Spencer Pratt has revealed what issue convinced him to register as a Republican years before his $2.5 million Los Angeles home was destroyed in the Palisades Fire last year.
In a Thursday interview with CNN's Elex Michaelson, the former reality TV star turned LA mayoral candidate said the Republican Party's full embrace of gun rights is what swayed him to their side.
'You want to break some news here?' Pratt said, pitching what he was about to say as something he's never publicly shared before. 'When I was a hated reality star I got so many death threats. I had so much security and police. And what did they tell me to do?'
'Get a gun,' Pratt recalled. 'This is real. I know people don't like guns, but LA is dangerous if you're hated. So, I got a gun. My wife got a gun.'
He then explained that he and his wife, Heidi Montag, needed concealed carry permits because in California, citizens are generally not allowed to open carry firearms, whether they are loaded or unloaded.
And because Republicans in California are far more supportive of concealed carry than Democrats, Pratt chose to register with the GOP in 2020.
Pratt also clarified that like all Californians who apply for a concealed carry permit through their local sheriff or county, he had to complete a firearms training course. Other requirements include being at least 21 years old and passing a background check.
Pratt's comments come as he fights to overtake his main opponents in the mayoral race, incumbent Karen Bass and LA Councilmember Nithya Raman. The primary is on June 2, with Bass considered the favorite to win. Current polling indicates the race may go to a November 3 runoff since none of the candidates have an outright majority.
Spencer Pratt told CNN's Elex Michaelson that Republicans' support of the right of Americans to carry concealed weapons is what convinced him to join the GOP
Pratt joined the Republican Party in 2020, long before his Los Angeles home (pictured) burned down in the Pacific Palisades Fire last year
Pratt is also sharing his thoughts on gun rights against the backdrop of major changes to California’s firearm laws in recent years.
For decades, California residents had to prove they had 'good moral character' to obtain a concealed carry permit.
Sheriffs and police chiefs in the state also used to have much more discretion in deciding who was eligible for concealed carry permits.
In many jurisdictions, applicants had to demonstrate 'good cause,' such as documented threats, repeated victimization or another heightened need for self-defense.
The Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which expanded Second Amendment protections for carrying firearms in public, effectively got rid of this discretion-based permitting system California and many other states had adopted.
And in September 2023, Senate Bill 2 was signed by Gavin Newsom as an attempt to comply with the landmark Bruen ruling. The law got rid of the 'good moral character' requirement for getting a concealed carry permit.
However, the law was considered ripe for legal challenges over its laundry list of public places where concealed carry was prohibited.
Several months after SB 2 took effect in January 2024, a panel of judges with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals partially struck down the law's 'sensitive places' restrictions in the case May v. Bonta.
Pratt said Democrats in California are largely against broadly allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons (Pictured: Pratt with wife Heidi Montag and their two sons)
Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 2 in September 2023, which according to one district court judge, 'effectively abolished Second Amendment rights of law-abiding and exceptionally qualified citizens to be armed and to defend themselves in public'.
In the 9th Circuit Court's September 2024 opinion, the judges describe SB 2's restrictions as overly broad multiple times throughout.
And prior to the 9th Circuit Court's decision, the law was evaluated by a lower district court judge who said: 'SB 2 turns nearly every public place in California into a "sensitive place," effectively abolishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding and exceptionally qualified citizens to be armed and to defend themselves in public.'
The 9th Circuit Court's ruling held that it was illegal for the state to enforce concealed carry bans on public transportation or in hospitals, permitted public gatherings, places of worship, and banks.
At the same time, the ruling allowed California to restrict firearm possession at schools, childcare facilities, courthouses, government buildings, polling places, establishments that serve alcohol, museums and public parks.
All of these restrictions are currently subject to ongoing litigation, meaning the rules could still change. Additionally, another case out of Hawaii - Wolford v. Lopez - challenges a similar law that expanded 'sensitive places' restrictions in that state.
These cases, which were consolidated under the ruling from the 9th Circuit, could eventually reach the Supreme Court.