PDA

View Full Version : Wanting to get my CCW.....hope AB 357 passes


CAG23
07-24-2009, 10:25 PM
I live in Sonoma county and know that with current people in office it will be difficult if not almost impossible to get my CCW. Like many of you, I too am concerned about my safety and my families safety and would like to protect them outside the home. I have thought about having one of my guns in my car with me shackled up per law but wouldnt that be crazy to tell the BG to wait a second while I unlock my gun and find my magazines to load my gun. But even that (I think) is illegal to do. I know, carry at your own risk is an option but I really dont look so good in orange. So, I read about AB 357 but like all things that go through state legislature it will take time. It just sucks that the county next to Sonoma issues them out for personal protection reasons and Sonoma will not. Anyone here managed to get one in Sonoma county? If so what was your good cause? I dont want to use your statement, I just wanna see what it took to get one. I just hate the fact that the only way to neutralize the situation is to surrender. BTW, whats the latest on AB 357? Done searches but came up with nothing.

RomanDad
07-24-2009, 10:42 PM
BTW, whats the latest on AB 357? Done searches but came up with nothing.
I believe it died in committee around a month or so ago?

Librarian
07-24-2009, 10:44 PM
I believe it died in committee around a month or so ago?

April 21 - http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_357&sess=0910&house=B&author=knight

In theory it could have been revived after that vote, but it was pretty clear that was unlikely.

CAG23
07-24-2009, 10:45 PM
I have been reading about Californians getting out of state CCW's like Utah and Florida CCW's. I thought California doesnt recognize another states CCW or is that wrong.

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 10:45 PM
This (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness) is your more likely short term solution.

-Gene

CAG23
07-24-2009, 10:47 PM
April 21 - http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_357&sess=0910&house=B&author=knight

In theory it could have been revived after that vote, but it was pretty clear that was unlikely.

Yea I saw that too but was unclear what had happened to it.

CAG23
07-24-2009, 10:51 PM
This (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness) is your more likely short term solution.

-Gene

So there is at least some hope in that it may be easier to obtain a ccw for personal protection rather than becoming a victum first then getting a ccw (if you could even do that after becoming a victum).

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 10:52 PM
So there is at least some hope in that it may be easier to obtain a ccw for personal protection rather than becoming a victum first then getting a ccw (if you could even do that after becoming a victum).

It's not a short fight. It is a fight underway with the very best resources in the nation in the battle.

-Gene

GoodEyeSniper
07-24-2009, 10:53 PM
What do you mean by short term plan? First thought that came to mind was meaning temporary, but that's not necessarily a good thing. I hope you mean "the case will work out and we can all legally carry shortly..." :chris:

I have been reading about Californians getting out of state CCW's like Utah and Florida CCW's. I thought California doesnt recognize another states CCW or is that wrong.

That's just so they can carry in other states, not applicable here.

MacDaddy
07-24-2009, 10:55 PM
This (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness) is your more likely short term solution.

-Gene

How can we contribute to the legal fund?

CAG23
07-24-2009, 10:55 PM
It's not a short fight. It is a fight underway with the very best resources in the nation in the battle.

-Gene

of course, if is has to do with law nothing is short. But atleast now I can follow this while I decide how I can get my ccw.

nick
07-24-2009, 10:57 PM
How can we contribute to the legal fund?

It's in Gene's signature :)

berto
07-24-2009, 10:57 PM
How can we contribute to the legal fund?


http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate

CAG23
07-24-2009, 11:03 PM
So I did some more research and found that the bill AB 357 did get shot down but it has been agreed by all that it will get a second chance but a date has not been set yet. Maybe they are waiting for this case to finish and by looking at the results base their decisions on that. <- that sounds messed up but hey thats politics. found that info out on http://californiaccw.org/posts/list/20/5161.page last post was in may so maybe this is old info.....I really need to move out of state.:)

7x57
07-24-2009, 11:12 PM
Since there seems to be some confusion on this thread, let's be brutally clear: AB 357 had about as much of a chance as an anchovy in a barracuda tank. It wasn't going to pass. You weren't going to get a CCW because of it. It was a living-dead zombie bill the day it was written. Dogs barked and children screamed at seeing it's rotting corpse-like visage.

I trust that's reasonably clear. :-)

It may have distracted the attention of anti-gunners a bit while other stuff happened, though I have some doubts. But it's entire value was based on that kind of effect, not on passing.

ETA: I apparently haven't crushed enough hope yet. The bill isn't coming back. If by a miracle it did, it certainly can't pass.

7x57

truthseeker
07-24-2009, 11:12 PM
I haven't read Sykes in a while, but after reading it again and comparing it to Gorski's case (that was just ruled upon), Sykes is sooo much easier to read and also makes points "crystal clear".

Librarian
07-24-2009, 11:16 PM
Yea I saw that too but was unclear what had happened to it.

Legislation has a pattern to its progress. See
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161873

It's possible that 357 could be a 'two year bill' This refers to a bill that was introduced in the first year of a two-year session but has not passed both houses of the legislature at the time the first year of the session is closed. The bill can be acted upon in the second year of the session. but we'll have to wait until January of 2010 to see if it rises from the dead. Two year bills seem to be those that get no consideration, no committee votes at all in first year of the session in which they are introduced (2009-2010 in this case), so I personally doubt the resurrection.

It would be nice to be wrong about that speculation.

bulgron
07-24-2009, 11:26 PM
ETA: I apparently haven't crushed enough hope yet. The bill isn't coming back. If by a miracle it did, it certainly can't pass.

7x57

So what you're saying is that AB 357 can still pass? There's still a chance? There's still hope? Cool! I'm so glad because I'd lost all hope for that bill.

:D

HondaMasterTech
07-24-2009, 11:44 PM
The only bill I expect is from PG&E.

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 11:47 PM
So what you're saying is that AB 357 can still pass? There's still a chance? There's still hope? Cool! I'm so glad because I'd lost all hope for that bill.


http://www.jeresmith.com/portfolio/images/artwork-snowball.jpg

-Gene

wildhawker
07-24-2009, 11:51 PM
We are all on a ROLL tonight! :43:

http://www.jeresmith.com/portfolio/images/artwork-snowball.jpg

-Gene

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 11:57 PM
We are all on a ROLL tonight! :43:

Glad someone got the art.

-Gene

7x57
07-25-2009, 12:00 AM
Glad someone got the art.


It took a minute to recognize the snowball. I must be too insensitive to the socio-political reality. :p

7x57

hoffmang
07-25-2009, 12:02 AM
It took a minute to recognize the snowball. I must be too insensitive to the socio-political reality. :p


Touche' ! :cheers2:

-Gene

7x57
07-25-2009, 12:10 AM
Touche' ! :cheers2:

-Gene

We've got to think through this carefully. The really important question is whether that snowball is a member of a protected class so the media will report sympathetically on it's predicament and poor prognosis. It looks pretty white, so unless it's a handicapped or GLBT snowball (when two snowballs love each other....), why isn't it recruiting a snowball-of-color to jump in for it instead? It can't be that hard--last time I had a sno-cone you could get them in any color you wanted.

I feel queasy now. :p

7x57

wildhawker
07-25-2009, 1:02 AM
Myself, I choose to Open Carry and display my snowball proudly wherever I go. Whatever would I use to defend myself if some hooligan with a corncob pipe, a button nose and two eyes made out of coal were to physically assault me and I were without my snowball?

Further, this state has such poor snowballing policies, it's time the general public were exposed to snowballs and taste freedom for themselves! I, for one, refuse to accept seasonal variations and relocation to a shall-issue county to practice my rights as a snowballer.

We've got to think through this carefully. The really important question is whether that snowball is a member of a protected class so the media will report sympathetically on it's predicament and poor prognosis. It looks pretty white, so unless it's a handicapped or GLBT snowball (when two snowballs love each other....), why isn't it recruiting a snowball-of-color to jump in for it instead? It can't be that hard--last time I had a sno-cone you could get them in any color you wanted.

I feel queasy now. :p

7x57

Librarian
07-25-2009, 10:46 AM
We can't just talk about the snow here.

I know those fully automatic snowmobiles are illegal, but what about skis?

Can I carry them concealed? Is there a length limit? What if I use a snowboard - that's a kind of ski, isn't it?

And snowshoes - those are slower and older technology - are those OK?

Decoligny
07-25-2009, 12:16 PM
I live in Sonoma county and know that with current people in office it will be difficult if not almost impossible to get my CCW. Like many of you, I too am concerned about my safety and my families safety and would like to protect them outside the home. I have thought about having one of my guns in my car with me shackled up per law but wouldnt that be crazy to tell the BG to wait a second while I unlock my gun and find my magazines to load my gun. But even that (I think) is illegal to do. I know, carry at your own risk is an option but I really dont look so good in orange. So, I read about AB 357 but like all things that go through state legislature it will take time. It just sucks that the county next to Sonoma issues them out for personal protection reasons and Sonoma will not. Anyone here managed to get one in Sonoma county? If so what was your good cause? I dont want to use your statement, I just wanna see what it took to get one. I just hate the fact that the only way to neutralize the situation is to surrender. BTW, whats the latest on AB 357? Done searches but came up with nothing.

It is 100% perfectly legal to carry an unloaded handgun in a locked container, with full magazines in the same container, just not in the magazine well. Please read PC 12025, 12026.1 and 12026.2 thoroughly.

CAG23
07-25-2009, 2:16 PM
I have read and fully understand that but is it ok to unlock it and load it and point it at someone who is threatening me? That is what I meant by that comment.

Fjold
07-25-2009, 2:32 PM
I have read and fully understand that but is it ok to unlock it and load it and point it at someone who is threatening me? That is what I meant by that comment.

No, you may not brandish a weapon because someone is threatening you.


If that person physically attacks you then you can use a weapon if you are in fear for your life.

CAG23
07-25-2009, 4:20 PM
No, you may not brandish a weapon because someone is threatening you.


If that person physically attacks you then you can use a weapon if you are in fear for your life.

Yea I thought that it was illegal, I know that brandishing is most definately illegal but I didnt know that you had to wait until the person beats on you to use it, granted if you couldnt get away.

HondaMasterTech
07-25-2009, 4:26 PM
If someone threatens you and convinces you that you are in danger of life or limb, you can protect yourself. You dont have to wait for the person to begin smashing your head to protect yourself.

thatrogue
07-26-2009, 4:35 AM
Display of immediate intention to harm hence, fearing for your life or others, and reasonable ability to carry out the attack, is what is taught in most LE academy's for use of deadly force. So a guy 100' away with a inflatable baseball bat isn't going to work.

Are there some semantics I'm missing here? anyone? Someone probably has the jury instructions.

Librarian
07-26-2009, 7:21 AM
Display of immediate intention to harm hence, fearing for your life or others, and reasonable ability to carry out the attack, is what is taught in most LE academy's for use of deadly force. So a guy 100' away with a inflatable baseball bat isn't going to work.

Are there some semantics I'm missing here? anyone? Someone probably has the jury instructions.

Why, yes, someone does ... D. SELF-DEFENSE AND DEFENSE OF ANOTHER
3470. Right to Self-Defense or Defense of Another (Non-
Homicide)
Self-defense is a defense to <insert list of pertinent
crimes charged>. The defendant is not guilty of (that/those
crime[s]) if (he/she) used force against the other person in lawful
(self-defense/ [or] defense of another). The defendant acted in
lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:
1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or]
someone else/ [or] <insert name of third party>)
was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury [or was
in imminent danger of being touched unlawfully];
2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use
of force was necessary to defend against that danger;
AND
3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably
necessary to defend against that danger.

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how
likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have
believed there was imminent danger of violence to (himself/herself/
[or] someone else). Defendantís belief must have been reasonable
and (he/she) must have acted because of that belief. The defendant
is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable
person would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the
defendant used more force than was reasonable, the defendant did
not act in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another).
When deciding whether the defendantís beliefs were reasonable,
consider all the circumstances as they were known to and
appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person
in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed.
If the defendantís beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not
need to have actually existed.

[The defendantís belief that (he/she/ [or] someone else) was
threatened may be reasonable even if (he/she) relied on
information that was not true. However, the defendant must
actually and reasonably have believed that the information was
true.]
[If you find that <insert name of victim> threatened
or harmed the defendant [or others] in the past, you may consider
that information in deciding whether the defendantís conduct and
beliefs were reasonable.]
[If you find that the defendant knew that <insert
name of victim> had threatened or harmed others in the past, you
may consider that information in deciding whether the defendantís
conduct and beliefs were reasonable.]
[Someone who has been threatened or harmed by a person in the
past is justified in acting more quickly or taking greater self-
defense measures against that person.]
[If you find that the defendant received a threat from someone else
that (he/she) reasonably associated with <insert name
of victim>, you may consider that threat in deciding whether the
defendant was justified in acting in (self-defense/ [or] defense of
another).]
[A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to
stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if
reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of
(death/bodily injury/ <insert crime>) has passed. This
is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.]
The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant did not act in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense
of another). If the People have not met this burden, you must find
the defendant not guilty of <insert crime(s) charged>.

bboyin4food
07-26-2009, 11:17 AM
Yea I thought that it was illegal, I know that brandishing is most definately illegal but I didnt know that you had to wait until the person beats on you to use it, granted if you couldnt get away.

3 things:

Intent: "hey muthaf****r imma kill you!"

Ability: does he have a gun? a knife? maybe hes twice your size? maybe there is more than one? a small woman waving a feather at you and saying "im gonna kill you with this feather!" probably doesnt have the ability.

Opportunity: an unarmed guy across the street waving his fist at you might have the intent and ability but not the does not have the opportunity.

same guy across the street with a gun does have the opportunity to shoot you

drawing your weapon to just point it at someone who is threatening you could (will) be seen as brandishing. the way i see it is if you need to draw, you need to shoot. if you had time to draw your weapon and wave it at him, you probably weren't in immediate danger.

of course everything will depend on the situation. im sure there are plenty of instances where someone carrying drew his weapon and didnt end up shooting the attacking party cause they realized they messed with the wrong person and ran off.

i highly recommend taking the Utah CCW class if you travel out of state at all. you will learn a lot. there are a lot of books and videos on the subject as well. just my .02 hope it shed some light

thatrogue
07-27-2009, 12:47 AM
Thank Librarian:euro:

CAG23
07-27-2009, 8:51 PM
3 things:

Intent: "hey muthaf****r imma kill you!"

Ability: does he have a gun? a knife? maybe hes twice your size? maybe there is more than one? a small woman waving a feather at you and saying "im gonna kill you with this feather!" probably doesnt have the ability.

Opportunity: an unarmed guy across the street waving his fist at you might have the intent and ability but not the does not have the opportunity.

same guy across the street with a gun does have the opportunity to shoot you

drawing your weapon to just point it at someone who is threatening you could (will) be seen as brandishing. the way i see it is if you need to draw, you need to shoot. if you had time to draw your weapon and wave it at him, you probably weren't in immediate danger.

of course everything will depend on the situation. im sure there are plenty of instances where someone carrying drew his weapon and didnt end up shooting the attacking party cause they realized they messed with the wrong person and ran off.

i highly recommend taking the Utah CCW class if you travel out of state at all. you will learn a lot. there are a lot of books and videos on the subject as well. just my .02 hope it shed some light

Thanks for the info.....I thought that I couldnt defend myself unless I was inside my house. So what you are saying is that I could carry my pistol with me in my car locked up according to ca law and use it to defend myself if the need should ever be. It is not illegal to carry it legally in the car and use it in self defense or is that not ok. If it is ok then how do you guys carry in your car (non-ccw) so that it doesnt take lots of time unlocking it and loading it to be useful? Im gonna have to relook over the laws to catch what I apparently missed. I do travel back and forth to montana at least once a year so I dont know if that would be worth getting the out of state ccw. I usually have a gun in the car when I travel all locked up per ca law so that I can use it for target when I get to montana.