In other words, exercising Second Amendment rights is akin to indulging in cigarettes, alcohol or gambling.
The new law was part of a group of three gun control measures inked on Tuesday, including one that extends places where concealed carry for self-defense is prohibited.
This measure on expanding the carry ban, SB2, was sponsored by State Sen. Anthony Portantino (D). The gun rights opponent asked if “you need a gun to go to your daughter’s…soccer game? I would say you need a water bottle and orange slices.”
Yes, a water bottle and orange slices are essential. Except when faced with a violent confrontation. Remember, according to the FBI, California leads the nation in “active shooter incidents.”
Portantino extended the same analogy to walking the mall or going shopping.
Violent criminals do not set boundaries on when and where they will strike, but state officials enact limits on where you may exercise armed self-defense.
With the urgent need for self-defense in mind, several gun rights advocacy groups and individuals joined forces and filed an immediate challenge to SB2. The action took place in U.S. District Court and is known as May v. Bonta. A tentative date for a preliminary injunction is set for Dec. 4.
Second Amendment supporters strongly disagree with Newsom and his allies. They note that the new law severely restricts where carry rights may be exercised by those with legal permits. The statute also adds burdensome restrictions and costs to the process of obtaining a concealed carry permit.
Make no mistake, the measure is just the latest effort to work around the Supreme Court’s ruling last year in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The 6-3 majority firmly established that carrying a firearm for self-defense is a right enjoyed by law-abiding citizens.
This forced the hands of several states that had resisted issuing carry permits, and the number of permit holders nationwide then greatly increased.
Along with that increase, however, came the blowback of several controversial measures such as California’s attempting to add new layers of restrictions on concealed carry.
A showdown is looming due to Bruen also establishing that state and local governments may not designate broad areas as “sensitive” and thus off-limits for permit holders.
The irony is that those who would commit violent crimes do not care in the slightest for rules governing “sensitive places.” All these measures do is hamstring upstanding gun owners from the ability to defend themselves and their loved ones from violent attack — the very thing these laws should be intended to stop.
The new 11% tax was proposed last month by Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel (D) under the guise of funding anti-violence programs. He estimated that California will haul in roughly $160 million per year, which hardly puts a dent in the state’s estimated $31.5 billion budget deficit.
Newsom is an anti-gun radical who wants to add a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enshrining California’s gun control statutes.
He crowed about the new tax on law-abiding citizens on Tuesday.
“For me this is a little different. This is an excise tax related to gun safety. It funds mental health services, funds school safety programs…I see this a little different, in that context. This is not a general income tax, not a corporate tax, this is…from my perspective, more of a sin tax, where there is a cause and effect and justification.”
