AB 357 in Sac BEE Mar 23

[Librarian]

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/1720695.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=3481696

Usual suspects opposing ...

Proposed easing of concealed-weapons law draws fire
stano@sacbee.com
Published Monday, Mar. 23, 2009

What issue could unite a Republican lawmaker from Southern California and a 46-year-old lesbian from Natomas?

Guns, of course.

A bill introduced in the state Assembly last month aims to make it easier for Californians to obtain a concealed weapons permit.

Assembly Bill 357 – yes, the number is right – would change a state law that currently gives county sheriffs or chiefs of police final say in who can carry a gun.

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.

Even though the bill won't be heard in committee for a few weeks, it has raised ire among law enforcement officials, including Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness. Police chiefs and sheriffs can be more effective at screening out people who shouldn't have concealed weapons, he said.

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.

But the aim of the bill is fairness, said the bill's author, Assemblyman Steven Knight of Palmdale. While some California counties are more liberal when it comes to issuing concealed weapons permits, others are "very strict, and they use that phrase 'good cause' to their benefit," Knight said.

In addition, Knight said, there's an inherent unfairness in deciding that some people's perceptions of danger are more valid than others. "Lots of judges in California get permits," he said. "Does (the state) have the same amount of regard for the safety of a liquor store owner or a jewelry store owner?"

Among supporters of Knight's bill is Deanna Sykes, co-founder of the Sacramento chapter of Pink Pistols, an international group that advocates gun ownership by gays and lesbians. Their slogan: "Armed gays don't get bashed."

"I think it's a benefit to society if the good guys have the ability to protect themselves," Sykes said.

Part of the mission of the Pink Pistols is to promote self-defense in the gay community, Sykes said.

"(Gun ownership) minimizes that idea that gays are defenseless," she said. "When someone thinks about bashing some (gays), they might stop because he might be more prepared to defend himself. … If you can convince them that you're not weaker because you have an equalizer, you might not get picked on."

McGinness said he was sympathetic to people concerned about their safety, but said a uniform approach isn't good for California. "Alpine County and Los Angeles County are vastly different," he said. "A one-size-fits-all is not in the best interest of public safety."

Lt. Mark Reed, who reviews concealed weapons applications in Placer County, said local law enforcement often recommend alternatives to carrying a gun. For example, he said, many people apply because they carry around lots of money as part of their job. "If they could use a courier service, that'd be safer. … If I can offer a safer alternative, it negates the 'good cause.' "

Both McGinness and Reed said that in their counties, simply wanting to carry a concealed weapon isn't good-enough cause.

"Personal protection is insufficient," McGinness said.

Sykes believes a pistol tucked into her purse might be the only thing that keeps her from becoming a victim of an anti-gay hate crime.

But it's not like she's looking for a showdown, she said. Still, in an emergency, she said she'd like to know that her .45 is close at hand.

"I have a fire extinguisher under my sink for the same reason," she said.

Call The Bee's Stan Oklobdzija, (916) 321-1041.

[bulgron]

"Personal protection is insufficient," McGinness said.

Pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

I wonder what people like Sheriff McGuinness make of Heller, where it says that the 2A protects our right to be armed "for the core lawful purpose of self-defense"?

"Oh, it isn't incorporated."

"Oh, that applies only inside the home because that's all that Heller was talking about."

"Oh, I'm going to continue to weasel until the courts MAKE me obey the constitution."

McGinness is just another putz who should be kicked out of public service, but who won't be because the rules of the game are rigged in his favor.

[Canute]

Plus fear mongering about OJ Simpson...

[CCWFacts]

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.

That is such BS. The CCW-related BS I hate the most is "we don't issue because of liability concerns". But "if we had shall-issue, guys like OJ (before his robbery conviction) could get permits" is somewhere quite close to it.

IN FACT, SHERIFF, NICOLE COULD HAVE GOTTEN A PERMIT, AND OJ COULDN'T (after he killed Nicole), including with AB 357.

[1BigPea]

The arguments against CCW are always the same!! I don't understand why those against are so blind not to see that States with Shall Issue CCW crime actually goes down!

[mk3mitch]

Do you guys think AB 357 will pass? And, When will we know the desicion? also, IF it were to pass, when would it go into effect?

[bulgron]

Do you guys think AB 357 will pass? And, When will we know the desicion? also, IF it were to pass, when would it go into effect?

I fully expect it not to pass. This is our first shot at it. Most states take something like 10 years to finally pass a CCW law, once gunnies in those states finally get serious about it. Some states (like Wisconsin) are taking even longer than that.

What AB357 does is gives us a chance to get the ball rolling, to gain momentum if you will. It lets the politicians know that we're serious about this issue -- especially if we keep calling and writing. And that's going to be really important as we move into a post-Nordyke world in which the 2A is incorporated and lawsuits over Californias ban on LOC have a real chance of succeeding.

The message we'll be sending is, give us CCW or watch us walk around town with a gun openly displayed on our hip.

We need AB 357 to be as successful as it can be. But the mere fact that it got introduced is a big win. Even last year everyone was acting like a bill like this could never even be authored. So the fact that it's a topic of conversation is, I think, a big milestone for the pro-gun community in California.

[yellowfin]

^ Even more to the point, we need to get behind it still if it doesn't pass to get it reintroduced and keep the morale up. We don't want "See, we told you it wouldn't fly, so get over it" from everyone afterwards, but rather "Ok, round 1's over. Time for round 2, then round 3, 4, 5, and 6 if necessary." Shaping the attitudes and continuing the buildup of support is going to be a task.

[Librarian]

Do you guys think AB 357 will pass? And, When will we know the desicion? also, IF it were to pass, when would it go into effect?

I'm not really optimistic either, but it could. I think we need to support it as far as it can go.

If it were to pass and be signed, it would go into effect next January 1.

As to 'when we would know', that's variable. First critical date is June 5 - that's the last day the Assembly can vote on a bill in this session to move it over to the Senate (see Assembly Calendar (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/clerk/billslegislature/2009legcalendar.html)). If it doesn't pass an Assembly Floor vote by then, it's pretty much dead for the session.

If it goes to the Senate, then it's committee hearings and votes and a Senate Floor vote by September 5th.

It could be killed in committee sooner, though 'dead' bills have ways of resurrecting when the legislative leadership wants them.

[PatriotnMore]

Here we go again with the:
"it has raised ire among law enforcement officials, including Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness. Police chiefs and sheriffs can be more effective at screening out people who shouldn't have concealed weapons, he said."
I f'n hate the arrogance of some LEO's.

[CCWFacts]

"it has raised ire among law enforcement officials, including Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness. Police chiefs and sheriffs can be more effective at screening out people who shouldn't have concealed weapons, he said."
I f'n hate the arrogance of some LEO's.

And that's really a lie. AB 357 does not in any way remove sheriffs' ability to screen people out. It removes their ability to screen people in.

In other words, it removes the Good Cause aspect. It does not change the Good Character screening aspect at all. If a sheriff has some evidence that a person is not of good character, that person can still be screened out.

[BobB35]

The scary thing is McGuiness ran on a Pro-CCW platform and then turned into this mess.

Rank and file LEO's may support CCW, but for the most part if you live in a county with over 500K people the CLEOs are solidly in the camp of you get to be a victim. The worst part is the LEO unions are in the same camp. This I think is where a lot of animosity comes from. The unions and management stand for one thing and then the rank and file actually think the exact opposite. Unfortunately the management and the unions have the political clout and use it.
Who get the quote, Sheriff McGuniess not Deputy Smith who would say, "Heck ya CCW should be Shall issue, you never know when I might need some help in a bad situation."

AB 357 is DOA in this state, but it will get the issue in the public, so when the courts force reasonable or shall issue down the throats of recalcitrant CLEOs the people will be in a better position to understand....

[PatriotnMore]

^ Couldn't agree more, otherwise the would be having intelligent discussions on the subject, which would include the States that already have Shall Issue, and what affect that has had. No, none of that, just subtle scaremongering based on conjecture.

[PatriotnMore]

The unions and management stand for one thing and then the rank and file actually think the exact opposite.

Time for the rank and file to be heard, and break the hold of the Unions, in terms of speaking out of turn on issues.

[leitung]

Lt. Mark Reed, who reviews concealed weapons applications in Placer County, said local law enforcement often recommend alternatives to carrying a gun. For example, he said, many people apply because they carry around lots of money as part of their job. "If they could use a courier service, that'd be safer. … If I can offer a safer alternative, it negates the 'good cause.

Eh? Placer county is known to issue for reasons that are far less strict than that. I personally know 2 people who have gotten CCWs in Placer County for basically "protection" with a little bit more to it.
I wonder if Sheriff Bonner is tighting up?

[Window_Seat]

I am optimistic about 357, even if it doesn't pass. If it doesn't pass, we need to jump on it again right away and keep going at it until it finally passes. If we do that, then it's a matter of "when it passes, not "if it passes".

This is the right attitude to have:
Check in with the CalGuns Foundation, and donate when you can to support the cause.
Contact your State & Federal Lawmakers, and make sure you tell them who you are a member of, and give factual based statements that support the cause.
Take a look at This post by H Paul Payne (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2072471#post2072471), and do what you can. Trust me on this!
And QUIT saying "it ain't gonna do no good", or "it ain't gonna pass", because if you all continue with that attitude, it WON'T do those who are optimistic any service at all, and that isn't why you are here...
DON'T allow some newspaper or internet blog or article bring you down, because that is what those blogs & articles are designed to do. The anti's win if you let them win.


As I said in another thread, there is a reason Assemblyman Knight wrote this bill.

Erik.

[MP301]

I am optimistic about 357, even if it doesn't pass. If it doesn't pass, we need to jump on it again right away and keep going at it until it finally passes. If we do that, then it's a matter of "when it passes, not "if it passes".

This is the right attitude to have:
Check in with the CalGuns Foundation, and donate when you can to support the cause.
Contact your State & Federal Lawmakers, and make sure you tell them who you are a member of, and give factual based statements that support the cause.
Take a look at This post by H Paul Payne (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2072471#post2072471), and do what you can. Trust me on this!
And QUIT saying "it ain't gonna do no good", or "it ain't gonna pass", because if you all continue with that attitude, it WON'T do those who are optimistic any service at all, and that isn't why you are here...
DON'T allow some newspaper or internet blog or article bring you down, because that is what those blogs & articles are designed to do. The anti's win if you let them win.


As I said in another thread, there is a reason Assemblyman Knight wrote this bill.

Erik.

This, my friends, is the best attitude regarding AB357 on this site!

I really think that the "Doom and Gloom" types really hurt our overall progress on many important issues by spreading a different kind of anti-gun FUD.

"Ohhhhhh, it will never happen....dont waste your time....we cant succeed....we are doomed....waaaaaa.... nobody loves me...im going to the garden to eat some worms!"

STFU! YOU ARE NOT HELPING! Why would you want to go out of your way to negatively influence others to hinder our progress? You are probably the same people that didnt take the time out of your busy life to vote because it was not going to make any difference blah blah blah...

And we see how that idea works when all those people who never voted before in there life got off their back sides and put Obama in office! Gee, instead of sitting around pizzin and moanin about how there would never be a black man in office, they decided that they wanted it bad enough to actually make the effort! Yeah sure, many that voted probably thought it wouldnt happen, but they voted anyway and accomplished their goal just the same.

Its ok to think that its a slim chance to pass AB357, but its NOT ok to not make the effort and its NOT ok to work against the effort with negative, counter-productive FUD!

www.handgunlaw.us Then click on Right-to-carry history.

This shows to progress nationwide of Right to carry in America. Gee, im thinkin that all of those states might not have succeeded if they shared these "Doom and Gloom" attitudes. And they did it without Heller, imagine that?

Sure, California is a tall order because of its liberal nature, but with 4/5 of the states Shall issue now, and more close to it, its looking like just a matter of time. Get with the program and stop acting like a victim!

[Piper]

Even though the bill won't be heard in committee for a few weeks, it has raised ire among law enforcement officials, including Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness. Police chiefs and sheriffs can be more effective at screening out people who shouldn't have concealed weapons, he said.

And herein lies the problem. Based on past and current practices, it appears that they think that a majority of California's residents shouldn't have concealed weapons. What a bunch of pampas asses.

[bruss01]

Even though the bill won't be heard in committee for a few weeks, it has raised ire among law enforcement officials, including Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness. Police chiefs and sheriffs can be more effective at screening out people who shouldn't have concealed weapons, he said.

So give the Sheriff's office opportunity to show GOOD CAUSE why a certain person should NOT have a CCW. Put the onus of proof on the Sheriff. Is he a known gang member who just hasn't been charged with a felony yet? Is he a known substance abuser? Has he got a violent history? Is he a known sufferer of a major mental illness? Is he beyond doubt, senile or otherwise not in control of his faculties? If you can document it in a form that will hold up in court, ok, yes, maybe this person needs some extra scrutiny when it comes to putting a rubber stamp on a CCW application. But if a week or two goes by, and the Sheriff's department is unable or unwilling to provide concrete proof that THIS specific individual poses a special threat if they were to be granted the permit, then the permit must be granted.

Give the Sheriffs what they SAY they want... but not the TOTAL CONTROL that they seem to desire. Seems fair to me!

[jumbopanda]

Would have been a decent article if they didn't throw OJ Simpson in there for ****s and giggles.

[CABilly]

His courrier statement got me thinking. Could you bill the county/city for courrier services? Or maybe even sue for undue financial hardship? If you already own a gun and ammo, you could save a lot of money by doing your own errands rather than paying someone else.

[shooter4ever]

We need a poll here to see how many gun owner have actually called the Safety Committee to pass this for voting.

[Librarian]

We need a poll here to see how many gun owner have actually called the Safety Committee to pass this for voting.

It's in this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161349

And an earlier, useful thread is
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161485

They just slide off the front page ....

[Gray Peterson]

You know, if the Sheriffs are pitching a fit so much that they shouldn't have to issue for personal protection, when the "shall-issue" actually does pass, it should be in the DOJ's hands. Keep them from whining.

[sgtlmj]

In Michigan we went from a very restrictive may-issue to a shall-issue several years ago. It took a while, but we finally got it done.

There was much hand-wringing by the 'blood in the streets' crowd, and the state police were totally against it.

We passed it and we've been refining it ever since. We're trying to remove restricted carry areas (criminal empowerment zones) next.

Keep the faith!

[N6ATF]

More CLEO evidence of treason that equates to:

We can't protect you, you can't protect you either. Just die already.

[CABilly]

In Michigan we went from a very restrictive may-issue to a shall-issue several years ago. It took a while, but we finally got it done.

There was much hand-wringing by the 'blood in the streets' crowd, and the state police were totally against it.

We passed it and we've been refining it ever since. We're trying to remove restricted carry areas (criminal empowerment zones) next.

Keep the faith!

It's got to be bad for business. As far as unions are concerned, lower crime rates and less (innocent) people dying in the streets means less leverage for more funding/hiring/incentives for their members. If everyone had the means and training to protect themselves and others, the police would not have the current monopoly on public safety they currently enjoy.