PDA

View Full Version : CCW good cause, what I'd like to hear.


nicki
12-17-2009, 3:51 AM
The good cause for CCW is a song and dance.

What I would like to hear a candidate say is the following:

Our country was founded on the principle that we are all equal under the law and I cannot adminster CCW permits under a discretionary system without violating someone's rights of equality under the law.

Snce issuance is based on my discretion, the only good cause statement I will from ask for from applicants is to write "Personal Protection" and as long as applicants pass the background checks and take required training, I will issue CCW permits.

This is the only way I can administer the CCW permit system without violating someone's equal protection rights under both the state and federal constitution.

A candidate who would take this position would expand his base from people who care about gun rights to equal rights.

So do we want to support sheriff candidates who will dance around or do we want to support candidates who can read art 1 sec 7b of the California constitution regarding equal rights and actually commit to upholding their oath of office.

The only modification of art 1 sec 7b was prop 8 so unless someone wants to change the California Constitution again, it is pretty blantant that state licenses, even if admistered locally, are subject to equal protection.

All applicants who pass the background checks and take and pass training should get a CCW permit unless there is some compelling public safety issue why they shouldn't.

The reality is under a true shall issue system, less than 2 percent of the population will get CCW permits anyway, so we aren't going to have the issue of EVERYONE carrying guns.

We are going to have Incorporation and Sykes will get us CCW, even if it has to be appealed all the way to the SCOTUS.

We need sheriff candidates who understand we are going to win soon anyway and are ready to do the right thing from day one, not sing and dance on the good cause.

So, what do you guys think.

Nicki

AndrewMendez
12-17-2009, 4:03 AM
I should not need any other reason then to protect the life of myself and family, for they are the most important people in the world to me!

engineers101st
12-17-2009, 4:12 AM
+100000^

bigcalidave
12-17-2009, 4:45 AM
Personal protection HAS to be the only reason. This state is out of control and bankrupt, how can they afford to even fight this stuff.

mofugly13
12-17-2009, 5:42 AM
Nicki for Sheriff? Come on up here and take Hennessey's place!

jaymz
12-17-2009, 5:54 AM
I guess that "personal protection" will work. I'd prefer no "good cause" at all. Pay your fees, get some training, get your ccw. Should pretty much be the same as getting a drivers license.

RobG
12-17-2009, 6:08 AM
I guess that "personal protection" will work. I'd prefer no "good cause" at all. Pay your fees, get some training, get your ccw. Should pretty much be the same as getting a drivers license.

Almost my take except, carry because I want to, get some training, do not pay the state, get the CCW.

Disagree with the CDL analogy. No where is there a constitutional right to drive.

PatriotnMore
12-17-2009, 7:02 AM
So do we want to support sheriff candidates who will dance around or do we want to support candidates who can read art 1 sec 7b of the California constitution regarding equal rights and actually commit to upholding their oath of office.
We need sheriff candidates who understand we are going to win soon anyway and are ready to do the right thing from day one, not sing and dance on the good cause.
So, what do you guys think.Nicki

What we really need is honesty and clarity from ALL candidates, but since there is very little recourse to force a candidate to keep promises, we often end up with the opposite of what we signed on for.

Notice how we never see legislation which supports ways to punish those who outright lie, implement opposite legislation, or do nothing meaningful to follow through on promises when campaigning, or taking monies from those who give due to political speeches, and promises.

If ever we needed positive legislation that is for the people that would hold the candidates responsible for their words, now is the time.

It would seem to me fraud is a legitimate reason to enact legislation against candidates who take monies from those giving it in good faith based on the candidates own speeches and promises, only to have it used against them through no effort, or opposite effort after elections by the candidate. If a candidate is taking monies from individuals or groups based on favorable works by the candidate on a specific issue, the candidate better understand why, and who they're taking monies from.

How can we expect a new breed of candidate, when
there is no benefit, incentive, or punishment to change?

jaymz
12-17-2009, 8:07 AM
Almost my take except, carry because I want to, get some training, do not pay the state, get the CCW.

Disagree with the CDL analogy. No where is there a constitutional right to drive.

I knew someone would say that, I actually typed a disclaimer pertaining to that, then deleted it. I'm only comparing the process, nothing more.

guayuque
12-17-2009, 8:17 AM
Almost my take except, carry because I want to, get some training, do not pay the state, get the CCW.

Disagree with the CDL analogy. No where is there a constitutional right to drive.

But the Constitution does not require CCW, either. You can keep arms at home all you want, but moving about the public with CCW is not a Constitutional right.

I also disagree with the DL analogy, but for another reason. Once of the reasons we don;t have a bunch of knuckleheads out there with CCW is the background check and I think we do still need that. And, making the hurdle high in terms of training and interview mean that only some pretty responsible people have CCW privileges.

As to cause, I think personal protection plus a tiny bit more of something should be required. Not quite carrying cash, jewels, etc., but just a bit more than personal protection.

RobG
12-17-2009, 9:14 AM
I knew someone would say that, I actually typed a disclaimer pertaining to that, then deleted it. I'm only comparing the process, nothing more.

Glad to help:p


But the Constitution does not require CCW, either. You can keep arms at home all you want, but moving about the public with CCW is not a Constitutional right.

I also disagree with the DL analogy, but for another reason. Once of the reasons we don;t have a bunch of knuckleheads out there with CCW is the background check and I think we do still need that. And, making the hurdle high in terms of training and interview mean that only some pretty responsible people have CCW privileges.

As to cause, I think personal protection plus a tiny bit more of something should be required. Not quite carrying cash, jewels, etc., but just a bit more than personal protection.

No, but it does state "bear" which indicates that firearms could be worn, carried, or whatever in public. To "bear" in your home does not seem to be the intent. Of course it is all dependant on what way certain judges sway, unfortunately.

The statement of "pretty responsible" makes no sense. I already have to have a background check, handgun safety card, pick from a "safe list", am limited on magazine capacity, and wait 10 days. What more should one have to do? Training should be something one places on themself.

And why should there be more than personal protection for cause? Isn't that what you are ultimately carrying a gun for?

DVSmith
12-17-2009, 9:28 AM
What I would like to hear is a sheriff say: "I will issue to anyone who apples and is not prohibited from owning a firearm"

The legal reality in California doesn't support that type of policy which requires an honest candidate to state that the legal requirements will be interpreted in the least restrictive way possible.

So none of the above is applicable to what I would like to hear and I don't think you have accurately represented the candidates' positions.

For example, Hutchens isn't "May issue with good cause", she will issue with good cause but her standard for good cause is higher than Carona's and Anderson's were and she issues most permits with restrictions where theirs were issued without restrictions.

Cokebottle
12-17-2009, 9:30 AM
I guess that "personal protection" will work. I'd prefer no "good cause" at all. Pay your fees, get some training, get your ccw. Should pretty much be the same as getting a drivers license.
Ditto.

As long as the DOJ requires "good cause", then "personal protection" is as good as it should need to be.

Cokebottle
12-17-2009, 9:52 AM
But the Constitution does not require CCW, either. You can keep arms at home all you want, but moving about the public with CCW is not a Constitutional right.

I also disagree with the DL analogy, but for another reason. Once of the reasons we don;t have a bunch of knuckleheads out there with CCW is the background check and I think we do still need that. And, making the hurdle high in terms of training and interview mean that only some pretty responsible people have CCW privileges.
I agree with some of that, but not with the "interview" portion.
A right is a right. The DL is not a right so it is not a proper analogy.
Yes, training should be a requirement.

WRT the first statement, in the spirit of 2A, and personal defense stipulations in DC vs Heller, the right to carry a gun outside of the home requires either the right to CCW or the right to LOC.

Arizona has it right.

Ducman
12-17-2009, 12:45 PM
Please explain this " Right to Keep and BEAR arms "

and your statement.:rolleyes:

But the Constitution does not require CCW, either. You can keep arms at home all you want, but moving about the public with CCW is not a Constitutional right.

RobG
12-17-2009, 1:08 PM
Realistically the gov't should have to show us, we the people, good cause to not issue the CCW.

Cokebottle
12-17-2009, 1:19 PM
Realistically the gov't should have to show us, we the people, good cause to not issue the CCW.
That's the whole point of shall-issue.

If a person is not a prohibited person, they should be eligible to CCW (after going through independent training).

supersonic
12-17-2009, 1:47 PM
I should not need any other reason then to protect the life of myself and family, for they are the most important people in the world to me!

^^^ THIS:cool:

Legasat
12-17-2009, 2:24 PM
"I will approve a CCW to anyone that is not prohibited from legally owning a firearm."

That is what I want hear them say.

supersonic
12-17-2009, 4:12 PM
"I will approve a CCW to anyone that is not prohibited from legally owning a firearm."

That is what I want hear them say.

I would go just a bit further, considering all the law-abiding morons we have living amongst us: "I will approve a CCW to anyone that is not prohibited from legally owning a firearm and can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he/she can proficiently handle & operate a firearm SAFELY." - Like so.;)

DVSmith
12-17-2009, 4:22 PM
I would go just a bit further, considering all the law-abiding morons we have living amongst us: "I will approve a CCW to anyone that is not prohibited from legally owning a firearm and can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he/she can proficiently handle & operate a firearm SAFELY." - Like so.;)

I think the 2A purists would argue that you are setting limits on a right and that is not acceptable.

Glock22Fan
12-17-2009, 4:25 PM
I would go just a bit further, considering all the law-abiding morons we have living amongst us: "I will approve a CCW to anyone that is not prohibited from legally owning a firearm and can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he/she can proficiently handle & operate a firearm SAFELY." - Like so.;)

Why do you need the last part? Utah doesn't require such a proof, nor does Vermont, Alaska and severl other states. When was the last time you heard of a Utah/Vermont/Alaska CCW holder having a problem that your addition would have fixed?

I'm all in favor of training (just send me the money and book a course!) but empirical evidence that it is necessary is missing. We demand that the antis prove their statements with statistics, yet we accept things like this as dogma.

supersonic
12-17-2009, 8:00 PM
Woah! Back the F*** OFF, dogs!!!!! Geeeez! This is just my opinion as to not wanting any unnecessary "ND's" along with injury & death that could be prevented with a little training. But, (per your logic) I guess anyone who is legally eligible to own a handgun will know exactly what to do when 'the moment of truth' comes.............just because that person has that piece of paper in their wallet. I guess the 2ndA comes first anyway, though.

I was merely stating that one should only be able to posses a CCW if they know how to use a gun without being a danger to everyone around them. That's all. F**K.

DVSmith
12-17-2009, 8:19 PM
Woah! Back the F*** OFF, dogs!!!!! Geeeez! This is just my opinion as to not wanting any unnecessary "ND's" along with injury & death that could be prevented with a little training. But, (per your logic) I guess anyone who is legally eligible to own a handgun will know exactly what to do when 'the moment of truth' comes.............just because that person has that piece of paper in their wallet. I guess the 2ndA comes first anyway, though.

I was merely stating that one should only be able to posses a CCW if they know how to use a gun without being a danger to everyone around them. That's all. F**K.

I guess you are a gun control advocate then. In all meanings of that phrase :)

Seriously though, I was just pointing out that people who believed that the 2nd provides a right and a right can not be conditional may have an issue with proving proficiency before being able to exercise that right. It makes it sound more like a privilege, such as driving.

LiberalGunner
12-17-2009, 9:16 PM
Do you all really want any "legal" person being able to pack in secret? I understand that some municipalities are over restrictive and favor political contributors, stars and big wigs. I'm not saying that's the right way to go, but come on...there are a lot of idiots out there in the world. If you can't fill out a basic form at your local sheriff's office, can't pass a safety class, or really have a dumb reason for wanting to carry, does it support the public safety and greater good to have these people armed? I know a lot of dumb 18 year olds that I wouldn't want holding a set of car keys. It would be a tragedy for gun rights if "gun rage" replaced road rage and discharging weapons on the streets became as common as DUI's.

Cokebottle
12-17-2009, 9:37 PM
Do you all really want any "legal" person being able to pack in secret?
Yes.

Criminals are already packing in secret.
or really have a dumb reason for wanting to carry,
Such as "personal protection", or "Because it is my right and I want the option to carry if I feel the need"?
Your definition, my definition, and Barbara Boxer's definition of "dumb reason" are not going to be the same.
It would be a tragedy for gun rights if "gun rage" replaced road rage and discharging weapons on the streets became as common as DUI's.
Again, criminals already carry illegally... concealed and otherwise.
Many otherwise law-abiding citizens also carry concealed illegally simply because they cannot get a permit in their county.

Currently, only 10 states (plus DC) are not "shall-issue".
Two states have no permit requirement... Alaska and Vermont. No training, no test, no background check other than what is required to purchase the gun.
If your fears of "gun rage" replacing "road rage" were true, we would have seen that long ago from Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc....
All of those states have large population centers comparable to Los Angeles with cimilar crime/gang issues... yet crime statistics actually dropped after these states became shall-issue.

RobG
12-17-2009, 9:37 PM
Do you all really want any "legal" person being able to pack in secret? I understand that some municipalities are over restrictive and favor political contributors, stars and big wigs. I'm not saying that's the right way to go, but come on...there are a lot of idiots out there in the world. If you can't fill out a basic form at your local sheriff's office, can't pass a safety class, or really have a dumb reason for wanting to carry, does it support the public safety and greater good to have these people armed? I know a lot of dumb 18 year olds that I wouldn't want holding a set of car keys. It would be a tragedy for gun rights if "gun rage" replaced road rage and discharging weapons on the streets became as common as DUI's.

This simply has not been the case when states have openly issued CCW. Although elitist attitudes such as yours are commonly used now to deny CCW's. And exactly how will you weed out these said idiots?. And why should I need to conform to what someone else feels is a "reason" to carry. People always assume that if someone does not have a CCW that they will not carry. If you are the type to pull out a gun because of a vehicle crash, then you are probably already carrying illegally. It is interesting the, "I want a CCW but don't want those people to have one," attitude. The constitution was written for EVERYONE, not a selected group.

GuyW
12-17-2009, 10:06 PM
Do you all really want any "legal" person being able to pack in secret? I understand that some municipalities are over restrictive and favor political contributors, stars and big wigs. I'm not saying that's the right way to go, but come on...there are a lot of idiots out there in the world. If you can't fill out a basic form at your local sheriff's office, can't pass a safety class, or really have a dumb reason for wanting to carry, does it support the public safety and greater good to have these people armed? I know a lot of dumb 18 year olds that I wouldn't want holding a set of car keys. It would be a tragedy for gun rights if "gun rage" replaced road rage and discharging weapons on the streets became as common as DUI's.

The Brady gun-grabbers are down the street on your left....
.

Hopi
12-17-2009, 10:08 PM
The Brady gun-grabbers are down the street on your left....
.

actually, I think they were just right here on our nice peaceful forum...;)

CCWFacts
12-17-2009, 11:01 PM
I don't know anything about the candidates (other than the incumbent, who I hope moves on to some other line of employment), but I voted for "Improved issue with some cause". I think it's reasonable, given the way our statute is written, for people to have to use a whiff of brain-power and a microliter of ink to write a few more words than just "personal protection". Maybe, "I walk home from work sometimes", or "I go jogging at night", or "I drive through bad areas of town sometimes", or "there was a gang shooting near my house recently" or "I have an 80s style haircut and someone might not like it" or something like that.

Our statute does require the person to be at some elevated risk. Meeting that requirement with just a few more words seems reasonable.

Our statute violates my own personal view of the Constitution, and I hope our statute will soon be demolished by the Sykes case (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness) so that the law will become consistent with my view of the constitution, but until then... it seems like the safest option is to put a few words beyond "personal protection". It shouldn't be that much of a strain to think of something.

M. Sage
12-18-2009, 12:01 AM
The whole "good cause" requirement is a complete abomination. "Guh" should qualify as a "good cause statement".

The Director
12-18-2009, 8:43 AM
LiberalGunner.

Cool. The first oxymoron I've had all day.

Jamsie567
12-18-2009, 9:11 AM
If you are not objective and genuninely looking for a candidate to support. Please do consider Bill Hunt he has carried the same CCW stance since 2005 and is not pandering for votes. He is very qualified to not only lead the OCSD but has proven to be a man of his word and integrity. In 2006 he stood up for his community against his own boss the now convicted felon Mike Carona.

He is uniquly qualified to be a leader in this movement because he was forced to become a civilian and start his own business. He knows what it's like to have his freedom of speech rights trampled. He commands the leadership of the department by taking on every tough assignment and earning the respect of his pears from within.

Please help join in the effort to elect Bill Hunt as our next SHERIFF!!

Bill Hunt for Sheriff: Talking about CCW's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99J3CojOe0E

supersonic
12-18-2009, 9:18 AM
O.K., I see your point, guys. I'm just such a stickler for firearm safety that it came out in my words. You don't know how many times I've watched a person do the demonstration (to get their HSC) and point the muzzle at everyone & everything except a safe direction; keep their finger on the trigger; sweep the muzzle with their own hand(s), only to be allowed to start over & OVER until they get it 'right'. These morons then are allowed to buy the gun of their choice & then become a danger to us ALL! Anyway, it doesn't matter, because even if CA becomes 'Shall Issue,' every applicant will still be required to pass the qualification/training course.;)

RobG
12-18-2009, 10:09 AM
I don't know anything about the candidates (other than the incumbent, who I hope moves on to some other line of employment), but I voted for "Improved issue with some cause". I think it's reasonable, given the way our statute is written, for people to have to use a whiff of brain-power and a microliter of ink to write a few more words than just "personal protection". Maybe, "I walk home from work sometimes", or "I go jogging at night", or "I drive through bad areas of town sometimes", or "there was a gang shooting near my house recently" or "I have an 80s style haircut and someone might not like it" or something like that.
Our statute does require the person to be at some elevated risk. Meeting that requirement with just a few more words seems reasonable.



Really? "Good Cause" is a BS way to say no. Just like me telling my kids, "maybe." And your above list is easily debunked by anyone not wanting to issue.

Don't walk home from work, don't jog at night, don't drive in bad areas, you are not in a gang, change your hairstyle. CCW DENIED.

And I really hate the word, "reasonable."

But I will play. "I want a CCW for personal protection because there is crime in California." Hows that?