PDA

View Full Version : Prospects for CCW reform in CA?


SunshineGlocker
07-10-2005, 6:21 PM
Ok, maybe this is a ridiculous question, but here goes. CCW reform has swept the nation. I think that right now there are about 37 states which are shall-issue, and some of the remaining non-issue states (Nebraska, Wisconsin, maybe a few others) are soon going to join the crowd on that. In other words, very soon almost all the US, except CA, NY, NJ and HI, are going to be shall-issue states.

We now have twenty years of experience of seeing what kind of effect CCW has. All the gun-banners' predictions have not come true at all. There are no Wild West style shootouts over parking spaces (or anything else) in CCW states. It's hard to make a fact-based argument against CCW at this point, because there are plenty of facts, and all of them are good.

Is now the time to start pressing for CCW reform in CA? Is anyone taking this up as an issue?

I joined the California Rifle and Pistol association. Are they trying to build some support for this and maybe get a bill introduced?

Nylo
07-10-2005, 7:14 PM
You'll first have to get rid of Di Fi, Barb Bouncer, and the rest of there kind.

Cliff C
07-10-2005, 7:33 PM
Jim March has been working on this issue for the last six years or so.

Here's the link to his web site Equal Rights for CCW (http://www.ninehundred.net/%7Eequalccw/).

There is a TON of info on his site, so enjoy some interesting reading. ;-)

SunshineGlocker
07-10-2005, 8:27 PM
Originally posted by JakeAce:
You'll first have to get rid of Di Fi, Barb Bouncer, and the rest of there kind.
DiFi leads the way. She's had a CCW permit for a long time. Anyway, she's not part of the state government so she's not part of the process, and this is her last term in senate apparently (hopefully). Boxer also has other priorities, like Social Security, etc.

I have read Jim's excellent site. I wonder if there's anything I can do to help on it.

My question still remains: are any of the organizations here doing anything to get support in the state government for getting a bill through? In most of the states where CCW has passed, it has taken two or even three attempts to get it through the legislature. Is anyone getting started with it here?

I realize that one big hurdle is that all such bills would have to go through the Public Safety Committee before they can even make it to the Assembly, and the Public Safety Committe is packed with passionately anti-freedom, anti-public-safety type people.

Maybe there is hope in redistricting?

atham@earthlink.net
07-11-2005, 8:45 AM
It'd be great to get rid of Whinestein and Boxer but as Federal officials, they don't have as much to do with CCW issues in Kali. We should work on getting rid of people like Perata and Koretz and all the rest of the jerk-offs up in Sacramento. They're the ones who will torpedo any hopes of CCW reform unless we go through an initiative. We might also have to try and get rid of the traitors in the Kali Supreme Court who are definitely not our friends.

walkerboh4269
07-11-2005, 9:58 AM
Even if we were able to get reform passed I don't think it would do any good.

Immediately after the reform everyone everywhere in Ca would put up whatever Legally required sign would be need to keep us from carrying.

I think that to many people are brainwashed in CA into believing that guns are bad and will jump up at the first chance and get you.

The only hope we have is to insure that the reforms to the CCW laws include very carefully worded restrictions an the areas that can be named off limits to CCW. In my opinion no public area should be restricted, but we all know compromises are made to get laws passed.

jnojr
07-11-2005, 10:45 AM
We need redistricting to clean out our Legislature first. The way things are now, the only "CCW reform" we'd get would be worse than what we have now.

And, IMO, a new CCW law should have no provision for signs banning carry. Concealed means concealed. If you want to put up a sign in your store saying "No guns", and I carry anyway, you haven't been harmed. If you do notice me carrying, you can ask me to leave, and if I don't, I'm trespassing. We already have all the "legal protections" we need.

dwtt
07-11-2005, 6:52 PM
Originally posted by jnojr:
We need redistricting to clean out our Legislature first. The way things are now, the only "CCW reform" we'd get would be worse than what we have now.
So, let's hope Prop 77 gets passed. That idiot Bill Lockleyer is trying to get it taken off the special election in Nov. As for getting rid of Fineswine, gunowners of CA will have to get organized behind a good opposition candidate. I don't see any good candidates yet since some Republicans in CA are anti-gun.

jnojr
07-12-2005, 9:21 AM
Originally posted by dwtt:
So, let's hope Prop 77 gets passed. That idiot Bill Lockleyer is trying to get it taken off the special election in Nov. As for getting rid of Fineswine, gunowners of CA will have to get organized behind a good opposition candidate. I don't see any good candidates yet since some Republicans in CA are anti-gun.

Feinstein and Boxer keep winning with about a ten point margin. We aren't going to be rid of them or their ilk until San Francisco is nuked or dumped into the Pacific by the Big One.

Redistricting will make the state a lot more moderate, though... there won't be as many Democrats in the Legislature, and fewer of the Democrats will be the wild-eyed, completely out-of-touch types we have now.

But if "they" do manage to keep redistricting off the ballot (which they're desperate to do, because they know it's going to pass), quite frankly, it'll be time to move... if they're that powerful, nothing short of the destruction of the Bay Area will change this state.

SunshineGlocker
07-15-2005, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by jnojr:
Feinstein and Boxer keep winning with about a ten point margin. We aren't going to be rid of them or their ilk until San Francisco is nuked or dumped into the Pacific by the Big One.
Hey, there are plenty of people in SF who are just as disgusted by Feinstein and Boxer as you are. One of the reasons they get their margins is that they run unopposed. The most recent CA Senate campaign was the first since the 60s where a candidate declined to run any TV ads. The way to get rid of Feinstein and Boxer types is to a) run someone who is electable and (if you're really clever) b) run that person as a Democrat. There are NRA A-rated Democrats in other parts of the country. It would help if we would get some here, too.
Redistricting will make the state a lot more moderate, though... there won't be as many Democrats in the Legislature, and fewer of the Democrats will be the wild-eyed, completely out-of-touch types we have now.

I'm hopeful about it. I'm sure there are more freedom-supporting Californians than our legislature reflects.

dwtt
07-15-2005, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by SunshineGlocker: The way to get rid of Feinstein and Boxer types is to a) run someone who is electable and (if you're really clever) b) run that person as a Democrat. There are NRA A-rated Democrats in other parts of the country. It would help if we would get some here, too.
I'm hopeful about it. I'm sure there are more freedom-supporting Californians than our legislature reflects.

I grew up in San francisco when Feinswine was made mayor when Moscone was shot. I also saw Boxer move from the House to the Senate, and Pelosi gain enough seniority to become minority whip. These politicians have the support of the Democratic party machines in SF and CA. A gun-friendly Democrat candidate will not be able to get the support of the Democrat party in SF or CA. People will vote for whose name they recognize from ads and from hearing on the news. A candidate without the support of the local party will not be known by voters and will not get any votes. This also applies for the Republicans since the election in Nov of 2004 saw Boxer returned to the Senate because the Republican candidate was unknown to most voters. I mean people didn't even hear his name before election day.

Glock30Girl
07-17-2005, 11:49 PM
It would be nice to finally legally carry in California.

Big John Holmes
08-13-2005, 7:40 AM
California had it's chance to install an NRA A+ rated politician into a key state goverment position (Governer)... And what did we do ? We took AHH-NOLD !! Instead of a Stand-Up 2A supporter (Tom McClintoc) who would have welcomed Concealed Carry reform in Kalifornia, we took the Hollywood plastic man who jumped at the chance to ban 50 cal. rifles... In the
unfathonable event that SB 357 makes it to AHH-NOLD'S desk, is there any doubt that he win sign it into law ?

singleshotman
08-13-2005, 8:49 AM
i would remind Mr. Holmes that our govender VETOED TWO GUN BILLS LAST YEAR.Don't be an idiot, we must work with what we have-you sound like a Goldwater republican-rebember what happened to him? I would love to have a pro-gun govember-it will never happen-not in this state.
He's better than Davis.-it will take a complete redrawing of the assembly district's to fix this -stsate-and Arnaold IS TRYING TO DO IT. give the man a chance-the unions hate him already-because they can't buy him-like davis.

Silverback
08-13-2005, 9:19 AM
http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Well it looks like redistricting is back on the ballot. Compliments of the Kali State Supreme Court. http://www.calguns.net/laughroll.gif

bg
08-13-2005, 4:58 PM
Wait a minute. We don't even have a RKBA in Cal's
Constitution do we ? If we don't have this most
critcal pc in the main paper, how's CCW reform
ever going to stand a chance..

I suppose I'm off on this, but don't really know.
I'm not doing so hot on the lottery numbers
either, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Librarian
08-13-2005, 10:13 PM
Well, CCW reform is a big subject. While an RKBA clause in the CA constitution would be welcome, I think you'll have noticed how much respect the Federal clause gets; CA does have -some- CCW, even without the RKBA in the constitution.

I think most people would be 'satisfied', not 'happy', with two changes: consistent requirements across the state, and shall issue, anyone who meets all the requirements gets the license. Under that scheme, the requirements could be set impossibly high, or made very expensive/time-consuming, or simply made very rare. For example, one requirement might be completing a two-week class, costing $20000, and given to just 10 students once per year. That would probably not fly at first, but once the possibility of establishing requirements is there -- and it is already there -- then the possiblity of near-impossible requirements also exists.

There was a bill a couple of years ago that had the added feature that a chief LEO could deny a CCW to anyone, for any reason - if and only if s/he would go on record with the reason. The argument in favor of that was to give LEOs some ability to deny to gang-types who had no record yet, or to strangers with no local community background yet. Bill didn't pass, obviously.

Hie thee off to Jim March's page (http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/). Jim has been tied up with voting-machine stuff (you know: soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box - apply in that order) recently, but apparently things are perking along on the back burner.

08-21-2005, 2:46 AM
Jamesapickup, what do the unions have to do with gun control issues and CCW reforms? You don't think that our Gov can't be bought? Do you read the news? Not only has Kalifornia Big Business lined his pockets, so have the East coast politicos (liberals all) including the Kennedys, and just about every energy interest in the country. And don't forget the insurance companies! Does it matter what "special interest" buys the top dog? It's still the same - money to push your own personal agenda. Arnold is no better or worse than Davis, just smarter. He lies and double deals with the best of them. I suppose you agree with him that the unions are breaking Kalifornia. Can you say propaganda? Last time I looked, unions were made up of people who work and provide services and products to Kalifornia society, unlike the welfare sucking deadbeats and the MILLIONS of illegal border jumpers. At least union workers pay taxes. And after all, aren't union workers entitled to strive for better pay, better benefits, better future security, etc. like the public sector? I suggest that those that are anti-union take a minute to reflect on all your next door neighbors that teach our chidren, put out our house fires, patrol our streets and highways, issue are drivers licenses, issue our hunting licenses and tags, keep our growing prison population behind walls - need I go on? You sound like a Ted Kennedy democrat - remember what happened to him? Look, I worked for and got mine and I am going to keep it, liberal democrats be damned! Anyone wants to take what's mine is gonna have a hell of a fight coming their way. If the Gov wants to refuse contributions from the unions, that's fine. But to attack them and try to take away from them that which they have ALREADY earned is wrong. Sorry to go off like this, but it's time to put an end to this anti-union BS spread by the Gov and the liberal media. Union workers are Kalifornians too! O.K I'll climb down from my soap box now. Peace and God bless, Wolfsong.

gloxter
08-21-2005, 7:18 AM
Wolfsong: I always like to think that my vote counts more than my contributions (mandatorily voluntary) to the California Professonal Firefighters and the IAFF. What is BS is the fact that the Governator signed AB 50, thanks to Demorat Koretz, as a means to get MORE Demorats to sign our latest budget. I'd like to know from Republicans and Democrats alike how my right to own a single-shot rifle became a bargaining chip to pass yet another late budget! Nobody has an answer. Where the hell was the NRA? Probably lining pockets... Thanks for reading my banter/diatribe. -gloxter (member, IAFF)

leo@csuhayward.edu
08-26-2005, 2:46 PM
dont forget.

we are just living in the WRONG counties...

live in tehama country and see this:

http://www.tehamaso.org/ccw.htm

and yes, i've memorized that URL...