PDA

View Full Version : AB357 shall issue.


nicki
04-06-2009, 12:20 PM
I got off the phone today with Assemblyman Knight's staff, they appreciate the support for the bill, but they have not yet decided on key witnesses for the bill and they are limited to two people.

We have diverse opinion on this board which is why I am putting a poll on the end of this. I accept that many of you will disagree on my tactics, and perhaps my views are in fact a minority opinion.

If I don't have a choice on the poll that you would like, make a post, hell you could create your own poll. I am trying to create a poll that doesn't steer people toward my end goals because I am willing to be WRONG.

I do have ideas on how to work around our limited testimony time, but I need to input from you guys because participation from you guys and other gun owner's will determine what we will get from the bill.

I am going to be calling Knight's office again this week and I want to be able to say that I am speaking for more than just me.

I don't have a monopoly on calling anyone. This poll will help anyone of us who does call not just Assemblyman Knights office, but others as well.

Our actions in the next two weeks will not only effect AB357, but other areas where ccw is an issue as well. A strong showing with AB357 will help the people in Orange and San Diego Counties.

When the people in Orange county win, it will open CCW in many other parts of the state, the only places that won't be shall issue will probably be the hard cases such as LA, San Fran, Santa Clara.

I will have more posts, but for now, a simple poll.

Nicki

Untamed1972
04-06-2009, 12:45 PM
I think a combination of equal rights issues, since the law as stands is not applied equally throughout the state, even though the issuance of a permit is good statewide, and perhaps a mention of how sheriffs have been charged with corruption in connection with the CCW law as it is now. perhaps also try to quell some fears by pointing to solid stats from "shall issue" states about crime rates being lower.

I think by pointing heavily to facts that years of experience with "shall issue" in other states proves that the current fears about "more guns on the street" are completely unfounded.

curtisfong
04-06-2009, 12:51 PM
The main thing is to have a response ready when LEO brass and sheriffs start opposing "shall issues" publicly.

That alone is enough to derail the whole effort, imo. By and large the public trusts LEO brass opinion on all gun control issues, and you can expect every single sheriff to fight AB357 - it strips them of power and a very valuable fund raising tool.

You need to find ways to nip the "sheriffs must be the only people trusted to determine who gets to carry and who doesn't" thing in the bud.

Untamed1972
04-06-2009, 12:54 PM
You need to find ways to nip the "sheriffs must be the only people trusted to determine who gets to carry and who doesn't" thing in the bud.

I think that's where pointing to the 38 other shall issue states in the country and what stats and experience have shown there to counter those arguements. They can make all the claims they want, but impirecal evidence does not support their claims.

DDT
04-06-2009, 12:58 PM
The main thing is to have a response ready when LEO brass and sheriffs start opposing "shall issues" publicly.



I think that part of the testimony needs to include the way "discretion" is regularly abused.

This will help to neutralize the CLEOs arguments. We can point to the original record and say that one of the reasons for the bill was specifically to limit the CLEO usage of CCWs as perks to donors, famous people and those they simply want to impress or create a potential for quid pro quo. I think that some of the info that Billy Jack has dredged up might be useful here.

Untamed1972
04-06-2009, 1:10 PM
Although I would be cautious of how you attack the CLEO corruption issue because you don't want to come off as having a "contempt for law enforcement".

The thing at issue is law-abiding citizens exercising their rights, and displaying a certain contempt or at least something that could be construed that way, for LE would make you/us look less like a law-abiding citizen.

That's why I think just focusing more on the equal protection issue and experience from other states to quell fears would be more valuable. Remember sheriffs are politicians just like the people on the committee. Keep your contempt for politicians under wraps and remind them of there duty to represent the best interests and protect the rights of their constituents.

Musclemom
04-06-2009, 2:06 PM
I believe it should be focused on equal rights. To make it about gun rights will cause those set in their ways to stop listening, and then it gets no where.

I'm not entirely sure about "playing it safe" vs. "taking a risk" with the testimony, but I do feel that it needs to be an all out honest effort to get our side out there. There should be no holding back. Some issues are not easy to deal with, but they are relevant.

I think witnesses should not speak with any media that show up unless there is a strictly adhered to agreement that their statements be aired in entirety and not "creatively" edited. By and large, I'm sure any media who show up aren't going to be on our side.

I am of course more than happy to to promote and spread the word about AB 357. I've been telling everyone I find who is gun friendly, and not telling anyone who isn't! :)

sreiter
04-06-2009, 8:05 PM
i live in sacto and work 3 blocks from the capitol - what can i do to help?

Mstrty
04-06-2009, 8:18 PM
april 21st. wheres the post. any info?

Piper
04-06-2009, 8:19 PM
The main thing is to have a response ready when LEO brass and sheriffs start opposing "shall issues" publicly.

That alone is enough to derail the whole effort, imo. By and large the public trusts LEO brass opinion on all gun control issues, and you can expect every single sheriff to fight AB357 - it strips them of power and a very valuable fund raising tool.

You need to find ways to nip the "sheriffs must be the only people trusted to determine who gets to carry and who doesn't" thing in the bud.

First, I agree that CLEOs can't be trusted to be impartial about who does and doesn't get a CCW, even if it is shall issue. If they are in any way allowed to make the rules, they will put so many stipulations on the CCW that it will be useless. The best thing to do is make CaDOJ the issuing authority. If they need fingerprints, they can be done at the local LEA, but even that causes me some concern. I think that a thumbprint is sufficient to do a background check. If it's good enough for DMV to prove identity, and it's good enough to find a person guilty, then it's good enough to complete a background for a CCW. That can be done at any gunshop which ultimately puts CCW issuance in the same category as buying a firearm which is exactly where it should be.

510dat
04-06-2009, 8:40 PM
Has anybody ever done a poll of the rank-and-file police and their opinion of CCW?

It would be useful to counter the chief's assertion that guns are bad; you come back with "XX% of regular police think that shall issue CCW would be a good thing"

Jarrod
04-06-2009, 8:58 PM
I think AB 357 has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. (I supported it with numerous letters, BTW.) At the very least, push for them to at least clearly define what constitutes "good cause," ... which will have the defacto effect of making CA a shall issue state.

Ten Rounder
04-06-2009, 9:51 PM
I have carried for the last 4 years. I want to move to another county and that county is not CCW friendly. Just because I move does not mean I should loose my permit. AB 2728 took powers away from the DOJ, AB 357 should also take away the power from the Sheriff's.

Speakers should be current CCW holders. Your life changes when you holster up and cover it with a shirt. And until then, everything about CCW is a perception, and not everyone is meant to carry. Perception and image are the 2 main obstacles to overcome. You have to convince granny at Walmart and the soccer moms at the playing fields with her kids in tow, and only then will the battle be half over.

domokun
04-06-2009, 9:59 PM
If they're only limited to 2 key witnesses, they should really work with the NRA/CRPA to come up with 2 very good and valid witnesses to speak in favor of the bill. Folks who could really use the CCW permits to protect themselves from harm or have suffered massive loss of family because they weren't able to CCW to stop the tragedy would be most valuable. We have to remember that most of the anti-2A general population think with their hearts and not with their minds. :(

Piper
04-07-2009, 9:06 AM
Has anybody ever done a poll of the rank-and-file police and their opinion of CCW?

It would be useful to counter the chief's assertion that guns are bad; you come back with "XX% of regular police think that shall issue CCW would be a good thing"

I've never done a poll per se, however, the typical street cop is as against a citizen carrying as his or her bosses. Don't mistake nationwide polls as an indication of the trend in California. Most cops in California believe that if he or she had to attend the academy to CCW, then everyone else should have the same training. The exceptions to the rule are probably the Calgunners with a peace officer status.

gd-bh
04-07-2009, 10:22 AM
Most won't like this idea, but I believe a tactic that might be used to get some traction on shall issue would be to add a financial component to the deal. Add a requirement to the proposal that a CCW holder has to maintain a $1M personal liability policy. This would be a new product for the insurance companies to sell, which in this economic climate would be a very welcome thing I'd bet. Then, you have some additional "juice" with some very big campaign contributors on our side in this argument.

Lest any of you wish to fry my hide for this concept, my fundamental belief is that "shall not be infringed" means just that. While there "should" not be any sort of regulation regarding the RKBA, in the real world there is. And that is what this issue is dealing with..the real world here in the PRK. This concept may or may not fly, but sometimes you gotta think outside of the box..;)

bulgron
04-07-2009, 10:26 AM
Most won't like this idea, but I believe a tactic that might be used to get some traction on shall issue would be to add a financial component to the deal. Add a requirement to the proposal that a CCW holder has to maintain a $1M personal liability policy. This would be a new product for the insurance companies to sell, which in this economic climate would be a very welcome thing I'd bet. Then, you have some additional "juice" with some very big campaign contributors on our side in this argument.

Lest any of you wish to fry my hide for this concept, my fundamental belief is that "shall not be infringed" means just that. While there "should" not be any sort of regulation regarding the RKBA, in the real world there is. And that is what this issue is dealing with..the real world here in the PRK. This concept may or may not fly, but sometimes you gotta think outside of the box..;)

I'm not going to fry you, but I am going to say that this is a horrible idea.

Mandatory insurance is always a horrible idea. It encourages reckless behavior, and it chokes our courts with civil lawsuits.

But mandatory insurance when tied to a fundamental right is just another way to have that right infringed.

Anyway, people already don't carry car insurance like they're supposed to. What makes you think they'll carry mandatory $1M personal liability insurance just because they want to be able to defend themselves if the need arises?

nick
04-07-2009, 10:39 AM
Has anybody ever done a poll of the rank-and-file police and their opinion of CCW?

It would be useful to counter the chief's assertion that guns are bad; you come back with "XX% of regular police think that shall issue CCW would be a good thing"

There was one in San Diego, I believe. There's a thread on it somewhere here.

DDT
04-07-2009, 11:39 AM
Add a requirement to the proposal that a CCW holder has to maintain a $1M personal liability policy.

That's a great idea, it will also keep those poor plebeians from carrying a handgun. After all it really is only good for those of us with some money to be able to carry. Hey, I know, lets do the same for voting. But since you can't be sued for your vote (it is still private, for now) lets just do it as a tax at the polling station. We'll call it a poll tax.

KylaGWolf
04-07-2009, 11:52 AM
gd-bh Your idea would make it even HARDER for people to CCW since not many people have the kind of money to get and keep a $1M insurance policy.

I think that this should be an equality issue. Nicki I figure if you can get two witnesses from groups that are very underrepresented in the CCW world it would be good.

DDT ack....we already have a problem with apathy in voting which is why we have some of the morons we do in office. And poll tax is something they tried in england although it had nothing to do with voting. But it was something that ran along the lines of everyone over the age of 18 had to pay a certain amount of tax. It wasn't very popular and the protests were huge. Also made for a lot of boring news broadcasts.

Ten Rounder
04-07-2009, 11:54 AM
Add a requirement to the proposal that a CCW holder has to maintain a $1M personal liability policy.

IIRC this is the requirement for most Alameda county CCW holders.

bulgron
04-07-2009, 12:59 PM
IIRC this is the requirement for most Alameda county CCW holders.

How is that legal? I don't see anywhere in the PC where a county can impose that kind of a requirement on a permit holder.

Untamed1972
04-07-2009, 1:23 PM
How is that legal? I don't see anywhere in the PC where a county can impose that kind of a requirement on a permit holder.

It says the sheriff may impose any reasonable strictions he wants.....and his cousin is prolly an insurance agent who happens to sell personal liability policies.

Untamed1972
04-07-2009, 1:30 PM
Ditto on the insurance being a bad idea. Insurance is one of the biggest scams in our society and telling me I have to fork money over to those buzzards for the privilege of exercising a constitutional right is absurd.

I think by extension it could be argued that requiring such a thing means CCW holders are likely to get themselves in trouble or make poor choices which goes against our "law-abiding responsible" citizen argument.

Not to mention if every smarmy lawyer in town knows you hafta have a $1M policy you can bet it's just gonna make you a law suit magnet even more.

Should I have to have a "free speech" insurance policy also in case I say something that offends someone?

gd-bh
04-07-2009, 1:44 PM
Like I said, I didn't expect this to be an overly positive idea..but a good plan looks at all angles, even the bad ones. I totally understand the objections to the principle involved. Just threw out a potential way to increase support for something that we shouldn't have to be fighting for, but are...

DDT
04-07-2009, 2:03 PM
gd-bh Your idea would make it even HARDER for people to CCW since not many people have the kind of money to get and keep a $1M insurance policy.

I think that this should be an equality issue. Nicki I figure if you can get two witnesses from groups that are very underrepresented in the CCW world it would be good.

DDT ack....we already have a problem with apathy in voting which is why we have some of the morons we do in office. And poll tax is something they tried in england although it had nothing to do with voting. But it was something that ran along the lines of everyone over the age of 18 had to pay a certain amount of tax. It wasn't very popular and the protests were huge. Also made for a lot of boring news broadcasts.

I guess my post was a big FAIL then. Please try to read it again and assume that I am being completely sarcastic and then assume I believe that CCW and voting should NOT be limited to the well to do. Finally, for your own personal edification read the 24th amendment to the US constitution. Here is a link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxxiv.html

nicki
04-07-2009, 2:09 PM
Most won't like this idea, but I believe a tactic that might be used to get some traction on shall issue would be to add a financial component to the deal. Add a requirement to the proposal that a CCW holder has to maintain a $1M personal liability policy. This would be a new product for the insurance companies to sell, which in this economic climate would be a very welcome thing I'd bet. Then, you have some additional "juice" with some very big campaign contributors on our side in this argument.



In principle I am against it, but I am not going to crucify you for it, I might chop off body parts though, would link to a movie clip, but this is a family friendly site:43:

From a practical point, how many claims would their actually be since that would determine what the insurance rate would be.

If the insurance rate was several thousand dollars a year, hell no.But what if the insurance rate turned out to be only say around 300 dollars a year.

Some people on this board have umbrella coverage, some of you may be insurance agents, how about some of you post what the rates are actually are.

If you bought the emotional argument that the streets will run with blood and didn't know the actual numbers, a person would automatically assume that this is something that would keep the numbers of CCW holders low.

With CCW carriers being responsible, the premiums actually could be reasonable.

I know many on this board feel that armed carry is a right, but you can't have rights with responsiblity.

Even if I scored a CCW, I'm not going to routninely carry until I meet have the following personal standards met first.

1. I have at least 1 million in umbrella coverage, maybe more.

2. I have effective legal insurance to cover me in the event of a shooting, the NRA coverage is inadequate because they pay you after your case, we need something that will pay you during the case. I don't have a spare 50K for a legal case and neither do most people on this board.

Anti gun DAs will go after underfunded gun owners in a heart beat.

3. Once I have a CCW, I need to meet what I call personal minimum standards of being proficient. Draw, Double tap, 4 targets, 5-7 yards, 3 to 4 seconds.

Ideally my time should be down to 2 to 2.5 seconds. I figure if I can get my draw down to .5 seconds or less I can catch someone before they can react since average human reaction time is .75 seconds.

4. Program speed dial for 911, but I don't think it will every be as fast as my 1911.

Nicki

Untamed1972
04-07-2009, 2:56 PM
Here's a better idea.....don't own hardly anything and keep no money in the bank and have no insurance either. Can't get blood out of a turnip and what money grubbing lawyer would bother suing someone who he knows has nothing to take.

That's my issue with insurance. It often is seen as just an open pocket regardless if the suit has merit or not. And you the policy holder pay the increasing premiums to cover the cost of those bogus suits and claims. There is no such thing as "free money" be it coming from the gov't or the ins. company. It all comes from somewhere.....that's right you and me mr./mrs. taxpayer/policy holder.