Heads Up, Revival of SB 948.

[Hit Factor]

Can you imagine if the government tried to say you had to attend an 8-hour, or even a 4-hour, training before you could exercise your constitutionally-protected right to speak in public or post anything on social media, go to church, celebrate religious holidays, publish media articles, peacefully assemble, submit a petition to the government, refuse to give consent for the government to search your home without a warrant, receive due process under the law, refuse to incriminate yourself, avoid being tried for the same crime twice, insist on a speedy and/or public trial, be tried by a jury of your peers, be represented by a lawyer, have the chance to face witnesses against you, avoid large and excessive fines, avoid cruel or unusual punishments . . .?

When would the people of this state finally say enough is enough?

 

[Experimentalist]

Guessing this gets tied up in Courts for the next 20 years before finally declared unconstitutional.

 

[shroom]

Only it'll be in full effect for those 20 years.

 

[TravelinMan]

Guessing this gets tied up in Courts for the next 20 years before finally declared unconstitutional.

There's I think six (?) states that mandate firearm training before purchase, including live fire training. Looks like there have been a couple of successful legal challenges to these laws but like the large mag bans, etc, it's very messy....

[From an AI search]:
Major Successes Against Pre-Purchase Training
Courts have been much more willing to strike down training mandates that act as a barrier to simply buying or owning a gun.

• The Oregon Victory (State Constitution): In a major victory for gun rights advocates, an Oregon state judge ruled that Measure 114—a voter-approved law requiring a permit, background check, and a mandatory gun safety training course to purchase a firearm—violated the Oregon State Constitution. While a federal judge initially found it permissible under the U.S. Constitution, the state-level ruling blocked the training and permitting mandate from taking effect. [1]
• Maryland Permit-to-Purchase Injunctions: Maryland’s handgun qualification license (HQL), which required a safety course and live-fire training prior to purchasing a handgun, was struck down by a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court found that making a law-abiding citizen wait up to 30 days for a permit and undergo training just to buy a gun for home defense unconstitutionally infringed on the Second Amendment. (Note: The full appellate court later agreed to rehear the case, keeping the law in a state of legal limbo).

 

[james350]

Load up now before 2029.. get everything you ever wanted..Then after that who cares I’ll
sit in class ..I’ll go to the range for qualification too if i see a new piece out there..Youngsters will be screwed ..probably can rent a gun.Hopefully
CRPA can get this beat back in a decade or so..

 

[mygeaux]

"I'm NOT a single issue voter..."

CA is doomed.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

An FSC is an FSC. There is no distinction in this bill from the old FSC vs the new one. So get a new FSC before this goes into effect. It will be good for 5 years. So yes, sb948 will takes years possibly to litigate, but we can buy ourselves 5 years of not having to deal with it if we renew our FSC at the right time.

 

[james350]

I’ll be a 70 years old Army vet in a handgun training class ..

 

[TravelinMan]

An FSC is an FSC. There is no distinction in this bill from the old FSC vs the new one. So get a new FSC before this goes into effect. It will be good for 5 years. So yes, sb948 will takes years possibly to litigate, but we can buy ourselves 5 years of not having to deal with it if we renew our FSC at the right time.

Yup, renew your FSC in Dec 2028 and you've basically got a little over 7 years from now until you may need to take the training. There will be exemptions like veterans and FFL03 holders (for C&R purchases only).

 

[SDDAVE56]

And that you won’t be able to buy a gun until you have the fsc but you can’t train for the fsc until you have your gun

Rent one.

 

[treelogger]

Guessing this gets tied up in Courts for the next 20 years before finally declared unconstitutional.

It will probably be litigated. But not certainly; there are other anti-gun laws in California that no pressure group is going after. Why not? Because for those pressure groups it might not be a good business case.

Will this be declared unconstitutional? Perhaps, perhaps not. As TravelinMan already pointed out, there is roughly a half dozen states that have similar requirements (although some call it a permit). Only two of them have been challenged in court. One was successful, but that was based on the Oregon State constitution, which clearly does not apply in California. The other case is not finished yet. Similar permit requirements in Illinois and New York have not been successfully challenged in court.

To HitFactor's point about other civil rights: The simple-minded comparison of gun rights to other rights is just not relevant. Different rights are different from each other. No right is absolute, all rights can (and will be) curtailed by other rights. How much and how they are curtailed is a question for legislatures and courts to figure out.

And: the voters of this state clearly have not yet had enough. Remember, Prop 63 passed with nearly a 2/3 majority restricting gun rights. Given the way politics is going, I would not be surprised if in 20 years, much more stringent restrictions on guns would pass a referendum with a 3/4 majority in California. The delicious contradiction between that and constitutional rights is not lost on those voters, but their attitude is "rights for me, but not for thee". And many gun people (including here on this forum) are perfectly happy to further feed the underlying division.

 

[Experimentalist]

... And: the voters of this state clearly have not yet had enough. Remember, Prop 63 passed with nearly a 2/3 majority restricting gun rights. Given the way politics is going, I would not be surprised if in 20 years, much more stringent restrictions on guns would pass a referendum with a 3/4 majority in California. The delicious contradiction between that and constitutional rights is not lost on those voters, but their attitude is "rights for me, but not for thee". And many gun people (including here on this forum) are perfectly happy to further feed the underlying division.

I offer that much of the U.S. population in general are under the grossly mistaken belief that controlling a tool will control human behavior.

More and more I find myself contemplating a move to locales where the population has a lower subscription to that false belief - at least when it comes to firearms.

 

[Enthused]

Reno May just put out a a good video about this bill.