Gov. Gavin Newsom just signed a slew of new gun control laws. One of those prohibits people from carrying guns, either openly or concealed, into anywhere dealing with elections.
Now, California is like most places. Nothing is universal, and it seems Shasta County is a fairly red district in a very blue state. I gathered this because of a news report about the county’s board of supervisors taking issue with the law.
I knew it would be a nice, fair, neutral report because the headline read: “Shasta supervisors’ far-right majority says new law infringes on 2nd Amendment gun rights.”
Now, the author could have said “Republican majority” or any of a number of other things, but calling them “far-right” is intended to dismiss their opinions from the start.
It doesn’t get a lot better from there, either. But let’s focus on the meat of the matter, shall we?
A divided Board of Supervisors on Tuesday took a stand against more election legislation that was inspired by Shasta County, which over the past few years has been a hotbed for election skeptics
Assembly Bill 2642, which was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday, updates intimidation protections for voters and election workers. The bill was authored by Marc Berman, D-Menlo Park.
Existing California law prohibits carrying a gun, including people with concealed carry weapons permits, into an elections’ office, polling place or other locations where votes are being cast.
AB 2642 creates a presumption that openly carrying a gun while interacting or observing election-related activities is considered unlawful intimidation.
“The bill would entitle an aggrieved person who prevails in such an action to recover reasonable attorney’s fees, reasonable expert fees, and reasonable litigation expenses, as specified,” the bill’s text says.
In a statement to the Record Searchlight, Berman said: “The PEACE Act strengthens protections so that Californians can cast their ballot free from interference and intimidation. AB 2642 establishes a presumption that a person openly carrying a firearm while engaging in election-related activities is also engaging in voter intimidation. The presumption created by this bill only pertains to open carry and does not apply to concealed carry.”
For me, besides the constitutional arguments that are being made later in this piece, I think it’s predicated on absolute nonsense.
The presence of a gun, or even the possibility of one, is not an act of intimidation in and of itself. There is no real presumption of intimidation by someone lawfully exercising their Second Amendment rights.
Now, if someone openly carrying a firearm says they’re going to shoot me, that’s a lot more intimidating than someone threatening to shoot me while wearing a thong, nothing else, and having no firearm in proximity. The issue is means, motive, and opportunity, but it’s not just that the first guy has a gun. It’s the totality of his actions, which I should note makes it so he’s no longer lawfully carrying since he’s just committed a crime by threatening me.
So did the second guy. He just looks a lot more idiotic making the threat.
But the presence of a gun isn’t intimidation. Not unless you’re so psychologically damaged that you can’t be in close proximity to a firearm, but that’s a “you” problem, not one for everyone else.
I’m pretty sure this is going to end up in front of a court very soon, and I’m not sure it’ll survive.
