- Messages
- 264
According to Kostas Moros
caguns.net
Welcome to CAguns.net!
Join our growing community where you can ask questions, share knowledge, or browse our classifieds section.
Sign up for a free account today and unlock full access! Once registered, you can search, post, and take advantage of exclusive features unavailable to guests.
A note on why more of the site now requires an account: automated scrapers and AI systems have been crawling our forums and classifieds at a scale. Requiring sign-in for those sections is the most effective tool we have. It takes a minute to register, it's free, and it keeps what happens here between actual members.
New to California gun ownership or trying to keep up with the changing laws? Check out our sister site CA2A.com — free courses, plain-English legal updates, and step-by-step guides built for California owners.
Advanced features are available only to registered members. Register today!
CCW May v Bonta (SB2 'sensitive places' challenge) mandate issued
- Thread starter Librarian
- Start date
According to Kostas Moros
M1A Rifleman
Member
- Messages
- 55
Loss
- Messages
- 264
Waypoint. More to come.
Malibu
Well-known member
- Messages
- 576
Hopefully our great grandchildren may someday see meaningful change.
- Messages
- 761
D
Deleted member 6005
⚠️ New Member | No Deposits ☢️
- Messages
- 167
So, are we back to no carry in a place that serves any alcohol or a place that serves alcohol as a primary purpose?
- Messages
- 264
Chuck Michel promises a CRPA explainer soon.
- Messages
- 264
... and here it is, the email from CRPA.
----
CRPA's challenge to the state's conceal carry laws was denied in our en banc petition. This request for en banc review would have overturned a lower court ruling on a preliminary injunction and would have stopped enforcement of the restrictive state law. With the Ninth Circuit denial of our request, CRPA had though decisions to make. After further consideration of the ruling in May v. Bonta, the best course of action is to pursue a final judgment in the lower court rather than take an interlocutory appeal on the injunction ruling to the Supreme Court. Given the low odds of success of such appeals when there is no circuit split and no final judgment in the case, we do not want to drag the case out and instead want to push forward to a final determination in the trial court that gives us better petition on appeal.
We will still file amicus briefs in the Supreme Court in support of any case dealing with sensitive places, such as the Wolford matter if the Hawaii plaintiffs seek cert. However, we think it is in the best interests of permanently resolving these issues to reach a final judgment quickly, in case the Supreme Court once again decides to wait for final judgment appeals.
Unfortunately, this does mean that some places will soon be off-limits for carry in California while our lawsuit proceeds. The biggest change to the status quo is that parks, places that serve alcohol, and libraries will now be off limits, in addition to some other places like casinos, stadiums, museums, and amusement parks (though such places often banned carry themselves anyway). The full list of places one CAN still carry legally after the mandate issues and while we continue to fight in the court includes:
"(7) A building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public or private hospital or hospital affiliate, mental health facility, nursing home, medical office, urgent care facility, or other place at which medical services are customarily provided.
(8) A bus, train, or other form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and a building, real property, or parking area under the control of a transportation authority supported in whole or in part with public funds.
(10) A public gathering or special event conducted on property open to the public that requires the issuance of a permit from a federal, state, or local government and sidewalk or street immediately adjacent to the public gathering or special event but is not more than 1,000 feet from the event or gathering, provided this prohibition shall not apply to a licensee who must walk through a public gathering in order to access their residence, place of business, or vehicle.
(22) A church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship, including in any parking area immediately adjacent thereto, unless the operator of the place of worship clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that licenseholders are permitted to carry firearms on the property. Signs shall be of a uniform design as prescribed by the Department of Justice and shall be at least four inches by six inches in size.
(23) A financial institution or parking area under the control of a financial institution.
(26) Any other privately owned commercial establishment that is open to the public, unless the operator of the establishment clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that licenseholders are permitted to carry firearms on the property. Signs shall be of a uniform design as prescribed by the Department of Justice and shall be at least four inches by six inches in size."
However, despite the very tough panel we were assigned, the Ninth Circuit did uphold several portions of our district court win, including places where conceal carry will still be allowed such as public transportation, churches, banks, hospitals, public gatherings, the private property default, and the parking lots serving those places. As the ruling makes clear, shared parking lots are also fine. For example, if you are visiting a bank that shares a parking lot with a bar, you can carry in the parking lot as long as you don’t go into the bar.
CRPA will keep fighting for the final judgement in this case and your support is needed more than ever as we work to protect the Second Amendment in California and overturn these unconstitutional laws.
----
CRPA's challenge to the state's conceal carry laws was denied in our en banc petition. This request for en banc review would have overturned a lower court ruling on a preliminary injunction and would have stopped enforcement of the restrictive state law. With the Ninth Circuit denial of our request, CRPA had though decisions to make. After further consideration of the ruling in May v. Bonta, the best course of action is to pursue a final judgment in the lower court rather than take an interlocutory appeal on the injunction ruling to the Supreme Court. Given the low odds of success of such appeals when there is no circuit split and no final judgment in the case, we do not want to drag the case out and instead want to push forward to a final determination in the trial court that gives us better petition on appeal.
We will still file amicus briefs in the Supreme Court in support of any case dealing with sensitive places, such as the Wolford matter if the Hawaii plaintiffs seek cert. However, we think it is in the best interests of permanently resolving these issues to reach a final judgment quickly, in case the Supreme Court once again decides to wait for final judgment appeals.
Unfortunately, this does mean that some places will soon be off-limits for carry in California while our lawsuit proceeds. The biggest change to the status quo is that parks, places that serve alcohol, and libraries will now be off limits, in addition to some other places like casinos, stadiums, museums, and amusement parks (though such places often banned carry themselves anyway). The full list of places one CAN still carry legally after the mandate issues and while we continue to fight in the court includes:
"(7) A building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public or private hospital or hospital affiliate, mental health facility, nursing home, medical office, urgent care facility, or other place at which medical services are customarily provided.
(8) A bus, train, or other form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and a building, real property, or parking area under the control of a transportation authority supported in whole or in part with public funds.
(10) A public gathering or special event conducted on property open to the public that requires the issuance of a permit from a federal, state, or local government and sidewalk or street immediately adjacent to the public gathering or special event but is not more than 1,000 feet from the event or gathering, provided this prohibition shall not apply to a licensee who must walk through a public gathering in order to access their residence, place of business, or vehicle.
(22) A church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship, including in any parking area immediately adjacent thereto, unless the operator of the place of worship clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that licenseholders are permitted to carry firearms on the property. Signs shall be of a uniform design as prescribed by the Department of Justice and shall be at least four inches by six inches in size.
(23) A financial institution or parking area under the control of a financial institution.
(26) Any other privately owned commercial establishment that is open to the public, unless the operator of the establishment clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that licenseholders are permitted to carry firearms on the property. Signs shall be of a uniform design as prescribed by the Department of Justice and shall be at least four inches by six inches in size."
However, despite the very tough panel we were assigned, the Ninth Circuit did uphold several portions of our district court win, including places where conceal carry will still be allowed such as public transportation, churches, banks, hospitals, public gatherings, the private property default, and the parking lots serving those places. As the ruling makes clear, shared parking lots are also fine. For example, if you are visiting a bank that shares a parking lot with a bar, you can carry in the parking lot as long as you don’t go into the bar.
CRPA will keep fighting for the final judgement in this case and your support is needed more than ever as we work to protect the Second Amendment in California and overturn these unconstitutional laws.
The million dollar question that know one knows the answer too lol.. Would love clarity myself...
- Messages
- 264
- Messages
- 100
time to leave this f**ked up state..... 10 more months to freedom