Rob Bonta
California Attorney General Rob Bonta (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
Previous Post
Next Post

Attorney General Bonta’s regulations would be a grievous error. By significantly shrinking the number of eligible and qualified instructors, millions of law-abiding Californians could lose access to the most critical aspect of being a responsible gun owner: education and training.  Furthermore, for Californians dismayed by widespread violent crime in cities across the state, their ability to seek training and a concealed carry permit will be delayed or prevented entirely.  Law enforcement cannot be everywhere all at once, and Americans have a fundamental right to self-defense, which is why this proposed effort to restrict that right is so alarming.

Furthermore, the proposed regulations are poised to disproportionately affect low-income Californians, who possess an equal right to bear arms for self-defense. With a significant reduction in the supply of certified firearms instructors, while nothing is done to curb the rising demand for concealed carry permits, the inevitable result will be increased costs and restricted access to training and education courses. Higher prices and less availability for classes will be acutely felt in low-income neighborhoods.

The inevitable result of Senate Bill 2 and AG Bonta’s burdensome regulations will be that more criminals will have firearms while law-abiding citizens have fewer options to obtain and carry a firearm for self-defense. In doing so, California leaders are creating a tremendous imbalance of power that will embolden criminals and punish responsible gun owners.

There is still time for AG Bonta to reconsider his misguided regulations on eligible firearms safety instructors for state-recognized training. It would be prudent for him to not reduce the number of highly qualified professionals from the concealed carry permitting process and instead enhance the accessibility of critical firearms education and training for Californians statewide.

— Mike Lowney in Proposed Concealed Carry Regulations Will Make California Less Safe

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Anarcho-tyranny.
      Keep the population in their place by keeping them afraid of the criminals, so they will in fact ask for more taxes, more surveillance and less of this seemingly dangerous freedom. Which perfectly aligns with the perpetual government, where you can’t fix a problem or you would lose your funding and job by being done once the problem was fixed.

      I personally don’t love the name, as it’s a big government ideology and not really anarchy, the concept still checks out.

    • Tom – I had a thought for a new anti-gun slogan – “a disarmed population is a controllable population” – NAH they will never go for that as it is too blatantly obvious what their end game is………………….

    • It won’t be long until Kalifornia takes inspiration from Mexico where the government, police, and criminals are in an unholy alliance against the people.

  1. It’s never about “gun violence.” Tyrants don’t give a s* about that. They just want you unarmed so they can f* you over, literally and figuratively. Look at Canada and Australia, unarmed, and what their governments did to them during the pandemic.

    • Yes, that is the design. The fundamental belief is that “fewer guns means fewer gun crimes,” and therefore, the fewer the number of guns in the street, the less crime there will be. SB@ also increases the costs (and time) associated with obtaining a CCW, thus reducing demand, while imposing massive restrictions on the places where concealed weapons can be carried–which is everywhere except in your car or on a sidewalk. Therefore, these regulations are designed to impede the number of people carrying guns outside the home. Other laws, like the newly imposed 11% excise tax on all things firearms, is intended to increase prices and therefore limit demand, theoretically reducing the number of guns in the state. The AW laws were explicitly designed to eliminate “evil black rifles” from the State, a goal not met because of the inventiveness of gun designers avoiding the regulations. The ammo law requires all ammo to be sold in a face to face transaction, eliminating for all practical purposes internet purchases, and imposing a “mini” background check at the time of purchase.

      You see, it is all very simple. The pain now from criminals is only temporary; eventually the number of guns in the state will be so low that gun crime will simply stop happening. (Stupid is as stupid does.)

      • The fundamental belief is that “fewer guns means fewer gun crimes,” …

        Yes, that is the fundamental belief but it is a stupid one and I can’t figure out why so many people seem to believe it and are willing to accept public policy based upon it. The simple truth is that there is 3 orders of magnitude of separation between the number of guns and the number of “gun crimes.” (and that is counting *all* gun crime including those crimes that are merely possession or procedure related and involve no illegal *use* of the gun)

        I know a lot of people don’t think in terms of “order of magnitude” so, what that means is that there are *thousands* of guns “on the street” for every one that is used in crime. If some magic fairy were to get rid of half the guns, there would still be *thousands* of guns “on the street” for every one that is used in crime. Not to mention that that is assuming that each and every gun that is used in a crime is used only once.

        If we got rid of 90% of the guns, there are still hundreds of guns for each one used in crime. If we got rid of 99% of the guns, there are still dozens for each one used in crime. To actually get to the point where there are not enough guns to accommodate the number of gun crimes in a year, you have to get rid of well in excess of 99.9% of the guns. Why, because 0.1% of 400,000,000 is 400,000 which is still much much higher than the number of “gun crimes.” (oh, and, you have to stop anyone from ever making another gun. Something like 10 million guns are made and sold in this country each year so, from just last years production there are enough guns for all the gun crimes over the past several decades, maybe the last century.)

        This all without even noting that the guns don’t cause the crime. Trying to stop gun crime by trying to eliminate guns is a lot like trying to stop the water damage resulting from your leaking dishwasher by trying to stop the rain. Sure, water is involved in both but that is about where the relationship ends.

        • My – I’ve been saying for years (decades?) that if your ‘magic fairy’ could get rid of all guns, ammo etc and erase the corporate knowledge about them evil things, crime would NOT go down. We would be living in a structure ruled by might makes ‘right’ as most of us would no longer be able to protect ourselves from those stronger and willing to prey upon us. IOW the law of the jungle.

    • “Look at Canada and Australia, unarmed, and what their governments did to them during the pandemic.”

      Kinda like what our government did to armed America?

    • When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another………

  2. If everyone in the rest of the country coordinated at a certain time to jump up and down for five minutes, it might be enough to shear off everything west of the Sierras and send it tumbling into the Pacific.
    We could call it Operation Nice Start.

  3. Pure harrassment to stop gun sales. No laws to prosecute criminals. Washington state even makes dealers buy a state FFL and fingerprints every year like California.

    State Supreme Court isn’t any better than Colorado.

  4. In Washington state once you cross the Cascade mountain range to central and eastern Washington these gun restrictions mean very little. Yes, FFL’s are hamstrung by these draconian regs, however a large and growing Black-market has expanded. The best thing is that eastern WA Law Enforcement officers realize these laws are unconstitutional and refuse to enforce them. Many Sheriffs have publicly stated that they will not be enforcing these laws.

    • Cool! Like 90 out of 102 ILLannoy sheriffs refuse to enforce the states draconian “new” gestapo laws🙄

    • Yep. It would be nice to have Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington join Idaho…

      Actually, if you could somehow create the Peoples Republic of Pugetopia by building a fence about 20 miles inland from the high tide mark all around Puget Sound, and leave the rest of the state alone…

  5. Soon to transition to a ‘Logan’s run’ style state control. You thought you could defend yourself, how selfish!!!

  6. There is NOT one single “gun control law” that has ever saved a life. Here is a unique concept. Enforce the criminal laws already on the books.

  7. @MyName
    Picky, but convenient – given both geologic and demographic conditions.”

    Well, there’s that.

  8. The Tyrant’s motto — ‘Gun control is people control.’ Our Founding Fathers understood that. That’s why they wrote the Second Amendment.

  9. We should just start some civil disobedience and start carrying without permits………
    If I’m going to be classified as a criminal even if I try and follow all of their ( illegally unconstitutional) rules, why follow them at all?

  10. all political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party – Mao Zedong

Comments are closed.