PDA

View Full Version : Concealed Weapons Permits


Bob Ragen
02-03-2009, 10:22 PM
Just wanted to pose a question and see what replies come about.

What would it take to try an make our state a shall issue state instead of a may issue state. I know given the number of anti gun legislators in this state it would be difficult but has it been tried?

AndrewMendez
02-03-2009, 10:32 PM
I am sure that it would not be! We need to educate people on the subject 1 person at a time!
We need to get this on a Petition!

hoffmang
02-03-2009, 10:33 PM
The only way we'll get shall issue is through the courts.

The good news is that we are likely to get shall issue through the courts.

-Gene

Cypren
02-03-2009, 10:36 PM
The only way we'll get shall issue is through the courts.

The good news is that we are likely to get shall issue through the courts.

I think I would pay a lot to be a fly on your wall. I haven't seen this much optimism from someone who actually knows two bits about the law in my lifetime, but I respect your opinion too much to discount it as naive. It just makes me wonder what you know that I don't.

CitaDeL
02-03-2009, 10:49 PM
Just wanted to pose a question and see what replies come about.

What would it take to try an make our state a shall issue state instead of a may issue state? I know given the number of anti gun legislators in this state it would be difficult but has it been tried?

One word.

Leverage.

The most radical changes we are about to see in California will come from the courts, but I believe that ultimately it will come down to applying pressure on restrictive issuing agencies directly.

AndrewMendez
02-03-2009, 10:53 PM
One word.

Leverage.



Perfect!!! WE CAN DO THIS!

Librarian
02-03-2009, 10:54 PM
The most radical changes we are about to see in California will come from the courts, but I believe that ultimately it will come down to applying pressure on restrictive issuing agencies directly.
That's pressure from below; the courts are/will be pressure from above. The pressure on individual agencies will only work when a right-thinking CLEO is in place; pressure from courts will overcome even wrong-thinking CLEOs, though it may take a "yes, this means you" lawsuit. I'd expect that requirement for San Francisco, Los Angeles, possibly San Jose.

dexter9659
02-03-2009, 10:56 PM
The only way we'll get shall issue is through the courts.

The good news is that we are likely to get shall issue through the courts.

-Gene

Gene, I actually went out and got an industrial sized umbrella, because it looks like pigs will indeed fly... and flying pigs are second to flying elephants.

hoffmang
02-03-2009, 11:28 PM
It just makes me wonder what you know that I don't.

The politics of issuance interact nicely with the Penal Code and the 2A/14A.

Sheriffs have real political clout and issuance is one of their last/only perks they can hand out. They'll fight long and hard not to lose that and their voice will be heard in Sacramento. Aka: We aren't going to no issue in most likely outcomes.

CA's Penal Code literally allows no way to bear a loaded handgun without getting a permit. The process is going to be:

"Apply for a 'bearing' permit."

Get denied. File a 42 USC 1983 on 2 issues. 1. Either the sheriff has to give me the permit or PC 12031 is unconstitutional - choose. 2. Simple equal protections arguments about those who do get issued.

Courts will choose point 1 and will go for the saving construction that good cause means "not prohibited, no particularized reason to not issue to this applicant."

Remember that we'll be choosing our County's wisely for the above. Worst case we get fully legal open carry loaded which we can leverage ala Ohio into CCW liberalization in Sacramento then.

-Gene

Cypren
02-03-2009, 11:39 PM
Sheriffs have real political clout and issuance is one of their last/only perks they can hand out. They'll fight long and hard not to lose that and their voice will be heard in Sacramento. Aka: We aren't going to no issue in most likely outcomes.

From a sheriff's perspective, aren't shall-issue and no-issue roughly the same outcome? Either way, they lose the ability to reward people with the perk, because they either can't give it out or the person could trivially get it on their own. I would think, given the history of things like Lee Baca's "special reserve" program and other such farces, that sheriffs would prefer to have no-issue, so that they can deputize friends/cronies/briber...*cough*...contributors and award them weapon rights that way.

yellowfin
02-03-2009, 11:42 PM
I still haven't ever had an explanation as to why Mike Carona was given hell for supposedly handing out CCW's as favors while sheriffs like Baca and Smith who we know for a fact do it get not one iota of trouble for it. Why is it corruption for one and not the other? Is it or isn't it?

Cypren
02-04-2009, 12:01 AM
I still haven't ever had an explanation as to why Mike Carona was given hell for supposedly handing out CCW's as favors while sheriffs like Baca and Smith who we know for a fact do it get not one iota of trouble for it. Why is it corruption for one and not the other? Is it or isn't it?

Probably because Carona didn't make enough donations/friends at the federal level to keep pressure off the FBI to take an interest in him. Or maybe he personally offended someone with enough clout to make sure they did. I have no doubt Baca's covered by Congressmen from all sides to make sure the feds always have "higher priorities" than looking into "unfounded rumors" about his behavior.

hoffmang
02-04-2009, 12:01 AM
From a sheriff's perspective, aren't shall-issue and no-issue roughly the same outcome?

Nope. If the state goes no issue then you have to explain to your supporters why the bag of goodies is smaller this year. Just because its shall issue doesn't mean the sheriff can't use it to get goodwill. Think waived application fees, personal presentment, or priority processing.

-Gene

Cypren
02-04-2009, 12:04 AM
Nope. If the state goes no issue then you have to explain to your supporters why the bag of goodies is smaller this year. Just because its shall issue doesn't mean the sheriff can't use it to get goodwill. Think waived application fees, personal presentment, or priority processing.

...not to mention less chance of felony charges when they inevitably wave that priority-processed, personally-presented gun at someone to show them what a big powerful player they are. *cough* Zacky *cough*

Point well taken.

Tallship
02-04-2009, 7:56 AM
Carona was targeted because of Haidl, someone with absolutely no qualifications, but with a ton of money. Smells bad from the outset.

Tallship
02-04-2009, 8:01 AM
"Apply for a 'bearing' permit."

Get denied. File a 42 USC 1983 on 2 issues. 1. Either the sheriff has to give me the permit or PC 12031 is unconstitutional - choose. 2. Simple equal protections arguments about those who do get issued.

Gene- Isn't a "guard card" a bearing permit? So if someone goes to apply, wouldn't the Sheriff just say, fine, go take a PC832 plus fireams course and we'll issue the permit.

Cypren
02-04-2009, 9:33 AM
Gene- Isn't a "guard card" a bearing permit? So if someone goes to apply, wouldn't the Sheriff just say, fine, go take a PC832 plus fireams course and we'll issue the permit.

The guard card is not, by itself, a bearing permit (it requires additional firearms licensing). When fully licensed, though, you can carry only when in uniform and at either your place of employment (including any building guarded by your employer, obviously) or in your vehicle when going directly to or from your place of employment or a target range. So I don't think there's any reasonable chance that a sheriff could say that a guard card was a substitute for a CCW license.

CitaDeL
02-04-2009, 10:23 AM
That's pressure from below; the courts are/will be pressure from above. The pressure on individual agencies will only work when a right-thinking CLEO is in place; pressure from courts will overcome even wrong-thinking CLEOs, though it may take a "yes, this means you" lawsuit. I'd expect that requirement for San Francisco, Los Angeles, possibly San Jose.

Correct. The pressure from below should be applied on issuing authorities other than the major metropolitan areas. With California in a budget crisis, CLEOS will have personel cuts, reducing effective law enforcement coverage and will not want to 'waste resources' on numerous calls reporting 'man with a gun'.

So the strategy is to have as many people as possible apply for a licence to carry concealed. When these people are not issued a license by a restrictive issuing authority, the non-licensees should frequently open carry as a matter of practice or should organize periods of time where they actively open carry to make a point. They wouldnt need to assemble for a lunch as with the San Diego outings, just go about their regular errands, blanketing an area with lawfully armed people.

CLEOS will have to address this action, I believe in one of two ways. 1) They will issue a training bulletin, informing their officers and deputies of the lawfulness of UOC- and potentially there is a chance that they will try to make UOC as uncomfortable as being profiled as a terrorist in an airport. 2) They will issue LTC concealed- desiring to reduce public outcry and frequency of encounters with lawful open carriers.

We have already seen the memos alerting LEO's, but UOC has not reached a threshhold where numbers are concerning CLEO's. I'm certain that after the outcome of Nordyke is known, these numbers will increase significantly.

I believe that using this strategy and using the courts in concert, we can reform California gun law.

MudCamper
02-04-2009, 11:31 AM
The politics of issuance interact nicely with the Penal Code and the 2A/14A.

Sheriffs have real political clout and issuance is one of their last/only perks they can hand out. They'll fight long and hard not to lose that and their voice will be heard in Sacramento. Aka: We aren't going to no issue in most likely outcomes.

CA's Penal Code literally allows no way to bear a loaded handgun without getting a permit. The process is going to be:

"Apply for a 'bearing' permit."

Get denied. File a 42 USC 1983 on 2 issues. 1. Either the sheriff has to give me the permit or PC 12031 is unconstitutional - choose. 2. Simple equal protections arguments about those who do get issued.

Courts will choose point 1 and will go for the saving construction that good cause means "not prohibited, no particularized reason to not issue to this applicant."

Remember that we'll be choosing our County's wisely for the above. Worst case we get fully legal open carry loaded which we can leverage ala Ohio into CCW liberalization in Sacramento then.

-Gene

Gene, you often talk about the possibility that we'll challenge or defeat or modify 12031. That's great if it's true, but what about 626.9? Even with 12031 gone from the books, I still could not carry a handgun in any of the rural cities in Sonoma, Lake, or Mendocino counties (places I frequent), because there is always a school within 1000 feet of the downtowns. Personally I'd rather see 626.9 go before 12031. As it is now, I can't even UOC in most places.

DDT
02-04-2009, 11:51 AM
I still could not carry a handgun in any of the rural cities in Sonoma, Lake, or Mendocino counties (places I frequent), because there is always a school within 1000 feet of the downtowns. Personally I'd rather see 626.9 go before 12031. As it is now, I can't even UOC in most places.

I don't know about priorities and strategies for undermining the foundations of all the unconstitutional laws so I will leave it to the "Right People" to make those decisions. I will say though that it would seem that with the public and private schools all totaled up it is probably more than half of the developed space in most urban/suburban parts of the State are GFSZs. This would seem a pretty blatant infringement on our rights and I don't see it standing post-heller. However it may be strategically better to set up a model where "sensitive areas" are better defined in an easier case so that we can then extend that to GFSZs more readily and cheaply.

Librarian
02-04-2009, 12:20 PM
Bad Guys already see schools and other 'gun free' zones as target-rich environments.

It's already illegal to do anything like rob people or shoot them. What possible benefit is a GFSZ when the first notice of violation is gunfire?

Our Fine Legislature should stop worrying about circumstances and focus on actions.

hvengel
02-04-2009, 12:41 PM
Actually I think the current definitions of GFSZ should be fairly easy to challenge since the 1000 foot restriction is very arbitrary, clearly restricts a right (IE. bearing arms) and there is no proof that the 1000 foot restriction is anything other than an attempt to restrict our rights (IE. there is no legitimate purpose for the restriction). In addition I think there is a due process issue since something that is presumably a right (IE. open carry) is illegal in the 1000 foot zone but getting a CCW permit makes carrying concealed (something that is NOT a right as per Heller) in that same area legal. How can that be justified? It also shows how arbitrary the 1000 foot restriction is. Also remember that the federal GFSZ act has a similar 1000 foot restriction and it is possible that this could be challenged in another circuit and that this could result in it being struck down. If that happens before 626.9 is challenged that will make the 626.9 challenge stronger.

Having said that there are lots of things that need to be corrected in California and 12031 and 626.9 are the tip of the iceberg. This will need to happen one court case at a time as the "Right People" work their way through the process. This will take time but as long as there is steady progress that is OK with me even if I would like to see all of this happen sooner rather than later.

I also agree that for CCW that the process is likely to go likely to start with 12031 being struck down followed by an Ohio type process.

DDT
02-04-2009, 12:50 PM
Well, there is a potential challenge to 626.9 right now. I'm sure that if the funds are there Theseus is the kind of man who will want to take this as far as possible. Would seem that if the case isn't won on other grounds (reasonably should have known, private property, etc.) that we might see 626.9 fall or be essentially gutted.

wmarion6
02-04-2009, 1:02 PM
What if there were a ballot initiative from "Citizens for a Safer California" that increased the jail time for firearms violations by real bad guys along with some other innocuous changes and just happened to change "may issue" to "shall issue". It could also include a "standardized, state-wide issuance process". Might sound good enough to the masses that it'd pass and we'd just happen to get CCW.

Cypren
02-04-2009, 1:05 PM
What if there were a ballot initiative from "Citizens for a Safer California" that increased the jail time for firearms violations by real bad guys along with some other innocuous changes and just happened to change "may issue" to "shall issue". It could also include a "standardized, state-wide issuance process". Might sound good enough to the masses that it'd pass and we'd just happen to get CCW.

The Brady Bunch would be all over that and would, with their allies in the media, rapidly paint it as a subversive attempt by gun-crazed maniacs to hand out AK-47s to children on the street corner. Legislative deception is the tool of our enemies; let's not follow their example.

hoffmang
02-04-2009, 7:37 PM
Gene, you often talk about the possibility that we'll challenge or defeat or modify 12031. That's great if it's true, but what about 626.9? Even with 12031 gone from the books, I still could not carry a handgun in any of the rural cities in Sonoma, Lake, or Mendocino counties (places I frequent), because there is always a school within 1000 feet of the downtowns. Personally I'd rather see 626.9 go before 12031. As it is now, I can't even UOC in most places.

626.9 is not likely to survive a subsequent challenge. It is on the list and the only precondition is just figuring out which legal landscape we're fighting it from.

-Gene

CitaDeL
02-04-2009, 7:49 PM
626.9 is not likely to survive a subsequent challenge.

This gives me the warm n fuzzies. Chicken soup for the CalGunners Soul.:)

bplvr
02-04-2009, 7:58 PM
An article in the San Diego Union 1/30/09 on B3
" Crime falls for third year in a row" , EXCEPT for Rape ,which was up 27% in one year. When you get the soccer moms ,night nurses, and women who work in bad areas out front for you ,you may have a good chance of success. Of course the bradys can counter with , "We don't care if you do get raped ,your not going to be allowed to defend yourself."
I smell a CCW ballot Proposition ......:thumbsup:

SwissFluCase
02-04-2009, 8:28 PM
An article in the San Diego Union 1/30/09 on B3
" Crime falls for third year in a row" , EXCEPT for Rape ,which was up 27% in one year. When you get the soccer moms ,night nurses, and women who work in bad areas out front for you ,you may have a good chance of success. Of course the bradys can counter with , "We don't care if you do get raped ,your not going to be allowed to defend yourself."
I smell a CCW ballot Proposition ......:thumbsup:

I don't like putting our rights to popular vote. Fundamental rights should never be subject to majority rule.

I prefer the court process that is occuring now. The result will be much more durable.

Regards,

SwissFluCase

Bob Ragen
02-04-2009, 8:30 PM
Wow! what a great turn out for this issue. I appreciate everyones comment. Perhaps we'll be able to figure this out and pursue shall issue.

Sorry I'm not on here all the time, I check nightly since coming to this site.

TheBundo
02-05-2009, 6:20 AM
I don't like putting our rights to popular vote. Fundamental rights should never be subject to majority rule.

I prefer the court process that is occuring now. The result will be much more durable.

Regards,

SwissFluCase

It could be phrased as requiring the law to recognize our rights so as to avoid tying up the courts

SwissFluCase
02-05-2009, 10:55 AM
It could be phrased as requiring the law to recognize our rights so as to avoid tying up the courts

I don't know... Look at our electorate. Do you trust them? I don't.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

GunSlut
02-05-2009, 9:59 PM
The only way we'll get shall issue is through the courts.

The good news is that we are likely to get shall issue through the courts.

-Gene

Sounds like you have been talking to Don. What you say is true!:thumbsup:

swhatb
02-06-2009, 4:13 PM
the courts will make the case with the right cases...

N6ATF
02-06-2009, 4:53 PM
Bad Guys already see schools and other 'gun free' zones as target-rich environments.

It's already illegal to do anything like rob people or shoot them. What possible benefit is a GFSZ when the first notice of violation is gunfire?

Speaking of which, if there are any "gun free zone" signs, they deserve a printout of "criminals welcome", "prepare to be shot", or "victims aplenty!" taped to the bottom of them.