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 ...
✓✓✓✓✓! 🤗👍🎉🍾
So Corruptofornia wants to use the First Amendment rights of a citizen to stop the Second Amendment rights of a citizen base on if they believe democrats are the scum of the earth?
Sounds like the scum of the earth part is proven by the first part.
What is needed is national reciprocity. A permit in Texas is good in every other state and visa versa. The 2A is in the Bill of Rights and clearly states “shall not be infringed” so the feds do have the right to make reciprocity national.
And when these rules are struck down, they have 100 more in the drawer. Applications accepted only the third Tuesday of a leap year.
I disagree, vehemently.
If you have to "provide proof" to exercise a right then you no longer have that right - it has been completely infringed upon.
Just who's morals will be used to judge "good" moral character?
What is the objective measure of "good" or good enough moral character?
Apply these same standards to the First Amendment and see how (equally) ridiculous they sound: I'm sorry, you can talk all you want at home, but you're not allowed to speak in public or on the internet unless and until what you are going to say has been pre-approved by the government.
Section 9. U.S. Constitution
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
The National Socialist German Workers Party approves.
Perhaps the California AG’s office can contact the Communist Chinese government for tips on instituting a social credit system.
Once leftists have power, they will do anything to not give it up.
That analysis is wrong. Assessment of something as subjective as moral character is precisely what the SC ruled against.
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.