UPDATE: APD Provides Details on a Pair of Serious Traffic Incidents From the Past 24 Hours

# # #

As first reported on the Mad River Union’s Facebook page, this morning, just after 2 a.m., a driver lost control of their vehicle in the Bayside area, plowing through fences and power poles before driving straight into the Bayside Grange.

The Union reports that the driver was killed in the crash. Scanner traffic from the time indicates that rescuers on scene shortly after the crash attempted to resuscitate the driver, but gave up the effort.

The extent of the structural damage to the Grange is still unknown, but the building has been deemed unsafe for the time being.

Arcata police are at the scene, and the building has been taped off.

The calls first came into the dispatch center at around 2:15 a.m., with several people in the neighborhood reporting a loud “boom,” or explosion. 

The crash took out power to the Bayside and Sunny Brae areas. It’s still off as of this writing.

One year after Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed changing the U.S. Constitution to place new restrictions on gun ownership, no other states have joined his campaign for a 28th amendment.

Even as Newsom continues to tout the effort — largely through social media advertisements that encourage people to sign a “petition” and donate to his political action committee — it appears to have gained little traction outside of California. Legislative leaders in several other large states controlled by Democrats told CalMatters that calling for a constitutional convention to adopt the amendment has not come up for discussion among their caucuses.

Newsom spokesperson Nathan Click said the governor’s team focused this past year on laying the groundwork for the campaign, which they plan to reinvigorate in 2025, when most states will begin new legislative sessions. That has primarily involved getting the public invested through the online petition, which is effectively a way to expand the political action committee’s mailing list, and by training volunteers.

“We’re under no illusions of how hard it is to pass a constitutional amendment, so that’s why we’ve focused on building this grassroots army to help these legislators,” Click said. “It’s not just a bill introduction. It’s a bill introduction, and people on the ground who are willing to fight.”

But the lack of progress so far raises questions about whether Newsom is seriously pursuing the constitutional amendment, which he has acknowledged faces overwhelming hurdles to becoming law, or whether it’s merely savvy political messaging.

As California’s extensive gun control framework is increasingly dismantled in the courts following a key ruling two years ago, critics say the proposed amendment is Newsom’s attempt to refashion a losing issue into something supporters can rally behind while also keeping him on the national stage in case he runs for president one day.

“They’ve come out of the closet. They’ve showed their true intent. They want to eradicate the 2nd Amendment, period,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, which has repeatedly sued to overturn gun restrictions in California. “He’s staking out this territory for Democratic primaries for running for the White House in the future. He’s trying to take that mantle so that other candidates can’t claim to be the most anti-gun candidate.”

Putting gun control back ‘on the map’

California’s firearms laws are among the most stringent in the country and they’ve only gotten stricter under Newsom, a longtime champion of gun control policies who has signed dozens of bills regulating the sale, ownership and manufacturing of weapons since taking office in 2019.

But the Bruen decision by the Supreme Court in 2022, which overturned New York’s tough standard for who could carry a concealed gun in public and established a new historical basis for reviewing firearms laws, upended that entire system.

Following a barrage of litigation from gun rights groups, judges in the past two years have ruled unconstitutional California laws that require safety features on handguns sold in the state, limit the number of bullets in magazines, ban assault weapons, prohibit guns in certain sensitive places, allow lawsuits against manufacturers of “abnormally dangerous” guns and prohibit buying more than one gun every 30 days. Most of those decisions, some of which reversed previous rulings upholding the same laws, are being appealed by the state.

So on June 8, 2023, Newsom announced a plan to work around the courts. His idea was to get the states to call a convention to add to the U.S. Constitution four firearms restrictions that are broadly popular in public polling: universal background checks for gun purchases, raising the federal minimum age for all buyers to 21, requiring an unspecified minimum waiting period between purchasing and taking possession of a gun, and banning the sale of assault weapons.

“Governor Newsom isn’t sitting idly by while rightwing judges dismantle our gun safety laws,” Click said in a statement. “He’s taking aggressive actions — defending our state’s first-in-class gun safety laws from judicial attacks while simultaneously fighting to pass a constitutional amendment to enshrine gun safety nationwide.”

It’s a route that might be even more challenging than getting a bill through Congress these days. Two-thirds of state legislatures — 34 out of 50 — must agree to convene the constitutional convention and then whatever text is proposed must be ratified by at least three-fourths of states, or 38, either through legislation or conventions. The last successful constitutional amendment was decades ago.

Despite concerns even from some Democratic allies of the governor that calling a constitutional convention could open the door for Republican-led states to propose amendments with unrelated conservative priorities, the California Legislature dutifully got the ball rolling with a resolution at the end of session last year.

“This was supposed to put it on the map and keep it on the map,” said Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, a Los Angeles Democrat who shepherded the resolution through the Assembly.

Democratic states not rushing to join California

Yet no other states have followed suit in the year since, including 19 where Democrats control both houses of the legislature.

Click noted that many of those states have part-time legislatures that will not reconvene until next year, after this November’s election. He said Newsom’s team has been working with legislators in other states to introduce resolutions in 2025, though he declined to provide any specifics.

“Given the nature, we’re not trying to tip off the opposition,” he said.

Democratic-controlled states such as New York, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts and Hawaii did have sessions this year, however, without calling for a constitutional convention on gun control.

CalMatters contacted the offices of legislative leaders in those five states to ask whether their caucuses had considered Newsom’s plan. Many did not respond to numerous inquiries, but representatives for New York Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, Illinois Senate President Don Harmon, Illinois House Speaker Emanuel Chris Welch and Michigan House Speaker Joe Tate said it had not come up for discussion and they were not aware of any outreach from Newsom’s team.

Recent developments in New York and Pennsylvania also illustrate the political challenges of pursuing the constitutional convention strategy — from both the left, where there is a longstanding distrust of the system, and the right, where most gun control policies are anathema to Republicans.

In March, the New York Legislature actually voted to rescind several historic resolutions calling for constitutional conventions, going back as far as 1789, reflecting fears from progressive activists that such a process could be used by conservatives to undermine democratic rights. Dozens of Republican-led states have previously passed resolutions seeking a constitutional convention to adopt a balanced budget amendment.

In Pennsylvania, the only state with divided partisan control of its legislature, a spokesperson for Democratic House Speaker Joanna McClinton said their caucus has prioritized gun safety legislation.

“Unfortunately, our efforts have been blocked by the Republican-led state Senate, where two bipartisan gun safety bills have been stalled for over a year,” Nicole Reigelman wrote in an email, “so any consideration of a constitutional convention here would likely face a similar opposition from the Senate Republican majority.”

Newsom continues to advertise his plan

National gun control advocacy groups have not jumped in to boost Newsom’s effort and appear to be maintaining their distance from the idea.

Despite often cheering the governor’s support for new gun control legislation and attending his signing ceremonies, none was quoted in a press release touting praise for the proposal, published by his office days after the campaign launched last year. Everytown for Gun Safety and Brady: United Against Gun Violence declined or did not respond to interview requests about how it fits into their strategy.

Newsom has nevertheless continued to encourage his followers to get involved with the campaign.

“If Congress and the courts will not take action to help make our communities safer from gun violence, then we — the people — must do it ourselves,” he said in one recent social media advertisement directing people to sign his petition. “It’s a small gesture that can have a big impact when lots and lots of us do it together.”

More than a million people have signed up in the past year, Click said, and the campaign has trained more than 1,500 of them on how they can help in their states. They plan to train 10,000 volunteers by early 2025 when resolution introductions begin.

Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation said Newsom’s proposal has accomplished more for opponents, who have used its a fundraising tool to mobilize gun owners, than it has for gun safety.

He was unsurprised that the call for a constitutional convention has not gained traction outside of California, especially in an election year, arguing that gun control is not as popular as other Democratic priorities such as abortion rights, particularly in rural areas and battleground states.

“I don’t think the gun control issue plays well for Democrats, but they just can’t let go of it,” he said. “They’re like a dog with a bone in their mouth.”

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

PREVIOUSLY:

• McKinleyville Man Arrested on Suspicion of Murder After Shooting, Killing Former Partner, Sheriff’s Office Says

###

Press release from the District Attorney’s Office:

Today, a Humboldt County jury found Daniel Forrest Rena-Dozier, age 42, guilty of voluntary manslaughter for killing Mia Felder, age 30, as well as guilty for felony assault with a semiautomatic firearm, felony possession of a silencer, and misdemeanor possession of a weapon with the serial number removed. The jury also found that Mr. Rena-Dozier personally used a firearm, causing Ms. Felder’s death.

Rena Dozier.

The homicide occurred on April 8, 2023, on Windy Road in McKinleyville.

Deputy District Attorney Roger Rees prosecuted the case at trial, with assistance from District Attorney Investigator Gregory Hill and Victim Advocate Caitlyn LaHaie. The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office investigated the case, led by Detective Daniel Vickman with assistance from Det. Jennifer Taylor, among others in the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office. Mr. Rena-Dozier was represented by local attorney Andrea Sullivan. The Honorable Steven Steward, Judge, presided over the three-week jury trial.

Mr. Rena-Dozier, who faces a maximum sentence of 21 years in prison for voluntary manslaughter with use of a firearm, is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Steward on July 8 at 8:30 in the morning.

District Attorney Stacey Eads commented “Thank you to the jurors for their time and thoughtful evaluation in reaching a just verdict in this tragic case. My deepest condolences go out to all of the affected family and other loved ones.”

Press release from the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office:

The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office is seeking the public’s assistance in identifying suspects involved in a violent carjacking, assault, and shooting incident that occurred in the Fortuna area.

On the evening of April 13, 2024, at approximately 11:15 PM, deputies responded to reports of a carjacking and shooting in the unincorporated area of Newburg Road, in Fortuna. Upon arrival, deputies discovered a local victim who had sustained multiple injuries from an assault and a gunshot wound. The victim was immediately transported to a nearby hospital and is currently recovering from major injuries. 

Preliminary investigations indicate that the suspects, described as two males wearing dark clothing and masks, approached the victim’s vehicle, forcibly removed him from the car, and proceeded to assault and shoot the victim before fleeing the scene in the stolen vehicle.

The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office is working diligently to gather more information and urges anyone who witnessed the incident or has any information related to the suspects or the stolen vehicle to come forward. The stolen vehicle is described as a white 2017 Toyota Tacoma with the license plate number 14709K2. The following photos were taken from the victim’s surveillance system. 

Anyone with information is encouraged to contact the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office at (707) 445-7251. Anonymous tips can also be submitted through the Sheriff’s Office Crime Tip Line at (707) 268-2539.

The three-year legal battle over the fate of a 1,200 unit housing project and the question of whether the noise of undergrads should be treated as an environmental pollutant under California law came to a formal close this morning when the state Supreme Court ruled that the “lawsuit poses no obstacle to the development of the People’s Park housing project.”

The unanimous ruling, written by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, puts a coda on a debate that has in many ways been resolved for months. Last year, state lawmakers rushed to exempt UC Berkeley’s contentious housing project from legal challenge, resolving many of the thorniest legal questions in advance of the state’s highest court.

Though the case was about a single cluster of proposed housing developments on Berkeley’s counterculture-famous People’s Park south of campus, it caught the attention of housing and environmental advocates across the state, national news outlets, and state lawmakers.

The saga began in 2021, when UC Berkeley, as part of a broader development plan, proposed a new student housing complex at the site of the historic park, along with a supportive housing project for homeless Berkeley residents. Local historic preservation activists under the dual banners of the People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group and Make UC a Good Neighbor, sued.

Their argument to the court: The noise certain to come from future collegiate residents amounts to a pollutant.

California’s Environmental Quality Act requires public agencies to study the environmental consequences of any project it embarks upon and to report those findings to the public in a comprehensive study. UC Berkeley, the suit argued, had failed to access the effect of student noise in that study.

After an appellate court judge ruled against UC Berkeley in 2023, legislators and Newsom whipped up a law which specified that “noise generated by project occupants and their guests” does not have “a significant effect on the environment for residential projects” for the purposes of CEQA. The law also exempted universities from having to consider alternative development sites to comply with environmental law, shielding UC Berkeley from a related legal challenge.

That all left California’s highest court with relatively little to decide in today’s ruling.

At oral argument before the Supreme Court last April, even Thomas Lippe, the lawyer representing the neighborhood groups conceded that the case “provides no platform to stop” the People’s Park housing. But, he argued, the new law made no mention of all the “social noise” that would result from the school’s overall development plan, which was meant to take into account projected student population increases and which included the People’s Park housing projects.

“It makes perfect sense for the Legislature to leave a broad requirement in CEQA to look at and investigate the social noise impacts of increasing population,” attorney Thomas Lippe argued to the court in April.

The court adamantly disagreed, arguing that whatever ambiguity exists in the new law signed by the governor last year, the intent of the Legislature was crystal clear: The People’s Park project should not be delayed based on concerns of noise. “The legislative history of Assembly Bill 1307 overwhelmingly establishes that the Legislature enacted the new law to abrogate the Make UC decision,” the opinion reads.

The idea of building housing on People’s Park has drawn condemnation from a wide array of Berkeley residents, including defenders of historic sites, opponents of dense housing and left-wing activists who celebrate People’s Park’s history as a magnet of political protest and, more recently, a sanctuary for people experiencing homelessness.

UC Berkeley’s proposed project would leave 60% of the site as a public park.

But the lawsuit also became a flashpoint in the statewide debate over CEQA, California’s five-decade-old environmental law that is frequently used to slow or kill large housing projects for reasons that are not always obviously connected to environmental protection.

Clangs from industrial machinery at a factory, music from loud speakers at a wedding venue and even the metallic squeaks of playground equipment have long been considered an environmental impact subject to state environmental law. But the Berkeley neighborhood groups were the first to suggest that the sounds emanating from the future residents of a project going about their day-to-day activities should also be taken into account by the state statute.

In pushing forward her bill to reverse last year’s appellate ruling, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks warned that such a legal argument would open the door to other forms of discrimination under the guise of concerns of noise. “This could be used as a tool to keep communities of color out,” the Oakland Democrat told CalMatters last year.

With today’s ruling, UC Berkeley spokesperson Kyle Gibson said in a statement that it will be “turning its attention to the timeline for resuming construction now that all legal challenges have been resolved.”

“We are grateful for the strong and ongoing support this project has received from the majority of Berkeley students, community members, advocates for the unhoused, the city’s elected leaders, the state Legislature, and the governor,” he said.

###

Mikhail Zinshteyn contributed to this story. CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Before becoming a member of the California Assembly, Freddie Rodriguez spent 30 years as an emergency medical technician in the San Gabriel Valley. He’s wheeled untold numbers of patients on gurneys into hospital emergency departments.

And he’s seen all too often what happens when one of them tries to hurt caregivers. In fact, it recently happened to his daughter, Desirae, a respiratory technician. He told the Senate Public Safety Committee on Tuesday that she was recently assaulted on the job.

“This violence is unacceptable,” Rodriguez testified. “But for many of the health care heroes, they view workplace violence as just part of the job.”

The issue prompted Rodriguez to introduce Assembly Bill 977, which would increase penalties to a year in jail for those convicted of assaulting California’s hospital emergency room doctors, nurses and other workers. But the bill has an uncertain future due to resistance from progressive Democrats who, for the past decade, have sought to shrink the numbers of inmates in its crowded jails and prisons. Indeed, former Gov. Jerry Brown, who faced a U.S. Supreme Court order to shrink the state’s prison population, vetoed an identical bill from Rodriguez in 2015.

Those tensions were on display when the bill narrowly passed the Senate Public Safety Committee earlier this week.

The safety committee’s liberal Democratic senators from the San Francisco Bay Area, Scott Wiener and Nancy Skinner, opposed the legislation. They sided with the California Public Defenders Association and prison-reform advocates who argue that increasing criminal penalties doesn’t deter crime and who say laws on the books already prohibit assault.

Former Gov. Brown made a similar argument in his 2015 veto message.

“If there were evidence that an additional six months in county jail … would enhance the safety of these workers or serve as a deterrent, I would sign this bill,” Brown wrote. “I doubt that it would do either.”

At this week’s hearing, the bill’s opponents also argued that many of the attacks in emergency departments are from patients having mental-health crises.

“We realize now that because of the lack of mental-health resources …ERs are where people who are having a crisis of mental health are brought,” Skinner said. “And punishments like this are not deterrents for people who can use no judgment.”

Skinner, however, didn’t vote on the bill, which counts the same as voting “no.” When Rodriguez’s bill passed the Assembly earlier this year, 12 members – most of them progressive Democrats who’ve been leery of increasing criminal penalties – didn’t vote. As CalMatters has reported, lawmakers regularly avoid voting on controversial bills to avoid angering colleagues or to eliminate a record of their opposition on sensitive matters. There is no distinction for legislators who abstain or are absent.

Wiener cast the lone “no” vote in the five-member committee. The influential California Medical Association, representing the state’s physicians, supported the bill. The opposition from Skinner and Wiener represented a significant break from the association’s positions on legislation. Skinner has historically sided with the doctors’ group 80% of the time; Wiener 86%, according to an analysis from CalMatters Digital Democracy database.

Murrieta Republican Sen. Kelly Seyarto, who has historically aligned with the California Medical Association only 45% of the time, was firmly on the doctors’ side this time around. He’s a former battalion chief with the Los Angeles County Fire Department, who has seen his share of violent medical calls.

He told his committee colleagues that the legislation is “long overdue.”

“I know personally a nurse that was disabled, (after) she was attacked and thrown to the ground,” Seyarto said. “She had a head injury and she could never go back to work. She could never go back to work. And the person that did that, there was nothing mentally wrong with them. He was just mad.”

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Photo:Ayla Mamutoi

Creg Hommey, aka “Spirit,” was an urban legend from the Rainbow Family Gatherings. In Arcata he was famously known for the bunny. But in the rest of the country he was known famously as a permanent feature of just about every Rainbow gathering and the thousands and thousands of personal stories about him will live on. He will be missed by so many of us that loved him.

He didn’t do a lot. He was king of the bliss ninnies, and it was always speculated whether he was more leprechaun or elf, and whether there really were clones of him at other gatherings. But what thousands of his friends can say for certain is that they met him in a remote location in a national forest for their first Rainbow Gathering. And Spirit loved them all.

Creg Hommey was born April 12, 1966 in Orange County and passed April 28. He is survived by his sister, Alexzandria Hommey

Spirit, a magical creature who walked a path in the wild as one with nature. Most people couldn’t even imagine visiting as many beautiful remote places across this country as Spirit has. Or knowing so many people from every state in this country. As much as society had rejected him, he made up for it by finding the people who accepted him. He never had a lot but he always had love for us and Rainbow, and he will be remembered for that. He’s climbed many a mountain, and celebrated many actual rainbows.

He had the mind of a child, and the wisdom from being on the road for decades. He listened to the stories told around the heart fire and he really loved marijuana. If you had any, it was common for him to just magically appear; “Gotta nug?” “right on,’” “gotta cig.” As lore would have it, if you said his name three times he would arrive shortly after. He was always appreciative, and he always told us that he loves us.

Plans are being made to bring him to his last Rainbow Gathering this summer in California. May the four winds blow you safely home, brother. https://gofund.me/c061c214