AB 357 In Public Saftey Committee

[sfpcservice]

Got the email this morning that AB 357 has been refered to the Public Saftey Committee. Below are the members and their addresses/fax numbers to send letters to:

Jose Solorio - Chair, Anaheim CA

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0069
Tel: (916) 319-2069
Fax: (916) 319-2169

Curt Hagman - Vice Chair, Diamond Bar CA

CAPITOL OFFICE
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-319-2060, 916-319-2160 fax

Warren T. Furutani, Long Beach CA

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0055
(916) 319-2055
(916) 319-2155 Fax

Danny D. Gilmore, Hanford CA

CAPITOL OFFICE
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-319-2030, 916-319-2130 fax

Jerry Hill, San Mateo CA

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0019
Tel: (916) 319-2019
Fax: (916) 319-2119

Fiona Ma, San Francisco CA

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0012
Tel: (916) 319-2012
Fax: (916) 319-2112

Nancy Skinner, Oakland CA

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0014
Tel: (916) 319-2014
Fax: (916) 319-2114

[chrisdesoup]

I will make my calls today at lunch! Thanks for the list.

[zer0bot]

Curt Hagman sent me a letter in response to me contacting him that he fully supports the bill and will do everything he can to spread the good word.

[eflatminor]

I've already sent them letters...can't hurt to call them as well.

[Decoligny]

I just got through Faxing them all. I had already e-mailed them all. I think I will call them all later in the day.

[xxdabroxx]

What are you guys faxing them, i am not good at composing letters yet. My writing isn't too poor, i just am not great at getting a precise message out.

[Kestryll]

Anyone have a sample letter/fax for those who are not that creative?

[xxdabroxx]

If someone can get me in the ball park, i can make it my own, or even post up a template made from that. copy edit print

[bruss01]

Talking points, anyone? Don't have time for a lot of research, cliff notes would help.

[CCWFacts]

What are you guys faxing them, i am not good at composing letters yet. My writing isn't too poor, i just am not great at getting a precise message out.

All you need to say is,

Please vote yes on AB 357, the CCW reform bill.

That's it! Say more if you want, but that's all that is necessary.

[Decoligny]

To the Members of the State Safety Committee:

I highly encourage you to give your full support to the passage of Assembly Bill 357.

This bill will finally bring equal protection under the law to the citizens of California who were previously subject to the personal whims and moods of 58 separate county Sheriffs.

The requirement to show “good cause” has been grossly misused by various county Sheriffs for too many years, and the current system is flawed to the point of being useless. For 58 separate individuals to make determinations that certain citizens are more deserving of the right to defend themselves because they hold a particular job, are in a particular income range, or have donated to a re-election campaign is the height of hubris and reeks of an attitude of Aristocracy.

While I do not personally carry large sums of cash, or briefcases full of diamond jewelry, I do have irreplaceable highly valuable commodities, my life and the lives of my family and friends. To be told that a merchant’s daily deposits are more worthy of defense than the lives of my loved ones is a personal insult, a slap in the face.

Assembly Bill 357 will allow law abiding citizens the fundamental right to self defense that has thus far been denied by the State of California.

Pass this bill.

[CCWFacts]

Talking points, anyone? Don't have time for a lot of research, cliff notes would help.

Here ya go:

Please vote 'yes' on AB 357, the CCW reform bill. You should support this bill because:


It fixes a system which is broken, unfair and discriminatory
It helps California's public safety at no cost
It brings California into compliance with the rest of the country
It directly protects the safety of retired police officers


Those are the main reasons to vote for this bill which is a winner for California.

That should be plenty.

[xxdabroxx]

I, ______________, strongly urge you to support AB357.

signed,

_____________________

that doesnt seem like quite enough, but it may be all that is needed.

edit: you guys got ahead of me.

[Paladin]

To the Members of the State Safety Committee:

I highly encourage you to give your full support to the passage of Assembly Bill 357.

This bill will finally bring equal protection under the law to the citizens of California who were previously subject to the personal whims and moods of 58 separate county Sheriffs.

The requirement to show “good cause” has been grossly misused by various county Sheriffs for too many years, and the current system is flawed to the point of being useless. For 58 separate individuals to make determinations that certain citizens are more deserving of the right to defend themselves because they hold a particular job, are in a particular income range, or have donated to a re-election campaign is the height of hubris and reeks of an attitude of Aristocracy.

While I do not personally carry large sums of cash, or briefcases full of diamond jewelry, I do have irreplaceable highly valuable commodities, my life and the lives of my family and friends. To be told that a merchant’s daily deposits are more worthy of defense than the lives of my loved ones is a personal insult, a slap in the face.

Assembly Bill 357 will allow law abiding citizens the fundamental right to self defense that has thus far been denied by the State of California.

Pass this bill.

I would only add: (1) some mention that this is in re. to concealed weapons permits; (2) that hundreds of different chiefs of police also issue according to their personal whims: and (3) something saying that over the past 20 years 38 states have passed "Shall Issue" CCW laws and none of them have repealled it and none of them experienced any problem by CCW holders. Rather, they have all experienced a decrease in violent crime rates after passage.

Thumbs up!

Charge! :79:

[Can'thavenuthingood]

Since it is the Committee I'd think an expanded reasoning why to vote for AB 357 would be a good thing for their discussion. May go with the Shall Issue reasons and intent of the Bill so if this comes up in the future its known.

I had already wrote Danny Gilmore a couple times as he is my Rep for 30th District. That he is on the Safety Committee is a surprise.

Vick

[Decoligny]

Depending upon how many FAXes they get, the members themselves are highly unlikely to read any individual FAX. They will probably have a staffer seperate them into FOR and AGAINST stacks and depending upon their own views/biases may or may not be moved by the resulting numbers.

However, if they are truly undecided, a stong FOR count may indeed move them to vote for the bill.

[1BigPea]

To the Members of the State Safety Committee:

I highly encourage you to give your full support to the passage of Assembly Bill 357.

This bill will finally bring equal protection under the law to the citizens of California who were previously subject to the personal whims and moods of 58 separate county Sheriffs.

The requirement to show “good cause” has been grossly misused by various county Sheriffs for too many years, and the current system is flawed to the point of being useless. For 58 separate individuals to make determinations that certain citizens are more deserving of the right to defend themselves because they hold a particular job, are in a particular income range, or have donated to a re-election campaign is the height of hubris and reeks of an attitude of Aristocracy.

While I do not personally carry large sums of cash, or briefcases full of diamond jewelry, I do have irreplaceable highly valuable commodities, my life and the lives of my family and friends. To be told that a merchant’s daily deposits are more worthy of defense than the lives of my loved ones is a personal insult, a slap in the face.

Assembly Bill 357 will allow law abiding citizens the fundamental right to self defense that has thus far been denied by the State of California.

Pass this bill.


Great letter, I just cut and pasted into a fax and will send to all members. You just saved me tons of time while I'm here at work.

Thanks! :thumbsup:

[xxdabroxx]

sent one just like in post number 17 but added the date at the top and name and signature at the bottom. :thumbsup:

[Librarian]

It brings California into compliance with the rest of the country
Probably don't want to use 'compliance' - more like 'lets california catch up to the rest of the country'.

Longer letters are probably appropriate if the member is your representative, or if you happen to have met him/her personally.

And send a letter to the committee itself - many times the analysis lists a bunch of supporting/opposing organizations, and at the bottom of the list is "X private citizens".

Let's make X large this time.

Committee Fax (916) 319-3745

Secretary: Sue Highland.

Assembly Public Safety Committee
State Capitol
1020 N Street, Room 111
Sacramento, CA

Probably '94249' but I'm having trouble pinning that down.

Assembly rules say no action can be taken on a bill until it has been in print for 30 days (in theory, legislators would get to read them - ha!).

Public Safety meets once per week, 9 am on Tuesdays. They're supposed to be done by 4, because another committee has the room at 4.

[racer_X_123]

Here is what I wrote and Faxed all the members of the committee and my assemblywomen:

I wholeheartedly urge your full and total support for AB 357. It is time that the law abiding California Citizen be given the same RIGHT to self-defense as the politically connected and the rich. It is time that a law abiding citizen can be enabled to legally carry a concealed weapon for the protection of his/her person and his/her family without the prerequisite of owning a business, depositing large amounts of money into the bank, or into the sheriff's campaign fund. My family’s safety is worth more than any bank deposit or political contribution. California is one of the 10 states left in the United States that does not let their law abiding citizens carry concealed weapons for self defense. If the other 40 states grant their citizens this right, why should California deny it? After all, we as California citizens are always proud of the fact that California is on the cutting edge of legislation, paving the way and being a role model for other states. If it can pass cutting edge legislation for one issue, it seems that California should not block legislation that the other 80% of the other states say is ok. 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.

I think it is pretty good.

[Librarian]

Here is what I wrote and Faxed all the members of the committee and my assemblywomen:

I wholeheartedly urge your full and total support for AB 357. [P] It is time that the law abiding California Citizen be given the same RIGHT to self-defense as the politically connected and the rich. It is time that a law abiding citizen can be enabled to legally carry a concealed weapon for the protection of his/her person and his/her family without the prerequisite of owning a business, depositing large amounts of money into the bank, or into the sheriff's campaign fund. My family’s safety is worth more than any bank deposit or political contribution.[P] California is one of the 10 states left in the United States that does not let their law abiding citizens carry concealed weapons for self defense. If the other 40 states grant their citizens this right, why should California deny it? After all, we as California citizens are always proud of the fact that California is on the cutting edge of legislation, paving the way and being a role model for other states. If it can pass cutting edge legislation for one issue, it seems that California should not block legislation that the other 80% of the other states say is ok. [P] 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.

I think it is pretty good.

I think it is, too. I hope you put in some [P] paragraph breaks, though.

The only thing left out is that the experience in every state, even California, is that CCW holders are very unlikely to commit violent crimes - far less likely than an 'average' person, since they have passed background checks, received some legal training in the use of their weapons, and have proven themselves particularly law-abiding by getting a license.

[yellowfin]

I gather Solario is no friend of ours.

[racer_X_123]

I think it is, too. I hope you put in some [P] paragraph breaks, though.

I did, it did not get copied over when i cut and paisted it.

[chris]

I gather Solario is no friend of ours.

i highly doubt he is.

[nhanson]

I agree with all that is being put forth.

Politics is " spin" and we need to spin the budget aspect.

No change in budget required and most probably, will produce more revenue for the state.......given current conditions in SAC and our POS legislature, the budget aspect may sway a few things..

[the_donald_]

Anyone know how long this will be a topic of review for the Safety Committee?

[sfpcservice]

Anyone know how long this will be a topic of review for the Safety Committee?

I was just wondering the same thing. I have no idea how to find that out though.

[the_donald_]

.....I copied a few different ideas and added my own pointsTo the Members of the State Safety Committee:

I highly encourage you to give your full support to the passage of Assembly Bill 357.

This bill will finally bring equal protection under the law to the citizens of California. Citizens who were previously subject to the personal whims and moods of fifty-eight separate county Sheriffs, and hundreds of different Chiefs of Police.

The requirement to show “good cause” has been grossly misused by various county Sheriffs for too many years, as many Chiefs of Police simply do not issue or let the Sheriffs “handle” the workload. As mostly only the Sheriffs “deal with” this workload, for fifty-eight separate individuals to make determinations that certain citizens are more deserving of the right to defend themselves because they: hold a particular job, are in a particular income range, or have donated to a re-election campaign reeks of an attitude of Aristocracy.

While I do not personally carry large sums of cash, or briefcases full of diamond jewelry, I do have irreplaceable highly valuable commodities, my life and the lives of my family and friends. To be told that a merchant’s daily deposits are more worthy of defense than the lives of my loved ones is a personal insult, a slap in the face.

Over an approximate twenty year span, thirty-eight states have passed “Shall Issue” Carrying a Concealed Weapon (CCW) laws and none of these states have repealed them or experienced a hike in crime from CCW holders. Rather, they have experienced a decrease in violent crime rates after passage. Assembly Bill 357 will allow law abiding citizens the fundamental right to self defense that has thus far been denied by the State of California.

Historically, economic crisis has resulted in increased crime rates. We are only looking at a matter of time before crime finds its way to our doorsteps. Specific to California, budget cuts to law enforcement are leaving law-abiding citizens exposed and vulnerable. Will you allow us all to be handicapped by the interpretation of the law as it stands?

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.

Your support of citizen's rights speaks volumes about your character.

Respectfully,



Insert Name Here
Ordinary Concerned Citizen
Insert County Here, CA


I'm a little long-winded at times, but I really get sick to my stomach with how CCW is handled here, especially living in Orange County.

[6172crew]

Great letter, I just cut and pasted into a fax and will send to all members. You just saved me tons of time while I'm here at work.

Thanks! :thumbsup:
Its a good letter.:thumbsup:

[KWA-S]

.....I copied a few different ideas and added my own points

I'm a little long-winded at times, but I really get sick to my stomach with how CCW is handled here, especially living in Orange County.

That's a pretty good letter. I noticed that you didn't specifically include Hutchins, but I suppose that would have made it even more long winded. I personally think long winded letters are better, because even though they are only going to read the first line ("Please vote yes on AB357"), it shows that we've put some thought and effort into it.

[glockman19]

I might also add to any correspondence that the California Constitution:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And...

That Law Enforcement has No Obligation to protect any individual. Warren v. District of Columbia.

in a time of budget deficits, terrorist threat and economic uncertianty we are obligated to protect ourselves and take as much responsibility for our own safety at a time when the system is overwhelmed. WE honest, trained and vetted citizens are just the ones you want to be able to assist law enforcement in times of need.

And remind them that they took an oath to protect and defend the state and national constitutions.

[Librarian]

Anyone know how long this will be a topic of review for the Safety Committee?

It's hard to tell.

They may hold a hearing on it, love it, and immediately vote to send it on (probably to Appropriations). :D

Now that we're done laughing at that ...

They may hate it, vote to kill it on party lines, and refuse to vote again.

They may hear testimony and delay a vote.

They may hear testimony and amend the bill and re-schedule for hearing.

They may shove it off to suspense and just let it die there without an up or down vote.

It may get hearings scheduled and canceled and postponed until the author gives up.

It may pass out of committee, and the Speaker re-appoint some more reliable Dems to Public Safety, and Appropriations will return it to Public Safety, where it will be killed. (That's happened.)

Too many variables to even guess today, except that the first one I wrote seems to me to be pretty unlikely.

[Librarian]

So, I was wondering. Do we want to create a 'bumper-sticker' or 2-second TV quote version of an argument?

The advantages would be brevity and recognition and ubiquity, if we worked on it. It'd be good for signs and email .sigs and real bumper stickers.

It would need to be easy to remember, and thoroughly overstated, and emotionally based.
"Fair play for ALL Californians!"

"My kids need to be safe!"

"When I really need a cop, I'm the one who's there!"

The Pink Pistols' motto: "Armed gays don't get bashed!"

"If it saves just one life..."

Do we have any real wordsmiths?

[Cru Jones]

I'll be sending out a flurry of faxes to the committee and all of the members tomorrow. I really hope all others on this board will do the same.

[bruss01]

Finally had time to write something. Plagarized shamelessly from another poster, added my own tweaks:

***********************************************

To the Members of the State Safety Committee:

I highly encourage you to give your full support to the passage of Assembly Bill 357.

The majority of states currently have “shall issue” concealed carry systems in place, and in every case they have benefited public safety in the state where they have been introduced. California has a concealed carry permit system that is badly broken and behind the times. It is time we fixed it. In a day and age when budget constraints mandate the layoff of parole officers and the release of prison inmates, a heightened focus on personal security is incumbent upon us all.

This bill will finally bring equal protection under the law to the citizens of California who were previously subject to the personal whims and moods of 58 separate county Sheriffs. In some cases, the right to personal protection outside one’s home has been turned into a privilege to be granted to the connected, powerful and wealthy. California can do better, and AB 357 is a big step in the right direction.

The requirement to show “good cause” has been grossly misused by various county Sheriffs for too many years, and the current system is flawed to the point of being useless. For 58 separate individuals to make determinations that certain citizens are more deserving of the right to defend themselves because they hold a particular job, are in a particular income range, or have donated to a re-election campaign is the height of hubris and reeks of an attitude of elitism. We need a system that is fair and protects all law-abiding Californians equally.

While I do not personally carry large sums of cash, or briefcases full of diamond jewelry, I do have irreplaceable highly valuable commodities, my life and the lives of my family and friends. To be told that a merchant’s daily deposits are more worthy of defense than the lives of my loved ones is a personal insult, a slap in the face.

Assembly Bill 357 will remove politics, classism and favoritism from the process of law-abiding Californians acquiring a permit to facilitate the lawful protection of themselves and their loved ones.

Please pass this bill. Thank you.

[CCWFacts]

I'll be sending out a flurry of faxes to the committee and all of the members tomorrow. I really hope all others on this board will do the same.

Don't just fax, send letters!

I called up Fiona Ma, assemblywoman of SF, and her office basically hung up on me.

I called some of the other and they said they are starting to get noticeable calls, all in favor of course.

It's great!

I hope we bury their offices in a mountain of letters, representing the outpouring of our frustration after years and years of suffering in this state.

[bruss01]

I cannot get a fax through. Anyone else having this problem?

[the_donald_]

I'll be sending out a flurry of faxes to the committee and all of the members tomorrow. I really hope all others on this board will do the same.

Your hopes are not in vain, I will be doing the same.

[Bizcuits]

I agree with all that is being put forth.

Politics is " spin" and we need to spin the budget aspect.

No change in budget required and most probably, will produce more revenue for the state.......given current conditions in SAC and our POS legislature, the budget aspect may sway a few things..

BINGO!

I couldn't agree more, I think the best sales pitch for this is the revenue. Yes we here are all gun toting 2nd Amen supporters, most of these politicians aren't and could careless about the stats of public safety. What they do care about is money.

[unusedusername]

Thanks for the phone numbers and pre-written letters. Everyone was faxed :)

[bruss01]

I could not get a fax through (probably a problem on my end) so I called, kept it short, was asked my name and city for all of them. All were polite, I basically said:

"Hi, I know you must be busy so I'll keep this short... I'm calling in support of AB 357"

"The concealed carry bill?"

"Yes, that's the one."

"Name and city?"

(gave name and city)

"Ok, then, got it. Thanks for calling"

I made eight calls in under 5 minutes. Even a cave man could do it. :)

One of the numbers said I was caller number 5. So let's get those calls going!!!

[yellowfin]

Called, got a very nice reception from a few of the staffers. They'll be getting to know us really well.

[Bruce3]

made all the calls in about 5 minutes its worth a shot!

[KWA-S]

I'm also including that only law abiding citizens obtain CCWs as it is MUCH easier and less conspicuous for criminals to concealed carry without a permit. Don't expect them to read into it much, though.

[ChuckBooty]

I'm also including that only law abiding citizens obtain CCWs as it is MUCH easier and less conspicuous for criminals to concealed carry without a permit. Don't expect them to read into it much, though.

Yeah...I'm not sure that we should start making the argument to the phone center lady. Just name/town/and the bill you support.

[Hot Brass]

Made the 7 calls from the above list and all were positive.
Only Danny Gilmore asked for my name, address and phone #.

Only Nancy Skinner`s office, from Oakland CA, stated that there were a lot of calls on this bill, and the calls were positive.

Make the calls guys. :thumbsup:

[9mmlaw]

Make the calls, one office noted they only had 19 calls. Burn up those phone lines.

[Librarian]

Yeah...I'm not sure that we should start making the argument to the phone center lady. Just name/town/and the bill you support.
Right - be nice to the staff; the bill contents are usually above their pay grade.

[Budd]

Done - only takes a few minutes. The Jerry Hill phone call went to his VM and it was full - will try back later.

[robitrocks]

Made all the call in less than 10 mins. :)

[bulgron]

I just sent in snail mail to all seven committee members.

But in looking over whose on the committee, I have to wonder if we have even one friend on there.

[yellowfin]

I seemed to get a positive reaction from two or three when I called. They said it's going to be tough, though.

[rrr70]

Lets hope!

[sfpcservice]

Is there any way to do a public records request to see how many people called/wrote in support of vs. against? If so that would be definitive proof of whether the legislators listen to their constituents or not.

[Meplat]

I just sent in snail mail to all seven committee members.

But in looking over whose on the committee, I have to wonder if we have even one friend on there.

Gilmore for sure.

Maybe Hagman? Anyone know about him?:confused:

[the_donald_]

http://californiaccw.org/posts/list/5161.page
Solorio and Furutani are in Orange County, which is pro-CCW and has recently had a lot of political heat over the issue. They are aware of that! Write to them!

Danny Gilmore is in Bakersfield, the most pro-CCW large county in the state. Write to him and mention that!

Nancy Skinner is in Oakland which has suffered a real crime problem. Mention it!

But don't worry about being eloquent in these letters. Just be polite. And they're not going to read them and carefully consider the points. A very simple, "Please vote 'yes' on AB 357, the bill to reform California's CCW system" is all you need to write.

But you do need to write!

Some comments on another board, I don't agree with Orange County being Pro-CCW, given Hutchins latest "maneuvering" and the lack of action out here, but it gives some info on Gilmore & Skinner.

[arfan66]

Six letters have been drafted & I'll drop them off at the Post Office on the way to work tomorrow. I'll call 'em all too!

Jeff

[the_donald_]

Ok Ladies & Gents,

Called all of their offices (took less than 5 mins) the folks were very polite, sent letters to their Capitol & field offices, also sent thank you letters to Knight at his Capitol & field office. Please let your voice be heard.

[CCWFacts]

Some comments on another board, I don't agree with Orange County being Pro-CCW, given Hutchins latest "maneuvering" and the lack of action out here, but it gives some info on Gilmore & Skinner.

I made a mistake, Long Beach seems like it should be in OC but it isn't!

Anyway, we will have at least a few definite yeses.

[Davidoff]

Faxes sent to the committee secretary and each member of the committee. I forgot how easy it is to send 8 faxes at once with the windows fax utility.

AB357 FTW!!

[yellowfin]

Should we attend the hearing on this one?

[mblat]

I've sent faxes and called.... however it seems that few people are calling.... it was no problem what so ever to get people on the phone.... and we are really calling phones are busy....they were not yesterday.

[KWA-S]

it seems that few people are calling

Really? One of the phone operators said they were getting a lot of calls in support of it. A couple others sounded like they were getting sick of AB357 calls. I couldn't get through to Skinner. Keep it up Calguns!

[yellowfin]

The question is whether they will disregard us like they did for 2062.

[rrr70]

The question is whether they will disregard us like they did for 2062.

We live in California. So, most likely they will.

[leitung]

Anyone got an e-mail list for all of the members?

[the_donald_]

Here you go...
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2151019&postcount=316

[racer_X_123]

I too called all the members of the committee... I talked to a nice girl for one of the two republicans that are on the committee and she said that she had been getting alot of calls from socal... She said keep it up.

Also she said that it would most likely pass through committee because there was no problem with the actual safety of the bill, but would most likely get shot down in the assembly or appropriations but to keep calling, writing and email because it does help.

[rips31]

Don't just fax, send letters!

I called up Fiona Ma, assemblywoman of SF, and her office basically hung up on me.



doesn't surprise me in the least. :rolleyes:

[leitung]

I faxed them all letters.. I plan on doing the same for my reps as well..

[sfpcservice]

I faxed all 7 a one page letter the day before yesterday. I immagine they are getting pretty familiar with this bill.

[Ranger20]

A bill which would change California law on CCW, effectively making the state "Shall Issue" and removing the arbitrary discretion of Sheriffs to withhold permits for political reasons, AB 357, has been referred to the Public Safety Committee. Please call and tell these people to VOTE YES for AB 357.

California - AB 357 - Call Now and urge to vote YES

BILL NUMBER: AB 357 INTRODUCED

BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Knight

FEBRUARY 19, 2009

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S 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 Shall Issue bill, AB 357, has been referred to the Public Safety Committee. Please call and tell these people to VOTE YES for AB 357.

Jose Solorio - Chair, Anaheim CA

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0069
Tel: (916) 319-2069
Fax: (916) 319-2169

Curt Hagman - Vice Chair, Diamond Bar CA

CAPITOL OFFICE
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-319-2060, 916-319-2160 fax

Warren T. Furutani, Long Beach CA

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0055
(916) 319-2055
(916) 319-2155 Fax

Danny D. Gilmore, Hanford CA

CAPITOL OFFICE
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-319-2030, 916-319-2130 fax

Jerry Hill, San Mateo CA

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0019
Tel: (916) 319-2019
Fax: (916) 319-2119

Fiona Ma, San Francisco CA

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0012
Tel: (916) 319-2012
Fax: (916) 319-2112

Nancy Skinner, Oakland CA

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0014
Tel: (916) 319-2014
Fax: (916) 319-2114

Call early and often! We need this to pass!

[DarthSean]

Letters sent.:)

[MSL209]

Would we be interested in Capitol addresses that had these assembly member's room numbers? Or are the above addresses good enough? Reason I am asking is because I found an address list with their room numbers at the Capitol.

[radioburning]

Here is the contact info for the district office of Warren T. Furutani(Long Beach). I suggest everyone does a search on the committee member in their district and fax and email their district office, as well as the capitol office. sfpcservice, thanks for posting this.

District Office:
4201 Long Beach Blvd.
Suite 327
Long Beach, CA 90807
Tel: (562) 989-2919
Fax: (562) 989-5494

[Librarian]

Would we be interested in Capitol addresses that had these assembly member's room numbers? Or are the above addresses good enough? Reason I am asking is because I found an address list with their room numbers at the Capitol.

If you look at the zip codes, the -nnnn is the number of the member's district; anything sent there will get to them in Sacramento.

[1BigPea]

I've been calling a few times a week and also sent faxes to them all last week. Today I started calling again, 1st call to Jose Solorio and I said something to the tune of "I'm calling to urge member Solorio to support..." and they guy interupted me and said, "let me guess, AB357?". Yah, what else!?

Just called Danny Gilmore's office, started off the same way and the lady said "AB 357 right?" She said she's gotten 100's of calls today for support of the bill! 100's TODAY!!! :thumbsup:

[Librarian]

I've been calling a few times a week and also sent faxes to them all last week. Today I started calling again, 1st call to Jose Solorio and I said something to the tune of "I'm calling to urge member Solorio to support..." and they guy interupted me and said, "let me guess, AB357?". Yah, what else!?

Just called Danny Gilmore's office, started off the same way and the lady said "AB 357 right?" She said she's gotten 100's of calls today for support of the bill! 100's TODAY!!! :thumbsup:
Interesting. Perhaps the next calls ought to, after "please support AB 357", start asking, "so, what are <assembly member>'s thoughts on the bill? Will s/he put up something on his/her web site? I'm really interested in his/her position."

[KWA-S]

Yeah, with the sheer volume of support its got, I'm pretty sure itll pass the committee. I wonder how itll do outside of the committee, as the forces of thousands of gun owners wouldn't be as concentrated...I dont expect everyone to be calling every assemblyman.

[Librarian]

Yeah, with the sheer volume of support its got, I'm pretty sure itll pass the committee. I wonder how itll do outside of the committee, as the forces of thousands of gun owners wouldn't be as concentrated...I dont expect everyone to be calling every assemblyman.

Public Safety is the first committee. Ordinarily it would go from there to Appropriations (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=43). There is some overlap - Solorio, Skinner - so there would be 15 new legislators to contact.

It's when it gets to the floor that efforts may dilute, unless we can increase the number of callers/writers.

Remember, this can drag on for a long time.

AB 357, as any other bill, has to be passed out of the Assembly by June 5. If it does not get out, it's dead for the session (pretty much - there are maneuverings and such that can bring things back).

If AB 357 gets to the Senate, it's supposed to be out and to the Governor by September 6.

But then we have the occasional bill that seems to live on into the following January ... if we get one of those, it could be 'active' until September, 2010.

[yellowfin]

From the sound of the staff at each committee office, they immediately asked if I was calling about AB 357 when I said I'd like to support a bill. That says something.

[djandj]

We live in California. So, most likely they will.

Yeah - the numbers just aren't on our side. Non-gunners outnumber gun owners
by a long shot, and non-gunners outnumber CalGunners by over a one in a thousand. To say nothing of the number anti-gun assemblypersons and senators vs pro gun ones.

Sorry guys, I wish I were wrong, but this just isn't Montana. We will be luck to hold what little we have left much less get shall issue.

IMHO we should be working on solidifying and defending what little we have left. It's only a matter of time before someone comes up with a feasible technology for micro stamping and in 2010 or shortly thereafter the party's over.

[yellowfin]

Yeah - the numbers just aren't on our side. Non-gunners outnumber gun owners
by a long shot, and non-gunners outnumber CalGunners by over a one in a thousand. To say nothing of the number anti-gun assemblypersons and senators vs pro gun ones.

Sorry guys, I wish I were wrong, but this just isn't Montana. We will be luck to hold what little we have left much less get shall issue.

IMHO we should be working on solidifying and defending what little we have left. It's only a matter of time before someone comes up with a feasible technology for micro stamping and in 2010 or shortly thereafter the party's over.

At very least, you can say they can't attack while they're on defense. If our side does more like this they might have to spend more time dodging our efforts than launching their own--that is WAY long overdue.

[1064chubbs]

Yeah - the numbers just aren't on our side. Non-gunners outnumber gun owners
by a long shot, and non-gunners outnumber CalGunners by over a one in a thousand. To say nothing of the number anti-gun assemblypersons and senators vs pro gun ones.

Sorry guys, I wish I were wrong, but this just isn't Montana. We will be luck to hold what little we have left much less get shall issue.

IMHO we should be working on solidifying and defending what little we have left. It's only a matter of time before someone comes up with a feasible technology for micro stamping and in 2010 or shortly thereafter the party's over.

Attitudes like that is what lets anti gun laws pass in the first place. I assume your a gun owner as am I, it would be a shame if we do not try to at least attempt and have our voices heard.

[Deadred7o7]

Contacting your elected representative to express an opinion on where a road should go, or the price of the latest toilet seat that the military wants is perfectly legitimate.

Being forced to continually pressure congressmen (or state assemblymen) to 'pretty please obey the Constitution' indicates that there needs to be trials and hangings.

You boys go right ahead...keep begging on your bellies for a bit of relief.

[yellowfin]

Contacting your elected representative to express an opinion on where a road should go, or the price of the latest toilet seat that the military wants is perfectly legitimate.

Being forced to continually pressure congressmen (or state assemblymen) to 'pretty please obey the Constitution' indicates that there needs to be trials and hangings.

You boys go right ahead...keep begging on your bellies for a bit of relief.Getting shall issue CCW will get us the numbers we need to demand things in the future rather than having to ask, finagle, settle for sloppy 33rds, etc.

[DDT]

The probability of seeing shall-issue pass both houses and get signed by a CA governor in the next 20 years are slim to none. Our greatest hope is that we will get shall-issue via the judiciary.

However; this is such a well written and targeted bill that it is well worth supporting. The better we are at supporting this the more cohesive and influential segment of the CA population we become.

As yellowfin2 so eloquently said:

At very least, you can say they can't attack while they're on defense. If our side does more like this they might have to spend more time dodging our efforts than launching their own--that is WAY long overdue.

(Plus, the slim chance that it does have to pass is dependent upon us doing the right thing and standing up to be counted.)

[7x57]

Being forced to continually pressure congressmen (or state assemblymen) to 'pretty please obey the Constitution' indicates that there needs to be trials and hangings.


You do realize that the founders fully expected that one would *always* have to pressure government officials to obey the law, right? They never imagined that there would be a government that would voluntarily stay within it's chains.

That said, they also believed that there would need to be periodic trials and hangings in order to deal with official misconduct, so in fact perhaps you have it exactly right after all. :cool2:

7x57

[Window_Seat]

Just for info, Assemblymember Warren T. Furutani's email popped back, so it's apparently not working. His is the only email (of all members of the Public Safety Committee) that is not working, and is being kicked back.

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0055
(916) 319-2055
(916) 319-2155 Fax

Erik.

[MP301]

Yeah - the numbers just aren't on our side. Non-gunners outnumber gun owners
by a long shot, and non-gunners outnumber CalGunners by over a one in a thousand. To say nothing of the number anti-gun assemblypersons and senators vs pro gun ones.

Sorry guys, I wish I were wrong, but this just isn't Montana. We will be luck to hold what little we have left much less get shall issue.

IMHO we should be working on solidifying and defending what little we have left. It's only a matter of time before someone comes up with a feasible technology for micro stamping and in 2010 or shortly thereafter the party's over.

Yeah? I think maybe your wish has come true! IMO, you are wrong. Hows defending what we have left been working for you? This is a poor attitude. Look at all of the shall issue states that would not be shall issue if we adopted this attitude. The anti's used to be smarter then us...chipping away piece meal...knowing that they could not pull off a gun ban all at once, but realizing that they can by attrition. But not anymore. I see so much that entities like CGF, SOF, NRA, etc have done piecemeal and its making a big difference.

The anti's are in it for the long haul, taking what infringements they could get and when these infringemets didnt perform as advertized, they just say "See! We need more gun laws! That BS...er..i mean that important gun legislation took us in the right direction, but..." Well, it works both ways my friend. But only if we stop the "cryin in your cereal" attitude and replace whats been lost.

Just holding your ground with no forward movement just means your prolonging your demise! We dont need to circle the wagons and try to hold on to what they left us, that hasnt worked in the last 50 or 100 years. We need to do be on the offensive. In case you "glass is half empty" folks are not paying attention, things are going in the right direction for a change. Why would anyone want to circle the wagons now? Why would anyone want to give up before the bell rings? You have anything you consider more important to do then fight for this important issue because you dont think we can win?

If AB 357 doesnt pass this time, we keep at it. IIRC, Texas (id say a pretty pro gun state - duh!) took what, 4 or 5 times before it passed? I am going to make the prediction now that it wont take as mnany times for us to pass it as it did Texas.....

Am I the eternal optomist? Maybe. But I wouldnt be saying it if I didnt truely believe it and I wouldnt believe it if I didnt see the evidence that we have a chance. Plus, it sure beats the doom and gloom scared of the dark attitude!Let Rock!

[Window_Seat]

There is a reason Knight introduced AB-357. He wouldn't have brought it up if he had the "it ain't gonna pass, so why bother" attitude. If it doesn't go through, we go after them again with another one, and we strategize properly.

Erik.

[djandj]

Yeah? I think maybe your wish has come true! IMO, you are wrong. Hows defending what we have left been working for you? This is a poor attitude. Look at all of the shall issue states that would not be shall issue if we adopted this attitude. The anti's used to be smarter then us...chipping away piece meal...knowing that they could not pull off a gun ban all at once, but realizing that they can by attrition. [COLOR="red"][COLOR="red"]Yes - just like we have to realize that we cannot put a gun on every hip all at once either. But not anymore. I see so much that entities like CGF, SOF, NRA, etc have done piecemeal and its making a big difference.

The anti's are in it for the long haul, taking what infringements they could get and when these infringemets didnt perform as advertized, they just say "See! We need more gun laws! That BS...er..i mean that important gun legislation took us in the right direction, but..." Well, it works both ways my friend. But only if we stop the "cryin in your cereal" attitude and replace whats been lost.

Just holding your ground with no forward movement just means your prolonging your demise! We dont need to circle the wagons and try to hold on to what they left us, that hasnt worked in the last 50 or 100 years. We need to do be on the offensive. In case you "glass is half empty" folks are not paying attention, things are going in the right direction for a change. Why would anyone want to circle the wagons now? Why would anyone want to give up before the bell rings? You have anything you consider more important to do then fight for this important issue because you dont think we can win?

If AB 357 doesnt pass this time, we keep at it. really, how much time and money are you willing to wasteIIRC, Texas (id say a pretty pro gun state - duh!) took what, 4 or 5 times before it passed? I am going to make the prediction now that it wont take as mnany times for us to pass it as it did Texas..... CA is just as Republican and pro-gun as CA really?

Am I the eternal optomist? Maybe. But I wouldnt be saying it if I didnt truely believe it and I wouldnt believe it if I didnt see the evidence that we have a chance. Plus, it sure beats the doom and gloom scared of the dark attitude!Let Rock!

Folks I'm a realist. You cannot compare CA to TX. CA is immeasurably more blue and more anti-gun and we all know it. If I stopped 100 people on the street of any major city (you know where all the voters are) and asked them if they cared about CCW 99.999% would say no, and the same number would probably candidly admit they would prefer you and I not have concealed weapons on the street either. SO...

Rather that WASTE our time with pipe dreams that we KNOW will never get out of committee, how about working to simply clean up the stupid and contorted gun laws on the books now. For example: No high cap mags except for the tens of thousand that are already out there before 2000? Stupid and unenforceable. How about the ridiculous AW set up we have. SOCOM II rifle perfectly legal with a drop map turns into a felony the second you put a front pistol grip on it? Stupid. Makes felons out of regular folks.

Lets use our money and influence to fix this! Not waste, time, money and political clout with CCW. Even most shooters don't want (or need) a CCW. But we do all want sensible firearms laws. Start there.

If a man says he will keep punching the steel door until it falls down we don't call him a foresighted genius - we call him a fool.

[bulgron]

Folks I'm a realist. You cannot compare CA to TX. CA is immeasurably more blue and more anti-gun and we all know it. If I stopped 100 people on the street of any major city (you know where all the voters are) and asked them if they cared about CCW 99.999% would say no, and the same number would probably candidly admit they would prefer you and I not have concealed weapons on the street either. SO...

Rather that WASTE our time with pipe dreams that we KNOW will never get out of committee, how about working to simply clean up the stupid and contorted gun laws on the books now. For example: No high cap mags except for the tens of thousand that are already out there before 2000? Stupid and unenforceable. How about the ridiculous AW set up we have. SOCOM II rifle perfectly legal with a drop map turns into a felony the second you put a front pistol grip on it? Stupid. Makes felons out of regular folks.

Lets use our money and influence to fix this! Not waste, time, money and political clout with CCW. Even most shooters don't want (or need) a CCW. But we do all want sensible firearms laws. Start there.

If a man says he will keep punching the steel door until it falls down we don't call him a foresighted genius - we call him a fool.

The ability to legally carry a firearm in public is the ball game. It's the only real reason to be in this fight.

If you aren't willing to fight for that, then you aren't really in the ball game.

All the other issues that you talk about are important and worth fighting for, but they're of secondary importance.

I don't care how it happens: CCW, constitutionally-protected LOC, a combination of the two, it doesn't matter. Without the ability to carry outside my home without concern over LEO reaction, our 2A rights are half-baked at best.

If you don't understand that, you don't really understand the reason why many of us care about gun rights. If you don't understand that, you don't really understand the game that we're playing around here.

[mblat]

The ability to legally carry a firearm in public is the ball game. It's the only real reason to be in this fight.

If you aren't willing to fight for that, then you aren't really in the ball game.

All the other issues that you talk about are important and worth fighting for, but they're of secondary importance.

I don't care how it happens: CCW, constitutionally-protected LOC, a combination of the two, it doesn't matter. Without the ability to carry outside my home without concern over LEO reaction, our 2A rights are half-baked at best.

If you don't understand that, you don't really understand the reason why many of us care about gun rights. If you don't understand that, you don't really understand the game that we're playing around here.

I think you are being a bit harsh. I agree with many people here that on philosophical level AWB is much bigger affront to the Constitution that CCW prohibition.
So there seems to be nothing wrong with paying a lot more attention to AWB.

However, from purely practical prospective CCW is of higher importance TODAY.

[N6ATF]

The ability to legally carry a firearm in public is the ball game. It's the only real reason to be in this fight.

If you aren't willing to fight for that, then you aren't really in the ball game.

All the other issues that you talk about are important and worth fighting for, but they're of secondary importance.

I don't care how it happens: CCW, constitutionally-protected LOC, a combination of the two, it doesn't matter. Without the ability to carry outside my home without concern over LEO reaction, our 2A rights are half-baked at best.

Agreed. It just isn't practical to bear your longarm most anywhere (trunks not included) - sidearms are practical most anywhere (once the only reasonable restriction left is secure government facilities). When we can keep and bear the lowest class of firearms freely in every sense of the word, we can work on dropping the restrictions on the higher classes.

[nicki]

Many of us are focused on our gun rights, I suggest that we focus on equal rights, especially for those of us who have assembly and state senators who are not pro gun.

A big problem we have is the anti propaganda that if this bill passes everyone will be carrying a gun and that scares alot of un or ill informed people.

We need to change the dialogue.

How we talk about this would be the following:

The current CCW discretionary law is a relic from the Jim Crow days. We have had several sheriffs who have abused the system for personal gain.

The current system rountingly deprieves citizens across the state of equal protections supposedly guaranteed by article 1 sec7B of the Cal state constitution.

Sheriffs have created a "defacto title of nobility" with who will get issued CCW permits. Their policies turn equal under the law on it's head.

Their CCW policies and values represent everything this country was founded against.

Sheriffs have been non responsive to public records act requests on gun permit issuance, so much for "Open Government.

The "Public Safety" concern that if AB357 is passed that everyone will be carrying guns and that we will have blood on the streets has been raised in every state prior to passage of "equal issue" ccw systems.

The reality is that while everyone can apply for a CCW permit, few do. The issuance rate in most states averages to less than 2 percent of the adult population.

Those who do go through the process have been shown by statistics to not be a public menace, but a public benefit.

The sad reality is that as much as police try, they can't protect individual citizens, as such shouldn't all citizens, not just the rich and politically connected have the means to actually exercise their natural rights of self defense.

This bill is a reasonable balance between the individual right of self defense and legitimate public safety concerns.

BTW, I used this line of reasoning with two different groups of reporters in the San Fran bay area and actually got balanced stories.

Nicki

[N6ATF]

BTW, I used this line of reasoning with two different groups of reporters in the San Fran bay area and actually got balanced stories.

Nicki

Quote them to the "don't trust the media!" screamers on this forum. They consistently claim that there has never been anything but bad press for us so there is no point in even trying. :rolleyes:

[CCWFacts]

The ability to legally carry a firearm in public is the ball game. It's the only real reason to be in this fight.

All the other issues that you talk about are important and worth fighting for, but they're of secondary importance.

I don't care how it happens: CCW, constitutionally-protected LOC, a combination of the two, it doesn't matter. Without the ability to carry outside my home without concern over LEO reaction, our 2A rights are half-baked at best.

Well-said. I agree 100%.

And notice, no state that has ever gone shall-issue has passed any more substantial gun control laws of any kind. CCW reform stops gun control dead.

[Librarian]

Folks I'm a realist. You cannot compare CA to TX. CA is immeasurably more blue and more anti-gun and we all know it. If I stopped 100 people on the street of any major city (you know where all the voters are) and asked them if they cared about CCW 99.999% would say no, and the same number would probably candidly admit they would prefer you and I not have concealed weapons on the street either. SO...
I'm pretty much with you up to here ...
Rather that WASTE our time with pipe dreams that we KNOW will never get out of committee, how about working to simply clean up the stupid and contorted gun laws on the books now. For example: No high cap mags except for the tens of thousand that are already out there before 2000? Stupid and unenforceable. How about the ridiculous AW set up we have. SOCOM II rifle perfectly legal with a drop map turns into a felony the second you put a front pistol grip on it? Stupid. Makes felons out of regular folks.

Lets use our money and influence to fix this! Not waste, time, money and political clout with CCW. Even most shooters don't want (or need) a CCW. But we do all want sensible firearms laws. Start there.

If a man says he will keep punching the steel door until it falls down we don't call him a foresighted genius - we call him a fool.
But this doesn't compute.

By what means shall these laws be changed?

The answer is, by a sensible law maker introducing a bill that gets passed and signed into law.

Your response seems to resolve to 'pick on a different law'.

That's OK. But I actually prefer this one, due to simplicity and influence it would have. More people carrying with no increase in criminal acts and a few crimes stopped by self-defense use of legally carried guns will begin to swing opinion from "I don't care - NO" to "I don't care, why not?"

[djandj]

I'm pretty much with you up to here ...

But this doesn't compute.

By what means shall these laws be changed?

The answer is, by a sensible law maker introducing a bill that gets passed and signed into law.

Your response seems to resolve to 'pick on a different law'.

That's OK. But I actually prefer this one, due to simplicity and influence it would have. More people carrying with no increase in criminal acts and a few crimes stopped by self-defense use of legally carried guns will begin to swing opinion from "I don't care - NO" to "I don't care, why not?"

Right - pick a law (or series of laws) you might actually get lawmakers to care about. (or at least not go to the mat opposing) No one wants to make felons out of their constituency. However, advocating "a gun in every pocket" is political suicide in CA for a politician!

[djandj]

The ability to legally carry a firearm in public is the ball game. It's the only real reason to be in this fight.

If you aren't willing to fight for that, then you aren't really in the ball game.

All the other issues that you talk about are important and worth fighting for, but they're of secondary importance.

I don't care how it happens: CCW, constitutionally-protected LOC, a combination of the two, it doesn't matter. Without the ability to carry outside my home without concern over LEO reaction, our 2A rights are half-baked at best.

If you don't understand that, you don't really understand the reason why many of us care about gun rights. If you don't understand that, you don't really understand the game that we're playing around here.

You make no sense. CA has NEVER had shall issue (at least not in modern times) So what makes you think this is the time to waste our time and money on this cause? I'd much rather roll back the hi cap mag nonsense or redefine the AW laws. These make sense from a law enforcement perspective and a common sense perspective. Shall issue is a pipe dream that will never get out of committee.

[Librarian]

Right - pick a law (or series of laws) you might actually get lawmakers to care about. (or at least not go to the mat opposing) No one wants to make felons out of their constituency. However, advocating "a gun in every pocket" is political suicide in CA for a politician!

So far, the legislators don't seem to want to change any of them.

And the Patrick Purdy incident, and the constant 'he used an assault weapon' lines in the papers mean it should be equally 'suicidal' to approach that law, too.

The last time to repeal the AW law was, IIRC, Jay LaSeuer's AB 448 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_448&sess=0506&house=B&author=la_suer) in 2006. The large-capacity mag law is a throw-in with SB 23, and no one seems to have tried anything to make that go away.

Gotta start someplace. Just like the bad bills keep getting introduced, and fought against and fail, until some version passes, we have to support legislators introducing and re-introducing good bills until they pass.

This session, we have 357. Maybe next session we'll have one of the others.

[bulgron]

You make no sense. CA has NEVER had shall issue (at least not in modern times) So what makes you think this is the time to waste our time and money on this cause? I'd much rather roll back the hi cap mag nonsense or redefine the AW laws. These make sense from a law enforcement perspective and a common sense perspective. Shall issue is a pipe dream that will never get out of committee.

The hi cap mag and AW laws can be rolled back via the courts, once we have incorporation.

Shall Issue CCW can never be had via the courts alone. It'll take a combined play between the courts and politics. We can't really start the court play yet, but we can start the political pressure immediately via AB 357.

The fact of the matter is, it took most states about 10 years to pass their shall-issue laws once people got serious about pursuing them. Over those ten years, state by state, enough of a debate went on about CCW that in time the people of those states came to accept it as a good idea, and then the law passed. We need to hold a similar debate in this state. We'll never do it unless we start pushing for shall-issue CCW laws. Now is better than later.

At the end of the day, the philosophical issues over why hi-cap mags and AWs are important to have in society don't fly with anyone except for gunnies and the courts. Public opinion will never be swayed by those issues. CCW, however, is something everyone can grasp one way or another, and the arguments for it are arguments that will resonate with a great many people so long as the arguments get heard.

For these reasons, I believe shall-issue CCW is our best path forward towards restoring the pro-gun culture in California.

[sfpcservice]

With the sad events in Oakland, I think given a choice between AW stuff and the CCW bill, they would probably go towards CCW.

[KylaGWolf]

SFP I hope your right but the anti-gun nuts will use the latest in Oakland to show that guns are evil.

[N6ATF]

Then by logical extension, cops must be evil for using them too.

[Deadred7o7]

This is the e-mail I got today :icon_bs:

Dear Kyle:


Thank you for contacting my office in support of AB 357 (Knight), legislation relating to firearms. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.



As you know, currently a County Sheriff may issue a license for a person to carry a concealed handgun if the person is of good moral character, has good cause and satisfies certain other conditions. This measure would eliminate the requirement for good cause. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind as I consider this important legislation. If you would like to track the progress of AB 357 you may do so by logging onto www.leginfo.ca.gov.



Thank you again for your correspondence. If I can be of any assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.



Respectfully,



WESLEY CHESBRO

Assemblymember, 1st District

[Librarian]

Chesbro has a solid anti-gun record in the Senate.

Among other things, he supported Koretz's microstamping bill AB 352 in 2006, Koretz's AB 50 .50 caliber bill in 2004, Scott's SB 1152 on ammunition in 2004, Perata's SB 23 expanding the AW law, and Polanco's SB 15, the 'safe gun list' bill in 1999.

[MP301]

Folks I'm a realist. You cannot compare CA to TX. CA is immeasurably more blue and more anti-gun and we all know it. If I stopped 100 people on the street of any major city (you know where all the voters are) and asked them if they cared about CCW 99.999% would say no, and the same number would probably candidly admit they would prefer you and I not have concealed weapons on the street either. SO...

Rather that WASTE our time with pipe dreams that we KNOW will never get out of committee, how about working to simply clean up the stupid and contorted gun laws on the books now. For example: No high cap mags except for the tens of thousand that are already out there before 2000? Stupid and unenforceable. How about the ridiculous AW set up we have. SOCOM II rifle perfectly legal with a drop map turns into a felony the second you put a front pistol grip on it? Stupid. Makes felons out of regular folks.

Lets use our money and influence to fix this! Not waste, time, money and political clout with CCW. Even most shooters don't want (or need) a CCW. But we do all want sensible firearms laws. Start there.

If a man says he will keep punching the steel door until it falls down we don't call him a foresighted genius - we call him a fool.

Ya know, no offense, but that comment about "most shooters dont want (or need) a CCW" has got to be one of the dumbest comments I have heard on this board since I have been here.

First, as far as not wanting a CCW, please tell me on what evidence this comment is based on? I know dozens of "shooters" and have not met one that wouldnt have a CCW if they could.

Second, and more importantly, just who in F are you to decide who "needs" a CCW???? How can you even think like that? Are you thinking along the same anti-gun BS lines that if your not carrying money or jewelry in your job that you dont need one? I guess our families and ourselves are not as important as those material things?

I would like to think that I misunderstood, but you actually said that most shootersdont need a CCW? Are you sure your on the right board? :banghead:


Ok... deep breath....relax ...ommmmmmmmmmm

Im ok now..

[MP301]

Watch the pretty colors change on CCW history

http://www.handgunlaw.us then click on Right To Carry History....

[MP301]

Ok just to make sure im not fooling myself, I put up a poll to see how many "Shooters" would want (or have) a CCW permit....

I already have one 31 8.03%
Damn skippy I would! 348 90.16%
No I wouldnt. 7 1.81%

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=165654

[Manic Moran]

This is the 2A subforum of a forum frequented by the most enthusiastic gun owners in California.

I'm not sure just how represenative of California's entire gun-owning population the 2A subforum happens to be. You are likely to get a skewed result, I think.

NTM

[mblat]

This is the 2A subforum of a forum frequented by the most enthusiastic gun owners in California.

I'm not sure just how represenative of California's entire gun-owning population the 2A subforum happens to be. You are likely to get a skewed result, I think.

NTM

May be... but you need to consider that even if CA CCW would be "shall-issue" it still be PITA to acquire and very expensive to maintain. It is $250 per year, right? That is quite a bit of $$$.
And requirement to go see shrink.... how many people want to do that?

I am certain that in Utah style CCW would be easier to justify for many people. However.... at this point I wuold take it any way I can.

[sfpcservice]

Has it been two weeks yet?:chris:

[Librarian]

May be... but you need to consider that even if CA CCW would be "shall-issue" it still be PITA to acquire and very expensive to maintain. It is $250 per year, right? That is quite a bit of $$$.
And requirement to go see shrink.... how many people want to do that?

I am certain that in Utah style CCW would be easier to justify for many people. However.... at this point I wuold take it any way I can.

The fees are pretty variable, in practice, and the psych evaluation is allowed, but not required by the state; I don't know how many issuing CLEOs have their applicants do that.

[djandj]

This is the 2A subforum of a forum frequented by the most enthusiastic gun owners in California.

I'm not sure just how represenative of California's entire gun-owning population the 2A subforum happens to be. You are likely to get a skewed result, I think.

NTM

Gee you think? Common sense and logic is all we need to tell us the answer. Look at how many gun owners there are in CA. (millions perhaps?) Then look at the number of CCW's (even in areas where you can get them). I'll be the result is not 98% of gun owners have CCW's. And further, if gun owners who live in areas where they can get CCWs and they don't have them - logical to assume either A they don't need them or B they don't want them.

For example. Orange County. My county. 3 MILLION + residents. Even with a formerly pro-gun sheriff, LESS THAN 1000 people had a CCW. that's 1 30 thousandth of a percent!!!. And OC is/was relatively republican and is/was mostly pro-gun.

RE: the percentages and your "poll" I didn't vote and as pointed out, the poll is irrelevant. I opined that shooters in general (not CG hardcores) didn't want/need CCW. The numbers tell all

Some of the statistics I'm talking about appear in a paper for the Second Amendment project
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/ShallIssue.htm#c5

(BTW I'd love some more recent data if anyone knows of any)

Overall CCW rates: Washington state (a shall issue state) only 4% of the population had bothered to get a CCW

In Florida. after 6 years of shall issue - only a little over 100,000 permits were still active in a state with a population of about 13 million. LESS THAN 1 PERCENT!!!

So, I'm not making this stuff up. These are much more rural states than CA and much more pro gun. CA is a big city blue state! We ahve to get over that fact and plan accordingly. CCW is a born loser in this state. We might as well push the plan in NY City.

[djandj]

Well-said. I agree 100%.

And notice, no state that has ever gone shall-issue has passed any more substantial gun control laws of any kind. CCW reform stops gun control dead.

Not entirely, just mostly. There have been many anti-gun bills in many of the shall issue states. (according to the NRA - MN is now facing a gun registration bill). SO it certainly helps, but is not a guarantee.

[csorin]

Just faxed all the members of the Public Safety Committee. Hopefully they haven't convened yet. Anyone know when we'll hear whether this goes to the full house?

[DDT]

Ya know, no offense, but that comment about "most shooters dont want (or need) a CCW" has got to be one of the dumbest comments I have heard on this board since I have been here.

First, as far as not wanting a CCW, please tell me on what evidence this comment is based on? I know dozens of "shooters" and have not met one that wouldnt have a CCW if they could.


Look at the rate of hunting licenses vs. ccw permits issued in Michigan or any other shall-issue state. Many more hunting licenses than CCWs and many people own firearms and never get a hunting license.

[bulgron]

CCW is a born loser in this state. We might as well push the plan in NY City.

And yet all those states that you cite passed shall-issue CCW anyway. What does that tell you?

It's guys like you that make me wonder why I bother working to advance gun rights in California in the first place. If you aren't willing to scratch my back, why should I scratch yours?

Here's a clue for you: people who are passionate about gun rights in California are passionate about it usually because of some hot-button issue that dragged them to it in the first place. It's pretty easy to see what those issues are:

- CCW
- AW Ban
- Hunting rights

When you say, "Screw CCW, we shouldn't fight for that because the general population of gun owners don't care," then what you're really saying is that you'd be happy to see the majority of the people comprising the gun-rights movement take their marbles and go home because no one is willing to support their issue.

Without the people who are passionate about CCW, you will have NO traction in this state on the other issues. Why? Because the majority of the gun rights crowd in California is all about CCW.

It isn't about the guy who has a shotgun in his closet and wouldn't join the NRA if his life depended upon it.

It's about the guy who's willing to put time and money into fighting for our gun rights in this state. It's about the guy who'll write checks to CalGuns and the NRA. It's about the guy who'll man recruiting booths at gun shows, who'll write letters and call elected representatives, who'll write literature in support of these issues, who'll show up at meetings and give our elected representatives an earful.

And THAT guy by and large wants to see this state go shall-issue on CCWs.

Which, I believe, is what that poll in the other thread is proving.

[mblat]

Gee you think? Common sense and logic is all we need to tell us the answer. Look at how many gun owners there are in CA. (millions perhaps?) Then look at the number of CCW's (even in areas where you can get them). I'll be the result is not 98% of gun owners have CCW's. And further, if gun owners who live in areas where they can get CCWs and they don't have them - logical to assume either A they don't need them or B they don't want them.

For example. Orange County. My county. 3 MILLION + residents. Even with a formerly pro-gun sheriff, LESS THAN 1000 people had a CCW. that's 1 30 thousandth of a percent!!!. And OC is/was relatively republican and is/was mostly pro-gun.

RE: the percentages and your "poll" I didn't vote and as pointed out, the poll is irrelevant. I opined that shooters in general (not CG hardcores) didn't want/need CCW. The numbers tell all

Some of the statistics I'm talking about appear in a paper for the Second Amendment project
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/ShallIssue.htm#c5

(BTW I'd love some more recent data if anyone knows of any)

Overall CCW rates: Washington state (a shall issue state) only 4% of the population had bothered to get a CCW

In Florida. after 6 years of shall issue - only a little over 100,000 permits were still active in a state with a population of about 13 million. LESS THAN 1 PERCENT!!!

So, I'm not making this stuff up. These are much more rural states than CA and much more pro gun. CA is a big city blue state! We ahve to get over that fact and plan accordingly. CCW is a born loser in this state. We might as well push the plan in NY City.

I don't get you point. Based on what you are saying neither Florida nor Washington should have their CCW "shall-issue", because they are not important.
You making mistake by thinking that what laws getting adopted is matter of majority support. It isn't. It is matter of vocal and well funded support and desirable, but not required, absence of majority opposition.
"Right to carry" people are very vocal and fairly well funded. They may as well to be able to get something going.

[MP301]

This is the 2A subforum of a forum frequented by the most enthusiastic gun owners in California.

I'm not sure just how represenative of California's entire gun-owning population the 2A subforum happens to be. You are likely to get a skewed result, I think.

NTM

Fair enough, but what about the other part of the statement... The guy said most dont need a CCW permit. That sounds like someone from the anti's or the Government sayin that. What gives that person the right to decide that?

[MP301]

And yet all those states that you cite passed shall-issue CCW anyway. What does that tell you?

It's guys like you that make me wonder why I bother working to advance gun rights in California in the first place. If you aren't willing to scratch my back, why should I scratch yours?

Here's a clue for you: people who are passionate about gun rights in California are passionate about it usually because of some hot-button issue that dragged them to it in the first place. It's pretty easy to see what those issues are:

- CCW
- AW Ban
- Hunting rights

When you say, "Screw CCW, we shouldn't fight for that because the general population of gun owners don't care," then what you're really saying is that you'd be happy to see the majority of the people comprising the gun-rights movement take their marbles and go home because no one is willing to support their issue.

Without the people who are passionate about CCW, you will have NO traction in this state on the other issues. Why? Because the majority of the gun rights crowd in California is all about CCW.

It isn't about the guy who has a shotgun in his closet and wouldn't join the NRA if his life depended upon it.

It's about the guy who's willing to put time and money into fighting for our gun rights in this state. It's about the guy who'll write checks to CalGuns and the NRA. It's about the guy who'll man recruiting booths at gun shows, who'll write letters and call elected representatives, who'll write literature in support of these issues, who'll show up at meetings and give our elected representatives an earful.

And THAT guy by and large wants to see this state go shall-issue on CCWs.

Which, I believe, is what that poll in the other thread is proving.

Very well put and very accurate. If we dont hang together we will hang seperately.

The fact that all of the gun owners I know, hunters, plinkers, regular folks, etc would want a CCW of course does not mean the majority of gun owners would want one. I understand this. I fail to understand the logic in thinking that they would not at least want the option should their current shangra la conditions change.

But I also understand that no one person should ever decide for someone else who has the need. We all have the need because we live in a free society. If a person is too ignorant to figure this out, thats his or her business, but its not their business to tell me that because they think they dont have the need that I dont either. That is the same line of hypocritical crap the anti's sling.

What part of pro gun rights do some of you not understand?

[MarioS]

Watch the pretty colors change on CCW history

http://www.handgunlaw.us then click on Right To Carry History....

Great graphic. California may be a bit on the slower side of catching on but I will take late over never. Freedom to protect oneself and one's family/loved ones should not be restricted; and nobody should be allowed to tell anyone else what "good cause" is. Protecting your family is good cause enough.

Edit: I will be writing something out and sending it to those listed when I get a chance.

[Gray Peterson]

Btw, Florida now has over half a million permit holders.

[7x57]

Btw, Florida now has over half a million permit holders.

A few even live in Florida! :rolleyes:

7x57

[7x57]

Fair enough, but what about the other part of the statement... The guy said most dont need a CCW permit. That sounds like someone from the anti's or the Government sayin that. What gives that person the right to decide that?

Well, suppose it's true. It doesn't matter--the government isn't Constitutionally permitted to have opinions about what arms you might "need." (Well, and so it has a lot of opinions about that--but they're in flagrant violation of the law, I claim.)

7x57

[wildhawker]

NRA Members' Councils of California

CAL-ERT 03/25/09 --- 4:00 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
This information is accurate at the time this CAL-ERT was written and originally distributed. The scheduled times and dates for hearings are subject to change, by the legislature, with little or no advance notice. The NRA Members' Councils of California will keep you informed as the legislative situation changes in Sacramento.

CCW REFORM LEGISLATION INTRODUCED IN SACRAMENTO

(This is a partial list of legislation. A complete list of firearms-related legislation is found at http://www.calnra.com/legs.shtml)
Three major pieces of "Right-to-carry" related legislation have been introduced in the California State Legislature for the 2009 session. Brief summaries of each bill is included herein:

AB 357 Issue: CONCEALED FIREARMS LICENSE - "SHALL ISSUE" Author: Knight Description: NRA-supported Legislation.
URL: http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab357.1&year=2009
Would create a "shall issue" CCW permit system in California.
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.

AB 1167 Issue: CCW RECIPROCITY Author: Nielsen Description: NRA-sponsored Legislation.
URL: http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab1167.1&year=2009
Existing law regulates the carrying of firearms and authorizes the issuance of a license, as specified, to persons enabling them to carry firearms that are concealed, or loaded, as specified.
This bill would deem persons who have a valid permit or license to carry a concealed handgun issued by another state or a political subdivision of another state to be authorized to carry a concealed handgun pursuant to provisions of California law, as specified.
The bill would direct the Department of Justice to enter into reciprocity agreements with other states so that persons licensed in this state to carry concealed or loaded firearms would be authorized to do so in those other states. The department would be required each month to maintain and publish a list of those states with which this state has established reciprocity.

AB 225 Issue: CONCEALED FIREARMS LICENSE - "GOOD CAUSE" Author: Miller Description: NRA-sponsored Legislation.
URL: http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab225.1&year=2009
This bill would define "Good Cause" in relation to the issuance of CCW permits in California.
Existing law authorizes the issuance, by the sheriff of a county, of a license to carry a concealed handgun or a loaded and exposed handgun, as specified. This bill is a "spot bill", meaning the details of its final language are still under development and will replace the current language when complete.

[N6ATF]

If I understand the summary correctly, CCW Reciprocity would be a lot less hassle for those with out-of-state permits, and those who would rather apply out of state and not have to sue scumbag sheriffs like Hutchens who will refuse all CCWs even when the good cause requirement is gone.

[CCWFacts]

If I understand the summary correctly, CCW Reciprocity would be a lot less hassle for those with out-of-state permits, and those who would rather apply out of state and not have to sue scumbag sheriffs like Hutchens who will refuse all CCWs even when the good cause requirement is gone.

I really don't think that if we had that reciprocity law, CA residents would be able to carry in CA on a UT (etc) non-res permit.

I also think that very few states would have reciprocity with us, due to the fact that our licenses are so easy to forge and there's no way to do an electronic verification of them. Also our statute is not so specific on various things, including even the age.

That said, reciprocity would still be a great law. The idea that visitors from other states could carry here but we can't creates an absurd situation, and it devalues the status of permits here.

And suddenly there would be a powerful tax reason to start issuing permits to Californians (to prevent Californians from de-domiciling themselves in Nevada).

[MP301]

If I understand the summary correctly, CCW Reciprocity would be a lot less hassle for those with out-of-state permits, and those who would rather apply out of state and not have to sue scumbag sheriffs like Hutchens who will refuse all CCWs even when the good cause requirement is gone.

Unfortunately, Ca would just do the same thing that Colorado, Kansas and Even Florida do. If there was reciprocity, it would most likely only be valid for permit holders that are residents of the states that issue the permit.

Florida is the smart one, because they have non resident permits so if you give them the money, you can still carry there. I dont know about Kansas, but Colorado does not issue non res permits.

[jpknox]

Anybody know when there will be a vote on ab 357?

[otteray]

Anybody know when there will be a vote on ab 357?

Two weeks

[Juno05]

http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1720695.html

Not sure how many saw this from The Sacramento Bee. McGuiness' response toward the end infuriates me. "Personal protection is insufficient"? What other purpose is there to concealed carry?

[rrr70]

http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1720695.html

McGuiness' response toward the end infuriates me. "Personal protection is insufficient"?

"Insufficient"? WTF? I'm curious if brave sheriff caries off-duty. Maybe he should stop and demand that his deputies do the same.

[rabagley]

Sykes (the Pink Guns rep) got in a lot of good quotable statements. I wonder how the article reads to an anti. To me it reads: pass AB-357 today!

[rrr70]

How about this comment:"if people like she were allowed to carry unchecked, everytime she overheard someone say "gay" or "f a g", no matter what context or what business of hers it was , someone would be dead. besides, closing one eye to aim already shows that she is completely incompitent with a firearm and that it is a two-tone, my guess is that she bought it because it looked cool."

What a tool.

[lioneaglegriffin]

How about this comment:"if people like she were allowed to carry unchecked, everytime she overheard someone say "gay" or "f a g", no matter what context or what business of hers it was , someone would be dead. besides, closing one eye to aim already shows that she is completely incompitent with a firearm and that it is a two-tone, my guess is that she bought it because it looked cool."

What a tool.

wtf? :confused:

[Juno05]

How about this comment:"if people like she were allowed to carry unchecked, everytime she overheard someone say "gay" or "f a g", no matter what context or what business of hers it was , someone would be dead. besides, closing one eye to aim already shows that she is completely incompitent with a firearm and that it is a two-tone, my guess is that she bought it because it looked cool."

What a tool.

It's in the reader comments.

Agree with you, rrr70. Methinks someone like her knows exactly what she's doing.

One thing you notice real quick on The Sacramento Bee comment forums is the number of virulent idiots. On all topics. It's pretty sad.

[Harrison_Bergeron]

http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1720695.html

Not sure how many saw this from The Sacramento Bee. McGuiness' response toward the end infuriates me. "Personal protection is insufficient"? What other purpose is there to concealed carry?

What about?

If the changes proposed by the bill were already in effect, even O.J. Simpson would have been eligible for a concealed weapons permit in California – prior to his recent felony conviction in Nevada, McGinness said.

I'd like to hear some clarification on this one. What reason would he have had for denying OJ? Sounds to me like this McGinness may have a problem understanding double jeopardy.

and:

By stripping the local law enforcement discretion, the bill would mandate that any Californian who passes a training course and demonstrates "good moral character" can tuck a pistol into his or her waistband.

At least they are remaining impartial.

[Yargh]

Anyone else think the author of that Sac Bee article is anti-gun?

[Librarian]

Two weeks
Which actually may be accurate, since the hearing is on Tues 4/14; the bill could get a vote in Committee.

[RP1911]

I sent emails to each of the PS committee members as well as the author and my rep Dave Jones. It will be interesting if they respond.

[otteray]

Originally Posted by otteray
Two weeks

Which actually may be accurate, since the hearing is on Tues 4/14; the bill could get a vote in Committee.

Well I'll be darned!
Just goes to show that, "Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then." ;)

[Noboundaries]

Thanks for all the info guys. I'll be writing letters and sending e-mails this afternoon.

[otteray]

Anyone else contacted him?
Here is the reply from my newly elected Assemblyman, Bill Monning:

Thank you for your recent correspondence expressing your support for Assembly Bill (AB) 357 authored by Assemblymember Knight, relating to concealed firearms.



Existing law authorizes the sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying for a concealed handgun permit is of good moral character and that good cause exists, to issue a concealed weapons permit. AB 357 would delete the good cause requirement and require the sheriff to issue the license if other specified criteria are met.



AB 357 is currently awaiting a hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. Because I am not a member of the Committee, I will not have an opportunity to vote on the measure unless it comes before me on the Assembly Floor. If AB 357 is heard on the Assembly Floor, I will take your comments into consideration.





Again, thank you for your correspondence. Please feel free to continue to contact me regarding any other issues of concern to you, and I encourage you to visit my website at: http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a27/.



Sincerely,



WILLIAM W. MONNING

Assemblymember, 27th District

[Librarian]

I don't think I'd expect a lot of support from Freshman legislator Bill (D-Carmel). He founded this org (http://globalmajority.org/gm/index.php?option=com_content&task=section&id=5&Itemid=27).

I'd be willing to be surprised.

[Gray Peterson]

A few even live in Florida! :rolleyes:

7x57

Current Statistics:

Total:553,822
Total out of state license holders: 56,929

[KylaGWolf]

"Insufficient"? WTF? I'm curious if brave sheriff caries off-duty. Maybe he should stop and demand that his deputies do the same.

Thing is they are never truly and completely off duty.

[hollabillz]

kumbayaaaa my lord. we should all march in there open carrying. just kidding. :\

[DDT]

Thing is they are never truly and completely off duty.

They are when they retire. Would be interesting to use THAT as an equal protection claim.

[rrr70]

Thing is they are never truly and completely off duty.

OK. How about then leaving gun at the station when not on a clock?