Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-26-2020, 7:10 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,757
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Gov Newsom won't tell sheriffs whether gun stores are "essential" businesses

Quote:
Newsom was asked about the issue after Los Angeles County reversed course on a move to close gun stores amid the spread of coronavirus in the region and the county's shelter-in-place order. L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva initially ordered the closing of gun stores, but legal counsel for the county determined gun stores are essential businesses and must remain open. Villanueva then rescinded the order.

During his Wednesday press conference, Newsom was asked whether the state would issue an official guidance for localities to follow, but Newsom said no guidance would be coming.

"I believe in people's right to bear arms and I believe people are exercising that right," Newsom said of reports of increased sales at gun stores. "But I'll defer to the sheriff in this instance, and I'll defer to sheriffs in their respective jurisdictions for that clarification."

<snip>

The full text of the Los Angeles County legal opinion that held gun stores were essential businesses was not released to the public.
More at:
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/arti...t-15157244.php

IOW, Newsom isn't willing to land in federal court to defend an unconstitutional order, but he's more than willing to let anti sheriffs go there (by him, Newsom, not declaring gun stores "essential businesses").

Sounds like someone should submit a Public Records Act request (PRA) for LA Co's legal counsel's full opinion that determined gun stores are "essential" businesses during this state of emergency. https://lasd.org/records-faq/

You would think the CA DOJ/BoF and/or CA AG would have an opinion on this matter too.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 03-26-2020 at 7:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-26-2020, 7:18 AM
rodralig's Avatar
rodralig rodralig is offline
Sarariman Shuta
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Rowland Heights
Posts: 1,989
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Yup! In the broadcast, when asked about it, he deferred it the sheriffs and passed the buck! Typical as f@ck!

_
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-26-2020, 7:22 AM
JTizel's Avatar
JTizel JTizel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Komifornia
Posts: 685
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Spineless, typical politician saying anything to appease both sides when pressed.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-26-2020, 7:25 AM
JohnnyMtn's Avatar
JohnnyMtn JohnnyMtn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 1,065
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

He proves that yes, he is a pathetic politician unwilling to take a stand and do something. Not that I want him declaring gun stores non-essential but if he did that at least I would have the teeniest but of respect for him because at least he is being honest with us.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-26-2020, 8:24 AM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,609
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I see Newsoms stand as no different than the way CCW's are currently being handled that being the local sheriff can decide if they believes in the 2nd amendment or not.

Last edited by R Dale; 03-26-2020 at 9:10 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-26-2020, 8:25 AM
downdiver2's Avatar
downdiver2 downdiver2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 873
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

The Gov and the Sheriff of LA, and SD for that matter - are the biggest POS out there.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-26-2020, 12:31 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,599
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As I noted on my own thread very early this morning...

There are a couple of interesting pieces which might provide a 'suggestion' for the inconsistency, mixed messaging, and why Newsom appears to be passing the buck with regard to clarifying issues such as gun shop closures. (Thanks to lemonherb for the link.)

Gov. Gavin Newsom says state won't issue guidance on whether gun stores are essential businesses

Quote:
California Gov. Gavin Newsom will not offer official guidance on whether gun stores can be classified as essential businesses and remain open during the state's shelter-in-place order...

"I belive in people's right to bear arms and I believe people are exercising that right," Newsom said of reports of increased sales at gun stores. "But I'll defer to the sheriff in this instance, and I'll defer to sheriffs in their respective jurisdictions for that clarification."...
It may or may not be related to Newsom wishing to, eventually, take a run at the Presidency. However, there appears to be certain... 'legal issues'... with the order. The first opinion, one I actually started a thread on that got no traction in OT the other day, was posted by Bloomberg almost a week ago when they published a take on the California Stay-At-Home Order... California’s Stay-at-Home Order Is a Legal Mess

Quote:
...Most worrisome, the order fails to create an exception to the stay-at-home requirement for the free press to function — an exemption that is certainly mandated by the First Amendment. Instead, the order creates exceptions by referring to a federal list of 16 “critical infrastructure sectors” — a list that itself fails to say that a free press is a constitutionally specified form of critical infrastructure, without which we cannot hope to cope with a pandemic like Covid-19...

As written, the order does not say clearly that Californians can leave their homes to buy food or medicine or other necessities. It doesn’t say whether they can go out to help family members or friends who are themselves vulnerable or otherwise in need. It is silent on going out for exercise. Although context suggests all these may be permitted, the formal legal implication of the text would be that all are prohibited...

This incoherence is not trivial. An order like this is only useful if people know what it means...

The order, as it stands, is incoherent at best and outrageous at worst. The best solution would be quick amendments to clarify its reach and protect the free press. Otherwise, confusion and even litigation seem inevitable. That’s not what we need during a public health crisis...
That's not necessarily hyperbole. A bit myopic, perhaps. However, the important part is that the author of the article is...

Quote:
Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and host of the podcast “Deep Background.” He is a professor of law at Harvard University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter. His books include “The Three Lives of James Madison: Genius, Partisan, President.”
Today, a second piece evidently popped-up in the Los Angeles Times Opinion section... Column: Here's what's wrong with Gov. Newsom's stay-at-home order: It's a legal mess

Quote:
There is little doubt about the overall wisdom of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s response to the coronavirus pandemic: On March 19, he ordered Californians to stay home for everyone’s good.

But the order’s legal adequacy is another matter. In fact, legally speaking, it’s something of a mess. As it drags on, it will chafe and even cripple many Californians. Some of them will react for their own good: They’ll sue.

And they may prevail...

...in coming weeks, or months, someone will go to court over it. The judges and justices should approach those claims with considerable deference to the state’s emergency powers. But they can’t simply rewrite legally deficient orders.

That means there is one more “essential” activity not covered by the California edict: A lawyer in the state attorney general’s office had better get working to clarify its terms, and put in on the firmest possible legal ground, before the lawsuits start flying.
The author of that piece...?

Quote:
Harry Litman is a former U.S. attorney and host of the Talking Feds podcast. This is his first weekly column on legal affairs for The Times’ Opinion section.
In other words, both a former U.S. Attorney and a former clerk for a Supreme Court Justice claim there is, deliberately or not, far too much ambiguity in Newsom's order.

Is there any wonder why there appears to be a certain amount of confusion, misinterpretation (some of it deliberately nefarious by local law enforcement, politicians, conspiracy theorists, et al.), and misunderstanding, which may be why we are observing, first hand, such a diversity of responses in terms of enforcement?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-26-2020, 12:33 PM
Featureless's Avatar
Featureless Featureless is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: SLO County
Posts: 1,046
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Good. He should let the counties decide. That way the residents know who to vote out of office next time.
__________________
California Native
Lifelong Gun Owner
NRA Member
CRPA Member

"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed"
~ Barry Goldwater 1964
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-26-2020, 4:50 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,757
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by downdiver2 View Post
The Gov and the Sheriff of LA, and SD for that matter - are the biggest POS out there.
San Diego County Sheriff Gore liberalized CCW issuance almost 3 years ago and now has issued >4,000 CCWs. Please remove his name from your POS list.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1400940

https://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw.html

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 03-26-2020 at 6:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-26-2020, 5:03 PM
CessnaDriver's Avatar
CessnaDriver CessnaDriver is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,630
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I'm sure Newscum considers his security team essential.
__________________
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic28512_1.gif

"Yeah, like... well, I just want to slap a hippie or two. Maybe even make them get jobs."

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-26-2020, 10:18 PM
aklon's Avatar
aklon aklon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Leandro, Alameda County
Posts: 2,523
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

You read it here, folks: Newsom sees the way the country is moving, and is seeking to establish his pro-gun credentials before it's too late.
__________________
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see."
- Arthur Schopenhaur
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-27-2020, 10:09 AM
n8vrmind's Avatar
n8vrmind n8vrmind is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This governor is a typically spineless politician who will lie and betray you just to move up the political ladder...

Newscum will probably bang his friend's wife.....oh wait..he did that already

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-27-2020, 10:35 AM
scoobert scoobert is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I did a quick search through twitter looking to see if other Counties had posted a stance one way or the other and came up short. Does anyone have a list of the various Sheriffs who have taken a stance one way or the other now that the ball is in their court?

Sorry, long time lurker just starting to post.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-27-2020, 10:46 AM
phonso302 phonso302 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: pinole
Posts: 603
iTrader: 59 / 98%
Default

Somewhat of a change CoCo county sheriff says they should be open... wish he would change his views on ccw's
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-27-2020, 11:43 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,808
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodralig View Post
Yup! In the broadcast, when asked about it, he deferred it the sheriffs and passed the buck! Typical as f@ck!
He's actually playing it smart.

Let the local authorities take the heat on this for whatever they think is in their constituent's best interests and most likely to result in their re-election down the line.

If GN came out either for or against gun stores as "essential" it's a no-win proposition for him and frankly, small potatoes on a statewide basis.

You can always drive a little further to find a gun store that's still open... now whether there's actually anything you need still on the shelves once you get there... that's another story.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-27-2020, 12:05 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 16,016
iTrader: 173 / 100%
Default

LAWSUIT HAS BEEN FILED!!

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-s...olicycoalition
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-27-2020, 12:12 PM
five.five-six's Avatar
five.five-six five.five-six is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,640
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

I call it Darwinism.

Unless you just turned 21 in the last few weeks, if you don’t have a gun and ammo I’d like to hear the story.


Edit:

Never mind, I don’t care about your story.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosdanger View Post
Dude give it up. The election is was months ago. Hillary is toast. Her political career is over.

Or do you just hate her so much you can't let go?

Last edited by five.five-six; 03-27-2020 at 12:12 PM.. Reason: Don’t care
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-27-2020, 12:18 PM
n8vrmind's Avatar
n8vrmind n8vrmind is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by five.five-six View Post
I call it Darwinism.

Unless you just turned 21 in the last few weeks, if you don’t have a gun and ammo I’d like to hear the story.


Edit:

Never mind, I don’t care about your story.
Little sympathy for libtards who now wanna own a firearm. But I want my LGS to be as profitable as possible. Heck, I wouldn't mind if LGS has a little bit of "mark up for market value.".

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-27-2020, 12:37 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 1,313
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
California Gov. Gavin Newsom will not offer official guidance on whether gun stores can be classified as essential businesses and remain open during the state's shelter-in-place order...

"I belive in people's right to bear arms and I believe people are exercising that right," Newsom said of reports of increased sales at gun stores. "But I'll defer to the sheriff in this instance, and I'll defer to sheriffs in their respective jurisdictions for that clarification."
...well then you don’t believe it’s a right, ya jack wagon.

Always fun when politicians point out in their second sentence that they were lying in their first sentence.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-27-2020, 12:40 PM
downdiver2's Avatar
downdiver2 downdiver2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 873
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

3 years? Whoa - we've been at this for 10. San Diego still makes the POS list. Also, 4,000? Isnt Orange County at like 13,000 and climbing?

Quote:
Gore. San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore. Republican. A Republican who arbitrarily denies your right to carry a gun outside the home for protection, and who has the endorsement of local State Senator Toni Atkins – Democrat, California LGBT Caucus Member, and rabid gun control proponent, which earned her a place on the Tyrant Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
San Diego County Sheriff Gore liberalized CCW issuance almost 3 years ago and now has issued >4,000 CCWs. Please remove his name from your POS list.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1400940

https://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw.html

__________________

Last edited by downdiver2; 03-27-2020 at 12:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-27-2020, 12:43 PM
scoobert scoobert is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phonso302 View Post
Somewhat of a change CoCo county sheriff says they should be open... wish he would change his views on ccw's

Do you have the source for this by chance?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-27-2020, 2:21 PM
9Cal_OC's Avatar
9Cal_OC 9Cal_OC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,210
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by downdiver2 View Post
3 years? Whoa - we've been at this for 10. San Diego still makes the POS list. Also, 4,000? Isnt Orange County at like 13,000 and climbing?
OC is 25,000+ last I heard.
__________________
Freedom isn't free...
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-29-2020, 2:34 PM
natman natman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 42
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aklon View Post
You read it here, folks: Newsom sees the way the country is moving, and is seeking to establish his pro-gun credentials before it's too late.

It's too late.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-29-2020, 3:33 PM
n8vrmind's Avatar
n8vrmind n8vrmind is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by natman View Post
It's too late.
The only secretly pro gun California Democrat is the dishonorable Leland Yee.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:01 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical