🔫Guns Rights / Gun News🔫 Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech & Political Content

New California Laws Going Into Effect in 2025

The Truth News — Tue, 07 Jan 2025 10:07:35 +0000

New California Laws Going Into Effect in 2025

(AB 1960) Smash & Grab Robberies
Creates stiffer penalties for those involved in smash-and-grab robberies. If the crime caused more than $50,000 in damage to a property, the court can impose an additional sentence of one year. Additional years can be added to a sentence if the property loss is higher.

Cracking Down on Retail Theft

Organized retail theft is permanently codified into California law through AB 1802 and SB 982.

It is now considered a felony to possess over $950 of items obtained through retail theft with the intention to resell (AB 2943). Similarly, breaking into vehicles to steal property valued at $950 or more with the intention to resell is now also considered a felony (SB 905).

Harsher penalties for serial shoplifters. A framework for Amsterdam-style cannabis cafes. New safeguards against artificial intelligence deepfakes.

The California Legislature passed hundreds of bills in 2024, many of which go into effect on Jan. 1 and touch nearly every aspect of life in the Golden State.

Here’s a look at some of the most prominent laws taking hold New Year’s Day.

The state passed a series of laws targeting retail crime and property theft, including shoplifting, car break-ins and smash-and-grab robberies.

The legislation increases penalties for repeat offenders, creates additional ways to prosecute crimes as felonies and allows the police to arrest people suspected of retail theft with probable cause, even if officers did not witness the crime.

One significant change allows prosecutors to add up the value of property stolen from multiple victims, making it easier to reach the $950 threshold necessary to charge a suspect with a felony.

The changes come as California voters have shifted to the right on crime. While overall crime rates in California are among the lowest ever recorded, certain crimes, such as vehicle thefts and shoplifting, have risen in recent years.

In November, voters passed Proposition 36, a ballot measure that imposed harsher penalties for shoplifting and drug possession. That went into effect in mid-December.

Juvenile Dependency and Child Welfare

Effective immediately, child custody proceedings involving Indian children must follow the California Indian Child Welfare Act. This means conducting inquiry on the child’s possible Native American heritage and tribal membership eligibility at the first court appearance. Parties and persons present at the proceedings must also inform the court if they receive information about the child’s possible Native American heritage. (AB 81)

Collaborative Courts

A few changes will affect collaborative justice courts, which combine judicial supervision with rehabilitative services.

If a defendant is charged with a drug offense, courts are required to order an available drug treatment or education program. (AB 2106)

A probation officer can refer offenses to youth court (with consent from the youth and family) as opposed to filing a petition to declare the youth as a dependent or ward of the court under SB 1005.

Under SB 1323, courts are now allowed to make competency determinations based on written evaluations by licensed psychologists or psychiatrists. Additionally, courts may refer incompetent defendants charged with felonies to mental health diversion programs. Furthermore, under SB 1400, if a defendant is incompetent to stand trial in a misdemeanor case, the court must consider referral to diversion or other options and subsequent dismissal at certain timeframes.

Under SB 910, treatment courts in California will need to operate in accordance with state and national guidelines, and the Judicial Council will be required to revise drug court standards of administration by Jan. 1, 2026.

Felony offenses will be added to pretrial diversion programs in veterans court under SB 1025.

Artificial Intelligence – Protections against sexually explicit deepfakes

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been a hot topic across all industries and especially in California. The state will implement the CA Transparency Act, which requires AI businesses to identify AI-generated content (SB 942). This law will be set to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2026.

(SB 926) Deepfakes
Makes it a crime to create and distribute sexually explicit images of a real person that are artificially generated but made to appear authentic with the purpose of causing that person emotional distress.

(SB 981) Sexually Explicit Images
Requires that social media platforms establish a mechanism for users who are California residents to report sexually explicit images that were created or altered digitally but made to appear authentic. Social media companies must take down the content while they investigate the complaint.

(AB 1836 & 2602) Digital Likeness
Protects deceased actors and performers from having their image, likeness or voice reproduced without authorization by artificial intelligence. The law requires consent from the actor’s estate before their likeness can be digitally replicated. A similar law (AB 2602) allows performers to back out of existing contracts if the language is vague enough to allow studios to digitally clone their image or voice in the future without expressed consent.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed several A.I.-related protections. One bill makes it illegal to create and distribute lifelike depictions of real people in images that cause serious emotional distress, targeting A.I.-generated deepfakes that are sexually explicit. Another bill requires social media platforms to provide users with a way to report sexually explicit deepfakes of themselves.

Mr. Newsom did however veto a sweeping A.I. safety bill that was aimed at limiting the growth of the technology, directing legislators to revise it in the next session.

Courts and Access to Justice

The CARE Act has been implemented in all California counties as of Dec. 1 of this year. Starting July 1, 2025, California courts will be required to provide ongoing notice of CARE Act proceedings to original petitioners (SB 42).

In continuing the council’s commitment to access to justice, AB 170 will extend remote proceedings in juvenile and civil cases. Courtrooms utilizing remote technology will need to meet minimum standards set by the Judicial Council, as well as provide regular reporting to the courts and the council.

A ban on ‘forced outing’ of L.G.B.T.Q. youths by schools

School districts can no longer require teachers or staff members to disclose a student’s gender identity or sexual orientation to their parents.

The legislation, the first of its kind in the country, responds to policies in some school districts that required employees to notify parents if a student began using different pronouns or identified as a gender not reflected in school records.

“Teachers can still talk to parents,” Mr. Newsom said at a news conference in December. “What they can’t do under the law is fire a teacher for not being a snitch. I just don’t think teachers should be gender police.”

Several school districts have sued the state over the legislation, and the case is pending in federal court.

Reparations measures for Black residents

Multiple laws modeled after recommendations from the state’s Reparations Task Force are taking effect, including a measure that broadens protections against discrimination based on hair texture and hairstyles such as braids, locs and twists that protect hair from damage and are often worn by Black people.

Another such law requires companies to give advance notice to employees and county officials before closing a grocery store or a pharmacy. That measure is aimed at preventing neighborhoods from losing their main source of food or prescriptions, which disproportionately affects areas that are predominantly Black.

Of the 14 reparations bills prioritized by the California Legislative Black Caucus, six were signed into law. Some failed to pass the Legislature, and two were vetoed by Mr. Newsom. The package did not include the direct cash payments recommended by the task force.

A measure blocking medical debt from affecting credit scores

Health providers and debt collectors are now prohibited from reporting most medical debt to credit agencies, preventing it from having a negative impact on credit reports. These reports, which are the basis for credit scores, can affect a person’s ability to secure a loan, mortgage or even a job.

Millions of Californians have unpaid medical bills, including more than half of low-income residents, according to the California Health Care Foundation.

Restrictions on toxic chemicals in cosmetics and clothing

Several laws that ban certain toxic chemicals from clothing and cosmetics take effect on Jan. 1.

One bill targets 24 chemicals in cosmetics, including mercury and formaldehyde. Other bills ban the sale of cosmetic products, clothing and outdoor gear containing PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” a group of thousands of chemicals that persist in the environment and accumulate in the body.

Exposure to PFAS has been linked to severe health risks, though experts are still researching to fully understand their effects. These chemicals are widespread in the blood of Americans and difficult to get rid of, as they can be found in items ranging from pizza boxes to dental floss.

The Legislature passed the laws before 2024 but gave companies additional time to comply.

ONLINE

(SB 764) Child Vloggers
Parents or guardians who earn money by posting online videos that feature their children must set aside a percentage of their earnings in a trust account that benefits the minor. Parents will have to keep detailed logs of how much money they earned from each post and how many minutes their children appeared in the video. Children can sue parents who fail to follow the law.

(AB 1979) Doxxing
Allows victims of doxxing to sue their aggressors for up to $30,000 in damages. Doxxing is when someone shares personal information like phone numbers, addresses or sensitive materials about someone else with the intent to harm or embarrass them. A survey by SafeHome.org found that 11 million Americans have been victims of doxxing.

California gun safety regulations going into effect Jan. 1

In September, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a series of laws aimed at strengthening gun safety regulations. Those include requiring schools to implement safety programs and plans, and establishing an Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which have deadlines in the coming years.

Some of those laws go into effect on Jan. 1 including:

AB 1483 strengthens a rule against applying for more than one handgun in a 30-day period. The bill removes an exemption for a private party transactions. However, the policy has been caught in court battles and the California Department of Justice does will not enforce it while a court injunction is in place, the California DOJ told USA TODAY on Dec. 27.
AB 1598 requires firearm dealers to provide consumers with a pamphlet covering the reasons for and risks of firearm ownership, “including the increased risk of death to someone in the household by suicide, homicide, or unintentional injury.”
AB 2917 guides courts to expand considerations for a gun violence restraining order to include threats of violence, specifically hate-based threats.
SB-1019 Firearms: destruction.

Safeguards for money made by child content creators

Two pieces of legislation enhance financial protections for child content creators, including child influencers and minors featured on YouTube, Instagram and other online platforms that generate revenue.

One bill extends the state’s Coogan Law, which protects child performers, to minors employed as content creators on online platforms. Employers will be required to deposit at least 15 percent of their earnings into a trust account.

The other measure mandates compensation for minors featured in online content that makes money, requiring parents or guardians to set aside a portion of their earnings in a trust account.

(AB 3162) Octopus Farming

California becomes the second state to make it illegal to raise octopuses in farms with the intent to sell them for human consumption. The law also bars businesses from selling octopuses that came from octopus farms. The law still allows for the fishing of octopuses as long as it does not exceed the daily limit.

A proactive ban on octopus farming

California is banning octopus farming and the sale of farmed octopuses, citing concerns about animal welfare and environmental impacts. Although currently there are no large-scale octopus farming operations in the state, the legislation aims to prevent them from opening in the future.

The law describes octopuses as “highly intelligent, curious, problem-solving animals” that are “conscious, sentient beings.”

California is the second state to prohibit octopus farming and the first to ban the sale of farmed octopuses.

California Laws That Go Into Effect on Jan. 1

Lawmakers passed hundreds of bills in 2024, addressing issues including shoplifting, marijuana and artificial intelligence. Here are some of the key measures that begin New Year’s Day.

CONSUMERS

(AB 2426) Digital Goods
Requires sellers of online products like digital movies, music, books or video games to disclose whether the consumer is purchasing unrestricted ownership or a revocable license. Sellers are not allowed to use the terms “buy” or “purchase” if the consumer is only receiving a license to access the digital good. It is not clear if the law applies to non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

(SB 1217) Pet Insurance
Requires pet insurance providers to be more transparent about whether their policy premiums are based on the age of the pet or where the pet lives, and if their policies exclude pre-existing conditions, hereditary disorders, congenital anomalies or chronic conditions.

(AB 2863) Automatic Renewals
Requires subscription services to get clear consent from a customer for automatic renewals and send annual reminders about the automatic renewal or continuous service. The law, which takes effect on July 1st also makes it easier to cancel a subscription either online or by telephone.

(AB 2017 & SB 1075) Overdraft Fees
Limits the overdraft fees that banks and credit unions can charge. The law prohibits financial institutions from charging a customer a fee for non-sufficient funds if the transaction was declined instantaneously. Starting in 2026, credit unions would be prohibited from charging an overdraft fee in excess of $14.

(SB2202) Cleaning Fees
Requires short-term rental like Airbnb to disclose if there will be any additional fees or charges that will be added if the customer fails to perform certain cleaning tasks at the end of their stay. The law takes effect on July 1, 2025.

HEALTH

(AB 1817 & AB2771) Chemicals in Cosmetics
Bans the use of PFAS in clothing, textiles and cosmetics. PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) can lead to liver damage, thyroid disease, reproductive problems and cancer. California would be the first state to impose a ban on PFAS, which are already prohibited in the European Union.

Another law taking effect in 2025 bans the manufacture or sale of cosmetic products with 11 other chemicals, including formaldehyde, mercury and methylene glycol.

ENTERTAINMENT

(SB969) Entertainment Zones
Allows local governments to create entertainment zones where bars and restaurants can sell alcoholic beverages that customers can drink on public streets and sidewalks. It replaces a law that only allowed outside vendors to sell alcohol at festivals and parades. A similar law that took effect in January of 2024 allowed San Francisco to set up entertainment zones to improve business at brick and mortar bars and restaurants.

Ah, the Cannabis Cafe beckons

The intoxicating allure of the urban promenade! In a bold bid to revive city centers still languishing from the malaise of the COVID-19 era, California unveils its latest temptations: cannabis cafés and boozy boulevards. One can almost hear the clinking of glasses and the murmur of delighted vices in the making.

Senate Bill 969, the brainchild of state Sen. Scott Weiner, invites local governments to create ‘entertainment zones,’ where revelers may roam the streets with drinks in hand, as though life were an eternal carnival. The California Alcohol Policy Alliance, ever the Cassandra at the feast, warns that this bacchanalia might lead to more drunk drivers and sorrowful statistics. But who among us has ever listened to the voice of caution when champagne is calling?

Then there’s AB 1775, which legalizes cannabis cafés reminiscent of Amsterdam’s smoky charm. At long last, one can pair a well-rolled joint with an artisanal sandwich or a frothy cappuccino, perhaps while a jazz trio croons in the background. Of course, the American Heart and Lung Association clutched its collective pearls, necessitating protections against secondhand smoke for workers. A small price to pay for the ambiance of curated decadence.

Assemblymember Matt Haney, waxing poetic, declared: ‘Lots of people want to enjoy legal cannabis in the company of others.’ Indeed, Mr. Haney, and if those others happen to be a slice of avocado toast and an indie folk band, so much the better. California, as ever, remains the harbinger of tomorrow’s indulgences today.

(AB 1775) Cannabis Cafes
Cannabis dispensaries are about to get livelier. The law will allow licensed cannabis retailers to prepare and sell food and beverages at newly created cafes or lounges. That means customers can buy and consume cannabis at the business while they eat a meal or watch a live performance.

A pathway for Amsterdam-style cannabis cafes

Marijuana dispensaries in California are now allowed to sell food and nonalcoholic beverages and host live events, paving the way for Amsterdam-like cannabis cafes.

Marijuana businesses in the state, home to the nation’s largest number of cannabis consumers, rallied for the law.

A separate law lets local governments create “entertainment zones,” where restaurants and bars can sell alcoholic drinks to go, and outdoor drinking will be permitted.

(SB 540) Cannabis Health Warnings
Requires the state health department to create brochures or flyers that explain the risks associated with cannabis use. The documents must be displayed at cannabis retailers by March 1.

(SB 729) Infertility Treatments
Starting on July 1, 2025, health insurance plans are required to cover the diagnosis and treatment of infertility, including in vitro fertilization (IVF). Religious employers are excluded from the requirement.

SB-1059Cannabis: local taxation: gross receipts.

SB-1064Cannabis: operator and separate premises license types: excessive concentration of licenses.

CRIME AND SAFETY

(AB 1394) Sexual Exploitation
Holds social media companies like Meta and Tik Tok liable for images of a person that appear on sexual exploitation videos or photos posted on their platforms. Victims of child sex trafficking can sue these companies for up to $4 million if they knowingly facilitated the distribution of these images. The new law also requires social media platforms to establish a process for sex abuse victims to report videos or photos that include them. Companies have 36 hours to take the images down from their platforms.

(SB 1414) Sex Solicitation
Makes it a felony to solicit a minor under the age of 16 for sex. If the minor is 16 or 17, the crime can be upgraded to a felony if the teen is a victim of trafficking. The law penalizes anyone paying for sex with a minor even if the sexual act never occurred.

(SB 428) Restraining Orders
Allows employers to obtain a temporary restraining on behalf of an employee who has suffered harassment. The employee can choose not to be named in the restraining order petition. A court can deny the order if it would prohibit speech or activities protected by the constitution or labor law.

(SB 2342) Funding victim services
Creates the California Crime Victims Fund, helping to guarantee more consistent resources for survivors. It also directs fines from corporate white-collar crimes into this fund – giving victims extra support when they need it most.

(AB 1978) Sideshows & Street Racing
Governor Newsom signed several laws that impose stricter penalties for people participating in sideshows and street racing. The laws would make it easier for law enforcement to arrest sideshow participants and impound vehicles for illegal activities happening on streets, highways or parking lots.

EMPLOYMENT

Minimum Wage
California’s minimum wage will increase to $16.50 per hour for all employers. The increase is tied to inflation. Fast food workers and healthcare facility workers have a higher minimum wage.

(AB 2123) Paid Family Leave
Allows an employee to take paid family leave without using accrued vacation time. Previously employers could require workers to take up to 2 weeks of vacation time before they could access California’s Paid Family Leave Program. The law applies to employees that need to take leave from work to care for a sick family member, bond with a new minor child or because a military family member is on active duty.

(SB 988) Freelance Workers
Requires employers that hire freelance workers for professional services worth more than $250 to provide a contract in writing that includes information on the work that will be performed and payment information. Employers must pay the freelance workers within the date specified in the contract or no later than 30 days after the work is completed.

(AB 1815) Hairstyles Discrimination
Expands protections against racial discrimination by widening the definition of race to include traits such as hairstyles and hair textures that are associated with certain races.

(SB 399) Mandatory Meetings
Bans employers from requiring that workers attend mandatory meetings concerning union organizing, otherwise known as ‘captive audience’ meetings. Also prohibits employers from requiring its workers attend meetings or participate in communications whose primary objective is to express the employer’s stance on political matters or religious leanings. Employers who ignore the law can face a $500 penalty per employee for each violation.

(SB 1100) Driver’s License
Employers would no longer be allowed to require a driver’s license in job postings unless the employer reasonably expects the job function to include driving and taking alternate transportation would be a detriment in travel time and cost to the employer.

EDUCATION

(AB 1780) Legacy Admissions
Bans legacy admissions for students applying to a private non-profit university in California. Universities like Stanford and USC would no longer be allowed to take into account whether a student applicant has ties to a donor or an alumnus. The law takes effect in September, so it does not apply to current applicants for the fall 2025 school year.

(AB 1821) Native Americans
Requires K-12 public schools in the state to teach about the treatment and perspectives of Native Americans during the Spanish colonization of California and the Gold Rush periods.

STATE SYMBOLS

Several laws have established official state symbols, including the Dungeness crab as the official state crustacean (AB 1797), the banana slug as the official state slug (AB 1859) and the shell of the black abalone as the official state seashell (AB 2504).

MISCELLANEOUS

(SB 1174) Voter ID Requirements

Prohibits local governments in California from requiring voters to present identification in order to vote. The law is in response to an ordinance passed in Huntington Beach that allowed the city to verify voter eligibility through IDs.

(AB 1810) Menstrual Products

Requires state prisons or jails in California to provide incarcerated people with free menstrual products without the inmate having to ask for them. Before this law, inmates had to ask for sanitary pads or tampons, which criminal justice advocates say allowed prison security to withhold menstrual products as a form of punishment and oppression.

California, ever the avant-garde of legislative theatrics! Starting January 1, 2025, prepare for a smorgasbord of new rules, ranging from the progressive to the peculiar. Cannabis cafés and expanded outdoor drinking?

A toast to your libations, but do mind the irony of laws encouraging indulgence while protecting your credit score from the ravages of medical debt. Even financial institutions aren’t safe from the guillotine of ‘no-fee’ indignation.

In the hallowed halls of education, lawmakers have decided that LGBTQ+ students deserve privacy (as well they should), Native American history deserves accuracy (a novel concept for history books), and people of color deserve the liberty of unbothered hairstyles. Progress wrapped in policy, with a dash of overdue decency.

Nearly 5,000 bills were birthed in the latest legislative session, though half perished in obscurity without so much as a debate. Of the 1,200 that survived, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a tidy 200, like a chef trimming fat from an already overwhelming feast. And so, what remains: a mélange of laws that range from the vital to the vexing, with just enough intrigue to keep Californians on their toes. Bureaucracy, darling, is nothing if not dramatic.

Meet the new boss, not like the old boss

California, ever the patron saint of the worker’s plight, has declared war on the tyranny of boardroom sermons and managerial homilies. With Senate Bill 399, the state has effectively banned employers from dragging their beleaguered staff into mandatory meetings extolling the virtues of a political agenda or the evils of unions—or worse, pontificating on the intersection of religion and profit margins. Truly, there is nothing more odious than a boss attempting to sermonize between PowerPoints.

Proponents of this law, with the California Labor Federation at the helm, argue that such forced gatherings are nothing short of thinly veiled intimidation, designed to quash the spirit of unionization before it even takes root. Business groups, predictably clutching their pearls and brandishing the First Amendment like a shield, warn of dire consequences for free speech and economic dialogue. Fear not, however, for political operatives and proselytizers remain free to spout their truths to their similarly employed acolytes.

But the drama does not end there, for California’s workplace reforms continue to roll out like acts in a morality play. Witness the modest rise in the minimum wage, from $16 to $16.50—an increase too slight to invite revolution but sufficient to provoke muttering in executive suites. Voters recently quashed a more ambitious leap to $18, opting instead for the slow creep of inflation-linked adjustments. One can almost hear Dickens’ ghost remarking, ‘A half dollar more, sir? For a loaf of bread, perhaps?’

And let us not overlook the newfound flexibility in the use of time off. Under AB 2123, workers can no longer be coerced into exhausting vacation days before accessing paid family leave—a small triumph for those who might like a few holiday hours left to spend on something other than convalescence. Meanwhile, AB 2499 elevates sick days to a nobler purpose: jury duty. Because nothing says ‘recovery’ like a day deliberating over petty theft or tax fraud.

California’s labor laws, like its sunsets, remain a spectacle: vivid, dramatic, and occasionally bewildering. One can only imagine what new workplace epiphanies await in 2026.

Getting schooled in 2025

California, ever the harbinger of cultural skirmishes disguised as legislative decrees, has unfurled the SAFETY Act, a proclamation that schools are no longer the battleground for parental notifications about gender identity. Assembly Bill 1955, signed with a flourish by Gov. Gavin Newsom, bars school boards from mandating that teachers act as informants to parents about a child’s gender preferences. In essence, the legislation tells meddling school boards: ‘Not on our watch, darling.’

The SAFETY Act goes further, shielding educators from retribution should they decline to participate in such clandestine tattling. It also extends a supportive hand—likely manicured with inclusivity—to LGBTQ+ students in junior high and high schools, recognizing that adolescence is already a theater of existential chaos without adding identity politics to the script.

Assemblymember Chris Ward, the bill’s San Diego-based champion, condemned the ‘politically motivated attacks’ targeting transgender and nonbinary youth, likening such policies to a forced outing party no one asked to attend. With this act, the state affirms that gender identity discussions are best reserved for private family dynamics—preferably without the school board’s unsolicited editorializing.

Naturally, there is opposition, with Assemblymember Bill Essayli and other critics forecasting a showdown in the courts, where gavel-wielding arbiters of justice will untangle this knot of privacy, parental rights, and public policy. One imagines the arguments unfolding with the gravity of a Shakespearean trial, though less eloquent and with more legal jargon.

California, never content to follow the crowd, remains a stage for the audacious and the contentious, ensuring that even its education policies are draped in drama and debate. The SAFETY Act may spark lawsuits, but for now, it is a banner of defiance unfurled against those who would turn classrooms into confessionals.

HOUSING

(SB 611) Rent Checks
Prohibits landlord from charging tenants a fee if they pay their rent or security deposit by check. Starting in April, landlords will also have to provide renters with a written statement if they charge a security deposit higher than the standard.

(AB 2347) Evictions
Doubles the current deadline that tenants have to respond to an eviction notice to ten days. Under California law, if a tenant does not respond to an eviction notice within the required time they lose the case automatically. Advocates say this will give renters more time to seek legal advice.

(SB 450) Housing Developments
Makes it easier to convert single-family homes into duplexes and fourplexes by removing loopholes used by some local governments to slow down conversions. The new law requires local governments to respond to housing conversion applications within 60 days and bars local governments from denying an application to split up a lot based on the visual impact to the community.

New Laws for California Landlords In 2025

Tenants have rights, too

A shadow of misfortune fell upon tenant advocates this autumn as California voters declined to broaden the power of cities to curtail rent increases. Yet, amid the gloom, a glimmer of hope emerges: a new law, poised to take effect on the first of January, promises a moment of reprieve for renters teetering on the precipice of eviction.

This modest yet meaningful decree grants tenants twice the grace—ten days, rather than five business days—to respond to an eviction notice. What might appear to the uninitiated as a trifling procedural adjustment could, in truth, be the thread by which countless lives are tethered to their homes. Legal advocates, whose battles often go unsung, herald this as a salve for those besieged by housing insecurity.

For tenants, the stakes of silence are ruinous. To neglect a timely response is to forfeit the game before the first move, leaving them ensnared in a labyrinth of penalties and tarnished records. Such marks of disgrace darken their prospects, rendering the quest for future shelter an odyssey of near-impossible odds. Even those with just claims—a landlord’s breach of duty to repair or a rent hike that flouts the law—can see their defenses dissolve in the cruel light of procedural default. Researchers whisper grimly that four in ten California tenants succumb to this ignoble fate.

“Five days,” lamented Lorraine López, a senior attorney at the Western Center on Law and Poverty, “has never sufficed for tenants to summon aid, unravel the cryptic legalese of a complaint, identify their defenses, prepare their papers, and present themselves at court.” Her words, delivered to CalMatters this past autumn, resonate like the toll of a distant bell.

The law, penned by Assemblymember Ash Kalra of San Jose, extends its hand not only to tenants but also to landlords—those oft-portrayed antagonists of such tales. To assuage their concerns, the legislation imposes limits on the time tenant attorneys may wield certain motions to contest landlords’ filings. This compromise quelled the ire of the formidable California Apartment Association, which chose neutrality over opposition as legislators debated the measure. Yet, not all property owners were placated; some local groups clung to their grievances like a miser to his coin.

Daniel Bornstein, an attorney for landlords, encapsulated their frustrations succinctly: “The longer these matters linger, the costlier they become, and the greater the loss of rent.” And so, the pendulum swings—between the tenant’s plea for sanctuary and the landlord’s lament for expediency—a delicate balance in the ceaseless theatre of housing in California.

2025 is here and with it come a slew of new laws that affect California landlords.

We’ve selected 11 of the most impactful laws to discuss for the typical client that we serve. Laws affecting affordable housing, large multi-family properties, or commercial properties are not discussed here.

1. AB 2747 – Mandatory Offer of Credit Reporting

This law requires landlords of buildings with 15 units or more or landlords that own more than 1 residential rental property or landlords that are a REIT or corporation to offer positive rental payment reporting to at least 1 credit bureau. Landlords can only charge the lesser of $10 or the actual cost to provide the service, unless of course the landlord does not incur a fee to provide the service.

Note that this is only positive rental history reporting. Landlords need to offer positive rental history reporting with all leases beginning on 4/1/25 and must provide notice to tenants of leases existing as of 1/1/25 of the same offer.

If a tenant defaults on the payment, landlords are not allowed to use rent income to cover it and cannot use any unpaid fee amount for this service as a reason for termination of tenancy or any other punitive action. The landlord is able to stop the reporting if the fee remains unpaid for 30 or more days.

2. AB 2493 – Application Fees

AB 2493 codifies the way we at Mesa already approach application processing, which is essentially a first come, first qualified, first granted approach. We believe it to be the most fair and unbiased way to process applications and now it appears, the California State Legislature agrees. Many landlords want to treat the application process like a job interview where the “best” applicant gets the property. We disagree with this approach because of its potential to violate Fair Housing laws, and while California has not outright banned this approach, they have made it much more difficult to choose this option.

This law only allows landlords to charge an application fee if they do one of two things:

The Job Interview Method – Refund all applicants not selected, regardless of reason, if their application is treated like the “job interview” approach above. This means if the landlord is not using a first come, first qualified, first granted approach, they must refund the application fee for all applicants, even if the applicant would have been denied for not meeting the landlord’s criteria. This refund must occur within the lesser of 7 days of a tenant being selected or 30 days of the application being received.
The Mesa Method – Process applications on the first come, first qualified, first granted approach. The landlord must present their requirements along with the application form. Once a tenant is selected, using this approach any remaining applicants that were in process must either be refunded within 7 days or have their application transferred to another property that the landlord has available for rent. Using this approach, landlords are able to retain the application fees for applications that were considered but denied for not meeting the landlord’s posted criteria.

3. SB 611 – Fees and Security

This law prevents landlords from charging a fee for the service of any notice on the tenant. Since California still requires the physical posting of certain notices such as the 3 day notice to pay rent or quit and the 60 day notice of termination of tenancy, landlords often incur significant costs in the service of these mandatory notices. In the past, it has been common practice for landlords to charge a notice service fee to compensate for those costs.

SB 611 bans that practice and also bans landlords from charging any fees for processing a physical check from tenants.

4. SB 1051 – Changing Locks Due to Domestic Violence

This law requires landlords to pay for the changing of locks when a tenant requests it due to being a victim of domestic violence. They must provide proof of the claim.

The landlord only has 24 hours to comply with the request. If they fail to change the locks within 24 hours of the tenant’s request, then the tenant can change them themselves and notify the landlord within 24 hours that the locks were changed as well as provide the landlord with the new key. The landlord will then have 21 days to reimburse the tenant for their cost of changing the locks.

This law also makes it illegal for landlords to deny or conditionally approve applicants for exercising their rights under this law, including changing locks and terminating a tenancy due to being the victim of domestic violence.

5. AB 2801 – Security Deposits

This law, similar to AB 2493, essentially codifies the “Mesa Way” meaning the way we already conduct our business.

Beginning on 4/1/25, landlords will need to take photos of the property immediately after receiving possession back from a tenant and before any repairs or cleaning take place and also immediately after repairs are made or cleaning is done. Additionally, landlords will need to send photos along with the standard itemized list of what the deposit was used for and a written explanation of the cost of the repairs or cleaning.

Finally, landlords are not able to charge for professional carpet cleaning or professional cleaning unless those services are necessary to return the unit to the same condition it was in prior to being rented out excluding ordinary wear and tear.

6. AB 2898 – Unbundled Parking

This law requires that landlords unbundle parking from the lease. If landlords want to charge for parking or have an agreement related to parking, they must do so in an agreement that is separate from the lease agreement.

The reason behind this change is so that a landlord cannot use the non-payment or other violation of the parking agreement as a reason to evict a tenant.

7. AB 2347 – Time Extension for Evictions

This law gives the defendant in an unlawful detainer case (eviction) 10 business days to respond by filing an answer to the eviction instead of the current 5 days.

This will extend the amount of time for landlords to regain possession of their property in an eviction by at least a week. Good news in this law is that it also reduces the time for responsive pleadings (demurrer, motion to strike) to between 5 and 7 days instead of the current 30 days.

8. AB 2579 – Balcony Inspections

You may recall our 2019 blog post on new laws which highlighted the balcony inspection law and its mandatory requirement for owners to have balconies inspected by 1/1/2025. Nothing has really changed here except that the 2025 deadline has been pushed out to 1/1/2026 and Civil Engineers are now able to conduct those inspections.

9. AB 653 – Housing Authority Reporting Requirements

This is a welcome law which will require Housing Authorities to provide annual reports with data on their monthly success rate, payment standards, inspection wait times, and total search time for voucher holders to obtain housing.

We work with housing authorities all the time and know first hand how delayed they can be and how bad the communication can be. The hope with this new law is that there will be more transparency and accountability for housing authorities to be efficient and productive with their use of funds and assistance to voucher holders and landlords alike. We would sure love to see increased efficiency here!

10. AB 2684 – Extreme Heat

If you don’t have central AC in your rental property, start budgeting to install it soon.

In January 2028, extreme heat will be added to local cities’ and counties’ safety of housing element or local hazard plans.

We are already seeing proposals to add a minimum indoor temperature requirement in order for a rental property to be considered habitable. The addition of extreme heat hazard plans will almost certainly bring this to fruition. It is highly likely that in the next few years, landlords will be required to provide central AC in rental homes and that central AC will be required to maintain the temperature below a certain temperature in all areas of the home.

While there is no immediate effect on landlords because of this law, we strongly recommend that all landlords prepare for this as it could drastically increase costs related to HVAC maintenance, replacement, or installation.

11. AB 2622 – Unlicensed Handyman Requirement

We saved the best for last! Until now, unlicensed handymen were unable to do work of more than $500 without a contractor’s license. That amount has finally been updated to take into account inflation and has been increased to $1,000! That means unlicensed handymen can do a lot more, which should save owners money on smaller jobs since they won’t have to hire a licensed contractor for as many jobs anymore!

What the Future Holds

It’s impossible to know what future laws will go into effect, but one thing is for sure: it gets more and more difficult to be a landlord every year.

The great news coming out of 2024 was the failure of Prop 33 which would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995. If that had passed, cities and counties could have each enacted their own forms of rent control, which would have made it even more difficult and potentially unprofitable to be a landlord in California.

Other good news is that rental properties continue to hold their value and appreciate even in the difficult interest rate environment we experienced all through last year.

As long as you learn the new laws and abide by them, California is still a great place to own rental property!

Some help for ATM penalty fees

In the gilded realm of modern finance, where even the simplest transactions often come with hidden snares, a rare reprieve has emerged for Californians teetering on the edge of fiscal despair. Thanks to a new law, those who attempt to withdraw funds only to discover their coffers insufficient shall no longer be met with the insult of a penalty atop their injury.

This decree, a balm for the beleaguered, targets the pernicious fees levied when withdrawals are declined—be it at the unfeeling maw of an ATM or through other instantaneous denials wrought by insufficient funds.

Assembly Bill 2017, shepherded into existence by the tireless efforts of consumer advocates, is a testament to the virtues of human empathy within the cold calculus of commerce. Signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom this past September, the measure stands as a shield for the financially vulnerable against the scourge of what these advocates rightly dub “junk fees.” The California Low-Income Consumer Coalition and the East Bay Community Law Center, its chief proponents, have proclaimed victory for the common citizen, protecting them from tumbling further into the abyss of poverty.

Yet this is but one chapter in the broader narrative of reform. In tandem with this triumph, another piece of legislation ascends the stage: Senate Bill 1075, which curtails credit union overdraft fees, capping them at $14 unless a more benevolent federal standard emerges. This provision, however, will not grace the public until 2026—an all-too-familiar delay in the theatre of legislative promise.

And let us not overlook Assembly Bill 2863, a law designed to liberate consumers from the labyrinth of subscription services. It demands that companies seek explicit consent before renewing subscriptions or extending free trials into paid obligations. Slated to take effect this July, it strikes at the heart of one of capitalism’s most insidious traps, restoring agency to the hapless consumer.

Thus, in this rare alignment of legislation and compassion, Californians may glimpse a flicker of justice—a fleeting reminder that, even in an age of relentless profiteering, the wheels of reform, though slow, do occasionally turn in their favor.

Medical debt need not affect credit scores

In the labyrinthine world of financial burdens, where every misstep seems destined to echo through one’s future, a rare beacon of mercy has arisen. A new California law now forbids health providers and debt collectors from reporting medical debts to credit agencies, ensuring that the scars of illness no longer mar the pristine visage of one’s credit report.

Though this law does not erase the specter of unpaid bills, it grants a measure of solace to the beleaguered patient. No longer need a hospital stay or an urgent-care visit haunt their financial standing, casting shadows on their ability to secure a home, a car, or even a livelihood. For in the realm of credit scores—those fickle arbiters of modern worth—every blemish exacts a toll, driving up interest rates and erecting barriers to opportunity.

While the triumvirate of credit bureaus—TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian—ceased reporting medical debts under $500 in 2023, the harsh truth remains that most medical debts far exceed this modest threshold. The national average, a sobering $3,100, tells the tale of a society where the price of health is measured in crushing balances. In California alone, nearly four in ten residents shoulder medical debt, a figure that rises to over half among the low-income, as revealed by the California Health Care Foundation.

But, as in all things, there is a caveat. The law’s shield extends only to debts owed directly to medical providers or collection agencies. Those who rely on the ill-fated convenience of medical or general credit cards find themselves beyond its protection, their debts still bound to the capricious judgment of the credit bureaus.

Thus, while this law may not banish the specter of medical debt entirely, it offers a reprieve, a moment of grace in a world all too eager to punish the vulnerable for the audacity of falling ill. It is a small victory, yet one that hints at the possibility of a more just society—one in which the ailments of the body do not leave permanent wounds upon the soul.

Going native historically

But supporters of a new law that goes into effect on Jan. 1 say that there are still grave concerns that the history of California Native Americans — including enslavement, starvation, illness and violence — is still misleading or completely absent from the curriculum.

AB 1821, authored by Assemblymember James Ramos, D-San Bernardino, aims to address this. When California next updates its history-social science curriculum — on or after Jan. 1 — it asks that the Instruction Quality Commission consult with California tribes to develop a curriculum including the treatment and perspectives of Native Americans during the Spanish colonization and the Gold Rush eras.

“The mission era of Spanish occupation was one of the most devastating and sensitive periods in the history of California’s native peoples and the lasting impact of that period is lost in the current curriculum,” according to a statement from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, one of the supporters of the legislation.

Desegregate already

Ah, my dear friend, what a splendid spectacle of justice and progress is unfurling before our eyes! Picture, if you will, the gilded chambers of history opening their doors to let in the sunlight of truth—this is precisely what this new law aims to achieve. It beckons the state to revisit and refine the chronicles of its past, ensuring that the luminous tale of Mendez v. Westminster is given its rightful place upon the pedestal of remembrance.

It was in 1945, amidst the orchards and orange blossoms of California, that a grave injustice was challenged. Mexican-American parents, armed not with swords but with the unyielding conviction of love for their children, took up arms against the dark specter of segregation. Their triumph illuminated the path toward equality, inspiring California to become the vanguard in abolishing the blight of segregation from its public schools. Such a victory was not merely a legal decree but a proclamation of humanity’s better instincts—a prelude, if you will, to the symphonic crescendo of Brown v. Board of Education.

The story of Mendez is no mere anecdote; it is a parable of unity, a testament to the power of inter-ethnic solidarity. How fitting that it should now be etched more prominently into the annals of education, woven into the tapestry of history lessons for our youth. The Westminster School District, with commendable grace, lends its voice to ensure that this chapter is not merely remembered but celebrated—a beacon to guide future generations toward justice and fellowship.

And so, let us applaud this endeavor, for it is not merely a revision of curriculum but an act of restoration—a gesture of reverence for those who dared to dream of a brighter, fairer world. Let the past speak with eloquence to the present, and may its lessons resound through the ages, as only truth, when polished to its finest luster, can do.

Hair today, hair tomorrow

how the law seeks to untangle the knotted threads of prejudice, weaving instead a tapestry of dignity and equality! Assembly Bill 1815 strides boldly forward, casting its light upon an insidious form of discrimination—one that has long lurked in the shadows of cultural ignorance and petty bias. Here, at last, is legislation that endeavors to liberate not just the individual, but the expression of their very identity.

Though the CROWN Act already guards against such affronts in many realms, this new provision extends the shield of justice into the arenas of amateur and club sports, where the echoes of outdated prejudice have lingered too long. With elegant precision, the bill revises the language of the California Code, recognizing that the markers of identity are not merely “historical” but vibrantly cultural—a nuanced yet profound shift in understanding.

The American Civil Liberties Union, ever the champion of liberty’s cause, aptly describes this effort as a remedy for a pernicious slight often inflicted upon our youth. Bias against natural textures and protective hairstyles—those braids, locks, and twists that speak volumes of heritage and pride—is a quiet violence, a theft of self-expression. By addressing this injustice, the law casts off the remnants of archaic prejudice and asserts that the playing fields of sport, like the wider stage of life, must be arenas of equality and respect.

Let us commend this noble effort! For in protecting the strands of identity, we uphold the strands of humanity itself, recognizing that beauty lies not in conformity but in the dazzling diversity of the human spirit. Such legislation is no mere legalese; it is an ode to individuality and a testament to the unyielding march of progress.

Child content creation must be fair

Ah, how fitting that the gilded age of digital fame should now be tempered with the golden virtues of justice and foresight! In a world where even the youngest among us are drawn into the luminous whirl of online creation, Governor Newsom has wielded the pen with a deft and benevolent hand, signing into law measures that cradle the dreams of child creators in the arms of protection.

Senate Bill 764 and Assembly Bill 1880—twin sentinels of equity—rise to expand the mantle of safeguarding once reserved for the child performers of stage and screen. Now, they extend their reach into the boundless ether of the digital sphere, where vloggers, podcasters, influencers, and streamers weave their bright tapestries of creativity. These laws decree, with both wisdom and grace, that at least 15% of the earnings accrued by these youthful artisans shall be held in trust, a shimmering dowry for the adults they are yet to become.

It is a poetic justice, is it not, that the fruits of a child’s labor, so often plucked by others, should now be preserved for the very hands that sowed them? These laws stand as a testament to the recognition that even amidst the intoxicating allure of digital stardom, there lies a duty to nurture and protect. They remind us that innocence and ambition need not be at odds, and that the light of youth should be neither exploited nor extinguished.

Let us celebrate these measures, for they do not merely regulate—they ennoble. They enshrine in law a simple yet profound truth: that the joy of creation should be met with the security of preservation. Thus, the stage is set for a future where young creators may flourish, unencumbered by the shadows of exploitation, and bask in the light of their own hard-won legacies.

Expanded acohol education for the kiddos

California public school students will get additional coursework on the harms of alcohol in 2025, thanks to a new law from a former lawmaker whose drunken driving arrest inspired her legislation.

In September, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2865 by former Los Angeles Democratic Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, whose DUI last year helped derail her political career.

California schools are already required to provide instruction about alcohol, narcotics and other dangerous drugs. This bill would require that schools also provide instruction about the short- and long-term harms of excessive drinking — including alcohol’s link to chronic diseases, mental health problems and deaths.

Under the new law, school boards can decide which grades receive the new instruction. They can ask the state for reimbursements for the costs of instruction, training and updates to instructional materials, said Nicholas Filipas, a spokesperson for the California Department of Education.

Best of the rest…

Voter ID Ban Sparks Clash Between Conservative Cities and the State

California, ever the stage for political theatrics, finds itself embroiled in yet another tempest. This time, it is voter identification laws—the perennial darling of conservative agendas—that have ignited the latest battle. Propelled into prominence by the fervent proclamations of election fraud from President-elect Donald Trump, voter ID requirements now serve as the banner under which local and state governments skirmish.

A new state law, which took effect on the first day of the year, forbids municipalities from demanding that voters present identification at the polls. Yet, the city of Huntington Beach, brimming with defiance, has chosen to rebel against this directive, becoming the unlikely protagonist in a tale of democracy’s complexities.

For Car Buyers, 2025 Brings Diminished Protections

For Californians with a penchant for secondhand vehicles—or, dare we say, clunkers—the year 2025 heralds a rather disheartening chapter. The state Supreme Court has clipped the wings of warranty protections for used cars, leaving consumers adrift amid the already murky waters of lemon law regulations. Lawmakers have pledged to revisit these rules, yet until they do, buyers must navigate this terrain with diminished safeguards, their faith placed precariously in the promises of sellers.

California Stiffens Penalties for Theft Amid Rising Concerns

The specter of retail theft has long loomed over California, and now, the state has unveiled new laws to confront this menace with renewed vigor. Beginning January 1, harsher measures have been introduced to streamline prosecutions for those accused of pilfering from shops. Not content with this alone, voters have also passed Proposition 36, tightening the reins on sentences for theft and drug offenses. Thus, the pendulum swings yet again in the eternal debate over justice and severity.

Protections for Emergency Workers Take Center Stage

In a world increasingly fraught with discord, even those tasked with saving lives have found themselves under siege. A new law imposes stricter penalties on those who assault emergency room workers, addressing a disturbing rise in such attacks. Yet, not all are content with this path; progressive voices and prison-reform advocates warn of the potential consequences, their protests mingling with the cries of justice. And so, California’s legal landscape shifts once more, a reflection of the times and tensions that define it.

Other Laws of Note

Starting January 1, 2025, tenants will have 10 days to respond to an unlawful detainer summons and complaint, doubling the previous 5-day deadline that has been in effect since 1971 (AB 2347).

Under AB 1186, minors can no longer be charged with restitution fines and any outstanding balances of these fines will be uncollectible and unenforceable 10 years after they were imposed.

New California Laws 2025 (part 21)

SB-946	Personal Income Tax Law: Corporation Tax Law: exclusions: wildfire mitigation payments.
SB-948	Political Reform Act of 1974: contribution limitations.
SB-949	Superior court: lactation accommodation.
SB-951	California Coastal Act of 1976: coastal zone: coastal development.
SB-956	School facilities: design-build contracts.
SB-957	Data collection: sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status.
SB-958	Surplus state property: County of Napa.
SB-960	Transportation: planning: complete streets facilities: transit priority facilities.
SB-962	San Diego Unified Port District: public employee pension benefits.
SB-963	Hospitals: self-identification procedure: human trafficking or domestic violence.
SB-965	Firearms.
SB-969	Alcoholic beverages: entertainment zones: consumption.
SB-974	Lithium Extraction Tax: fund distribution.
SB-976	Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act.
SB-977	County of San Luis Obispo Redistricting Commission.
SB-978	State government: budget: state publications: format.
SB-981	Sexually explicit digital images.
SB-982	Crimes: organized theft.
SB-985	Check Sellers, Bill Payers and Proraters Law: exemption: nonprofit community service organizations.
SB-988	Freelance Worker Protection Act.
SB-9 8 9	Domestic violence: deaths.
SB-990	Office of Emergency Services: State Emergency Plan: LGBTQ+ individuals.
SB-991	School districts: Los Angeles Unified School District: inspector general.
SB-994	Local government: joint powers authority: transfer of authority.
SB-997	Pupil health: opioid antagonists and fentanyl test strips.
SB-1001	Death penalty: intellectually disabled persons.
SB-1002	Firearms: prohibited persons.
SB-1005	Juveniles.
SB-1006	Electricity: transmission capacity: reconductoring and grid-enhancing technologies.
SB-1009	Mount Shasta Fish Hatchery: lease.

SB-1015	Nursing schools and programs.
SB-1016	Latino and Indigenous Disparities Reduction Act.
SB-1019	Firearms: destruction.
SB-1024	Healing arts: Board of Behavioral Sciences: licensees and registrants.
SB-1025	Pretrial diversion for veterans.
SB-1027	Political Reform Act of 1974: disclosures.
SB-1034	California Public Records Act: state of emergency.
SB-1037	Planning and zoning: housing element: enforcement.
SB-1043	Short-term residential therapeutic programs: dashboard: seclusion or behavioral restraints.
SB-1044	Bingo: overhead costs.
SB-1046	Organic waste reduction: program environmental impact report: small and medium compostable material handling facilities or operations.
SB-1048	Planning and zoning: local planning: site plans.
SB-1051	Victims of abuse or violence: lock changes.
SB-1053	Solid waste: recycled paper bags: standards: carryout bag prohibition.
SB-1059	Cannabis: local taxation: gross receipts.
SB-1 061	Consumer debt: medical debt.
SB-1063	Pupil safety: identification cards.
SB-1064	Cannabis: operator and separate premises license types: excessive concentration of licenses.
SB-1068	Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority: contracting: Construction Manager/General Contractor project delivery method.
SB-1069	State prisons: Office of the Inspector General.
SB-1070	Health care district: County of Imperial.
SB-1072	Local government: Proposition 218: remedies.
SB-1075	Credit unions: overdraft and nonsufficient funds fees.
SB-1077	Coastal resources: local coastal program: amendments: accessory and junior accessory dwelling units.
SB-1089	Food and prescription access: grocery and pharmacy closures.
SB-1090	Unemployment insurance: disability and paid family leave: claim administration.
SB-1091	School facilities: school projects: accessible path of travel requirements.
SB-1096	Mailed solicitations: disclosure statement.
SB-1097	Veterans: military and veterans: gender-neutral terms.
SB-1098	Passenger and freight rail: LOSSAN Rail Corridor.

President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, is convicted of all 3 felonies in federal gun trial

The Truth News — Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:32:48 +0000

President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, FOUND GUILTY, convicted of all 3 felonies in federal gun trial

WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) — Hunter Biden was convicted Tuesday of all three felony charges related to the purchase of a revolver in 2018 when, prosecutors argued, the president’s son lied on a mandatory gun-purchase form by saying he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.

Hunter Biden, 54, stared straight ahead and showed little emotion as the verdict was read after jury deliberations that lasted only three hours over two days in Wilmington, Delaware. He hugged his attorneys, smiled wanly and kissed his wife, Melissa, before leaving the courtroom with her.

President Joe Biden said in a statement issued shortly after the verdict that he would accept the outcome and “continue to respect the judicial process as Hunter considers an appeal.”

What to know about Hunter Biden’s conviction:

What happened? Jurors found Hunter Biden guilty of lying to a federally licensed gun dealer, making a false claim on the application by saying he was not a drug user and illegally having the gun for 11 days.
Key witnesses: Hunter Biden’s ex-wife and a former girlfriend testified about finding his crack pipes and other drug paraphernalia.
Follow live updates: An exact sentencing date has not been set. He faces up to 25 years in prison, though first-time offenders do not get anywhere near the maximum, and it’s unclear whether the judge would sentence him to any time behind bars.

Now Hunter Biden and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, the president’s chief political rival, have both been convicted by American jurors in an election year that has been as much about the courtroom as about campaign events and rallies.

Hunter Biden faces up to 25 years in prison when he is sentenced by U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika, though as a first-time offender he would not get anywhere near the maximum, and there’s no guarantee the judge would send him to prison. She did not set a sentencing date.

Defense attorney Abbe Lowell said they would “continue to vigorously pursue all the legal challenges available.” In a written statement, Hunter Biden said he was disappointed by the outcome but grateful for the support of family and friends.

The jury’s decision was read swiftly after the announcement that it reached a verdict. First lady Jill Biden sat through nearly every day of the trial but did not make it into the courtroom in time to hear the verdict. Hunter Biden walked out of the courthouse holding hands with the first lady and his wife before they got into got into waiting SUVs and drove off.

Joe Biden steered clear of the federal courtroom where his son was tried and said little about the case, wary of appearing to interfere in a criminal matter brought by his own Justice Department. But allies of the Democrat have worried about the toll that the trial — and now the conviction — will take on the 81-year-old, who has long been concerned with his only living son’s health and sustained sobriety.

Hunter Biden’s conviction came just weeks after Trump was found guilty of 34 felony charges related to a hush money payment to a porn actor in the 2016 campaign. The cases are in no way the same, and Hunter Biden is a private citizen who is not running for office. But they have both argued they were victimized by the politics of the moment.

Trump, however, has continued to falsely claim his verdict was “rigged,” while Joe Biden has said he would accept the verdict involving his son and would not seek to pardon him.

In his statement Tuesday, the president said he and the first lady are proud of their son, who says he has been been sober since 2019, and will always be there for him with “love and support.”

Trump’s campaign called the verdict “nothing more than a distraction from the real crimes of the Biden Crime Family.” Trump and his allies have pressed unsubstantiated or debunked allegations that Joe Biden acted while vice president to advance his family members’ foreign business interests.

The verdict came down as the president prepared to give a speech at a conference hosted by the Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund in Washington. He did not mention his son as he spoke about his administration’s efforts to stop gun violence and the need to ban so-called assault weapons.

Hours after the conviction, President Biden hugged his son after landing in Wilmington to spend the night with family before leaving Wednesday for the Group of Seven leaders conference in Italy. Hunter Biden, his wife and their child greeted the president on the tarmac, and the president lingered to visit with them for several minutes.

Jurors found Hunter Biden guilty of lying to a federally licensed gun dealer, making a false claim on the application by saying he was not a drug user and illegally having the gun for 11 days.

The trial played out in the president’s home state, where Hunter Biden grew up and where the family is deeply established. Joe Biden spent 36 years as a senator in Delaware, commuting daily to Washington, and his other son, Beau Biden, was the state attorney general before he died of cancer.The proceedings put a spotlight on a dark time in Hunter Biden’s life, with deeply personal testimony from former romantic partners and embarrassing evidence, including text messages and photos of Hunter Biden with drug paraphernalia or partially clothed.

In his closing argument on Monday, prosecutor Leo Wise acknowledged the evidence was “ugly.” But he told jurors it was also “absolutely necessary” to prove Hunter was in the throes of addiction when he bought the gun and therefore lied when he checked “no” on the form that asked whether he was “an unlawful user of, or addicted to” drugs.

Before the case went to the jury, the prosecutor urged jurors to pay no mind to members of the president’s family sitting in the courtroom, telling them: “People sitting in the gallery are not evidence.”

Hunter Biden arrives to federal court with his wife, Melissa Cohen Biden, Tuesday, June 11, 2024, in Wilmington, Del. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

David Weiss, the prosecutor who has led the long-running investigation into the president’s son, told reporters the case was about Hunter Biden’s “illegal choices” and “dangerous” conduct.

“No one in this country is above the law,” said Weiss, the Trump-nominated U.S. attorney for Delaware, who was named special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland in August. “Everyone must be accountable for their actions.”

Hunter Biden’s lawyers had argued that he did not consider himself an “addict” when he bought the gun. They sought to show he was trying to turn his life around at the time, having completed a rehabilitation program at the end of August 2018.

Hunter Biden’s legal troubles aren’t over. He faces a trial in September in California on charges of failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes, and congressional Republicans have signaled they will keep going after him in their stalled impeachment effort into the president. The president has not been accused or charged with any wrongdoing by prosecutors investigating his son.

Just last year, it appeared that Hunter Biden would avoid the spectacle of a trial so close to the election. Under a deal with prosecutors, he was supposed to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax offenses and avoid prosecution in the gun case if he stayed out of trouble for two years.

But the deal fell apart after Noreika, who was nominated by Trump, questioned unusual aspects of the proposed agreement, and the lawyers could not resolve the matter.

Hunter Biden has said he was charged because the Justice Department bowed to pressure from Republicans who argued the Democratic president’s son was getting special treatment.

source

Trump highlights Biden admin authorizing ‘deadly use of force’ in Mar-a-Lago raid

The Truth News — Thu, 23 May 2024 21:41:09 +0000

Trump highlights Biden admin authorizing ‘deadly use of force’ in Mar-a-Lago raid

FBI said it followed standard protocol in its August 2022 raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida

‘Deadly force’ authorized during FBI’s 2022 raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate: Court docs

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi joined ‘Fox & Friends First’ to discuss her reaction to the newly unveiled court documents and the latest on the NY v. Trump trial in Manhattan.

The Biden administration authorized the use of deadly force during the FBI’s raid on former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida in August 2022 as part of its investigation into classified records, court documents revealed.

“The FBI followed standard protocol in this search as we do for all search warrants, which includes a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force. No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter,” the FBI told Fox News in a statement Tuesday.

An “Operations Order” produced in discovery as part of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into Trump’s alleged improper retention of classified records revealed that the “FBI believed its objective for the Mar-a-Lago raid was to seize ‘classified information, NDI, and US Government records,’” as described in the search warrant.

The order, according to a court filing, contained a “Policy Statement” regarding “Use of Deadly Force,” which stated, for example, “Law Enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force when necessary.”\

FLASHBACK: TRUMP SAYS MAR-A-LAGO HOME IN FLORIDA ‘UNDER SIEGE’ BY FBI AGENTS

This view shows the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida. (Charles Trainor Jr./Miami Herald/Tribune News Service via Getty Images/File)

According to the filing, the DOJ and FBI agents “planned to bring ‘Standard Issue Weapons,’ ‘Ammo,’ ‘Handcuffs,’ and ‘medium and large sized bolt cutters,’ but they were instructed to wear ‘unmarked polo or collared shirts’ and to keep ‘law enforcement equipment concealed.”

Trump, who spent another day in a New York City courtroom for his unprecedented criminal trial stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation into Trump allegedly falsifying business records, reacted to the revelations Tuesday afternoon.

The FBI has been criticized for raiding former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home. (Fox News)

“WOW! I just came out of the Biden Witch Hunt Trial in Manhattan, the ‘Icebox,’ and was shown Reports that Crooked Joe Biden’s DOJ, in their Illegal and UnConstitutional Raid of Mar-a-Lago, AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE,” Trump posted on his Truth Social. “NOW WE KNOW, FOR SURE, THAT JOE BIDEN IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO DEMOCRACY.”

FEDERAL JUDGE POSTPONES TRUMP’S CLASSIFIED RECORDS TRIAL WITH NO NEW DATE

Trump added, “HE IS MENTALLY UNFIT TO HOLD OFFICE — 25TH AMENDMENT!”

This image contained in a DOJ court filing on Aug. 30, 2022, and redacted in part by the FBI, shows a photo of documents seized during the Aug. 8, 2022, search by the FBI of former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. (Department of Justice via AP)

Trump was charged out of Smith’s investigation into his retention of classified materials. Trump pleaded not guilty to all 37 felony charges from Smith’s probe, including willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and false statements.

Trump was also charged with an additional three counts as part of a superseding indictment out of the investigation: a count of willful retention of national defense information and two obstruction counts.

Trump pleaded not guilty.

The federal judge presiding over the case, Judge Aileen Cannon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, postponed the trial stemming from Smith’s case indefinitely. The trial was set to begin May 20. source

DISCLOSURE AND USE OF CCW INFORMATION

The Truth News — Sat, 09 Mar 2024 00:02:15 +0000

DISCLOSURE AND USE OF CCW INFORMATION

Cities and counties in California must maintain certain records regarding CCW applications and licenses and forward this information to the DOJ.²⁷ The application and record of a CCW license are public documents unless they contain information by which the county sheriff or municipal police chief can demonstrate that the public interest served by not making such records public clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure.²⁸ Nevertheless, certain information contained in the applications for CCW licenses and the records of CCW applicants may not be disclosed to the public.²⁹

see also

Select Senate Bill No. 1421 – California Public Records Act Senate Bill No. 1421 – California Public Records Act

California generally requires a Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) license in order to lawfully carry a concealed firearm in public.¹

Prior to June 2022, California law provided local law enforcement with broad discretion to issue or deny CCW licenses and to require applicants for CCW licenses to demonstrate “good cause” to qualify for a license. Accordingly, many local agencies exercised this discretion by generally issuing CCW licenses only to applicants who identified a particularized safety concern or other unique reason (or “cause”) for wanting to carry deadly weapons in public spaces that differentiated them from the general public. However, in 2023, California updated its CCW licensing laws after the US Supreme Court’s June 23, 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (“NYSRPA”) v. Bruen invalidated these specific aspects.

Now, under California law, local law enforcement officials shall issue CCW licenses upon determining that the applicant:

(1) Is not a disqualified person (see below);
(2) Is at least 21 years of age, and presents clear evidence of their identity and age;
(3) Has completed a firearms safety course (see below);
(4) Is the recorded owner, with the California Department of Justice, of the firearm for which the license will be issued; and
(5) Meets relevant residency requirements.²

If, on an initial application, the licensing authority requires psychological testing for the license applicant, the applicant must be referred to a licensed psychologist used by the licensing authority for the psychological testing of its own employees.³

Applicants for CCW licenses in California may generally apply to either the local police department in the city where they reside or to the sheriff’s department in the county where they reside.⁴ (A local police department and the sheriff of the county in which the city is located may also enter into an agreement to delegate review of all CCW applications within the city to one of the two law enforcement agencies.) ⁵ A person who spends “a substantial period of time” in their principal place of employment or business in a county other than their county of residence may also apply for a CCW license from the sheriff of the county where their place of employment or business is located.⁶ A CCW license generally lasts two years and is generally valid throughout the state; however, a license issued based on the applicant’s place of employment or business may be valid no longer than 90 days and only in the county where it was issued.⁷

The local CCW licensing authority must give written notice to the applicant indicating that the application has been approved or denied within 120 days of the initial application for a new license or a license renewal, or 30 days after receipt of the applicant’s criminal background check from the California Department of Justice, whichever is later. If the license is denied, the notice must state which requirement was not satisfied.⁸

The local CCW licensing authority may include any reasonable restrictions or conditions which the issuing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which the CCW license holder is authorized to carry a firearm concealed in public.⁹ Any such restrictions must be indicated on the license itself.¹⁰ However, no licensing authority may require an applicant to obtain liability insurance or pay any additional fees not otherwise authorized by law as a condition of the application for a license.¹¹ In 2023, California passed a law prohibiting a CCW licensee from doing any of the following while carrying a firearm as authorized by their license:

(1) Consuming an alcoholic beverage or controlled substance;
(2) Going to a bar;
(3) Being under the influence of any alcoholic beverage, medication, or controlled substance;
(4) Carrying a firearm not listed on their license or a firearm for which they are not the recorded owner;
(5) Falsely representing that they are a peace officer;
(6) Engaging in an unjustified display of a deadly weapon;
(7) Failing to carry their CCW license on their person;
(8) Impeding a police officer in their duties;
(9) Refusing to display their license or to provide the firearm to a peace officer upon demand, for purposes of inspecting the firearm.
(10) Violating any federal, state, or local criminal law.¹²

Every CCW license must specify the particular firearm the person is authorized to carry, giving the name of the manufacturer, the serial number, and the caliber, as well as the licensee’s name, driver’s license or identification number, Criminal Identification and Information number, occupation, residence and business address, the licensee’s date of birth, height, weight, color of eyes and hair, and indicate the type of license issued, including license issuance and expiration date, and shall contain the licensee’s fingerprints, a picture of the licensee.¹³

The city or county that has issued a CCW license must revoke the license if, at any time, either the city or county is notified by the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) or determines that a license holder is legally prohibited from possessing firearms or that the licensee has become a disqualified person.¹⁴ If DOJ determines that a licensee is prohibited from possessing firearms, DOJ must immediately notify the city or county,¹⁵ and the licensee must be immediately notified in writing that their license was revoked.¹⁶

“DISQUALIFIED PERSON”

An applicant for a CCW license shall be deemed a “disqualified person” and cannot receive or renew a license if they:

(1) Are reasonably likely to be a danger to themself, others, or the community at large, as demonstrated by anything in their license application or through investigation by the local CCW licensing authority;
(2) Have been convicted of contempt of court;
(3) Have been subject to any restraining order, protective order, or certain other court orders within the previous five years;
(4) Have been convicted of a civil rights or hate crime offense, or misdemeanor that would make the applicant ineligible to possess a firearm, within the previous ten years;
(5) Have engaged in an unlawful or reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm;
(6) Have been charged with a serious felony, a misdemeanor sex offense, or misdemeanor that would make the applicant ineligible to possess a firearm, that was dismissed pursuant to a plea, within the previously ten years;
(7) Have been committed to or incarcerated in county jail or state prison for, or on probation, parole or post-release community supervision, or mandatory supervision as a result of, a controlled substances offense;
(8) Are currently abusing controlled substances;
(9) Have experienced the loss or theft of multiple firearms due to their lack of compliance with federal, state, or local law regarding storing, transporting, or securing the firearms; or
(10) Failed to report a loss of a firearm as required by federal, state, or local law;

The local CCW licensing authority is required to conduct an investigation to determine whether an applicant is a “disqualified person.” This investigation must include, for new applications, an in-person interview with the applicant and interviews with at least three character references.¹⁷ One reference must be the applicant’s cohabitant, if they have one.¹⁸ For all applications, the licensing authority must review publicly available information about the applicant, all information provided in the application, information provided by California DOJ as to whether the applicant is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing firearms, and information in the California Restraining and Protective Order System.¹⁹

CCW SAFETY TRAINING

New CCW license applicants are required to complete a training course approved by the local licensing authority, which must provide at least 16 hours of instruction on firearm handling, shooting technique, and relevant gun safety laws; a demonstration by the applicant of shooting proficiency and safe handling of each firearm the applicant will be licensed to carry; and live-fire exercises conducted on a firing range.²⁰ (Alternatively, the licensing authority may require a community college course certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, up to a maximum of 24 hours, but only if required uniformly of all license applicants without exception).²¹

CCW DURATION AND RENEWAL

Subject to limited exceptions, a California CCW license is valid for up to two years from the date of issuance or renewal.²² License renewal applicants must fulfill most of the same requirements for the original issuance of the license.²³ However, renewal applicants may fulfill the safety training course requirements through any course of training approved by the city or county that is at least eight hours long and that provides instruction on firearm handling, shooting technique, and relevant gun safety laws; a demonstration by the applicant of shooting proficiency and safe handling of each firearm the applicant will be licensed to carry; and live-fire exercises conducted on a firing range.²⁴ The city or county issuing the license may require additional psychological testing of a renewal applicant only if there is compelling evidence to indicate that a test is necessary.²⁵ The city or county may not require the applicant to provide additional information other than that necessary to complete the original application or to clarify information provided in the original application.²⁶

DISCLOSURE AND USE OF CCW INFORMATION

Cities and counties in California must maintain certain records regarding CCW applications and licenses and forward this information to the DOJ.²⁷ The application and record of a CCW license are public documents unless they contain information by which the county sheriff or municipal police chief can demonstrate that the public interest served by not making such records public clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure.²⁸ Nevertheless, certain information contained in the applications for CCW licenses and the records of CCW applicants may not be disclosed to the public.²⁹

RECIPROCITY OF OTHER STATES’ CCW LICENSES

California does not recognize CCW licenses issued by other states. People who have obtained CCW licenses from other states generally may not carry concealed firearms in public in California. source

CCW holder personal information could be made public by law

REDDING, Calif — Many in the Northstate who own a firearm and are Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) permit holders are aware of the Concealed Carry Weapon License Application process which requires personal information from the applicant to be submitted to receive a permit. Information that is asked to be provided includes your name, date of birth, and your occupation, etc.

However, one might not be aware that the information you provide may be subject to public disclosure by law through the California Public Records Act (CPRA). The law requires that governmental records be made available to the public upon request unless otherwise excused by law.

In January, several northern county sheriff’s offices received a public record request made by a major newspaper publication based in the Bay Area for CCW holder information, including the Butte County Sheriff’s Office and the Tehama County Sheriff’s Office who have received the same request.

According to the Butte County Sheriff Kory Honea, he stated that some of the information requested by the newspaper included releasing the full name of all CCW permit applicants since January 1 of 2015, the date of when the CCW permit application was received, the date the CCW permit was issued for approval and other information.

Sheriff Honea stated the sheriff’s office has complied with the law, however, it only released some information, due to privacy concerns. In addition, Sheriff Honea has also decided to notify all CCW holders in Butte County about the made request through a letter and what information they have provided to the newspaper.

The Tehama County Sheriff’s Office Undersheriff Phil Johnston stated they have also received the public records act request on January 9 for CCW holder information. However, before the sheriff’s office could comply with the request, Undersheriff Johnston said the newspaper made a formal request to withdraw their request for CCW holder information data and currently halted their pursuit for information to other agencies. source

CALIFORNIA CARRY LICENSE (“CCW”) GUIDE AND FAQ
I. APPLYING FOR A CARRY LICENSE
All individuals seeking to obtain a California Carry License must complete the
standard Department of Justice “Initial and Renewal Application for License to Carry a
Concealed Weapon” form (BOF Form #2012, Rev. 11/2012).
Q: Where do I Submit my Application for a Carry License?
A: Applicants residing in an unincorporated county territory can only apply to
the sheriff of their county. If they reside in an incorporated city, they can
apply to either the city police department (assuming it is an issuing
authority) or the county sheriff.
Sheriffs are required to accept all CCW applications. Police Chiefs can opt
out of being a CCW issuing authority, in which case they cannot accept
any applications (the Sheriff of the county in which the city is located then
becomes the sole issuing authority), but if they are an issuing authority,
they too must accept all applications. Some issuing authorities will refuse
to accept an application because they require applicants to apply to their
city of residence first (or vice versa). But, this is an illegal practice. If the
issuing authority insists, please contact us.
Note: As discussed below, some agencies may require the individual to
schedule an appointment to go over the initial application before
filling it out.
Q: Where Can I Find the Application Form?
A: Many issuing authorities post the standard Department of Justice
application on their website. If not, a copy of the application form can be
found on the Michel & Associates, P.C. Website.
Q: What Do I Need to Know in Completing the Application?
A: On page 2 of the application, it states that the applicant should not write in
the “Public Disclosure Admonition” section, the “Agreement to
Restrictions and to Hold Harmless” section, and the “Release of
Information and Declaration” sections, as these all need to be completed in
the presence of an agent of the issuing authority who will co-sign, usually
at the initial interview stage. The “Investigator’s Interview Notes” section
1
(section 7) should also be left blank unless otherwise instructed by the
issuing authority.
Q: What Happens if I Provide False Information in My Application?
A: At the very least, you are subject to prosecution for a misdemeanor, and if
the information concerned a denial or revocation of a license, a criminal
conviction, an insanity determination, use of a controlled substance,
dishonorable discharge from the armed services, commitment to a mental
institution, or renunciation of U.S. citizenship, you may be guilty of a
felony.
Q: Do I Need to Submit Anything Other Than the Application?
A: With the application, applicants may also be required to submit
fingerprints using the livescan method and pay the associated fee of $95.
Livescan is a digital method of fingerprinting and is usually done with the
issuing authority, but if the issuing authority allows it, can be done with
any Department of Justice certified livescan operator. Other than the
livescan fingerprinting, the issuing authority cannot require any additional
information beyond what is asked for in the standard Department of
Justice application, except what is necessary to clarify or interpret the
answers given in the application.
Note: Unfortunately, some issuing authorities in California require
additional information, despite being illegal. Additional litigation
may be necessary to correct this.
Q: Are There Any Fees Required to Apply?
A: California law authorizes issuing authorities to charge of a fee of up to
$100 to process an application fee. However, only the first 20% (i.e. $20
maximum) of the local application fee may be collected by the issuing
authority up front. No other fees may be collected at this time, except the
fees for livescan fingerprinting if required. Only upon a determination of
good cause may the issuing authority then require the remaining fees to be
collected. Not all issuing authorities require an application fee.
Q: Why Must I List a Handgun in my Application?
A: An applicant must list on page 5 of the Department of Justice application
the make, model, caliber, and serial number of the firearms to be used in
conjunction with the license. A carry license holder is only allowed to
2
carry those firearms that are listed on the license. Some issuing authorities
check to make sure the weapon is not stolen, subject to an investigation, or
otherwise questionable. Contact your issuing authority regarding what the
limits (if any) there are as to how many firearms may be listed.
Note: Although it is possible to have a carry license with no listed
firearm, to carry a firearm under a carry license it must be listed
on the license or added to the license at a later date. Practically
speaking, it is unlikely that an issuing authority will issue a carry
license to an individual who does not list a firearm on their initial
application.
Q: Can I List Firearms on the Application That I Do Not Own?
A: Whether a wife can list a handgun that her husband owns, for example,
will depend on the issuing authority’s policy. Check with your issuing
authority.
Q: Must I Possess a Handgun Before I Begin the Application Process?
A: Check with your issuing authority if it is required you list the handgun(s)
you wish to list on the application at the start of the application or if you
can wait until your application has been evaluated.
Q: What is the Initial Interview?
A: Some issuing authorities require an applicant to attend an initial interview
conducted by a representative of the issuing authority. At the interview,
the issuing authority will generally go over the application and the
department’s policies. Contact your issuing authority to set up an
appointment for the interview if required and to determine what, if
anything, you must bring with you.
Note: It is illegal for an issuing authority to require any information that
is not otherwise required in the application. However, authority is
allowed to ask questions to clarify any responses you have given
on the application should it be necessary.
3
II. QAULIFYING FOR A CARRY LICENSE
Q: What are the Requirements to Obtain a Carry License?
A: Applicants seeking a carry license must show:
1) They have “good cause” for the license,
2) They are of good moral character,
3) They are a resident of the city or county in which they apply,
4) They possess a handgun and list it on the application,
5) They complete all required training,
6) They pass a background check confirming they are not prohibited from
possessing firearms under California or Federal law,
7) They pass a psychological test, if required by the issuing authority, and
8) They pay all required fees.
Q: What is Good Cause?
A: The ability to obtain a carry license in any given jurisdiction generally
depends on the respective issuing authority’s interpretation of what
constitutes “good cause.” There is no definition for “good cause.” As the
law is currently understood, the issuing agency has broad discretion to
determine what constitutes “good cause.” Some issuing agencies simply
require the assertion of a need for self-defense to establish “good cause,”
while others require applicants to provide evidence of a serious threat to
their lives or even refuse to issue any license (or rarely do), essentially no
matter what evidence of “good cause” an applicant provides. Different
jurisdiction interpretations of what constitutes “good cause” have led to
wide disparity in whether carry licenses are issued in any given
jurisdiction. Recently, the NRA won a landmark ruling in the case of
Peruta v. County of San Diego. In Peruta, a three judge panel from the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down San Diego County Sheriff
William Gore’s policy requiring that law-abiding adults prove they have a
special need in order to establish “good cause” to be issued a carry license.
4
If the Peruta decision stands, issuing authorities will have to accept “selfdefense” as satisfying the “good cause” requirement. Because the Peruta
decision has yet to become final, not all counties are accepting “selfdefense” as good cause. Many counties however already do regardless of
Peruta. Contact your issuing authority or consult its policy statement to
determine what is required for you to establish “good cause.”
Q: What is Good Moral Character?
A: Current California law also gives broad discretion to issuing authorities in
determining whether an applicant has good moral character. It is currently
unclear, however, exactly how much discretion issuing agencies enjoy.
Usually, however, an applicant is considered to be of good moral character
if they pass the required background check and do not have any serious
documented instances of poor judgment in their recent past. Of course
some issuing authorities may use trivial incidents as a basis for denial.
There will undoubtedly be litigation over the limits or troubling behavior
of issuing authorities discretion in this regard in the future.
Q: What Does it Mean to be a Resident?
A: It is not entirely clear what constitutes residency for a carry license
application because it is not defined. In a recent U.S. District Court ruling,
residency was defined as “a status akin to ‘domiciliary’ under California
law.” It is likely then that if the individual owns or rents their primary
residence within the jurisdiction of the issuing authority, that person will
satisfy this requirement.
Note: For 90-Day permit applications, individuals may also apply if their
primary business is located in the jurisdiction even if their
residence is not.
Q: How Do I Know if I am Prohibited from Firearm Possession?
A: Generally, people are prohibited by law from possessing firearms if they
have been convicted of a felony, was dishonorably discharged from the
military, is subject to a restraining order, convicted of a domestic violence
charge, involuntarily confined to a mental institution, found not guilty by
reason of insanity in any court proceeding, or been designated as a danger
to themselves or others. The Department of Justice conducts this
background check from the livescan fingerprinting provided with the
application and forwards the results to the issuing authority. You can find
5
out before applying by submitting a “Personal Firearms Eligibility Check”
to the California Department of Justice.
Q: What Training Must I Complete?
A: Applicants must complete a training course chosen by the issuing
authority. The training itself cannot exceed 16 hours for first time
applicants and must include instruction on firearm safety and laws
regarding the lawful use of firearms. Alternatively, issuing authorities
may require initial applicants to pass a community college course of up to
twenty-four (24) hours in length but only if required of all applicants.
Q: How do I Determine if an Instructor is Acceptable to my Issuing Authority?
A: California law gives the issuing authority discretion to certify which
individuals or entities can offer training to applicants, but not all of them
do. Usually, at some point in the application process, the issuing authority
will provide the applicant with information on where to obtain the required
training. If not, just ask.
Q: When Should I Begin Training?
A: An individual should not begin the required training course, and cannot be
required to do so, before a determination by the issuing authority has been
made as to whether or not the individual has satisfied the “good cause”
requirement. This prevents an individual from paying for a required
training class only to be later denied a license for a foreseeable reason.
Note: Some issuing authorities have restrictions on time frames for
completing the required training. Consult your issuing authority
and certified instructors for information concerning any time
limits.
Q: Is There a Fee for Training?
A: Most training is provided by private businesses, and as a result there is no
limit on what the cost associated with such training can be. Most training
courses however are competitive in terms of pricing ranging anywhere
between $200 to $300 for a full 16 hour course usually.
6
Q: My Issuing Authority Requires a Psychological Test, What do I do?
A: California law allows issuing authorities to conduct psychological tests on
applicants. If such testing is required, the applicant must be referred to a
licensed psychologist used by the licensing authority to test its own
employees. The cost for such a test cannot exceed $150. Contact your
issuing authority to arrange for an examination should this be required.
Q: What are the Total Required Fees For Applying?
A: There are two (2) fees an issuing authority may require in addition to the
Department of Justice Background check report fee of $95: 1) the local
application fee, and 2) a psychological test fee, if required. The local
application fee can be up to $100, and a required psychological test can be
up to $150. This makes total maximum application fees for first time
applications $195 if no psychological test is required, or $345 if one is.
Note: This does not include fees that applicant’s may have to pay to
private individuals or entities for training or conducting the livescan.
Q: How Do I Know if I Qualify for a License?
A: There is no sure way of knowing without applying (unless you know your
are legally prohibited from possessing firearms. However, due to an NRAsponsored bill, SB 610 (2012), every issuing authority is required by law
to publish and make available a written policy explaining their view on
each of the requirements. This policy must be available upon request, and
can usually be found on the issuing authority’s website. Information
concerning all 58 county sheriffs and their respective policies can be found
on our California County Sheriff Carry License Policy and Information
Database. If your issuing authority does not have such a policy, please
notify us.
Note: Some Sheriffs still maintain policies that are illegal under
California law. These policies are highlighted in red on the Policy
and Information database and may require additional litigation to
correct. Should you wish to obtain a license at this time and your
issuing authority maintains such a policy, you will still be required
to comply with such policies until they are corrected.
7
III. DETERMINATION TO DENY OR GRANT APPLICATION
Q: What is the Initial Approval or Denial?
A: After completing the initial interview or otherwise submitting the standard
application form, applicants must be informed in writing whether the
application has been initially approved and whether the applicant has
demonstrated a satisfactory “good cause” for the issuance of a license as
required by the issuing authority’s policy. A notification of initial denial
means the application has been rejected. A notification of initial approval
allows the applicant to proceed to the next phase of the application process
and complete the required training, take fingerprints for a department of
justice background check, undergo a psychological test (if required), and
pay all remaining fees associated with the application. Upon determination
that good cause does not exist, the written notice shall state the specific
reason from the department’s published policy as to why. Should you
receive a notice that your application has been denied for lack of “good
cause,” and the notice fails to state a reason why you were denied under
the issuing authority’s policy statement, please notify us. You should also
fill out and send this letter to your issuing authority.
Q: I Have Been Initially Approved and Completed All Other Requirements,
What Happens Now?
A: The issuing authority is required to give written notice upon satisfying all
of the above requirements to the applicant that the license is approved or
denied. Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) sets out certain requirements for issuing
authorities in processing carry license applications, including that they
explain in writing what their specific policies are and if the applicant is
denied, what part of the policy the applicant did not meet. If approved, the
issuing authority will issue a license with the applicants picture, a list of
firearms that can be carried by the applicant, and any restrictions placed on
the license by the issuing authority.
Q: How Long Do I Have to Wait for a Decision on My Application?
A: How long the process takes from the point of turning in the initial
application to the issuing authority making a decision to grant or deny the
license can vary. An application can be denied almost immediately if the
issuing authority’s initial determination is that the applicant lacks good
cause. The issuing authority has up to 90 days from the individual turning
in the application, or 30 days after the sheriff or police chief receives the
8
background check results from the Department of Justice, whichever is
later, to provide the required written notice to the applicant indicating that
the license has been approved or denied.
Q: I Have Received Written Notice of my Denial, but it Does Not State Why I
Was Denied, What Should I Do?
A: Should you receive notice from your issuing authority that your
application has been denied, and the notice fails to state a reason why you
were denied, please notify us. You should also fill out and send this letter
to your issuing authority.
Q: Can I Appeal a Denial of a License?
A: There is nothing in the California Penal Code requiring issuing authorities
to process appeals for the denial of a carry license. Most issuing
authorities nevertheless choose to maintain such a system. Check your
issuing authority’s policy or contact it to determine whether it has an
appeal process. You can always send a letter explaining your position.
IV. RESTRICTIONS ON LICENSE HOLDERS
Q: Where Does My License Allow Me to Carry My Firearm?
A: CCWs are generally valid statewide unless otherwise restricted by the
issuing authority. Also, carry license holders are prohibited from bringing
their firearm into federal facilities and buildings, bars or restaurants whose
primary purpose is the dispensing of alcohol, “sterile areas” of airports,
and other places. California law generally prohibits firearms on schools of
all types, but exempts CCW holders. Familiarize yourself with the law
before entering any place with your firearm. In addition to the law’s
general restrictions issuing authorities may include any reasonable time,
place or manner restrictions on where license holders may carry. Consult
your license for any such restrictions.
Note: There is a website with a map purporting to show what states
recognize California CCWs. We cannot confirm the accuracy of the map,
so you should not rely on it alone in deciding to carry a firearm under
your license in another state. We link to it for information only. You
should always consult an attorney in the state in which you wish to carry
before doing so. Unless recognized by another state, the license is not
valid outside of California.
9
Q: Are There Any Restrictions on When I Can Carry My Firearm With
My License?
A: Generally, a person cannot carry their firearm while consuming any
alcoholic beverage or under the influence of any medication or
drug. Furthermore, as a practical matter, a person can only carry
their firearm while at the same time carrying their license. Consult
your issuing authority for any additional restrictions.
Q: What Happens if my Address Changes or I Otherwise Move my
Residence?
A: First, you must notify your issuing authority within 10 days of any
change in a place of residence. A change of address cannot be
grounds for revocation of a license, however if the license holder
moves out of the county, and his or her place of residence was the
basis for issuance of the license, the license will expire after 90
days.
Q: What if I Want to Change the Handguns Listed on my License?
A: California law allows carry license holders to add or delete
authorized handguns from their license. To do so, they must file a
“CCW Amendment” application.
Q: How Long is the Carry License Good For?
A: Standard carry licenses for the average civilian are good for up to 2
years and can be renewed thereafter by reapplying.
Q: Can My Issuing Authority Revoke My Existing License?
A: Issuing authorities must revoke a license if the Department of
Justice determines that the license holder is prohibited from
possessing a firearm. Beyond that, it is unclear what authority an
issuing authority has to revoke an issued license.
Q: Can I Obtain a License to Carry a Firearm Openly?
A: California generally prohibits openly carrying a firearm outside of
places where it is legal to shoot, except in counties with a
population of less than 200,000 persons where the sheriff (but not
10
any police chief) may issue licenses to do so. Unlike a concealed
carry license, this license is only valid in the county in which it was
issued, not throughout the entire state. Practically speaking,
however, sheriffs rarely, if ever, issue these licenses.
V. RENEWAL OF A LICENSE
Q: What are the Differences Between a Renewal and Initial Application?
A: The major differences between renewal and initial applications are
the fees associated with the applications and the training
requirements, otherwise the process is the same. The Department
of Justice Application form used for initial application is still
required but instead of checking the “initial application” box on
page 3, check the “renewal application” box.
Q: What are the Required Fees For Standard Civilian Renewal
Applications?
A: For renewal applications, the Department of Justice fingerprint fee
is $52, the local fee can be up to a maximum of $25, and if good
cause is shown to re-administer a psychological test, the testing fee
of up to $150. This makes the maximum renewal fee $77 or $227
if a psychological test is required.
Note: Renewal applicants are only required to repeat the
psychological test if good cause is shown to indicate a test
is necessary.
Q: What is the Required Training for Renewal Applications?
A: The same rules apply for renewal applications except that the
training must be a minimum of four (4) hours in length. Contact
your issuing authority to determine the required training for
renewal applications should you have specific questions.
11

California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds struck down by federal judge

The Truth News — Wed, 11 Oct 2023 09:12:54 +0000

California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds struck down by federal judge

banned – Penal Code § 32310 PC – Large-Capacity Magazines – California Law

California cannot ban gun owners from having detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, a federal judge ruled Friday.

The decision from U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez won’t take effect immediately. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, has already filed a notice to appeal the ruling. The ban is likely to remain in effect while the case is still pending.

Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled that the state’s definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully

This is the second time Benitez has struck down California’s law banning certain types of magazines. The first time he struck it down — way back in 2017 — an appeals court ended up reversing his decision.

THE CONSTITUITION HATER AND TERRORIST OF FREEDOM Gov. Gavin Newsom called Benitez’s ruling “a radical decision.”

“It’s time to wake up. Unless we enshrine a Right to Safety in the Constitution, we are at the mercy of ideologues like Judge Benitez. All of our gun safety laws that are proven to save lives are at risk. It doesn’t matter what laws we pass. It doesn’t matter what the voters decide. Concealed carry. Banning weapons of war. Reasonable waiting periods. Background checks. The idealogues are coming for all of them.

“This is exactly why I’ve called for a Constitutional amendment, and this is why I’ll keep fighting to defend our right to protect ourselves from gun violence.”

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court set a new standard for how to interpret the nation’s gun laws. The new standard relies more on the historical tradition of gun regulation rather than public interests, including safety.

Benitez ruled that “there is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity.” He said detachable magazines “solved a problem with historic firearms: running out of ammunition and having to slowly reload a gun.”

“There have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers,” Benitez wrote. “Yet, under this statute, the State says ‘too bad.'”

Bonta said larger capacity magazines are also important to mass shooters, allowing them to fire quickly into crowds of people without reloading. He said the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear the new standard for reviewing gun laws “did not create a regulatory straitjacket for states.”

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, praised Benitez for a “thoughtful and in-depth approach.”

“Sure, the state will appeal, but the clock is ticking on laws that violate the Constitution,” Michel said.

California has been at the forefront of gun restrictions in the United States. Last week, California became the first state to call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban assault weapons and gun sales to people under 21, among other changes. source

US judge strikes down California ban on high-capacity gun magazines

Sept 22 (Reuters) – A federal judge in California on Friday declared that state’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition unconstitutional, saying it violated the Second Amendment rights of firearms owners.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego said California’s “sweeping ban” went too far by preventing people from using magazines for lawful purposes, including self-defense.

“The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports state laws against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent, but not the disarmament of the law-abiding citizen,” Benitez wrote in a 71-page decision.

California cannot ban gun owners from having detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, a federal judge ruled Friday.

But last year, the U.S. Supreme Court set a new standard for how to interpret the nation’s gun laws. The new standard relies more on the historical tradition of gun regulation rather than public interests, including safety.

The Supreme Court ordered the case to be heard again in light of the new standards. It’s one of three high-profile challenges to California gun laws that are getting new hearings in court. The other two cases challenge California laws banning assault-style weapons and limiting purchases of ammunition.

“There have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers,” Benitez wrote. “Yet, under this statute, the State says ‘too bad.’”

“We believe that the district court got this wrong,” Bonta said. “We will move quickly to correct this incredibly dangerous mistake.”

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, praised Benitez for a “thoughtful and in-depth approach.”

“Sure, the state will appeal, but the clock is ticking on laws that violate the Constitution,” Michel said.

California has become a authoritarian and made a host of illegal gun restrictions in the United States over the years. Last week, California became the first state to call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban assault weapons and gun sales to people under 21, among other changes.

the psycotic authoritarian Gov. Gavin Newsom called Benitez’s ruling “a radical decision.”

“Judge Benitez is not even pretending anymore. This is politics, pure and simple,” Newsom said. “It’s time to wake up. Unless we enshrine a Right to Safety in the Constitution, we are at the mercy of ideologues like Judge Benitez.”

yeah its is politics pure and simple mr authoritarian Gov. Gavin Newsom you want the ability for you and your party to steal and take over the US by taken over the constituition and what it stands for by using help as your guise!

source

Penal Code § 32310 PC – Large-Capacity Magazines – California Law

California Penal Code § 32310 PC makes it illegal to possess, sell, purchase, give away, import, transport, or manufacture large-capacity magazines (LCMs). These are defined as any ammunition-feeding device that can hold more than 10 rounds.

PC 32310 violations can be charged as misdemeanors or felonies.

This rule has some limited exceptions, such as for law enforcement and military personnel in certain circumstances. Plus, a federal judge on September 22, 2023 ruled that banning large-capacity magazines is unconstitutional, though this court ruling will likely be stayed while the 9th Circuit reviews the issue.

1. What is the current law regarding high-capacity magazines?

On September 22, 2023, a federal judge in California held that PC 32310 – the state ban on large-capacity magazines – was unconstitutional. Though the ban will likely stay in place while the Ninth Circuit considers the issue.

On November 30, 2021, the Ninth Circuit upheld the state ban on large-capacity magazines. However, the United States Supreme Court vacated that opinion and asked the court to reconsider the issue in light of a recent United States Supreme Court ruling regarding firearm rights.¹

The magazines in question had been prohibited since 2000. At that time, the law said that those who owned them before are now allowed to keep them. In 2016, this provision was removed, meaning no gun owners could possess a large-capacity magazine.

2. What was the court’s reasoning?

In overturning the ban on LCMs, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego argued, “This case is about a California state law that makes it a crime to keep and bear common firearm magazines typically possessed for lawful purposes. Based on the text, history and tradition of the 2nd Amendment, this law is clearly unconstitutional.”

3. What is the law under California Penal Code 32310?

Under Penal Code 32310(a), it is a crime if you:

manufacture or cause to be manufactured, import into the state, keep for sale, or offer or expose for sale, or give, lend, buy, or receive any large-capacity magazine…

Penal Code 32310(c) goes on to make it a crime to possess a large capacity magazine, regardless of the date it was acquired.²

A “large-capacity magazine” means any ammunition-feeding device with the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds.³

According to California law, any of the following are not large capacity magazines:

a feeding device that has been altered so that it cannot hold more than 10 rounds;
a .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device; and,
a tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.⁴

Large-capacity magazines were also prohibited under California Penal Code 16590, the State’s statute governing “generally prohibited weapons.”⁵

Please note that certain people and/or situations are exempt from prosecution with regards to large-capacity magazines. For example, members of law enforcement agencies may sell, transfer, or possess these ammunition holders.⁶

3.1. Penal Code 32310 was upheld as constitutional before recent decision

PC 32310 is a relatively new law. It arose out of California Senate Bill 1446, which Gov. Brown signed into law in 2016. The California Penal Code was amended to include PC 32310 after the signing.

Some parties challenged the new law and stated it was unconstitutional in that it violated gun owners’ equal protection rights. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, however, recently upheld SB 1446 and PC 32310. The Court ruled that the new law is constitutional and does not violate any rights.⁷

4. Are there legal defenses to PC 32310 violations?

If you are accused under Penal Code 32310, you can challenge the accusation by raising a legal defense. A good defense can often get a charge reduced or even dismissed. Please note, though, that it is critical to hire an attorney for the best defense.

Three common defenses to PC 32310 accusations are:

Coerced confession;
Entrapment; and/or,
No probable cause.

4.1. Coerced confession

This defense applies to the situation where you were charged under PC 32310 following a confession.

California law states that police may not use overbearing measures to coerce a confession.

If you can show that the police coerced you into a confession, then:

The judge may exclude the confession from evidence; or,
The case could get dropped if you were pressured into confessing to a crime you did not commit.

4.2. Entrapment

In many PC 32310 cases, suspects are often arrested and accused after an undercover officer buys a large capacity magazine from them. Any later charges under Penal Code 32310, though, must get dropped if the officer lured you into committing the crime.

This “luring” is known as entrapment. It applies to overbearing official conduct on the part of police officers, like pressure, harassment, fraud, flattery, or threats. Entrapment is an acceptable legal defense provided that you show you only committed the crime because of the entrapment.

4.3. No probable cause

This line of defense tries to exclude evidence that is being used against you for a PC 32310 violation.

California law says that a police officer must have probable cause to detain or arrest a suspect. “Probable cause” essentially means that there is a reasonable belief that you committed a crime (based on all of the circumstances).

If you were stopped or arrested without probable cause, then any evidence obtained following the improper stop/arrest could get excluded from the case. The exclusion of evidence regarding large capacity magazines could result in the dismissal or reduction of charges.

5. Penalties, punishment, and sentencing

A violation of Penal Code 32310 is a type of wobbler offense. This means it can be punished as either a California misdemeanor or a felony.

If charged as a misdemeanor, the crime is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year.⁸

If charged as a felony, the crime is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a term of:

16 months;
Two years; or,
Three years.⁹

The possession of a large-capacity magazine is a wobblette offense, meaning that it can be punished as either a California infraction or a misdemeanor.

If charged as an infraction, the crime is punishable by a fine not to exceed $100 for each magazine.¹⁰

If charged as a misdemeanor, the crime is punishable by:

A fine of up to $100 (per magazine); and/or;
A sentence of up to one year in county jail.¹¹

6. Related offenses

There are three crimes related to illegal acts with large-capacity magazines. These are:

Carrying a concealed weapon – PC 25400;
Carrying a loaded weapon – PC 25850; and,
Assault weapon crimes – PC 30600

6.1. Carrying a Concealed Weapon – PC 25400

Penal Code 25400 PC, California’s carrying a concealed weapon law, makes it a crime to carry a concealed firearm on your person or in your vehicle.¹²

This law applies to both loaded and unloaded firearms.

Further, you must know that you are concealing a gun to be guilty under PC 25400.¹³

Absent aggravating circumstances, carrying a concealed firearm is a misdemeanor. If convicted of this misdemeanor, you may be punished with:

Up to one year in county jail; and/or,
A maximum fine of $1,000.¹⁴

A PC 25400 violation can be charged as a felony if certain aggravating circumstances are present in a case (for example, you have a prior conviction of a California firearm offense).

6.2. Carrying a Loaded Weapon – PC 25850

California Penal Code 25850 PC makes it a crime to carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle or public place.¹⁵

A “public place” is any place that is open to common and general use and is readily accessible by anyone wishing to go there.¹⁶

As with the crime of carrying a concealed weapon under PC 25400, most Penal Code 25850 crimes will be charged as misdemeanors. If so, they are punishable by:

Up to one year in county jail; and/or,
A maximum fine of $1,000.¹⁷

However, as with charges under PC 25400, acts of carrying a loaded weapon can be charged as a felony if certain aggravating factors are present in a case.

6.3. Assault Weapon Crimes – PC 30600

Penal Code 30600 PC is California’s law regarding assault weapons and .50 BMG (Browning Machine Gun) rifles. It prohibits:

manufacturing,
selling,
giving away,
lending, and/or
possessing

assault weapons and BMG rifles, except in very specific circumstances.

The penalties for violating PC 30600 will vary from minor infractions to very severe felonies. These are punishable by both a fine and/or a prison term. The specific penalty will vary depending on the specific act you commit and the underlying facts of the case.

On June 4, 2021, a federal judge overturned California’s ban on assault weapons on the grounds that it violates the constitutional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. But assault weapons remain illegal in California while the state appeals the ruling.¹⁸

Legal References:

Kevin Rector and Matthew Ormseth, Federal judge again overturns California ban on high-capacity gun magazines, Los Angeles Times (September 22, 2023). Maura Dolan, U.S. appeals court upholds California’s ban on large-capacity firearms magazines, Los Angeles Times (November 30, 2021). See also Duncan v. Becerra, No. 19-55376, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-01017-BEN-JLB (9th Cir, August 14, 2020), affirming Duncan v. Becerra, 366 F. Supp. 3d 1131 (Southern District of California, 2019)(“California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined.”); Teri Figueroa, 9th Circuit ends California ban on high-capacity magazines, LA Times (August 14, 2020). New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. , 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387 (prohibits states from requiring people to show a special need for self defense in order to publicly carry handguns). Duncan v. Bonta (9th Cir. 2022) U.S. App. LEXIS 21320.
California Penal Code 32310(c) PC; see note 1.
California Penal Code 16740 PC; see note 1.
See same.
California Penal Code 16590 PC; see note 1.
California Penal Code 33225 PC.
The court case is Wiese v. Becerra.
California Penal Code 32310(a) PC.
See same.
California Penal Code 32310(c) PC.
See same.
California Penal Code 25400 PC.
See same.
California Penal Code 25400(c)(7).
California Penal Code 25850 PC.
California Jury Instructions – Criminal – CALCJI 16.431.
California Penal Code 25850(c) PC.
California Penal Code 30600 PC; Don Thompson, California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional, federal judge rules, Los Angeles Times (June 4, 2021)(“U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled that the state’s definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states and by the U.S. Supreme Court.”)

source

US v. Jessie Bullock – Gun Possession & Convicted Felons

The Truth News — Mon, 03 Jul 2023 17:44:11 +0000

US, v. Jessie Bullock – Federal Judge Tosses Gun Possession Case Against Convicted Felon

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JESSIE BULLOCK

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jesse Roland BULLOCK, Jr. v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 1999-CP-01667-SCT.

Decided: September 14, 2000

BEFORE BANKS, P.J., WALLER AND DIAZ, JJ. Jesse Roland Bullock, Appellant, pro se. Office of the Attorney General by Billy L. Gore, Attorney for Appellee.

¶ 1. This matter is before the Court on appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Marion County dismissing Jesse Roland Bullock, Jr.’s Petition for Post Conviction Relief. Because Bullock’s petition is time barred, we affirm.

¶ 2. Jesse Roland Bullock, Jr. pled guilty in October of 1991 to manslaughter and aggravated assault. On November 1, 1991 he was sentenced to twenty years for manslaughter and twenty years for aggravated assault, with ten years of the aggravated assault to run concurrently with the sentence for manslaughter and ten years to run consecutively.

¶ 3. In August of 1999, Bullock filed a Motion for Post-Conviction Relief. The circuit court dismissed the motion as procedurally barred. Bullock filed a timely notice of appeal.

II.

WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY RULING THAT THE APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF IN TRIAL COURT WAS BARRED UNDER MISS. CODE ANN. § 99-39-5(2)?

¶ 4. Bullock’s motion for post-conviction relief was barred by Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (1994). Pursuant to § 99-39-5(2) a defendant has three years after being sentenced to bring an action. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2). The statute also establishes three exceptions to the three-year time bar. Luckett v. State, 582 So.2d 428, 430 (Miss.1991). However, Bullock does not fit under any of the exceptions.

III.

WHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE APPELLANT’S CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL?

¶ 5. Were we to reach the merits of Bullock’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we would conclude that there was not enough evidence in the record to support this claim. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

IV.

¶ 6. Accordingly, the circuit court’s judgment is affirmed.

¶ 7. DISMISSAL OF POST CONVICTION RELIEF AFFIRMED.

BANKS, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

PRATHER, C.J., PITTMAN, P.J., McRAE, SMITH, MILLS, WALLER, COBB AND DIAZ, JJ., CONCUR. source

US, v. Jessie Bullock – Gun Possession & Convicted Felons

Being convicted of a felony–even a violent one–is not enough to deprive someone of their Second Amendment rights for life, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves, an Obama appointee, dismissed a felon-in-possession of a firearm prosecution against Jesse Bullock, a Mississippi man, on Wednesday. Judge Reeves ruled that the federal government failed to meet its burden of showing that the historical tradition of firearms regulation supported permanently disarming Bullock for his past crimes, as required under the Supreme Court’s latest precedent.

“The government’s arguments for permanently disarming Mr. Bullock, however, rest upon the mirage of dicta, buttressed by a cloud of law review articles that do not support disarming him,” Judge Reeves wrote in United States v. Bullock. “In Bruen, the State of New York presented 700 years of history to try and defend its early 1900s‐era gun licensing law. That was not enough. Bruen requires no less skepticism here, where the challenged law is even younger.”

The ruling marks the first U.S. District Court to strike down the federal prohibition on convicted felons possessing firearms—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Though its opinion only extends to the defendant Bullock, it will undoubtedly add fuel to the growing legal fire over who can be prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms following the Supreme Court’s decision in 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen. It could also help motivate the Supreme Court to step in and further expound on where the limits of Second Amendment protections lie.

To date, federal courts have been split over whether the Second Amendment protects non-violent felons, unlawful drug users, persons under felony indictment, and those subject to a domestic violence restraining order.

Judge Reeves made headlines in November of last year when he was first assigned to hear Bullock’s case and consider whether or not he could be disarmed. He publicly chastised the Supreme Court for its legal test outlined in the Bruen decision and its emphasis on history in reaching outcomes.

“This Court is not a trained historian. The Justices of the Supreme Court, distinguished as they may be, are not trained historians,” he wrote in an opinion ordering the Department of Justice to brief him on whether he needed to appoint a historian to decide the case. “We are not experts in what white, wealthy, and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791. Yet we are now expected to play historian in the name of constitutional adjudication.”

He was no less forceful in his criticism of the High Court and its Bruen decision in his 77-page dismissal opinion on Wednesday.

“In Second Amendment cases, though, the pyramid is turned on its head,” Reeves wrote. “The trial record can be nonexistent. None of the history is ‘tested in an adversarial proceeding,’ and there may be no factual findings that ordinarily would receive some form of deference. The appellate courts do the best with the briefs they have, but all that matters is the Supreme Court’s historical review, conducted de novo as a legal rather than a factual question, with dozens of amicus briefs never before seen by another court. Is this the best way of doing justice?”

Nevertheless, under the test spelled out by the Bruen decision, Reeves found that the government failed to demonstrate a historical tradition of permanently disarming felons. Instead, he noted that the government simply pointed to Supreme Court dicta or the “more than 120 U.S. District Court decisions” that have upheld the felon-in-possession ban since Bruen to show that it is presumptively constitutional, which he said was insufficient.

“The government’s citation to the mere volume of cases is not enough,” Reeves wrote. “The federal felon‐in‐possession ban was enacted in 1938, not 1791 or 1868—the years the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified. The government’s brief in this case does not identify a ‘well‐established and representative historical analogue’ from either era supporting the categorical disarmament of tens of millions of Americans who seek to keep firearms in their home for self‐defense.”

The case centered around Jessie Bullock, who, in 1992, was convicted of aggravated assault and manslaughter for a “deadly bar fight.” He served 15 years in prison. He also was convicted of fleeing law enforcement and attempted aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer in 2015 and received a five-year suspended sentence. In 2018, he was indicted for knowingly possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, but he was not arrested until 2020. After a series of pandemic-related delays, Bullock was finally set to go to trial over the gun charge in August 2022 before he filed a motion to have his charge dismissed in light of Bruen.

Judge Reeves conducted his own review of the reasoning and laws cited in dozens of other post-Bruen cases challenging prohibited person restrictions but found there was no clear analog for the punishment Bullock received. And he said the government, who had the burden to prove the law was consistent with American tradition, didn’t provide enough evidence to change his analysis.

“[T]he plain text of the Second Amendment covers Mr. Bullock’s conduct—possession of ordinary firearms in the home—and therefore presumptively protects him,” Reeves wrote.

While much of the opinion was spent criticizing the Supreme Court’s view of the Second Amendment and its new test for applying it, Judge Reeves ultimately said the high standard might be justified.

“Maybe the Supreme Court is correct that in this country, to ‘secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,’ the government should have the burden of justifying itself when it deprives people of their constitutional rights,” he wrote. “Perhaps the Court is also correct that constitutional rights should be defined expansively.”

However, he also said the Court has not consistently protected other constitutionally-guaranteed rights to the same degree. He argued that the right to a speedy trial, the right to a writ of habeas corpus, and the right to vote have all been whittled down while gun rights have been restored.

“In breathing new life into the Second Amendment, though, the Court has unintentionally revealed how it has suffocated other fundamental Constitutional rights,” Reeves wrote. “Americans are waiting for Heller and Bruen’s reasoning to reach the rest of the Constitution.”

The Department of Justice declined to comment on the ruling or its plans for an appeal. source

https://youtu.be/1wlxWI0rL6w

Another Judge Chips Away at Laws Barring Felons From Owning Guns

Now both a violent and nonviolent felon have been found by lower courts to have a Second Amendment right to own weapons. The Supreme Court will likely consider the issue in the near future.

The law barring felons from owning firearms suffered another significant judicial blow in a decision yesterday in U.S. v. Bullock. Generally knows as the “felon in possession law,” U.S. Code 922(g)(1) prohibits firearm ownership for those found guilty of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. Jessie Bullock filed a motion in August 2022 to have such charges against him dismissed, and Judge Carlton W. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted that motion yesterday.

Bullock had served about 15 years in state prison for manslaughter and aggravated assault after killing someone in a 1992 bar fight. The government indicted him in 2018, when he was 57 years old, for possessing a firearm despite his felon status, and wanted to give him another 10 years.

As Reeves sums up the history of Bullock’s felon-in-possession case, a magistrate judge thought it was “‘downright silly’ to claim that Mr. Bullock ‘poses a danger to his wife, contrary to her own sworn testimony, contrary to the time that he’s been out on bond from this very incident’….Mr. Bullock has remained on bond ever since, without incident.”

Bullock’s claim, as Reeves put it, is that since he “finished serving his sentence long ago, and the available evidence indicates that the firearm the government complains of was kept in the sanctity of his home,” the charge against him violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Reeves explicitly says that his decision involves an “as applied” challenge to 922(g)(1). He states outright that despite dismissing the case against Bullock, “the federal government may continue to prosecute other persons for violating § 922(g)(1).”

Still, the arguments he presents make a strong case for saying the law is unconstitutional in its entirety as written.

Reeves’ reasoning is based on the 2022 Bruen decision, which overturned some New York restrictions on the public carrying of weapons. That case declared that to stand up under Second Amendment scrutiny, a law must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” (Reeves makes it clear with near-sarcasm throughout the decision that he wishes the Supreme Court had not set the precedent requiring him to dismiss the case against Bullock; he has done this kind of “you idiots in the Supreme Court made me do this ridiculous thing” decision making in an earlier case upholding qualified immunity for a police officer, as Billy Binion reported here at Reason in 2020.)

Reeves cannot help (though he clearly would like to) but notice that the 120 previous U.S. district court cases the federal government relied on to prove that such laws are totally constitutional do not adequately demonstrate the required post-Bruen “historical tradition” to prop up the law. “In none of those cases did the court possess an amicus brief from a historian. And in none of those cases did the court itself appoint an independent expert to help sift through the historical record,” Reeves notes.

Reeves also spells out later in his decision that the Justice Department has itself admitted in filings in other cases that the felon-in-possession law is, as stated in particular in an appellee brief in U.S. v. Pettengill, “firmly rooted in the twentieth century and likely bears little resemblance to laws in effect at the time the Second Amendment was ratified.”

The facts that lead Reeves to toss the case against Bullock are surprisingly simple: “The federal felon‐in‐possession ban was enacted in 1938, not 1791 or 1868—the years the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified. The government’s brief in this case does not identify a ‘well‐established and representative historical analogue’ from either era supporting the categorical disarmament of tens of millions of Americans who seek to keep firearms in their home for self‐defense.”

That bald statement does imply to this layman that the law should not be able to stand any constitutional scrutiny, though Reeves insists he’s not saying that. His granting an actual violent felon, Bullock, the right not to be prosecuted for owning a gun follows on a June en banc decision from the 3rd Circuit in the case of Range v. Attorney General. That decision found the law unconstitutional as applied to a particular nonviolent felon who had merely lied on a food stamp application and never actually spent a day in jail—though he could have been sent up for more than a year, per 922(g)(1).

Reeves says there might be room for states to do things the federal government should not, or to legitimately keep certain felons from owning guns, even after Bruen; he posits that “American history might support state‐level felon disarmament laws; that at least would align with principles of federalism. It might support disarmament of persons adjudicated to be dangerous….And it likely does support disarmament of persons convicted of death‐eligible offenses. The power to take someone’s life necessarily includes the lesser power to disarm them.”

Reeves made news in this case last November by passive-aggressively complaining that he might need to appoint a historian to assist him in understanding the case, since the Bruen decision requires him to “play historian in the name of constitutional adjudication.” Neither party in the case agreed that this was necessary; Bullock’s team asserted that it was the government’s burden to prove the historical validity of the felon possession laws, and the government just insisted that “the prohibition against felons possessing firearms is so thoroughly established as to not require detailed exploration of the historical record.”

Reeves did not agree.

To preview how the Supreme Court might ultimately consider the issue Reeves’ decision has brought to renewed prominence, he quotes extensively from a pre–Supreme Court dissent from now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the 2019 7th Circuit decision Kanter v. Barr, in which she agrees that sweeping prohibitions on all felons, though possibly not demonstrably dangerous ones, should not stand under the Second Amendment. (Rickey Kanter got a Trump pardon.) Elsewhere in Reeves’ decision in Bullock, the judge quotes Bruen concurrences from Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh in which they both say out loud that Bruen in and of itself did not cast doubt on existing laws prohibiting felons from owning guns. Reeves thinks references by Justice Antonin Scalia in the 2008 Heller decision (which first established that the Second Amendment meant individual citizens had a right to keep commonly owned weapons for self-defense in the home; Bruen extended that to public carrying) to “law abiding, responsible citizens” are mere dicta with no power to prevent a decision like his.

Reeves goes on to somewhat slyly speculate about how the Supreme Court might look upon what he’s done, while concluding that “this Court will refrain from counting the Justices’ votes today.”

But Reeves does explain that “another common method of denying these motions”—that is, previous motions such as Bullock’s that did not succeed—”is to tally the felon‐in‐possession votes implied by Bruen‘s concurrences and dissent. Recall that in these separate opinions, six Justices endorsed felon disarmament. Five of those Justices are still on the Court. As a result, some district courts have assumed that as a simple matter of realpolitik, there is no chance the Supreme Court will find § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional in a future case….It certainly is tempting for busy trial judges to try and resolve complicated issues via this kind of calculation. But this Court cannot honor an advisory opinion on an issue that was not before the Supreme Court.”

Some facts about felon-in-possession laws from FY 2021 from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC): 7,454 such convictions came before the USSC, and the number from 2017 through 2021 was always over 6,000 a year.

Over 97 percent of such violators were men, 56 percent were black, 95 percent were U.S. citizens, and their average age was 34. Over 96 percent of such offenders were sentenced to prison, with an average sentence of 60 months.

Through a complicated point system, the USSC divides offenders’ “criminal history category” into six categories; of those sentences under 922(g)(1), 39 percent were in one of the three lower categories.

While the figures cannot be known for certain, one analysis surmises up to 100,000 convicted felons in the U.S. still own guns, despite the fact that the federal government insists (and most courts agree) that it is categorically illegal to do so—although this Bullock decision and the 3rd Circuit’s Range decision are chipping away at that certainty. source

Judge doesn’t need historian to review gun law, say prosecutors, defense counsel

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves appears before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C., on June 8, 2022. U.S. Senate/Handout via

Prosecutors and defense lawyers are in rare agreement that a federal judge in Mississippi should not take the unusual step of appointing a historian to help him decide whether a federal firearms law complies with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in June expanding gun rights.

The opposing sides in briefs filed on Monday laid out their views after U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves in a blistering opinion in October criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling, which changed the framework courts must use to evaluate gun regulations.

That decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, declared for the first time that the U.S. Constitution’s 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. The 6-3 ruling powered by the court’s conservative majority instructed courts going forward to undertake a review of history to determine if gun restrictions are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The ruling has led to a series of lower-court decisions declaring various gun restrictions unconstitutional and provided the grounds for a criminal defendant before Reeves in Jackson, Mississippi, Jesse Bullock, to challenge the federal ban on felons possessing firearms.

In an Oct. 27 opinion, Reeves, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama, faulted the Supreme Court’s history requirement, saying he and other judges were not “trained historians.”

“And we are not experts in what white, wealthy, and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791,” Reeves, who is Black, wrote. “Yet we are now expected to play historian in the name of constitutional adjudication.”

Reeves then asked the parties whether he should appoint a historian as a consultant to help him “identify and sift through authoritative sources on founding‐era firearms restrictions” as he weighed tossing the criminal case against Bullock.

But in filings late Monday, both sides said a historian was “unnecessary,” with prosecutors saying the judge should look to the parties themselves to provide support for their positions on whether the statute is constitutional.

Bullock’s lawyer, Assistant Federal Public Defender Michael Scott, said appointing a historian would wrongly relieve the government of its burden to establish the law was constitutional.

Prosecutors in the U.S. Department of Justice also raised a prospect they did not desire: Other judges following Reeves’ lead.

“The prospect of judges in all 94 federal judicial districts retaining a historian would be an expensive proposition and a departure from the typical reliance on the parties to provide support for their legal positions,” prosecutors wrote.

The case is United States v. Bullock, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, No. 3:18-cr-00165.

For the United States: Gaines Cleveland and Jessica Terrill of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Mississippi

For Bullock: Michael Scott of the Office of the Public Defender

source

The Reeves Process

A federal judge in Mississippi takes up the Supreme Court’s challenge to ‘play historian.’

What a constitutional contest is opened by the remarks of Judge Carlton Reeves of the United States District Court at Jackson, Mississippi. His Honor is complaining that the justices of the Supreme Court want the lower courts to “play historian.” This arises because of Justice Clarence Thomas’s remarks about the Second Amendment, and now Judge Reeves is talking about hiring a historian to fight — so to speak — fire with fire.

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Justice Thomas signaled that only restrictions “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” pass constitutional muster. The justice offered his own historical precis as ballast to the majority’s holding that the Empire State’s permitting regulations on concealed carry were unconstitutionally arduous. We look, the justice instructed, to “history and tradition.”

It fell to Judge Reeves to parse what this ruling issued from the constitutional mountaintop signified for the case he was adjudicating in the statutory valley. It was a case that concerned the ability of convicted felons to bear arms. He lamented that the Nine conscripted him to “play historian in the name of constitutional adjudication” and, in a seeming swipe, suggested that the “justices of the Supreme Court, as distinguished as they may be, are not trained historians.” source

Learn more about your gun rights:

Fifth Circuit Strikes Down Domestic-Violence Prohibitor in United States v. Rahimi

US, v. Jessie Bullock – Federal Judge Tosses Gun Possession Case Against Convicted Felon

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen

Alabama town grieves after 4 people killed at teen birthday party

The Truth News — Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:40:20 +0000

Alabama town grieves after 4 people killed at teen birthday party

DADEVILLE, Ala. – Students in the tiny Alabama town of Dadeville wore their black and gold school colors Monday as they mourned two seniors who were among four young people killed by gunfire at a Sweet 16 birthday party over the weekend.

Less than six weeks from graduation, faculty, staff and students filed past flags at half-staff to meet counselors waiting to talk about the shooting, which also injured 28 at the Mahogany Masterpiece dance studio off the courthouse square.

Investigators were still trying to piece together what happened at the party, where numerous gunshots left the dance studio’s windows pocked with bullet holes. While police sought clues, others said they were tending the community’s heart.

“It’s going to be a tough time for graduation and for these kids,” said Heidi Smith, a spokesperson for the 46-bed Lake Martin Community Hospital, where a number of victims were treated. “We will be here for them and their families for the duration.”

The weekend was marked by a series of high-profile shootings in the U.S. One left two people dead and four wounded Saturday in Louisville, Missouri; another resulted in four men being shot — one fatally — in Los Angeles; and a third left two women wounded at Lincoln University in southeastern Pennsylvania.

Alabama birthday party shooting: Police identify victims, search for shooter | LiveNOW from FOX

A mass shooting at a teenager’s birthday party in Dadeville, Alabama, Saturday evening left at least four dead and reportedly more than 20 injured. More LiveNOW from FOX streaming video

Dadeville locals were quick to say that such violence was uncharacteristic of their community, but gun deaths are more common in Alabama than in most places. The state had the fifth highest rate of gun deaths nationwide in 2020, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It wasn’t clear if all 28 people injured in Dadeville were shot or if some suffered other injuries. Smith said 15 people with gunshot wounds were seen at her hospital. More were taken to other facilities.

Those killed were identified as Marsiah Emmanuel “Siah” Collins, 19, of Opelika; Corbin Dahmontrey Holston, 23, of Dadeville; Philstavious “Phil” Dowdell, 18, of Camp Hill and Shaunkivia Nicole “Keke” Smith, 17, of Dadeville, Tallapoosa County Coroner Mike Knox told The Associated Press on Monday. Relatives had identified Dowdell and Smith on Sunday.

It was still unclear who started the shooting or why, or whether investigators had made any arrests. Sgt. Jeremy Burkett of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency did not take questions during news conferences Sunday. Officials repeatedly asked others to come forward with information on the shooting.

Much of the public attention focused on Dowdell, who played wide receiver on the Dadeville High football team in a state where football rules Friday nights and Saturdays in the fall. The Tigers went undefeated in last year’s regular season before losing in the playoffs.

The shooting happened at his sister’s birthday party.

Michael Taylor, an assistant coach, said he met Dowdell when the boy was 9 and coached him in youth football. The Tigers were invited to Atlanta to play in the stadium used by the NFL’s Atlanta Falcons.

“He did some amazing things there, and he never stopped doing them since then,” Taylor said of Dowdell, who also played basketball and was a track standout. “He was the No. 1 athlete in the school.”

Antojuan Woody, another senior, grew up in nearby Camp Hill with Dowdell and was fellow wide receiver for the Tigers. The two were best friends all their lives.

“It hurts,” Woody said as a steady stream of friends and teammates walked over to hug him during a prayer vigil Sunday. “It’s unreal. I can’t believe it.”

Woody said he and Dowdell had a special relationship on the football field. “Us being friends forever like that, our chemistry was spot on. We always celebrated together on the field.”

Keenan Cooper, the DJ at the party where the shootings took place, told WBMA-TV the event was stopped briefly when attendees heard someone had a gun. He said people with guns were asked to leave, but no one did.

The shooting sparked what Mayor Frank Goodman said was a “chaotic” scene at the town’s small hospital, where emergency workers, relatives and friends swarmed on Saturday.

Smith said six people were treated locally and released, but others were transferred to larger hospitals in Birmingham, Montgomery and Opelika, Alabama, as well as to Columbus, Georgia. source

Alabama birthday girl begged dying brother to ‘stay with me’

DADEVILLE, Ala. (AP) — Alexis Dowdell’s Sweet 16 birthday party ended with her kneeling beside her fatally wounded brother on the blood-slicked floor of a dance studio in small-town Alabama, the bodies of other wounded teens scattered around them.

Dowdell told the story of Saturday’s terror in Dadeville to The Associated Press on Monday surrounded by family. The shooting left her 18-year-old brother, Philstavious “Phil” Dowdell, and three others dead, along with another 32 injured, some critically.

“I got on my knees and he was laying face down. And that’s when I grabbed him. I turned him over, I was holding him,” Alexis Dowdell said, recalling the moment she found her brother with the life ebbing out of him.

She tapped her brother’s face, begging him to, “stay with me.” “I wasn’t crying at the moment because I was trying to be strong instead of panicking. And so I said, ’You’re going to be all right. You’re a fighter, you’re strong,” she recalled.

As of Monday evening, state officials had yet to release much information about their investigation. The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency said only that shell casings from handguns had been found, noting that there was no evidence a high-powered rifle was used. Investigators continued to appeal for information from the public, including videos.

The weekend was marked by a series of high-profile shootings in the U.S. One left two people dead and four wounded Saturday in Louisville, Kentucky; another resulted in four men being shot — one fatally — in Los Angeles; and a third left two women wounded at Lincoln University in southeastern Pennsylvania.

Saturday night in Dadeville, about an hour’s drive northeast of Montgomery, began as it should have, with “everybody dancing, vibing to the music,” Alexis Dowdell said. Keenan Cooper, the DJ at the party, told WBMA-TV the event was stopped briefly when partygoers heard someone had a gun. He said people with weapons were asked to leave, but no one did.

Soon after, the shooting started.

Dowdell said she dove to the floor near the DJ as the dozens of revelers ran. She “didn’t know where to run,” in part because shots seemed to come from multiple directions.

When there was a break in gunfire, she bolted for the front door. But someone pushed her. It was her brother, trying to protect her.

“I guess he tried to push me out the door as fast as he could, but I ended up slipping on blood, because it was a whole bunch of blood on the floor,” she said.

Once outside, she found her mother and stepfather. “Where are my cousins, where are my friends? Where is my brother?” Dowdell pleaded.

Making their way back to Mahogany Masterpiece dance studio, the children’s mother looked inside. “She came out and she was like ’My baby, my baby’s gone,’” she said.

Phil Dowdell, a star wide receiver with plans to play football in college, was fading in and out of consciousness. His sister made her way to him, begging him to stay with her. She checked on wounded friends, including one she said was shot in the head. By the time paramedics arrived, Phil no longer had a pulse.

“When they came in, I said ‘Can you check on my brother?’” Alexis Dowdell recalled. “And he checked my brother’s pulse and I was like, ‘Is he alive or is he dead?’ And the people didn’t want to tell me, so they just gave me, like, a certain look. And I just knew he was just gone.”

In addition to Phil Dowdell, Tallapoosa County Coroner Mike Knox said the dead included fellow Dadeville High senior Shaunkivia Nicole “KeKe” Smith, 17, an athlete-turned-team manager; 2022 Opelika High School graduate Marsiah Emmanuel “Siah” Collins, 19, an aspiring singer whose father told AL.com that Collins planned to start college this fall; and 2018 Dadeville High graduate Corbin Dahmontrey Holston, 23, another former athlete at the school.

In the aftermath of the shootings, friends and family remembered details large and small about the dead.

Smith was so excited about finishing high school and starting college that when a former neighbor asked her about it, Smith responded with the exact hour she was supposed to graduate.

She had already shared selfies taken in her cap and gown, writing “almost out.”

Amy Jackson, an older cousin of Smith’s who said she was more of an aunt to the teenager, recalled her “million-dollar” smile.

“She would light the room up when she walked in. She was that type,” Jackson said. She described her as a talented athlete who ran track and played multiple team sports until a knee injury sidelined her.

Smith’s last act before leaving for the party Saturday was to get her little sister ready for bed.

“That was her nature. She was a caretaker,” Jackson said.

Much of the early public attention focused on Phil Dowdell, because he was a star football player in a state where high school football rules Friday nights in the fall.

Antreal Allen, an assistant coach at Georgia State University and an uncle to the Dowdells, said his nephew was “super excited to go play football at the next level” at Jacksonville State University east of Birmingham.

But Allen said it was about more than football. The uncle said he was the first college graduate in the family and that Phil “was up next.”

“He had a lot of the younger generation looking up to him. He tried to lead by example,” Allen said. ___

This story has been updated to correct the year that Corbin Dahmontrey Holston graduated high school to 2018.

___

Amy reported from Atlanta.

Lawyer dies after his hidden gun goes off during MRI scan

The Truth News — Fri, 10 Feb 2023 11:24:27 +0000

Lawyer dies after his hidden gun goes off during MRI scan

Tragic and God Bless You and Your Mom who now has to live with your death! RIP

A lawyer was accidentally shot by his own gun after he failed to remove it before going into hospital MRI scanning room.

Leandro Mathias de Novaes took his mother for a scan at Laboratorio Cura in São Paulo, Brazil, on 16 January, Jam Press reports.

The 40-year-old is said to have failed to tell hospital workers that he had a gun on him after being told to remove all metal objects before entering the scanning room.

The magnetic field from the MRI scanner pulled the pro-gun lawyer’s weapon was pulled from his waistband and went off, shooting him in the tummy.

He passed away on 6 February after battling for his life in at the São Luiz Morumbi Hospital.

As well as working as a lawyer, the victim also shared pro-gun content for his 12,000 followers on TikTok and Instagram.

A spokesperson for the Order of Attorneys of Brazil in Cotia, São Paulo said: “It is with deep regret that OAB Cotia communicates to all fellow lawyers the unexpected loss of our dear friend and lawyer Dr Leandro Mathias de Novaes.

“We are sorry for the loss and we sympathise with his family in this moment of pain.”

A spokesperson for Laboratorio Cura said: “We would like to emphasise that all accident prevention protocols were followed by the Cura team, as is customary in all units.

“Both the patient and his companion were properly instructed regarding the procedures for accessing the examination room and warned about the removal of any and all metallic objects.”

The laboratory also stated that both Leandro and his mother signed a form regarding the protocols, but the victim allegedly failed to mention his firearm and he entered the examination room with it “by his own decision.”

The police confirmed that the weapon was registered and the lawyer had a valid licence.

From news to politics, travel to sport, culture to climate – The Independent has a host of free newsletters to suit your interests.

Story by Lee Bullen

Anti-gun lobbyist David Chipman unsuited to run the ATF

The Truth News — Thu, 02 Feb 2023 08:32:52 +0000

Anti-gun lobbyist David Chipman unsuited to run the ATF

Imagine if a Republican president named an NRA lobbyist to the Top PO$T

Imagine the uproar if Donald Trump or George W. Bush had appointed an NRA lobbyist to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Liberals, Democrats, and the media would have gone nuts. Former New York Mayor Michel Bloomberg would have thrown a fit, and the nominee would have been excoriated in the media, pilloried during the confirmation process, and accused of every conceivable sin. He would never have been confirmed.

During the uproar, presidential advisors and friendly members of Congress would have advised the White House that appointing a committed activist had been a mistake. They would claim the Bureau entrusted with regulating the firearms industry and private gun-owners cannot be a sworn enemy or a loyal friend, but only an honest enforcer of existing laws and regulations regardless of the swirling and never-ending debates over whether those laws and regulations are too lax or too strict.

Knowing this, Second Amendment advocates would not have presumed to advise a friendly President to turn the ATF over to one of their own.

The anti-gun forces have no such qualms. No one apparently offered any such advice to President Joe Biden, who threw prudence and good judgment to the winds. Shortly after moving into the Oval Office, Mr. Biden appointed David Chipman, a paid lobbyist for a leading anti-Second Amendment group and a public advocate of firearms restrictions that would never pass Congress or stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. Mr. Chipman is the dream nominee of the gun control crowd allowing them to “go after” gun dealers, owners, and manufacturers, regardless of the letter or spirit of existing law or the prudent judgment one ordinarily seeks in regulatory appointees.

Mr. Chipman worked at ATF for some years before signing on as an anti-gun lobbyist but was even then more a gun control activist than an objective law enforcement official. After Mr. Biden named Mr. Chipman, one long-time colleague told reporters that in all his years at ATF, he knew of only two employees hostile to the very idea that Americans should have the right “to keep and bear arms” as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. One of them was Mr. Chipman. Other former colleagues describe him as “a bully,” and there have been suggestions that he disparaged Blacks; just the sort who should never be trusted with power.

Naming Mr. Chipman unleashed a torrent of opposition in the Senate and beyond. It took more than a month to get his nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a straight party-line vote. Senator Dick Durbin, the Democratic Whip, acknowledged recently that Democrats do not have the votes to confirm him. One uncomfortably undecided Democratic Senator, John Tester of Montana, suggested to reporters that the nomination might well be withdrawn. That may have been wishful thinking because if forced to vote Mr. Tester and other Democrats caught between their party’s leaders and voters back home will find themselves between the proverbial rock and hard place.

By David Keene – source

NRA challenges Illinois semiautomatic gun ban in court: ‘Blatant violation’ of Second Amendment rights

The Truth News — Wed, 11 Jan 2023 07:52:24 +0000

NRA challenges Illinois semiautomatic gun ban in court: ‘Blatant violation’ of Second Amendment rights

NRA says it will not ‘stand by while activist politicians pass unconstitutional laws’

By Emma Colton | Fox News

EXCLUSIVE — The National Rifle Association (NRA) filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the state of Illinois over its recent gun control law that the group says is “unconstitutional” and a “blatant violation” of constitutional rights.

“The NRA will not stand by while activist politicians pass unconstitutional laws that do nothing to promote public safety. We sued the state of Illinois because this new law is a blatant violation of Americans’ Second Amendment rights,” Jason Ouimet, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), told Fox News Digital.

The Illinois Senate passed its version of the Protect Illinois Communities Act earlier this month, banning so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines from being manufactured or sold in the state.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker then signed the bill into law, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of semiautomatic rifles and pistols, .50-caliber guns, as well as attachments that can increase a gun’s fire rate. The law also requires residents to register their banned firearms.

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Second Amendment protects firearms that are in common use,” Ouimet continued in his comment to Fox News Digital. “AR-15s are the most popular rifle in America with millions being lawfully used every day. In fact, in 2020, more than three times as many AR-15s were sold as Ford F150s. Further, less than 2 percent of all gun crime is committed with these types of rifles. The governor signed this bill to advance a political agenda, not to protect his constituents.”

AR-15-style rifles are on display at Freddie Bear Sports in Tinley Park, Illinois, on Aug. 8, 2019. (Zbigniew Bzdak / Chicago Tribune / Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

Ouimet was citing a federal judge in California who ruled in 2021 that California’s ban on so-called assault weapons was unconstitutional and that F-150 pickup trucks were wildly popular in 2018, with 909,330 vehicles sold, but that “twice as many modern rifles were sold the same year.”

Ouimet added in a comment to Fox News Digital, which comes two weeks after the Illinois legislation was signed into law, that the “NRA has worked diligently to put together the strongest lawsuit possible.”

“While some rush to file litigation first out of the gate, we work to file the strongest legal challenge, one that will withstand the lengthy litigation process,” he said. “We filed Bruen (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen) in February 2018, and the Supreme Court did not issue its ruling on that case until June 2022. We know firsthand that filing the right suit is paramount to making sure that we have the best chance at the best outcome for our members and gun owners.”

The NRA and other Second Amendment advocates have argued that the ban targets commonly owned and purchased firearms and magazines, thus violating the Constitution.

More than six dozen sheriffs have also come out against the law, vowing to defy the bans they have also characterized as unconstitutional.

National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre speaks during the NRA-ILA meeting at the George R. Brown Convention Center, May 27, 2022, in Houston. (AP Photo / Michael Wyke)

“Part of my duties that I accepted upon being sworn into office was to protect the rights provided to all of us, in the Constitution,” Edwards County Sheriff Darby Boewe said in a recent Facebook post.

“One of those rights enumerated is the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS provided under the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people.”

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (AP Photo / Charles Rex Arbogast / File)

The sheriff of DuPage County, Jim Mendrick,added in his own statement this month: “Neither myself nor my office will be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the State, nor will we be arresting or housing law-abiding individuals that have been arrested solely with non-compliance of this Act.”

He is now coming under fire from lawmakers who say he doesn’t have the authority to override laws.

Mendrick fired back, saying that “there is absolutely nothing that we are doing or not doing that would make a mass shooting more accessible in DuPage County.”

“In fact, I have asked on multiple occasions to increase penalties on all existing gun crimes, but it does not appear that they want to have that conversation. They seem more concerned with lawful gun owners than people illegally possessing guns,” the sheriff added.

Pritzker’s office slammed the sheriffs for vowing to not enforce the law in a comment to Fox News Digital last week, calling their statements “political grandstanding at its worst.”

“The assault weapons ban is the law of Illinois,” Pritzker’s office told Fox News Digital on Monday. “The General Assembly passed the bill and the governor signed it into law to protect children in schools, worshippers at church and families at parades from the fear of sudden mass murder.”

“Sheriffs have a constitutional duty to uphold the laws of the state, not pick and choose which laws they support and when. We’re confident that this law will hold up to any future legal challenges, but again, it is the current law of our state. Anyone who advocates for law, order, and public safety and then refuses to follow the law is in violation of their oath of office,” the governor’s office said.

Dozens of Illinois sheriffs vow to defy governor’s assault weapons ban

Gov. Pritzker signed gun-control legislation into law earlier this month

By Emma Colton | Fox News

More than six dozen Illinois sheriffs have vowed to defy a gun-control law signed by Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker that bans semiautomatic rifles.

“Part of my duties that I accepted upon being sworn into office was to protect the rights provided to all of us, in the Constitution,” Edwards County Sheriff Darby Boewe said in a Facebook post.

Boewe is one of at least 74 sheriff offices that have posted statements in opposition of the law, according to ABC News.

The Illinois Senate passed its version of the “Protect Illinois Communities Act” last Monday. The bill bans assault weapons and high-capacity magazines from being manufactured or sold in the state. Pritzker signed the bill into law last Tuesday, banning the manufacturing and sale of types of semiautomatic rifles and pistols, .50-caliber guns, as well as attachments that can increase a gun’s fire rate.

AR-15-style rifles are on display at Freddie Bear Sports gun shop in Tinley Park, Illinois, on Aug. 8, 2019. (Zbigniew Bzdak/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

The Illinois Sheriff’s Association said in a statement that it opposed the bill since its inception.

“We, as a representative of chief law enforcement officials throughout Illinois, are very concerned and disturbed by the ongoing and escalating violence throughout our State and Country,” the statement, released Wednesday, said.

“We are always supportive of new tools, techniques and laws that assist us in preventing and holding accountable those that wage efforts of harm and violence on others. However, this new law does not do that.”

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast/File)

Richland County Sheriff Andrew R. Hires said in a Facebook post that “The right to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people.”

“I, among many others, believe that HB 5471 is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution,” Hires said.

There are at least 102 sheriff’s offices in Illinois. The 74 offices vowing to defy the new law will affect roughly 30% of residents in the state, according to ABC News.

The Illinois State Capitol (Armando L. Sanchez/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images/File)

Cook County, the state’s most populous county that is home to about 40% of the Illinois population, has not spoken out against the law.

Pritzker said during an interview on MSNBC last week that sheriffs opposing the law are taking part in “political grandstanding.”

“It’s our state police and law enforcement across the state that will, in fact, enforce this law, and these outlier sheriffs will comply or, frankly, they’ll have to answer to the voters,” Pritzker said.

His office added in comment to Fox News Digital on Monday that “sheriffs have a constitutional duty to uphold the laws of the state.”

“This is political grandstanding at its worst. The assault weapons ban is the law of Illinois. The General Assembly passed the bill and the Governor signed it into law to protect children in schools, worshippers at church, and families at parades from the fear of sudden mass murder,” a Pritzker spokesperson said.

Fox News’ Greg Wehner contributed to this report.

Semiautomatic weapons ban becomes Illinois law

Opponents vow to challenge the IL legislature’s sweeping gun ban in court

Illinois banned the sale or possession of semiautomatic weapons Tuesday when Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed legislation driven largely by the killing of seven people at a 4th of July parade last year in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park.

Pritzker acted without hesitation after the House voted 68-41 to make Illinois the ninth state, as well as Washington, D.C., to prohibit the sale or possession of semiautomatic weapons. The vote concurred with a plan the Senate OK’d Monday night.

Pritzker, who was sworn into his second term on Monday, celebrated the culmination of what he described as a four-year struggle against “the powerful forces” of gun advocacy groups.

“We will keep fighting — bill by bill, vote by vote, and protest by protest — to ensure that future generations only hear about massacres like Highland Park, Sandy Hook, and Uvalde in their textbooks,” Pritzker said in a statement.

In his inaugural address Monday, the Democrat abhorred not only the Highland Park mass shooting that also left 30 injured, but frequent gun violence in Chicago, notably the gun play that killed two 16-year-olds and injured two others last month at Benito Juarez High School on Chicago’s west side.

Critics warn the governor’s signature will trigger court challenges, which will ultimately overturn the law as a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Ed Sullivan, a lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association, said legal action will be swift. Senate President Don Harmon closed debate on Senate action Monday night by boldly declaring to critics, “See you in court.” The ISRA responded, “Challenge accepted.”

State Republicans, whose 45 seats dropped by five with a new General Assembly taking over on Wednesday, were left snarling during debate. Rep. Blaine Wilhour of Beecher City, 97 miles northeast of St. Louis, snidely complained that Democrats “despise our Founders.”

“A government willing to defy our Constitution is a government that is completely out of control. So you can sit here and dictate whatever you want today,” Wilhour said. “But I can tell you that we will not comply and you’re not going to do a darn thing about it because the law, the Constitution and the founding principles are on our side.”

The legislation bans dozens of specific brands or types of rifles and handguns, .50-caliber guns, attachments and rapid-firing devices. No rifle will be allowed to accommodate more than 10 rounds, with a 15-round limit for handguns.

Those who already own such guns will have to register them, including serial numbers, with the Illinois State Police. The new law enables merchants to sell or return current stock and Illinois-based manufacturers can sell their wares outside Illinois or to law enforcement.

A semiautomatic weapons ban passed by the Illinois legislature was signed into law by Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Tuesday. (Fox News)

Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch introduced his mother, Willie Mae Welch, who was with him on the House floor. Welch told how, as a teenager in 1985, his mother’s sister was fatally shot while sitting in a car outside her church. Welch’s aunt had three young girls. His parents, despite having three boys of their own, took them in. No assailant was ever apprehended.

“It’s time that we protect Illinois communities,” Welch said. “It’s time that we protect Illinois families. Let’s end families having to change overnight. Let’s not lose any more brothers and sisters, children to gun violence.”

Welch, a Democrat from the Chicago suburb of Hillside, took the lead on the measure from the original sponsor, Rep. Bob Morgan, a Democrat from suburban Deerfield who was participating in the Highland Park parade when the shooting began.

Eight states and the District of Columbia currently have bans on semiautomatic weapons, according to Tanya Schardt, working in favor of the legislation for the Brady Campaign. They differ in their definitions of semiautomatic weapons, but generally they ban 10-round clips for long guns and handguns. The bans have survived constitutional challenges in scores of courts, she said.

Five states — California, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey and New York — require registration of guns purchased previous to the law, Schardt said. The other three states with bans are Delaware, Maryland and Massachusetts.

Registration often angers current owners but most tolerate the collection of information, Schardt said.

The legislation also provides protection. If police stop a car driven by a semiautomatic gun owner, for example, they can instantly check to ensure it’s legally owned. And it allows law enforcement to trace a gun that, for example, is stolen and used in a crime.

The Senate changed Morgan’s initial proposal, but compromised on changes the House could accept. For example, Morgan proposed raising the age to 21 for obtaining a Firearm Owners Identification card, but the current version allows those younger to get one with parental permission.

source

Second Amendment groups warn of Illinois gun control bill heading to governor’s desk

Gun Owners of America said Illinois lawmakers are ‘bending and ignoring the constitution’

Gun rights groups are promising to fight a proposed semiautomatic weapons ban in Illinois after the state Senate advanced gun control legislation championed by Democrats.

The Illinois Senate on Monday passed its version of the “Protect Illinois Communities Act,” which would ban so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines from being manufactured or sold in the state. The bill also makes devices intended to increase the rate-of-fire of semiautomatic weapons illegal, and increases the duration of a firearm restraining order from six months up to one year under the state’s red flag law.

“Gun violence is an epidemic that is plaguing every corner of this state and the people of Illinois are demanding substantive action,” said Democratic Senate President Don Harmon. “With this legislation we are delivering on the promises Democrats have made and, together, we are making Illinois’ gun laws a model for the nation.”

The legislation would ban the manufacture or possession of dozens of brands and types of rapid-fire rifles and pistols, .50-caliber guns and attachments that enhance a weapon’s firepower. Those who currently own such guns would not be required to surrender them but would have to register them with the Illinois State Police — including serial numbers, a provision initially removed by the Senate but restored after House proponents’ objections.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker speaks after being sworn in for a second term Monday, Jan. 9, 2023, during the inauguration ceremony at the Bank of Springfield Center in Springfield, Illinois. (Brian Cassella/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

Merchants, who are federally licensed to sell such weapons, would be able to dispose of their current inventory by returning them to manufacturers or selling them.

In total, the bill would ban the future sale of nearly 100 different kinds of semi-automatic pistols, shotguns and rifles, which the legislation defines as “assault weapons.”

The National Rifle Association and other Second Amendment advocates say the legislation bans many commonly-owned rifles and goes beyond previous attempts to outlaw certain firearms.

“Not only does this tyrannical proposition infringe on the rights of all Illinois citizens, but it is also extremely dangerous,” Gun Owners of America said in a call to action opposing the bill.

The Illinois State Capitol on Jan. 6, 2022, in Springfield, Illinois. (Armando L. Sanchez/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

“These commonly owned semi-automatic firearms are used countless times every year to save lives and deter crime. Banning them will only prevent law-abiding citizens from purchasing the best firearm to defend themselves. Not to mention, the requirement to register currently owned firearms is vehemently unconstitutional,” the group argued.

The Illinois State Rifle Association said a more apt title for the bill would be, “bending and ignoring the constitution in an effort to take away your Second Amendment rights to bear arms in Illinois.” The group has said it will take legal action if the bill becomes law.

An empty chairs and bicycles remain near the scene of the shooting in Highland Park, Illinois, on July 5, 2022. (Photo by Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

A ban on semiautomatic weapons was a campaign priority for Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, particularly after a gunman killed seven people and injured 30 others in a July 4th parade shooting in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park.

Republican lawmakers were opposed to the bill, but were overwhelmingly outnumbered in the 34-20 vote Monday. State Sen. Darren Bailey, a former GOP candidate for governor, predicted the Illinois Supreme Court would find the measure unconstitutional and said he and “millions of other gun owners in this state will not comply.”

Harmon welcomed challenges to the law in remarks on the state Senate floor Monday.

The Protect Illinois Communities Act must go back to the state House for reconciliation before it is sent to Gov. Pritzker’s desk.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

By Chris Pandolfo | Fox News