I’m sure you are aware of this but for other people seeking info here, just be aware that while the USCCA insurer will still cover legal fees for a self defense act even if you are violating SB2 they will not be on the hook for defending you for violating SB2 itself. So depending on how the charges against you are handled by the prosecutor and how the court case goes you could be on the hook for defending yourself against felony illegal carry charges.
Seems like having a license to carry in CA now places the carrier in significantly more legal jeopardy than someone who is intentionally breaking the law and carrying a firearm without a license. In this case it is the anti self defense politicians who are clearly the criminals but they will never be punished for their crimes:(
The sidewalks and adjacent streets are included as “sensitive areas”. The real trick is identifying the home-based day care facilities. Even these are “sensitive” areas. Think about it; you are blocks from a school, yet, unbeknownst to you, 3 doors down is a house that provides day care. You walk from your front door to your vehicle, parked on the street… You are now a FELON!!! But the soon-to-be criminal next door does the same task, only gets a misdemeanor charge.
This is what makes SB2 even worse.
Essentially, SB2, as we all know, does nothing to stop the perps. Fresno county has over 10,000 CCW holders. Only ONE had a problem. SB2 is punishing 99.999% of the people. We all know the rest of the arguments.
SB2 was the will of the CA people - though their representatives. However, look at the voting base… Start by looking at the political party the typical criminal supports. I need to say no more.
I agree Paul483. However, who votes these Senate people into office - the people. In effect, it is the voters by telling their reps what they want done, albeit indirectly.
This is true …but i do feel that none of these laws shouldngo into effect until people(general public) vote on them… they DEFINITELY SHOULD not have the power ro enact any law.they want just because “they” feel its right. I would love.to backtrack the money trail and see who it ends up at
I believe one of the purposes of the bill of rights was to ensure that the tyranny of the majority could not be used to steal natural rights away from anyone. Or at least make it extremely difficult to do so by requiring a constitutional amendment.
Doesn’t matter whether you are in the majority or the minority. Your natural rights belong to you as long as you don’t use them to take other’s rights away.
Laws are often about punishing rivals – commercial rivals or political rivals – and not about combatting “crime” since laws merely define who should be considered “criminals” (i.e., people who violate a law) and what punishment is appropriate for such criminals (fines, tariffs, imprisonment, prosecution). In fact, laws do not reduce crime, but often create “crime” by redefining who are considered criminals.