Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of its most significant gun law rulings in more than a decade, tossing out New York state鈥檚 tight restrictions on who can carry a concealed gun in public.
Gun rights activists are celebrating , while advocates for stricter gun laws decry it. Both agree that California鈥檚 similar law may be next to be challenged.
The ruling likely marks the most dramatic expansion of gun rights in the United States since 2008, when the Supreme Court clarified for the first time that the Second Amendment鈥檚 right 鈥渢o keep and bear鈥� firearms , not just state militia members. But that ruling only affirmed the right for 鈥�,鈥� leaving states with wide discretion over whether and how to restrict guns elsewhere.
brings that constitutional right outside the home.
鈥淐onfining the right to 鈥渂ear鈥� arms to the home would make little sense,鈥� Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court鈥檚 majority.
Gov. Gavin Newsom called the ruling 鈥渟hameful鈥� and a 鈥渄ark day for America.鈥�
鈥淭his is a dangerous decision from a court hell bent on pushing a radical ideological agenda and infringing on the rights of states to protect our citizens from being gunned down in our streets, schools, and churches,鈥� .
Attorney General Rob Bonta added that he would be working with the governor鈥檚 office and legislators to respond to the ruling. 鈥淢ore to come,鈥� .
Most states either issue concealed carry licenses upon request or do not require licenses at all. But in eight states, applicants are required to show a compelling need before being granted permission to tote around a concealed firearm. Until today鈥檚 ruling, . California is another.
鈥淲e know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,鈥� Thomas wrote, offering a description of New York鈥檚 concealed carry law, but also California鈥檚.
How easily a Californian is able to obtain a concealed weapon permit depends on where they live. That鈥檚 because in California these licenses are issued by local law enforcement 鈥� either city police chiefs or county sheriffs. And while state law requires applicants to demonstrate 鈥済ood cause,鈥� local law enforcement officials have wide latitude to define what that means.
In counties with Republican sheriffs 鈥� and Tehama, for example 鈥� permits are issued to all qualified applicants so long as they pay the necessary fees, take a firearms safety class as required by state law and don鈥檛 have a criminal record.
San Francisco sits on the opposite end of the spectrum., an applicant living in the city must 鈥渟upply convincing evidence鈥� that they are at 鈥渟ignificant risk of danger鈥� that local law enforcement 鈥渃annot adequately address鈥� and 鈥渃annot reasonably be avoided by alternative measures.鈥�
The court鈥檚 ruling doesn鈥檛 immediately invalidate restrictive concealed carry policies like those in San Francisco. But it does make legal challenges against California鈥檚 entire discretionary system much more likely to succeed.
California鈥檚 Democratic lawmakers may be compelled to introduce additional legislation in direct response to today鈥檚 ruling. Ari Freilich, state policy director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control advocacy group, said the opinion leaves the door open to two possible options.
First, Thomas wrote that local licensing officials shouldn鈥檛 have wide discretion to deny a concealed carry application if the applicant meets objective criteria. In California, that criteria requires an applicant to pass a background check and complete a gun safety course. But there鈥檚 nothing in the ruling that would prohibit the state from adding additional restrictions.
Second, the opinion acknowledged that states have the right to restrict firearms in 鈥渟ensitive places,鈥� such as schools or courthouses, though New York couldn鈥檛 simply declare all of Manhattan a sensitive place.
The opinion 鈥渄oesn鈥檛 provide a lot of guidance about what鈥檚 in between, so it leaves that to future cases and lawmakers,鈥� said Frelich.
In a press release issued this afternoon, Newsom said state lawmakers are 鈥渞eady with a bill that will be heard next week to update and strengthen our public-carry law.鈥�
The new legislation will be tacked on to , Senate Bill 918, authored by Sen. Anthony Portantino, a Democrat from Glendale. Neither the governor nor Portantino offered additional information about what policy changes might be added.
鈥淚t is critical legislation to strengthen our existing concealed carry laws to ensure every Californian is safe from gun violence,鈥� Portantino said in a statement.
Rewriting the legal landscape
But the ruling could have much more sweeping implications that touch on all areas of California gun laws 鈥� from the state鈥檚 ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines to its restrictions on 鈥済host guns.鈥� That鈥檚 because today鈥檚 ruling sets a higher bar for any firearm restrictions.
鈥淭o justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest,鈥� Thomas wrote. 鈥淩ather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation鈥檚 historical tradition of firearm regulation.鈥�
Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association (the state鈥檚 National Rifle Association chapter), told CalMatters today that he plans to file a host of new legal briefs in existing court challenges against the state鈥檚 assault weapon ban, its background check requirements, its large capacity magazine ban and against Los Angeles County鈥檚 concealed carry restrictions.
He said today鈥檚 ruling is 鈥済oing to simplify the whole process of judging whether or not a gun law is constitutional鈥� and that the State of California will now have a harder time arguing that its strict rules are legal.
Freilich from the Giffords Law Center agreed that the ruling could have broad implications.
鈥淭he consequences won鈥檛 show up tomorrow or the next day but (the opinion is) a fundamentally rewriting of the legal landscape and the battlefield on which all Second Amendment cases have been fought,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t definitely puts at risk much of what California and other states have fought for and defended for decades.鈥�
At the same time the nation鈥檚 highest court expands the scope of the Second Amendment, Congress is on the verge of adding a few modest extra guardrails. In response to the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, in which a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers with a semi-automatic rifle, the U.S. Senate reached agreement on a on Wednesday over the objections of the National Rifle Association. The measure is .
If passed by the House of Representatives and signed by President Joe Biden, as is expected, it would ratchet up some background checks for younger would-be gun buyers. It would also provide funding to states interested in introducing 鈥�,鈥� which make it easier for authorities to temporarily remove firearms from those deemed to be a threat to themselves or others.
Democratic lawmakers in California are also considering their own raft of new gun bills. That includes legislation that would open gun vendors and manufacturers to an array of lawsuits for or or others who aren鈥檛 allowed to own them.
鈥淣ext week, I will have 16 new gun safety bills on my desk, including a bill that will allow individuals to sue gun makers and distributors for violating certain gun laws. I look forward to signing all of those bills,鈥� Newsom said in a press release.
is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.