8103 and meeting the public interest requirement in the niaa

​Proper Findings per the NIAA § 105(a)(2):

In granting relief, the lawful authority administering the state level relief from disabilities must issue 2 findings: 1) the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety; and 2) granting the relief will not be contrary to the public interest. 


When CA courts make a finding they must document where there is substantial evidence that supports a finding that appellant would be likely to use firearms in a safe and lawful manner (§ 8103 subd (6)) and that return of the firearms to appellant would not endanger appellant or others. (§ 8102 subd (h)). These findings implicitly implicate public interest,

Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 subd (e)(3) requires a showing the speaker made the statements in connection with an issue of “public interest.” Public interest is a higher standard to meet than the other two. Evaluating what qualifies as an issue of “public interest” requires consideration of the public/private distinction, a changing standard. (Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson (2019) 6 Cal.5th 610, 621; Woodhill Ventures, LLC v. Yang (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 624, 631.

In Rand, the Court laid out three categories of statements or conduct that qualify as “public interest”:

1. Conduct that concern a person or entity [state of CA] vis a vis the public perception;
2. Conduct that could directly affect a large number of persons beyond the direct participants; and 
3. Conduct involving a topic of widespread interest. 



The definition of “public interest” shall include not only governmental matters, but also private conduct that impacts a broad segment of society or that affects a community in a manner similar to the actions and laws of a governmental entity.” Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 468, 479. Firearms are such an activity that tangentially links to restoration of rights to bear arms that have the potential, in the wrong hands, to seriously impact the lives of many individuals. Another way of phrasing such is saying that restoring firearms to mentally ill persons is an activity/conduct that effects large numbers of people beyond the direct participants (the plaintiffs or defendants), and keeping firearms out of the hands of mentally ill and felons is both a state and federal widespread public interest per Heller.
In cases where the issue is not of great interest to the public at large, but rather to a limited, but definable small class of persons the constitutionally protected activity must, at a minimum, occur in the context of an ongoing controversy (federal and state gun legislation relating to prohibited persons), and be of such a nature that it warrants protection by state or federal statute that embodies the public policy of encouraging participation in matters of public significance[?].


​


The state could easily contends allowing mentally adjudicated persons intricately involves an issue of high priority public interest because CA DOJ has long fought gun violence and used prohibitions to safeguard the public from potentially dangerous persons. CA would deem that mentally defective persons who regained their rights, a source of fear to the public and a shortcoming of the state akin to the Charleston loophole. Next, the state can assert both it and hospitals are in the public eye when it comes to gun control protests and the mentally ill. By allowing some "mentally ill" to get their rights through this relief from disabilities program will create an "arbitrary" system that Giffords would deem a dangerous loophole. Akin to how many gun control activists decried Trump repealing the VA disabilities rep payee automatic NICS entry rule, groups would take CA to task for allow dangerous adjudicated mentally ill to get their guns back through the court system no matter what evidentiary hurdles need to be crossed before a court can grant their p petition for relief.

​