PDA

View Full Version : AB357 Knight's CCW bill has a new hearing date


tango-52
12-15-2009, 5:42 AM
Knight's CCW billl (AB357) has been granted a new hearing. The date is set for January 12, 2010 before the Assembly Public Safety Committee. Here is a link to the rest of the bill:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_357_bill_20090413_amended_asm_v98.pdf

We need to start heating up the phone lines on this one.

Quiet
12-15-2009, 6:32 AM
Good to know.

First time it was around, I contacted Assemblyman Knight to express my support for the legislation.

He email me back this response.


Dear Mr. xxxxxxx:


Thank you for expressing your support for Assembly Bill 357, which I introduced earlier this year.

While we are fighting an uphill battle to bring this important public safety legislation to the Assembly Floor, I am dedicated to reforming the Concealed Carry Weapon Permit laws in California. Currently AB 357 is being held for reconsideration in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

With your support and the help of tens of thousands of other Californians, we can make a strong and compelling case for guaranteeing that law-abiding citizens be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

Again, thank you for taking the time to lend me your support. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future regarding legislative issues of concern to you. It is an honor to serve you in the California State Assembly.

Sincerely,



Steve Knight, Assemblyman
36th Assembly District

Librarian
12-15-2009, 6:42 AM
Surprised the heck out of me....

Two year bill, evidently. Go, 357!

Usual order is Public Safety Committee first.

Super Spy
12-15-2009, 9:10 AM
I'd love to be able to get a CCW in CA, I also expect our legislature to have the normal total lack of respect for the Bill of Rights. We need to get some new people into office, then maybe we can get shall-issue passed. The current batch are mostly worthless as evidenced by recent actions.

AndrewMendez
12-15-2009, 10:27 AM
(B) Authorize the licensee to carry concealed a pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(C) If the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons
according to the most recent federal decennial census, authorize
the licensee to carry loaded and exposed in that county a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person.

What happens to the counties with more then 200,000 people?

Roadrunner
12-15-2009, 10:48 AM
What happens to the counties with more then 200,000 people?

My question is, how many counties are actually under 200,000?

tango-52
12-15-2009, 10:48 AM
What happens to the counties with more then 200,000 people?

You are reading part of the bill that is already existing law. That is for Licenses to Loaded Open Carry in small population counties. In the bigger counties, it is a License to Concealed Carry, not Loaded Open Carry. But the thrust of this bill is in the earlier paragraphs where it removes the Good Cause requirement and changes it from May Issue to Shall Issue.

AndrewMendez
12-15-2009, 11:03 AM
You are reading part of the bill that is already existing law. That is for Licenses to Loaded Open Carry in small population counties. In the bigger counties, it is a License to Concealed Carry, not Loaded Open Carry. But the thrust of this bill is in the earlier paragraphs where it removes the Good Cause requirement and changes it from May Issue to Shall Issue.

Thanks for clarifying.

MidnightSon117
12-15-2009, 12:32 PM
Glad this is still not completely dead. To blaaaaaaaave!

Purple K
12-15-2009, 1:14 PM
Use this link http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml#contactinfo to E-mail all our representatives at once. Keep up the pressure!

Cokebottle
12-15-2009, 1:33 PM
This is only the hearing for the public safety committee.
Probably not a prayer that it will pass on to the assembly, but here's hoping:

Tom Ammiano -- Chair - Dem-13 -- (916) 319-2013 Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov
Curt Hagman -- Vice Chair - Rep-60 -- (916) 319-2060 Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov
Juan Arambula -- Ind-31 -- (916) 319-2031 Assemblymember.Arambula@assembly.ca.gov
Warren T. Furutani -- Dem-55 -- (916) 319-2055 Assemblymember.Furutani@assembly.ca.gov
Danny D. Gilmore -- Rep-30 -- (916) 319-2030 Assemblymember.Gilmore@assembly.ca.gov
Jerry Hill -- Dem-19 -- (916) 319-2019 Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov
Fiona Ma -- Dem-12 -- (916) 319-2012 Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov

Purple K
12-15-2009, 2:10 PM
This is only the hearing for the public safety committee.
Probably not a prayer that it will pass on to the assembly, but here's hoping:

Tom Ammiano -- Chair - Dem-13 -- (916) 319-2013 Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov
Curt Hagman -- Vice Chair - Rep-60 -- (916) 319-2060 Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov
Juan Arambula -- Ind-31 -- (916) 319-2031 Assemblymember.Arambula@assembly.ca.gov
Warren T. Furutani -- Dem-55 -- (916) 319-2055 Assemblymember.Furutani@assembly.ca.gov
Danny D. Gilmore -- Rep-30 -- (916) 319-2030 Assemblymember.Gilmore@assembly.ca.gov
Jerry Hill -- Dem-19 -- (916) 319-2019 Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov
Fiona Ma -- Dem-12 -- (916) 319-2012 Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov


I just called all of them. I challenge you all to do the same! :D

Cokebottle
12-15-2009, 2:22 PM
I just called all of them. I challenge you all to do the same! :D
What did they say? ;)

Connor P Price
12-15-2009, 2:46 PM
This would be a huge victory for us in CA. I'll be sure to contact each of them as well. Is there anything else we can do to help other than letting our voices be heard by the people in Sacramento?

xounlistedxox
12-15-2009, 2:47 PM
Don't get me wrong I would love to have a CCW and I regularly carry while on my own private property. The main problem for me in allowing a lot of people to get them is that I see a ton of people just while at the range who shouldn't even own a firearm...let alone be carrying it around. For example last time I went to Cordova shooting center the guy next to me was shooting my target and his own target. I had to raise my voice considerably before he even noticed I was talking to him telling him to stop shooting my target. Then moments later(he was shooting a .38/.357 lever action)he proceeded in loading rounds into his rifle backwards. I immediately informed the rangemaster, so he kept an eagle eye on him. This guy had his NRA hat and shirt on. A few minutes later after he left some guys came over to me and told me that he had seen that guy kicked off the range before for being unsafe. This type of person with a CCW is just plain dangerous.

Connor P Price
12-15-2009, 2:56 PM
^agreed. There are plenty of people I've seen at the range that aren't nearly safe enough either. I don't think that should restrict our ability to get a CCW though.

I wouldn't mind there being a very serious class followed by very stringent testing, and frequent qualification requirements. This type of process would help make sure that only safe people have the CCW, and would be able to create some new revenue if done properly.

xounlistedxox
12-15-2009, 2:58 PM
Yeah something to that effect would make sense. You know as well as I that they would set up something that is ridiculously priced, so that not just anyone could afford it though.

Cokebottle
12-15-2009, 3:06 PM
Keep in mind that "shall issue" doesn't eliminate training requirements.
Even under "shall issue", not everyone who applies will receive one... at least not after their first class run.
CCW aren't going to be handed out in Cracker Jack boxes ;)

I don't see "shall issue" making a change in any of the current procedures other than the CLEO simply deciding that he's not going to issue.
There is still going to be a class and a background check, possibly still interviews with neighbors and personal references.

"Shall issue" simply changes California's current policy of "deny for any reason" to "Issue without good reason not to"

mossy
12-15-2009, 3:14 PM
i would love to get a CCW in CA GO 357!

Cokebottle
12-15-2009, 3:53 PM
i would love to get a CCW in CA GO 357!
Absolutely.

My county is about as close to "shall issue" as any in the state, but I decided to wait until after I get a solid job.

I figure it wouldn't look too good for a guy to come in and apply when he's been out of work for 6 months and he's using the last $200 to pay for the class ;)

nick
12-15-2009, 4:41 PM
Don't get me wrong I would love to have a CCW and I regularly carry while on my own private property. The main problem for me in allowing a lot of people to get them is that I see a ton of people just while at the range who shouldn't even own a firearm...let alone be carrying it around. For example last time I went to Cordova shooting center the guy next to me was shooting my target and his own target. I had to raise my voice considerably before he even noticed I was talking to him telling him to stop shooting my target. Then moments later(he was shooting a .38/.357 lever action)he proceeded in loading rounds into his rifle backwards. I immediately informed the rangemaster, so he kept an eagle eye on him. This guy had his NRA hat and shirt on. A few minutes later after he left some guys came over to me and told me that he had seen that guy kicked off the range before for being unsafe. This type of person with a CCW is just plain dangerous.

Freedom isn't really safe by that logic (there's more to it, but it's a safe assumption for simplicity's sake). Trying to build a completely safe society usually leads to, well, lack of freedom.

Besides, who gets to decide who's safe and who isn't? Once you start doing that, is it still a right?

bulgron
12-15-2009, 5:47 PM
Freedom isn't really safe by that logic (there's more to it, but it's a safe assumption for simplicity's sake). Trying to build a completely safe society usually leads to, well, lack of freedom.

Besides, who gets to decide who's safe and who isn't? Once you start doing that, is it still a right?

I go back and forth on this issue.

One of the reasons why they wrote the 2A was to ensure that the population was generally trained in the use of arms. Therefore, training requirements seem very constitutional to me, at least from an originalist point of view. More, with our increasingly crowded society, and our ever-growing number of lawyers, it seems like training (which includes an understanding of the legal realities around use of force) is just flat-out common sense.

On the flip-side of the argument, we have the example of the Jim Crow literacy and comprehension tests to tell us what happens when the state is allowed to put tests between the people and their exercise of constitutional rights.

If I thought that people who were going to carry a gun in public would do the right thing and seek out all the proper training, I'd have no problem with arguing that there should be no testing for the right to carry. But in my years on this planet, I've noticed that the human race, when viewed as a herd animal, is kind of stupid.

So I guess at the end of the day we're going to have to live with shall-issue laws that require some testing, and that there are always going to be people who can't pass the tests, who can't find the time to take the training, or who can't afford the licensing process. And, yes, there are always going to be state officials who will try to use those tests to exclude the maximum number of people possible from bearing arms in public. This will lead to perpetual drama.

I don't like it, but I also don't see any way to avoid it.

Cokebottle
12-15-2009, 5:52 PM
There is also a very legitimate reason to avoid training.

Training that results in the issuance of any kind of certificate indicating that "you know what you're doing" can shift some liability from the certificate holder to the issuing agency, particularly if "everything goes wrong" but the certificate holder "did everything right" based on his training, but the situation reveals that the outcome would have been better had training directed a different action.

CCWFacts
12-15-2009, 7:19 PM
I can't imagine this can get out of committee. But that won't stop me from writing and calling everyone on the committee.

bigcalidave
12-15-2009, 8:11 PM
Wow glad to see this will have a second go around. I don't know all the formalities. How many times can they keep approaching the same bill? If they have a hearing on this in the early part of 010 instead of after the 2nd is incorporated by the SC, since nothing has changed in the house, what's the point? After the 010 elections, and supreme court rulings, this might actually be successful!

Cokebottle
12-15-2009, 8:13 PM
Wow glad to see this will have a second go around. I don't know all the formalities. How many times can they keep approaching the same bill?
Ask "One Bill" Gil Cedillo.

Librarian
12-15-2009, 10:48 PM
There is also a very legitimate reason to avoid training.

Training that results in the issuance of any kind of certificate indicating that "you know what you're doing" can shift some liability from the certificate holder to the issuing agency, particularly if "everything goes wrong" but the certificate holder "did everything right" based on his training, but the situation reveals that the outcome would have been better had training directed a different action.

Wouldn't that be 'avoid being a trainer'?

IMHO, that's a stretch - but this IS California ... :eek:

Cokebottle
12-16-2009, 12:44 AM
Wouldn't that be 'avoid being a trainer'?

IMHO, that's a stretch - but this IS California ... :eek:
Nahh... trainer's off the hook... the potential liability would fall on the creator of the course material. It's just the trainer's job to communicate that to the student. That's why I said "does everything right"... the implication being that the training material itself was lacking, not the instruction.

Not really a stretch, especially in California.... there have been a few lawsuits directed at the Scuba training agencies after fatal accidents, particularly the technical (deep, decompression, wreck, and cave) organizations.

It's one thing to provide training, but when the industry self regulation gets to the point that one is not allowed to participate without a certificate, it becomes far more important to write course material that results in the certificate actually meaning something.

CalNRA
12-16-2009, 1:35 AM
Ask "One Bill" Gil Cedillo.

Not to mention "ammo...bad" Kevin DeLeon.

Cokebottle
12-16-2009, 2:03 AM
Not to mention "ammo...bad" Kevin DeLeon.
Ya, but how many tries did it take him to get the online ban through?
Cedillo has pushed for drivers licenses for illegals every year for the last 10+.
Davis actually signed it right before we dumped his pandering a** for Arnold's pandering a**.
That and the VLF increase were the final nails in his coffin.

kcbrown
12-16-2009, 4:31 AM
I go back and forth on this issue.

One of the reasons why they wrote the 2A was to ensure that the population was generally trained in the use of arms. Therefore, training requirements seem very constitutional to me, at least from an originalist point of view. More, with our increasingly crowded society, and our ever-growing number of lawyers, it seems like training (which includes an understanding of the legal realities around use of force) is just flat-out common sense.

On the flip-side of the argument, we have the example of the Jim Crow literacy and comprehension tests to tell us what happens when the state is allowed to put tests between the people and their exercise of constitutional rights.

If I thought that people who were going to carry a gun in public would do the right thing and seek out all the proper training, I'd have no problem with arguing that there should be no testing for the right to carry. But in my years on this planet, I've noticed that the human race, when viewed as a herd animal, is kind of stupid.

So I guess at the end of the day we're going to have to live with shall-issue laws that require some testing, and that there are always going to be people who can't pass the tests, who can't find the time to take the training, or who can't afford the licensing process. And, yes, there are always going to be state officials who will try to use those tests to exclude the maximum number of people possible from bearing arms in public. This will lead to perpetual drama.

I don't like it, but I also don't see any way to avoid it.

Well, if it's a choice between mandating some training and acceptance testing afterwards versus more training without testing, then go for more training without testing.

Now, the way I'd do it is: you have to go through yearly training to keep your CCW, and part of the training is to go through a battery of standard tests. However, the results of the tests are not used to determine whether or not you get to keep your CCW: you have a right to keep and bear, so you have a right to CCW. Rather, the results of the tests are saved. In the event you wind up in court as a result of a shooting while you CCWed, the results of your most recent tests will be made available to the court. If the tests show that you are competent then that would work in your favor, while if they showed that you are not competent then that presumably would work against you. This scheme might have some undesirable legal ramifications that I'm not seeing, and if so I'd love to know what they are.


Regardless, liberty comes at a price. Freedom is dangerous, and it's high time we as individuals and as a society realize it, and realize that it is proper to trade away safety to get freedom. If someone wishes to opt for safety over freedom then there are plenty of countries that will cater to that person's desires. There are precious few that will cater to those who would opt for freedom over safety.

yellowfin
12-16-2009, 6:07 AM
The biggest thing to do on this round is to address the sheriffs' union lobbyists' justification for why they're against it and smash their arguments before they can make them. Remember last time? Our side laid out our argument perfectly then the LE folks came in and spouted their drivel and the committee bought it hook line and sinker as if we were never there. Call them out on being the rotten, lying sacks of donkey poop they really are and leave them with nowhere to go. They'll invariably say "We need to be able to keep someone who's beat their wife but never convicted of it from being able to carry a gun", so take that argument and shoot it down during your time to speak. Apply the Jim Crow and Colfax Massacre stuff to what they've said before to show that it's them reserving their ability to do the same, no more no less.

Paladin
12-16-2009, 8:21 PM
Knight's CCW billl (AB357) has been granted a new hearing. The date is set for January 12, 2010 before the Assembly Public Safety Committee. Here is a link to the rest of the bill:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_357_bill_20090413_amended_asm_v98.pdf

We need to start heating up the phone lines on this one.While I fully support "Shall Issue" Right-to-Carry, if I don't see it as an action item on http://www.calnra.com/ or get an email alert from CalNRA, the CRPA, the NRA, the NRA-ILA, or CGN/F, I'm not going to start burning up the phone/fax lines, sending emails, etc.

Unless you have overwhelming forces, political pressure has to be focused and timely. Otherwise you're just wasting your time and effort.

JMHO

Purple K
12-16-2009, 9:39 PM
What did they say? ;)

Two of the assistants said that their assemblypersons were in support of AB357. The other assistants said that they did not know the assemblypersons stance on the issue.

Cokebottle
12-16-2009, 10:23 PM
Two of the assistants said that their assemblypersons were in support of AB357.
Hagman & Gilmore? ;)
The other assistants said that they did not know the assemblypersons stance on the issue.
Or are afraid to tell you.

wildhawker
12-16-2009, 10:30 PM
Hagman & Gilmore? ;)

Or are afraid to tell you.

Gilmore isn't a sure thing. Hagman's running the bill (AB373) to repeal AB962.

nicki
12-17-2009, 2:24 AM
I will see if Assemblyman Knight would like me to talk on this bill again.

With incorporation a slam dunk, AB357 will stave off unneeded civil litigation in a post MacDonald world.

Any of you guys going to Oaklander's X mass party this Sat, we can really talk about things there;)

Nicki

Purple K
12-17-2009, 11:39 AM
Two of the assistants said that their assemblypersons were in support of AB357. The other assistants said that they did not know the assemblypersons stance on the issue.

I just dropped letters in the old snail-mail as a follow up to my phone calls. Please keep pressuring these guys.

Purple K
12-18-2009, 11:36 AM
btt

nicki
12-18-2009, 2:25 PM
There will be no witnesses, only a up and down vote.

The people on the hearing don't want to hear gun rights, but they may be receptive to equal rights.

The issue of this bill is more than gun rights, I would suggest focusing instead on things like equal rights, right to travel.

One thing I would make very clear is this bill won't lead to EVERYONE carrying guns.

What it will lead to is everyone who is willing to go through the process and passes background checks and training will get a CCW permit on a non discriminatory basis.

The convictions of sheriffs for political corruption shows that the LEO's do abuse the process, as such, too many have shown they won't administer the permit system equally among applicants.

The reality is under AB357, probably 1 percent of Californians would be legally carrying guns.

1 percent is not everyone carrying a gun. 1 percent means that only the most qualified and responsible people are getting permits and 39 other states records with non discriminatory CCW permits shows that they have not been a public safey meancace, if anything, they have been a public safety benefit.

Nicki

Untamed1972
12-18-2009, 2:42 PM
Don't get me wrong I would love to have a CCW and I regularly carry while on my own private property. The main problem for me in allowing a lot of people to get them is that I see a ton of people just while at the range who shouldn't even own a firearm...let alone be carrying it around. For example last time I went to Cordova shooting center the guy next to me was shooting my target and his own target. I had to raise my voice considerably before he even noticed I was talking to him telling him to stop shooting my target. Then moments later(he was shooting a .38/.357 lever action)he proceeded in loading rounds into his rifle backwards. I immediately informed the rangemaster, so he kept an eagle eye on him. This guy had his NRA hat and shirt on. A few minutes later after he left some guys came over to me and told me that he had seen that guy kicked off the range before for being unsafe. This type of person with a CCW is just plain dangerous.


Yes.....and I've seen people on the roads that shouldn't have a drivers license either....but they do. It's just part of the deal. And I think your fears are overstated, because if you look at the stats from other shall issue states, even ones with very low qualification/training requirements, the issueance rates of CCWs are 1-2% of the population and reports or bad shootings and accidents by CCW holders is virtually ZERO!

Essentially you're spouting a softened version of the crap the anti's spew everyday.

A reality of life is that responsible people will act responsibly and irresponsible will act irresponsibly, but I am not in favor of a system that puts undo power in the hands of bureaucrats to decide who is responsible and who isn't, especially when it comes to exercise fundamental rights.