am aware that any use of a firearm may bring criminal action or civil liability against me.
https://sbcsdccw-az.azurewebsites.us/pr ... cation.asp

I doubt that the "hold harmless" clause would survive a court test.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

12
featureless wrote:If granted a permit, you may carry on some sidewalks around the block and back to your car. Should work great. Especially if you're a judge or LEO going out for dinner or something.
Unless I read the bill incorrectly, special classes are exempt.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

14
DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:10 pm Here is the bill updating California's carry regime.
SB918.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 20220SB918

It's full of so much garbage, it's a very rough draft which was started 2/3/2022. Including studies is bullshit, they are not definitive. Portantino and McCarty are known anti-gunners.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

15
As I said over on Discord, the state is playing a really dangerous game that's going to get people killed. The DOJ data dump exposed approximately 200,000 CCW holders. Because of the "good cause" history, a lot of those people are domestic violence, hate crime and rape survivors. The state just provided their addresses and gun collections to anybody with an intent to find that information. Now the state is looking to restrict the sensitive places to make CCW useless for the people that really fucking need it. I intend to tell my senator just that.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

16
If you're going to enact a CHL permit, I still say look to Texas for the model. We may not have done other thing correctly but we did do this correctly. You apply to the state DPS, very similar to getting a driver license, You have a background check with finger prints. You have to go to a half day education class on the laws and responsibility of carrying a firearm. You have to show proficiency with shooting a handgun. Then you are issued the CHL. and are good to go. There is no going to the local sheriff and begging or contributing to his reelection campaign to get approval. Even though you don't have to have a CHL to carry in Texas it does have advantages such as not needing to have to wait for approval to buy guns. Show your CHL and all is good. Still have to fill out the forms for the FFL records. Also having the class in informative and hopefully gets people to realize the responsibility they have in carrying a weapon Handgun.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

17
TrueTexan wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:30 pm If you're going to enact a CHL permit, I still say look to Texas for the model. We may not have done other thing correctly but we did do this correctly. You apply to the state DPS, very similar to getting a driver license, You have a background check with finger prints. You have to go to a half day education class on the laws and responsibility of carrying a firearm. You have to show proficiency with shooting a handgun. Then you are issued the CHL. and are good to go. There is no going to the local sheriff and begging or contributing to his reelection campaign to get approval. Even though you don't have to have a CHL to carry in Texas it does have advantages such as not needing to have to wait for approval to buy guns. Show your CHL and all is good. Still have to fill out the forms for the FFL records. Also having the class in informative and hopefully gets people to realize the responsibility they have in carrying a weapon Handgun.
Agree.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

18
sikacz wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 2:00 pm
TrueTexan wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:30 pm If you're going to enact a CHL permit, I still say look to Texas for the model. We may not have done other thing correctly but we did do this correctly. You apply to the state DPS, very similar to getting a driver license, You have a background check with finger prints. You have to go to a half day education class on the laws and responsibility of carrying a firearm. You have to show proficiency with shooting a handgun. Then you are issued the CHL. and are good to go. There is no going to the local sheriff and begging or contributing to his reelection campaign to get approval. Even though you don't have to have a CHL to carry in Texas it does have advantages such as not needing to have to wait for approval to buy guns. Show your CHL and all is good. Still have to fill out the forms for the FFL records. Also having the class in informative and hopefully gets people to realize the responsibility they have in carrying a weapon Handgun.
Agree.

I agree Texas has a simple but thorough process. Similar to Arizona where the the state DPS issues concealed weapons permits which requires firearms training. I submitted two sets of fingerprints and within 90 days I had the CWP, every five years I submit a renewal request and pay the fee and they send me a new CWP. Utah is similar their DPS handles it, but requires training from their approved instructors.

CA will probably leave it with the county sheriffs or technically any police chief in the state can issue them but they don't. They'll come up with a convoluted system with subjective elements and it will be hung up in court. I doubt they'll extend reciprocity to any other state, they don't trust anyone with an out of state license.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron