On February 23, 2024, Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), the California Association of Highway Patrolmen (CAHP), the California State Sheriffs’ Association (CSSA), and the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPPC) filed an amicus curiae brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case May v. Bonta. Granting an injunction against the "sensitive places" restriction in SB 2, District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney repeatedly cited PORAC President Brian Marvel's declaration explaining that instead of focusing on law-abiding CCW permit holders, the State should focus on preventing crimes committed with guns by restoring accountability and consequences.
The Amicus brief focuses on the State's unconstitutional efforts to defy the mandates of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated v. Bruen while openly condoning the nonenforcement of sentencing enhancements for committing violent crimes with firearms and law against prohibited persons possessing firearms. These interests are aligned with those of the research and crime data studies of CPPC President John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D. The brief cites his research and analysis concluding that right to carry laws actually reduce violent crime whereas expansive restrictions on where CCW permit holders may carry actually encourage gun violence in those areas. Notably, Lott's research debunked claims that California's gun restrictions were responsible for dramatic reductions in violent crime during the 1990s, when in fact the reductions were due to California’s tough three-strikes law, which increased the risks and consequences for engaging in gun violence staring in 1994.
Legislature responded to Bruen by rashly introducing new gun legislation that unconstitutionally burdens law abiding gun owners, including some retried peace officers, while having no appreciable impact on individuals who commit crimes with firearms. S.B. 2 is effectively the Legislature’s message to Californians that you can have your permit to carry for self-defense, but good luck using it.
SB 2 designates nearly everywhere a “sensitive place” where carrying a firearm is forbidden even with a CCW permit. Bruen recognized the lawfulness of certain restrictions on certain places, such as schools, government buildings, legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses, but warned against overbroad restrictions such as all places of public congregation. The California Legislature disregarded the Court’s warning against “expanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement” and “effectively declar[ing] the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place.’”
For example, it bans carrying in private businesses unless they affirmatively post a sign welcoming people with firearms. Several federal courts have invalidated similar “vampire” statutes (you must receive permission before entering) noting the property owners must impose that restriction, not the State. Under SB 2, the only place where an individual could legally carry is some (but not all) streets and sidewalks, and businesses that post “guns allowed” signs. Such restrictions have no influence on armed criminals or mass shooters.
This litigation is vital to protecting citizen's self-defense rights in public. Many retired peace officers are not subject to the restrictions of SB 2, but some must apply for permits in the same manner as private citizens. Moreover, vindicating Constitutional carry rights protects officers from future repeal of their carry rights under Penal Code section 25455.
Click this link to read the amicus curiae brief filed by David E. Mastagni and Timothy K. Talbot.
