PDA

View Full Version : AB 357 Shall Issue for California


Pages : [1] 2

tango-52
02-23-2009, 9:22 AM
This was submitted to the Assembly on February 19th. The only change occurs in 12050, striking the good cause requirement and changing may to shall issue. It will be interesting to see if it gains any ground. It will also be interesting to see who comes out in support of it and opposing it.

california legislatureó2009Ė10 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 357 Introduced by Assembly Member Knight
February 19, 2009
An act to amend Section 12050 of the Penal Code, relating to firearms.
legislative counselís digest
AB 357, as introduced, Knight. Firearms: license to carry concealed firearm.
Existing law authorizes the sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists, and that the person applying satisfies any one of certain conditions, as specified, to issue a license for the person to carry a concealed handgun, as specified. This bill would delete the good cause requirement, and require the sheriff to issue the license if the other criteria described above are met. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 12050 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
12050. (a) (1) (A) The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may shall issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver,or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in either one of the following formats:
(i) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(ii) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in that county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

Kestryll
02-23-2009, 9:34 AM
I would LOVE to see this pass but won't be holding my breath.

It will also be interesting to see who comes out in support of it and opposing it.
This will be most intriguing but I suspect it will get killed in a Committee just so no one will have to record a stance.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed however!

Bruce3
02-23-2009, 9:46 AM
Wow this would be a major win, especially for Orange County after the whole Sheriff Hutchens CCW fiasco. Is there any way we could see the progress of this bill?

Piper
02-23-2009, 9:47 AM
On its face value, it's a good thing. But how hard is this guy pushing to get this done? And if it fails this time around, will he introduce it again next year, or will we have to wait another 10 years for someone else to get some stones to introduce it again ?

What kind of a Background check will they be limited to? Will they do an investigation like San Bernardino does and go door to door telling your neighbors that you've applied for a CCW? Will they make you bring in three handguns that they will approve before "granting" you permission?

The first CCW I ever received was in Washington State, and it was through the Pierce County Sheriff's Department. The process was essentially straight forward and easy. I paid $15.00, gave them my finger prints, and waited 30 days. I didn't need to provide serial numbers, I could carry whatever I wanted, and no one came to my unit and told my C.O. that I was applying for a CCW. Even though it's expired, and has been for over 30 years, I can go back to Olympia and renew my CCW without any problems. If this thing passes, will it be that easy for us to do the samething, or will they leave the door open for LEO's to make it as difficult as possible to get a "shall issue" type CCW thus discouraging people to apply?

I know you personally can't answer these questions, but these are questions that we should be thinking about. Even now we have CCW, but with the exception of a very select few, what good is it to a majority of Californian's if they can't get one ? To a majority of us, we might as well be living in Illinois or Wisconsin.

DDT
02-23-2009, 9:49 AM
What kind of a Background check will they be limited to? Will they do an investigation like San Bernardino does and go door to door telling your neighbors that you've applied for a CCW? Will they make you bring in three handguns that they will approve before "granting" you permission?


It probably depends upon how many requests they get. Do you really think that your local PD is going to do door to door investigations of 100s of CCW permits? I really don't care if my neighbors know I apply for a CCW permit. I don't want them knowing if/when I am carrying.

mblat
02-23-2009, 9:51 AM
IS there is normal quick links, so we can write, email call in support?

Can'thavenuthingood
02-23-2009, 9:55 AM
I think it has to go through the committee process first. If I remember correctly the Safety Committee has first digs.

A quick search reveals its so http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bil2lawx.html

Steps to assist or nix a Bill
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=156196

Vick

DDT
02-23-2009, 9:55 AM
Here is assembly member Steve Knight's webpage, contact links are under "need help?" link. He's from Victorville.

You can use this link to find your local assembly member and contact info:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/clerk/MEMBERINFORMATION/memberdir_1.asp

Bruce3
02-23-2009, 10:00 AM
http://arc.asm.ca.gov/member/36/?p=billSearch

if you type "ab 357" for bill it will come up, i can't get a direct link to it though.

DDT
02-23-2009, 10:01 AM
I tried to ask why he didn't make CCW issuance shall-issue for Chiefs of Police but his form wouldn't let me submit a question with an out of district address.

tango-52
02-23-2009, 10:03 AM
I tried to ask why he didn't make CCW issuance shall-issue for Chiefs of Police but his form wouldn't let me submit a question with an out of district address.

I bet they just missed it on their first read through. Amendments will be made to clarify the language as this progresses. You can subscribe to the bill once you bring it up on the Assembly's web site and it will e-mail you updates on the progress. :thumbsup:

Piper
02-23-2009, 10:04 AM
It probably depends upon how many requests they get. Do you really think that your local PD is going to do door to door investigations of 100s of CCW permits? I really don't care if my neighbors know I apply for a CCW permit. I don't want them knowing if/when I am carrying.

I think it's extremely important, especially if you have government induced hoplophobia in your neighborhood. Do you think an agency like LAPD, LASD or SFPD are going to stand by and not take some proactive measures that disqualify a person from obtaining a CCW? All a neighbor has to do is freak out at the possibility, and that could easily be twisted into a neighbors fear of you, which could be rationalized that you are not a good candidate for inclusion into "the club".

If agencies like these get 100's of app's, they will take them one at a time, and make the arguement that they are conducting a thourough background because of their obligation to public safety. And they can't possibly cut corners and speed up the process even though they have all of these applications, so there will be a delay because they are so overwhelmed. Yeah, I can see a CLEO or a Sheriff doing that.

CCWFacts
02-23-2009, 10:06 AM
Wow that is great! I'm glad to see someone finally introducing it in this state.

It won't pass this time. That's ok; in most other states that have gone shall issue, they've had to introduce it multiple times. The first time it's hopeless but it gets the issue out there and forces reps to take a stand on it, and lets the voters hold the reps accountable.

We do have a lot going for us - all the arguments about "wild west" and "blood in the streets" are very hollow by now, given the huge amount of data we have from other states. And many people here have non-res permits, so people understand what it's like in other states.

All in all this is great news! We just should not be disappointed if it takes half a dozen more tries before it passes.

Can'thavenuthingood
02-23-2009, 10:07 AM
Save this to your favorites. Its to search Bills in both house's.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html

Vick

nick
02-23-2009, 10:10 AM
Shouldn't we start campaigning for it? Pointing out to what's going on South of the border, recession-fueled crime, Heller, etc.?

sfpcservice
02-23-2009, 10:10 AM
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/defaulttext.asp

Use the link above to go to the State Assembly website, then click on "find my district". After you enter your address, your Assembly member and State Senator will be identified and you can call them to have them support the bill.

This bill is huge for those of us in non-issue counties! I'd love to see calguns, 2nd amendment foundation and the NRA get behind this.:thumbsup:

Piper
02-23-2009, 10:15 AM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. A bill like this needs to include removing the responsibility from local LE hands and turning it over to DOJ exclusively. That IMO will make it less likely to be abused and more objective.

Can'thavenuthingood
02-23-2009, 10:17 AM
This is the Checklist for Legislative Chairs from the California state Bar.

Scroll or read down to
para. ll Review Legislation & Identify Bills of Potential Interest

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?cid=14265&id=40161

It says get involved. Looks like a go to me.

Vick

Can'thavenuthingood
02-23-2009, 10:20 AM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. A bill like this needs to include removing the responsibility from local LE hands and turning it over to DOJ exclusively. That IMO will make it less likely to be abused and more objective.

But that would have it in the hands of one decision maker instead of the many now involved. Yes it seems skewed but some of the counties believe.

Vick

eflatminor
02-23-2009, 10:20 AM
I just got off the phone with someone at Steve Knight's office in Sacramento. While it's always a good idea to contact YOUR assemblyman, Mr Knight's assistant urged me to send or fax a letter to his office. The idea being that each letter received will help in justifying support. We've got 31 days (after 2/19) until the bill goes to the safety committee, probably followed by the rules committee. Either way, call the representative of your district and please send or fax a letter in support of AB357 to Mr Knight's office:

Steve Knight
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 319-2036, (916) 319-2136 fax

yellowfin
02-23-2009, 10:22 AM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. A bill like this needs to include removing the responsibility from local LE hands and turning it over to DOJ exclusively. That IMO will make it less likely to be abused and more objective.That would need a change of the DOJ first. They're just as inclined to abuse it or more so than local LE.

Can'thavenuthingood
02-23-2009, 10:29 AM
These are the Safety Committee members.

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=57

Vick

alphazebrafoxtrot
02-23-2009, 10:29 AM
Thanks for the links, guys. Email sent.

CCWFacts
02-23-2009, 10:30 AM
I tried to ask why he didn't make CCW issuance shall-issue for Chiefs of Police but his form wouldn't let me submit a question with an out of district address.

If this bill passes, it actually does not make sense for chiefs to be shall-issue. In fact it would make more sense for them to get out of the issuing business entirely. The only reason they're in it now is to provide another avenue of discretion. If discretion is gone, they would probably prefer to not bother with it at all. It is an administrative hassle (to some extent) for them. If the sheriff is issuing, there's no reason for a chief to continue.

Also chiefs have the option of "declaring G", something which sheriffs don't have, so the changes to 12050 would somehow have to work with that also. If sheriffs are shall-issue, chiefs have no reason not to want to declare G.

It seems logically inconsistent to have chiefs may-issue while sheriffs are shall-issue, but at that point it's logically meaningless for chiefs to have any role at all in issuance.

Alaric
02-23-2009, 10:35 AM
Email sent. Thanks for bringing this to our collective attention!

Desert Rat
02-23-2009, 10:45 AM
"What kind of a Background check will they be limited to? Will they do an investigation like San Bernardino does and go door to door telling your neighbors that you've applied for a CCW?"

.................. SBCSO does not go door to door telling your neighbors that you've applied for a CCW. They require an investigation on their part that you are indeed a resident of SBC and that you live at the address on your application, but your status as a CCW applicant is kept confidential. They accomplish this by sending a Detective to knock on your door to verify that you answer the door, at which time the Detective compares you with a photo taken at your interview. Often, an applicant is rarely at home during the day, so SBCSO allows the applicant to voluntarily submit some of their neighbors as contacts instead of a face to face, but the neighbors are only questioned as to your status as their neighbor.

On its face value, it's a good thing. But how hard is this guy pushing to get this done? And if it fails this time around, will he introduce it again next year, or will we have to wait another 10 years for someone else to get some stones to introduce it again ?

What kind of a Background check will they be limited to? Will they do an investigation like San Bernardino does and go door to door telling your neighbors that you've applied for a CCW? Will they make you bring in three handguns that they will approve before "granting" you permission?

The first CCW I ever received was in Washington State, and it was through the Pierce County Sheriff's Department. The process was essentially straight forward and easy. I paid $15.00, gave them my finger prints, and waited 30 days. I didn't need to provide serial numbers, I could carry whatever I wanted, and no one came to my unit and told my C.O. that I was applying for a CCW. Even though it's expired, and has been for over 30 years, I can go back to Olympia and renew my CCW without any problems. If this thing passes, will it be that easy for us to do the samething, or will they leave the door open for LEO's to make it as difficult as possible to get a "shall issue" type CCW thus discouraging people to apply?

I know you personally can't answer these questions, but these are questions that we should be thinking about. Even now we have CCW, but with the exception of a very select few, what good is it to a majority of Californian's if they can't get one ? To a majority of us, we might as well be living in Illinois or Wisconsin.

alphazebrafoxtrot
02-23-2009, 10:49 AM
These are the Safety Committee members.

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=57

Vick

Email to this one...Warren T. Furutani ...was returned as bad address, but all the others just got mail.

Can'thavenuthingood
02-23-2009, 10:52 AM
Email to this one...Warren T. Furutani ...was returned as bad address, but all the others just got mail.

Maybe a switch going on or the committee is not solidified yet?

Vick

Piper
02-23-2009, 10:55 AM
That would need a change of the DOJ first. They're just as inclined to abuse it or more so than local LE.

So long as the new law limits criteria to the same checks that are done for simply obtaining a firearm, any potential abuses are curtailed. As it stands, while some CLEOS are more receptive than others, we have to consider the abuses of those that could and would abuse their authority to issue. I personally don't want to see anyone jump through more hoops than the other person just because he or she lives in a county or city with a zealot for a CLEO or Sheriff. I would cite as examples, Hutchens, Baca, Bratton, and whoever the CLEO is in San Francisco. Don't even get me started how CCW policies could go from bad to worse with the simple change of administration in an agency. Giving it all to one authority to issue, may on the surface sound bad, but you can control that one with restrictive laws, rather than trying to keep an eye on 58+ counties and all of those CLEO's who will more than likely do what they can to thwart a change like this. I might also add that most states have one central issuing authority. The application and finger prints are simply submitted

Cypren
02-23-2009, 10:57 AM
Shouldn't we start campaigning for it? Pointing out to what's going on South of the border, recession-fueled crime, Heller, etc.?

Just to point out, making arguments about Mexico -- whether about illegal immigration or drug-war crime -- when pushing for broader weapons access is a dangerous distraction, politically. Regardless of how valid and grounded they may be in fact, you're setting yourself up to be tarred as a racist bigot who just "hates them brown people" by our opponents. This is how they've gone after the Minutemen in Arizona and I'd prefer they not get a chance to use it to further restrict our rights in California.

This just seems to me to be a case of picking a battlefield carefully -- why fight on an enemy minefield if you don't have to?

tombkeeper
02-23-2009, 10:57 AM
Why can't we instead make shall issue up to the population? A proposition decided by the people instead of bill's passing being dependent on left-leaning elected officials?

I think there is much more chance of getting support by the population as a whole. I would be willing to donate to cgf to push this through somehow.

mblat
02-23-2009, 10:58 AM
So long as the new law limits criteria to the same checks that are done for simply obtaining a firearm, any potential abuses are curtailed. As it stands, while some CLEOS are more receptive than others, we have to consider the abuses of those that could and would abuse their authority to issue. I personally don't want to see anyone jump through more hoops than the other person just because he or she lives in a county or city with a zealot for a CLEO or Sheriff. I would cite as examples, Hutchens, Baca, Bratton, and whoever the CLEO is in San Francisco. Don't even get me started how CCW policies could go from bad to worse with the simple change of administration in an agency. Giving it all to one authority to issue, may on the surface sound bad, but you can control that one with restrictive laws, rather than trying to keep an eye on 58+ counties and all of those CLEO's who will more than likely do what they can to thwart a change like this. I might also add that most states have one central issuing authority. The application and finger prints are simply submitted

While you are probably correct on all counts, let's not "best be enemy of good". If this passes ( it won't, but still, good sign ) I will dance.....


Why can't we instead make shall issue up to the population?A proposition decided by the people instead of bill's passing being dependent on left-leaning elected officials?


I think there is much more chance of getting support by the population as a whole.

Here, in California? You've got to be kidding

I would be willing to donate to cgf to push this through somehow.
Got couple million? That what would it take to get it on hte ballot, much less to pass it.

mej16489
02-23-2009, 11:01 AM
Similar bills have been introduced in the past...roughly half a dozen or so that I can remember over the past 20 years. I don't think a single one ever made it to a general vote.

I'm certainly not saying to not support it...but getting this through will be ALLOT of work.

alphazebrafoxtrot
02-23-2009, 11:02 AM
Why can't we instead make shall issue up to the population? A proposition decided by the people instead of bill's passing being dependent on left-leaning elected officials?



Living in a state that consistently re-elects Feinsteins and Pelosis, I doubt that this will ever happen.

CCWFacts
02-23-2009, 11:05 AM
Similar bills have been introduced in the past...roughly half a dozen or so that I can remember over the past 20 years. I don't think a single one ever made it to a general vote.

No! In 1998 a shall-issue bill passed the assembly. I can find the bill number if you're curious. I'm not aware of any other shall-issue legislation. So this is our second, and our first didn't do so badly.

For comparison, in gun-crazy Texas, they had to introduce it half a dozen times and kick out their governor before they could get shall-issue. So it isn't easy anywhere.

(As for the ballot initiative, it seems like that comes up twice a week and it's a terrible idea. Can we just stop discussing it?)

I'm certainly not saying to not support it...but getting this through will be ALLOT of work.[/QUOTE]

bulgron
02-23-2009, 11:06 AM
I feel like the world has taken a strange lurch in a strange direction, even seeing this bill get introduced. I wonder what prompted him to do that?

I think I'm going to write to him in support, and suggest that the bill be amended so that any Sheriff in California shall issue to any resident of California who asks and who meets minimum qualifications, where resident of the county is not a minimum qualification. That ought to solve the Baca problems we have in this state.

As you all have noted, there isn't much chance of this thing going anywhere, so we might as well turn it into a dream while we're at it.

BTW, I've heard in the past that the gun-control fanatics in the legislature have promised to push for an end to our entire CCW program as it stands now if anyone ever tries to get shall-issue passed in this state. Are we now at risk of seeing a backlash bill like that one pop up in Sacramento, or was that a bluff, or was the rumor I heard false?

Piper
02-23-2009, 11:08 AM
"What kind of a Background check will they be limited to? Will they do an investigation like San Bernardino does and go door to door telling your neighbors that you've applied for a CCW?"

.................. SBCSO does not go door to door telling your neighbors that you've applied for a CCW. They require an investigation on their part that you are indeed a resident of SBC and that you live at the address on your application, but your status as a CCW applicant is kept confidential. They accomplish this by sending a Detective to knock on your door to verify that you answer the door, at which time the Detective compares you with a photo taken at your interview. Often, an applicant is rarely at home during the day, so SBCSO allows the applicant to voluntarily submit some of their neighbors as contacts instead of a face to face, but the neighbors are only questioned as to your status as their neighbor.

FUD? You've just confirmed my statement. Let's think about this for a moment. If a detective goes to your house and begins inquiring about your neighbor, you know as well as I do that the first thing that pops in your head is "what has the neighbor done wrong to have cops snooping around asking about them"? So, do you just dutyfully answer the question without any further inquiry ? Or do you ask some of your own questions ? And which answer is worse ? The cop saying that he can't tell you, or the cop telling a you (if you are not familiar with firearms) that your neighbor has applied to get a license to carry a firearm 24/7 on his or her person.

Desert Rat, this is not FUD on my part, it's BS on the part of SBSD to do that. Ca DOJ only requires that you show proof of residency with your cars registration to buy a gun. Why does a detective have to show up at a neighbors house to confirm that?

Librarian
02-23-2009, 11:08 AM
Why can't we instead make shall issue up to the population? A proposition decided by the people instead of bill's passing being dependent on left-leaning elected officials?

I think there is much more chance of getting support by the population as a whole. I would be willing to donate to cgf to push this through somehow.

Proposed about monthly; in the abstract, it's a fine idea. But ballot propositions are incredibly expensive to both get on the ballot ($2-3 million) and promote (on the order of $50 million +) with little surety of passage.

And in this case, the papers and TV stations would almost uniformly oppose. It'd lose in LA and all the densely populated areas.

See the book-length document available at Center for Governmental Studies (http://www.cgs.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=5&Itemid=72) - it's broken down into chapters in .PDF format.

Flintlock Tom
02-23-2009, 11:09 AM
Do these guys get to pick their own Bill number, or does it come up in rotation?

A.B. Three Fifty-Seven? Really?

alphazebrafoxtrot
02-23-2009, 11:12 AM
Do these guys get to pick their own Bill number, or does it come up in rotation?

A.B. Three Fifty-Seven? Really?

Rather fetching, isn't it? I wonder what AB 1911 would look like.

Piper
02-23-2009, 11:13 AM
Do these guys get to pick their own Bill number, or does it come up in rotation?

A.B. Three Fifty-Seven? Really?

Yeah, initially I was looking for a punch line.

CCWFacts
02-23-2009, 11:15 AM
(ballot initiatives) Proposed about monthly

They seem to be coming up more often lately, about twice a week it seems. They're a really bad idea for the reasons you mention.

Desert Rat
02-23-2009, 11:42 AM
........................... Blowing this up way out of proportion. One of the requirements of SBCSO CCW application is that you present them with some utility bills, just as if you were buying a firearm. Utility bills are really not enough to prove residence, since they could be from a weekend cabin in SBC from an owner that lived the remainder of the week in LAC. It really ain't a big deal, they just want to connect you to a SBC residence by arriving there unannounced. In my case, the Detective couldn't find my rural address in the high desert, so he called me and I talked him to my place. He drove up, lowered his window, was slobbered on by the super-affectionate neighborhood Pit Bull, compared me to my photo, told me the permit would be in the mail within the week, bided me a good day, petted the Pit Bull, rolled up the window and drove off, escorted out by the Pit Bull. In the case of verification by neighbor, since you are the one that gives them neighbor's addresses and phone numbers, wouldn't it stand to reason that you would have already informed the neighbors why the SBCSO would be calling? SBC residents tend to be a lot less anti-gun than their adjacent urban counties, so a neighbor requesting a permit is not all that startling.

FUD? You've just confirmed my statement. Let's think about this for a moment. If a detective goes to your house and begins inquiring about your neighbor, you know as well as I do that the first thing that pops in your head is "what has the neighbor done wrong to have cops snooping around asking about them"? So, do you just dutyfully answer the question without any further inquiry ? Or do you ask some of your own questions ? And which answer is worse ? The cop saying that he can't tell you, or the cop telling a you (if you are not familiar with firearms) that your neighbor has applied to get a license to carry a firearm 24/7 on his or her person.

Desert Rat, this is not FUD on my part, it's BS on the part of SBSD to do that. Ca DOJ only requires that you show proof of residency with your cars registration to buy a gun. Why does a detective have to show up at a neighbors house to confirm that?

DDT
02-23-2009, 11:52 AM
I think it's extremely important, especially if you have government induced hoplophobia in your neighborhood. Do you think an agency like LAPD, LASD or SFPD are going to stand by and not take some proactive measures that disqualify a person from obtaining a CCW? All a neighbor has to do is freak out at the possibility, and that could easily be twisted into a neighbors fear of you, which could be rationalized that you are not a good candidate for inclusion into "the club".

If agencies like these get 100's of app's, they will take them one at a time, and make the arguement that they are conducting a thourough background because of their obligation to public safety. And they can't possibly cut corners and speed up the process even though they have all of these applications, so there will be a delay because they are so overwhelmed. Yeah, I can see a CLEO or a Sheriff doing that.

I believe that there is a government code somewhere that requires licensing agencies to act in a certain amount of time on license applications in general. Plus if they decide to investigate each permit application in that manner it will become prohibitively expensive. As for a neighbor objecting to your CCW, there is no way that rationale would hold up to scrutiny. If it did then you could object to CCW for any police officer, DA or judge. They won't stand for that. And doing different level of background check would be challenged as well.

Piper
02-23-2009, 11:55 AM
........................... Blowing this up way out of proportion. One of the requirements of SBCSO CCW application is that you present them with some utility bills, just as if you were buying a firearm. Utility bills are really not enough to prove residence, since they could be from a weekend cabin in SBC from an owner that lived the remainder of the week in LAC. It really ain't a big deal, they just want to connect you to a SBC residence by arriving there unannounced. In my case, the Detective couldn't find my rural address in the high desert, so he called me and I talked him to my place. He drove up, lowered his window, was slobbered on by the super-affectionate neighborhood Pit Bull, compared me to my photo, told me the permit would be in the mail within the week, bided me a good day, petted the Pit Bull, rolled up the window and drove off, escorted out by the Pit Bull. In the case of verification by neighbor, since you are the one that gives them neighbor's addresses and phone numbers, wouldn't it stand to reason that you would have already informed the neighbors why the SBCSO would be calling? SBC residents tend to be a lot less anti-gun than their adjacent urban counties, so a neighbor requesting a permit is not all that startling.

Yeah, I spent way too many years in LE to not see how this can be abused. As for it working for you, that may be fine. You may have neighbors in a rural area that are as open about firearms as you are. In that case fine. But everyone is not you, and everyone doesn't have neighbors that are as receptive towards firearms as your neighbors appear to be. So while you may not mind it, others, like me, consider it a big deal. A concealed firearm is hidden for a reason, and telling my neighbors that I intend to carry 24/7 would not be my first choice. I would also consider the possibilities of people who are new to a neighborhood, that don't have the kind of relationship with their neighbors that you apparently have. Sure, they have been California residents for all of their lives, so do they have to wait and make nice with the neighbors before they apply for a CCW? Why would you expect them to do that? Is a persons second amendment right contingent upon the good relationship they have with their neighbors? I'm not bringing this point off the top of my head. I've thought about this for a long time, and anyway I twist it, it's not good for someone. I think that the same requirements for merely purchasing a handgun are adequate for establishing residency to get a CCW.

DDT
02-23-2009, 12:01 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. A bill like this needs to include removing the responsibility from local LE hands and turning it over to DOJ exclusively. That IMO will make it less likely to be abused and more objective.

This is not feasible at this time. First reason AB 357 is better is the fact that is is a very small direct adjustment to existing law. If you were to turn over issuance to DOJ that would require a year or more of preparation and creating a new division in a bureaucracy. Second, creating this new department would be expensive, sheriffs already have this responsibility and already review all CCW applications. It would just remove the "good cause" portion of the review. It shouldn't cost any more than the existing program. Finally, It is always good for a law (especially in these economic times) to be revenue neutral or revenue positive. Shall-Issue CCW would be revenue positive, and that revenue would stay local where it has greater source-recognition. If the revenue all went straight to Sacto. there would be little recognition of the value of that revenue. Once a government grabs onto a revenue stream it is like crack, they will never give it up.

tango-52
02-23-2009, 12:03 PM
One of the reasons that some departments feel the need to physically verify residency is that applicants were trying to game the system. For example, the applicant might actually live in L.A., but rent a room from someone in a county that would actually issue. It would be a sham residence. Should this bill pass, then it won't really matter what county you live in, as they will all have the same issuance criteria.

CCWFacts
02-23-2009, 12:03 PM
This (making the DoJ in charge of issuance) is not feasible at this time. First reason AB 357 is better is the fact that is is a very small direct adjustment to existing law.

That's right. This bill doesn't require any new functionality within any group. The sheriffs already do issuance. It will continue the same as before, just the GC sections will now be left empty.

Making the DoJ does it means they need to create a new group to do it, and with 45,000 or so CCWs out right now, it would actually require a fair amount of staffing.

DDT
02-23-2009, 12:03 PM
Yeah, I spent way too many years in LE to not see how this can be abused. As for it working for you, that may be fine. You may have neighbors in a rural area that are as open about firearms as you are. In that case fine. But everyone is not you, and everyone doesn't have neighbors that are as receptive towards firearms as your neighbors appear to be. So while you may not mind it, others, like me, consider it a big deal. A concealed firearm is hidden for a reason, and telling my neighbors that I intend to carry 24/7 would not be my first choice.

Well, if you are retired law enforcement anyone who knows this knows that you are likely carrying at any time.

For the record, I live in anything but a rural area and don't really give a crap what my neighbors think about my firearms, any more than I care what they think about my religious ideas. I keep my nose clean, follow the law and don't bother my neighbors. That's all they have the right to ask for.

Piper
02-23-2009, 12:04 PM
I believe that there is a government code somewhere that requires licensing agencies to act in a certain amount of time on license applications in general. Plus if they decide to investigate each permit application in that manner it will become prohibitively expensive. As for a neighbor objecting to your CCW, there is no way that rationale would hold up to scrutiny. If it did then you could object to CCW for any police officer, DA or judge. They won't stand for that. And doing different level of background check would be challenged as well.

Are you people really that naive, or are you just yanking my chain? There isn't any incentive to do this in the most expedient fashion possible, nor will there be. If you believe the advertisements about LAPD and processing of rape kits, do you think that they will be quicker about processing CCW's? Come on people, think about this.

DDT
02-23-2009, 12:10 PM
Are you people really that naive, or are you just yanking my chain? There isn't any incentive to do this in the most expedient fashion possible, nor will there be. If you believe the advertisements about LAPD and processing of rape kits, do you think that they will be quicker about processing CCW's? Come on people, think about this.

No one is so naive as to believe that there won't be recalcitrant sheriffs out there. As I said, I believe there is a law that requires some level of response to this sort of license/permit application. If there is such a law it would be used as a hammer on the likes of LA/SF sheriffs.

If there isn't and a big stink is made about slow processing times further laws can be passed giving timelines. It is most important that California becomes a shall-issue state first. If there are 2 or 3 counties that have to be managed afterwards so be it.

Piper
02-23-2009, 12:11 PM
Well, if you are retired law enforcement anyone who knows this knows that you are likely carrying at any time.

For the record, I live in anything but a rural area and don't really give a crap what my neighbors think about my firearms, any more than I care what they think about my religious ideas. I keep my nose clean, follow the law and don't bother my neighbors. That's all they have the right to ask for.

First, I'm not retired. I decided that 12 years of civil LE was enough, and found something else that I would rather do. So, my neighbors don't know me as the neighborhood cop.

Again that's fine for you, but I tend to be very private about my personal business, and that's how I prefer to keep it.

CSDGuy
02-23-2009, 12:14 PM
Assuming that the 9th incorporates the 2nd, those couple small changes (strike of GC and change "may" to "shall") would suddenly be a very attractive means to keep guns out of sight, out of mind. However, those changes would not remove the potential for restrictions to be placed on those CCWs. Sure, you can get one, but you can't CCW unless... you meet whatever "reasonable" restriction is put on your CCW.

So, strike those little words, and strike the restrictions part... so that all CCWs have the same restrictions and permissible places, no matter who issued the CCW. That would also simplify training. One standard, statewide.

Basically, I'd say keep the bill alive, but wait for serious action until after incorporation. That event would give this bill serious ammo towards passage.

Desert Rat
02-23-2009, 12:16 PM
....................... I really don't know how to respond. You obviously have some convictions that don't include trusting Law Enforcement. In addition to a California CCW from SBCSO, I have received permits from the states of Connecticut, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvainia, Utah, Virginia and Washington with virtually no intimidation involved.

Yeah, I spent way too many years in LE to not see how this can be abused. As for it working for you, that may be fine. You may have neighbors in a rural area that are as open about firearms as you are. In that case fine. But everyone is not you, and everyone doesn't have neighbors that are as receptive towards firearms as your neighbors appear to be. So while you may not mind it, others, like me, consider it a big deal. A concealed firearm is hidden for a reason, and telling my neighbors that I intend to carry 24/7 would not be my first choice. I would also consider the possibilities of people who are new to a neighborhood, that don't have the kind of relationship with their neighbors that you apparently have. Sure, they have been California residents for all of their lives, so do they have to wait and make nice with the neighbors before they apply for a CCW? Why would you expect them to do that? Is a persons second amendment right contingent upon the good relationship they have with their neighbors? I'm not bringing this point off the top of my head. I've thought about this for a long time, and anyway I twist it, it's not good for someone. I think that the same requirements for merely purchasing a handgun are adequate for establishing residency to get a CCW.

gd-bh
02-23-2009, 12:16 PM
Mr. Knight also represents the Lancaster/Palmdale area, which used to be staunchly conservative, but of late has been leaning more twords the liberal side due to the massive dumping of criminals and section 8 deadheads from the LA area. I'm glad to see someone I did vote for try to do something positive for free citizens for a change.

CCWFacts
02-23-2009, 12:17 PM
Are you people really that naive, or are you just yanking my chain? There isn't any incentive to do this in the most expedient fashion possible, nor will there be. If you believe the advertisements about LAPD and processing of rape kits, do you think that they will be quicker about processing CCW's? Come on people, think about this.

You're right. Even if this AB 357 passed, LA and SF would still refuse to issue and would need to be sued. Probably more than once. And ideally, yes, the CA DoJ should handle CCWs; CCWs in most states are handled at the state level.

But this bill was just the simplest and smallest change they could make to get it introduced. Delete 7 words, change "may" to "shall". It's going to be hugely difficult to pass this without having someone at the DoJ fighting it because they would need to create some new bureau there. And even drafting a bill that creates a new bureau in the DoJ would be a lot more complex.

This is just a simple bill that moves us into a much better place than we are now. It's not perfect; perfect would be a state-issued permit. This bill also doesn't include any reciprocity, so that's another "flaw". But they just wanted a simple bill they could introduce.

DDT
02-23-2009, 12:19 PM
Assuming that the 9th incorporates the 2nd, those couple small changes (strike of GC and change "may" to "shall") would suddenly be a very attractive means to keep guns out of sight, out of mind. However, those changes would not remove the potential for restrictions to be placed on those CCWs. Sure, you can get one, but you can't CCW unless... you meet whatever "reasonable" restriction is put on your CCW.


Might be worth mentioning to fencesitting assembly members. It would be an inexpensive way to head off a potentially very expensive lawsuit.

Kestryll
02-23-2009, 12:28 PM
Piper do you look at ANYTHING without your documented abject hatred for law enforcement not coloring it?

AaronHorrocks
02-23-2009, 12:33 PM
This might be a great source of income for the state! :thumbsup:

(Rather than all out DENY rights, simply charge money for your right to self-defense)

Decoligny
02-23-2009, 12:34 PM
Just sent the following to both my Assemblyman and my Senator.

I wholeheartedly urge your full and total support for AB 357. It is time that the average California Citizen be given the same RIGHT to self-defense as the politically connected and the rich. It is time that an average citizen be enable to legally carry a concealed weapon for the protection of his/her person, his/her family and his/her property without the prerequisite of owning a business and depositing large amounts of money into the bank, or into the sheriff's campaign fund. My Family is worth more than any bank deposit or political contribution. Please vote in favor of this bill. Please co-sponsor this bill. Please do everything within your power to see that this bill becomes law.

Piper
02-23-2009, 12:39 PM
You're right. Even if this AB 357 passed, LA and SF would still refuse to issue and would need to be sued. Probably more than once. And ideally, yes, the CA DoJ should handle CCWs; CCWs in most states are handled at the state level.

But this bill was just the simplest and smallest change they could make to get it introduced. Delete 7 words, change "may" to "shall". It's going to be hugely difficult to pass this without having someone at the DoJ fighting it because they would need to create some new bureau there. And even drafting a bill that creates a new bureau in the DoJ would be a lot more complex.

This is just a simple bill that moves us into a much better place than we are now. It's not perfect; perfect would be a state-issued permit. This bill also doesn't include any reciprocity, so that's another "flaw". But they just wanted a simple bill they could introduce.

Why would the BOF not simply take this on? They already have the infrastructure to do the background, and it's no different than doing a background for DROS. The only real difference is they would be sending a CCW with a letter saying congrats, you're in the club. I think that creating a new office is an unnecessary redundancy.

12050 can still be revised, and a minor part of that revision can be that all apps be submitted to DOJ for issuance. It's not difficult. On the other hand, you know that CLEO's and Sheriff's will be whining and crying about being forced between a rock and a hard place because, golly the state is setting them up to be sued if a person with a CCW goes on the rampage and shoots people. Sheriff's and CLEO's like Hutchens, Baca, and Bratton already have a thick book of bogus excuses for why they won't issue. Do you think that's going to change with the stroke of a pen? As for me being suspicious of CLEO's and Sheriff's, it's not hard to do if you are aware of how they personally feel about the average citizen and their access to firearms. Just think back about the BOS meeting and the stunts from OCSD. That's not an exception, it's the rule.

Desert Rat
02-23-2009, 12:44 PM
.............................. Be kidding. Most states issue CCWs at the county level, and in some instances issue non-resident CCWs at the state level. Some states issue both resident and non-resident at the county level. There are exceptions, such as Florida and Utah, but for most states, CCWs are issued locally to the local population. Do you really want to end up going to Sacramento to apply for and pick up a completed California CCW from a reluctant DOJ? I guess that would be OK if the only alternative to not getting a CCW from LACSO is to hop on I-5 for a few trips north, but putting that scheme forth as the best route out of the box boggles. "Shall Issue" at the county level works great everywhere it has been initiated. Seattle Sheriff's Office, center of the bluest section of Washington State, advises on their website that they can process residents of King County, WA and WA non-residents in about 20 minutes with an initial "in-person" application followed by a mailing of your CCW to you at your residence.

"And ideally, yes, the CA DoJ should handle CCWs; CCWs in most states are handled at the state level."

You're right. Even if this AB 357 passed, LA and SF would still refuse to issue and would need to be sued. Probably more than once. And ideally, yes, the CA DoJ should handle CCWs; CCWs in most states are handled at the state level.

But this bill was just the simplest and smallest change they could make to get it introduced. Delete 7 words, change "may" to "shall". It's going to be hugely difficult to pass this without having someone at the DoJ fighting it because they would need to create some new bureau there. And even drafting a bill that creates a new bureau in the DoJ would be a lot more complex.

This is just a simple bill that moves us into a much better place than we are now. It's not perfect; perfect would be a state-issued permit. This bill also doesn't include any reciprocity, so that's another "flaw". But they just wanted a simple bill they could introduce.

Desert Rat
02-23-2009, 1:21 PM
....................... That excluding Chiefs of Police from "Shall Issue" was a oversight on Steve Knight's part. As a matter of record, Steve is the son of the late "Pete" Knight, a civilian pilot on the NASA X-15 rocket plane program, the first step to orbital flight in the 50s-early 60s. He was very conservative and favored CCW. Pete died while a State Senator. His son, Steve, was an LAPD officer prior to his election to the Assembly. Allowing city Chiefs of Police (COPs) "May Issue" removes them from having to issue to the general population, thus reducing COP's resistance somewhat by allowing them to issue to "special" people without fear of legal action since anyone in their city can go to the County Sheriff for a "Shall Issue" CCW. Seems like a very effective way to reduce your opposition and still achieve your goals.

I bet they just missed it on their first read through. Amendments will be made to clarify the language as this progresses. You can subscribe to the bill once you bring it up on the Assembly's web site and it will e-mail you updates on the progress. :thumbsup:

nick
02-23-2009, 1:35 PM
Just to point out, making arguments about Mexico -- whether about illegal immigration or drug-war crime -- when pushing for broader weapons access is a dangerous distraction, politically. Regardless of how valid and grounded they may be in fact, you're setting yourself up to be tarred as a racist bigot who just "hates them brown people" by our opponents. This is how they've gone after the Minutemen in Arizona and I'd prefer they not get a chance to use it to further restrict our rights in California.

This just seems to me to be a case of picking a battlefield carefully -- why fight on an enemy minefield if you don't have to?

I was just throwing examples of what might work to get to the voter base. And even the media covers what's going on in Mexico to the degree that even the most mentally lazy are becoming concerned about it. I migth be wrong, of course.

Captain Evilstomper
02-23-2009, 1:56 PM
if this doesn' pass we should work to introduce it next year, and the year after and the year after ad infinity

Santa Cruz Armory
02-23-2009, 1:56 PM
I sent out 5 emails..

CCWFacts
02-23-2009, 1:59 PM
You gotta be kidding. Most states issue CCWs at the county level, and in some instances issue non-resident CCWs at the state level.

I haven't done a comparison of every state, so I was just going on my experiences with FL, UT and TX permits, which are all state-level. I thought / assumed it was state level in most other places, although traditionally it has been a county-level thing. I know NV is still county-level.

I know that some states have two or three issuing authorities: some have state and local level. Have any states that have gone shall-issue retained CoPs as issuing authorities? It wouldn't make any sense to do it but it could happen.

huna koa
02-23-2009, 2:04 PM
"What kind of a Background check will they be limited to? Will they do an investigation like San Bernardino does and go door to door telling your neighbors that you've applied for a CCW?"

.................. SBCSO does not go door to door telling your neighbors that you've applied for a CCW. They require an investigation on their part that you are indeed a resident of SBC and that you live at the address on your application, but your status as a CCW applicant is kept confidential. They accomplish this by sending a Detective to knock on your door to verify that you answer the door, at which time the Detective compares you with a photo taken at your interview. Often, an applicant is rarely at home during the day, so SBCSO allows the applicant to voluntarily submit some of their neighbors as contacts instead of a face to face, but the neighbors are only questioned as to your status as their neighbor.

I live in San Bernardino County, and they did just that to verify my place of residence; I wasn't home but some of my neighbors were. The process seemed arduous and much too long, but the end result was fruitful and satisfying. It's understandable the way the SBCSO does things, and I think they need to be thorough in their investigation of ones' moral character, honesty, and good cause for a CCW Permit amongst other criteria and requirements.

Desert Rat
02-23-2009, 2:18 PM
..................... But if a little bit of Federalism at the State Level is good, even more applied at the County and City level ought to be great!

"I know that some states have two or three issuing authorities: some have state and local level. Have any states that have gone shall-issue retained CoPs as issuing authorities? It wouldn't make any sense to do it but it could happen."

I haven't done a comparison of every state, so I was just going on my experiences with FL, UT and TX permits, which are all state-level. I thought / assumed it was state level in most other places, although traditionally it has been a county-level thing. I know NV is still county-level.

I know that some states have two or three issuing authorities: some have state and local level. Have any states that have gone shall-issue retained CoPs as issuing authorities? It wouldn't make any sense to do it but it could happen.

DDT
02-23-2009, 2:31 PM
Why would the BOF not simply take this on? ... I think that creating a new office is an unnecessary redundancy.


Now who is the one looking naive?

Sutcliffe
02-23-2009, 2:36 PM
makes most voters uncomfortable enough to see it as the lessor of two evils.

Desert Rat
02-23-2009, 2:56 PM
............................... That would kill "Shall Issue" at the emotional level than a bunch of well-intentioned citizens parading around with an exposed handgun at their side. Expecting to horse-trade a bunch of Legislators and a Governor into "Shall Issue" with the population in general having been recently frightened by open carry demonstrations doesn't give "Shall Issue" proponents much to trade with.

aint gonna happen until unloaded, open carry

makes most voters uncomfortable enough to see it as the lessor of two evils.

Cypren
02-23-2009, 3:11 PM
............................... That would kill "Shall Issue" at the emotional level than a bunch of well-intentioned citizens parading around with an exposed handgun at their side. Expecting to horse-trade a bunch of Legislators and a Governor into "Shall Issue" with the population in general having been recently frightened by open carry demonstrations doesn't give "Shall Issue" proponents much to trade with.

That's why open carry can't really be encouraged until we get incorporation from Nordyke or another source. At that point, the legislators (backed by a terrified, ignorant populace) no longer have the ability to say, "well, if you're going to do that, we're just taking all your guns away."

Keep in mind that the main reason we have to UOC right now instead of LOC is because the Black Panthers marched with loaded guns (peacefully and respectfully, from contemporary coverage) into the State Capitol in 1967 to protest the disarmament law being voted on at the time. They caused fear, and they got a fearful result. Without the 2nd Amendment incorporated against the state government and preventing them from doing the same, history will just repeat itself.

Everyone pushing for "action now" needs to calm down, take a step back and realize that the legal system moves at a glacial pace compared to the rapid-fire nature of the Internet. Our rights were taken away over a period of decades, not minutes, and short of bloody revolution (which no sane person wants as anything other than a last resort) it will take decades to win them back.

Meplat
02-23-2009, 3:22 PM
There is a bunch of FUD being assumed in this thread. The Sheriff is THE CLEO in his/her county, the whole county, all residents come under his jurisdiction. If "shall issue" is directed to the sheriff by law, a police chief cannot un-issue your permit. The wording of the law would however seem to give San Francisco, being at once a city and county, an out.

mblat
02-23-2009, 3:32 PM
There is a bunch of FUD being assumed in this thread. The Sheriff is THE CLEO in his/her county, the whole county, all residents come under his jurisdiction. If "shall issue" is directed to the sheriff by law, a police chief cannot un-issue your permit. The wording of the law would however seem to give San Francisco, being at once a city and county, an out.

I am not lawyer, so I have problem ascertaining how valid such "out" is. However, I doubt very much that is the rest of the state has codified and actively practiced "shall-carry" one city/county can possible be excluded from it.
Wouldn't that be real clear violation of equal protection?

Desert Rat
02-23-2009, 3:33 PM
............................ Is just plain a non-starter today. I was born in LAC in 1940. LAC was the greatest cattle-producing county in the nation at the time, clear up to the 60s, and the greatest events at the LA Coliseum were the Rodeo and the Sportsman's Show. It was no big deal in the 50s/early 60s to strap on the loaded handgun stored in it's holster hanging in your closet and sally forth to the local range or the boonies, with stops at the liquor store for cigarettes and the local coffee shop for breakfast. As you passed LASD and LAPD LEOs, all you received from them was a smile and a knowing nod of a fellow enthusiest. Fast forward to the last 40 years. Things have changed, are pretty much set in stone and just ain't gonna change back. California has gone from a "western" state to a kinder, more gentle place, which does not include acceptance of exposed firearms without a LEA badge next to the holster. Open carry is gone, not comin' back, get over it.

That's why open carry can't really be encouraged until we get incorporation from Nordyke or another source. At that point, the legislators (backed by a terrified, ignorant populace) no longer have the ability to say, "well, if you're going to do that, we're just taking all your guns away."

Keep in mind that the main reason we have to UOC right now instead of LOC is because the Black Panthers marched with loaded guns (peacefully and respectfully, from contemporary coverage) into the State Capitol in 1967 to protest the disarmament law being voted on at the time. They caused fear, and they got a fearful result. Without the 2nd Amendment incorporated against the state government and preventing them from doing the same, history will just repeat itself.

Everyone pushing for "action now" needs to calm down, take a step back and realize that the legal system moves at a glacial pace compared to the rapid-fire nature of the Internet. Our rights were taken away over a period of decades, not minutes, and short of bloody revolution (which no sane person wants as anything other than a last resort) it will take decades to win them back.

gvazquez
02-23-2009, 3:42 PM
Open carry is gone, not comin' back, get over it.

I wouldnt say that...from what I have read I believe open carry could "come back" I read a memo that the Orange County Sheriff dept put out regarding open carry and how they need to educate their LEOs to deal with these situations. So in a way they are adjusting to OC. I dont think its impossible it just takes the support from people willing to do meets and inform the general public.

IGOTDIRT4U
02-23-2009, 3:43 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. A bill like this needs to include removing the responsibility from local LE hands and turning it over to DOJ exclusively. That IMO will make it less likely to be abused and more objective.


Yep.

sfpcservice
02-23-2009, 3:49 PM
There is a bunch of FUD being assumed in this thread. The Sheriff is THE CLEO in his/her county, the whole county, all residents come under his jurisdiction. If "shall issue" is directed to the sheriff by law, a police chief cannot un-issue your permit. The wording of the law would however seem to give San Francisco, being at once a city and county, an out.

San Francisco has a Police Chief (or Chief of Department ) and a county Sheriff. I doubt that leaves them a defensible "out".

grywlfbg
02-23-2009, 3:54 PM
These are the Safety Committee members.

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=57

Vick

Holy cats. One of the committee members is my district Rep. Just fired off a note to him....

bulgron
02-23-2009, 4:22 PM
Open carry is gone, not comin' back, get over it.

I believe you are absolutely right, if we all adopt your attitude.

"Oh, yeah, it's hard and it's unlikely so let's all just give up ...."

It it took us 40 or 50 years to get here, I don't see why we can't change things back if we try over, say, 20 years -- especially if we can win the right court battles to back us up.

SchooBaka
02-23-2009, 4:24 PM
This was submitted to the Assembly on February 19th. The only change occurs in 12050, striking the good cause requirement and changing may to shall issue. It will be interesting to see if it gains any ground. It will also be interesting to see who comes out in support of it and opposing it.

california legislatureó2009Ė10 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 357 Introduced by Assembly Member Knight
February 19, 2009
An act to amend Section 12050 of the Penal Code, relating to firearms.
legislative counselís digest
AB 357, as introduced, Knight. Firearms: license to carry concealed firearm.
Existing law authorizes the sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists, and that the person applying satisfies any one of certain conditions, as specified, to issue a license for the person to carry a concealed handgun, as specified. This bill would delete the good cause requirement, and require the sheriff to issue the license if the other criteria described above are met. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 12050 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
12050. (a) (1) (A) The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may shall issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver,or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in either one of the following formats:
(i) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(ii) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in that county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

Nice!
AB357, how ironic. :D

bwiese
02-23-2009, 4:26 PM
............................... That would kill "Shall Issue" at the emotional level than a bunch of well-intentioned citizens parading around with an exposed handgun at their side. Expecting to horse-trade a bunch of Legislators and a Governor into "Shall Issue" with the population in general having been recently frightened by open carry demonstrations doesn't give "Shall Issue" proponents much to trade with.

You're forgetting about them being cornered by Nordyke or post-Nordkye cases.

Cypren
02-23-2009, 4:28 PM
Nice!
AB357, how ironic. :D

So the real question is, does it come in SIG or Magnum?

grammaton76
02-23-2009, 4:45 PM
Ok, chatter aside... action plan?

#1. Send a fax to Mr. Knight (bill author), as recommended by eflatminor?
#2. Contact representatives in your district?

Or are we looking more at:

#0. NRA doesn't recommend that we do much of anything at this stage, but be ready to act upon request?

CCWFacts
02-23-2009, 4:53 PM
Ok, chatter aside... action plan?

#1. Send a fax to Mr. Knight (bill author), as recommended by eflatminor?
#2. Contact representatives in your district?

Yes. But why not spend the $0.43 to send letters instead of faxes?

Send a letter to Mr. Knight thanking him for introducing it, send a letter to your rep asking him to join as a co-sponsor, send letters to the members of the Public Safety Committee.

Reps who are not your rep won't really listen very much but it will be great to bury the Public Safety Committee in mail on this issue, just so they know how much people care about it.

Of course, don't have expectations that this will pass. It won't in this session.

jb7706
02-23-2009, 4:53 PM
I just sent a note to my anti representative. Will report what/if she responds.

Can'thavenuthingood
02-23-2009, 5:00 PM
I'm up for some early Action.

From the Calif Bar State page for Legislative Chairs:
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?cid=14265&id=40161

ll. Review Legislation & Identify Bills of Potential Interest Bills should be reviewed as soon as possible after introduction (or amendment).

Virtually all bills of potential interest can (and should) be identified within one week following the bill introduction deadline (February 27). This makes it possible to get involved in key bills before they are analyzed and heard in committee.

Desert Rat
02-23-2009, 5:00 PM
.................................. Missed my point. I open carried loaded when no one even thought to question whether it was legal or not. Loaded open carry was something that was done because everyone noticed people doing it with no one getting excited. It was just part of the climate at the time. In fact, one of the Postmen at the very small local Post Office collected mail from the local corner mail boxes wearing some small framed, six-shot revolver in .32 caliber, probably .32 Special. When pressed about it by the neighborhood kids, he would explain just how he would protect the US Mail if anyone was foolish enough to tamper with it. Upon occasion, he would unload it and let we neighborhood kids handle it. We thought that was really cool, except we figured if he was really serious about the mail he would carry a single-action .45 like Hopalong Cassidy. Fancy a Postman doing that today. Bottom line: Attitudes will not be changing back to those held 50 or more years ago. I am certain you feel open carry, loaded or unloaded, will be an accepted part of future life in urban areas if only you and your like-minded friends stage more open carry rallies. What I suggest you do to channel your enthusiasm is to instead go door-to-door asking non-gun folks what they think of the idea. You might be surprised at their answers.

I believe you are absolutely right, if we all adopt your attitude.

"Oh, yeah, it's hard and it's unlikely so let's all just give up ...."

It it took us 40 or 50 years to get here, I don't see why we can't change things back if we try over, say, 20 years -- especially if we can win the right court battles to back us up.

grammaton76
02-23-2009, 5:01 PM
Yes. But why not spend the $0.43 to send letters instead of faxes?

Because while my intentions may be noble with stamps, I actually get around to SENDING faxes. :)

Send a letter to Mr. Knight thanking him for introducing it, send a letter to your rep asking him to join as a co-sponsor, send letters to the members of the Public Safety Committee.

Reps who are not your rep won't really listen very much but it will be great to bury the Public Safety Committee in mail on this issue, just so they know how much people care about it.

Of course, don't have expectations that this will pass. It won't in this session.

Sure

DDT
02-23-2009, 5:03 PM
Bottom line: Attitudes will not be changing back to those held 50 or more years ago.

They may, but not overnight. It will be the work of decades of positive reinforcement on firearms issues and the revival of a gun culture in America. Most likely after another world war.

Desert Rat
02-23-2009, 5:18 PM
........................... Before they hatch falls within the realm of unfounded optimism.

You're forgetting about them being cornered by Nordyke or post-Nordkye cases.

Desert Rat
02-23-2009, 5:26 PM
............................ "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" while you mull that over.

They may, but not overnight. It will be the work of decades of positive reinforcement on firearms issues and the revival of a gun culture in America. Most likely after another world war.

bulgron
02-23-2009, 5:29 PM
.................................. Missed my point. I open carried loaded when no one even thought to question whether it was legal or not. Loaded open carry was something that was done because everyone noticed people doing it with no one getting excited. It was just part of the climate at the time. In fact, one of the Postmen at the very small local Post Office collected mail from the local corner mail boxes wearing some small framed, six-shot revolver in .32 caliber, probably .32 Special. When pressed about it by the neighborhood kids, he would explain just how he would protect the US Mail if anyone was foolish enough to tamper with it. Upon occasion, he would unload it and let we neighborhood kids handle it. We thought that was really cool, except we figured if he was really serious about the mail he would carry a single-action .45 like Hopalong Cassidy. Fancy a Postman doing that today. Bottom line: Attitudes will not be changing back to those held 50 or more years ago. I am certain you feel open carry, loaded or unloaded, will be an accepted part of future life in urban areas if only you and your like-minded friends stage more open carry rallies. What I suggest you do to channel your enthusiasm is to instead go door-to-door asking non-gun folks what they think of the idea. You might be surprised at their answers.

I think you're missing my point.

I have no doubt that if I asked my neighbors about what their opinions are on open carry, they'd think me a nut job.

But with the right support from the court system (so we don't get arrested for doing it), I believe we could change that opinion so that your postman could get back to carrying his .32 if he wants. But I also think it would take at least 20 years to affect the change.

Also, please don't confuse me as someone who wants to be walking around LOC or even UOC on a routine basis. I'm in this for a CCW. That said, LOC would seem to be a necessary hurdle to cross in order to back the state into shall-issue CCW. Also, unfettered LOC is necessary even in a CCW situation so that:

1) If I'm CCWing and my coat blows open, I'm not breaking the law
2) If there's a major natural disaster (earthquake) and I'm out dealing with the aftermath in a very physical way on a 100 degree day, I don't have to worry about my firearm getting confiscated if I decide to cool off by taking off a layer and so expose my firearm.

We need both LOC and CCW, even if CCW is the (currently) "socially acceptible" way to carry our firearms in public.

Desert Rat
02-23-2009, 5:45 PM
..................... I don't have a problem with your below quote. I agree wholeheartedly. Like yourself. CCW is the main issue with me, which I have enjoyed since 2004. Steve Knight is my Main Man in the Assembly and is delivering on campaign promises he made in 2008. It is good to have a voice in the Assembly.

I think you're missing my point.

I have no doubt that if I asked my neighbors about what their opinions are on open carry, they'd think me a nut job.

But with the right support from the court system (so we don't get arrested for doing it), I believe we could change that opinion so that your postman could get back to carrying his .32 if he wants. But I also think it would take at least 20 years to affect the change.

Also, please don't confuse me as someone who wants to be walking around LOC or even UOC on a routine basis. I'm in this for a CCW. That said, LOC would seem to be a necessary hurdle to cross in order to back the state into shall-issue CCW. Also, unfettered LOC is necessary even in a CCW situation so that:

1) If I'm CCWing and my coat blows open, I'm not breaking the law
2) If there's a major natural disaster (earthquake) and I'm out dealing with the aftermath in a very physical way on a 100 degree day, I don't have to worry about my firearm getting confiscated if I decide to cool off by taking off a layer and so expose my firearm.

We need both LOC and CCW, even if CCW is the (currently) "socially acceptible" way to carry our firearms in public.

BroncoBob
02-23-2009, 5:59 PM
Just say this bill passes and they charge $65.00 for the CCW. Then say 50,000 Californians submit their CCW requests, the state could make another $3.25 mil. Not a ton of money but 50% of something is better than 50% of nothing. IMO

Meplat
02-23-2009, 6:14 PM
This is the part of the law that bothers me.


(C) The sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a
municipal police department of any city or city and county, upon
proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good
cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying is a
person who has been deputized or appointed as a peace officer
pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 830.6 by that sheriff
or that chief of police or other head of a municipal police
department, may issue to that person a license to carry concealed a
pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
the person.






I am not lawyer, so I have problem ascertaining how valid such "out" is. However, I doubt very much that is the rest of the state has codified and actively practiced "shall-carry" one city/county can possible be excluded from it.
Wouldn't that be real clear violation of equal protection?

Meplat
02-23-2009, 6:15 PM
I'm not a lawyer either but.

This is the part of the law that bothers me.


(C) The sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a
municipal police department of any city or city and county, upon
proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good
cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying is a
person who has been deputized or appointed as a peace officer
pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 830.6 by that sheriff
or that chief of police or other head of a municipal police
department, may issue to that person a license to carry concealed a
pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
the person.






I am not lawyer, so I have problem ascertaining how valid such "out" is. However, I doubt very much that is the rest of the state has codified and actively practiced "shall-carry" one city/county can possible be excluded from it.
Wouldn't that be real clear violation of equal protection?

Meplat
02-23-2009, 6:22 PM
I probably have about 20 years left. If you succeed I will die a happy man.:thumbsup:



I think you're missing my point.

I have no doubt that if I asked my neighbors about what their opinions are on open carry, they'd think me a nut job.

But with the right support from the court system (so we don't get arrested for doing it), I believe we could change that opinion so that your postman could get back to carrying his .32 if he wants. But I also think it would take at least 20 years to affect the change.

Also, please don't confuse me as someone who wants to be walking around LOC or even UOC on a routine basis. I'm in this for a CCW. That said, LOC would seem to be a necessary hurdle to cross in order to back the state into shall-issue CCW. Also, unfettered LOC is necessary even in a CCW situation so that:

1) If I'm CCWing and my coat blows open, I'm not breaking the law
2) If there's a major natural disaster (earthquake) and I'm out dealing with the aftermath in a very physical way on a 100 degree day, I don't have to worry about my firearm getting confiscated if I decide to cool off by taking off a layer and so expose my firearm.

We need both LOC and CCW, even if CCW is the (currently) "socially acceptible" way to carry our firearms in public.

BroncoBob
02-23-2009, 6:24 PM
Heck the state is begging for $$$$ why don't they (law makers and the governator) wake up and cash in on this. Heck make the CCW's good for 3 years and they can make some quick millions. Won't cover the fricken hole they dug for us but every cent helps.

grammaton76
02-23-2009, 6:43 PM
Heck the state is begging for $$$$ why don't they (law makers and the governator) wake up and cash in on this. Heck make the CCW's good for 3 years and they can make some quick millions. Won't cover the fricken hole they dug for us but every cent helps.

Not saying it'd be right for the state to do this, but... how many of you would pay $500/yr for the ability to protect your loved one "whenever I deem it GD necessary"?

I probably would. Of course I would make a point to donate an equal $500 to CGF or something for lawsuits against the outrageous fees, but if it were $500/yr shall-issue, I would most likely have a concealed handgun permit. And so would she.

CCWFacts
02-23-2009, 6:49 PM
We need both LOC and CCW, even if CCW is the (currently) "socially acceptible" way to carry our firearms in public.

Yes, we should have both. And which one we pursue first should be a strategic decision. We might get to CCW using the "Ohio strategy", or maybe will get to it through some other legal or legislative strategy. In fact if we (by some miracle) get legislative traction with AB 357, OC might hurt the cause.

yellowfin
02-23-2009, 7:26 PM
They may, but not overnight. It will be the work of decades of positive reinforcement on firearms issues and the revival of a gun culture in America. Most likely after another world war.
It's already happened in most of the area of the US, just not in CA and other population dense leftist controlled places which unfortunately have too much political clout and social influence.

383green
02-23-2009, 7:57 PM
Why not dangle the promise of revenue to help make shall issue more palatable, and then immediately fight the fees on the grounds that they're comparable to a poll tax if and when it passes?

Piper
02-23-2009, 8:11 PM
....................... I really don't know how to respond. You obviously have some convictions that don't include trusting Law Enforcement. In addition to a California CCW from SBCSO, I have received permits from the states of Connecticut, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvainia, Utah, Virginia and Washington with virtually no intimidation involved.

First, you are comparing apples to oranges when comparing shall issue states to California. As I said before, I also obtained a CCW in 1977 from Washington by going through the Pierce County Sheriff's Department. But the fact of the matter is, in California, if you don't close a loophole that LE can take advantage of, they will use it and justify their actions because of the loophole. Do you know what California LE's favorite response is when asked why they chose to take a specific action. The answer is "because I can". So yeah, I trust LE to take every advantage that isn't restricted.

pullnshoot25
02-23-2009, 8:16 PM
.................................. Missed my point. I open carried loaded when no one even thought to question whether it was legal or not. Loaded open carry was something that was done because everyone noticed people doing it with no one getting excited. It was just part of the climate at the time. In fact, one of the Postmen at the very small local Post Office collected mail from the local corner mail boxes wearing some small framed, six-shot revolver in .32 caliber, probably .32 Special. When pressed about it by the neighborhood kids, he would explain just how he would protect the US Mail if anyone was foolish enough to tamper with it. Upon occasion, he would unload it and let we neighborhood kids handle it. We thought that was really cool, except we figured if he was really serious about the mail he would carry a single-action .45 like Hopalong Cassidy. Fancy a Postman doing that today. Bottom line: Attitudes will not be changing back to those held 50 or more years ago. I am certain you feel open carry, loaded or unloaded, will be an accepted part of future life in urban areas if only you and your like-minded friends stage more open carry rallies. What I suggest you do to channel your enthusiasm is to instead go door-to-door asking non-gun folks what they think of the idea. You might be surprised at their answers.

Isn't that the truth though? HAHA!

Desert Rat
02-23-2009, 8:17 PM
.................................... OK. Thanks.

First, you are comparing apples to oranges when comparing shall issue states to California. As I said before, I also obtained a CCW in 1977 from Washington by going through the Pierce County Sheriff's Department. But the fact of the matter is, in California, if you don't close a loophole that LE can take advantage of, they will use it and justify their actions because of the loophole. Do you know what California LE's favorite response is when asked why they chose to take a specific action. The answer is "because I can". So yeah, I trust LE to take every advantage that isn't restricted.

Piper
02-23-2009, 8:26 PM
Piper do you look at ANYTHING without your documented abject hatred for law enforcement not coloring it?

Kestryll, I'm a realist. I've seen it from the inside, and that little fiasco in Orange county is just a very small tip on the iceberg. It's not about hating LE because I still have friends in LE and my daughter is currently going through the process with Stanislaus county. I also have a niece that is a Detective in Phoenix, Az. So it's not hatred, it's called putting a leash on LE to curb their attempts at restricting the second amendment to the law abiding. When I was a cop, I saw first hand how a CLEO unreasonably discriminates in the issuance of CCW's. In a nutshell the Chief issued one CCW in his time as a CLEO. That permit was to his wife. When I asked if he would issue one to my wife, not only did he say NO, he said HELL NO. So Kestryll, like it or not, I'm just calling it as I see it. Sorry if I ruffle a few feathers when I speak the truth.

pullnshoot25
02-23-2009, 8:33 PM
Kestryll, I'm a realist. I've seen it from the inside, and that little fiasco in Orange county is just a very small tip on the iceberg. It's not about hating LE because I still have friends in LE and my daughter is currently going through the process with Stanislaus county. I also have a niece that is a Detective in Phoenix, Az. So it's not hatred, it's called putting a leash on LE to curb their attempts at restricting the second amendment to the law abiding. When I was a cop, I saw first hand how a CLEO unreasonably discriminates in the issuance of CCW's. In a nutshell the Chief issued one CCW in his time as a CLEO. That permit was to his wife. When I asked if he would issue one to my wife, not only did he say NO, he said HELL NO. So Kestryll, like it or not, I'm just calling it as I see it. Sorry if I ruffle a few feathers when I speak the truth.

The man has a point. I have a best friend that is an LEO and I talk to LEOs all the time. That doesn't mean though that they are not beyond abusing their power nor that I am any less wary of that possibility. This is not hating on LEOs, this is being aware of state-endorsed agents.

dexter9659
02-23-2009, 9:09 PM
Dear Assembly Member Joan Buchanan,

I write you today with high hopes. I hold our great county's Constitution in the highest of regards. With this sense of patriotism comes the shared belief of our nation's founding fathers who believed everyone has the right to protect their life regardless of their race, ethnicity, or pocketbook. Please affirm this belief by supporting ASSEMBLY BILL No. 357.

paladin4415
02-23-2009, 9:12 PM
Kestryll, I'm a realist. I've seen it from the inside, and that little fiasco in Orange county is just a very small tip on the iceberg. It's not about hating LE because I still have friends in LE and my daughter is currently going through the process with Stanislaus county. I also have a niece that is a Detective in Phoenix, Az. So it's not hatred, it's called putting a leash on LE to curb their attempts at restricting the second amendment to the law abiding. When I was a cop, I saw first hand how a CLEO unreasonably discriminates in the issuance of CCW's. In a nutshell the Chief issued one CCW in his time as a CLEO. That permit was to his wife. When I asked if he would issue one to my wife, not only did he say NO, he said HELL NO. So Kestryll, like it or not, I'm just calling it as I see it. Sorry if I ruffle a few feathers when I speak the truth.

What you and many others do not seem to grasp is that as of this moment the second amendment of the United States Constitution is not recognized in California. It should be, and hopefully will soon be, but right now the "Right to bear arms" does not exist in California.
By the way, I hope this bill gains some steam in Sacramento. "Shall issue" would be a very good thing.

Piper
02-23-2009, 9:24 PM
What you and many others do not seem to grasp is that as of this moment the second amendment of the United States Constitution is not recognized in California. It should be, and hopefully will soon be, but right now the "Right to bear arms" does not exist in California.
By the way, I hope this bill gains some steam in Sacramento. "Shall issue" would be a very good thing.

Oh they recognize it alright. But like San Francisco, D.C., New Orleans, Morton Grove, Wilmette, and several others, citizens need to ram it down their throats before they accept it.

wayneco
02-23-2009, 9:31 PM
There is a bunch of FUD being assumed in this thread. The Sheriff is THE CLEO in his/her county, the whole county, all residents come under his jurisdiction. If "shall issue" is directed to the sheriff by law, a police chief cannot un-issue your permit. The wording of the law would however seem to give San Francisco, being at once a city and county, an out.

San Francisco has for now a police chief: Heather Fong
(she's resigned, effective I believe, April '09)

and

San Francisco has a Sheriff: Michael Hennessey.

He's not a LEO, though, I believe that he's the only Sheriff in the state does not have a police background, wasn't ever a LEO and doesn't even wear a uniform. He's an attorney by trade as far as I know. He has been the SF Sheriff since 1979.

He also proudly proclaims that he won't ever give out CCW permits. I'd love love love to see him eat those words.

He did announce today that supportive of Tom Ammiano's plan to legalize pot(1), though. I am a libertarian and happy to decriminalize and all that despite not partaking myself but I am definitely frustrated that he wants to put potheads' needs in the queue before our constitutionally enumerated 2A rights. In fact, our rights aren't even in his queue, he steadfastly refuses to even entertain CCW permit applications.

Open carry in SF? I've not dared to, personally. Has anyone?

(1) http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/23/BAO416354C.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1

Liberty1
02-23-2009, 10:11 PM
I just got off the phone with someone at Steve Knight's office in Sacramento. While it's always a good idea to contact YOUR assemblyman, Mr Knight's assistant urged me to send or fax a letter to his office. The idea being that each letter received will help in justifying support. We've got 31 days (after 2/19) until the bill goes to the safety committee, probably followed by the rules committee. Either way, call the representative of your district and please send or fax a letter in support of AB357 to Mr Knight's office:

Steve Knight
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 319-2036, (916) 319-2136 fax
...

dreyna14
02-23-2009, 10:31 PM
This would be the uberist cool thing to ever happen in CA that I can remember. Shall issue in CA, holy freakin' caca. I just know some butthurt sherriff or chief will find some way to make it an utter pain in the butt to get one, though. It's time to make them realize that law enforcement and crime prevention starts with the common, law abiding citizen. LEO's and their superiors must realize that CCW holders aren't apart of the problem, they're part of the solution. Allow us to not only protect our selves and our families, but to help protect those other people whom LE can't.

Cru Jones
02-23-2009, 10:37 PM
I'll be sending off a letter of support to Assembly Member Knight's office tomorrow and I hope everyone on this forum does the same AND gets their spouse, friends, neighbors and co-workers to do the same.

DDT
02-23-2009, 11:42 PM
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that our AG is not entirely anti-gun. It is quite likely that if AB 357 did pass he'd light a fire under any sheriff who refused to follow the law in a timely manner.

Gray Peterson
02-24-2009, 1:41 AM
San Francisco has a Police Chief (or Chief of Department ) and a county Sheriff. I doubt that leaves them a defensible "out".

Chief Heather Fong of SFPD (though I think she's retiring soon or has yet).

http://www.sfsheriff.com/sheriff.htm

anony mouse
02-24-2009, 4:54 AM
(ii) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in that county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.[/I]

when did it change from 100,000 to 200,000? Or is that an additional change?

anony mouse
02-24-2009, 5:07 AM
We need to find that study that Bill Clinton had commissioned Feburary 2000 that proved that gun control == more crime and that more law abiding people carrying == less crime. The study is somewhat hard to get hold of, and I never saw it published, but it did cause the DNC to drop their anti-gun requirement to be nominated later that year.

Further there are some studies that have been done which includes some books and other things that were written by the formerly anti-gun author of the study John Lott Jr. http://www2.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guns.html

Maybe ordering the books to the supporters would give fuel to help this get through. Who wants to donate some books? :)

DDT
02-24-2009, 6:12 AM
Further there are some studies that have been done which includes some books and other things that were written by the formerly anti-gun author of the study John Lott Jr. http://www2.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guns.html


Perhaps Mr. Lott would be a good place to start on your quest to find a copy of the study. I wonder if Assemblyman Knight would want to call in Mr. Knight to testify to the committee this is eventually placed in front of.

pullnshoot25
02-24-2009, 6:28 AM
when did it change from 100,000 to 200,000? Or is that an additional change?

Hasn't changed, it has been that way.

tango-52
02-24-2009, 8:06 AM
I just received this e-mail:

CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : A.B. No. 357
AUTHOR(S) : Knight.
TOPIC : Firearms: license to carry concealed firearm.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM

TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 02/20/2009
LAST HIST. ACTION : From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.

TITLE : An act to amend Section 12050 of the Penal Code,
relating to firearms.

Knauga
02-24-2009, 8:38 AM
Yeah, I spent way too many years in LE to not see how this can be abused. As for it working for you, that may be fine. You may have neighbors in a rural area that are as open about firearms as you are. In that case fine. But everyone is not you, and everyone doesn't have neighbors that are as receptive towards firearms as your neighbors appear to be. So while you may not mind it, others, like me, consider it a big deal. A concealed firearm is hidden for a reason, and telling my neighbors that I intend to carry 24/7 would not be my first choice. I would also consider the possibilities of people who are new to a neighborhood, that don't have the kind of relationship with their neighbors that you apparently have. Sure, they have been California residents for all of their lives, so do they have to wait and make nice with the neighbors before they apply for a CCW? Why would you expect them to do that? Is a persons second amendment right contingent upon the good relationship they have with their neighbors? I'm not bringing this point off the top of my head. I've thought about this for a long time, and anyway I twist it, it's not good for someone. I think that the same requirements for merely purchasing a handgun are adequate for establishing residency to get a CCW.

When they contact your neighbors they inform them that they are conducting a routine background investigation and they do not discuss why other than to say that it isn't a criminal investigation. They verify that this person lives at that house.

The FBI and DOD routinely do the same thing only a littler more intrusive with my step father in order to maintain his security clearances. He actually had one neighbor chase them off of his property screaming at them that they need to leave him (my step-father) alone because he is a good guy.

I agree that there are agencies that MIGHT use this as an intimidation tactic, but those agencies are likely to kill the process long before any kind of residency verification was necessary. Like CCWfacts, I believe the SOLE reason that San Bernardino County does this is because people try to game the system in order to appear to live in one county while actually living in another. I do know they do not ALWAYS do this, in my case they were so backed up they asked me to give them name, address and phone number for 3 of my neighbors and they'd verify by phone. I checked with all three, and none of them were contacted, I think they just checked the names, addresses and phone numbers to verify that those were actual people who lived where I said they did and that they were neighbors. On first blush, looking at the names and addresses they looked totally made up, one address was a 12345 and another was a 12321, if I lived on "Anystreet" it would have been perfect :D

Librarian
02-24-2009, 8:39 AM
We need to find that study that Bill Clinton had commissioned Feburary 2000 that proved that gun control == more crime and that more law abiding people carrying == less crime. The study is somewhat hard to get hold of, and I never saw it published, but it did cause the DNC to drop their anti-gun requirement to be nominated later that year.

Further there are some studies that have been done which includes some books and other things that were written by the formerly anti-gun author of the study John Lott Jr. http://www2.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guns.html

Maybe ordering the books to the supporters would give fuel to help this get through. Who wants to donate some books? :)

Is it possible you are thinking of this one?

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241

FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE A CRITICAL REVIEW

While much has been learned, much remains to be done, and this report necessarily focuses on the important unknowns in this field of study. The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on childrenís behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.

Paladin
02-24-2009, 9:09 AM
Ok, chatter aside... action plan?

#1. Send a fax to Mr. Knight (bill author), as recommended by eflatminor?
#2. Contact representatives in your district?

Or are we looking more at:

#0. NRA doesn't recommend that we do much of anything at this stage, but be ready to act upon request?

You're forgetting about them being cornered by Nordyke or post-Nordkye cases.
Restoring our 2nd A RKBA in the PRK is the most important chess game we'll probably ever be involved in. Winning requires combining the right legal and political strategies. Pieces are being slowly moved on the board: online gun forums; CGN; CaliforniaCCW.org; TBJ 14th A Equal Protection federal lawsuits; CalCCW.com; OCDO; Heller; Proposition 11; Nordyke; and now possibly this.

If Assemblyman Knight is on our side and making the right move with this, Ed Worley will be on a first name basis w/him. If this is the beginning of our Normandy Invasion, Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox have a War Room dedicated to it and Paul Payne will post here to tell us what to do and when.

There is currently nothing re. AB 357 at: http://calnra.com

This is not the time for amateurs going off half-cocked. Remember Gorski?

I will contact Mr. Knight to thank him, but I will wait until I hear from Paul/CalNRA/NRA/NRA-ILA/Gene/Bill before making any other moves. Let's not dilute our political influence and impact by lacking focus and discipline. We've been waiting too long to stumble now. At this point let's make sure we and every one we know (both in real life and online (esp the big national forums where many other CA gunnies hang out)) will be ready to unleash concentrated political firepower/action if and when its called for.

For those who will say not to trust the NRA, they didn't support Heller back when it was Parker: remember, we only won Heller 5 to 4. If O'Connor was still on the Court, we probably would have LOST it 5 to 4. Back then, the NRA wasn't willing to risk &@%*ing the entire nation for the next century by going the legal route. When the composition of the Court changed, the NRA was persuaded to change its position. If our time has come to be liberated, the NRA, like the Allies in WW II, will have fought and won many tough battles before being ready for the big one: http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php

Remember this map. From the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, only CA does not readily issue CCWs. Imagine how this map will change when CA is "red." "Shall Issue" will have a MAJOR impact not just on us and our violent crime rate, but on the entire nation and its culture.

JMHO.

http://www.nraila.org/images/rtcmaplg.jpg

M. D. Van Norman
02-24-2009, 9:23 AM
I like the NRA. Iím a member of the NRA. Iíve talked to Mr. Worley and Mr. Payne about this very issue. They are good men with good intentions, but they are too cautious, just as the NRA was with Heller.

That caution is going to get people killed if we canít keep things moving in a positive direction.

Here is something positive that we can support, so letís bloody well do it with all we have. When the bill dies in committee, is voted down by the full Assembly, or is vetoed by the Governor, we bring it back again and again and again. We keep pushing until we win.

We are going to win, so letís make it happen.

DDT
02-24-2009, 9:39 AM
Have I missed it or has CGF, NRA, CRPA been silent in this thread to date?

Piper
02-24-2009, 10:00 AM
When they contact your neighbors they inform them that they are conducting a routine background investigation and they do not discuss why other than to say that it isn't a criminal investigation. They verify that this person lives at that house.

The FBI and DOD routinely do the same thing only a littler more intrusive with my step father in order to maintain his security clearances. He actually had one neighbor chase them off of his property screaming at them that they need to leave him (my step-father) alone because he is a good guy.

I agree that there are agencies that MIGHT use this as an intimidation tactic, but those agencies are likely to kill the process long before any kind of residency verification was necessary. Like CCWfacts, I believe the SOLE reason that San Bernardino County does this is because people try to game the system in order to appear to live in one county while actually living in another. I do know they do not ALWAYS do this, in my case they were so backed up they asked me to give them name, address and phone number for 3 of my neighbors and they'd verify by phone. I checked with all three, and none of them were contacted, I think they just checked the names, addresses and phone numbers to verify that those were actual people who lived where I said they did and that they were neighbors. On first blush, looking at the names and addresses they looked totally made up, one address was a 12345 and another was a 12321, if I lived on "Anystreet" it would have been perfect :D

This is incredible ! I can't tell you all of the ways I find this ludicrous to even give this a pass. I wonder how many people here would be yelling and screaming if LE started verifying your residence before the purchase of any firearm can be completed. Suggesting that it's justifyable to keep people from "gaming" the system is equally ridiculous. But this does lend more validity to DOJ doing the CCW issuance and taking it out of the hands of local LE so that like your drivers license, merely being a residence of California is good enough.

Calguns sons and daughters of liberty, before the Gadsden flag is displayed on anymore posts, learn what that flag meant to those that originally displayed it. And then compare it to this thread and tell me whether or not you truly believe in what the Gadsden flag truly represented.

mblat
02-24-2009, 10:11 AM
Have I missed it or has CGF, NRA, CRPA been silent in this thread to date?

You are right and this is most intriguing. I understand why NRA wouldn't want to participate in this fight. After all it has about 1% chance of success and every time you lost you also lost some of your political capital..... And in CA NRA doesn't have much of it.
CRPA is utterly useless to begin with. Just sharing my experience - after some positive chatter of this board I went ahead and register myself on their web site for three month trial membership...... and got no response what so ever.
Position of CGN is what the most intriguing here. Since many of us contribute to many of CGN efforts can we get some comments for "the right people" :rolleyes:

bulgron
02-24-2009, 10:32 AM
Since many of us contribute to many of CGN efforts can we get some comments for "the right people" :rolleyes:

We have heard in other threads around here that the gunnies in Sac are having a hard time finding politicians "to carry our water." I've heard that from offline resources too.

I've also heard that if they can find politicians to carry our water, we're all going to be happy with the pro-gun legislative package "they" are trying to put together. But in none of the conversations I've had did I hear anything at all about a shall-issue bill.

Now this, and no one from the leadership is saying anything.

The sound of their silence is deafening. I'm guessing that more than a few people were caught off guard by this bill. That's a minimum guess. My uninformed speculations get wilder from there.

Librarian
02-24-2009, 10:50 AM
http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml hasn't been updated for about 10 days, so I'd guess Mike is experiencing 'a life'. Usually that site is pretty current.

This thread has already mentioned the right things to do at this point:
Thank Mr. Knight
Write/email/fax your own Assembly rep in support

As of today's "status" it isn't officially in a Committee, but most likely it will be referred to Assembly Public Safety

PUBLIC SAFETY
Solorio (http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a69/) (Chair),
Hagman (http://arc.asm.ca.gov/members/index.asp?Dist=60&lang=1) (Vice Chair),
Furutani (http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a55/),
Gilmore (http://arc.asm.ca.gov/members/index.asp?Dist=30&lang=1),
Hill (http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a19),
Ma (http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a12/),
Skinner (http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a14/)

Chief Counsel: Gregory Pagan.
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell, Nicole Hanson, Kimberly Horiuchi, Kathleen Ragan. Secretary: Sue Highland.
1020 N Street, Room 111. Phone: 319-3744.

... so it's probably time to contact them. Politely, if you can manage; as will always be the case this session, the chair and majority of every committee will be Dem, with a party 'preference', through the leadership, that is anti.

And this link seems to be new: "Comment on an Assembly Bill" (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm) I don't know who reads the comments.

BLACKWATER
02-24-2009, 10:50 AM
Knocking door to door is stupid. Now if it is shall issue in the whole state then it would be pointless to need to check if you really really really live at the address you put down on the application form. No need to do such in depth checks as you arent getting a clearance to see government classified docs. A quick NCIC check thru FBI database is enough to clear you and thru your own states system. Every state has their own database that is sometimes connected or not connected to the federal systems. NV, UT, AZ just run you thru their State Police system and the FBI NCIC one to check and then you get your permit. Simple and fast. Lets just hope they keep the prices reasonable. Like $90 dollar permits. NV charges $105.00 I ve heard some places in CA charge $700.00 to get one. Now that is plain wrong as only the rich can afford it and renewal every year.

mblat
02-24-2009, 10:51 AM
We have heard in other threads around here that the gunnies in Sac are having a hard time finding politicians "to carry our water." I've heard that from offline resources too.

I've also heard that if they can find politicians to carry our water, we're all going to be happy with the pro-gun legislative package "they" are trying to put together. But in none of the conversations I've had did I hear anything at all about a shall-issue bill.

Now this, and no one from the leadership is saying anything.

The sound of their silence is deafening. I'm guessing that more than a few people were caught off guard by this bill. That's a minimum guess. My uninformed speculations get wilder from there.

Another interesting tidbit. The bill was introduced on 2/19.
Thread was started by "average" calguner on 02/23. I am wondering.... For four days before and full days after and still "no comment?"

Knauga
02-24-2009, 11:00 AM
This is incredible ! I can't tell you all of the ways I find this ludicrous to even give this a pass. I wonder how many people here would be yelling and screaming if LE started verifying your residence before the purchase of any firearm can be completed. Suggesting that it's justifyable to keep people from "gaming" the system is equally ridiculous. But this does lend more validity to DOJ doing the CCW issuance and taking it out of the hands of local LE so that like your drivers license, merely being a residence of California is good enough.

Like it or not, (unlike owning a firearm) CCW issuance in this state is still at the discretion of the CLEO. If the CLEO feels that he needs to verify you actually LIVE in his/her jurisdiction he/she is going to do that. There is nothing illegal or immoral about it. There is a long history (people are still trying to do it) of LA County residents using a friend, family member or weekend cabin inside of San Bernardino County to claim residency and apply for a CCW. The Sheriff sees this as doing the "due dilligence" to verify that the applicant is indeed a resident of the county.

yellowfin
02-24-2009, 11:11 AM
Exactly what happened with the shall issue bill in '98? I'm told it passed the Assembly.

CCWFacts
02-24-2009, 11:27 AM
Exactly what happened with the shall issue bill in '98? I'm told it passed the Assembly.

Yes. I don't know if they passed it in the senate. I assume they did not and that's how it died. I should look it up.

Desert Rat
02-24-2009, 11:41 AM
................. Bill Locklear was head of the CA Senate at the time and just held it in his incoming basket until the senate adjourned. It had a fighting chance in the senate, but never saw the light of day.

Yes. I don't know if they passed it in the senate. I assume they did not and that's how it died. I should look it up.

Librarian
02-24-2009, 11:42 AM
Exactly what happened with the shall issue bill in '98? I'm told it passed the Assembly.

Let's see...

Senator Knight introduced SB 142 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_142&sess=9798&house=B&author=knight) to define 'good cause'; never got even a committee hearing.

Assembly member Oller introduced AB 1369 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1369&sess=9798&house=B&author=oller), a 'shall-issue' bill. Made it out of Public Safety once, was referred back, and died there.

From a quick look, doesn't seem to have been a shall issue bill that passed the Assembly in the 97-98 session.

One can use a bill index from this link
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilindex.html

and then look up the specific bills at this link
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html

CCWFacts
02-24-2009, 11:44 AM
I wonder if we're going to get someone to introduce this bill in the senate, so it has at least a theoretical chance of becoming law.

gn3hz3ku1*
02-24-2009, 11:46 AM
if i can carry.. ima get that super duper 1911 i cant afford!

Can'thavenuthingood
02-24-2009, 11:52 AM
I wonder if we're going to get someone to introduce this bill in the senate, so it has at least a theoretical chance of becoming law.

I don't see a problem with the NRA remaining silent on this California issue. They are seen as outsiders and we, Calguns are the home team, we know and do contact our Reps in Sacramento.
Last CCW Bill died? We were not in existence then, we are now and we ought to start being vocal about what we as Californians want.

Look what Brady et al accomplished with not many people screaming.

Its our issue, a statewide issue and we ought to run with it. Its going to committee we should influence as much as possible.
It may very well be a gut and amend, lets make our inputs known.

Vick

CCWFacts
02-24-2009, 12:02 PM
I don't see a problem with the NRA remaining silent on this California issue.

I can see some very good reasons for them to stay silent on it. It's not going to pass. They have a strong track record of only backing winning issues, which makes people fear them, which makes them powerful. Good. I want them to keep that track record.

With this bill, if it stirs up enough of us "locals" that it becomes a "cause", maybe it will become viable and interesting to the NRA at some point in the future. It's up to us.

Look what Brady et al accomplished with not many people screaming.

They're a small group of hysterical people.

Its our issue, a statewide issue and we ought to run with it. Its going to committee we should influence as much as possible.

We're very lucky with the makeup of this committee in the Assembly. Two of them are from OC, which is currently going through a big fight on CCW, and one is from Bakersfield, which is the most pro-CCW large county in this state. They may well pass it.

yellowfin
02-24-2009, 12:09 PM
I can see some very good reasons for them to stay silent on it. It's not going to pass.
Or...
We're very lucky with the makeup of this committee in the Assembly. Two of them are from OC, which is currently going through a big fight on CCW, and one is from Bakersfield, which is the most pro-CCW large county in this state. They may well pass it.
Which is it?

As far as the NRA not backing stuff that loses, that's a chicken or the egg question, isn't it? There needs to be some horsepower behind every bill to have it passed so saying something won't pass then not backing it is like withholding water from a plant and saying it won't grow.

Can'thavenuthingood
02-24-2009, 12:15 PM
As soon as the NRA is mentioned its an automatic knee jerk to the negative with many politicians.

Its our issue we can lead the fight.

Vick

CCWFacts
02-24-2009, 12:32 PM
Which is it?

It's both. It has a good shot of getting out of committee. It does not have a good shot at passing. The NRA doesn't want to say, "look at our great victory! We got a bill out of committee and then it died on the floor and the senate wouldn't pass it either!"

For us, getting it to a floor vote would be great, to show that this is a real issue in this state, but for the NRA, it would be bad because the bill isn't going to pass this session.

DDT
02-24-2009, 12:39 PM
I would just like to hear from the folks in the know if we are tilting at windmills. When all the hysteria about HR 45 and some "rumors" gave certain members the vapors the "right people" were all over them saying "keep your powder dry" and I would like to know if, to them, this is another of those instances or if it's time to start taking action.

GuyW
02-24-2009, 1:13 PM
We got a bill out of committee and then it died on the floor and the senate wouldn't pass it either!"

For us, getting it to a floor vote would be great, to show that this is a real issue in this state.....it would be bad because the bill isn't going to pass this session.

These type of bills need a vote by legislators, it is part of smoking out the posers, who can feel the heat before round #2 starts.
.

Can'thavenuthingood
02-24-2009, 1:35 PM
What is the worse case scenario? It does not pass?

What if we do get it written in our favor with our language and it passes, what then?

Mr. Knight put his head up over the berm, least we can do is provide covering fire.

Press onward and upward,

Vick

bulgron
02-24-2009, 1:50 PM
It's both. It has a good shot of getting out of committee. It does not have a good shot at passing. The NRA doesn't want to say, "look at our great victory! We got a bill out of committee and then it died on the floor and the senate wouldn't pass it either!"

For us, getting it to a floor vote would be great, to show that this is a real issue in this state, but for the NRA, it would be bad because the bill isn't going to pass this session.

Every other state that passed a shall-issue bill had to take multiple shots at it. For most, it was at least 10 years of trying and failing until the bill finally became law.

Am I to believe that the NRA was silent on all those failed attempts until it finally had a shot at winning? Somehow I'd be surprised if that was the case.

Anyway, it isn't just the NRA who is being silent on this one. I'm also not seeing the CalGuns leadership jump in on it. And isn't it the role of CalGuns to be an attack pitbull?

I'm not trying to be negative. I'm just curious as to why no one from the leadership is speaking out about this, even if it's a, "We don't think this bill has a chance, so the NRA won't take a position and you should all keep your powder dry."

Could it be that there are backroom wheelings and dealings going on? Again, I'm a pretty uninformed observer of the inside workings of our lobbying activities in Sacramento. But it seems to me that they must be doing something about this behind closed doors. It's too big of a deal for it to not be on their radar.

MP301
02-24-2009, 2:07 PM
Just to point out, making arguments about Mexico -- whether about illegal immigration or drug-war crime -- when pushing for broader weapons access is a dangerous distraction, politically. Regardless of how valid and grounded they may be in fact, you're setting yourself up to be tarred as a racist bigot who just "hates them brown people" by our opponents. This is how they've gone after the Minutemen in Arizona and I'd prefer they not get a chance to use it to further restrict our rights in California.

This just seems to me to be a case of picking a battlefield carefully -- why fight on an enemy minefield if you don't have to?

WORDS OF WISDOM!!!!

Stop shooting yourself in the foot! There is Reality and there is perception...the problem is that most peoples perception is their reality! Dont cloud the issue - We have enough without the Illegal alien problem being added to it..

MP301
02-24-2009, 2:14 PM
Why can't we instead make shall issue up to the population? A proposition decided by the people instead of bill's passing being dependent on left-leaning elected officials?

I think there is much more chance of getting support by the population as a whole. I would be willing to donate to cgf to push this through somehow.

You think this is a good idea in this state? This is the state that elected anti's / hypocrits like Fiendstien. She was the only one that im aware of to be issued a CCW in SF one year.... Of course thats cause she is better then you....

Im thinkin that the masses in CA are not always thinking beyond the walfare state and one should gauge the general publics view on RKBA issues as a whole.... Id like to think the majority has common sense, but.........

MP301
02-24-2009, 2:16 PM
Similar bills have been introduced in the past...roughly half a dozen or so that I can remember over the past 20 years. I don't think a single one ever made it to a general vote.

I'm certainly not saying to not support it...but getting this through will be ALLOT of work.


Then lets get to work skippy!

MP301
02-24-2009, 2:26 PM
I feel like the world has taken a strange lurch in a strange direction, even seeing this bill get introduced. I wonder what prompted him to do that?

You are right...kinda surreal, aint it? Im thinking that even those that voted the way they did last election kinda scared themselves as well...whoops

I think I'm going to write to him in support, and suggest that the bill be amended so that any Sheriff in California shall issue to any resident of California who asks and who meets minimum qualifications, where resident of the county is not a minimum qualification. That ought to solve the Baca problems we have in this state.

Ill be happy to just see it passed...the first step! Just like the otehr shall issue states, it gets fine tuned and repaired in subsequent years

As you all have noted, there isn't much chance of this thing going anywhere, so we might as well turn it into a dream while we're at it.

Maybe im the eternal optomist in this case, but stranger things have happened. Im going to promote this to the extent possible to everyone who will listen and even to those that dont.

BTW, I've heard in the past that the gun-control fanatics in the legislature have promised to push for an end to our entire CCW program as it stands now if anyone ever tries to get shall-issue passed in this state. Are we now at risk of seeing a backlash bill like that one pop up in Sacramento, or was that a bluff, or was the rumor I heard false?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, good luck with that... I think that would be political suicide.... people are really starting to become concerned with the states condition...as well as the nations condition....seems like the wildcard here....

MP301
02-24-2009, 2:37 PM
Just sent the following to both my Assemblyman and my Senator.

I wholeheartedly urge your full and total support for AB 357. It is time that the average California Citizen be given the same RIGHT to self-defense as the politically connected and the rich. It is time that an average citizen be enable to legally carry a concealed weapon for the protection of his/her person, his/her family and his/her property without the prerequisite of owning a business and depositing large amounts of money into the bank, or into the sheriff's campaign fund. My Family is worth more than any bank deposit or political contribution. Please vote in favor of this bill. Please co-sponsor this bill. Please do everything within your power to see that this bill becomes law.

Nice! Heres my Fax to Knight

Mr Knight,

I wish to thank you for introducing this bill. It is a such a nice change to see a legislator using common sense regarding firearms and personal protection. I understand this will be an uphill battle and that you will take some heat for this, but it should be considered one of the most important bills ever introduced in this state. Especially considering California's current economy.

The fact that you introduced this bill means that you must be aware that the vast majority of gun laws and restrictions only affect those of us who comply with them and the effect is almost always negative. The important distiction of a firearm in relation to self defense over any other method is that it allows the possibility of a proverbial 100 lb victim to successfully protect themselves from a 250 lb killer/rapist/etc.
You also are probably aware that the "blood in the streets" rhetoric predicted by the opposition to "Shall Issue" legislation in many other states has proven to be false.

One very important aspect to "Shall Issue" that many supporters miss is that those that are issued these permits are far less likely to commit any sort of crime then even the general population. This is because a) part of obtaining a permit includes valuable information on the law - do's and donts- that some people may not know and b) once you get a permit and are able to protect yourself, you are very unlikely to do anything to lose it.

I cannot confirm the current numbers, but the last time I researched this, the State of Florida had issued approx. 1.5 million permits since 1986 and had only revoked 167. And the majority of those permits that were taken away, were for non firearms related events, ( Drunk driving, etc.)

So, in closing, you have my support and that of just about everyone I know. What do you need from us to assist in accomplishing this important goal? How can we help?

MudCamper
02-24-2009, 3:14 PM
I just got off the phone with someone at Steve Knight's office in Sacramento. While it's always a good idea to contact YOUR assemblyman, Mr Knight's assistant urged me to send or fax a letter to his office. The idea being that each letter received will help in justifying support. We've got 31 days (after 2/19) until the bill goes to the safety committee, probably followed by the rules committee. Either way, call the representative of your district and please send or fax a letter in support of AB357 to Mr Knight's office:

Steve Knight
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 319-2036, (916) 319-2136 fax

When I look him up I get a different zip then that: 94249-0036

Piper
02-24-2009, 3:25 PM
Like it or not, (unlike owning a firearm) CCW issuance in this state is still at the discretion of the CLEO. If the CLEO feels that he needs to verify you actually LIVE in his/her jurisdiction he/she is going to do that. There is nothing illegal or immoral about it. There is a long history (people are still trying to do it) of LA County residents using a friend, family member or weekend cabin inside of San Bernardino County to claim residency and apply for a CCW. The Sheriff sees this as doing the "due dilligence" to verify that the applicant is indeed a resident of the county.

Incredible. Do I detect a little 909/760 snobbery ? If a person has a residence in San Bernardino county, and he applies for a CCW, good. Who cares if that person doesn't live there 24/7.

Now I remember why I refrained from getting on here. It appears it hasn't changed.

hoffmang
02-24-2009, 3:56 PM
Gents,

First, I don't think anyone should worry that Mr. Knight is doing anything negative to the cause. You haven't seen much comment mainly because things don't settle until 3/1 which is next week.

It will not hurt to send in support letters for the bill, and feel free to point out the minor error as well. However, you may want to make sure you save a copy as this may not be the only bill on the topic.

-Gene

yellowfin
02-24-2009, 3:57 PM
Could it be that there are backroom wheelings and dealings going on? Again, I'm a pretty uninformed observer of the inside workings of our lobbying activities in Sacramento. But it seems to me that they must be doing something about this behind closed doors. It's too big of a deal for it to not be on their radar.

Ding ding! Winner! Something tells me there's a whole deck of cards up the sleeves. I'm guessing because our enemies supposedly read this site and even have spies attending meetings that nothing will be made public knowledge until this goes one way or the other. There are more moles on at least one side than a cheap golf course.

sfpcservice
02-24-2009, 3:58 PM
Gents,

First, I don't think anyone should worry that Mr. Knight is doing anything negative to the cause. You haven't seen much comment mainly because things don't settle until 3/1 which is next week.

It will not hurt to send in support letters for the bill, and feel free to point out the minor error as well. However, you may want to make sure you save a copy as this may not be the only bill on the topic.

-Gene

I love calguns. :p

383green
02-24-2009, 4:17 PM
Gene: Your assurance that there's no downside to supporting this bill was all I needed to see. While I don't expect it to pass, I anticipate that it'll take many tries to get a shall-issue CCW law passed, so I'm happy to support this with a few letters as long as doing so will not be harmful.

Piper: I don't see where there's any "909/760 snobbery" going on. Knauga's point is that the SB sheriff's department checks residence because of many people who are not residents of SB county applying for permits there. As I understand it, he cannot legally issue CCW permits to people who do not reside there (or possibly work there?). If it was good enough to go rent a PO box in SB county and then apply for a CCW permit there, I'd do it myself... but that's not legal to the best of my knowledge.

To everybody who is concerned about the lack of message from NRA/etc., and/or who thinks there's some back-room hanky-panky going on: Relax! This is a brand new bill. These things take time. Just look how long it's been since the NeRF announcement? Must have been at least two weeks by now! :D

DDT
02-24-2009, 4:20 PM
Gents,

First, I don't think anyone should worry that Mr. Knight is doing anything negative to the cause. You haven't seen much comment mainly because things don't settle until 3/1 which is next week.

It will not hurt to send in support letters for the bill, and feel free to point out the minor error as well. However, you may want to make sure you save a copy as this may not be the only bill on the topic.

-Gene

Thanks Gene. I will definitely be sending in support. BTW I am not convinced that keeping "good cause" for PoC is a mistake. It is likely that he is pushing this to the sheriff on purpose, while still giving the Police Chief the ability to issue if he so chooses. (That was you aren't dumping more work on the PoC and also not taking away one of their current privileges.)

DDT
02-24-2009, 4:22 PM
To everybody who is concerned about the lack of message from NRA/etc., and/or who thinks there's some back-room hanky-panky going on: Relax! This is a brand new bill. These things take time. Just look how long it's been since the NeRF announcement? Must have been at least two weeks by now! :D

Not sure if that's directed to me or someone else. I merely asked (a couple times) because I wanted to know if there was something else we are holding out for or if somehow supporting this would be contrary to CGF goals.

CCWFacts
02-24-2009, 4:26 PM
Thanks Gene. I will definitely be sending in support. BTW I am not convinced that keeping "good cause" for PoC is a mistake. It is likely that he is pushing this to the sheriff on purpose, while still giving the Police Chief the ability to issue if he so chooses. (That was you aren't dumping more work on the PoC and also not taking away one of their current privileges.)

I see no problem in keeping GC for chiefs while making it shall-issue for sheriffs. I would be opposed to make chiefs shall-issue. Most of them don't want the hassle of it. Given our current situation, the best issuing authority would be shall-issue sheriffs. If I were drafting a CCW law from scratch, I would have the DoJ BoF handle issuance. But this is not a system from scratch; this is a tweak to our existing system. And the best way is for sheriffs to issue, without forcing chiefs to get into that.

Think of it: there are over 500 chiefs in this state. Many are from very small departments that really don't want to mess with it. They shouldn't have to. And also it's better to have records as concentrated as possible with 58 sheriffs, and avoid spreading them around the hundreds of PDs. If chiefs retain may-issue and decide to write a few permits to their friends, whatever, that seems meaningless and unimportant to me.

383green
02-24-2009, 4:34 PM
Not sure if that's directed to me or someone else.

It's not really directed at any particular person.

If I were drafting a CCW law from scratch, I would have the DoJ BoF handle issuance.

Wouldn't that give them the opportunity to require applicants to travel up to Sacramento for things like training, psych evaluation, etc.? An anti-gunner in the big chair at DOJ could easily make CCW very impractical for folks who have to work for a living if they had the opportunity to make requirements like that. I'd prefer to have everything handled locally (even if there's DOJ oversight).

Librarian
02-24-2009, 4:41 PM
I've always felt that DOJ could add a range onto every DMV office, put in one or two firearms examiners and borrow a window to do paperwork.

DMV already knows how to issue licenses. DOJ could follow on.

anony mouse
02-24-2009, 4:42 PM
Is it possible you are thinking of this one?

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241

FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE A CRITICAL REVIEW

Dunno, all I remember is that it was Feburary 2000, and Bill Clinton ordered it to help Al Gore in the 2000 election on the gun control issue, but it backfired and he supressed it to some degree. I dont know who did it, I dont know anything more than it came to the same conclusion as a few other studies, the Lott one included which was just a few years prior. This is the study that also caused the DNC to change its policy on anti-gun.

However, any recent study would probably be as good, its just that getting one with a Clinton name behind it would probably be more impactful than getting one that was commissioned by either a pro-gun or an unknown person. At least I think so.

I want to be clear on something, because there are several points that I think are just implicit in this, and to get a clearer understanding of all of this can be helpful.
Using the Clinton study helps to get the Clinton name behind it in a limited way
* Less crime means the police spend less, jails spend less, medical costs go down, etc so it helps the budget
* The license fees also help the budget, however slightly
* Having a CCW has the same background check as owning a gun, you only see in the media where a gun was used illegal, you never see stories about the lawful people because that isnt news. So its not like people will just run amok in society with guns - most of the CCW applicants already have guns but arent shooting people left and right as is claimed by some against CCWs

So certainly all the studies that are possible, all the surveys of LEOs who are in support of it, as well as the financial arguments and other stuff can help to wake some people up. You wont convert everyones way of thinking but if you can get enough of a percentage then the law can be changed.

retired
02-24-2009, 4:43 PM
I contacted both my Assemblyman and state Senator about this bill. I even requested my Senator bring a similar bill to the Senate (ha). I await their respective response.

Bizcuits
02-24-2009, 4:51 PM
I recently have emailed and called my local Assemblyman Dave Jones. http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a09/

please do the same with your local assemblymen and spread the word to friends

CCWFacts
02-24-2009, 5:17 PM
(having the DoJ run CCW) Wouldn't that give them the opportunity to require applicants to travel up to Sacramento for things like training, psych evaluation, etc.? An anti-gunner in the big chair at DOJ could easily make CCW very impractical for folks who have to work for a living if they had the opportunity to make requirements like that. I'd prefer to have everything handled locally (even if there's DOJ oversight).

It shouldn't, just like there's no need to go to Sacto for driver training. I assume that none of the other states with central control can require applicants to show up in person at a central location (except maybe in Rhode Island!).

But anyway, our path to shall-issue will, I presume, look like Nevada's, in which the sheriffs kept issuing authority but lost their discretion.

I've always felt that DOJ could add a range onto every DMV office, put in one or two firearms examiners and borrow a window to do paperwork.

DMV already knows how to issue licenses. DOJ could follow on.

I realize you're only being half-serious on that, but - if we could really draft a CCW law, why not put it as an endorsement on a DL?

Think of it this way: actually, a DL is, itself, a special endorsement on a CA identity card which allows driving. The applicant has to show evidence of training and so on. Why not also have a CCW endorsement, using exactly the same system, where the applicant shows evidence of training and eligibility?

I've never heard of a state doing CCW as an endorsement on the DL but it seems like a reasonable concept.

hoffmang
02-24-2009, 5:24 PM
I realize you're only being half-serious on that, but - if we could really draft a CCW law, why not put it as an endorsement on a DL?


As much sense as that might make, I've heard that the DMV really does not like the DOJ and are exceedingly territorial about how the Driver's License works and is issued. That political reality clouds the best technical answer on a lot of these things.

-Gene

yellowfin
02-24-2009, 5:25 PM
At least one state I've heard of makes your CCW number your car's license plate number or something like that.

Bizcuits
02-24-2009, 5:28 PM
I just got off the phone with someone at Steve Knight's office in Sacramento. While it's always a good idea to contact YOUR assemblyman, Mr Knight's assistant urged me to send or fax a letter to his office. The idea being that each letter received will help in justifying support. We've got 31 days (after 2/19) until the bill goes to the safety committee, probably followed by the rules committee. Either way, call the representative of your district and please send or fax a letter in support of AB357 to Mr Knight's office:

Steve Knight
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 319-2036, (916) 319-2136 fax

I just called and was told the same.

CCWFacts
02-24-2009, 5:29 PM
As much sense as that might make, I've heard that the DMV really does not like the DOJ and are exceedingly territorial about how the Driver's License works and is issued. That political reality clouds the best technical answer on a lot of these things.

Not surprised. Again, I've never heard of a state where the CCW is actually an endorsement on the DL / ID, as logical as that would be, presumably because of territorialism like that.

My feeling is that the politically possible way forward is what this bill does: delete seven words, replace one word. The bigger the change, the more opposed parties there will be, and this one thing has plenty of opposed parties already.

Cypren
02-24-2009, 5:30 PM
At least one state I've heard of makes your CCW number your car's license plate number or something like that.

How in the world do they handle it when you get a new car?

Maybe it's just me, but the thought of having to deal with the DMV every time I need to renew my CCW is... uh... well, probably the most successful campaign the Bradys could ever launch! :eek:

383green
02-24-2009, 5:36 PM
In some states, you keep your license plates when you sell your car and then transfer them to your new one, unlike in CA, where the plates stay with the car (unless they're personalized).

Anyway, my license plate number is my ham radio callsign. I could consolidate lots of licenses under this pie-in-the-sky idea! :D

Knauga
02-24-2009, 5:47 PM
Incredible. Do I detect a little 909/760 snobbery ? If a person has a residence in San Bernardino county, and he applies for a CCW, good. Who cares if that person doesn't live there 24/7.

Now I remember why I refrained from getting on here. It appears it hasn't changed.

Yes, this is snobbery from "the land of the dirt people" :D

You are required to apply in you the county where you maintain your primary residence. If you DON'T live there except for occasional weekends, it is not your primary residence.

As to "who cares", the Sheriff does.

anony mouse
02-24-2009, 5:55 PM
As much sense as that might make, I've heard that the DMV really does not like the DOJ and are exceedingly territorial about how the Driver's License works and is issued. That political reality clouds the best technical answer on a lot of these things.

-Gene

well there is a side effect. What if you do not drive, do not own a car, or are otherwise illegible to drive a car (say too many speeding tickets and a suspended license).

When a CCW is an endorsement on a license loss of a driving privilege causes a loss of CCW at the same time. They should be separate !

There are also privacy issues, some people who have CCWs dont want to advertise but may be asked for ID when paying for good with a credit card, buying alcohol/cigarettes if younger, etc. You lose the ability to choose who you let know that you have a CCW when they are coupled - at least to some degree.

DDT
02-24-2009, 6:02 PM
well there is a side effect. What if you do not drive, do not own a car, or are otherwise illegible to drive a car (say too many speeding tickets and a suspended license).

When a CCW is an endorsement on a license loss of a driving privilege causes a loss of CCW at the same time. They should be separate !

There are also privacy issues, some people who have CCWs dont want to advertise but may be asked for ID when paying for good with a credit card, buying alcohol/cigarettes if younger, etc. You lose the ability to choose who you let know that you have a CCW when they are coupled - at least to some degree.

If it were automatic and carried only on the stripe it would be no problem. If you are eligible to carry then your DL is labeled as such, if not, no label. If you are ineligible for a DL then your Ca ID would be labled.

CCWFacts
02-24-2009, 6:06 PM
If it were automatic and carried only on the stripe it would be no problem. If you are eligible to carry then your DL is labeled as such, if not, no label. If you are ineligible for a DL then your Ca ID would be labled.

Yes. It wouldn't depend on driving at all.

(But this is just theorizing; it's not going to happen.)

383green
02-24-2009, 6:10 PM
I have a class A commercial driver's license, and the endorsements on it are just single-letter codes. I don't even know what each letter means, even though I know what endorsements I have. If another letter (say, "W" or "C") showed up in the endorsements field, I doubt that many non-LEOs who I might show my license to in the course of a day would know any better.

DDT
02-24-2009, 6:20 PM
(But this is just theorizing; it's not going to happen.)

This is very true. I don't really know why you even need a paper permit. 99% of the time the cop is calling it in anyway. Hell, just say "yes I am legal to carry CCW" he calls you in and finds everything in order and away you go.

383green
02-24-2009, 6:26 PM
Why even require a permit for driving? When somebody gets their second DUI, tattoo "POOR IMPULSE CONTROL" on their forehead and be done with it! :D

CCWFacts
02-24-2009, 6:31 PM
This is very true. I don't really know why you even need a paper permit. 99% of the time the cop is calling it in anyway. Hell, just say "yes I am legal to carry CCW" he calls you in and finds everything in order and away you go.

You know, that's true too. The BoF's database seems very easily searchable. When I called to get a reprint of my AW reg letter, they found the records instantly. I assume their other DBs are similar. It's better to almost "force" the cop to call it in, just to get verification.

It would sort of be like an e-ticket. An e-CCW?

Meplat
02-24-2009, 6:36 PM
In the spirit of holding your friends close and your enemies closer. Always keep the politicians that have the most direct impingement on your life as close as you possibly can! Local is the way to go on several levels. For starters, some counties are more CCW friendly by nature. We may be able to use "equal protection" to mitigate the hoops, hurdles, and gouging of the spiteful down to the lowest common denominator. If left to DOJ they will make it as hard and expensive a process as they possibly can and it will all be equal, equal misery.:chris:

Meplat
02-24-2009, 7:09 PM
What!!!! I was under the impression that you had to pass the POST to run for sheriff in CA?:confused:



San Francisco has for now a police chief: Heather Fong
(she's resigned, effective I believe, April '09)

and

San Francisco has a Sheriff: Michael Hennessey.

He's not a LEO, though, I believe that he's the only Sheriff in the state does not have a police background, wasn't ever a LEO and doesn't even wear a uniform. He's an attorney by trade as far as I know. He has been the SF Sheriff since 1979.

He also proudly proclaims that he won't ever give out CCW permits. I'd love love love to see him eat those words.

He did announce today that supportive of Tom Ammiano's plan to legalize pot(1), though. I am a libertarian and happy to decriminalize and all that despite not partaking myself but I am definitely frustrated that he wants to put potheads' needs in the queue before our constitutionally enumerated 2A rights. In fact, our rights aren't even in his queue, he steadfastly refuses to even entertain CCW permit applications.

Open carry in SF? I've not dared to, personally. Has anyone?

(1) http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/23/BAO416354C.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1

bulgron
02-24-2009, 8:07 PM
What!!!! I was under the impression that you had to pass the POST to run for sheriff in CA?:confused:

That requirement happened after '79. Possibly he was grandfathered in.

bulgron
02-24-2009, 8:07 PM
This is very true. I don't really know why you even need a paper permit. 99% of the time the cop is calling it in anyway. Hell, just say "yes I am legal to carry CCW" he calls you in and finds everything in order and away you go.

Because when they invented the CCW permit system in this state, there were no such things as computers or networks.

yellowfin
02-24-2009, 8:48 PM
^ Fancy that this state is still behind the times when it prides itself in being modern. May issue isn't just deplorable, it's outdated and gauche.

DDT
02-24-2009, 8:49 PM
Because when they invented the CCW permit system in this state, there were no such things as computers or networks.

Yes, and now they do have them. I was referring to a future program or an update to the existing system. I do understand why they had paper permits in the 50's.

bulgron
02-24-2009, 8:53 PM
^ Fancy that this state is still behind the times when it prides itself in being modern. May issue isn't just deplorable, it's outdated and gauche.

I think the CCW system in this state is what it is because everyone's afraid to touch it. If even one person pokes their fingers into the system trying to make ONE little change, the whole thing might go up like a Warner Bros stick o' dynamite.

I keep wondering if AB 357 hasn't lit that cartoon fuse.

Can'thavenuthingood
02-24-2009, 8:57 PM
I think the CCW system in this state is what it is because everyone's afraid to touch it. If even one person pokes their fingers into the system trying to make ONE little change, the whole thing might go up like a Warner Bros stick o' dynamite.

I keep wondering if AB 357 hasn't lit that cartoon fuse.

Yes its lit and we are fanning the flames.

Again, what is the worse case scenario?

Lets get in there and mix it up.

What was that quote about all it takes for bad things to happen is for good men to stand by and do nothing?
I know its botched up, but the sentiment is the same. We have or most of us have lived good lives in this state and not really paid much attention until recently, like the last 10-12 years or so, to what has been happening to gun rights. Its an easy target for the politickers and they'll take it because up until now there has not been a voice loud enough to raise objections, we as Calgunners can shake the halls of Sacramento in 23,000+ part harmony, okay, unison.

Out side of this state they can do things we can only wish for, they got stuff I can't have here in California and why is that? Its because we let it happen, we didn't even put up a half assed objection.
Its time to push our way to the front and insist we be given our own choices as to how we defend ourselves and our families.

I'll only carry mine on the odd days, lets start there. Just go for the odd day carry.

Vick

bulgron
02-24-2009, 9:05 PM
Yes its lit and we are fanning the flames.

Again, what is the worse case scenario?

Lets get in there and mix it up.

Vick

Worse case is that we lose the entire system, which would suck for a whole lotta people that currently have CCWs.

OTOH, the current system is going to get challenged sooner or later. Might as well do it now while the Democrats are scratching for money and the Republicans are running scared.

XDshooter
02-24-2009, 9:09 PM
They should have crossed out the "moral" part of the clause as well.


That might come back to bite us. As it is part of a discretionary system.

DDT
02-24-2009, 9:10 PM
Worse case is that we lose the entire system, which would suck for a whole lotta people that currently have CCWs.

OTOH, the current system is going to get challenged sooner or later. Might as well do it now while the Democrats are scratching for money and the Republicans are running scared.

There is very little chance that we will lose the entire system. Gene has made some very compelling arguments about that. I don't have them handy unfortunately but they made a lot of sense at the time. I believe it had to do with Judges, DAs, cops who want/need paper and the "noblemen" out there who are getting serviced by our CoPs and Sheriffs. If the CoPs and Sheriffs can't keep up their end of the bargain to keep these people armed they might lose support and they won't stand for that with a powerful lobby it just won't happen. (sorry if I totally butchered you more eloquent argument Gene.)

CCWFacts
02-24-2009, 9:14 PM
There is very little chance that we will lose the entire system.

I agree. Ok, there's only about 50k permits out right now, but plenty of them are to the ultra-rich, ultra-well-connected, etc. California is not going to go no-issue.

Piper
02-24-2009, 9:22 PM
Piper: I don't see where there's any "909/760 snobbery" going on. Knauga's point is that the SB sheriff's department checks residence because of many people who are not residents of SB county applying for permits there. As I understand it, he cannot legally issue CCW permits to people who do not reside there (or possibly work there?). If it was good enough to go rent a PO box in SB county and then apply for a CCW permit there, I'd do it myself... but that's not legal to the best of my knowledge.

And my point is, if a person has a residence, regardless of how much time he or she spends there, the fact that that person has a legal residence should be good enough. Again, California only requires that a person show proof of residency with a utility bill or vehicle registration. Why should I support additional measures beyond that ?

CLEO's claim that they are sticking their necks out by issuing CCW's. I think that IF California gets shall issue, Ca DOJ should administer issuance and relieve local agencies of the "burden", since they are uncomfortable with issuing CCW's. I can only imagine what it would be like if CLEO's had the discretion of issuing permits for mere possession of firearms.

anony mouse
02-24-2009, 9:28 PM
This is very true. I don't really know why you even need a paper permit. 99% of the time the cop is calling it in anyway. Hell, just say "yes I am legal to carry CCW" he calls you in and finds everything in order and away you go.

Except near the bay area where they hold you for the "up to 24 hours" to verify and if you have a > 10 round mag they hold it until you can prove you bought that one specifically pre CA ban or some silly thing. Basically doing everything possible to harass people with CCWs to encourage them to not use it in their area.

anony mouse
02-24-2009, 9:33 PM
In the spirit of holding your friends close and your enemies closer. Always keep the politicians that have the most direct impingement on your life as close as you possibly can! Local is the way to go on several levels. For starters, some counties are more CCW friendly by nature. We may be able to use "equal protection" to mitigate the hoops, hurdles, and gouging of the spiteful down to the lowest common denominator. If left to DOJ they will make it as hard and expensive a process as they possibly can and it will all be equal, equal misery.:chris:

I agree with that, although slightly different motivation. The people have the power when the government that most affects them is local, and the least power when its further away (national). When was the last time you heard of a federal referendum on a controversial law? When was the last time the people had any say in removing a federal elected official from office? The nationalization of everything makes it harder for the people to have any say in how things are done. Sure you can vote for someone else, but lets face it if they arent from the 2 major parties the odds are slim that the candidate will be installed into office. So having the counties and cities having more power lets people either vote for the particular aspects they want easier, and greater opportunity to install candidates that they like as opposed to the state or worse federal system.

But then we would have to get the 1968 state supreme court ruling overturned that said both a house and a senate are unconstitutional in this state because the constitution says "one vote per person" in essence, and having a geographically based senate was deemed invalid, so there are 2 houses letting dense population areas overrule the rural areas on things that really should be a per area decision.

anony mouse
02-24-2009, 9:35 PM
I agree. Ok, there's only about 50k permits out right now, but plenty of them are to the ultra-rich, ultra-well-connected, etc. California is not going to go no-issue.

then there are places like some of the rural counties where the sheriff understands that police response can be in excess of 30 minutes (it takes 20 minutes for the helicopter to arrive for medical emergencies and an additional 10 for the ambulance, police are similar because they come from the same general location) and they issue them to anyone who can write a coherent "excuse" clause on the permit app. My parents have them and live in such a county.

I do not know what hte percentage is of regular folk vs well connected folk though, but I would imagine that most of the permits are to people in rural areas.

DDT
02-24-2009, 9:42 PM
Except near the bay area where they hold you for the "up to 24 hours" to verify and if you have a > 10 round mag they hold it until you can prove you bought that one specifically pre CA ban or some silly thing. Basically doing everything possible to harass people with CCWs to encourage them to not use it in their area.

That might work when there is a paper permit or there are only 10 permit holders in the county. If it were shall issue and eCCW was the state standard there is NO WAY they could get away with that.

yellowfin
02-24-2009, 9:53 PM
That wouldn't stop them. The thing that would stop them would be negative consequences for doing so under an official oppression law. That needs to be hammered on immediately after we get shall issue and/or LOC. There needs to be something with teeth against LE, municipalities, etc who think they can decide to not like 2A rights and push the boundaries of harassment and obstruction and denial by inconvenience. The present case of it's legal unless they don't think it should be has got to go.

hoffmang
02-24-2009, 9:59 PM
Moving legislation that moves us toward shall issue is unlikely to end CCW issuance completely - mainly because Sheriffs don't want the goodies taken away completely and they have a voice. Secondarily, no CCW and no LOC via the legislature is just asking for Judicial trouble by the antis.

-Gene

Bizcuits
02-24-2009, 10:10 PM
So I'm hoping since everyone has taken the time to argue hypothetical situations you've also taken the time to call your assemblymen?

anony mouse
02-24-2009, 11:11 PM
That might work when there is a paper permit or there are only 10 permit holders in the county. If it were shall issue and eCCW was the state standard there is NO WAY they could get away with that.

Well from what I have heard from CCW holders is that its primarily done to out of area holders that go in for the day or whatever. There is some animosity between the Amador Sheriffs department and some of the bay area LEOs over this issue from the rumors that are circulating, or at least were before I went overseas for a few years.

bulgron
02-25-2009, 12:20 AM
Well from what I have heard from CCW holders is that its primarily done to out of area holders that go in for the day or whatever. There is some animosity between the Amador Sheriffs department and some of the bay area LEOs over this issue from the rumors that are circulating, or at least were before I went overseas for a few years.

So if by some miracle I managed to pry a CCW out of Santa Clara County, I wouldn't have to worry about being jammed up for 24 hours by the cops in this area if they caught me carrying?

I have to say, the very idea of the police acting that way is quite disturbing.

How many times can they get away with that before someone can sue for harassment?

wildhawker
02-25-2009, 12:41 AM
Vick thought you'd appreciate my little story:

Yesterday (Monday), my wife and I stopped by the Spokane, Washington Sherrif's office (then sent to PD in same building). Walked through metal detector, no big. Down two halls and to the left is a counter with a form holder marked (in very low-key tape over post-it labeling) for Concealed [Handgun] Permits. Out come two, off to fill out what I thought would be 20 pages of... wait, only 3. A few standard fare questions, sign twice and pay the nice lady at the counter $55 each. Next, stand in a line (of 3 by that time), wait a few minutes and step up to the fingerprint scanner. Scan her paws, then mine. Sign, sign and hand back. Take receipt, and with a smile and a "come back soon!" we left no more than 60 minutes later with 2 completed applications and a guarantee of no more than 60 day delivery of the carry permits (60 since we are non-residents, 30 if we were residents). $110.50 and 1 hour for 2 permits (good for 5 years)... not a bad day at the county office!

With Utah coming, that means we're good to go just about everywhere in the western US... except where we LIVE.

hoffmang
02-25-2009, 12:51 AM
I applied for my WA in exactly that office right before last Thanksgiving after leaving my gun in the car while carrying on the UT permit.

My permit showed up in about 40 days. The only sad thing is that it's a bit oddly shaped by being a bit larger than UT/FL.

-Gene

jjperl
02-25-2009, 1:08 AM
Even though I don't think this bill has a chance in hell of passing, I really really hope it will. Fingers crossed everyone.

MP301
02-25-2009, 1:22 AM
Vick thought you'd appreciate my little story:

Yesterday (Monday), my wife and I stopped by the Spokane, Washington Sherrif's office (then sent to PD in same building). Walked through metal detector, no big. Down two halls and to the left is a counter with a form holder marked (in very low-key tape over post-it labeling) for Concealed [Handgun] Permits. Out come two, off to fill out what I thought would be 20 pages of... wait, only 3. A few standard fare questions, sign twice and pay the nice lady at the counter $55 each. Next, stand in a line (of 3 by that time), wait a few minutes and step up to the fingerprint scanner. Scan her paws, then mine. Sign, sign and hand back. Take receipt, and with a smile and a "come back soon!" we left no more than 60 minutes later with 2 completed applications and a guarantee of no more than 60 day delivery of the carry permits (60 since we are non-residents, 30 if we were residents). $110.50 and 1 hour for 2 permits (good for 5 years)... not a bad day at the county office!

With Utah coming, that means we're good to go just about everywhere in the western US... except where we LIVE.

Nice easy process. But unless im missing something, doesnt Utah cover the same and more states as Washington? If Washington covers something Utah does not, please let me know!

wildhawker
02-25-2009, 1:37 AM
Nice easy process. But unless im missing something, doesnt Utah cover the same and more states as Washington? If Washington covers something Utah does not, please let me know!

Reciprocity between states can change (although Utah seems to be pretty stable), and we're in WA and ID quite a bit. Also, we'll be WA residents soon, so we figured "why not get into their system now" and just change status to resident when we close. Also, it was a learning experience... I now know what a free state feels like... cash and carry means just that.

Paladin
02-25-2009, 7:01 AM
First, I don't think anyone should worry that Mr. Knight is doing anything negative to the cause. . . . It will not hurt to send in support letters for the bill Thanks. Will do. :thumbsup:

You haven't seen much comment mainly because things don't settle until 3/1 which is next week.What "things" don't "settle" until 3/1?

you may want to make sure you save a copy as this may not be the only bill on the topic. :jump: Go, Team, Go! :80: :79:

CCWFacts
02-25-2009, 7:13 AM
What "things" don't "settle" until 3/1?

Deadline for introducing bills I assume?

Piper
02-25-2009, 7:49 AM
Vick thought you'd appreciate my little story:

Yesterday (Monday), my wife and I stopped by the Spokane, Washington Sherrif's office (then sent to PD in same building). Walked through metal detector, no big. Down two halls and to the left is a counter with a form holder marked (in very low-key tape over post-it labeling) for Concealed [Handgun] Permits. Out come two, off to fill out what I thought would be 20 pages of... wait, only 3. A few standard fare questions, sign twice and pay the nice lady at the counter $55 each. Next, stand in a line (of 3 by that time), wait a few minutes and step up to the fingerprint scanner. Scan her paws, then mine. Sign, sign and hand back. Take receipt, and with a smile and a "come back soon!" we left no more than 60 minutes later with 2 completed applications and a guarantee of no more than 60 day delivery of the carry permits (60 since we are non-residents, 30 if we were residents). $110.50 and 1 hour for 2 permits (good for 5 years)... not a bad day at the county office!

With Utah coming, that means we're good to go just about everywhere in the western US... except where we LIVE.

What a difference 32 years makes. It cost me 15.00 at the Pierce county sheriff's office in Tacoma. But the process still sounds the same. Since I was military, I was considered a resident so it only took me 30 days. That's why I get so miffed at the pass some here want to give to Ca LE.

spareparts
02-25-2009, 8:12 AM
Contacted my state representatives this morning. Why doesn't everyone take a moment to do so? And ask your friends too.

Funny how there's quite a campaign out right now to leagalize pot and I received an e-mail this morning with links to contact state reps and education material on why it should be legalized...but doesn't seem to be even an inkling of support going around for AB 357.

I think that too often we take a defeatest approach to this stuff. The pot-heads are really getting geared up even though they know that most likely theirs won't go through either. But they're putting alot of effort in to it. I wish I could do more but for the time being I'm at least urging people on my contacts lists to contact thier reps and spreading the word.

alphazebrafoxtrot
02-25-2009, 9:06 AM
Getting my Pa permit was the easiest govt run program I have ever had the pleasure to deal with.

Step1 Fill out a concealed carry application. (I think it was a single page.) To get this application, go to your local sheriff's department. Some counties require you to appear in person to fill out the application, while others will allow you to do it via mail. Check with your county for instructions.

Step2 Provide two references, including their names, addresses and phone numbers. You will also need a recent photo. Some counties require a passport-like photograph. (Lancaster county took my photo just like license bureau) Check with your county for further information. In addition, if you're not a resident of Pennsylvania, you will need a non-resident permit. I don't recall submitting fingerprints.

Step3 Pay a $19 processing fee. The permit is good for five years.

There is a 2 week wait while a background check is done. I received a phone call and picked up my permit which is the same size as credit cards and DLs.
$19 start to finish. No training course. No hassles. No red tape.
Shall issue means SHALL issue. 2A does not read "Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but only if you pay for a safety course".......

DDT
02-25-2009, 9:51 AM
Getting my Pa permit was the easiest govt run program I have ever had the pleasure to deal with.

...


In addition, if you're not a resident of Pennsylvania, you will need a non-resident permit. I don't recall submitting fingerprints.


I thought PA only did non-resident if you already have an in-state CCW OR you live in a no-issue state. Was I misinformed or has this changed?

alphazebrafoxtrot
02-25-2009, 10:40 AM
I thought PA only did non-resident if you already have an in-state CCW OR you live in a no-issue state. Was I misinformed or has this changed?

I lived there. I'll look into the non resident permits, though. Pa is an example of what "shall issue" means.


I found some info that reiterates what you posted. If you live in a state that allows ccw, you must have a ccw from that state to be eligible for a non-resident PA ccw.
http://paccw.home.mindspring.com/

After reading this article, it seems as though I just happened to live in the right county. Evidently some counties had sheriffs that migrated from Kalifornia...

JDoe
02-25-2009, 10:46 AM
This map would make a great pro AB357 t-shirt/bumper sticker/etc.

Remember this map. From the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, only CA does not readily issue CCWs.

http://www.nraila.org/images/rtcmaplg.jpg

alphazebrafoxtrot
02-25-2009, 10:50 AM
This map would make a great pro AB357 t-shirt/bumper sticker/etc.

I'm especially liking Alaska and Vermont.:thumbsup:

I also found some info on non-reident ccw if anyone is interested.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/NonResidentPermits.pdf

http://www.personaldefensesolutions.net/ccw/CCW01.html

anony mouse
02-25-2009, 10:53 AM
I'm especially liking Alaska and Vermont.:thumbsup:

Vermont makes it harder in some states to get a out of state CCW though, because they do not have one of their own any state that has a "must have home state CCW" as a requirement is out. Granted this is not the bulk of the states, but it is some of them.

Vermont also has Killington (afaik they never left and went to NH, there was a measure at one point to no longer be part of VT) which has great skiing on 6 mountains :)

PatriotnMore
02-25-2009, 10:54 AM
Here is what I sent to my representative.

Dear Mr. Silva,
Please support, and help AB 357 (shall issue)to pass and become law, making CCW available to law abiding citizens who choose to carry.

For too long this State has been "May Issue", and law abiding citizens have been denied the right to bear arms, and be provided a meaningful form of self defense. The critics cry of mass shootings, and gun violence, if the citizenery were allowed to carry, have proved to be nothing more than Fear mongering, from those who are working overtime to dis-arm America, and destroy the Constitution.

There are plenty of facts, and fact finding reports that support "Shall Issue" CCW.

Thank you,

xxxx xxxx

alphazebrafoxtrot
02-25-2009, 11:02 AM
Vermont makes it harder in some states to get a out of state CCW though, because they do not have one of their own any state that has a "must have home state CCW" as a requirement is out. Granted this is not the bulk of the states, but it is some of them.


This does create a problem, but the lack of government control in the issue is probably worth it. The fact that Vermont trusts it's citizens makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

vrand
02-25-2009, 11:13 AM
Here is what I sent to my representative.

Dear Mr. Silva,
Please support, and help AB 357 (shall issue)to pass and become law, making CCW available to law abiding citizens who choose to carry.

For too long this State has been "May Issue", and law abiding citizens have been denied the right to bear arms, and be provided a meaningful form of self defense. The critics cry of mass shootings, and gun violence, if the citizenery were allowed to carry, have proved to be nothing more than Fear mongering, from those who are working overtime to dis-arm America, and destroy the Constitution.

There are plenty of facts, and fact finding reports that support "Shall Issue" CCW.

Thank you,

xxxx xxxx

:thumbsup:

Can'thavenuthingood
02-25-2009, 11:52 AM
See? Its working already:D

Keep pushing.

Vick

383green
02-25-2009, 12:26 PM
This map would make a great pro AB357 t-shirt/bumper sticker/etc.

I'd suggest changing the colors around so that shall-issue states are green, and California is red. I think that would have a better subconscious impact.

bulgron
02-25-2009, 12:29 PM
I'd suggest changing the colors around so that shall-issue states are green, and California is red. I think that would have a better subconscious impact.

Make the shall-issue states blue, and California red. That'll REALLY get people's attention.

N6ATF
02-25-2009, 12:37 PM
Too Democrat vs. Republican confusing.

hoffmang
02-25-2009, 12:47 PM
What "things" don't "settle" until 3/1?


The deadline for introduction of bills is the end of this month. The Leg Council's office will be deluged on Friday meaning that we really will not be able to see all the introduced bills until later in the week next week. Once we see what all is introduced and by whom we can start to get a feel for what is going on.

I know details about what to support and not support are waiting for the great bill shuffle to complete initially.

Of course things start to change once the committee assignments for bills starts getting made.

-Gene

yellowfin
02-25-2009, 1:04 PM
Is the better strategy, generally speaking, to support all versions of the same bill hoping one will make it or focusing on one or two and putting everything behind it?

Foghlai
02-25-2009, 1:42 PM
Hi guys!

I contacted my district's assembly member, Chuck DeVore. I received a preliminary response from his office that although he has not read the bill yet, he supports the idea behind it. :D I let him know I was a registered Democrat and that I absolutely supported this bill and that I would be supportive of anyone who helped this bill get passed. He said he would be in contact after reading the bill.

Erik

Paladin
02-25-2009, 3:27 PM
The deadline for introduction of bills is the end of this month. The Leg Council's office will be deluged on Friday meaning that we really will not be able to see all the introduced bills until later in the week next week. Once we see what all is introduced and by whom we can start to get a feel for what is going on.

I know details about what to support and not support are waiting for the great bill shuffle to complete initially.

Of course things start to change once the committee assignments for bills starts getting made.

-Gene
Thanks, Gene. That's what I assumed. But I prefer not to assume when I don't have to.

Please make sure "the Right People" remember to also make CCW application/permit information private (i.e., not subject to PRARs) once we get "Shall Issue."

Thanks again!

vrand
02-25-2009, 7:06 PM
Hi guys!

I contacted my district's assembly member, Chuck DeVore. I received a preliminary response from his office that although he has not read the bill yet, he supports the idea behind it. :D I let him know I was a registered Democrat and that I absolutely supported this bill and that I would be supportive of anyone who helped this bill get passed. He said he would be in contact after reading the bill.

Erik

:thumbsup:

wildhawker
02-25-2009, 7:15 PM
http://www.nraila.org/images/rtcmaplg.jpg

This map would make a great pro AB357 t-shirt/bumper sticker/etc.

I'm with you- how about a PDF/flyer with "You have a right to protect yourself... just not in California."

Decoligny
02-25-2009, 7:20 PM
This does create a problem, but the lack of government control in the issue is probably worth it. The fact that Vermont trusts it's citizens makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Alaska has that problem taken care of. You don't have to have a license to conceal, but if you want one for the "reciprocity" factor, they will gladly issue you one for a small fee.

Paladin
02-25-2009, 7:42 PM
I'm with you- how about a PDF/flyer with "You have a right to protect yourself... just not in California."
For anyone looking for some ideas on how to advance our cause, this is the hyperlink in my sig line to "16 things YOU CAN DO":
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=842416#post842416

Regulus
02-25-2009, 7:44 PM
Hi guys!

I contacted my district's assembly member, Chuck DeVore. I received a preliminary response from his office that although he has not read the bill yet, he supports the idea behind it. :D I let him know I was a registered Democrat and that I absolutely supported this bill and that I would be supportive of anyone who helped this bill get passed. He said he would be in contact after reading the bill.

Erik

While not a Democra*, I followed your lead and wrote Chuck DeVore in support of this bill.

383green
02-25-2009, 8:40 PM
Here's how I would color that Right To Carry map for flyer, bumper sticker, T-shirt, etc. purposes:

http://www.nf6x.net/tmp/RightToCarry.png


This is just something I whipped together quickly after remembering that one of my drawing programs includes a US map template. I could add a title, legend, etc., but I just wanted to pop out a quick proof-of-concept for now.

I lumped together the non-right-to-carry states in red and the right-to-carry states in green without breaking down the sub-categories, based on the classifications in the map posted previously. I haven't done any research at all to verify that I got this stuff right. Your mileage may vary, offer void where prohibited, and so forth. ;)

Can'thavenuthingood
02-25-2009, 8:47 PM
CCW
"The Greening of America"


Vick

Can'thavenuthingood
02-25-2009, 8:49 PM
By the way, I contacted my Assemblyman, Danny Gilmore and requested he support AB 357.

Vick

CCWFacts
02-25-2009, 9:00 PM
Here's how I would color that Right To Carry map for flyer, bumper sticker, T-shirt, etc. purposes:

Great!

I lumped together the non-right-to-carry states in red and the right-to-carry states in green without breaking down the sub-categories, based on the classifications in the map posted previously.

It's best to simplify the data somewhat and present it as you have done. It looks great! I'm going to include that in my future letters to my reps and so on.

If you wanted to present it in a different way, you could even break down the different counties in California, and show that the "red" (right denied) areas of this state are not even that big (although they are population centers, obviously).

383green
02-25-2009, 9:05 PM
It's best to simplify the data somewhat and present it as you have done. It looks great! I'm going to include that in my future letters to my reps and so on.

Right, I figure that the "original" map is better for conveying details, while the simplified version may be better for conveying how backwards states like CA are without bogging the casual viewer down with too much information.

Does the map need anything else like a title, legend, etc. that I might be able to slap on quickly and easily?


If you wanted to present it in a different way, you could even break down the different counties in California, and show that the "red" (right denied) areas of this state are not even that big (although they are population centers, obviously).

Oooh, I'll need to leave that task to somebody else. My drawing program doesn't include a county-level template, and I don't have any actual artistic skill! :)

N6ATF
02-25-2009, 9:15 PM
I'm with you- how about a PDF/flyer with "You have a right to protect yourself... just not in California before you get shot/stabbed/beaten half to death before you can get your weapon ready."

Fixed. The color red on these maps should be blood red for all the innocent blood that is spilled due to the Constitution being infringed by CA.gov.

alphazebrafoxtrot
02-25-2009, 9:16 PM
Alaska has that problem taken care of. You don't have to have a license to conceal, but if you want one for the "reciprocity" factor, they will gladly issue you one for a small fee.
Alaskans ROCK! Sarah Palin is running in '12, right?
Here's how I would color that Right To Carry map for flyer, bumper sticker, T-shirt, etc. purposes:

http://www.nf6x.net/tmp/RightToCarry.png


This is just something I whipped together quickly after remembering that one of my drawing programs includes a US map template. I could add a title, legend, etc., but I just wanted to pop out a quick proof-of-concept for now.

I lumped together the non-right-to-carry states in red and the right-to-carry states in green without breaking down the sub-categories, based on the classifications in the map posted previously. I haven't done any research at all to verify that I got this stuff right. Your mileage may vary, offer void where prohibited, and so forth. ;)

Looks like something Santa Clause came up with.:thumbsup: I like it.

Paladin
02-25-2009, 9:49 PM
Right, I figure that the "original" map is better for conveying details, while the simplified version may be better for conveying how backwards states like CA are without bogging the casual viewer down with too much information.

Does the map need anything else like a title, legend, etc. that I might be able to slap on quickly and easily?You need to make a correction: Rhode Island should be "red" too. It is the little square state east of CT and south of MA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rhode_Island_population_map.png
While it is easy to overlook, their two Senators' votes carry as much weight as Feinstein's and Boxer's.

Yes, a title is needed. Something like, "Only 10 states don't allow all law-abiding citizens the right to carry a handgun for self-defense. Join the fight to take CA to 'Shall Issue.' Join CalGuns.Net"

Or, "Fight for the Right to Bear Arms for Self-Defense in CA. Join CalGuns.Net"

The shorter and the simpler the easier to remember.

I'll post any better versions I think of on this thread.

Since you created it, you've got the copyright. You might see if Vick would be interested in offering it printed on some bumper stickers or T-shirts.

ETA: If you are using this to promote CGN (vs just AB 357), you should get permission from Kestryll since, IIRC, he owns CGN.

Bob Ragen
02-25-2009, 10:01 PM
Just wrote a thank you letter to Assmblymen Knight and another to Assemblymen Gaines, from my district, to fully support AB357. Putting both in the mail tomorrow morning.

383green
02-25-2009, 10:07 PM
Thanks for catching my mistake! Rhode Island is easy to miss. Please let me know if you find any other errors.

Here's a new version. It's just a draft... I can change the wording, font, etc.

Regarding the copyright, I'll happily put this all in the public domain. I can also share the original "source" file, but there probably aren't many folks here who could use it. I'm using OmniGraffle on my Mac.

http://www.nf6x.net/tmp/RightToCarry2.png

Paladin
02-25-2009, 10:45 PM
Thanks for catching my mistake! Rhode Island is easy to miss. Please let me know if you find any other errors.

Here's a new version. It's just a draft... I can change the wording, font, etc.

Regarding the copyright, I'll happily put this all in the public domain. I can also share the original "source" file, but there probably aren't many folks here who could use it. I'm using OmniGraffle on my Mac.I'd capitalize the "n" in ".Net" since the forum is usually referred to as CGN.

I wouldn't necessarily make it public domain since Vick (or whoever) might not be willing to produce them if anyone else could "rip him off."

If, per the edit to my earlier post, you contact Kestryll and he gives his approval, and you go w/Vick, you might negotiate something where (some/all?) profits are donated to CGN and/or CalGuns Foundation. I'm sure some attorneys here might be able to help set this up correctly, perhaps even pro bono to help the cause. I suggest contacting both Kestryll and the CGF folks first to discuss all this.

Oh, and don't forget to contact Vick! :D

ETA: The "Vick" I'm referring to is the one who made post #241 above. Ck out his stuff at: http://www.gunsr4.us/

383green
02-25-2009, 10:49 PM
Why don't I make CALGUNS.NET all-caps, and mimic the font used here on the web site at the top of the page? Hang on...


Oh, and I don't know Vick. Is he reading this thread? If so, HEY, VICK! :)

383green
02-25-2009, 11:01 PM
Here's an updated version. "calguns.net" now mimics the font used above on this web page.

Vick, if you're reading this: Are you interested in using this graphic? If so, are there any changes that you would like to see? I can add or remove drop-shadows, change fonts, add boxes around things, change colors, change wording, etc. I'm not looking to make money off of this, by the way.

Kes: Is it OK to mention CGN like this? If not, I can strike the last line from the image (including the older versions I posted previously).

http://www.nf6x.net/tmp/RightToCarry3.png