The California Department of Justice said the court’s ruling invalidates the state’s rule that applicants must show proof of obtaining a license, although Bonta said he believed the court was allowing requirements such as background checks or mandatory security training.
Newsom, a strong advocate for tough gun restrictions, said in a statement that California would “update and strengthen our public transportation law and bring it into line with the Supreme Court’s ruling, just as Justice Chief Roberts and Judge Kavanaugh have said states like California are free. TO DO.”
The difficulty of obtaining a concealed carry permit tends to vary across California, with law enforcement in more urban and populated counties enforcing the “good cause” standard more rigorously than officials in more conservative precincts. The Supreme Court’s decision will likely eliminate this requirement entirely.
A mass shooting last month at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, intensified the resolve of California Democrats to further toughen the state’s tough gun laws. The High Court ruling was condemned by California Democrats – Newsom in a tweet on Thursday excoriated a “dangerous decision by a court determined to push a radical ideological agenda and infringe on the rights of states to protect our citizens” – but their hands may be tied.
Further legal challenges may follow. The California Rifle and Pistol Association welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision and said it anticipated a flurry of legal action to change California’s strict gun control laws, noting it already had various challenges in the judicial pipeline.
“This is a game changer and hard reset for legal challenges to gun control law in California and nationwide,” President Chuck Michel said in a statement. .
A broader suite of tough California gun control laws could also be at risk. Laws banning high-capacity magazines, banning assault weapons and requiring people to be 21 to buy semi-automatic rifles are all subject to legal challenges.
The Firearms Policy Coalition specifically pledged to use the court’s reasoning to bring “many larger strategic lawsuits,” including seeking to untangle “the ban on making-your-own firearms and so-called” assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines.
“This decision has immediate consequences only for the few counties in California that currently require concealed carry applicants to demonstrate a special need or appropriate cause,” said David A. Carrillo, executive director of the California Constitution Center at Berkeley. Law, in an email. “But the test applied by the Court, which requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations conform to the text and historical understanding of the Second Amendment, has potentially long-term implications for other California laws on firearms.”
Brady campaign chief attorney Jonathan Lowy said on a call with reporters that he thinks California’s bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines “should stand even as part of the test announced by the court”, but he recognized “that there is a risk”.
“That opinion certainly gives ammunition, if you’ll excuse the expression, to other conservative and political judges,” Lowy said.