Posted on 06/27/2022 6:00:15 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
The California AG endorses denying licenses based on the applicant's "hatred" or "racism."
Friday, the day after the New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, the California Attorney General wrote a letter to California law enforcement and government lawyers, expressing "the Attorney General's view that the Court's decision renders California's 'good cause' standard to secure a permit to carry a concealed weapon in most public places unconstitutional." California thus seems ready to promptly shift to a fundamentally shall-issue regime, in which pretty much all law-abiding adults can get licenses to carry concealed weapons. Nor will this require legislative action, I think; California already has a may-issue regime in place for licensing, so—as the AG's office notes—licensing authorities ("sheriffs and chiefs of police") can just use that regime but essentially without applying a good-cause requirement.
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.
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.]
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
They can kiss my viewpoints.
Well, that didn’t take long.
Because today, “good moral character” doesn’t mean what you think it means...because the word “good” is subjective.
A “good” Muslim: don’t drink alcohol, women should be submissive, gays thrown off buildings, death for insulting Mo
A “good” Christian: do unto others..., love they enemy, ...
A “good” lefty: LGBTQIA+ ideas should be indoctrinated into young kids, drag queen story hour, etc.
This isn’t going to end well.
The AG apparently thinks that if a citizen wants to exercise his 2nd amendment rights, he must forfeit all other Constitutional rights.
wow i did nazi that coming
What do I need to identify as to get a “permit?”
this is a good idea. All leftists, progressives, democrats, and generally useless, ok-with-breaking-the-law, defund-the-police types should NEVER be allowed licenses, much less guns.
Their thinking is going to be more like: who really needs a conceal carry permit? No one except someone up to no good. So if you are requesting a conceal carry permit, then by definition you are of bad moral character and not allowed to get one.
No, their thinking is going to be more like stopping everyone they can for any reason, or no reason, that they can because the government wants to be in complete control and they want the citizenry to be slaves. Its just that simple.
Another great reason why may issue has been struck down.
Allowing government officials discretion over a citizen’s ability to exercise their constitutional right will inevitably lead to abuses. Some of those will be pecuniary “your chances of getting the concealed carry permit you want would go up considerably if I had a Rolex watch on my arm” and some will be ideological “I will prevent people I deem to be political enemies from exercising their rights”.
Yup. And the decision to strike that down will take years to wend its way through the courts.
I can see the CA AG spending lots of time in federal court generating billable hours for the ALCJ that will be paid by California taxpayers.
Why would I let an asshat impact my security?
If THAT becomes law, no leftist should EVER be permitted a firearm....or ANY OTHER type weapon.
Nice 🤣
I might steal that.
Mental health not an issue though
No one except someone who would potentially use it to take down the next Uvalde shooter on the MKUltra calendar of events, if they get a crack at him. Which could potentially slow the roll of the deep state propagandists. Which would be ... bad...🤔
Wait... what?
Public-carry license applicant provide proof of ‘good moral character’ remains constitutional
1.It’s California what would they know about good moral
character’.
2.Remains constitutional
Didn’t find that in it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.