despite the Supreme Court’s ruling on the NYSRPA v Bruen, and on McDonald v. City of Chicago, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco seemingly Unconstitutionally DENIES CCW permits for no “good cause” reason. A black Riverside County resident reports being treated horribly by the Riverside County Sheriff and having their civil rights and the constitution violated. You can read a detailed account of their experience HERE.
The user cites the following violations with attempts to collude amongst various Riverside Sheriff deputies.
- UNLAWFUL DENIAL OF CCW PERMIT
- VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
- VIOLATION OF SECOND AMENDMENT
- VIOLATION OF BANE ACT
- VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 26190
- VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 26202
- VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 11135
- VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 52.1
- VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT.
See: Riverside County Sheriff Accused of Violating Civil Rights, Bruen Ruling, Supreme Court, California Penal Codes, Governemnt codes, and more
Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago ruling:
- Second Amendment right is “Fundamental”
The statement reads: “We hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States. We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”
This statement affirms that the right to bear arms for self-defense, as protected by the Second Amendment, is a fundamental right that applies to all individuals, including those living in the states.
Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v Bruen ruling:
- California is a “Shall-Issue” state as of, June 23rd, 2022
The case’s decision was released on June 23, 2022. In a 6–3 opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that the state law was unconstitutional as it infringed on the right to keep and bear arms, reversing the Second Circuit’s decision. Since the Supreme Court’s ruling on the NYSRPA v Bruen on June 23rd, 2022 California has been a “shall-issue” state.
Shall issue means that as long as an applicant passes the basic requirements set out by state law, the issuing authority (county sheriff, police department, state police, etc.) is compelled to issue a permit. In other words, local law enforcement officials cannot deny an applicant a permit if the applicant meets all of the criteria. There are currently 41 shall-issue states, including permitless-carry states that issue permits for purposes of reciprocity (allowing residents of their state to carry in other states with favorable reciprocity). Also, there are states that may be identified as shall-issue that, in practice, operate on a may-issue basis.
In the wake of the NYSRPA v Bruen decision Thursday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a Legal Alert to all law enforcement officials across the state declaring the “good cause” requirement for a CCW permit unconstitutional. Bonta goes on to specifically direct permitting agencies that they “may no longer require a demonstration of ‘good cause’ in order to obtain a concealed carry permit”. You can see the full Alert below, or download it here.
Despite the precedent, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco is seemingly still denying eligible Riverside residents their constitutional right to bear arms, citing reasons such as applicant’s “good moral character” and/or “good cause.”
As a letter from the Benbrook Law Group states to Rob Bonta. Conditioning a carry license on a discretionary evaluation of an applicant’s “good moral character” is patently inconsistent with Bruen’s repeated statements that the carry right may not be denied by non-objective criteria applied by a local government official. Bruen considered and rejected New York’s “proper cause” requirement for a carry license, but it left no doubt that it was the discretionary aspect of the licensing regime—requiring citizens to convince a government official that they deserved a license based on their circumstances—that fell outside the historical tradition of permissible firearm regulation.
For example, the majority opinion contrasted New York’s regime to “shall issue” states “where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny license based on a perceived lack of need or suitability.” Bruen, at *6 (emphasis added). In “may issue” states like New York and California, however, “authorities ha[d before Bruen] discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses, even when the applicant satisfied statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license.” Id. The Court pressed the issue in a footnote stressing that the constitutionality of shall-issue regimes should not be doubted so long as they rely on objective criteria similar to the way licensing officials issue permits for expressive activity under the First Amendment:
[I]t appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.
In Shuttlesworth, the permitting regime violated the First Amendment because it gave local officials “unbridled” discretion to deny a parade or demonstration permit based on their “judgment” whether “public welfare, peace, safety, . . . good order, [or] morals” convinced them that the speech activity should be denied. 394 U.S. at 149-50. In Cantwell, the state violated the Constitution by conditioning Jehovah’s Witnesses from soliciting money pending review of an application to determine whether the solicitation really was for “religious” purposes: The “decision to issue or refuse [the approval] involves appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion.” 310 U.S. at 305. And so it is here, with the Legal Alert’s encouragement that local licensing officials (1) require all citizens seeking a carry license to plead their case, (2) conduct “investigations” into the applicant’s “moral character,” and (3) make an “independent determination. This is no longer permissible after Bruen.
Lest there be any doubt, Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence further demonstrates why the approach advocated in the Legal Alert is a nonstarter:
The Court’s decision addresses only the unusual discretionary licensing regimes, known as “may-issue” regimes, that are employed by 6 States including New York. As the Court explains, New York’s outlier may-issue regime is constitutionally problematic because it grants open-ended discretion to licensing officials and authorizes licenses only for those applicants who can show some special need apart from self-defense. Those features of New York’s regime—the unchanneled discretion for licensing officials and the special-need requirement— in effect deny the right to carry handguns for self-defense to many “ordinary, lawabiding citizens.” . . . . . .
Unlike New York’s may-issue regime, those shall-issue regimes do not grant open-ended discretion to licensing officials and do not require a showing of some special need apart from self-defense. As petitioners acknowledge, shall-issue licensing regimes are constitutionally permissible, subject of course to an asapplied challenge if a shall-issue licensing regime does not operate in that manner in practice.
Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall-issue States. Bruen, at *38-39 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (emphasis added). In short, the Bruen decision stands for the proposition that all citizens who are not prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights (under a constitutionally sound analysis) must be able to carry firearms in public for self-defense. When local issuing agencies
Rob Bonta Civil Rights Investigation: Objective Approach or Emotional Conflict of Interest?
Bonta has stated he is Investigating Riverside County Sheriff for Civil Rights violations and “unconstitutional policing.” He has received reports about this denial and other Civil Right violations by Riverside County Sheriff, however whether or not Bonta is making an active effort to compel the Riverside Sheriff to make the right decision, remains undetermined. Bonta is known to have a strong emotion behind his personal opinion of firearm laws. Many question whether he can act objectively and truly in the interest on California residents.
Acting unconstitutionally and not holding leaders accountable equals corruption.
. @RobBonta / @CivilRights Launches Investigation into @RSO for Civil Rights and Constitutional Violationshttps://t.co/I3nT14DgLe#civilrights #blackcommunities #melanated #blackriverside #riversidecounty #california #secondamendment #Constitution #DepartmentOfJustice pic.twitter.com/Ua1ilKmz8K
— Creative Geniusess ™ (@creativegeniuse) March 29, 2023
In a statement he sent to The Desert Sun, Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco said the investigation came as a “shock” and described it as politically motivated.
“This investigation is based on nothing but false, misleading statements, and straight-out lies from activists, including their attorneys,” Bianco said. “This will prove to be a complete waste of time and resources.”
Later in the statement, he said, “We have absolutely nothing to hide and will be more than cooperative and accommodating with this investigation. … We will be completely open, honest, and share everything we can with our community throughout this investigation because we have serious concerns that Bonta’s DOJ will not.”
Sources tell us Bianco is fully aware of at least one unconstitutional CCW denial, which Bonta has received a complaint for. Both Attorney General Rob Bonta and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco have have not resolved the alleged civil rights violations surrounding the CCW permit denial.
If you are experiencing Civil Rights violations in Riverside County email Bonta’s office at: firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com