Would you like a CCW permit?

[MP301]

Someone on another thread said that most shooters would not want (or need!) a CCW. If CA was shall issue, would you obtain a CCW?

[NSR500]

You bet your A** I'd get one in California!

[gcvt]

Hell yes!

[The SoCal Gunner]

I'd get two if I could so I have more carry pieces to choose from.

[Window_Seat]

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes, I would apply to get a CCW and/or try to get my CCW the FIRST day it became SI!!!!!!!!

Erik.

[domokun]

Having a CCW in CA would be interesting as some employers may have a "no weapons on site" policy in place which may conflict with the ability for those with a CCW to carry while at work.

[Window_Seat]

Having a CCW in CA would be interesting as some employers may have a "no weapons on site" policy in place which may conflict with the ability for those with a CCW to carry while at work.

That is very true, as my employer has a big ol' sign on both front gates, and in the employee lounge that says none allowed, even if you have a "license or permit" to carry "such weapon"... It's:icon_bs::willy_nilly::no::banghead::cuss:

Erik.

[ELEVENTH HOUR]

Hell yes!:thumbsup:

[MP301]

Ok, which one of you voted no?!?!?! Maybe it was that guy in the other thread that said most "shooters?" wouldnt want (or need!!!) one! Geeeeze, he said most dont need one..arrrgh, I could just go nuclear!

[glockk9mm]

No questions asked. YES I'll take 1

[rrr70]

Yes please.:thumbsup:

[steven_m64]

voted for the obvious answer "Damn skippy I would!" but i'm still quite un-optimistic that it would become shall issue here in Sacramento even after hell freezes over. :D

[Python2]

I'd get two if I could so I have more carry pieces to choose from.

No need, you are already allowed three carry in a California CCW.:p

[GenLee]

:Ivan:

[paintballergb]

No need, you are already allowed three carry in a California CCW.:p

Apparently he wants six. On that note, I always thought three was on the low side.

[BTF/PTM]

I'd love to have one.

[bulgron]

I have my Utah. Want my California.

[mblat]

I said no.... since I assumed we are talking about California.... but I do have my Utah CCW

[El Gato]

I said no.... since I assumed we are talking about California.... but I do have my Utah CCW

I'm not sure I understand this...

[TakeFive]

I don't need government permission to exercise my rights.

[berto]

Having a CCW in CA would be interesting as some employers may have a "no weapons on site" policy in place which may conflict with the ability for those with a CCW to carry while at work.

Key word is concealed.

[Sam1]

I live in the ghetto so I need a ccw for my safety. If this gets thrown out, I'll start to unloaded open carry:thumbsup:

[zirconjohn]

I don't need government permission to exercise my rights.

You can do what you want, however if an Officer asks you 'do you have any firearms in the vehicle' a truthful answer with a valid CA CCW carries a lot of weight.

I know CA CCW is impossible to get in the big city, but consider the consequences of violation... 'just sayin'

[sorensen440]

Yes of course

[sorensen440]

I don't need government permission to exercise my rights.
Yes but if your arrested for it you will need government permission to eat sleep and go to the bathroom....

[Davidwhitewolf]

I said no.... since I assumed we are talking about California.... but I do have my Utah CCW

I'm assuming he's saying he wouldn't bother to get one in Cali as he'd get reciprocity from his Utah permit.

[rrr70]

I'm assuming he's saying he wouldn't bother to get one in Cali as he'd get reciprocity from his Utah permit.

I don't think Kalifornia recognized Utah's CCW.

[bulgron]

I'm assuming he's saying he wouldn't bother to get one in Cali as he'd get reciprocity from his Utah permit.

This also makes no sense.

Usually you get your CCW for your state of residence, and Utah for everywhere else.

[sorensen440]

I don't think Kalifornia recognized Utah's CCW.
California only recognizes California

[MotoDuc]

yes, sign me up

[DDT]

I think there is a good chance that MANY MANY gun owners have little or no interest in obtaining a CCW. We are a very small, self selected, portion of CA gun owners. I know that my father in law who has his dad's old S&W revolver and a 22lr rifle has zero interest in CCW. I have another friend who has 3 O/Us and shoots lots of clay but would have no interest in CCW.

I, on the other hand would stand in line for an application the first day they become regularly issued.

[ANDREWMENDEZ]

Only need one for every member of my family!

[nic]

:Ivan:

Hell yeah, I would get one if I could.

[CCWFacts]

I think there is a good chance that MANY MANY gun owners have little or no interest in obtaining a CCW. We are a very small, self selected, portion of CA gun owners. I know that my father in law who has his dad's old S&W revolver and a 22lr rifle has zero interest in CCW. I have another friend who has 3 O/Us and shoots lots of clay but would have no interest in CCW.

I would like to make the point that even such people can benefit from a CCW. Your father-in-law with his dad's old S&W revolver could still get in trouble for violating transportation laws if he goes to / from the range and forgets that he left a round in the cylinder. Mistakes like leaving a round in the cylinder or a round in the mag are probably things that all of us have made at one time or another, and they are misdemeanors which could be a problem. In fact, if by some unlucky chance someone got pulled over on the way to / from the range in a school zone, and had made a mistake (left a round in a mag / cylinder, not properly locked a gun case), then suddenly it's a serious felony, all for a mistake with no criminal intent that probably most gun owners have made at least once.

Even for people who have no interest in carrying a gun for self-defense, a CCW might be worth it just for the extra ease and avoidance of legal risks when going to / from the range.

[DDT]

I would like to make the point that even such people can benefit from a CCW. Your father-in-law with his dad's old S&W revolver could still get in trouble for violating transportation laws if he goes to / from the range and forgets that he left a round in the cylinder. Mistakes like leaving a round in the cylinder or a round in the mag are probably things that all of us have made at one time or another, and they are misdemeanors which could be a problem. In fact, if by some unlucky chance someone got pulled over on the way to / from the range in a school zone, and had made a mistake (left a round in a mag / cylinder, not properly locked a gun case), then suddenly it's a serious felony, all for a mistake with no criminal intent that probably most gun owners have made at least once.

Even for people who have no interest in carrying a gun for self-defense, a CCW might be worth it just for the extra ease and avoidance of legal risks when going to / from the range.

He hasn't shot the gun in over 30 years, he isn't likely to start now. I agree that EVERYONE should have a CCW. That wasn't the question. The issue was an proposition that most CA gun owners would want a CCW. I tend to disagree. If everyone had a CCW they could easily defend themselves in any situation or start carrying immediately should the need arise, e.g. you daughter come home and says a strange kid at school started following her home.

[CCWFacts]

He hasn't shot the gun in over 30 years, he isn't likely to start now.

Ok, then it wouldn't be worth the hassle and expense for him to get one.

I'm just making the point, even among people who don't want to carry for self-defense, there are still strong reasons to get a CCW if one is available.

I'm thinking of this poor guy (http://www.crimefilenews.com/2008/08/wyoming-hunter-arrested-at-denver-hotel.html) who was arrested in a hotel in Denver because he had rifles there at the same time Obama was there. He was a hunter for Wyoming, what he was doing was perfectly fine, but a CCW would have saved him a lot of hassle. I didn't follow what happened with him; I think in the end they didn't / couldn't charge him, but a CCW would have prevented even the arrest and the need to get a lawyer. Sure, maybe he's a hunter who doesn't care about self-defense and handguns and all that, but spending $100 on a CCW would have saved him 100X that on legal fees.

Calanchini is being held on $10,000.00 bail for a court appearance for carrying a concealed weapon.

They wouldn't have been able to even arrest him on that charge if he had had a CCW. He was just an ordinary guy who happened to make the mistake of picking the wrong hotel at the wrong time.

With California's school zone situation, it's very easy for gun owners here to make a small mistake and get into even worse hot water while transporting a gun. That's why CCWs are valuable even for some people who don't want to carry a gun.

[beerup949]

I would also like to have one.

[1BigPea]

I would like to be able to have one here in CA, but I guess my life and family's life isn't as important as diamonds or 10k in cash. :confused:

[lead chucker]

I would definitely like to have one! I doubt that I would carry on a daily basis, but there are occasions/places that I would!

[DDT]

I would like to be able to have one here in CA, but I guess my life and family's life isn't as important as diamonds or 10k in cash. :confused:

The theory, probably correctly, is that your life and the lives of your family members are in less danger if you aren't carrying $10,000 or diamonds around on yourself regularly.

I believe that even those of us with less of a probability to be violently attacked should have the right to defend ourselves in the unlikely event that we are attacked.

[N6ATF]

Damn skippy!

The theory, probably correctly, is that your life and the lives of your family members are in less danger if you aren't carrying $10,000 or diamonds around on yourself regularly.

If those are concealed as they should be, how would anyone know you have them until you take them out under publicly screened conditions?

If you are alive and breathing, you are in danger of being attacked. Strong body language is the only thing that might influence criminals to pick another target in another area.

[mblat]

Originally Posted by mblat View Post
I said no.... since I assumed we are talking about California.... but I do have my Utah CCW
I'm not sure I understand this...

When I re-read this I don't understand it either..... and I wrote it. LOL.

What I meant is this:
In the poll I said that I don't have CCW, but would like to get one, because I think poll is related to California CCW only. But I already have Utah permit.

[CCWFacts]

The theory, probably correctly, is that your life and the lives of your family members are in less danger if you aren't carrying $10,000 or diamonds around on yourself regularly.

That's the theory, yes, and it's BS. Only sophisticated robbers are smart enough to identify and target someone who is in a position like that. 99% of robbers are low-IQ drug users who act on impulse and go after anyone who wanders by who looks like he might have a few bucks. I had a friend who was killed because he was carrying probably about $20. Some drug addict isn't thinking about "how can I get $20,000 worth of diamonds". He's thinking, "how can I get $20 to buy half a day's worth of drugs". And my friend looked like a college student walking home (which is what he was) and he looked like he would have $20 on him (which I guess he did) and that was all that was necessary.

So that theory, which is parroted by our corrupt sheriffs in this state, is just BS.

[1BigPea]

Damn skippy!



If those are concealed as they should be, how would anyone know you have them until you take them out under publicly screened conditions?

If you are alive and breathing, you are in danger of being attacked. Strong body language is the only thing that might influence criminals to pick another target in another area.

Exactly.

How much $$$ I have shouldn't matter at all...it's all backwards.

[mej16489]

No need, you are already allowed three carry in a California CCW.:p


You can do more then 3. There are three places for firearms on the standard app and the permit, but there isn't strictly-speaking a limit.

[Bob Ragen]

Yes both the wife and I!

[N6ATF]

Exactly.

How much $$$ I have shouldn't matter at all...it's all backwards.

Yep, and CCW shouldn't cost a single cent either. Lives are priceless, except to the government, which taxes your life until you are more of a benefit to the system than the system benefits you.

[hnoppenberger]

if an employer says you cant have weapons, thats no problem, thats why they are CONCEALED!

pwn that employer!

[plink182]

I would like a permit. If I had a permit I would NOT CHOOSE to carry allot of the time, BUT I WOULD like knowing I have the OPTION to carry. I feel all good lawful citizens should have this right.

[Hoop]

Yes, I would like one. I wouldn't carry all the time, but there are instances when I'm working in bad or unfamiliar areas when I would like to have the security of a pistol.


pwn that employer!

And end up in the l33t unemployment line!

[domokun]

Key word is concealed.

if an employer says you cant have weapons, thats no problem, thats why they are CONCEALED!

pwn that employer!

Sure you could covertly carry at work but if you get reported, you've violated your employment contract with your employer and will probably be fired from your job on the spot since CA is an "At Will" employment state. For many, it's not worth losing your job and putting your family's financial stability at risk just for your ability to carry concealed at work.

The silver lining is that if the new laws that push forward "Shall Issue" CCW contains a clause that invalidates any such prohibitions at the state level with employers in CA, then it'd be a moot issue since CA state law trumps any legal agreement between an individual and their employer.

[bulgron]

Sure you could covertly carry at work but if you get reported, you've violated your employment contract with your employer and will probably be fired from your job on the spot since CA is an "At Will" employment state. For many, it's not worth losing your job and putting your family's financial stability at risk just for your ability to carry concealed at work.

The silver lining is that if the new laws that push forward "Shall Issue" CCW contains a clause that invalidates any such prohibitions at the state level with employers in CA, then it'd be a moot issue since CA state law trumps any legal agreement between an individual and their employer.

If you want to carry at work, get a job telecommuting or start your own business. Working on-site for some other guy is kind of a losing proposition anyway, in the long run. I mean, just look at how many people are losing their jobs right now. So why come to depend economically on a job that you know can get yanked out from under you at any moment, plus they don't trust you with tools of self defense?

Like I said, find a way to support yourself that involves the least interaction with corporate suits as is possible. Once you figure that out, you'll be able to CCW on the job, because there won't be anyone there who cares.

[N6ATF]

Sure you could covertly carry at work but if you get reported, you've violated your employment contract with your employer and will probably be fired from your job on the spot since CA is an "At Will" employment state. For many, it's not worth losing your job and putting your family's financial stability at risk just for your ability to carry concealed at work.

The silver lining is that if the new laws that push forward "Shall Issue" CCW contains a clause that invalidates any such prohibitions at the state level with employers in CA, then it'd be a moot issue since CA state law trumps any legal agreement between an individual and their employer.

Better alive than dead. Governments and businesses alike cannot guarantee your security within their facilities. Only you can, and every time there is a successful workplace crime, those businesses should be sued for assisting the criminals by disarming their victims.

[12voltguy]

I'm lucky enough to live where my local sherrif trusts it's good citizens, so I have one going on 3 years now, just renewed like 6 months ago.

only 80 miles north od sac too

[leitung]

Hell yeah I would get one.. I would walk into Sac sheriff HQ with a big **** eatin grin on my face just after AB357 came into effect and slam that baby down. Too bad it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing.
I would make it a point to go to SF afterward and carry, just to enjoy the thought of carrying in the liberal "paradise"..

[armygunsmith]

I really want my CCW. I would also carry all the time.

[12voltguy]

No need, you are already allowed three carry in a California CCW.:p


not true at all
depends on the county & the dept giving out the CCW
in my town it's 4
if you do not know, do not answer:thumbsup:
got enough miss information in the media with more in here:eek:
in phz az it was unlimted, said weapon, so I could carry anything, shotgun, handgun whatever
here I am limited to 4 with make & S/N on permit
wish it was for all, then no need to treat some special during transport while others can be loaded and not locked up

[sorensen440]

If you want to carry at work, get a job telecommuting or start your own business. Working on-site for some other guy is kind of a losing proposition anyway, in the long run. I mean, just look at how many people are losing their jobs right now. So why come to depend economically on a job that you know can get yanked out from under you at any moment, plus they don't trust you with tools of self defense?

Like I said, find a way to support yourself that involves the least interaction with corporate suits as is possible. Once you figure that out, you'll be able to CCW on the job, because there won't be anyone there who cares.
I'm allowed to carry at work due to my employer being truely neutral when it comes to firearms

[skateboarder74]

Every one who can legally buy a gun should have the option to have a CCW. Then once you obtain your CCW you should be able to buy a gun cash and carry.
Just like Idaho.

[12voltguy]

You can do more then 3. There are three places for firearms on the standard app and the permit, but there isn't strictly-speaking a limit.

again this varies, so stop with the FUD;)

[rrr70]

Every one who can legally buy a gun should have the option to have a CCW. Then once you obtain your CCW you should be able to buy a gun cash and carry.
Just like Idaho.

Amen.:thumbsup:

[CapS]

Yes, please, I'd like one.
Until we get to the place where we don't need a permit, at least.
But it's too cold for me in Vermont.

/Cap

[Meplat]

That is very true, as my employer has a big ol' sign on both front gates, and in the employee lounge that says none allowed, even if you have a "license or permit" to carry "such weapon"... It's:icon_bs::willy_nilly::no::banghead::cuss:

Erik.

Screw him, that's why it's concealed. So you don't scare the natives.:p

[MP301]

Unless this group does not represent gun owners very well, I was correct in thinking that most would want a permit. I even understand that there are those, like those that have posted in this thread, that might not carry all the time, but would very much like the option if they could.

Better to have it and not need it then need it and get screwed. And yeah, sure, if your life is in danger you will carry anyway blah blah, but its not like you can check your crystal ball before leaving the house and see if its danger day!

[Meplat]

Geeeeze, he said most dont need one..arrrgh, I could just go nuclear!

He's right. It's a god given right not subject to licensing.

[McCrown]

Where do I sign up?

[Meplat]

No need, you are already allowed three carry in a California CCW.:p

I have four on mine and that is not enough. I think the ladies may eventually help us on this one. Can you imagine what it must be like to not have enough choices to properly accent your outfit and exccessories!

:p

[peepshowal]

Someone on another thread said that most shooters would not want (or need!) a CCW. If CA was shall issue, would you obtain a CCW?

The answer to your first question and thread title "Would you like a CCW permit? " is NO. I would like to legally carry with no permission slip required.

The answer to your second question above "If CA was shall issue, would you obtain a CCW?" is Yes.

[Adonlude]

Even if I felt like carrying a gun one day a year I'd still get the permit to do so.

[tactic101]

How many times can I vote yes?

[pepsi2451]

I have one but I never carry. I guess its nice not having to lock it on my way to the range.

[MP301]

He's right. It's a god given right not subject to licensing.

Hey! Dont confuse the issue, I know its a right. I hope your not saying you wouldnt want a CCW permit because you shouldnt have to have a permit to carry a gun? You prefer not to carry or do it at great legal risk instead of getting a permit?

We need to take what we can get, when we can get it and then go for more man!

Edit: after reading further down on your otehr poists, I see that you have a permit and now understand the context of your statement better.... Sorry...I stand corrected!

[jb7706]

:rant: Awesome. 300+ "Damn Skippy" votes so far here. Yet in this thread http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161349 there are less than 60 members who have stated they have contacted their reps to support AB357.

This is not an issue that should follow the 80/20 rule. For those of you who have yet to contact your rep and the safety committee get off your duff and do it now. Don't let the minority (those who have actually called reps) of a minority (gun owners in CA) carry you to the CCW line. That will only ensure that CA in on the 20 year path to shall issue. The good folks in charge under the dome are not going to just roll over and give us shall issue. :rant:

For those of you who have called, written and emailed keep it up.

[kar6man]

Already have it. :thumbsup:I don't carry it anywhere other than inside my truck.

[infernalaanger]

:rant:

For those of you who have called, written and emailed keep it up.

I've already written, called, and faxed. Shall we continue the phone calls to the public safety committee and our assembly members? Or is it just a one time thing to tally. Some asked where I was from, and my name. Just curious...

[F-2_Challenger]

I would take it, raise my insurance, and grin from ear to ear.

[Seesm]

Safety is in the CCW I feel... as I am sure others do as well.

[SimpleCountryActuary]

No questions asked. YES I'll take 1

I'll take 2 since the other guy didn't want one.

[lioneaglegriffin]

I'll take 2 since the other guy didn't want one.

nice sig i used to work for the TSA.

[yellowfin]

I'll take an out of state one in a couple months...resident wouldn't go too far for me. Sure coulda used one a year or so ago, especially one for the Mrs. as well, but it's generally agreed squeaking two permits for new folks in town out of Santa Clara wasn't (probably still isn't) in the cards.

[arfan66]

I voted Yes (letters sent, calls made, fingers crossed ;)).

[lioneaglegriffin]

too me its not the no votes thats bad, but the number that have one relative to the number that want one.

[MP301]

What?:confused:

[sailor74]

I had a ccw when I lived in Florida in the early 90's, and you know, I hardly ever carried my gun outside.

But here in Kalifornia, I would definitely carry, there's too many kooks here.


Sailor74

[Seesm]

So what is it gonna take to make California "shall issue" ? :)

[MP301]

So what is it gonna take to make California "shall issue" ? :)

I think its only a matter of time. All of the trends are going the right direction and the Heller decision gives us a boost. But what its gong to take is to really push for it and be vocal about it and really want it.... Call the safety comitee where the bill (AB357) is at now and voicwe yoru support..you can find the link elsewhere in this post...

[CA_Libertarian]

No, I wouldn't.

I assume by "permit" you mean I have to pay a tax and take a test. I don't think my conscience would be able to bear participating in that system of whoring out of my rights.

[12voltguy]

No, I wouldn't.

I assume by "permit" you mean I have to pay a tax and take a test. I don't think my conscience would be able to bear participating in that system of whoring out of my rights.

I assume you do not drive a car, as that requires same.
That must suck or you don't like cars:eek:
my cars are a higher priority then food to me:D

[Riodog]

I had a ccw when I lived in Florida in the early 90's, and you know, I hardly ever carried my gun outside.

But here in Kalifornia, I would definitely carry, there's too many kooks here.


Sailor74

Hey, who you calling kooks??? We're all normal, really!

As for 357, I wouldn't hold my breath. With the way things are in this state it ain't gonna happen with our liberal prostitutes that know what's best for us and our traitor of a govinator. Throw in every sheriff and chief of police and you'd have a better chance of winning the lotto.

WHILE I am NOT advocating anything illegal I want you to think about this.

On one side, consider the effect that the continual breaking of the law 'as social disobedience" the mexican problem has headed. Everything from amnesty to let um stay to supporting them, etc.
The same when homo-sexuality was frowned on. Don't ask don't tell.
That's what openly breaking the law gained those that chose to follow that path.
All of the above is pretty common now a days.
Do we just go ahead and carry since the powers that be make it so difficult to do it legally?
Will they cave in to this demand?

Will they change their stance???

The flip side is that by breaking the law-> civil disobedience, it could turn out that the powers to be turn totally against us and pass even stricter laws.

Firearms are a 'hot topic issue' and it effects politicians like no other. (maybe cuz they're scared cuz they know they're a bunch of deceitful cons and someone might just seek justice).
Look what happened with the Black Panthers when they were within the the law. The lawmakers just passed another law so that didn't happen again. No more 'open carry"!
I don't have the answer except to say that "do what you gotta do but be careful". Doesn't bother me if you wanna walk down the street with an MP 5 under your shirt and I really don't care if you have any paperwork at all.
Rio

[rrr70]

I assume you do not drive a car, as that requires same.
That must suck or you don't like cars:eek:
my cars are a higher priority then food to me:D

Driving is not a right.

[12voltguy]

Driving is not a right.

really?
thx for the newsflash skippy:rolleyes:
I'm pretty sure you understood my post:chris:
you still have to take a test & pay a fee
if he doesn't want to do these 2 things to have a CCW, who cares?
You won't see it without one in our lifetime in ca, not many states do

[DDT]

really?
thx for the newsflash skippy:rolleyes:
I'm pretty sure you understood my post:chris:
you still have to take a test & pay a fee
if he doesn't want to do these 2 things to have a CCW, who cares?
You won't see it without one in our lifetime in ca, not many states do

Yes, I suspect he does understand your point. His point would seem to be.

Paying to exercise a privilege is a very different thing that paying to exercise a RIGHT.

See, the supreme court has said that you may not charge the poor to exercise other rights, such as voting. You may not charge people a tax to exercise their rights to practice their religion or express their opinion in free speech. You cannot be forced to pass a test to vote or write a blog, or post a forum message.

The right to keep and bear arms is unique in that you are REQUIRED by the state to pay a tax or permit fee to purchase or carry a gun.

Would it fly if you were required to register every printing press or laser printer before you were allowed publish anything for mass consumption? Would it be acceptable to have to get permission to exercise your right to assemble with those with whom you share a common bond?

It is distasteful to many to be forced to pay the government for the ability to do that which the constitution guarantees as a basic right.

[Bird of Fire]

As a gun owner, I would not like a CCW permit.

As a beer drinker, I would not like free Sam Adams either.

As a fan of money, I would not like free money handed to me either.

Who the hell comes up with this line of reasoning?

[bulgron]

As a gun owner, I would not like a CCW permit.

As a beer drinker, I would not like free Sam Adams either.

As a fan of money, I would not like free money handed to me either.

Who the hell comes up with this line of reasoning?

To be fair, there are a lot of gun owners who don't want a CCW, and for a couple of reasons.

The first is that they think they know better than the courts about what's constitutional. They refuse to ask the state for a permission slip to exercise their right to bear arms. This works out for them until they get caught, and they they find out why they should have wanted that permission slip in the first place.

The truth of the matter is, due to the history of regulating CCW which predates the Constitution, the ability of the states to regulate or even ban CCW outright will always be constitutional. That said, CCW permits are (I think) dangerous because they give the state too much authority over our ability to bear in public. For that reason, we should view CCW permits as a stepping stone to the more acceptable "Vermont-style" carry, where no one needs a permission slip. But to get there we have to go through the political process of convincing our fellow citizens that not only is a permit-less system safe, but it's also a good idea. That takes time.

For now, we need to get that first stepping stone installed, which is shall-issue on CCW permits.

The other reason why people don't want a CCW permit is because they don't think they'll ever need one. But these are people who seem to forget that they live on top of active fault lines. Apparently the idea that the earth can move and police response can drop to a time measured in days doesn't penetrate. Or maybe they think that if things get that bad, they'll just carry without a permit and whose business is it anyway? But those people should study hard what happened in NOLA post-katrina, especially with regards to checkpoints that were set up specifically to catch otherwise law-abiding citizens with arms and then to take those arms away. A permit gives you a fighting chance in court to sue the bastards into oblivion if that ever happens to you. Without it, you lose your gun and possibly your freedom.

[Bird of Fire]

To be fair, there are a lot of gun owners who don't want a CCW, and for a couple of reasons.

The first is that they think they know better than the courts about what's constitutional. They refuse to ask the state for a permission slip to exercise their right to bear arms. This works out for them until they get caught, and they they find out why they should have wanted that permission slip in the first place.

The truth of the matter is, due to the history of regulating CCW which predates the Constitution, the ability of the states to regulate or even ban CCW outright will always be constitutional. That said, CCW permits are (I think) dangerous because they give the state too much authority over our ability to bear in public. For that reason, we should view CCW permits as a stepping stone to the more acceptable "Vermont-style" carry, where no one needs a permission slip. But to get there we have to go through the political process of convincing our fellow citizens that not only is a permit-less system safe, but it's also a good idea. That takes time.

For now, we need to get that first stepping stone installed, which is shall-issue on CCW permits.

The other reason why people don't want a CCW permit is because they don't think they'll ever need one. But these are people who seem to forget that they live on top of active fault lines. Apparently the idea that the earth can move and police response can drop to a time measured in days doesn't penetrate. Or maybe they think that if things get that bad, they'll just carry without a permit and whose business is it anyway? But those people should study hard what happened in NOLA post-katrina, especially with regards to checkpoints that were set up specifically to catch otherwise law-abiding citizens with arms and then to take those arms away. A permit gives you a fighting chance in court to sue the bastards into oblivion if that ever happens to you. Without it, you lose your gun and possibly your freedom.

True on your points. That and there are a lot of people who do it solely for sporting purposes that don't even own a handgun.

However, I prefer the luxury of a choice rather than faced with a limitation as to what I can and cannot do. I may never ever "need" to carry a handgun in the grand scheme of things, but I'd like the options. I may never attend church, but I enjoy the freedom of being allowed to choose which church I may go to.

I never once thought about the post Katrina style checkpoints, that's an excellent piece of info to consider. :)

[Greg-Dawg®]

Now do something about it.

Apply, get denied and sue.

[DDT]

However, I prefer the luxury of a choice rather than faced with a limitation as to what I can and cannot do. I may never ever "need" to carry a handgun in the grand scheme of things, but I'd like the options.

As long as CCWs are readily available there is no need to "stockpile" before the need arises. We are all very used to CCWs be a scarce commodity. When they aren't scarce a lot of people won't want one unless and until they need one.

[bulgron]

Now do something about it.

Apply, get denied and sue.

Not yet.

It isn't possible to sue successfully right now if you just have a "want" and not a "need."

But the day is coming. It takes incorporation and then a recognition in the courts that the right to arms for the purpose of self-defense extends beyond your front door. Once we have that, we can hammer the state on their laws on loaded carry in public.

This is a gigantic game of chess, and we are but the pawns. Angry, aggressive, foaming-at-the-mouth pawns, but pawns nevertheless.

I, for one, am looking forward to the day when I can apply for a permit knowing that if my Sheriff turns me down, I'm going to get to retire. :43:

[bulgron]

As long as CCWs are readily available there is no need to "stockpile" before the need arises. We are all very used to CCWs be a scarce commodity. When they aren't scarce a lot of people won't want one unless and until they need one.

I've never understood this line of thinking. Even in the friendliest states it takes time to get a permit once you decide to go that route. And that time is measured in months. Conversely, a citizen's need for a permit can blow up suddenly, on the order of hours or days or even weeks, but certainly faster than one can acquire a permit. For me, the answer is obvious: once you can get a permit, you should. Because you never know when you're suddenly going to need it.

[yellowfin]

The idea of predetermined "need" for CCW is absurd. If we had that kind of ability to predict the future, you'd see everyone in here being a multi billionaire from stock market investments. Psychics would be calling us for advice.

[DDT]

I've never understood this line of thinking. Even in the friendliest states it takes time to get a permit once you decide to go that route. And that time is measured in months. Conversely, a citizen's need for a permit can blow up suddenly, on the order of hours or days or even weeks, but certainly faster than one can acquire a permit. For me, the answer is obvious: once you can get a permit, you should. Because you never know when you're suddenly going to need it.

If your needs are that urgent there is relief available via the judicial system. Paying annual fees etc. can be a drag and many gun owners don't even think about their guns being useful "on the road" they may only have a shotgun or rifle for sporting purposes.

[DVLDOC]

:Ivan:

[MP301]

To be fair, there are a lot of gun owners who don't want a CCW, and for a couple of reasons.

The first is that they think they know better than the courts about what's constitutional. They refuse to ask the state for a permission slip to exercise their right to bear arms. This works out for them until they get caught, and they they find out why they should have wanted that permission slip in the first place.

The truth of the matter is, due to the history of regulating CCW which predates the Constitution, the ability of the states to regulate or even ban CCW outright will always be constitutional. That said, CCW permits are (I think) dangerous because they give the state too much authority over our ability to bear in public. For that reason, we should view CCW permits as a stepping stone to the more acceptable "Vermont-style" carry, where no one needs a permission slip. But to get there we have to go through the political process of convincing our fellow citizens that not only is a permit-less system safe, but it's also a good idea. That takes time.

For now, we need to get that first stepping stone installed, which is shall-issue on CCW permits.

The other reason why people don't want a CCW permit is because they don't think they'll ever need one. But these are people who seem to forget that they live on top of active fault lines. Apparently the idea that the earth can move and police response can drop to a time measured in days doesn't penetrate. Or maybe they think that if things get that bad, they'll just carry without a permit and whose business is it anyway? But those people should study hard what happened in NOLA post-katrina, especially with regards to checkpoints that were set up specifically to catch otherwise law-abiding citizens with arms and then to take those arms away. A permit gives you a fighting chance in court to sue the bastards into oblivion if that ever happens to you. Without it, you lose your gun and possibly your freedom.

I am very impressed with your logic Bulgron. I dont think it could be better stated.

Its a funny thing how quickly we forget our past, even our recent past. I remember reading something regarding guns and the LA riots. There was such a spike in gun and ammo sales after the event not seen until now.

The part I found humorous was all of the people that never thought they needed a gun went out as quick as they could to purchase them. And when they did this, the conversation at the gun store went something like this....



Gun store employee - bOk Sir/madam, you can pick up your gun on such and such date.

Gun buyer - Uh, what do you mean?

Gun store employee - There is a waiting period required by law before you can take home your purchase

Gun Buyer - But I need it now!

Gun store employee - Im sorry Sir/madam, but the law is the law.

Gun buyer - But that is a stupid law! How am I going to protect myself/my family/ my business from these rioting thugs?!?!?

Gun store employee - Well, I guess you could call the Police?

Gun buyer - AAHHHHHH!

The point is, the option to protect yourself needs to be available. And if you dont excersise this option before you need it, then it may just be too late.

If you dont want a CCW now, but something unforeseeable changes in your life, you know, like a Psycho Stalking your wife or daughter, you will want/need oneyesterday as soon as you find out how well the police protect works. And gee, how long does that process take even if CCW's are available?

And just think about how entertaining it would be to get arrested for protecting your own family because you have the attitude that "if that happens, I wont care about a permit". The fact that you were carrying a gun illegally might be the little push the prosecuter needs on deciding to try you for murder or man slaughter when you have to shoot the guy. Tell me, how well can a person actuall protect his/her family from jail?

Part of personal responsibility to protect your family is not, and should not, just be related to one incident. If you end up in jail for not covering all the bases, then you better hope that the one incident is the last one. Sorta like your starving to death, but having a single shot shotgun with the breech welded shut. You better not miss that turkey or its over....

BTW, all of those misguided folks in CA that dont currently own a gun because they "dont need it", might someday just understand how long 10 days really is. I wont be loaning any of mine to them..... And it will take some effort to feel bad for them. Common sense is common sense, isnt it?

And if CA ever does go shall issue, and your not smart enough to get one "just in case", 60 to 120 days or more, may as well be a lifetime!

[bulgron]

If your needs are that urgent there is relief available via the judicial system. Paying annual fees etc. can be a drag and many gun owners don't even think about their guns being useful "on the road" they may only have a shotgun or rifle for sporting purposes.

The problem is the annual fees. There's no excuse for that.

I have a Utah permit. I forget how long it's good for (5 years?), but certainly I don't have to renew it every year. Plus, renewal is relatively inexpensive -- around $60 if memory serves. And easy -- they'll send me mail to let me know it needs to be renewed.

Other states (New York, for example) give CCW permits for life.

If it's done right, the permit system doesn't have to be a drag at all. Yes, there's some upfront pain as you take your initial training/testing, but after that it ought to be as painless as any state-run program can be. Certainly it should be no more painful than what it takes to get and renew a drivers license. In fact, it should be a lot less painful than that, even, if only because there's fewer people who want a CCW.

If the system is set up right, then there should be no good reason for a handgun owner to not get the permit. Admittedly, even with AB 357, California's system will be far from perfect. But it's a start.

I know that if AB 357 passes into law, I'll be getting my California permit no matter how painful the process. I don't "need" a permit, but I certainly want one a few times a year. Beside, by getting the permit I'm standing up to be counted by those who claim no one wants one.

Right now, the only thing that prevents me from going through the process is the 100% certainty of a 'no' answer at the end of it and no viable appeal, plus the possibility of being penalized for that 'no' answer somewhere down the road for some obscure reason or another.

[MP301]

[QUOTE=bulgron;2215985]

I know that if AB 357 passes into law, I'll be getting my California permit no matter how painful the process. I don't "need" a permit, but I certainly want one a few times a year. Beside, by getting the permit I'm standing up to be counted by those who claim no one wants one.QUOTE]

Aditionally, for every person that is issued a CCW permit and doesnt go on a murderous rampage over a parking space, the statistical numbers will continue to show that most people with guns are not the problem...It all helps!

[scotthmt]

who voted no?

[MP301]

who voted no?

Makes you wonder, huh?

[copenhagen269]

I've had my CCW for 5 years, thanks Mendocino County. :clap:

[lioneaglegriffin]

Makes you wonder, huh?

At least everyone knows what a CCW is. :o

[DDT]

If the system is set up right, then there should be no good reason for a handgun owner to not get the permit. Admittedly, even with AB 357, California's system will be far from perfect. But it's a start.


No, if the law is done right there should be no good reason for a handgun owner to be denied access to the permit. I don't know why it is so hard for some people to believe that others might make a different choice in life than they would.

I would personally rather see a system where the only reason TO get a permit is for interstate travel. Just like Alaska.

[bombmaster]

Yes I want my CCW.
I asked an Anti one time if they had a fire extinguisher in there house. He answered "yes" My response was "why"? Just run down to your local Home Depot and pick one up if your kitchen catches fire:eek: or call 911 they will get here fast.?.? I then reminded him no one will respond to your emergency faster than you. be prepared

[rob]

I voted no.

I fully support shall issue CCW, but it isn't for everyone (namely me). Please do not confuse my personal choice as not being down with the 'cause'.

[MP301]

I voted no.

I fully support shall issue CCW, but it isn't for everyone (namely me). Please do not confuse my personal choice as not being down with the 'cause'.

Even if its not for you, the fact that you support it says a lot about your character.

It would seem that you understand that we should all support each other's personal wants/desires/needs or we could lose our own....

:thumbsup:

[DDT]

Yes I want my CCW.
I asked an Anti one time if they had a fire extinguisher in there house. He answered "yes" My response was "why"? Just run down to your local Home Depot and pick one up if your kitchen catches fire:eek: or call 911 they will get here fast.?.? I then reminded him no one will respond to your emergency faster than you. be prepared

Excellent analogy

[MP301]

Yes, a very good analogy indeed...

[KylaGWolf]

Not only would I take one I would wait outside all night to get it.

[RomanDad]

My response isnt on there....

"I have one.... And I want everybody else to have one too."

[PressCheck]

Got my first one in 1967.

[MP301]

Got my first one in 2008.... Nevada

[MP301]

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

This started when someone tried to tell me that most people wouldnt want a CCW.....

[Decoligny]

I'd get two if I could so I have more carry pieces to choose from.

I suspect from your comment that you are under the impression that you can only have three guns on a license. This is a mistaken impression. This is due to there only being three lines on Section 3 of the CCW Application. Most people don't notice that the Instructions for Section 3 end with the statement (Use additional pages if necessary.)

So you can have as many carry pieces as you want on one license.

[HondaMasterTech]

No. Guns are evil.

[mej16489]

I suspect from your comment that you are under the impression that you can only have three guns on a license. This is a mistaken impression. This is due to there only being three lines on Section 3 of the CCW Application. Most people don't notice that the Instructions for Section 3 end with the statement (Use additional pages if necessary.)

So you can have as many carry pieces as you want on one license.

However, some issuing agencies impose an administrative limit on the number of guns. With 'may issue' licensing inplace I would guess that noone has ever challenged the practice.

[CAG23]

My app would be in to the SO before the ink was dry on the new change to the law.

[calnurse]

tell me when, where, and how and i'll call in sick