California Issues ...


Just sneakin' around....
I don't get it. Why EV charge stations? They can't use any power from them, all they are doing is blocking them. What's the attraction?

The article talks about "turf". What turf? What are they staking a claim to? :crazy:


PREMO Member

California’s Crazy New Year: Five Radical Laws Go into Effect (One on Hold)

1. SB 107: ‘Sanctuary State’ for ‘Transgender Kids’

2. AB 2098: ‘COVID Misinformation’

3. AB 2147: Decriminalizing Jaywalking Because of Racism

4. SB 1375: Allowing Nurses to Perform Abortions Without Doctors

5. SB 357: Decriminalizing Loitering for Prostitution

On hold: AB 257: State Control of Fast Food Restaurants
– As reported last year by Breitbart News, this law “creates a ten-member politburo, known as the Fast Food Council, which would serve for ten years” and would set wages and working conditions for the fast food industry. It has been suspended by the courts, after a coalition of restaurants that collected petition signatures law sued to block it until a referendum can be held.

Newsom has signed several other radical laws that go into effect in future years. He is currently thought to be mulling a run for president, and is establishing a national reputation as a left-wing leader on cultural issues.

Update: SB 1327: Allowing Private Citizens to Sue for Gun Violations – This law still took effect on January 1, though it was partially blocked by a San Diego judge. It allows private citizens to sue each other over alleged violations of the state’s gun laws (the judge blocked the fee-shifting provision that requires defendants to pay the entire legal costs). Newsom modeled the law after a similar Texas law on restricting abortions.


Just sneakin' around....


PREMO Member

California’s Strict Gun Control Laws Aren’t Stopping Mass Shootings

Nevertheless, the anti-gunner crowd continues to insist that making it harder for law-abiding Americans to obtain and carry firearms is the way to stop mass shooters from claiming more lives. California Gov. Gavin Newsom doubled down on this questionable argument during a segment with CBS anchor Norah O’Donnell on Monday in which he said the Second Amendment is a “suicide pact.”

O’Donnell asked the governor about the recent shooting in Monterey Park that left 11 people dead. “Nothing about this is surprising,” Newsom said. “Everything about this is infuriating.”

The host pointed out that the Golden State has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Newsom demurred and argued that “the Second Amendment is becoming a suicide pact.”

O’Donnell pushed back, saying that there are “many people in this country that support the Second Amendment and are lawful gun owners.”

“Yeah, I have great respect — I have no ideological opposition to someone who is reasonably and responsibly owning firearms and getting background checks and being trained,” Newsom responded.



PREMO Member

Judge Grants Temporary Injunction Against California AB 2098, the Awful Doctor-Muzzling Law

The short version of the law is—if you’re a doctor and you say anything about COVID the state doesn’t like, they will take away your license to practice and therefore your career. Somewhere in Washington, D.C. there’s a copy of the U.S. Constitution, but it would appear that Newsom hasn’t bothered to read it or one of its central features, the First Amendment.

Here’s what free speech advocate Dr. Azadeh Khatibi had to say at the time:

Here are the beautiful words of the judge from his ruling, which can be viewed here:

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motions for
preliminary injunction (Høeg Docket No. 5; Hoang Docket No. 4)
be, and the same hereby are, GRANTED. Pending final resolution
of this action, defendants, their agents and employees, all
persons or entities in privity with them, and anyone acting in
concert with them are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code § 2270 as against plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ members, and
all persons represented by plaintiffs.

The ruling is long (30 pages) and complex, but judge, William Shubb, summed up why he granted the motion:

In addition to establishing a likelihood of success on
the merits, plaintiffs must establish that they are likely to
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief;
that the balance of equities tips in their favor; and that an
injunction is in the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20.
y establishing a likelihood that [the challenged
law] violates the U.S. Constitution
, [p]laintiffs have also
established that both the public interest and the balance of the
equities favor a preliminary injunction.” Ariz. Dream Act Coal.
v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1069 (9th Cir. 2014). The plaintiffs
have thus established the elements necessary to obtain a
preliminary injunction. (Emphasis mine.)

Interestingly, the last line of the document reveals that the judge was persuaded by arguments surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment, so he didn’t even need to consider First Amendment issues:

Because plaintiffs have established a likelihood of
success on the grounds of their Fourteenth Amendment vagueness
challenges, the court need not address the merits of their First
Amendment arguments.


PREMO Member

California Proposes Ban on Chrome Plating

Classic car enthusiasts, especially lovers of the chrome era cars, know the importance of keeping those bright bumpers and trim bits as shiny as possible, even if the vehicle’s body is mostly patina. Now California car nuts, restoration shops and chrome plating companies are on the brink of losing access to chrome’s distinctive shine. According to this California Air Resources Board (CARB) item summary, the state is considering tightening chrome plating regulations, specifically phasing out hexavalent chromium, the chemical compound that gives chrome its mirror-like finish. This compound is also widely used outside the automotive realm from home items like kitchen faucets, to stainless steel production and textile manufacturing.

California is on a mission to achieve ambitious climate goals, and chrome plating is a target as a hazardous chemical that is said to release airborne emissions during the plating process that are over 500-times more toxic than diesel exhaust. CARB’s restriction on hexavalent chromium, or “chrome-6” as the bill states, would be the first ever ban of its kind. According to Jane Williams, executive director of California Communities Against Toxics (CCAT), "Even the EU hasn't done it because they haven't found a substitute for crucial uses.” If the ban passes, decorative plating would cease by 2027 and industrial use, like chrome acid anodizing operations and anti-corrosive coatings, would disappear by 2039.


Mostly settled in...
Ad Free Experience
^As long as there are more entities that vote themselves a living, rather than working for a living...


PREMO Member

Los Angeles Times Admits California Has Cyclic Wet-Dry Cycles After Historic Snowpack

Hopefully, the wet cycle will be a long one. It takes a lot of water to put out an EV-fire.

Drought-weary California is entering February with deeper snowpack than it has seen in four decades, reflecting a healthy boost in the state’s supply of water but also spurring concerns about dryness, flooding and other potential hazards in the months ahead.

Statewide Sierra snowpack was 205% of normal for the date on Wednesday, said officials with the Department of Water Resources during the second snow survey of the season.

Even more promising, snowpack was 128% of its April 1 average, referring to the end-of-season date when snowpack in California is typically at its deepest.

“Our snowpack is off to an incredible start, and it’s exactly what California needs to really help break from our ongoing drought,” DWR snow survey manager Sean de Guzman said. The state’s snowpack is currently outpacing the winter of 1982-83 — “the wettest year on record dating back about 40 years,” he said.


American Beauty
PREMO Member
As a kid in Tahoe, I recall jumping out the 2nd floor window because the snow pack was so deep.


Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
As a kid in Michigan i've tunneled out of a second story window because the snow was so deep.


PREMO Member

Report: California Spent $10 Billion Over Three Years to Help 571,000 Homeless People

Gov. Gavin Newsom has scolded cities and counties for failing to get more people off the street, hundreds of millions in state spending notwithstanding. “Californians demand accountability and results, not settling for the status quo,” the governor said last November.

Republicans in the Legislature have called for an audit of the state’s homelessness spending. Democrats are still absorbing the last one from 2021, but many want to see the state’s money come with strings attached. This week, Assemblymember Luz Rivas, an Arleta Democrat, introduced a bill that would demand “tangible results” from local governments before they receive homelessness grants — mirroring an idea from the governor’s own budget proposal.

The increasingly bipartisan chorus points to two stark, seemingly contradictory trends: The state keeps spending more to address the crisis, and the crisis keeps getting worse. So where, they ask, is all the money going?