NYSRPA vs Bruen

[WARFAB]

FB_IMG_1656177350868.jpg

[WARFAB]

Screenshot_20220625-135513_Brave.jpg

[thughes]

California: "Yeah, we can't use demonstrable need anymore but we can still arbitrarily deny based upon our judgement of good moral character."

Norm DeGuerre I smell more lawsuits coming......the stuff in red basically flies in the face of shall issue, doesn't it? Or does the SCOTUS opinion language validating the states rights to still apply their own additional safeguards allow for this loophole of using "good moral character" as the test in place of "good cause"?


https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/medi...ag-2022-02.pdf


In accordance withBruen, the Attorney General now considers the “good cause” requirements set
forth in California Penal Code sections 26150(a)(2) and 26155(a)(2) to be unconstitutional and
unenforceable. The immediate implications for law enforcement agencies that issue public-carry
licenses (“issuing authorities”) are as follows:

First, effective immediately, issuing authorities should no longer require proof of good cause for the
issuance of a public-carry license. Issuing authorities may still inquire into an applicant’s reasons for
desiring a license to the extent those reasons are relevant to other lawful considerations, but denial of
a license for lack of “good cause” now violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments under the
Supreme Court’s decision inBruen.

Second, issuing authorities should continue to apply and enforce all other aspects of California law
with respect to public-carry licenses and the carrying of firearms in public. Issuing authorities are still
required to take an applicant’s fingerprints and to wait for the results of the background check that is
run by the California Department of Justice (DOJ). Licenses “shall not be issued if the [DOJ]
determines that the person is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or
purchasing a firearm.” Cal. Pen. Code § 26195(a). Moreover, because the Court’s decision inBruen
does not affect the other statutory requirements governing public-carry licenses, issuing authorities
must still require proof that (1) “the applicant is of good moral character,” (2) the applicant is a
resident of the relevant county or city (or has their principal place of business or employment in that
county or city), and (3) the applicant has completed a course of training.Id.§§ 26150(a), 26155(a).
Issuing authorities may also still require psychological testing.Id.§ 26190(f).

Bruenrecognizes that States may ensure that those carrying firearms in their jurisdiction are “‘law-
abiding, responsible citizens.’”Bruen, slip op. p. 30 n.9;see also id.slip op. p. 2 (Kavanaugh, J.,
concurring) (States may “require a license applicant to undergo a background check, a mental health
records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other
possible requirements”). Accordingly, in assessing whether an applicant has established “good moral
character,” issuing authorities should recognize thatBruendoes not eliminate the duty or authority of
local officials to protect the communities that they know best by ensuring that licenses are only issued
to individuals who—by virtue of their character and temperament—can be trusted to abide by the law
and otherwise ensure the safety of themselves and others. The investigation into whether an
applicant satisfies the “good moral character” requirement should go beyond the determination of
whether any “firearms prohibiting categories” apply, such as a mental health prohibition or prior felony
conviction. Those categories, which may be found to apply during the DOJ-conducted background
check (including the many categories pertaining to an applicant’s criminal history), simply determine
whether the applicant is even eligibleto own or possess firearms under state and federal law. When
it comes to evaluating an applicant’s moral character, however, the issue is not whether the applicant
meets the minimum qualifications to own or possess firearms under other statutory criteria. “Good
moral character” is a distinct question that requires an independent determination.

Existing public-carry policies of local law enforcement agencies across the state provide helpful
examples of how to apply the “good moral character” requirement. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s
Office, for example, currently identifies several potential reasons why a public-carry license may be
denied (or revoked), which include “[a]ny arrest in the last 5 years, regardless of the disposition” or
“[a]ny conviction in the last 7 years.”2It is reasonable to consider such factors in evaluating an
applicant’s proof of the requisite moral character to safely carry firearms in public.See, e.g., Bruen,
slip op. p. 63 (referencing “law-abiding citizens”). Other jurisdictions list the personal characteristics
one reasonably expects of candidates for a public-carry license who do not pose a danger to
themselves or others. The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department’s policy, for example, currently
provides as follows: “Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty,
trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of
fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability,
profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the
absence of criminal conviction.”3

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. Finally, we note that it remains reasonable—and constitutional—to ask
applicants why they are interested in carrying their firearms in public. Although applicants do not
need to demonstrate good cause for the issuance of a license, an applicant’s reasons for seeking a
license may alert authorities to a need for psychological testing, be considered as part of the “good
moral character” requirement, or provide information relevant to other statutory requirements.

[Norm DeGuerre]

Shall issue
But deny for any reason. ????

[WARFAB]

Although applicants do not[/FONT]
need to demonstrate good cause for the issuance of a license, an applicant’s reasons for seeking a
license may alert authorities to a need for psychological testing, be considered as part of the “good
moral character” requirement, or provide information relevant to other statutory requirements.[/I][/SIZE]

This is absolute bulPeshitta.

So in order to get approved for your pistol permit, the issuing authorities of California have to believe you're of good moral character. And by the way, the fact that you're applying for your pistol permit makes the issuing authorities of California think you probably don't have good moral character.

The fact that any part of the California government thinks they're good judges of moral character is laughable.

How much did NYS playing games to render the previous SCOTUS CCW case moot piss off the justices and lead to Thomas writing such a game changing opinion for Bruen? The conservative justices seem to be on a tear, and California thinks it's wise to continue poking the black robed bear? Quick, someone challenge the NFA while the CA and NY governments are openly stating they aren't going to abide by Bruen. I want a suppressed SBR without paying for any tax stamps.

[usmcveteran]

I think they mean the part on application that asks why you want it. So if you said to shoot black people that would raise red flag and you won't get it.

[thughes]

usmcveteran According to CA guidance, reason for denial due to lack of moral character can be any of the following

Legal judgments of good moral character can include:
- consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability
- respect for the law
- integrity, candor, discretion
- observance of fiduciary duty
- respect for the rights of others
- absence of hatred and racism
- fiscal stability
- profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law
- the absence of criminal conviction

[usmcveteran]

usmcveteran According to CA guidance, reason for denial due to lack of moral character can be any of the following

Legal judgments of good moral character can include:
- consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability
- respect for the law
- integrity, candor, discretion
- observance of fiduciary duty
- respect for the rights of others
- absence of hatred and racism
- fiscal stability
- profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law
- the absence of criminal conviction

Ok so there politicians can't get a permit? They don't respect the rights of others.

[thughes]

Their politicians check several of those boxes!

[WARFAB]

- fiscal stability

Ummm.... poll tax? Guess which ethnic groups this will hit hardest. But please tell me more about how conservatives are the white supremacists in the US.

[WARFAB]

It's happening......

Along those lines, the Supreme Court today GVR’d (granted cert, vacated the lower court rulings and remanded for reconsideration) the following cases in which the lower courts had upheld the gun control laws in question.

Young v. Hawaii — Challenges Hawaii’s ban on open carry as infringing citizens’ Second Amendment right to bear firearms outside the home.

Bianchi v. Frosh — Challenges Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban under Heller’s common use language.

ANJRPC v. Grewal — Challenges New Jersey’s “high capacity” magazine ban for violating the Second Amendment, the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Duncan v. Bonta — Challenges California’s “high capacity” magazine ban as violating the Second and Fifth Amendments as well as the two-step interest-balancing process explicitly repudiated in the Bruen ruling.

The Court’s disposition of these cases today represents the first significant crack in the foundation that lower courts have built in the last 14 years to prop up gun control laws while violating the Heller decision and the Second Amendment.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/su...n-under-bruen/

[usmcveteran]

It's happening......



https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/su...n-under-bruen/

I should know this....... Any of those cases in our circuit court and if they overturned laws would that apply to us?

[camper4lyfe]

I should know this....... Any of those cases in our circuit court and if they overturned laws would that apply to us?

I don't believe so. I need to dig up some other threads to confirm.

edit: Confirmed. They're all in the 9th, 3rd, or 4th circuit. NY is in the 2nd, so no direct effect at this time, but could set precedent for cases in the 2nd down the road.

[usmcveteran]

That sucks, was hoping for quick turnaround on this

[camper4lyfe]

We're in for a long road of lawsuits, beyond what we've dealt with so far.

[WARFAB]

I'm hoping that since Bruen was a NYS case, the courts somehow expedite its implementation here. Probably just a dream, but so was a broad based 2A ruling from SCOTUS.

[WARFAB]

Maybe Norm Deguerre x2 can give me an explanation of how it works if you get charged for violating a law that will be struck under Bruen. Any chance for monetary compensation for your legal fees if you take the case to court and you end up having charges dismissed because of Bruen? I'm getting anxious to start acting like a freer man. thughes is making me really jealous with his stories from America.

[Norm DeGuerre]

Sorry
No Ex Post Facto relief

[WARFAB]

On the bright side, the NYS sheriff's are pointing out they don't have the manpower to enforce Hochul's dictatorial snit. Guessing/hoping that most of this ends up hitting practical implementation roadblocks similar to the ammo background check law.

[usmcveteran]

On the bright side, the NYS sheriff's are pointing out they don't have the manpower to enforce Hochul's dictatorial snit. Guessing/hoping that most of this ends up hitting practical implementation roadblocks similar to the ammo background check law.

If they can't follow the law and don't issue permits on time (Monroe county just reported 9 to 16 month wait time) it's a misdemeanor. If they issue permits on time and don't follow the law it's a misdemeanor. Either way investigators/licensing officers are going to be breaking the law.

If they aren't being held accountable which they haven't been up until now, then can you really enforce any of laws in that section without selective enforcement?