California
Misfire: Behind the California concealed carry bill’s big fail
In abstract
In a state recognized for its strict gun legal guidelines, a hid carry invoice failed within the closing hours of the legislative session. Its supporters rolled the cube with a proposal that may take impact rapidly, however that required two-thirds approval.
The California Legislature hardly ever passes up a chance to put new restrictions on firearms, or stick a finger within the eye of the U.S. Supreme Court docket’s conservative majority.
However in one of many closing acts of the 2022 legislative session, lawmakers declined to do both early Thursday after they opted to not go a invoice that may have rewritten state rules on hid carry licenses.
The invoice, written by Legal professional Basic Rob Bonta and launched by Democratic Sen. Anthony Portantino of Glendale, was a direct response to a June excessive court docket ruling that struck down a New York state regulation requiring anybody making use of for the best to legally carry round a hid firearm in public, to exhibit a “particular want” first. California’s comparable regulation, which required the exhibiting of “good trigger,” fell together with it.
However regardless of the very public support of Gov. Gavin Newsom, California’s rejoinder to the court docket stalled within the Meeting, unable to beat the wariness of a handful of Democrats and the unified opposition of Republicans. That’s regardless of some persistent lobbying on the chamber floor by Bonta himself, an Assemblymember for 9 years till his 2021 appointment by Newsom to steer the state’s Division of Justice.
In response to the ultimate tally, the invoice failed by one vote.
“I’m deeply disillusioned that Californians’ proper to reside, work, and congregate safely stays in danger because of this preliminary consequence in our Legislature,” Bonta mentioned in a press release. “However make no mistake: We intend to take any and all motion needed to make sure we get a invoice that may right the risks offered to our communities because of” the court docket’s ruling.
Gun management advocates had been additionally incensed. “A harmful Supreme Court docket determination just lately put California households and communities in danger, but final evening too a lot of our representatives disregarded that hazard and uncared for to take motion,” Shannon Watts of the advocacy group Mothers Demand Motion mentioned in a press release.
For an establishment that has for years been reliably receptive to new restrictions on weapons and the individuals who personal, purchase and promote them, it was a uncommon retreat. Earlier this yr, in response to back-to-back mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, lawmakers handed and Newsom signed a bushel of latest gun payments, including to a thick physique of regulation that already makes California gun restrictions probably the most quite a few within the nation.
Including insult to harm for California gun regulation advocates: New York state handed an analogous invoice earlier this summer time that went into impact on Thursday.
However as if for example a number of the considerations held by the California invoice’s opponents, a federal decide has already mentioned that there’s “a robust probability” that the New York regulation is unconstitutional.
Why this invoice was not just like the others
For disillusioned supporters of the invoice, there’s loads of attainable blame to go round.
Even by California requirements, the proposal was bold in its scope, putting a raft of latest necessities on hid carry candidates and new restrictions on license holders. That earned the opposition of the California State Sheriffs’ Affiliation, representing the officers who would have been tasked with implementing a lot of the invoice, in addition to the icy silence of different regulation enforcement teams.
Although the Supreme Court docket banned regulation enforcement businesses from awarding permits based mostly on their very own subjective discretion, the ruling left open the likelihood that states can add on their very own “goal” requirements. Underneath Portantino’s invoice, candidates would wish to obtain a psychological evaluation, take at the least 16 hours of security coaching and supply three reference letters testifying to their ethical health.
The ruling additionally permitted counties and states to specify sure “delicate” gun-free zones. Underneath the invoice, bars and eating places, medical amenities, parks, public gatherings, airport parking heaps and most non-public companies would have fallen beneath that class.
For the invoice’s opponents, exploiting a loophole left within the court docket’s opinion was too cute by half.
“The bait and swap of this invoice is disingenuous,” Republican Assemblymember Thurston Smith from Hesperia mentioned on the Meeting flooring earlier this week.
Celebrating the invoice’s failure on Thursday, Nationwide Rifle Affiliation lobbyist Dan Reid known as the invoice “nothing greater than pure defiance of the Supreme Court docket’s ruling.”
In its opposition letter despatched to lawmakers within the closing days of the session, the California State Sheriffs’ Affiliation decried the additional administrative prices the invoice would place upon them, famous the likelihood that it might open their workplaces to authorized legal responsibility and bemoaned the truth that the coverage would flip a lot of the state right into a gun-free zone.
Different invoice watchers famous that judges, retired cops and prosecutors — professionals prone to have the ear and sympathy of many lawmakers — are disproportionately represented among the many state’s hid carry license holders.
Backers of the invoice might have additionally been victims of their very own overconfidence and eagerness. They tacked an “urgency clause” onto the invoice, so it might take impact as quickly because it was signed by the governor, slightly than ready till Jan. 1. That call raised the brink wanted to go the invoice from a easy majority to two-thirds.
With out that clause, the invoice would have handed the Meeting and certain the Senate.
“Clearly, if we thought it was going to fail, we wouldn’t have put within the urgency trigger,” Portantino mentioned later Thursday.
No love misplaced
Election-year politics and a few lingering dangerous blood between just a few key lawmakers in all probability didn’t assist issues, both.
The 2 Meeting Democrats who voted “no” had been Ken Cooley from Rancho Cordova and Bakersfield’s Rudy Salas. Each typically take a extra skeptical eye towards gun rules and each are going through aggressive elections in opposition to Republicans in November.
Assemblymember Jim Cooper, sheriff-elect in Sacramento County, abstained from voting, as did fellow Democrats Joaquin Arambula of Fresno and James Ramos of Rancho Cucamonga. As a result of the invoice wanted 54 “sure” votes to go, failing to solid a vote someway quantities to a tactful way to vote “no.”
Be taught extra about legislators talked about on this story
However Portantino reserved a particular diploma of shock for Patrick O’Donnell, a Democrat from Lengthy Seaside, who additionally declined to vote on the measure.
“To come back up one vote quick is past irritating and to know that one Assemblymember purposely reversed his vote particularly to kill this vital public security measure is reprehensible,” the senator mentioned in a press release. “California is much less secure at the moment due to that motion and I’m dedicated to bringing this invoice again on December fifth when the chief obstructionist received’t be right here to dam it.”
O’Donnell, who determined to not search reelection in November, voted in favor of an earlier modification to the invoice, however didn’t help the proposal outright when it got here up quite a few instances on the Meeting flooring. In an interview, Portantino declined to invest on the explanation behind O’Donnell’s vote. “It’s his conscience and his determination, so that you’ll need to ask him,” he mentioned.
In a press release of his personal, O’Donnell rejected the concept that he alone was accountable for killing the invoice and mentioned that he had considerations about its authorized viability.
“I want I used to be highly effective sufficient to single-handedly kill any invoice. There are 120 members of the Legislature and lots of of them didn’t help this invoice. That’s the reason it failed,” mentioned O’Donnell, who bought right into a heated debate with Portantino in June over his determination to kill one of many senator’s payments with out a listening to as chairperson of the Meeting Schooling Committee.
“I’m not going to go one thing, even on my final day within the Legislature, that is probably not constitutional,” O’Donnell mentioned. “Senator Portantino must look within the mirror as to why this invoice failed.”
Portantino mentioned he needs to “get it by the system as rapidly as attainable” within the subsequent session and that he would like to maintain the urgency provision. With out it, any new regulation wouldn’t take impact till July 1 on the earliest if it’s included into the state funds. In any other case, the default begin date could be Jan. 1, 2024.
The established order
With out the invoice’s new guidelines, the stress is now on county sheriffs to begin handing out hid carry licenses beneath the Supreme Court docket’s new commonplace, in the event that they aren’t in compliance but.
Many already are — and had been even earlier than the ruling. As a result of California’s prior licensing system granted native discretion over who has “good trigger” to have a hid carry license, counties with gun-rights sheriffs, together with Sacramento, Orange County and Fresno, assumed any applicant who met the naked minimal commonplace as having good trigger sufficient.
However for liberal-leaning city areas on the coast, modifications could also be coming.
Some “shall be dragging their toes,” mentioned Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Affiliation. “However the sheriffs are going to begin issuing, they usually’re going to be sued in a short time by us in the event that they don’t.”
San Francisco, for instance, issued simply 11 hid carry permits over the past decade, rejecting all different functions as pointless. Because the Supreme Court docket’s ruling, the division has obtained 40 functions, mentioned spokesperson Kelvin Wu.
“Now we have issued no hid carry permits as of but. We’re finalizing modifications to our insurance policies and practices based mostly on the change within the regulation,” he added.
Now that no change in regulation is forthcoming from the Legislature — at the least not within the quick time period — the consequences of the Supreme Court docket ruling that Newsom, Bonta and Portantino wished to protect California from are prone to arrive earlier than lengthy.
extra on california gun legal guidelines
California’s change to hid carry permits would scale back large variations amongst counties
Responding to a U.S. Supreme Court docket ruling, California legislators push a invoice to limit hid carry permits. New numbers present a large variation amongst counties in what number of permits have been issued. However in publishing the info, the state Division of Justice uncovered private data of allow holders.
How California bought powerful on weapons
The trendy American gun debate started in 1967 in California’s Capitol. Within the years since, California has enacted extra gun management legal guidelines than some other state.
California
STEVE HILTON: Five things California Democrats still don't get
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Along with most other Democratic politicians in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom still doesn’t seem to understand what happened in the 2024 election.
For years, Newsom, along with California cronies like former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and, of course, Vice President Kamala Harris, bragged about their state being a “model for the nation.”
In one sense–not the one they intended, of course–that’s true. California became a model of what not to do.
CALIFORNIA VOTERS NARROWLY REJECT $18 MINIMUM WAGE; FIRST SUCH NO-VOTE NATIONWIDE SINCE 1996
The terrible combination of elitism and extremism that has defined Democratic policymaking in my home state for at least the last decade has delivered failure on every front.
Despite having the highest taxes in the nation, despite the state’s budget nearly doubling in the last ten years (even as our population has been falling, in the exodus from blue state misrule), California has the highest rate of poverty in America. We have the highest housing costs, the lowest homeownership, highest gas and utility bills, and the worst business climate–ten years in a row.
This record of failure is exactly why Democrats lost so badly on November 5th. Voters had a clear choice: between more of the same Democrat policies that raised the cost of living and lowered their quality of life, or a return to the peace and prosperity of the Trump years.
GAVIN NEWSOM TO MEET WITH BIDEN AFTER VOWING TO PROTECT STATE’S PROGRESSIVE POLICIES AGAINST TRUMP ADMIN
In many ways, the contest between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris represented a battle between the ‘blue state model’ championed by Gavin Newsom in California, and the ‘red state model’ that has driven people and businesses out of California and into the arms of more welcoming states like Texas, Tennessee and Florida.
Of course, the red state model won and the blue state model was roundly rejected.
You would think that would make blue state leaders like Newsom pause and reflect. But the exact opposite has happened. Gavin Newsom immediately called a “special session” of the California legislature to “Trump-proof” his state.
What California really needs is “Newsom-proofing.”
Instead, California Democrats are doubling down on the exact same agenda that was defeated across the country – including in California, which saw the biggest shift from Democrats to the GOP in decades.
Here are the five things California Democrats still don’t get:
1. People want results, not lectures
Democrats and their media sycophants can do all the self-righteous, sanctimonious bloviating they like about “our democracy” and “equity”, but in the end people want the basics of the American Dream: a good job that pays enough to raise your family in a home of your own in a safe neighborhood with a good school so your kids can have a better life than you. No amount of moral superiority from the people in charge will make up for that if they fail to provide it.
2. Enough with the ‘climate’ extremism
“Climate” has become a religion for Democrats, and you see that especially clearly in California. But when you look at the main reason life is so unaffordable for working people, whether that’s gas prices, utility bills or housing costs, extreme climate policies are to blame. Working-class Americans can’t afford these ‘luxury beliefs.’
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
3. Who cares about Hollywood?
This election destroyed forever the myth that fancy celebrities can sway votes. Oprah, Beyonce, George Clooney, Taylor Swift…nobody cares! The new cultural powerhouses are the podcast hosts, comedians…the raw power of UFC is where it’s at, not the decadent Hollywood elite who won’t even turn up to support “their” candidate without a multimillion dollar paycheck.
4. ‘Little tech’ beats Big Tech
Democrats may console themselves with the knowledge that California’s Big Tech monopolies are on their side. But in this election we saw the rise of what famed Silicon Valley investor Marc Andressen calls “little tech”, the upstarts and rebels who reject leftist groupthink. They got engaged in this election in a way we’ve never seen before. It’s a massive shift and will be a huge force for the future.
5. Working class beats the elite
Back in 2016, after the Brexit vote, and then Donald Trump’s victory here, shocked the world, I predicted that the Republican Party had the opportunity to become a “multiracial working class coalition.” Trump’s 2024 victory has delivered that — a revolutionary shift in our political landscape. The other part of my prediction? Democrats will be left as the party of the “rich, white and woke.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Unless Democrats come to terms with these realities and change course, they can expect to lose elections for years to come. The reaction in California – epicenter of today’s Democrat elite — shows that there is zero sign of this happening.
They just don’t get it.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM STEVE HILTON
California
California proposes its own EV buyer credit — which could cut out Elon Musk's Tesla
- Gov. Gavin Newsom plans to revive California’s EV rebate if Trump ends the federal tax credit.
- But Tesla, the largest maker of EVs, would be excluded under the proposal.
- Elon Musk criticized Tesla’s potential exclusion from the rebate.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is preparing to step in if President-elect Donald Trump fulfills his promise to axe the federal electric-vehicle tax credit — but one notable EV maker could be left out.
Newsom said Monday if the $7,500 federal tax credit is eliminated he would restart the state’s zero-emission vehicle rebate program, which was phased out in 2023.
“We will intervene if the Trump Administration eliminates the federal tax credit, doubling down on our commitment to clean air and green jobs in California,” Newsom said in a statement. “We’re not turning back on a clean transportation future — we’re going to make it more affordable for people to drive vehicles that don’t pollute.”
The rebates for EV buyers would come from the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which is funded by polluters of greenhouse gases under a cap-and-trade program, according to the governor’s office.
But Tesla’s vehicles could be excluded under the proposal’s market-share limitations, Bloomberg News first reported.
The governor’s office confirmed to Business Insider that the rebate program could include a market-share cap which could in turn exclude Tesla or other EV makers. The office did not share details about what market-share limit could be proposed and also noted the proposal would be subject to negotiations in the state legislature.
A market-share cap would exclude companies whose sales account for a certain amount of total electric vehicle sales. For instance, Tesla accounted for nearly 55% off all new electric vehicles registered in California in the first three quarters of 2024, according to a report from the California New Car Dealers Association. By comparison, the companies with the next highest EV market share in California were Hyundai and BMW with 5.6% and 5% respectively.
Tesla sales in California, the US’s largest EV market, have recently declined even as overall EV sales in the state have grown. Though the company still accounted for a majority of EV sales in California this year as of September, its market share fell year-over-year from 64% to 55%.
The governor’s office said the market-share cap would be aimed at promoting competition and innovation in the industry.
Elon Musk, who has expressed support for ending the federal tax credit, said in an X post it was “insane” for the California proposal exclude Tesla.
The federal electric vehicle tax credit, which was passed as part of the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, provides a $7,500 tax credit to some EV buyers.
Musk, who is working closely with the incoming Trump administration, has expressed support for ending the tax credit. He’s set to co-lead an advisory commission, the Department of Government Efficiency, which is aimed at slashing federal spending.
The Tesla CEO said on an earnings call in July that ending the federal tax credit might actually benefit the company.
“I think it would be devastating for our competitors and for Tesla slightly,” Musk said. “But long-term probably actually helps Tesla, would be my guess.”
BI’s Graham Rapier previously reported that ending the tax credit could help Tesla maintain its strong standing in the EV market by slowing its competitors growth.
Prior to the EV rebate proposal, Newsom has already positioned himself as a foil to the incoming Trump administration. Following Trump’s election win the governor called on California lawmakers to convene for a special session to discuss protecting the state from Trump’s second term.
“The freedoms we hold dear in California are under attack — and we won’t sit idle,” Newsom said in a statement at the time.
California
California Gov. Gavin Newsom says state will provide rebates if Trump removes tax credit for electric vehicles
California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the state will provide rebates to residents if President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration does away with a federal tax credit for electric vehicles.
In a news release issued Monday, Newsom said he would restart the state’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Program, which provided financial incentives on more than 590,000 vehicles before it was phased out late 2023.
“We will intervene if the Trump Administration eliminates the federal tax credit, doubling down on our commitment to clean air and green jobs in California,” Newsom said. “We’re not turning back on a clean transportation future — we’re going to make it more affordable for people to drive vehicles that don’t pollute.”
The federal rebates on new and used electric vehicles were implemented in the Inflation Reduction Act that President Joe Biden signed into law in 2022. When Trump’s second term in office begins next year, he could work with Congress to change the rules around those rebates. Those potential changes could limit the federal rebates, including by reducing the amount of money available or limiting who is eligible.
Limiting federal subsidies on electric vehicle purchases would hurt many American automakers, including Ford, General Motors and the EV startup Rivian. Tesla, which also builds its automobiles in the United States, would take a smaller hit since that company currently sells more EVs and has a higher profit margin than any other EV manufacturer.
Newsom also announced earlier this month that he will convene a special session “to protect California values,” including fundamental civil rights and reproductive rights, that he said “are under attack by this incoming administration.”
“Whether it be our fundamental civil rights, reproductive freedom, or climate action — we refuse to turn back the clock and allow our values and laws to be attacked,” Newsom said on X on Nov. 7.
A spokesperson for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This isn’t the first time California will be taking action against the Trump’s administration concerning clean transportation legislation.
In 2019, California and 22 other states sued his administration for revoking its ability to set standards for greenhouse gas emission and fuel economy standards for vehicles, The Associated Press reported.
California sued the Trump administration over 100 times during his first term, primarily on matters including gun control, health care, education and immigration, the Los Angeles Times reported.
-
Business1 week ago
Column: Molly White's message for journalists going freelance — be ready for the pitfalls
-
Science6 days ago
Trump nominates Dr. Oz to head Medicare and Medicaid and help take on 'illness industrial complex'
-
Politics1 week ago
Trump taps FCC member Brendan Carr to lead agency: 'Warrior for Free Speech'
-
Technology1 week ago
Inside Elon Musk’s messy breakup with OpenAI
-
Lifestyle1 week ago
Some in the U.S. farm industry are alarmed by Trump's embrace of RFK Jr. and tariffs
-
World1 week ago
Protesters in Slovakia rally against Robert Fico’s populist government
-
Health3 days ago
Holiday gatherings can lead to stress eating: Try these 5 tips to control it
-
News1 week ago
They disagree about a lot, but these singers figure out how to stay in harmony