Home Care In San Diego, CA

State lawmakers say limiting gun purchases to once every 30 days deters trafficking and straw purchases, but judge rules there is no historical precedent for such a ban

In what is becoming a familiar pattern, a San Diego federal judge ruled Monday that a California gun law is unconstitutional because of the lack of any historically similar laws.

The latest regulation to be overturned — though it will remain in effect for the time being, pending appeal — is the state’s ban on high-frequency firearms purchases, otherwise known as the one-gun-a-month law. It restricted California residents from buying more than one firearm within a 30-day period.

State lawmakers said the regulation was aimed at deterring straw purchases, which is when someone buys a gun on behalf of someone else who cannot legally make the same purchase. A group of firearms owners, licensed gun dealers and firearms-rights organizations sued the state, arguing the prohibition infringed on their Second Amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge William Hayes sided with the plaintiffs in a 24-page ruling granting a motion for summary judgment.

“Defendants have not met their burden of producing a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue’ to the (one-gun-a-month) law,” Hayes wrote.

That lack of a historical equivalent was the key to the case and has been the key to Second Amendment cases since June 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That decision changed the analysis for Second Amendment regulations, introducing a “text, history and tradition” standard that places nearly singular importance on laws that date back to the time period around when the Second Amendment was ratified.

Courts considering whether modern gun regulations are legal must make their decisions based on the “Second Amendment’s plain text” and must ensure new laws are “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” according to the Bruen decision.

Under that analysis, federal judges in San Diego alone have over the past year overturned California laws banning assault rifles, outlawing billy clubs, imposing background checks for ammunition purchases and banning certain “unsafe” handguns. All of those rulings are under appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Another week, another California gun control law declared unconstitutional by a federal court,” Cody Wisniewski, an attorney for the Firearms Policy Coalition, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement.

“California’s one-gun-a-month law directly violates California residents’ right to acquire arms and has no basis in history,” said Wisniewski, who is also vice president and general counsel for Firearm Policy Coalition’s Action Foundation. “Given it seems certain California will refuse to learn its lesson, we look forward to continuing to strike down its gun control regime and to defending this victory.”

A spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the defendant in the case, said Bonta’s office is still evaluating the decision, but reiterated that pending appeal, “the law limiting firearm purchases to one every thirty days remains in effect at this time.”

In his ruling, Hayes noted that the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision has left the door open for a “more nuanced approach” to the analysis of a weapons law when it’s dealing with “unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes” that were not present when the Second Amendment or the 14th Amendment and its equal protection clause were ratified.

The government had argued that more nuanced approach was warranted in this case because gun trafficking and straw purchases were problems that “did not exist during the Founding or Reconstruction eras to the same extent that they exist today,” and that lawmakers of those eras did not have to confront the “dangers associated with bulk purchases.” Hayes agreed to analyze the case under the assumption that it qualified for the more nuanced approach.

But even so, the judge ruled that the government failed to identify any historically similar laws, or at least enough of them. He wrote that the closest analogue the government presented was a colonial-era law that banned the carrying of more than one gun when traveling near a Native American town or a certain distance away from an English plantation.

Hayes did not say whether that law would have been similar enough to uphold California’s one-gun-a-month ban. But he noted, citing previous rulings, that “even assuming the law is sufficiently analogous to the (one-gun-a-month) law, ‘one solitary statute is not enough to demonstrate a tradition of an arms regulation.’”

Hayes wrote that he would issue a 30-day stay of his ruling to facilitate an appeal to the 9th Circuit.

Box Score 1 | Box Score 2 SAN DIEGO, Calif. – Harvard softball ended its California trip with a doubleheader at San Diego, as the Crimson split the two-game set against the Toreros, winning the second game, 5-4.

After falling short in a 3-2 game one loss, first-year infielder Sophie Sun led Harvard to a 5-4 win in game two, as the everyday shortstop drilled two home runs and recorded four RBIs to power the Harvard offense. Sun leads Harvard in home runs this season with four.

Sophie Sun goes yard! ?? The first-year launches a three-run home run against San Diego in the top of the first ?? ??1 | HARV 3 - SD 0 ??https://t.co/LYmUc64ous ??https://t.co/CZusjxaTjX#GoCrimson pic.twitter.com/TdNij2OFwc

— Harvard Softball (@HarvardSB) March 13, 2024

HOW IT HAPPENED IN GAME ONE:

The contest between the Crimson (9-7) and the Toreros (7-21) came to life in the fourth inning. Harvard's offense opened the scoring, as Sun found the gap in the outfield for a leadoff triple. On the first pitch of her at-bat, junior infielder Maya Douglas slashed a hit past the outstretched glove of a San Diego infielder, putting Harvard in front, 1-0.

San Diego took the lead in its half of the fourth frame, scoring one run on a double steal and another on a passed ball, 2-1.

In the next inning, Harvard kept battling, evening the score. After a pair of walks from sophomore more infielder Finley Payne and Sun, first-year outfielder Megan Davies dropped a single into right field, scoring Payne, 2-2. For the fourth straight half inning, a run was scored, as San Diego regained the lead on a single up the middle, 3-2.

Sophomore Riley Flynn pitched 3.1 innings, as the Phoenix, Ariz. native allowed one earned run and two hits. Junior Katie Arrambide and first-year Nicolette Hunter appeared in the circle as well, providing relief innings. Harvard scored two runs on six hits, as six different student-athletes tallied a hit in game one.

What a way to end the first! Bobowski keeps San Diego off the board with an absolute web gem in centerfield! ?? ??2 | HARV 4 - SD 0 ??https://t.co/LYmUc64ous ??https://t.co/CZusjxaTjX #GoCrimson pic.twitter.com/LNbwEXaRpR

— Harvard Softball (@HarvardSB) March 13, 2024

HOW IT HAPPENED IN GAME TWO:

The Crimson got off to a hot start in the second game against San Diego. With two runners on base, Sun launched a three-run home run to deep left center field, providing Harvard an early lead against the Toreros, 3-0. A native of Austin, Texas, Sun leads Harvard in home runs this year with three.

After Sun's home run, Harvard's bats kept producing, tallying another run. A single from Douglas and a walk from Hunter set the table for an RBI-single from senior catcher Allison O'Heany, 4-0.

A stellar defensive play from Harvard kept San Diego off the board in the bottom of the first inning. With runners on second and third, the Toreros skied a ball to centerfield, as senior outfielder Lauren Bobowski tracked back and made an incredible catch to end the inning.

San Diego followed a scoreless second inning with a pair of runs, scoring two on a double, 4-2. The hosts scored another run in the fifth inning on a single, 4-3.

Sun delivered again in the top of the seventh, manufacturing an insurance run for Harvard with a solo home run, her second homer of the game and fourth of the season, 5-3.

After the Toreros tallied a run, senior Anna Reed closed the game out and provided Harvard the win with a save. Sophomore Ryan Grace earned the win after allowing one run and one hits in her two innings of relief. Harvard five runs on 10 hits.

SOPHIE SUN AGAIN ?? The first-year hits her second homer of the game to extend the Crimson lead to two! ??7 | HARV 5 - SD 3 ??https://t.co/LYmUc63QEU ??https://t.co/CZusjxalup #GoCrimson pic.twitter.com/uE8TwOTQu5

— Harvard Softball (@HarvardSB) March 13, 2024

HARVARD HIGHLIGHTS:

UP NEXT:

Harvard begins Ivy League play this weekend, heading to New Haven, CT. for a three-game series against Yale on Saturday, Mar. 16 and Sunday, Mar. 17. All three games will stream live on ESPN+.

For complete coverage of Harvard Softball, follow the team on Twitter (@HarvardSB) and Instagram (@harvardsb).

California’s law that prohibits buying more than one gun per month was struck down this week by a San Diego federal judge.

U.S. District Judge William Hayes ruled in favor of several gun owners, firearm advocacy organizations and gun retailers who sued the state. Hayes stayed his decision for one month so the state may appeal.

The law was intended to cut down on what’s known as straw purchases, in which someone legally buys a gun, then gives it to someone else who is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

The Firearms Policy Coalition, one of several plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit, praised the decision in a statement and noted it was one of several other California gun laws that have been overturned by federal courts in recent times.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which altered the standard by which firearms-related cases could be analyzed, a number of gun laws have been ruled unconstitutional, while others that were previously upheld have been sent back to the lower courts for reanalysis. That decision holds that gun laws should be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulations.

The plaintiffs argued there was no historical record of a prohibition on law-abiding citizens from buying more than one gun per month and through that lens, the law violates the Second Amendment.

The state argued the restriction does not impact a person’s ability to bear arms and that the law addresses “unprecedented social concerns” such as gun trafficking and straw purchases that “did not exist during the Founding or Reconstruction eras to the same extent that they exist today.”

In his 24-page ruling, Hayes wrote that the state did not meet its “burden of producing a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue’ to the (one gun per month) law.”

“California’s one-gun-a-month law directly violates California resident’s right to acquire arms and has no basis in history,” Firearms Policy Coalition vice president and general counsel, Cody J, Wisniewski, said in a statement. “Given it seems certain California will refuse to learn its lesson, we look forward to continuing to strike down its gun control regime and to defending this victory.”

City News Service contributed to this article.

The plan calls for increasing reimbursement rates for Medi-Cal recipients and reducing the cost of prescription drugs for San Diegans.

City News Service, News Partner

SAN DIEGO, CA — The county Board of Supervisors has voted 4-0 in favor of proposals intended to make quality health care more accessible and affordable for residents, and a new subcommittee will begin Wednesday to review and develop information and recommendations for the proposal.

As proposed by Vice Chair Terra Lawson-Remer, the plan calls for increasing reimbursement rates for Medi-Cal recipients and reduce the cost of prescription drugs for San Diegans, via advocacy at federal and state government levels.

In a news release from Lawson-Remer's office, the board also voted Tuesday to appoint her and Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe to serve on a new ad hoc subcommittee that will:

-review information collected by Sarah Aghassi, interim chief administrative officer, and stakeholder feedback;-provide strategies and opportunities to increase Medi-Cal reimbursement rates, along with new or additional sources of funding; and-develop findings and recommendations submitted to the board.

Although supportive of other proposal recommendations, Supervisor Jim Desmond cast a "no" vote on establishing an ad-hoc committee. He said all supervisors should be involved when it comes to input on Medi-Cal reimbursement.

Find out what's happening in San Diegowith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Before the vote, Lawson-Remer said that one of the Medi-Cal issues "is really technical ... but it is so important to the lives of so many people."

According to Lawson-Remer's office, nearly 1 million people in the county -- including close to 325,000 children -- rely on Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid program, as a "vital support system to safeguard their health and well-being."

American Hospital Association data shows that hospitals received payments equivalent to only 88 cents for every dollar spent on Medicaid patients in 2020, resulting in underpayment totaling nearly $25 billion, Lawson- Remer's office said.

"The longstanding issue of low reimbursement rates makes it harder for people to find care, contributes to a shortage of health care workers, and results in more San Diegans winding up the E.R. -- which puts a huge strain on the region's entire health care system and affects all of us," said Lawson- Remer.

"We must deliver on the pledge of Medi-Cal and ensure that access to health care is not a privilege limited by circumstances, but a fundamental right upheld for all," she added.

Supervisor Joel Anderson was absent from Tuesday's meeting, as he was recovering from a minor medical procedure, according to his office.

— City News Service

Fake gunfire would be banned from active-shooter drills in California's public schools under legislation proposed Tuesday that would also require schools to notify students, teachers and parents ahead of time whenever a drill was planned.

The measure was introduced by Democratic Assemblymember Chris Ward, who argues that some districts have gone too far in their efforts to prepare students for possible tragedy, such as by too realistically re-creating shooting scenes.

Schools across the state have ramped up active-shooter drills in recent years in response to the rise of mass shootings, but there has been little guidance about how the drills should be run.

Without formal guidelines, some drills have been conducted with trainers acting as school shooters, students playing dead and fake weapons being used to shoot blanks, Ward said when introducing the bill.

Last month, a principal at an elementary school outside of Los Angeles was put on leave after pretending to shoot students and announcing that they were “dead” during a drill, KTLA reported. In some cases, schools also don’t notify teachers, parents and students about the shooter drills, resulting in confusion and panic.

Ward said such simulations could “do more harm than good.”

“When it comes to fire drills, we are not filling the halls with smoke and turning up the thermostat,” he said. “We should not be doing the same to our kids when it comes to active-shooter drills.”

With school security ballooning into a multibillion-dollar industry in recent years, some groups are pushing lawmakers to do away with shooter drills. A 2021 study by Everytown for Gun Safety and the Georgia Institute of Technology associated active-shooter drills with an increase in depression, stress and other mental health issues among students.

The legislation would require the state Department of Education to provide standardized guidance on active-shooter drills. It also would ban the use of fake gunfire, require schools to notify parents about a shooter drill before and afterward and make a schoolwide announcement before a drill begins.

Schools would also have to design age-appropriate drills and make mental health resources available afterward.

“Currently, there are no standardized processes for school shooting drills, which is mind-boggling to me,” said Democratic Assemblymember Mike Gipson, who supports the bill. “This is a commonsense piece of legislation.”

Ireana Marie Williams, a member of Students Demand Actions at California State University, Sacramento, said shooter drills and lockdowns are traumatizing for students. Williams was locked out of her classroom when her high school went into lockdown a few years ago. She didn't know if it was a drill or not.

“There are no words, no way for me to describe the sheer horror of feeling like a sitting duck, waiting for a gunman to turn the corner and start shooting," Williams said Tuesday. “Every lockdown, every drill, every second spent scanning for exits is a type of gun violence.”