Some Blue States Already Trying to Work Around SCOTUS 2nd Amendment Ruling
“Get ready for a lot of Democratic governors to proclaim they’re following the Supreme Court’s decision while doing everything they can to undermine it.”
Liberal states like California and New York are working to fortify certain gun laws following the Supreme Court’s decision on guns last week.
It should come as no surprise that they would do so.
Cam Edwards writes at Bearing Arms:
Blue states scramble to adjust concealed carry laws after Bruen decision
Get ready for a lot of Democratic governors to proclaim they’re following the Supreme Court’s decision while doing everything they can to undermine it. In the wake of Thursday’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen striking down the “may issue” carry laws in states like New York, California, New Jersey, and Maryland, anti-gun politicians are scrambling to drop the requirement that applicants for concealed carry licenses prove a “justifiable need” or “good cause” to carry, but they still want to make it as difficult as possible for citizens to exercise their right to bear arms.
In California, lawmakers are amending legislation to expand the qualifications people must have to obtain a concealed carry permit and to define the places where guns would be off-limits. The revised bill will get its first hearing Tuesday, and lawmakers hope to send it quickly to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who called Thursday’s Supreme Court decision shameful.
Other Democratic governors, lawmakers and state attorneys general also vowed to defend or amend their gun laws.
… In Hawaii, Democratic state Sen. Chris Lee said lawmakers will try to determine how else they can ensure public safety and will look at screening, training requirements and ways to keep guns out of certain public spaces — provisions the justices said would be permitted.
“Bottom line is Hawaii is about to become a more dangerous place,” said state Sen. Karl Rhoads, a Democrat.
Jeremy White of Politico has more:
California moves to fortify concealed carry limits after high court invalidates ‘good cause’ rule
California’s concealed-carry permitting rules will almost certainly become more lax under a U.S. Supreme Court decision Thursday nullifying a similar framework in New York — although Democratic elected officials quickly moved to take advantage of where the high court allowed them fortify their laws.
Within hours of the court’s decision to strike down New York’s rules, Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta and state lawmakers announced legislation that would bar concealed firearms in places like courthouses and schools and require applicants to undergo assessments for whether they are dangerous to others, which could include checking for criminal records and restraining orders. Lawmakers said they hoped to move the bill through the Legislature and to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk as quickly as possible.
Like New York, California has given local law enforcement some discretion in issuing permits — a commonality that Justice Clarence Thomas specifically noted in his opinion. California law requires sheriffs and police departments to consider whether applicants are morally upstanding and have cause for a permit, in addition to imposing a training requirement.
The good cause measure is effectively over in California.
BREAKING: California Attorney General says "effective immediately, issuing authorities should no longer require proof of good cause for the issuance of a public-carry license." pic.twitter.com/8GfQqXuvlJ
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) June 25, 2022
Stephen Gutowski, one of the most knowledgeable journalists working today in the area of firearms, says if issuing authorities try to drag their feet, it will cost them:
Jurisdictions that try to circumvent the new gun carry licensing rules handed down by SCOTUS through excessive wait times or fees will likely just end up paying lots of money to gun-rights groups when they inevitably lose in court. This won't work as a strategy. https://t.co/BwYAeCshMd
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 24, 2022
I have a sneaking suspicion that some blue states will continue looking for ways to ‘resist’ the new rules.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
When you start out by declaring your intent is to subvert the Supreme Court’s ruling, you have already given yourself two strikes when you’re sued and the case gets to court.
“Your honor, just an up front note, we will ignore any ruling we don’t like and we will declare you illegitimate if we lose. Just letting you know.”
The judge would be very impressed I’m sure.
Not in CA9. Anything Hawaii and California do will only be reversed at SCOTUS, which means it will be many years before they get slapped down again. They’re going to play whack-a-mole with SCOTUS, and since the lower courts have rebelled against Heller for more than a decade they will be of no help.
Why aren’t these individuals personally liable as conspirators to deprive others of their civil rights? At this point the assholes can’t claim to act in any official capacity
What civil “right” have they deprived anyone of is the reason they are not held accountable as well as. They “legislate” law, technically they don’t interpret it. (only in the most general terms and with enough vagueness to get around many laws)
The right to self defense is violated when you don’t allow law abiding citizens to bear arms!
What policies do they have in place now? My goodness, to get a CCP in my state you have to pass background checks and all that already. Courthouses (federal ones anyways) are already off limits for firearms.
I wonder what they’ll say in a few years when the number of gun crimes committed by concealed carry permit holders increases from 0 to 0 in their state… I can guess but they’ll look awfully dumb.
“…gun crimes committed by concealed carry permit holders increases from 0 to 0…”
That would be the case without outside interference and no one putting their finger on the scale to skew the results.
The trend is away from CCP’s to constitutional carry, so those statistics will become irrelevant anyway. In the future, the left will blame ANY gun crimes on “right to carry” laws.
They will be on much sounder footing if they implement straightforward training requirements that are capable of being met by the average person. Straightforward training requirements coupled with background checks for issuance aren’t really objectionable and would survive scrutiny. TX, prior to constitutional carry, had a very clear framework for shall issue permits and where carry was not allowed that would actually meet the stated objections of these jurisdictions without being overly burdensome or unconstitutionally restrictive.
Unfortunately I foresee an unwillingness to accept reality on the part of the deep blue jurisdictions, no surprise there, and they will inevitably go too far and force lawsuits all the while depriving honest citizens of their rights. I wonder if a pre clearance regime such as many jurisdictions endured for repeated violations of voting rights might not be just the ticket to discourage repeat violations.
Perhaps the next r admin together with a r controlled Congress might enact such provisions for not only 2nd amendment issues but the 1st as well as others. Efforts at compelling speech come to mind with ‘pronouns’ and distorted title 9 due process violations. Incorporation of black letter constitutional violations shouldn’t be overly objectionable but our opponents will certainly do so.
Watch therm demand you carry 100 million dollars of insurance. Of course, that would be unconstitutional but it will be years in court as by then The Wise Latina said mistakes can be corrected .
100 million?
Aw come on Bob. That might be the case up north in Alaska where everything’s expensive, but down here in the lower 48 I don’t believe it would go above 99 million.
Fortunately, a California city already tried something similar and was already struck down. These types of “surety statutes” are actually addressed by Thomas in the NYSRPA v NY ruling. It seems that Thomas was thinking ahead to what legislators were already saying out loud after the hearing in November.
Actually Chief, no. Even though I support firearms training and believe it to be a good thing- it too is Unconstitutional in terms of chilling the 2A.
I would like to see something allowed under a de minimis ruling just as there are some restrictions on other rights but that “training” could also be used as a weapon to deny the right as well ( imagine you had to have a passing score on a 600 meter range to “have” then have to “maintain” a RIGHT)
The problem here is the left. They “parrot” common sense stuff ( which firearms training certainly is) but they don’t actually mean it. When they get it- they weaponize it.
That too is a textbook Marxist tactic. They claim “common sense” and when you resist because they will abuse it- they claim YOU are being unreasonable.
We are not ignorant of their schemes
We will have to disagree then.I suggested these blue anti gun rights jurisdictions adopt the provisions from TX in order to meet their stated concerns. The doctrine now required by Bruen will stop much of the bureaucratic BS provisions but that may take a bit of time but maybe not if they CT leads off with a strict scrutiny analysis and grants injunctions to halt the BS.
Reasonable training requirements as in TX pre constitutional carry, were not burdensome because they were designed to teach, instruct, train and demonstrate basic safety, competency and knowledge. These blue anti gun rights jurisdictions are unlikely to do that. Instead they will seek far more onerous provisions. Though there is a case in Hawaii that may end up putting a limit on imposing a burden simply to make it difficult as opposed to supporting a legitimate interest.
Bruen is very clear. It removes the option for ‘may issue’ and when these blue jurisdictions attempt to substitute onerous or costly training requirements as a barrier to ‘shall issue’ they will be slapped down, eventually. I reside in a State with constitutional carry and worked to get that over the goal line. Others need to work to advance the ball in their own State and Bruen gives them the tools to do so.
Its more than just a mere disagreement ( which I personally do not disagree with in the first place but this isn’t about “reasonable” its about what can survive legal challenge)
“Inalienable” rights ( rights given by God) do not require training or conditions in order to exercise. (Rights given by a government would or could)
Where is the “equal” training on the 1st, 4th, 5th and so forth in order to exercise them?
Its not about “burden” ( in terms of the individual) because a liberal state could require some absurd certification and insurance process for a “instructor” ( or posting a bold as I do as an Engineer)
Now that CCW class costs $1000 plus ammo and range time ( that’s how the left works)
Again, you operate from the HISTORICALLY DEMONSTRATED FALSE PREMISE that the left isn’t going to intentionally and willfully in their power to destroy the ability to keep and bear arms by any means necessary.
Its that kind of “reasonable thinking” that has gotten us to where we are right now and more of the same isn’t going to fix it.
The left doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about gun safety, crime control, protecting children or anything else regardless of what kind of “beguiling’ words they use.
It is the act of a FOOL to deny the truth in front of their own eyes and keep trying to reason or find common ground with pure evil.
There is no compromise between light and dark.
I am not operating from a premise that the blue jurisdictions won’t attempt exactly what you claim. I explicitly stated that they would be very likely do so. That’s not a compromise, it is a recognition that the anti gun jurisdictions will continue down their anti constitutional path until they are stopped.
The decisions in Heller, MacDonald and Bruen make clear that the CT recognizes a narrow State interest in training requirements that are not burdensome. Bruen also laid out a very clear admonishment to the Federal Judiciary to stop playing games and apply strict scrutiny in the first instance which will allow those impacted to successfully challenge and overturn anti gun regimes.
That’s where we are as a factual matter. I don’t see how a willingness to recognize the current state of reality is foolish. To deny reality is an act of delusion.
A recognition of the current reality is not an endorsement of that reality as a positive or as a good thing. A recognition of the world as it currently exists doesn’t mean we agree with the current status nor bar us from seeking to modify the current status to our preferred outcome.
@ Chief
Your read is not correct re: Bruen.
The state has no standing in recognizing an inalienable right ( in fact the state is excluded) be it a nuance, burden or not. The right simply “is”.
There is nothing even close to establishing or endorsing any “training” requirement and there cannot be.
Unlike the “alleged” restriction of yelling fire in the theater explanation pundits like to misrepresent and use in order to restrict the 2a- those fail the application on the 2a because what they in essence said is
Free speech is not considered to be (fighting words, deliberate threats, and so forth)- that’s dancing a line like restricting machine guns.
Any training requirement (on the front end) to EXERCISE the RIGHT in the first place is a different animal. That’s why it has no standing in Bruen or anywhere else.
You have the inalienable right regardless of a fee based course. ( one could make a case about specific training regarding locations or situations in a narrow context)
That’s the compromise we cannot allow to happen.
The left has a demonstrated expertise, willingness and desire to legislatively restrict anything they cannot outright ban and we cannot give them a nanometer here.
Taurus,
I don’t disagree that our preference for less or no restrictions would be preferable. You are mistaken if you believe the State has zero interest to very narrowly determine where and in some extremely limited situations the manner of exercise of those rights. That’s a political and legal reality. It’s not a compromise to recognize that fact. As you say it simply is and denial of this reality is delusional.
If the CT had adopted your view that the State lacks any such legitimate interest they had an opportunity to do so. They didn’t and continued to rely upon Heller and MacDonald which also refuse to acknowledge the unfettered no limits regime you prefer. Consider the example of a convicted felon released upon serving their sentence. His rights have been curtailed by the State. He doesn’t automatically have the legal ability to possess a firearm restored to him the day he gets out of prison.
That example demonstrates that the political and legal reality differs from your position. That is a widely accepted exception to the right to keep and bear arms. That doesn’t mean that either of us necessarily agree with the philosophical underpinning of the current political and legal regime.
Far from it. Here in Bama, A very red State with a long history of widespread firearms ownership and use we had a ‘shall issue’ regime. Then those of us who preferred constitutional carry got busy, got organized and got constitutional carry across the goal line. It goes into effect in January. It was a long road to get there.
Similar efforts will be required by the Citizens of each State to achieve either legislative or legal victories in advancement of their political policy preferences. Heller, MacDonald and now Bruen have granted them the tools.
None of those decisions reject the proposition that the State does in fact possess a narrow interest allowing limits. If you want further adoption towards your position then that is another fight to be made.
@ Chief
Specifically this>>>You are mistaken if you believe the State has zero interest to very narrowly determine where and in some extremely limited situations the manner of exercise of those rights. That’s a political and legal reality. It’s not a compromise to recognize that fact. As you say it simply is and denial of this reality is delusional.
Let me define that “narrow” determination and its VERY narrow.
There is the supremacy clause as well as the Federal definition. Yes a state has NARROW window in some cases but in the example we have discussed ( a mandatory training requirement to carry) because first of all, it CANNOT be construed as anything narrow or specific. (and I stated as much that possibly in certain areas or restricted times)
For the general exercise of a right- you CANNOT say you need to have a certificate to exercise the right. That’s the opposite of “narrow” ( that would be all encompassing).
For the PRIVILEGE of driving a car on a road- the state can mandate driver safety, license and taxes to “use”.
On this>>Consider the example of a convicted felon released upon serving their sentence. His rights have been curtailed by the State. He doesn’t automatically have the legal ability to possess a firearm restored to him the day he gets out of prison.
Misapplied because a felony is when a person by act creates a condition where a right is judicially removed. That’s nowhere close to having to pass a test to exercise a right.
On this>>>Far from it. Here in Bama, A very red State with a long history of widespread firearms ownership and use we had a ‘shall issue’ regime. Then those of us who preferred constitutional carry got busy, got organized and got constitutional carry across the goal line. It goes into effect in January. It was a long road to get there.
That’s cause and effect. The states had to take up the issue because of the reluctance of the Federal govt to do their job. Still not the same.
None of those directly or indirectly affect the states narrow ability to limit anything and requiring a certificate/course would not be a limitation ( limitation defined as having a right but with restrictions)- it would be a BARRIER ( you cannot exercise the right freely until you accomplish “x”) which it why it would fail.
Taurus,
I will watch with great interest as the case you file to overcome the current legal and political regime advances through the CT system.
When you secure victory I will be the first to congratulate you on a hard earned success. When do file your lawsuit and in what CT?
@ Chief,
At the moment, nothing to file for but I will let you know.
What will prove interesting ( but the subject of a future conversation) is what the blue states will concoct to “work around” the new restrictions.
We will most likely be picking up and revamping this conversation then with a whole new set of subject matter.
Taurus,
Nothing to file for? If you reject limits and or barriers or whatever adjective you prefer relating to carry then why not file based on lack of reciprocity for a carry permit? Heck, why not nationwide constitutional carry?
We agree on 99% of this issue as a practical legal /political matter and 100% as a philosophical matter. The difference being whether a State might posses any narrow legitimate interest in who is or isn’t granted a permit or where that permit might not be valid.
I believe those narrow interests exist but you disagree. You came pretty hard at a 99% ally (me) on this issue but somehow don’t believe you have an issue worth fighting for in CT? SCOTUS just reaffirmed the narrow interests that you reject but you don’t want to fight in CT where it counts? What’s up with that?
@ Chief
In response to >>>We agree on 99% of this issue as a practical legal /political matter and 100% as a philosophical matter. The difference being whether a State might posses any narrow legitimate interest in who is or isn’t granted a permit or where that permit might not be valid.
I believe those narrow interests exist but you disagree. You came pretty hard at a 99% ally (me) on this issue but somehow don’t believe you have an issue worth fighting for in CT? SCOTUS just reaffirmed the narrow interests that you reject but you don’t want to fight in CT where it counts? What’s up with that?
First, yes we are allied about 99% of the time and if I wrote anything in any way that leads you to believe I “came at you” in an adversarial manner then please accept my apology for doing so as that was NEVER my intent.
Now to the merits of the discussion
To specify ( which may have gotten lost in numerous posts), I DO agree VERY NARROW exclusions at the state level exist- I was specifically and ONLY referring to the original posit of a “required training class” or similar in order to carry.
I was not referring to any other narrow exclusion.
YES, a state does have narrow exclusions on where a permitted person could not carry as long as they pass the test in Heller and McDonald and Bruen.
I suggest everyone download and read a copy of the decision focusing on the plain language of the syllabus and specifically all of section II where this is explained in detail.
As far as nationwide carry, The NRA and GOA are already working on that. This ruling ( and the ruling stating this violates the 14th amendment as well) has officially laid the groundwork for national carry. ( that will be a long fight but winnable)
Hope that cleared everything up
If they impose a training requirement they’ll couple that with making the requirement impossible to meet, e.g. requiring range time but making sure no “qualified” ranges are available.
When they do the people impacted can file suit to stop that. The decision in Bruen provides the means to rein in that sort of shenanigans. The State can hardly claim a legitimate interest in training then eliminate opportunities to train such that it is practically impossible to meet the requirements.
As an example that State requires one week of in person training. Then specifies that the instruction be performed by the State Police at their academy range. They further require a student to instructor ratio of 10 to 1. They make the range available one week per month. Only 120 people per year max can meet the requirements.
That sort of BS will get stopped. Recall that the underlying philosophy addressed in Bruen was that the 2nd amendment is no different than other amendments and beyond narrow State interest in safety the requirements can’t be such that they are used as a defacto way to prevent exercising the right.
So now, we have to pay EVEN MORE?
Chief, you say it will be “stopped”?
First, it NEVER SHOULD BE ALLOWED.
Second- WHY should the INNOCENT be “deprived” and then have to “pay” to fix that which should never have been allowed in the first place.
Third- WHERE and WHEN has anything “liberal” EVER BEEN FIXED?
(It took 50 YEARS to fix Roe- how much money and lives did that “fix” cost?)
Fourth- WHO is going to do the “stopping” and “fixing” ( CERTAINLY not a leftist or a RINO)
I respectfully request you address those 4 points where they would actually work in your scenario.
That just occurred in the case at hand; Bruen. A plaintiff objected to the overly restrictive statute and was successful in having SCOTUS not only agree with his position but also rebuke the Judiciary for failure to apply a strict scrutiny test.
We agree that we should stop the totalitarian impulses of those who seek to deny our constitutionally protected rights.
In some States we can do so at the ballot box which prevents the practices from ever getting started. In others, such as NY or CA there are not enough people willing to use the ballot box to prevent infringement of their rights and freedom.
In these States, a court challenge is going to be necessary. Fortunately the decisions in Heller, MacDonald and Bruen combine to provide ample tools to successfully challenge even the most hostile anti gun blue jurisdictions.
Heller, MacDonald and Bruen all show it can be done even v such hostile anti gun regimes as Chicago, DC and NY. Will it cost time and funding to secure freedom and the constitutional rights of the Citizens of the blue jurisdictions? Unfortunately yes. But the Bruen decision in particular provides a very effective tool because it changes the framework for evaluation by the judiciary.
Saving the world isn’t my responsibility nor yours. I worked to secure constitutional carry in my State. Was that easier in a very red State? Absolutely, but even here it took multiple bites at the apple over a long period of years. Our political opponents don’t rest or lose interest. They are dedicated to achieving their goals. We must be more dedicated, more vigilant never losing sight of the fact that they are at root totalitarian.
It would be infinitely preferable if our opponents gave up but they will not. Which means we have to use the tools we have to push them back. For now that means the ballot box or the court system or both.
So instead of, “Give me a reason to issue a permit” we’re going to, “Wait, let me find an excuse not to issue one.”
I guess we’ll have to wait another fifty years for the courts to figure out that allowing permit requirements opens the door to infringement.
Bonta has it all figured out. Other AGs will follow suit.
Easy peasy. We checked your social media posts back for the last ten years. You referred to our current Attorney General as a “crap-weasel”. This is not only “hate” speech, but since he is an Asian American, it is also racist. Not only that you had a parking ticket 5 years ago. You are a morally bankrupt basket case, and you want to carry a firearm in public?
hahaha, no way! Application rejected. And don’t come back.
Show me the man, and I’ll show you the reason…………………………….
Stalin, but it was “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”
He was correct that you can find something on anyone if you look hard enough. That’s why I think most politicians are compromised and do as they’re told. It’s called a control file.
My bad, it was Beria speaking to Stalin.
The courses I have taken had students both private citizens and law enforcement including SWAT. One in particular was from Massad Ayoob’s group…one week of classwork on use of deadly force and range work requiring passing FBI qualification shooting. I have taken numerous courses…passing alll. Did I get a CCW permit? Of course not in my state of California ….despite being neck deep in treating gang bangers and Black Muslim leader.s at 3AM. These permits are only for the VERYs …very rich, very powerful, and very loyal Party mrmbers. We aren’t in the USA and haven’t been for a long time.
In a far flung state…with Constitutional carry now. Glorious…except the risk now are more furry like the Yogi that ambled by my front door yesterday. Still there are two legged parasites even here.
These laws are all about class or economic discrimination against normal, law-abiding people. Some fake big shot is allowed to decide whether a normal person is in enough fear for her life. Celebrities and politicians, of course, get armed guards which a normal person cannot afford.
The California governor’s Oath of Office:
(emphasis added).
Why are not comments such as those above by governor Newsom grounds for impeachment? I know it will never happen in such a liberal state, but like elections oaths have consequences (or should have).
They are, but consider which party, and what faction within that party, control both houses of the California legislature. I know, sensible folks in CA tried to get him recalled, but by making his likely replacement out to be essentially a dark-skinned clone of Donald Trump, Newsom hung on.
“Grounds for impeachment” is having the appropriate majorities in each house of the legislature. Since Dems control both houses of the CA legislature, there are no grounds to impeach any Dem in that state, almost no matter what they do.
Let’s see . . . .
SCOTUS has inambiguously declared that the right to carry in public, by law abiding adult citizens for self defense, is a fundamental constitutional right. It recognized that the state may impose certain limited objective perquisites (a-la a drivers license), sensitive place carry prohibitions, etc., but may not simply use those in a way that undermines the normal citizen’s right to carry.
Now we see politicians like the CA and NY governors publicly stating that they believe this decision is wrong and will do everything they can to frustrate its implementation. (The ghosts of Orval Faubus and George Wallace smile.) I suspect we’ll see a plethora of similar statements by various public officials responsible for issuing carry permits. And can you imagine what the internal communities within the offices of such officials show their motives and intentions are?
So, we have individuals acting under color of state law acting deliberately to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights as plainly articulated by SCOTUS; indeed, they are proudly proclaiming that is exactly their intent.
Anybody else here seeing the 1983 lawsuits that will follow? What am I missing as to why those won’t be pretty clear cut?
“unambiguously”
So I could get my CCW in California now, provided that I meet the training and background requirements?
California had one of the the least restrictive no-carry zone lists of any state. Then they add schools to the list, even though no permit holder had ever shot up a school. Now I expect they overcorrect and come up with an extremely restrictive list of no-carry zones. They might even do no-carry zones i.e. no carry within 500-1000′ of a school, courthouse, hospital, etc. Most of a city can be eliminated as a carry zone with rules like that.
Gov Hair Gel released over 60,000 felons from prison a few years ago and they returned to their old neighborhoods. Once the “Defund the Police” got going and BLM riots took hold, those neighborhoods were trashed. Guess who started buying guns?
The avidly left-wing Beverly Hills crowd found their exclusive stores on and around Rodeo Drive getting looted regularly under newly-elected DA Gascon and guess who started buying guns?
As women are being cancelled out of existence with the LGBT……ZZZ and male-hating feminists running amok. guess who have become the biggest buyers of guns?
Of course, they can’t get concealed carry permits either because they can’t convince the gate keepers, all George Soros minions, that they have need.
With elections around here hopelessly rigged and the GOP nowhere to be found, few even vote anymore. Everyone owns guns these days including more and more Democrats (who were always gun owners anyway). With or without GOP help, there will be a very strong resistance here against the gun grabbers. 2A is NOT a partisan issue. Politicians know that but they don’t work for the voters anymore. We have become the enemy.
I think it’s a great idea to have ALL OF THE pro-abortion, anti-gun nuts in three or four states where they can abort their next generations at will, and refuse to arm to protect themselves.
WE can keep better track of them there, and pull the plug when the time comes.
18 USC 242 “Deprivation of Rights under the color of Law.”
If America had an Attorney General instead of a Party Apparatchik all of the Congress Critters and POTUS that sighed the “Gun Safety” Bill are CRIMINALS and should immediately be arrested.
Evil communists like Warden Newsom aren’t going to let little things like law and justice get in the way of their thirst for power and control.
Nothing that CA officials have said is not already being done. When you apply for a concealed carry, the Sheriff or whatever law enforcement is in charge of it already do a background check on you. You are already barred from carrying in schools, courthouses etc. It’s nice that they are acting like they are getting tough and doing an end-run around SCOTUS when nothing like that is happening. Political posturing only.