California sheriff, district attorney announce they won't enforce Newsom's latest gun-grabbing law

SUTTER COUNTY, CA- If pro-Second Amendment advocates are to beat back attempts by liberal politicians to attack their right to bear arms, it may be up to our country’s sheriffs to lead the charge. That is the case in California, where a county sheriff has announced his agency will not enforce California’s new restrictive gun law. 

According to Blaze Media, California’s new draconian gun law went into effect on New Year’s Day that prevents lawful gun owners from carrying firearms in so-called “sensitive” public spaces, including parks, stadiums, government buildings, medical buildings, churches, public transit, certain parking areas, anywhere liquor is sold or consumed and many other places. In other words, pretty much everywhere, according to the Los Angeles Times. 

The feel-good legislation was touted by “progressives” as “common sense” measures that would reduce gun violence. Critics, meanwhile, slammed the bill, noting that the so-called “sensitive places” are so vast that, in effect, lawful gun owners will only be able to have guns in their homes. 

Not so fast, said Sutter County Sheriff Brandon Barnes and Sutter County District Attorney Jennifer Dupre in a joint statement released last week, where they announced they will not enforce Newsom’s new gun-grabbing law. 

“This past Saturday, December 30th, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals suspended the December 20th injunction, essentially enacting the sensitive areas portion of the bill. We suspect this will be challenged further and will have to make its way through the court process. It appears there are additional hearings on this matter scheduled in the coming weeks,” the statement read. “We certainly encourage all citizens to obey the law,” the statement continued.

However, the statement also noted that the sheriff and District Attorney would work in concert “to evaluate circumstances on a case-by-case basis.” 

“We have no interest in criminalizing constitutionally protected behavior. We took an oath to uphold our Constitution and will work to protect the rights of citizens. This issue is far from being resolved, and we are hopeful the courts will rule in favor of our constitution.” 

 The law was written by far-left Democratic State Senator Anthony Portantino and was signed into law by future presidential wanna-be Gov. Gavin Newsom. Portantino claimed the bill would improve public safety. 

“When SB2 is implemented, it will certainly increase public safety and, I believe, save lives,” Portantino claimed. It is unknown if the illegal alien criminals and gang bangers weighed in on the bill since they are now given free rein to commit crimes at will without fear of armed citizens intervening. 

Gun rights advocates won a reprieve in December when U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney, an appointee of President George W. Bush, declared portions of the bill violated the Second Amendment. He wrote that the law’s “coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.” 

Only days later, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overruled Carney, placing a temporary hold on his ruling, which resulted in the draconian law going into effect at the beginning of the year. 

Newsom, who sees himself as a future presidential candidate, applauded the appeals court’s ruling, calling Carney’s ruling “dangerous.” 

“Californians overwhelmingly support efforts to ensure that places like hospitals, libraries, and children’s playgrounds remain safe and free from guns,” Newsom said. 

For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Sign in to comment



I can see how you feel. However, deciding which laws to enforce and which not can be risky. As an LEO you raise your hand are swore to uphold laws. This law is not a traffic violation. I’m not being critical. It can lead to other laws as well. If your constituents are fine with that, then that’s your choice. We can’t have a society where we decide for ourselves which laws to enforce. By the way I’m not a liberal. I just believe in enforcing laws without passion or prejudice.


A big THANK YOU to Sutter County Sheriff Brandon Barnes and Sutter County District Attorney Jennifer Dupre. Fortunately, my wife and I left that failing state the week after we retired. Never looked back.


The only way to reduce gun violence is to put a mandatory 25 year sentence on those caught illegally carrying illegal weapons. Putting restrictions on those legally carrying will do zero to reduce gun violence.


You have to be a moron to believe this is about anything other than disarming conservatives. Nice try!


Since Kalifornica doesn't care about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, perhaps we should remove it from the United States.


Anybody that follows court rulings will understand that every time I hear the 9th Circuit making a decision, I have to laugh. The 9th Circuit is a literal "liberal clown show" and its decisions are often overturned on further appeal. The 9th believes itself to be an arm of the legislative branch instead of its regulator.




Thank you Barnes and Dupre! As to the power of law.... Law acts as an informative, not as a coercive. Politicians avow that Law will diminish crimes where guns are used. Yet they offer no explanation as to how Law forces criminal choices. Law is inert knowledge. Its purpose is to inform the public what behavior is not legal, then provides punishment for violation. Wherein is Law’s power of enforcement? No law stops anyone from breaking it. Law’s “power” or coercive force is found in only two avenues. 1. Self-Compliance. I.e., a person’s willingness to obey that information. Or, 2. By compulsion enforced by law enforcement officers. This compulsion comes in at least two forms. a. Out of guilt, respect, or fear of the officer (fear of getting caught), a person chooses to comply, which defaults to Self-Compliance. Or, b. Physical brute force by a law enforcer, whether by physical hand to hand arrest or by mechanical means (tasers, guns). Legal physical brute force is applied against a noncompliant suspect. Hence, law’s power lies in only these two forms: self-compliance, or brute force. In regard to the debate over Gun Control Laws to stop “gun violence,” politicians speak like the knowledge of law will force criminals and madmen to comply. If laws were effective in stopping criminals, explain why, 96% of mass murders occur in GUN FREE ZONES?


As a retired LEO I applaud the Sheriff and the District Attorney for standing up for the constitution of the United States and the law abiding citizens they serve. It is wholly absurd to believe this end run around the constitution will prevent the worst criminal elements of any community in California from carrying a weapon. By definition criminals will commit crimes and they hardly, if ever, are detoured by a law. Their mind set is prey like in nature and will only see the opportunity this ridiculous law gives them to victimize others. If the progressives are so certain that crime will in fact be reduced by this law then put a sunset clause into it and if it does reduce crime then the citizens will vote it back into law. But it will not happen and unfortunately the victims will be made to suffer. Those being the minorities who do not live in gated communities or have private security. All Sheriffs should follow this course set by Sheriff Barnes.

Powered by StructureCMS™ Comments

Get latest news delivered daily!

We will send you breaking news right to your inbox

© 2024 Law Enforcement Today, Privacy Policy