Newsflash: California Possibly Not Sinking

Things might not be what they seem. I have very little to substantiate this at the moment, but some folks with their ears closer to the ground than mine are wondering what Governor Brown might be playing at with the gun-control bills he signed into law this week.

We’ve got an interesting snippet from a statement he made today:

The governor tried to explain to an audience in Belmont why a bill that bans the open carrying of unloaded handguns and another that makes it easier to carry a concealed weapon were both signed.

“There is a phrase called the coincidence of opposites. I can even say it in Latin–coincidentia oppositorum. It means that apparently antagonistic measures can be melded together in a higher unity.”

This got me thinking.

There are currently two cases pending in the 9th Circuit contesting California’s arbitrary permitting system, Peruta v. San Diego and Richards v. Prieto.

Richards was previously filed as Sykes v. McGinness, with the sheriff of Sacramento as the defendant. In the original incarnation, the sheriff’s department relented before judgement was rendered and voluntarily adopted more permissive permitting guidelines. The lawsuit was then relocated to Yola County. As Richards, the case went to the District Court, and the judge found for the sheriff’s department, ruling that,

Under the statutory scheme, even if Plaintiffs are denied a concealed weapon license for self-defense purposes from Yolo County, they are still more than free to keep an unloaded weapon nearby their person, load it, and use it for self-defense in circumstances that may occur in a public setting. Yolo County’s policy does not substantially burden Plaintiffs’ right to bear and keep arms. Therefore, rational basis review applies.

By Judge England’s logic, as long as someone has the option of openly carrying an unloaded gun, a virtual ban on concealed carry passes constitutional muster. Now that even that is off the table, Californians are left with no option, and Judge England’s justification falls apart.

Brown knows this, yet he still signed AB 144.

This led me to take a closer look at SB 610, which he also signed. That bill makes some slight changes to California’s laws regarding issuance of carry permits. Among the new provisions:

• applicants would not be required to pay for any training courses prior to a determination of good cause being made
• local sheriffs’ departments can no longer tack on additional fees
• applicants are no longer required to carry liability insurance as a condition of issuance
• psychological evaluation will only be required if the background check turns up “compelling
  evidence to indicate that a test is necessary.”
• denials will be communicated clearly, and in a more timely manner.

So, that’s actually an improvement, however slight.

What of SB 819? Dealers in California collect a fee with gun sales to fund the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) program. SB 819 allows “excess” fees to be funneled into other enterprises, therefore making it a tax. A tax on a civil right. We don’t do that. This opens the scheme to a court challenge of its own.

Then there’s AB 809, which sets up a statewide long gun registry beginning in 2014. No bueno, Jerry. The one bright spot in last week’s Heller decision was that, while requiring registration of handguns might be constitutional, doing so with rifles and shotguns is not. Bingo! Lawsuit #3.

Say what you will about Governor Brown (notice that I was good and didn’t use the word “moonbeam” even once), he’s a smart man, and there are rumblings that maybe all of this is a very, very sneaky way of getting the ball rolling on reform while not generating controversy within his voting bloc. I’ve very little in the way of real confirmation so far, but no other conclusion makes much sense.