A year after Democratic infighting in Sacramento defeated a high-profile gun control bill, California on Tuesday successfully passed legislation to limit who can carry firearms in public, setting up a likely legal challenge that could reach the Supreme Court.

Senator Anthony Portantino (D-Burbank) introduced Senate Bill 2 in response to a Supreme Court ruling last year that found restrictive and subjective “hidden carry” laws unconstitutional, leaving California and a handful of other Democratic-led states rushed to rewrite the legislation. their gun laws.

Despite support from both governors. Gavin Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, internal bickering within the Democratic caucus led to the bill’s demise last year, an unceremonious end to what was considered priority legislation for the legislative leadership. Portantino reintroduced the measure ahead of the 2023 legislative session and vowed to win enough votes to send the measure to Newsom’s desk this year.

Two high-profile mass shootings in Half Moon Bay and Monterey Park this year have only increased pressure on Democrats to address gun violence in California. That’s despite the fact that the state has some of the most prohibitive gun laws in the country, so restrictive that some of them have been struck down by the federal courts.

Senate Bill 2 is one of a handful of major gun control measures introduced this year. Its passage follows the Legislature’s recent passage of a historic bill to impose an 11% tax on gun and ammunition sales from dealers and manufacturers.

There’s a reason you’re much less likely to die from bullets in California, Newsom said in a statement after the Assembly passed SB 2. We used every means possible to make our streets and neighborhoods safer from gun violence.

The General Assembly passed SB 2 on a vote of 48-21 on Monday, and the Senate finalized it

28-8, with Republicans and one Democrat voting against the measure.

It now goes to Newsom, who has until October. 14 to sign or veto the measure.

The 9th Circuit’s ruling threatens California’s ban on open carry of handguns without a permit

SB 2 aims to strike a balance in enforcing the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen with strict restrictions on who can obtain a concealed carry permit in California.

“The Supreme Court forced California to reevaluate how we handle concealed carry permits,” Portantino said. “This is setting a statewide standard for determining who should and should not be trusted with the responsibility of having a concealed carry permit… this just makes sense.”

The 6-3 decision by the high courts’ conservative majority focused on whether “may-enact” concealed carry laws in states like New York and California were constitutional, or whether licensing authorities have broad discretion in granting a request. Most states have licensing laws, which largely guarantee a license once an applicant meets the licensing criteria.

Gun owners in New York successfully argued that the state’s requirement to obtain a permit, such as for self-defense, was a violation of the Second Amendment. The decision immediately invalidated California’s similar good cause standard as unlawful.

The Supreme Court strengthens gun owners’ right to carry a gun in public

Writing for the majority of the court

,

Justice Clarence Thomas said states can still ban firearms in a limited list of so-called sensitive places where firearms have traditionally been prohibited, such as schools, government buildings or polling places. But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. indicated that states were also generally allowed to include objective licensing criteria in their application process, including firearms training, fingerprinting, and background and mental health checks.

Portantino’s measure includes more than 20 “sensitive places” where concealed firearms are not allowed, such as daycare centers and schools, bars, college campuses, government buildings, medical facilities, parks and playgrounds, and on public transportation. The bill would also automatically make commercial businesses gun-free zones unless the owner explicitly states otherwise.

The bill also maintains strict application requirements for licensing authorities, primarily county sheriffs, to determine whether someone is a “disqualified person” from obtaining a license.

a term that opponents of SB 2 see as another subjective term that would not pass constitutional muster.

The protocol includes conducting personal interviews, obtaining character references, and reviewing social media and other publicly available statements to identify safety risks. The bill requires an applicant to be 21 years old, the same age required to purchase a handgun, and strengthens rules for training and safe storage.

“We have seen time and time again that more and more guns are killing people in this country, day in and day out,” Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) said during a debate on the Assembly floor. “And we have to do this because the activist Supreme Court has taken actions that have taken these laws away from us. And this is our step to get back to a place where we can make sure that the people carrying these weapons have the right permits and do it in the right places.”

After Supreme Court gun ruling, Second Amendment groups seek ‘do-over’ in San Diego cases

Republicans blasted the bill as a misguided and discriminatory attempt by Democrats to blame legal gun owners for gun violence in California.

“We punish law-abiding people who simply exercise their constitutional rights, and do nothing about the criminals who continue to victimize people in this state every day,” said Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher of Yuba City. ‘It’s sick. Don’t lecture me about gun control and gun violence if you’re not going to do something about the people who are the real problem.”

Gun rights groups have already vowed to file a lawsuit to block the bill’s implementation.

“While it is true that the legislature has a compelling interest in protecting both individual rights and public safety, it is important to note that the legislature cannot balance one set of rights by reducing others,” they wrote the Gun Owners of California in their opposition to the bill. . “In due time, SB 2 will be a costly and unnecessary blight on California. This can be avoided.”

There is a good chance that the Supreme Court will take up the issue again. Legal challenges are already underway against similar laws that New York and other states passed in response to the Bruen decision.

Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law at Duke University in North Carolina, said the Supreme Court’s ruling leaves many questions for lower courts, which has caused widespread national confusion about the new rules. Much of the legal uncertainty centers on sensitive places, and on whether states can pass laws like SB 2 that effectively make so many public spaces off-limits to firearms.

“The sensitive places seem to me to be a little more consequential because even if you have a concealed carry permit, you can’t take your firearm into this long list of places,” Willinger said. “I think ultimately this is probably something that will go to the Supreme Court in the next few years.”