California’s ‘Repugnant’ Restrictions on Public Gun Possession Just Took Effect

Published

2 years ago

January 2, 2024

admin

California’s sweeping new restrictions on public possession of firearms, many of which a federal judge enjoined this month after deeming them “repugnant to the Second Amendment,” took effect today thanks to a stay that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit issued on Saturday. That means Californians with permits that notionally allow them to carry concealed handguns will have to think twice before using them, because the state has declared a long list of locations they routinely visit to be “sensitive places” where firearms are prohibited.

Senate Bill 2, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law on September 26, makes it a crime for permit holders to carry their handguns in 26 categories of places, including parks, playgrounds, zoos, libraries, museums, banks, hospitals, places of worship, public transportation, stadiums, athletic facilities, casinos, bars, and restaurants that serve alcohol. The list also covers any “privately owned commercial establishment that is open to the public” unless the owner “clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance” saying guns are allowed.

S.B. 2 “turns nearly every public place in California into a ‘sensitive place,’ effectively abolishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding and exceptionally qualified citizens to be armed and to defend themselves in public,” U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney noted on December 20, when he issued a preliminary injunction that barred the state from enforcing 15 provisions of the law. “California will not allow concealed carry permitholders to effectively practice what the Second Amendment promises. SB2’s coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.”

Carney was referring to the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling inNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which upheld the right to carry guns in public for self-defense. UnderBruen, states may no longer demand that residents demonstrate a “special need” before they are allowed to exercise that right. Accordingly, S.B. 2 eliminates California’s “good cause” requirement for carry permits, along with a similarly amorphous “good character” criterion. By limiting the discretion of licensing authorities, the bill notes, those changes could have opened the door to “broadly allowing individuals to carry firearms in most public areas.” Deeming that outcome intolerable, legislators instead decreed that guns may notbe carried in most public areas.

Several other states, including New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii, have attempted the same end run around Bruen, making carry permits easier to obtain but much harder to use. Their location-specific gun bans provoked lawsuits that resulted in adverse rulings by federal judges. But those warnings did not deter California legislators, who are hoping that the 9th Circuit, which historically has been very friendly to gun control, will bless their transparent trickery. Although the appeals court has not yet addressed the merits of the case, its stay in May v. Bontaallows enforcement of the new restrictions instead of maintaining the status quo.

The lead plaintiff, Sonoma County resident Reno May, explains what that means in a declaration he submitted as part of the lawsuit, which was filed by several carry permit holders and gun rights groups. “Prior to SB 2, I only didn’t carry my pistol when planning on going to one of the few places where carry was not permitted, such as a school or courthouse, or when I intended to have a drink with dinner,” he writes. “Because SB 2 will prohibit me from carrying in many places where I am accustomed to concealed carrying a firearm, the utility of my CCW permit, and thus my right to be armed for self-defense in public, will be outright eliminated in nearly all common contexts.”

May can no longer legally bring his gun to most of the restaurants he patronizes, because they have liquor licenses; it does not matter whether he plans to drink. His permit also is no good on BART trains, at the bank, at the gym (an “athletic facility”), at urgent care clinics, or at the Santa Rosa mall May often visits, which includes a fitness center as well as restaurants that serve alcohol. Even stopping for gas is legally fraught, since “most gas stations sell lottery tickets,” making them “sensitive” as locations “used for gambling.”

The default rule against guns in businesses open to the public poses further problems. “There are many local businesses that I frequent that will likely not post [the legally required] signs, forcing me to either not carry there or stop patronizing them,” May says. “Even the ones that are willing to post such signs may be off limits for other reasons.” His local gun dealer, for instance, “shares a parking lot with several other businesses, including an establishment that serves alcohol.” So even if the gun shop posts a sign welcoming armed permit holders, May cannot bring his gun into the store without breaking the law while crossing the parking lot.

In addition to noting the breadth of California’s gun-free zones, Carney emphasized that state-vetted carry permit holders are “overwhelmingly law-abiding and responsible.” They have to undergo training and extensive screening, and they are rarely implicated in violent crime. They “are not the gun wielders legislators should fear,” Carney wrote, since they “are not responsible for any of the mass shootings or horrific gun violence that has occurred in California.”

UnderBruen, the state has the burden of showing that its restrictions are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Again and again, Carney found that California had failed to meet that test. In some cases, its arguments were so broad that they could justify a blanket ban on public possession of guns.

Defending the ban on guns in banks, for example, the state likened them to schools. California “contends that banks are like schools because they ‘are frequented by vulnerable populations such as the elderly,'” Carney notes. “But nonvulnerable populations are just as likely to visit banks as vulnerable populations. Accepting a comparison between schools and banks in this context would condone eviscerating law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense altogether.” And that, of course, is the whole idea.

Politics

Abolishing Ofwat and compulsory water meters – key recommendations from landmark report into ‘broken’ water industry

Published

2 hours ago

July 21, 2025

admin

'Broken' water industry set to be overhauled - nine key recommendations from landmark report

The system for regulating water companies in England and Wales should be overhauled and replaced with one single body in England and another in Wales, a once-in-a-generation review of the sector has advised.

The report, which includes 88 recommendations, suggests a new single integrated regulator to replace existing water watchdogs, mandatory water metering, and a social tariff for vulnerable customers.

The ability to block companies being taken over and the creation of eight new regional water authorities, with another for all of Wales to deliver local priorities, has also been suggested.

Money blog: Funeral director on why she speaks to dead people

The review, the largest into the water industry since privatisation in the 1980s, was undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe, a career civil servant and former deputy governor of the Bank of England who oversaw the biggest clean-up of Britain’s banking system in the wake of the financial crash.

He was coaxed out of retirement by Environment Secretary Steve Reed to lead the Independent Water Commission.

Final recommendations of the commission have been published on Monday morning to clean up the sector and improve public confidence, as bills rise 36% over the next five years. Here are its nine key recommendations:

• Single integrated water regulators – a single water regulator in England and a single water regulator in Wales. In England, this would replace Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and water-environment related functions from the Environment Agency and Natural England. In Wales, Ofwat’s economic responsibilities would be integrated into Natural Resources Wales.

It’s hoped this will solve the “fragmented and overlapping” regulation, and more stable regulation will improve investor confidence. Communications regulator Ofcom was given as an example of how combining five existing regulators into one worked.

• Eight new regional water system planning authorities in England and one national authority in Wales to be responsible for water investment plans reflecting local priorities and streamlining the planning processes.

The new authorities would be independent, made up of representatives from local councils, public health officials, environmental advocates, agricultural voices and consumers. The aim is they could direct funding and ensure accountability from all sectors impacting water.

• Greater consumer protection – this includes upgrading the consumer body Consumer Council for Water, into an Ombudsman for Water to give stronger protection to customers and a clearer route to resolving complaints. Advocacy duties are to be transferred to Citizens Advice.

• Stronger environmental regulation, including compulsory water meters. Also proposed by Sir Jon are changes to wholesale tariffs for industrial users and greater water reuse and rainwater harvesting schemes. A new long-term, legally binding target for the water environment was suggested.

• Oversight of companies via the ability to block changes in ownership of water businesses when they are not seen to be prioritising the long-term interests of the company and its customers, and the addition of “public benefit” clauses in water company licences.

To boost company financial resilience, as the UK’s biggest provider, Thames Water struggles to remain in private ownership, the commission has recommended minimum financial requirements, like banks are subject to. This could mean utilities hold a certain amount of cash. It’s hoped this will, in turn, make companies more appealing to potential investors.

• The public health element of water has been recognised, and senior public health representation has been recommended for regional water planning authorities, as have new laws to address pollutants like forever chemicals and microplastics.

• Fundamental reset of economic regulation – including changes to ensure companies are investing in and maintaining assets to help attract long-term, low-risk investment. A “supervisory” approach has been recommended to intervene before things like pollution occur, rather than penalising the businesses after the event.

• Clear strategic direction – a long-term, 25-year national water strategy should be published by the UK and Welsh governments, with ministerial priorities given to water firms every five years.

• Infrastructure and asset health reforms – companies should also be required to map and assess their assets and resilience.

Nationalisation of the water industry was not in the Independent Water Commission’s terms of reference and so was not considered.

How has the report been received?

In a speech responding to Sir Jon’s report, Mr Reed is set to describe the water industry as “broken” and welcome the commission’s recommendations to ensure “the failures of the past can never happen again”.

The water industry lobby group Water UK said “fundamental change has been long overdue”.

“These recommendations should establish the foundations to secure our water supplies, support economic growth and end sewage entering our rivers and seas,” a spokesperson said.

“The Independent Water Commission has written a comprehensive, detailed review of the whole sector, with many wide-ranging and ambitious recommendations.

“Crucially, it is now up to government to decide which recommendations it will adopt, and in what way, but the commission’s work marks a significant step forward.”

Campaign group Surfers Against Sewage said the report “utterly fails to prioritise public benefit over private profit”.

“This is not transformational reform, this is putting lipstick on a pig - and you can bet the champagne is flowing in water company boardrooms across the land,” said its chief executive, Giles Bristow.

“Only one path forward remains: a full, systemic transformation that ends the ruthless pursuit of profit and puts the public good at the heart of our water services,” he said.

“We welcome Sir Jon’s calls for a national strategy, enshrining public health objectives in law and regional water planning. But we won’t be taken for fools - abolishing Ofwat and replacing it with a shinier regulator won’t stop sewage dumping or profiteering if the finance and ownership structures stay the same.”

Politics

Water wars: What difference will it make?

Published

2 hours ago

July 21, 2025

admin

Water wars: What difference will it make?

👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne’s on your podcast app👈

The Government announces the “Reed Reforms” to fix Britain’s water system, but will it make a difference?

Sky News’ Sam Coates and Politico’s Anne McElvoy consider if customers’ bills will go down and what practical changes will be made.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer meets with two world leaders later this week ahead of the parliamentary summer recess.

Plus, we hear about an unexpected visitor in the Coates household.

Technology

U.S. firms scramble to secure rare-earth magnets — imports from China surge 660%

Published

4 hours ago

July 21, 2025

admin

U.S. firms scramble to secure rare-earth magnets — imports from China surge 660%

Annealed neodymium iron boron magnets sit in a barrel at a Neo Material Technologies Inc. factory in Tianjin, China on June 11, 2010.

Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

China’s exports of rare-earth magnets to the United States in June surged more than seven times from the prior month, as American firms clamor to get hold of the critical elements following a preliminary Sino-U.S. trade deal.

In April, Beijing placed restrictions on several critical magnets, used in advanced tech such as electric vehicles, wind turbines and MRI machines, requiring firms to receive licenses for export. The move was seen as retaliation against U.S. President Donald Trump’s steep tariffs on China.

Beijing has a stranglehold on the production of rare-earth magnets, with an estimated 90% of the market, as well as a similar hold on the refining of rare-earth elements, which are used to make magnets.

The U.S. received about 353 metric tons of rare-earth permanent magnets in June, up 660% from the previous month, data released by China’s General Administration of Customs showed, though the exports were about half that from June last year.

The U.S. was the second-largest destination for China’s rare-earth magnets, behind Germany, as it relies heavily on their imports for its large manufacturing sector, particularly automotive, electronics and renewable energy.

In total, China exported 3,188 metric tons of rare earth permanent magnets globally last month, up nearly 160% from May, but 38% lower compared with the same period last year.

The growth in exports came after Washington and Beijing agreed last month on a trade framework that included easing controls on Chinese rare-earth exports as well as a rollback of some American tech restrictions for shipments to China.

Pentagon invests in MP Materials, guarantees floor price for rare earth minerals

AI behemoth Nvidia said last week it was planning to resume shipments of its H20 AI chips to China, after the exports were restricted in April. Last month, controls on American AI chip software companies’ business in China had also been rolled back.

Chinese rare-earth magnet producers started announcing the approval of export licenses last month.

If exports continue to increase, it will be of great benefit to companies that have been suffering from shortages of magnets due to the lengthy time required to secure export licenses. For example, several European auto-parts suppliers were forced to halt production in recent months.

The magnet shortages had also hit emerging industries such as humanoid robotics. In April, Elon Musk said production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robots had been disrupted.

China’s controls on its rare-earths sector have prompted some global governments to reexamine their rare-earth supply chains and search for ways to support domestic mining of the minerals.

However, experts say that setting up alternatives to China’s rare-earth magnet supply chain could take years, as it requires an intricate process of rare-earth element refining and separation.

“The separation process is quite complex, and China has a lot of advantages in this after putting in decades of research into the processes,” Yue Wang, a senior consultant of rare earths at Wood Mackenzie, told CNBC last month.

One way that the U.S. has been trying to compensate for lack of rare-earth magnets is through increased recycling. Apple and miner MP Materials announced a $500 million deal last week for the development of a recycling facility that will reinforce the iPhone maker’s U.S. magnet supply chain.

Peter Alexander from financial consultancy Z-ben Advisors said that Washington’s latest concessions on tech restrictions were a reflection of just how much leverage China has in its trade relationship with the United States, speaking on CNBC’s “China Connection” on Monday.