On January 6, 2024, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dissolved a stay of a district court’s injunction against Senate Bill 2’s near-total ban on CCW gun carry in the state. In so doing, the Ninth Circuit has largely restored the status quo prior to the SB 2 ban on licensed concealed carry in nearly all public places. Moreover, PORAC President Brian Marvel has been actively supporting the litigation, Mays v. Bonta, that obtained the issuance of an injunction against the carry restrictions in SB 2.
By SB 2’s plain terms openly admit “[i]t is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to address the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022)”, which held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect a private citizen’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. SB 2 amends or creates thirty separate sections of the penal code in regards to firearms possessions and the process for private citizens to obtain CCW permits.
Prior to January 1, 2024, many private citizens vetted by a rigorous background check process and licensed by the state, regularly carried a firearm for personal protection. Some had done so for years. SB 2 uprooted longstanding rights of CCW holders to carry in the places now designated as “sensitive” and thus off-limits. In what has been termed the “Vampire Rule”, SB 2 even prohibits CCW holders from carrying on private property open to the public, unless the owner first posts permission. In short, SB 2 designates nearly every public place a sensitive area where carrying is prohibited.
The new statute and the implementing regulations also increased the costs and training requirements for obtaining a CCW, severely limiting the pool of eligible CCW instructors.
Although SB 2 currently has minimal impact on active or retired peace officers, PORAC President Marvel remains concerned that the Legislature will eventually extend these restrictions to retired officers. The Legislature has recently began clawing back peace officer exemptions to gun laws such as the Unsafe Hand Gun Act (SB 377) and outright refusing to exempt peace officers from other noxious gun legislation, such as SB 505 which would have imposed strict liability even on the justified use of a firearm in self-defense and required firearm insurance. President Marvel filed a
declaration in support of the injunction against SB 2, just as he had done previously in
Boland v. Bonta to support an injunction against the Unsafe Handgun Act. (PORAC also filed an Amicus Curiae brief in the Ninth Circuit supporting the
Boland injunction. The Ninth Circuit ruling on this appeal will be issued soon.)
On December 20, 2023, Judge Carney enjoined SB 2's overly expansive sensitive places definitions banning carrying. The Order describing SB 2 as “sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.” The preliminary injunction essentially maintained the status quo with respect to the pre-SB2 “gun-free zones” such as courts and government buildings. President Marvel’s declaration was cited repeatedly in the Order, which explained that criminals will not abide the restrictions imposed on highly vetted CCW holders. Marvel advised that if the State is serious about addressing gun violence, the Attorney General should fulfill his Constitutional duties to ensure enforcement of gun crime enhancements and prohibitions on firearm possession by prohibited persons in jurisdictions where progressive prosecutors are nullifying gun laws that actually enhance public safety.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals initially issued a stay that allowed the state’s new “gun-free zones,” which cover most public places and even private stores, to go into effect while that appeal is being heard. Thankfully, on January 6, 2024, the Stay was dissolved and the injunction is now restored while the Attorney General appeals the ruling. Although SB 2 currently exempts peace officers, the outcome of Mays will likely establish the outer limit of restrictions the Legislature can constitutionally impose on retired peace officers.
