PDA

View Full Version : Dream Big: Changing California to "shall issue"


jakemccoy
10-09-2009, 3:22 PM
The "may issue" law of California is about the most depressing aspect of California gun laws. So, let's change the law! For those who think "shall issue" is impossible in California, look at this map showing the progress of "shall issue" laws in this country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

Some states even go from "no issue" straight to "shall issue"! What is the force that is making these other states go to "shall issue"? It can't be merely the voting-in of conservative legislators because, according to that map, over three quarters of the states are "shall issue" as of 2006. Has anybody here studied this trend in detail?

wash
10-09-2009, 3:26 PM
We've got a lawsuit for that...

jakemccoy
10-09-2009, 3:28 PM
Excuse my ignorance. What suit are you talking about?

ke6guj
10-09-2009, 3:28 PM
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness

wildhawker
10-09-2009, 3:30 PM
CGF (http://calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/news/71-saf-calguns-challenge-arbitrary-denial-of-right-to-bear-arms-in-california) is on it (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/Sykes-v-McGinness-Complaint-2009-05-09.pdf).

The "may issue" law of California is about the most depressing aspect of California gun laws. So, let's change the law! For those who think "shall issue" is impossible in California, look at this map showing the progress of "shall issue" laws in this country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

Some states even go from "no issue" straight to "shall issue"! What is the force that is making these other states go to "shall issue"? It can't be merely the voting-in of conservative legislators because, according to that map, over three quarters of the states are "shall issue" as of 2006. Has anybody here studied this trend in detail?

jakemccoy
10-09-2009, 3:32 PM
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness

I read the summary of that case. The complainants aren't going explicitly for "shall issue".

bulgron
10-09-2009, 3:32 PM
Has anybody here studied this trend in detail?

Yeah, there might be one or two people around here who are vaguely familiar with the CCW situation in this state versus the country.

Welcome to the party, by the way.

bulgron
10-09-2009, 3:33 PM
I read the summary of that case. The complainants aren't going explicitly for "shall issue".

Actually, the end result of the suit will be shall-issue licensing. Assuming we win, of course.

technique
10-09-2009, 3:33 PM
Thats what I'm dreaming...It would be nice to CC when I visit or move back at some point.

ke6guj
10-09-2009, 3:33 PM
AFAIK, a lawsuit can't change the wording of the law.

So, what they are asking is that self-defense = good cause, which effectively turns "may issue" into "shall issue"

CHS
10-09-2009, 3:35 PM
I read the summary of that case. The complainants aren't going explicitly for "shall issue".

Yes they are. They are going EXACTLY for shall issue.

When we win the lawsuit the state will be held to a standard that will no longer allow for the sheriff's to discriminate as to what constitutes good cause and good moral character.

Read the lawsuit again. It's quite clear. Our people DO know what they are doing.

jakemccoy
10-09-2009, 3:36 PM
AFAIK, a lawsuit can't change the wording of the law.

So, what they are asking is that self-defense = good cause, which effectively turns "may issue" into "shall issue"

OK, I get it now. However, it would be nice to make it official in the wording of the actual law. I envision more court battles to interpret the outcome of this case.

wash
10-09-2009, 3:39 PM
I read the summary of that case. The complainants aren't going explicitly for "shall issue".
When you mix in second amendment incorporation with self defense = suitable good cause, that's means anyone smart enough to fill out the form who isn't a prohibited person will be able to get a CCW license.

That's pretty much shall issue.

Once Sacramento goes down, the other counties will have the choice of fold or fight a losing battle and pay our attorneys fees.

jakemccoy
10-09-2009, 3:39 PM
Yes they are. They are going EXACTLY for shall issue.

When we win the lawsuit the state will be held to a standard that will no longer allow for the sheriff's to discriminate as to what constitutes good cause and good moral character.

Read the lawsuit again. It's quite clear. Our people DO know what they are doing.

AFAIK, the suit is going indirectly for "shall issue" because, as stated above, the wording of the law cannot be changed by a lawsuit.

wash
10-09-2009, 3:41 PM
I don't care what they call it as long as I can get the license.

jakemccoy
10-09-2009, 3:43 PM
Will a favorable outcome of the suit allow us to make California the color blue in that map?...lol

:)

jakemccoy
10-09-2009, 3:45 PM
I don't care what they call it as long as I can get the license.

I want the law to mean "shall issue" specifically without dispute.

Look at what happened to all the smug folks of Orange County who are happy only when they have a cool sheriff.

HowardW56
10-09-2009, 3:51 PM
If you take the Sheriff's discretion away, California is shall issue....

wash
10-09-2009, 3:52 PM
I want the law to mean "shall issue" specifically without dispute.

Look at what happened to all the smug folks of Orange County who are happy only when they have a cool sheriff.
That's not going to happen, the law will remain but if we win we can force every county to issue permits which is the same thing as shall issue.

kf6tac
10-09-2009, 3:53 PM
I want the law to mean "shall issue" specifically without dispute.

Look at what happened to all the smug folks of Orange County who are happy only when they have a cool sheriff.

When you've got a legislature voting 44-31 to ban internet ammo sales, getting an amendment passed so that the concealed carry law says "shall issue" is more than just dreaming big, you're deep into Scrubs fantasy moment territory. Getting a slightly more roundabout change through court is basically our only realistic shot until we vote out some legislators.

jakemccoy
10-09-2009, 3:58 PM
When you've got a legislature voting 44-31 to ban internet ammo sales, getting an amendment passed so that the concealed carry law says "shall issue" is more than just dreaming big, you're deep into Scrubs fantasy moment territory. Getting a slightly more roundabout change through court is basically our only realistic shot until we vote out some legislators.

That brings us back to the original post. What's the history of the other states? Were any of the other states faced with similar odds? Your reasoning seems to be sound, but I'm more interested in what has actually happened in history.

bulgron
10-09-2009, 3:58 PM
I want the law to mean "shall issue" specifically without dispute.

Look at what happened to all the smug folks of Orange County who are happy only when they have a cool sheriff.

It's way better to simply take away CLEO's discretion and leave the law alone, than start mucking around with California's CCW laws. Right now, if you can get one, California's CCW laws are some of the permissive in the nation. The trick, of course, is getting the permit.

If we try to change the law so that it reads "shall-issue" somewhere down the road, then that gives the jerks in Sacramento a reason to start mucking about with the CCW laws in their entirety.

Me, I'd rather live in a state that is "may issue but the sheriff has no discretion" instead of a place that is "shall-issue but you can't hardly carry anywhere at all."

bwiese
10-09-2009, 4:02 PM
I want the law to mean "shall issue" specifically without dispute.

Don't ask for what you don't really want.

Let's see ... this is CA, and you have a huge antigun legislature and you want them to pass shall-issue? Bwaaah.

Any legislative attempt will make things worse, esp for the areas that do have rational CCW issuance.

To even come remotely close to this legislatively, you're gonna have to reform the Republican party and get them to majority+ status in legislature.

Then you're gonna have to ensure that those Republicans that are elected are pro-gun and not Steve Poizners, Richard
Riordans, etc. Ask the CA Rs why they're pursuing stupid bait like promoting Prop. 8, when your fundamental civil rights and safety are violated - they'll give you a slackjawed buffoon response and a song & dance about "family values". Tell 'em RKBA is the ultimate family value and homeland defense.

Anyway, that won't happen: they CA Rs don't appear to really want electable folks and are happy with hovering around 1/3 of the legislature - and enough CA Republicans that are in place often treat progun folks with disdain - they think voting "No" on antigun issues is good enough. One CA R legislator that was supposed to help carry a couple of good gun bills this year told folks that he didn't carry these bills "because he forgot".

In the short term, get good sheriffs elected.

In the slightly longer term, we will get near shall-issue in the courts as a consistent behavior, without real law changes. The sheriffs/PDs may publicly act like they will still have control, but they'll end up having to issue on "good cause = I have a right + I wanna feel safe" - and as long as you don't have DUIs or lotsa police calls to your home for "disturbances", you'll get your CCW.

Let's work for practical, realizable results.

That brings us back to the original post. What's the history of the other states?
Were any of the other states faced with similar odds? Your reasoning seems to be sound, but I'm more interested
in what has actually happened in history.

It took several passes over quite a few years to get it even in TX. Similar in other states.

Now imagine that against the context of CA politics in CA, and what I've told you above.

bulgron
10-09-2009, 4:02 PM
That brings us back to the original post. What's the history of the other states? Were any of the other states faced with similar odds? Your reasoning seems to be sound, but I'm more interested in what has actually happened in history.

There are a lot of reasons why the other states were able to get shall-issue. This is a complex topic, but suffice to say that it took those other states a minimum of ten years from when they got serious about it until they managed to pass the shall-issue laws. Over the course of those ten years, usually gunnies had to get politically motivated and involved, and then they worked to get pro-gun politicians elected to their state houses.

It's hard to see something like that working in California. First, we're gerrymandered to the point where political races are no longer competitive. Secondly, we have term limits, so by the time we do get some pro-gun people elected to Sacramento, the pro-gun people we got elected earlier are terming out.

All in all, our best hope for the general population in California to be able to access their right to bear arms is by court mandate. So that's what we're all about around here.

trevilli
10-09-2009, 4:08 PM
When you've got a legislature voting 44-31 to ban internet ammo sales, getting an amendment passed so that the concealed carry law says "shall issue" is more than just dreaming big, you're deep into Scrubs fantasy moment territory. Getting a slightly more roundabout change through court is basically our only realistic shot until we vote out some legislators.

Good points. As a follow up to this, I wanted to add that I've only lived in CA since 2004, and been a gun owner for less time than that. However, it's been very apparent to me living in the SF Bay Area how hostile this state is to guns, gun owners, and anything related to shooting or hunting. I suspect that if it starts to look like we are winning or will win this case, the legislators, DeLeon et. al, will attempt a preemptive strike by passing legislation designed specifically to thwart our efforts.

If you remember when the flag burning thing was issue, some states passed laws specifically outlawing the practice. I suppose if the lawsuit is decided in our favor, any law restricting concealed carry could be challenged as unconstitutional as a result of this ruling. But if they decide to make a law governing concealed carry specifically? In other words, setting more conditions besides merely the showing of good cause?

Librarian
10-09-2009, 4:13 PM
Another difference between CA and other recent members of shall-issue: IIRC, all of those states have an RKBA in their state constitutions. There was some legal protection for overt political demonstration where guns were carried, which we do not have in CA.

wash
10-09-2009, 4:15 PM
No politician wants a perfect record voting for bills that get struck down as unconstitutional.

That's why they are going after ammo now. It's different enough that #1 they think might fly and #2 it will be a separate legal battle, it won't fall down when some other unconstitutional law is struck down.

M. D. Van Norman
10-09-2009, 4:23 PM
Look at what happened to all the smug folks of Orange County who are happy only when they have a cool sheriff.

As a smug Orange County resident who never managed to get a license but is still working for the cause, I resent that remark. :D

jakemccoy
10-09-2009, 4:23 PM
No politician wants a perfect record voting for bills that get struck down as unconstitutional.

That's why they are going after ammo now. It's different enough that #1 they think might fly and #2 it will be a separate legal battle, it won't fall down when some other unconstitutional law is struck down.

Are the anti-gun legislators really thinking that logically?

wash
10-09-2009, 4:27 PM
Not yet, but after incorporation they will be.

kf6tac
10-09-2009, 4:30 PM
Are the anti-gun legislators really thinking that logically?

The one thing these folks DO think rationally about is how to keep their careers alive. And really, they aren't stupid - they KNOW that the gun-grabbing laws they keep shoving down our throats don't do anything about crime. They also know that their gun-fearing constituents (the ones whose votes they keep riding into office) tend NOT to think logically, and they know that we gunnies are too scattered across the various electoral districts to seriously threaten their re-election chances. Most of their scheming is, at least when it comes to gun control, is very logically thought out once you get behind the blatantly illogical cover stories they use to justify their actions.

bulgron
10-09-2009, 4:31 PM
Another difference between CA and other recent members of shall-issue: IIRC, all of those states have an RKBA in their state constitutions. There was some legal protection for overt political demonstration where guns were carried, which we do not have in CA.

Not true. Minnesota has no RKBA in their state constitution, yet they managed to pass shall-issue legislation. But, like I said, it took them ten years of pushing to get pro-gun politicians sent to St. Paul before they could pull it off.

Interestingly, right next door to Minnesota, Wisconsin has a very strong gun culture and a RKBA in their state constitution, and yet despite some serious attempts to do so they still don't have a CCW law, shall-issue or otherwise. This is mostly due to the efforts of a governor that has pulled out all the stops to kill CCW legislation, and I expect the situation in Wisconsin to change sometime in the next year or two. Still, you never can tell how these things are going to go on a state by state basis.

Mstrty
10-09-2009, 5:05 PM
It's been very apparent to me living in the SF Bay Area how hostile this state is to guns, gun owners, and anything related to shooting or hunting.

By state I assume you are talking about Sacramento, San Francisco, LA and San Diego areas. Cause without the above city's or their representatives California is a Pro Gun state. If you include the above city's It is hard to recognize this state as belonging to America or even Earth sometimes. Please just take me to your leader and get this over with.

trevilli
10-09-2009, 6:06 PM
By state I assume you are talking about Sacramento, San Francisco, LA and San Diego areas. Cause without the above city's or their representatives California is a Pro Gun state.

True. Unfortunately, those areas you named are the most populous, and as a result seem to have a stranglehold on the state legislature.

bodger
10-09-2009, 6:20 PM
True. Unfortunately, those areas you named are the most populous, and as a result seem to have a stranglehold on the state legislature.

And are run by Sheriffs like LeRoy Baca, who along with Chief Bratton, would like to see the entire city and county hamstrung by laws that would prohibit private gun ownership.

These kingdoms run by the sherrif are what we need to change, amongst other things.

As for Wisconsin, at least they allow LOC if I'm not mistaken.

mossy
10-09-2009, 6:21 PM
keep dreaming, i mean no offence to those who are in the courts fighting, but my sunny optimism for a free state of Cali is running a little dry. i am now just counting down the days till i can move to NV.

wildhawker
10-09-2009, 6:24 PM
Reynolds vs. Sims killed the concept of a fixed number of representatives per area, regardless of population (combined with other similar cases, all local, state and federal legislative districts save the US Senate are now obligated to be drawn up with relatively equal populations).

Reynolds v. Sims set off a legislative firestorm in the country. Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois led a fight to pass a Constitutional amendment allowing unequal legislative districts. He warned that

"...the forces of our national life are not brought to bear on public questions solely in proportion to the weight of numbers. If they were, the 6 million citizens of the Chicago area would hold sway in the Illinois Legislature without consideration of the problems of their 4 million fellows who are scattered in 100 other counties. Under the Court's new decree, California could be dominated by Los Angeles and San Francisco; Michigan by Detroit.."

Dirksen was ultimately unsuccessful.

And here we are.

True. Unfortunately, those areas you named are the most populous, and as a result seem to have a stranglehold on the state legislature.

bodger
10-09-2009, 6:41 PM
keep dreaming, i mean no offence to those who are in the courts fighting, but my sunny optimism for a free state of Cali is running a little dry. i am now just counting down the days till i can move to NV.


I try not to let myself get into that mindset, but it's easy to do.

Especially when you go to AZ or NV, or any other free state and you can use a 30 round mag with a standard release, carry loaded and open, and not be generally paranoid neurotic that you're violating some ridiculous petty law that even LEOs sometimes don't understand.

And we spend our time sending faxes and calls to Arnie in hopes yet another absurd bill won't become law.

Fighting just to stay even and not lose ground, all the while knowing what exists in other states, makes it damn hard to ever imagine CA as a free state.

Glock22Fan
10-09-2009, 6:54 PM
JakeMcCoy,

You talk as if you think that getting the legislature to change its mind might be as easy as getting virtual Shall Issue enforced by court judgement.

To see the fallacy there, just look at the stones and hurdles the legislators in D.C. are grappling with to foil Heller and its recent offsprings. If you aren't familiar with these, there are numerous recent threads in this forum and it would behoove you to learn more about the subject, and about recent cases in Chicago and California, before becoming too vocal on the subject.

You can expect Sacramento to fight tooth and nail to prevent the current legislation from being overturned, indeed, if they can they'll make it even more restrictive.

IMHO, it will take at least ten years of virtual shall issue, without rivers of blood, before there's enough common sense in the electorate to stop this happening and accept the inevitable.

bodger
10-09-2009, 7:03 PM
Every time I read aboput the estimated timeline to free state status on certain CA gun issues, I have to chuckle.

I'm 56 now, by the time, if ever, this state gets squared away to even remotely match a free state's gun laws, I'll be too friggin' old to lift my pistol. :D

yellowfin
10-09-2009, 7:05 PM
Iowa is the other state currently fighting for shall issue. They've had one or two attempts at it so far which like CA were squashed by populous areas' sheriffs lobbying efforts. I'm not certain of how it looks this year so far as it's been awhile since I last looked. I don't think they're locked up quite as bad as CA and NY.

wildhawker
10-09-2009, 7:26 PM
Every time I read aboput the estimated timeline to free state status on certain CA gun issues, I have to chuckle.

I'm 56 now, by the time, if ever, this state gets squared away to even remotely match a free state's gun laws, I'll be too friggin' old to lift my pistol. :D

So you're saying that you'll be so decrepit by 60 we should be planning a Depends party? :p

http://www.us.depend.com/Styles/Images/incontinence-products/us_lg_MaleUnderwear.jpg

Kid Stanislaus
10-09-2009, 7:36 PM
Every time I read aboput the estimated timeline to free state status on certain CA gun issues, I have to chuckle.

I'm 56 now, by the time, if ever, this state gets squared away to even remotely match a free state's gun laws, I'll be too friggin' old to lift my pistol. :D

Now just hold it a doggone minute there mister, I'm 66 and my pistol lifts jut fine!!

MrClamperSir
10-09-2009, 7:48 PM
Hey nice I posted the same thing earlier today
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=229817

M. D. Van Norman
10-09-2009, 8:13 PM
Im 66 and my pistol lifts jut fine!!

But your name is Kid! :p

Glock22Fan
10-09-2009, 8:14 PM
Now just hold it a doggone minute there mister, I'm 66 and my pistol lifts jut fine!!

Me too!

artherd
10-10-2009, 8:04 AM
...it would be nice to make it official in the wording of the actual law.

You don't get a lot of sex by going straight for the ear...

artherd
10-10-2009, 8:04 AM
AFAIK, the suit is going indirectly for "shall issue" because, as stated above, the wording of the law cannot be changed by a lawsuit.

It most certainly can. Statute substantially in conflict with a Court's order must be changed.

bodger
10-10-2009, 8:37 AM
So you're saying that you'll be so decrepit by 60 we should be planning a Depends party? :p

http://www.us.depend.com/Styles/Images/incontinence-products/us_lg_MaleUnderwear.jpg



I guess I can hold out for another four years. :D:D

jakemccoy
10-10-2009, 1:51 PM
JakeMcCoy,

You talk as if you think that getting the legislature to change its mind might be as easy as getting virtual Shall Issue enforced by court judgement.

To see the fallacy there, just look at the stones and hurdles the legislators in D.C. are grappling with to foil Heller and its recent offsprings. If you aren't familiar with these, there are numerous recent threads in this forum and it would behoove you to learn more about the subject, and about recent cases in Chicago and California, before becoming too vocal on the subject.

You can expect Sacramento to fight tooth and nail to prevent the current legislation from being overturned, indeed, if they can they'll make it even more restrictive.

IMHO, it will take at least ten years of virtual shall issue, without rivers of blood, before there's enough common sense in the electorate to stop this happening and accept the inevitable.

Until you become a paying client of my law firm, save your breath on telling me when I should become vocal about an issue.

jakemccoy
10-10-2009, 2:05 PM
It most certainly can. Statute substantially in conflict with a Court's order must be changed.

Please provide an example of where a lawsuit itself changed the wording of a law, thanks.

Gray Peterson
10-10-2009, 2:47 PM
Please provide an example of where a lawsuit itself changed the wording of a law, thanks.

You won't find it. Courts enforce applicability of constitution and statute. If a statute is found by a court to give too much discretion to an issuing authority, they can order the issuing authority to issue the license to comply with the constitutional standard. Sykes v. McGinness makes it clear that their intention is to have good cause="self defense" and good character="pass a background check". If a federal court makes a determination as to the character and constitutionality of a state statute, that precedent is binding statewide.

hoffmang
10-10-2009, 3:12 PM
Please provide an example of where a lawsuit itself changed the wording of a law, thanks.

Please don't insult the intelligence of the community here. The wording of the law doesn't change - often it remains right there in the Penal Code. However it is unenforceable.

I give you for example "series" language in PC 12276 (a)(1) and (a)(5) invalidated by Harrot v. County of Kings.

Your statement is precise, but misleading.

Back on topic - the political/judicial reality we live in here is that it's probably best and most likely to leave PC 12050 alone and leave us with a Federal Court interpretation of "good cause" and "good moral character" meaning not prohibited from possessing firearms.

-Gene

jakemccoy
10-10-2009, 4:15 PM
Please don't insult the intelligence of the community here. The wording of the law doesn't change - often it remains right there in the Penal Code. However it is unenforceable.

Who's insulting anybody's intelligence? You're way too touchy. Somebody said explicitly that a lawsuit "most certainly can" change the wording of a law. Maybe he knows something I don't know. So, I asked him for a case.

Overall, this is an informative thread with some useful posts, thanks people.

Glock22Fan
10-10-2009, 5:00 PM
Until you become a paying client of my law firm, save your breath on telling me when I should become vocal about an issue.

Don't worry, the way you talk there's absolutely no chance of my becoming a client. I prefer lawyers who know what they are talking about before they open their mouths. From what you've said here, you don't.

Actually, from what you've said here, I am surprised you work for a law firm in any kind of capacity above that of messenger boy, as you don't appear to know much about the difference between legislation and litigation.

My apologies if I am wrong, maybe you just need to improve your communication skills.

jakemccoy
10-10-2009, 6:43 PM
Don't worry, the way you talk there's absolutely no chance of my becoming a client. I prefer lawyers who know what they are talking about before they open their mouths. From what you've said here, you don't.

Actually, from what you've said here, I am surprised you work for a law firm in any kind of capacity above that of messenger boy, as you don't appear to know much about the difference between legislation and litigation.

My apologies if I am wrong, maybe you just need to improve your communication skills.

There's no apology needed. I'm only offended if you mess with my accounts receivable. Talk it up all you want here. It sounds like you need the outlet. I've been there.

artherd
10-10-2009, 6:56 PM
Please provide an example of where a lawsuit itself changed the wording of a law, thanks.

:rolleyes: you know as well as I do that it becomes incumbent upon the leg to change statute to remain in compliance with law. They don't really have an option here so it is the court that initiates the action.

Does this always happen? No, see Harrott which ruled "AR and AK Series" language vague. That language is still in statute. Is the Leg (and in this particular case, Cal DOJ) derelict in their duties? You betcha.

You also ought to know that wording in statute that has been found unlawful has no meaning.


If you still want to fix the CCW problem in the leg first, then I've got to figure you're a clerk or a really bad lawyer, and not worth my time to engage further.

jakemccoy
10-10-2009, 7:06 PM
:rolleyes: you know as well as I do that it becomes incumbent upon the leg to change statute to remain in compliance with law. They don't really have an option here so it is the court that initiates the action.

Does this always happen? No, see Harrott which ruled "AR and AK Series" language vague. That language is still in statute. Is the Leg (and in this particular case, Cal DOJ) derelict in their duties? You betcha.

You also ought to know that wording in statute that has been found unlawful has no meaning.


If you still want to fix the CCW problem in the leg first, then I've got to figure you're a clerk or a really bad lawyer, and not worth my time to engage further.

Your mind must have gotten wrapped up in some sort of vortex. You got all that about me from a simple question...weird.

Folks, let's all (including me) pipe down the huge egos. Nobody's making money by posting here.

Seesm
10-10-2009, 7:30 PM
I dream of this nightly... ha

Quiet
10-10-2009, 7:34 PM
There was a bill (AB357 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_357_bill_20090421_history.html)) introduced earlier this year to change the wording of the CA CCW law to be "shall issue".

It didn't make it out of the Public Safety Committee.
Vote was 1 to 5 for getting passed to the Appropriations Committee.

The afore mentioned lawsuit is the best thing we in CA have at the moment, that will change the law to make it more like shall issue.

The lawsuit has the ability to change this map to all dark green.
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/clownburner/OCCCWS/ca_ccw_map-big.png

HowardW56
10-10-2009, 7:41 PM
I dream of this nightly... ha


Now that may be a just a little obsessive.... :D

jakemccoy
10-10-2009, 7:45 PM
Are you also saying that a favorable outcome of the lawsuit would do no good for the burgundy counties?

There was a bill (AB357 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_357_bill_20090421_history.html)) introduced earlier this year to change the wording of the CA CCW law to be "shall issue".

It didn't make it out of the Public Safety Committee.
Vote was 1 to 5 for getting passed to the Appropriations Committee.

The afore mentioned lawsuit is the best thing we in CA have at the moment, that will change the law to make it more like shall issue.

The lawsuit has the ability to change this map to all dark green.
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/clownburner/OCCCWS/ca_ccw_map-big.png

Quiet
10-10-2009, 7:53 PM
Are you also saying that a favorable outcome of the lawsuit would do no good for the burgundy counties?

No, saying the lawsuit can change the entire map to dark green.
It's good for all of CA.
Because, personal protection would be a "legitimate good cause" statement.

jakemccoy
10-10-2009, 8:00 PM
No, saying the lawsuit can change the entire map to dark green.
It's good for all of CA.
Because, personal protection would be a "legitimate good cause" statement.

Ah, OK, I misunderstood what you said the first time.

artherd
10-10-2009, 8:07 PM
Folks, let's all (including me) pipe down the huge egos. Nobody's making money by posting here.

A funny comment - why should money effect things?

Arguably what we're doing here with Sykes alone is far more important than any amount of money.

Wasting time or efforts on a Leg route to shall-issue CCW detracts from efforts that could be better spent on Sykes.

hoffmang
10-10-2009, 8:44 PM
I hate to interject the reality, but what demonstrably happened to AB-357?

(Hint: Never out of committee)

-Gene

Blackhawk556
10-10-2009, 8:47 PM
lime green for me looking at the map above :D:D:D

CavTrooper
10-10-2009, 9:05 PM
The lawsuit has the ability to change this map to all dark green.
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/clownburner/OCCCWS/ca_ccw_map-big.png

What are the costs/timeframes for CCW issue int he dark green counties?

Quiet
10-10-2009, 9:07 PM
What are the costs/timeframes for CCW issue int he dark green counties?

Time frame depends on the county, because it varies from county to county.
Just another thing that's wrong with the "may issue" system.
Cost should be the same since it was standardized by CA DOJ. You pay as you reach each step of the application process.
But, I have heard some LE agencies may charge you a processing fee on top of the state mandated fees.

Mstrty
10-10-2009, 10:04 PM
The day after a verdict had been entered against his client, the lawyer rushed to the judge's chambers, demanding that the case be reopened, saying: "I have new evidence that makes a huge difference in my client's defense."

The judge asked, "What new evidence could you have?"

The lawyer replied, "My client has an extra $10,000, and I just found out about it!"

couldn't help myself from a lawyer joke to lighten the discussion.:)

lioneaglegriffin
10-10-2009, 10:32 PM
lime green for me looking at the map above :D:D:D

burgandy...

Carnivore
10-11-2009, 12:02 AM
YELLOW GD it!!!! Praying for all green or at least hopping for. Hopping for Shania Twain to knock on my door to move in too but.....Sorry I am an optimistic pessimist.

nicki
10-12-2009, 12:10 AM
We will not get shall issue out of the legislature in the near future, that is reality.

I testified for AB357 along with Ed Worley (NRA state rep.)

I specifically read to the committee word for word Art 1 sec 7b of the California Constitution regarding equal rights and they didn't care.

The sheriff's representative actually argued that if we had shall issue, that he would have to issue to the town drunk or to people like OJ Simpson.

The Sykes case is a strong case and victory in the Sykes case will open doors for non discriminatory CCW throughout the state.

Nicki

Ricewatcher
10-12-2009, 4:26 AM
We also had AB 1167, which would add a new section to the PC (12058) to extend concealed carry reciprocity in California.

However, it was set for committee, and the hearing was cancelled at the request of the author (Nielsen). I can only guess it was due to AB 357 (ironic name btw) failing to get pass committee.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_357_cfa_20090420_114146_asm_comm.html

Similar legislation to AB 357 has had similar results over the years. Law Enforcement is the biggest opponent. No surprise there, despite the success other shall issue states have had.

jakemccoy
10-12-2009, 11:43 AM
We will not get shall issue out of the legislature in the near future, that is reality.

I testified for AB357 along with Ed Worley (NRA state rep.)

I specifically read to the committee word for word Art 1 sec 7b of the California Constitution regarding equal rights and they didn't care.

The sheriff's representative actually argued that if we had shall issue, that he would have to issue to the town drunk or to people like OJ Simpson.

The Sykes case is a strong case and victory in the Sykes case will open doors for non discriminatory CCW throughout the state.

Nicki

...like somebody like OJ or the town drunk would ask for a CCW permit...LOL

The sheriff doesn't care. He has his gun.