Calif. Agencies Told to End ‘Good Cause’ Requirement for Con

Discussion of firearm-related news stories. Please use "Off Topic" for non-firearm news.
Forum rules
Do NOT post the full text of published articles. If you would like to discuss a news story please link to it and, at most, include a brief summary of the article.

Calif. Agencies Told to End ‘Good Cause’ Requirement for Con

Postby jdege on Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:35 am

https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2022/06/25/calif-agencies-told-to-end-good-cause-requirement-for-concealed-weapons-permit/
Calif. Agencies Told to End ‘Good Cause’ Requirement for Concealed Weapons Permit
Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has advised California law enforcement agencies that the “good cause” requirement for issuing a concealed weapons permit is likely unconstitutional and should no longer be used.

The advice came in a legal alert on Friday to “all California district attorneys, police chiefs, sheriffs, county counsels and city attorneys” and follows a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Thursday overturning New York State’s “proper cause” requirement.

“It is 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,” wrote Bonta. “Permitting agencies may no longer require a demonstration of good cause.”
User avatar
jdege
 
Posts: 4465 [View]
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:07 am

Re: Calif. Agencies Told to End ‘Good Cause’ Requirement for Con

Postby jdege on Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:57 am

The alert is here: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/legal-alert-oag-2022-02.pdf

From it:
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 in Bruen 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).

[...]

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.”2 It 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


So, what does it take to demonstrate "good moral character"?

Or, rather, how large a donation?
User avatar
jdege
 
Posts: 4465 [View]
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:07 am

Re: Calif. Agencies Told to End ‘Good Cause’ Requirement for Con

Postby Lumpy on Sun Jun 26, 2022 12:31 pm

It means that they can consider you a Shady Character on almost any pretext. So basically the SC ruling strikes down the one most egregious requirement of May Issue permit laws but by no means institutes Shall Issue.

Now we go through 10-20 years of suits claiming the permit processes are illegally arbitrary, unless a further SC case dramatically broadens the scope of the recent ruling.
User avatar
Lumpy
 
Posts: 2700 [View]
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 2:54 pm
Location: North of Lowry, West of Penn

Re: Calif. Agencies Told to End ‘Good Cause’ Requirement for Con

Postby Holland&Holland on Sun Jun 26, 2022 1:52 pm

Lawyers gotta eat.
User avatar
Holland&Holland
 
Posts: 12478 [View]
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am

Re: Calif. Agencies Told to End ‘Good Cause’ Requirement for Con

Postby jdege on Sun Jun 26, 2022 3:55 pm

Lumpy wrote:It means that they can consider you a Shady Character on almost any pretext. So basically the SC ruling strikes down the one most egregious requirement of May Issue permit laws but by no means institutes Shall Issue.

Now we go through 10-20 years of suits claiming the permit processes are illegally arbitrary, unless a further SC case dramatically broadens the scope of the recent ruling.

Do you remember the guy over in Wisconsin who tried to open carry just because open carry was legal?
User avatar
jdege
 
Posts: 4465 [View]
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:07 am


Return to In The News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron