On the heels of the latest SCOTUS 2A ruling, the CA AG is already looking at how to go about steppin..
Firearms rights should be denied based on moral character and ideological viewpoints.. you are anti-illegal immigration/abortion/animal rights/etc.. application denied.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/26/st ... -licenses/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But the AG's office concludes that the existing statutory requirement "that a public-carry license applicant provide proof of 'good moral character' remains constitutional," and that this requirement isn't limited to disqualifying felons, certain violent misdemeanants, and the like. And in particular the AG's office suggests that people who hold certain ideological viewpoints should be disqualified:
Existing public-carry policies of local law enforcement agencies across the state provide helpful examples of how to apply the "good moral character" requirement. The Sacramento County Sheriff's Office, for example, currently identifies several potential reasons why a public-carry license may be denied (or revoked), which include "[a]ny arrest in the last 5 years, regardless of the disposition" or "[a]ny conviction in the last 7 years." It is reasonable to consider such factors in evaluating an applicant's proof of the requisite moral character to safely carry firearms in public. See, e.g., Bruen (referencing "law-abiding citizens").
Other jurisdictions list the personal characteristics one reasonably expects of candidates for a public-carry license who do not pose a danger to themselves or others. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department's policy, for example, currently provides as follows: "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." [Emphasis added.]
As to how law enforcement is to figure out such matters, the AG's office has some advice: Among other things,
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. And they may search publicly-available information, including social media accounts, in assessing the applicant's character. [Emphasis added.]
Ah yes scouring your social media so we can deem you an undesirable,.
It's going to be interesting to see what happens to all the cases that were put on hold pending the outcome of NYSRPA vs Bruen,
such as the CA Magazine ban (Duncan v. Bonta), standard capacity magazines are a common use item, can't be banned.
AR15, common use firearm used for self defense, so those state AWB's that are in place should be gonners.. definitely grounds for going after them in court after this current ruling.
Suppressor, common use accessory why is that restricted under the NFA ? that should be removed.
Manufacturing firearms at home ? now that Justice Thomas has clarified how cases are to be evaluated, there's no historical precedent for banning home made firearms so all your 'ghost gun laws .. direct violation of rights.
An interesting aside also is that the Attorneys that won the NYSRPA vs BRUEN case in front of SCOTUS, were asked to either drop their 2A clients or leave the law firm after their victory.
https://archive.ph/Ih1Gr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We are blessed to have represented before the Supreme Court a wide variety of clients, from large corporations and religious orders to criminal defendants and Native American groups. After we prevail before the high court, we generally receive a round of congratulatory messages from law-firm colleagues for a job well done, especially when we have helped our clients vindicate their fundamental constitutional rights.
This time around, we received a very different message from our law firm. Having just secured a landmark decision vindicating our clients’ constitutional Second Amendment rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, we were presented with a stark choice—withdraw from representing them or withdraw from the firm. There was only one choice: We couldn’t abandon our clients simply because their positions are unpopular in some circles.
This isn’t the first time we have left a firm to stick by a client. What makes this circumstance different is that the firm approved our representation of these clients years ago, and dropping them would cost the clients years of institutional memory. More remarkable still, in one of the cases we were asked to drop, we prevailed in the Supreme Court on Thursday. Those who object to the representation are thus taking issue with the Constitution as interpreted by a majority of the high court.
Our decision, then, has little to do with the issues in this case and everything to do with the underlying principle. We would make the same choice for any of our clients.
Quite the message for any lawyers interested in defending the 2A in court, the possibility of being not being able to secure a high paying job with the big law firms.
Hopefully this is a decision that keeps on giving for years to come.