CA SB2 similar to MD SB1 - Placer County Sheriff has a problem with one aspect

[jc1240]

CA SB2 goes into effect 1 Jan. Placer County Sheriff doesn't care for at least one part of it. Like MD, before the bill businesses could put up "no gun" signs, otherwise permit-carriers were OK. Now business must specifically state guns are allowed.

The sheriff knows it is not permit holders committing crimes and publicly asks local businesses to put up the permitted-guns welcomed signs.

 

[swinokur]

Except it’s not. PI issued

 

[jc1240]

Except it’s not. PI issued

I’m referring to the two bills signed into law having the same provisions/similar text and a sheriff urging businesses to side with freedom.

 

[swinokur]

 

[swinokur]

SAF VICTORY! FED. APPEALS COURT RESTORES BLOCK OF CA CCW LAW​

BELLEVUE, WA – The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed an earlier order which put a hold on a lower court ruling that blocked California’s new law prohibiting concealed carry in most public places, handing a significant victory to gun rights groups including the Second Amendment Foundation.



The law had been blocked by U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney, who declared the statute “repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.” The case is known as May v. Bonta.



“This is a major win for California gun owners and the Second Amendment,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It is a definite wake-up call to anti-gun Gov. Gavin Newsom and his Democrat colleagues in the California legislature who pushed through the ‘sensitive places’ law as a way of thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court, as well as the Constitution.”



Joining SAF in its case are Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Liberal Gun Owners Association, the California Rifle & Pistol Association and eleven private citizens. They are represented by attorneys C.D. Michel, Sean A. Brady and Konstadinos T. Moros at Michel & Associates in Long Beach, and Donald Kilmer, Law Offices of Don Kilmer, Caldwell, Idaho.



“Judge Carney correctly sees California’s law as an affront to the Constitution,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “We’re delighted the Ninth Circuit Court will allow his order, blocking the law to remain in effect. We certainly expect to prevail.”



The “sensitive places” law was California’s response to the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established new parameters on handling and deciding Second Amendment cases.

 

[notional]

View attachment 448664

SAF VICTORY! FED. APPEALS COURT RESTORES BLOCK OF CA CCW LAW​

BELLEVUE, WA – The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed an earlier order which put a hold on a lower court ruling that blocked California’s new law prohibiting concealed carry in most public places, handing a significant victory to gun rights groups including the Second Amendment Foundation.



The law had been blocked by U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney, who declared the statute “repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.” The case is known as May v. Bonta.



“This is a major win for California gun owners and the Second Amendment,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It is a definite wake-up call to anti-gun Gov. Gavin Newsom and his Democrat colleagues in the California legislature who pushed through the ‘sensitive places’ law as a way of thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court, as well as the Constitution.”



Joining SAF in its case are Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Liberal Gun Owners Association, the California Rifle & Pistol Association and eleven private citizens. They are represented by attorneys C.D. Michel, Sean A. Brady and Konstadinos T. Moros at Michel & Associates in Long Beach, and Donald Kilmer, Law Offices of Don Kilmer, Caldwell, Idaho.



“Judge Carney correctly sees California’s law as an affront to the Constitution,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “We’re delighted the Ninth Circuit Court will allow his order, blocking the law to remain in effect. We certainly expect to prevail.”



The “sensitive places” law was California’s response to the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established new parameters on handling and deciding Second Amendment cases.

Yey!!!!! SAF....Now do Maryland!

 

[swinokur]

MSI has already gotten a PI for the portion of SB1 that deals with sensitive places and completely stopped Mo Co attempt as well

 

[notional]

Yep. Just waiting for some MD Federal Court to come to their senses and knock the block off all of MoKo's douchbaggery. I have a feeling my great grandkids will come and go before that happens though.

 

[Biggfoot44]

MSI has already gotten a PI for the portion of SB1 that deals with sensitive places and completely stopped Mo Co attempt as well

The ( SB-1) PI is for Three of the Sensitive Places , a laundry list remain in effect .

Yes , those Three include Two of the worst , and Eventually MSI will prevail .

 

[swinokur]

Those are the big ones.

 

[rbird7282]

Those are the big ones.

State parks being illegal really blows too.

 

[swinokur]

They were illegal before SB2

 

[rbird7282]

They were illegal before SB2

They were illegal before SB2

You mean SB1? Forgot it was earlier. Still sucks

 

[swinokur]

Yes SB1. I have too many numbers in my head.

 

[delaware_export]

Some of Cali arguments in their ccw bruen response bull brief. Fpc highlighting some of their points. Nothing along the lines of THT … seems like ?means/end? And by all means they wish to end lawful ccw.