PDA

View Full Version : CRPA stand on AB 357?


Can'thavenuthingood
02-24-2009, 8:20 PM
Mr. Weller
This morning I got in on the AB 357 thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=156746) and I'm thinking we ought to encourage and help Mr. Knight with this Bill.

In the thread there has been a few naysayers and it won't get out of committee. A number of Calgunners think we ought to do all we can and push hard regardless of other gun organizations.

Has the CRPA looked at this AB357 yet and made a determination as far as what action to take?

Thanks,

Vick

wildhawker
02-25-2009, 11:26 AM
Keeping this alive- CRPA members and officers, your thoughts?

This is a fantastic issue for which to rally the troops, wouldn't you think?

Can'thavenuthingood
02-25-2009, 12:02 PM
We are rally'ed, I was just wondering if they were coming with us.

Vick

hoffmang
02-25-2009, 12:54 PM
I'm on the leg policy committee as of the time after their last meeting. They can't take a stand on it yet because the sorting of the bills isn't done yet. I do know that CRPA plans to support a package of CCW reforms.

Purely speculating as myself I expect the answer is that they're not opposed and will likely support once everyone figures out which bill/arrow the wood should be put behind.

-Gene

Can'thavenuthingood
02-25-2009, 6:44 PM
Okay, Thanks Gene.

Vick

Mstrty
02-26-2009, 9:19 PM
I do know that CRPA plans to support a package of CCW reforms.

-Gene

What the ... CRPA doesnt know if it will back AB357.... Im at a loss... Im new to CRPA and guess I dont understand the politics of advocacy..

wildhawker
02-26-2009, 11:19 PM
What the ... CRPA doesnt know if it will back AB357.... Im at a loss... Im new to CRPA and guess I dont understand the politics of advocacy..

I think Gene's point was that although CRPA has not yet officially gotten behind AB 357, once they have had a chance to review the field they will decide the slate of bills to support and oppose based on current strategy and the big picture. In other words, hang tight for the official position statement but nothing in AB 357 currently strikes them as bad policy ("...not opposed...will likely support...").

Mstrty
02-27-2009, 9:49 AM
I guess I am a shoot from the hip kinda guy. I will sit back and let the powers that be evaluate the bill.:)

7x57
02-27-2009, 10:09 AM
What the ... CRPA doesnt know if it will back AB357.... Im at a loss... Im new to CRPA and guess I dont understand the politics of advocacy..

What if there is another CCW bill in the pipe that looks better overall? What if after some consideration AB357 looks like a sure loser, however nice it might be if it wins, and putting effort behind it would use up resources that could be put behind another bill that has a chance? And it seems unlikely, but what if one of the Right People points out a serious unintended consequence of the bill?

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Give the realpolitik strategists a chance to try to figure out not only what is good and what is possible, but what offers the best chance of overall improvement and what doesn't involve any unacceptable dangers. Remember, pro-gunners "shooting from the hip" has often gotten us in more legal trouble than the anti-gunners. We have extremely good legal advice now, unlike the case with most of the bad legal precedents we labor under. Let's give them time to look at the final slate of bills and give us expert advice, and then let the board weigh the benefits and consequences against the money available.

It's a marathon, not a sprint. I want to win later, not feel good now.

7x57

Mstrty
02-27-2009, 10:23 PM
What if there is another CCW bill in the pipe that looks better overall? What if after some consideration AB357 looks like a sure loser, however nice it might be if it wins, and putting effort behind it would use up resources that could be put behind another bill that has a chance? And it seems unlikely, but what if one of the Right People points out a serious unintended consequence of the bill?

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Give the realpolitik strategists a chance to try to figure out not only what is good and what is possible, but what offers the best chance of overall improvement and what doesn't involve any unacceptable dangers. Remember, pro-gunners "shooting from the hip" has often gotten us in more legal trouble than the anti-gunners. We have extremely good legal advice now, unlike the case with most of the bad legal precedents we labor under. Let's give them time to look at the final slate of bills and give us expert advice, and then let the board weigh the benefits and consequences against the money available.

It's a marathon, not a sprint. I want to win later, not feel good now.

7x57
Well put. I guess I let my emotions run amuck when I hear of an opportunity to be a "shall issue" state I want to hark hallelujah. With the mere thought that CRPA might bach at an opportunity to endorse AB357 was simply my ignorant rush to judgment. :o

hoffmang
02-27-2009, 10:38 PM
What I know I can say is that CRPA is very much for shall issue CCW.

-Gene

rweller
02-28-2009, 12:29 PM
Mr. Weller
This morning I got in on the AB 357 thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=156746) and I'm thinking we ought to encourage and help Mr. Knight with this Bill.

In the thread there has been a few naysayers and it won't get out of committee. A number of Calgunners think we ought to do all we can and push hard regardless of other gun organizations.

Has the CRPA looked at this AB357 yet and made a determination as far as what action to take?

Thanks,

Vick

Vick,

The CRPA position on this bill is that we support it based on our review of it during the legislative session of our last board meeting. I'm going from memory, but as I understand the bill as it was written a couple of weeks ago, it will require local law enforcement to issue a CCW when good cause exists. Now, they don't have to issue a CCW regardless of your reason. And, even if the bill passes, some question exists as to whether they will anyway. This we do know. There are counties in California where NO CCW has been issued. That's unacceptable.

Can'thavenuthingood
02-28-2009, 9:56 PM
Vick,

The CRPA position on this bill is that we support it based on our review of it during the legislative session of our last board meeting. I'm going from memory, but as I understand the bill as it was written a couple of weeks ago, it will require local law enforcement to issue a CCW when good cause exists. Now, they don't have to issue a CCW regardless of your reason. And, even if the bill passes, some question exists as to whether they will anyway. This we do know. There are counties in California where NO CCW has been issued. That's unacceptable.

Regarding the question of whether they will or not issue if the Bill passes, this is not a valid reason for non support. In fact the statement implies more of what we have been getting through the years up to now.

Even if the Bill passes it will still be a step forward as well as a legal avenue to enforcement. If someone is denied under Shall Issue there has to be a good reason. Inaction by the Sheriff could also be cause for legal action by the individual making the request.

As far as counties where no CCW's have been issued, it seems a moot point in the current context. The counties are complying IAW the law as written, in the final analysis, its their choice. We must repair this where they have no choice but to issue or present the requester with a damn good reason for non issuance or face consequences.

Right now they ride in the gray lane.

Vick

Flintlock Tom
03-06-2009, 10:33 AM
Vick,

The CRPA position on this bill is that we support it based on our review of it during the legislative session of our last board meeting. I'm going from memory, but as I understand the bill as it was written a couple of weeks ago, it will require local law enforcement to issue a CCW when good cause exists. Now, they don't have to issue a CCW regardless of your reason. And, even if the bill passes, some question exists as to whether they will anyway. This we do know. There are counties in California where NO CCW has been issued. That's unacceptable.

I believe you're mistaken about this. AB 357 would completely remove the "good cause" issue completely.

Mstrty
03-06-2009, 10:07 PM
I believe you're mistaken about this. AB 357 would completely remove the "good cause" issue completely.

Thats what I thought when I originally questioned why CRPA was unsure if it would "back it"


What the ... CRPA doesnt know if it will back AB357.... Im at a loss... Im new to CRPA and guess I dont understand...

I'm on the leg policy committee as of the time after their last meeting. They can't take a stand on it yet because the sorting of the bills isn't done yet. I do know that CRPA plans to support a package of CCW reforms.

-Gene

wildhawker
03-07-2009, 12:08 AM
Vick,

The CRPA position on this bill is that we support it based on our review of it during the legislative session of our last board meeting. I'm going from memory, but as I understand the bill as it was written a couple of weeks ago, it will require local law enforcement to issue a CCW when good cause exists. Now, they don't have to issue a CCW regardless of your reason. And, even if the bill passes, some question exists as to whether they will anyway. This we do know. There are counties in California where NO CCW has been issued. That's unacceptable.

Thank you for your response; while it seems premature to ask for a complete legislative agenda, I for one anxiously await the opportunity to review the CRPA's goals and supported bills for 2009.

While some here were probably hoping for a little more substantive commentary on AB 357, it seems safe to assume that the many changes taking shape within CRPA are consuming quite a bit of the attention of its leaders. I applaud the CRPA for its efforts and am optomistic as to what can be achieved with this new tact, within and without.

AB 357 (and shall issue carry) appears to be one of the issues of great import to those responders in this thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=159887). As I'm sure will be the case, it would be worthwhile for the the Board to familiarize itself with the language and intent of this bill as well as its significance to the CRPA membership and citizens of California at large.

rweller
03-07-2009, 4:47 PM
(B) 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 resident of that city and has
completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may
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:

The above is taken from AB352 as it exists today. Even though one part is changed to "shall issue", for residents of counties where the Sheriff issues CCWs, the above is still in the bill. The current law allows cities to issue CCW licenses if they so desire, trumping the county. Most cities allow the Sheriff to handle it. But where cities control CCW issuance, a Sheriff cannot issue a CCW to a resident of that city where the city has taken control of issuing CCWs.

If this bill goes through, I can tell you now, most major cities will assume control of issuing CCWs in their community relegating the majority of the population back to the same law that currently exists. If this bill passes, county residents will get shall-issue CCWs and city dwellers will not, most notably LA, Sacramento, San Diego. Name the major cities and I guarantee you they will take control of the process removing it from the county Sheriff.

As to whether CRPA supports this bill as written, of course we do. Why would we not want a shall-issue in counties at least? There is no debate within CRPA as to whether we should support this bill as it is written today. If it changes dramatically, then it will be reviewed.

Ralph Weller
CRPA Board
Editor: GunNewsDaily.com

BTW - Assemblyman Knight has been a staunch supporter of CRPA and NRA in Sacramento for years while he was in the Senate. He's one of the very few to take a position of being very pro-Second Amendment. Not a little, but a lot. This bill is intended to whittle down the onerous discretionary issue law in this state. In some rural counties, where you would expect residents to be able to carry a concealed firearm for their protection, they can't get one. That's just ridiculous, though one might make an argument that there is more of a need in our major cities than counties.

GuyW
03-07-2009, 5:01 PM
But where cities control CCW issuance, a Sheriff cannot issue a CCW to a resident of that city where the city has taken control of issuing CCWs.


Not true.




.

rweller
03-07-2009, 5:08 PM
Absolutely 100% false.




.

Let me rephrase my statement. If the city so decides that they shall issue CCW permits, a Sheriff cannot continue to issue CCW permits to a city resident unless the city agrees. The Sheriff by default according to state law has the authority to issue CCW permits to residents within a county unless a city within that county decides they wish to take control of it. That's a fact. Now, if a city wants to take control and still allow the county sheriff to issue CCWs to city residents, that's their decision. And, is some more rural areas that may be the case. But the reason a city would want control is to prevent CCWs from being issued by the county, not to augment the county. Why bother otherwise?

GuyW
03-07-2009, 5:14 PM
Let me rephrase my statement. If the city so decides that they shall issue CCW permits, a Sheriff cannot continue to issue CCW permits to a city resident unless the city agrees. The Sheriff by default according to state law has the authority to issue CCW permits to residents within a county unless a city within that county decides they wish to take control of it. That's a fact. Now, if a city wants to take control and still allow the county sheriff to issue CCWs to city residents, that's their decision. And, is some more rural areas that may be the case. But the reason a city would want control is to prevent CCWs from being issued by the county, not to augment the county. Why bother otherwise?


That is contrary to PC 12050.

The Sheriff by default according to state law has the authority to issue CCW permits to residents within a county unless a city within that county decides they wish to take control of it. That's a fact.

Where is that in the law...

.

rweller
03-07-2009, 5:27 PM
Here's the state law:

(B) 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 resident of that city and has
completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may
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:

(g) Nothing in this article shall preclude the chief or other head
of a municipal police department of any city from entering an
agreement with the sheriff of the county in which the city is located
for the sheriff to process all applications for licenses, renewals
of licenses, and amendments to licenses, pursuant to this article.

I think the city trumps the county unless they agree otherwise. Tell me where I'm wrong, or do you have a function key that publishes your answers.

Ralph

rweller
03-07-2009, 5:32 PM
Let me add more from AB352, which is the modified code of the current law.

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 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.
(B) 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 resident of that city and has
completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may
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:

A city has a right to issue a CCW. However, the law was written for County Sheriffs as a guideline as to issuing CCW. It never gave full authority for a Sheriff to issue a CCW to every resident within a county. The law is written per my previous post that if the city so decides to give the Sheriff the authority to issue CCWs to city residents they can. But, that does not give the county Sheriff the right to issue a CCW to a city dweller if the city has control of CCW issuance, unless they have an agreement per state law.

Again, I will say that in some of the more rural counties that may be understood as an agreement that the county can issue a CCW to a city resident where the city has control over CCW issuance.

I don't know how much clearer I can make this. Now, whether a county sheriff abides by the law is another issue. Maybe they don't in some cases, but that doesn't surprise me as it seems everyone at the city, county and state think that laws are written for everyone else except them.

Ralph

GuyW
03-07-2009, 5:53 PM
Here's the state law:...

I think the city trumps the county unless they agree otherwise. Tell me where I'm wrong, or do you have a function key that publishes your answers.

Ralph

Here's the RELEVANT state law:

PC 12050 "(a) (1) (D) For the purpose of subparagraph (A), the applicant shall satisfy any one of the following:
(i) Is a resident of the county or a city within the county.
(ii) Spends a substantial period of time in the applicant's principal place of employment or business in the county or a city within the county."

A careful reader will note that Subparagraph A is the Sheriff's authorization to issue CCWs...to residents of the UNINCORPORATED county areas and TO city residents within that county. Other than political chicanery behind closed doors, the City has nothing to say about it.
.

GuyW
03-07-2009, 5:56 PM
A city has a right to issue a CCW. However, the law was written for County Sheriffs as a guideline as to issuing CCW. It never gave full authority for a Sheriff to issue a CCW to every resident within a county. The law is written per my previous post that if the city so decides to give the Sheriff the authority to issue CCWs to city residents they can. But, that does not give the county Sheriff the right to issue a CCW to a city dweller if the city has control of CCW issuance, unless they have an agreement per state law.

I don't know how much clearer I can make this. Now, whether a county sheriff abides by the law is another issue. Maybe they don't in some cases, but that doesn't surprise me as it seems everyone at the city, county and state think that laws are written for everyone else except them.
Ralph

No....

.

rweller
03-07-2009, 7:04 PM
GuyW,

Then we agree to disagree. However, based on 12050 as quoted below, if a city decides to maintain control of it, and they choose to use may-issue as it will remain in the new law, if it becomes law, then the county cannot issue a valid CCW to a resident of that city unless the city agrees to allow the county to take such action. If the city doesn't allow shall-issue, they will take the county to court to stop it if the county issues them, assuming the city is run by liberals that do not agree with CCWs. And, they will probably win their case. That's my take on it, but obviously we disagree vehemently on the issue. So, I will say that you are 100% wrong and acknowledge we aren't going to agree on anything regarding this issue.

(g) Nothing in this article shall preclude the chief or other head
of a municipal police department of any city from entering an
agreement with the sheriff of the county in which the city is located
for the sheriff to process all applications for licenses, renewals
of licenses, and amendments to licenses, pursuant to this article.

GuyW
03-07-2009, 7:22 PM
Pfft - you just insist on ignoring the plain statement in the law.

Are you a member of the CRPA Legislative Committee?



....So, I will say that you are 100% wrong and acknowledge we aren't going to agree on anything regarding this issue.


Yeah....

CRPA Life, BTW...
.

rweller
03-07-2009, 7:41 PM
Pfft - you just insist on ignoring the plain statement in the law.

Are you a member of the CRPA Legislative Committee?

I'm done here.

CRPA Life, BTW...
.

Guy,

I'm not ignoring the plain statement of the law. I'm only reading the proposed law. The proposed law changes the law from discretionary to shall-issue for sheriffs. But the law also retains discretionary-issue (may-issue) for a municipality. Most cities and towns in California allow the county to issue CCWs using the current discretionary-issue law. For example, the city of San Diego does not issue CCW permits. It allows the county Sheriff to handle it. If the law passes, I would submit the city will assume control for city residents if they don't want shall-issue permits issued to city residents. It is the city's right the way the law is written. The sheriff I suppose can continue to issue CCWs to city residents, but I doubt seriously the city will sit still and not do anything about it.

The paragraph you quoted refers only to section A referring to sheriffs issuing CCW permits.

I guess the area we disagree is whether the Sheriff can issue a CCW permit to a city resident where the city controls issuance of CCW permits to its residents. I suppose they can, but that's not what the intent of the law says.

Just wanted to add something. How long have you been a life member? Have you been on the board?

Ralph

GuyW
03-07-2009, 7:58 PM
Just wanted to add something. How long have you been a life member? Have you been on the board?


Oh, about the same 30+ years that I've been a NRA Lifer. Nope, haven't been on the board - does that detract from my factual argument?


I'm not ignoring the plain statement of the law. I'm only reading the proposed law.

And I'll have to go read that, I should have already. However, I know the current 12050 quite well, and have discussed it at length with more than one attorney.


For example, the city of San Diego does not issue CCW permits.


Would you be surprised to learn that the City reported to CA DOJ that its issued 2 permits?

I'm not ignoring the plain statement of the law.....

....The paragraph you quoted refers only to section A referring to sheriffs issuing CCW permits.


Yes, you ignore that section while continuing to assert a story that has no basis in law.

I guess the area we disagree is whether the Sheriff can issue a CCW permit to a city resident where the city controls issuance of CCW permits to its residents. I suppose they can, but that's not what the intent of the law says.


And where did you find this nebulous intent? Is it stated in the legislative history for 12050 or expressed in the text?
.

rweller
03-07-2009, 8:23 PM
Wow, lot of stuff.

1. No, being on the board doesn't detract from your viewpoint. Being a CRPA and NRA member for 30 plus years is commendable.

2. When reading the proposed law, please note that they do not change the discretionary-issue part of the law for munis, only sheriffs. The fact that the legislature clearly spelled out sheriffs and municipal police separately in the law should be some hint that they expect differences between county and cities.

3. The City of San Diego does not issue CCW permits to citizens. They defer to the Sheriff's office to issue CCWs for city residents. No, it doesn't surprise me that they issued two permits. They have every right to issue or not issue. But they will not issue one to a regular city resident. City residents are referred to the Sheriff's department. I doubt the city will tell us the circumstances of the two issued, unless you know something about them.

4. I'm only reading the proposed law as it is intended to be. Two standards, one for county sheriffs and one for municipalities.

5. Again, the proposed law has two distinct types of permits. One issued by a city and one issued by a county sheriff. By definition the proposed law sets up two types of CCW permits. Shall-issue by county sheriffs and discretionary issue by cities. Do you think for one minute a liberal city in a conservative county will allow shall-issue permits for city residents? Not a chance Guy. I'm surprised you would think otherwise. This is California, not Arizona or Florida.

Ralph

Kestryll
03-09-2009, 8:18 PM
GuyW, I don't know what your agenda is other then stirring up crap, an agenda i saw in the 2A forum and now here.
Frankly I don't care.

You asked for info, were given it and even the relevant laws were quoted but you insist on telling people they are wrong in the face of evidence.
And doing so like a putz I might add.

Here's a hint.
Knock it off or leave.
if you can not learn to express your points and views without being a jerk don't bother posting.

I'm not asking for your input nor am I opening this to negotiation.
I am telling you and you will respond. Is this clear.

GuyW
03-09-2009, 8:57 PM
You asked for info, were given it and even the relevant laws were quoted but you insist on telling people they are wrong in the face of evidence.

And I posted contrary "evidence" from the PC, which I thought (apparently incorrectly) was clearly more pursuasive, in an exchange with _one_ person.

I did that because the offered explanation is a position I've never heard in several years of CCW inquiry, so it seemed important. I was looking for feedback from others to reevaluate my position (as necessary).


....but you insist on telling people they are wrong in the face of evidence.
And doing so like a putz I might add.


I'm not quite clear on what a putz "is" exactly, but its clearly not good.

Worse, it apparently means I don't make my points in a pursuasive manner, and/or I p#$% people off before they even consider my viewpoint.


If you can not learn to express your points and views without being a jerk don't bother posting.


I'm going to ratchet it back, and observe. Do you have a particular Calgunner for me as an example of acceptable but spirited debate?

GuyW, I don't know what your agenda is other then stirring up crap, an agenda i saw in the 2A forum and now here.

Other than a pro-gun viewpoint, I have no agenda here.


I'm not asking for your input nor am I opening this to negotiation.
I am telling you and you will respond. Is this clear.

I have responded, yes?
.

Kestryll
03-09-2009, 9:42 PM
You asked for info, were given it and even the relevant laws were quoted but you insist on telling people they are wrong in the face of evidence.

And I posted contrary "evidence" from the PC, which I thought (apparently incorrectly) was clearly more pursuasive, in an exchange with _one_ person.

I did that because the offered explanation is a position I've never heard in several years of CCW inquiry, so it seemed important. I was looking for feedback from others to reevaluate my position (as necessary).
Reread your posts.
Tell me if they sound like discussing the issue or dismissing the poster flippantly with comments like this:
'Wrong!'
'Wrong again!'
etc.
You're not trying to present facts nor are you addressing his.
You are summarily dismissing him and posting as infallible.


....but you insist on telling people they are wrong in the face of evidence.
And doing so like a putz I might add.


I'm not quite clear on what a putz "is" exactly, but its clearly not good.

Worse, it apparently means I don't make my points in a pursuasive manner, and/or I p#$% people off before they even consider my viewpoint.
It means you come off as very offensive and antagonistic.
You are not going to be persuasive when you post in a manner that does not foster discussion but arguing.


If you can not learn to express your points and views without being a jerk don't bother posting.


I'm going to ratchet it back, and observe. Do you have a particular Calgunner for me as an example of acceptable but spirited debate?
If you really must have an example check out Librarian's postings.
He's more often then not calm, civil and informative without being abrasive.

GuyW, I don't know what your agenda is other then stirring up crap, an agenda i saw in the 2A forum and now here.

Other than a pro-gun viewpoint, I have no agenda here.
Based on history you look to have a penchant for pot stirring.
While this just may be your inherent manner of discussion it does lend itself to questions.


I'm not asking for your input nor am I opening this to negotiation.
I am telling you and you will respond. Is this clear.

I have responded, yes?

Yes you have, hopefully it will end up being a beneficial interlude for all.

rweller
03-10-2009, 7:15 PM
Gosh, I didn't mean to raise a problem here. I wasn't upset about his questioning. Frankly, Guy raised some good points to his position when I finally got something out of him.

Ralph

Mstrty
03-26-2009, 5:31 PM
As to whether CRPA supports this bill as written, of course we do. Why would we not want a shall-issue in counties at least? There is no debate within CRPA as to whether we should support this bill as it is written today. If it changes dramatically, then it will be reviewed.



Glad to hear this. I was worried.