PDA

View Full Version : Calguns Research Thread


pullnshoot25
04-27-2010, 4:01 PM
OK guys, here is the deal.

I just talked with a guy from Lori's office by the name of Joe. Apparently, they have been getting a lot of calls on this AB1934 bill with a lot of calls coming from out-of-state. Both my brother and I talked with Joe for an extensive amount of time and we are working on flooding that office with information.

This is where you guys come in. Basically, I need every piece and shred of credible information on the following topics:

1) Racist intent of gun laws, particularly in California. Explicit evidence is the best. I think a lot of stuff in "No Guns for Negroes" will go a long way
2) Stats on the effects of carry laws
3) Stats about crime rates amongst CCW permit holders
4) Racist intent of weapons laws overall (e.g. 12020)
5) Anything good for showing that more guns equals less crime.

I know that I could find all of this myself and I am certain there is some repository somewhere but I figure that you Calgunners have this stuff bookmarked at the ready and could just cut-and-paste. I am a little bit short on time after that phone marathon and studying for midterms and stuff.

Any help is appreciated!

AndrewMendez
04-27-2010, 4:33 PM
I think I have the Oakland and LA County crime rates vs CCW's....somewhere. If not, maybe google will be my friend!

AndrewMendez
04-27-2010, 4:44 PM
Still searching check this out

http://www.calccw.com/Forums/announcements/6227-denied-ccw-los-angeles-not-alive-tell-story.html

Apparently someone who applied for a CCW and denied was murdered. I am sure this is not the only case.


UPDATED: Teens find bloody body

By Brian Charles
Signal Staff Writer
Posted: Sept. 16, 2008 2:31 p.m.
Updated: Sept. 16, 2008 5:46 p.m.


Three Hart High School students found a blood-soaked body sprawled on the front seat and hanging out of the door of a car Tuesday in a driveway on Udine Road, a sheriff's official said.

Anthony Lombardi, 55, of Valencia, was stabbed multiple times in the upper torso. His car was parked in the driveway of his home at Udine Road, said Lt. Dave Coleman of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Homicide Bureau.

The students were out of school early because of a minimum day, neighbor Casey McCarthy said. As the boys pedaled their bicycles past the parked car at about 11:30 a.m. they saw Lombardi's leg hanging out of the car.

"They ignored it," McCarthy said.

They rode by a second time and decided to investigate. The boys discovered Lombardi's blood-soaked body slumped over the wheel and blood spattered all over the car, he said.

Sheriff's deputies were called by another neighbor, McCarthy said.

Crime tape was put up and no cars or people were allowed in or out of Udine Road and Valen Drive. The three boys were taken to the Santa clarita Valley Sheriff's station to give eyewitness testimony. Deputies searched the area but found no suspects, Coleman said.

The murder, the crime tape and a swarm of hovering news helicopters left the neighborhood stunned.

Casey Mohr was on his way home from lunch with his mother when he saw deputies outside the house. He described Lombardi as friendly neighbor who raised pit bulls that were surprisingly friendly.

Lombardi job was to collect money from automated teller machines and his garage was full of ATMs, McCarthy said.
"Nothing happens here," Albert Carter said. Carter, 73, has lived in the area since 1977. He was on his way home from a computer class when deputies stopped him from turning down Valen Drive. "This is a very quiet place. I am surprised," he said.

Family members began streaming to the crime scene. Tears rolled down their cheeks and their screams echoed through the usually serene neighborhood.

Deputies held back family members who rushed toward the yellow tape protecting the crime scene. Angry family members demanded answers from deputies who tried to comfort the family.

Word of the murder spread quickly through the area and officials at Meadows Elementary School were alerted, said Beverly Knutson, assistant superintendent of the Newhall School District. She and other school officials manned corners in the neighborhood and provided escorts for the children who lived in homes behind the police tape.

Investigators recovered no weapons at the scene and found no suspects in the area, Coleman said.

GrizzlyGuy
04-27-2010, 4:47 PM
I don't understand the context: who is Lori?

Lots of stats here: Gunfacts.info (http://www.gunfacts.info/)

wheels
04-27-2010, 4:54 PM
I don't understand the context: who is Lori?

Lots of stats here: Gunfacts.info (http://www.gunfacts.info/)

I hope he is talking about Lori Saldana - author of AB 1934

pullnshoot25
04-27-2010, 4:54 PM
I don't understand the context: who is Lori?

Lots of stats here: Gunfacts.info (http://www.gunfacts.info/)

Sorry, I should have clarified a little better. Lori = Lori Saldana.

2009_gunner
04-27-2010, 4:58 PM
I think a visual comparison of California to the rest of the States is helpful. While most states are making it easier to carry, CA is trying to make it more difficult.http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/7514/rtc1986.png

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/2069/rtc2010.png

And this map is not even quite up-to-date, as Iowa will be going from "yellow" to "blue"
http://www.wqad.com/news/sns-ap-ia--iowa-culver-guns,0,1810927.story

Tarn_Helm
04-27-2010, 5:13 PM
OK guys, here is the deal.

I just talked with a guy from Lori's office by the name of Joe. Apparently, they have been getting a lot of calls on this AB1934 bill with a lot of calls coming from out-of-state. Both my brother and I talked with Joe for an extensive amount of time and we are working on flooding that office with information.

This is where you guys come in. Basically, I need every piece and shred of credible information on the following topics:

1) Racist intent of gun laws, particularly in California. Explicit evidence is the best. I think a lot of stuff in "No Guns for Negroes" will go a long way
2) Stats on the effects of carry laws
3) Stats about crime rates amongst CCW permit holders
4) Racist intent of weapons laws overall (e.g. 12020)
5) Anything good for showing that more guns equals less crime.

I know that I could find all of this myself and I am certain there is some repository somewhere but I figure that you Calgunners have this stuff bookmarked at the ready and could just cut-and-paste. I am a little bit short on time after that phone marathon and studying for midterms and stuff.

Any help is appreciated!

This might have something:

The lynching of persons of Mexican origin or descent in the United States, 1848 to 1928 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_2_37/ai_111897839/)

This is proof that such laws existed elsewhere, suggesting that similar motives here in CA might have caused CA firearms rights infringements ("regulation"):
The Racist Roots of Gun Control (http://www.lizmichael.com/racistro.htm)
Copyright 1993 Clayton E. Cramer All Rights Reserved

DISARM THE NEGROES. The Racist Roots of
Georgia's Gun Laws (http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/racist-roots-of-ga-gun-laws.pdf)

Civil rights organization fights elitists and racists (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0708/0708racistgunlaws.htm)
By John Bender
web posted July 21, 2008 ( http://www.enterstageright.com/esrfirearms.htm )

Please respect the authors' rights:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]

wheels
04-27-2010, 5:30 PM
Sorry, I should have clarified a little better. Lori = Lori Saldana.

Hey - I shot an email to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations yesterday and CC'd Saldana and Garrick (my rep from North SD). I'm for putting effort where it makes sense, but I'm pretty suspect of Saldana or anyone in her office after seeing her in that press conference that was on the assembly's site. She admitted to cherry picking her data.

I've literally spent months before putting together objective data into a presentation for a decision process only to find after the fact that decision was made based on personalities, family, etc. Frustrating....

I have notified friends and family down in her district about her suspect agenda and tactics. I'll give her office a call tomorrow to register my displeasure again and I'd like to get a copy of the press package that was provided - with her cherry picked data - at the press conference. I also will ask if they realize the guy in the "loaded in 2 seconds" video appears to have the magazine concealed - possible 12025 violation.

Happy to help out, I'm just afraid we may be trying to tell this guy to let the hostage go...

http://www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/cleavon.jpg

Paladin
04-27-2010, 6:47 PM
2) Stats on the effects of carry laws
3) Stats about crime rates amongst CCW permit holders
***
5) Anything good for showing that more guns equals less crime. Ck my sig line re facts about Right-to-Carry. Also, no state that has gone "Shall Issue" has ever repealed its law. That says a lot.

I heard John Lott, PhD, will release a revised and updated edition of his More Guns, Less Crime book in the very near future.

Californio
04-27-2010, 7:02 PM
End of loaded open carry without permit. Good writeup with pictures etc.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug01/barillari/pantherprologue.html

May 2, 1967, Sacramento, CA:



A group of thirty young black men and women, dressed in black leather jackets, berets, and dark glasses, crosses the lawn to the steps of the state capitol. Many of them are armed with shotguns, though they are careful to keep the weapons pointed towards the sky. As they approach the entrance to the capitol building, Governor Ronald Reagan, speaking to a cluster of schoolchildren nearby, catches sight of their advance, turns on his heel, and runs. Still marching in tight formation, the group reaches the steps, faces the crowd, and listens attentively as their leader, Bobby Seale, [1] reads Executive Mandate Number One of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense to the startled audience. The mandate, addressed to “the American people in general and the black people in particular,” details the “terror, brutality, murder, and repression of black people” practiced by “the racist power structure of America,” and concludes that “the time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.” [2] Cameras flash as Seale finishes reading and the defiant group proceeds into the building. One wrong turn, and the delegation stumbles onto the Assembly floor, currently in debate over the Mulford Act, aimed to prohibit citizens from carrying loaded firearms on their persons or in their vehicles. Chaos ensues: legislators dive under desks, screaming, “Don’t shoot!” and security guards hurriedly surround the party, grabbing at weapons and herding everyone into the hallway. All the while cameramen and reporters run back and forth, grinning in anticipation of tomorrow’s headlines. “Who are you?” one manages to shout before the assembly is led into an elevator. Sixteen-year-old “little” Bobby Hutton is the first to reply, and his words remain an echo in the hallway just before the doors slide shut with a soft hiss:
“We’re the Black Panthers.
We’re black people with guns.
What about it?”[3]

command_liner
04-27-2010, 8:38 PM
Summary from a private email with Clayton Cramer last year on this
exact topic.


One provision of the bill prohibited handgun possession by resident aliens; there was some question about the constitutionality of that part of the bill. While upheld by the California Supreme Court in the case /In re Rameriz /(1924), it was struck down by the California Court of Appeals in /People /v. /Rappard/ (1972). According to the article, “It was largely on the recommendation of R. T. McKissick, president of the Sacramento Rifle and Revolver Club, that Governor Richardson approved the measure.”

Later in the article, McKissick acknowledged that there might be a problem with the ban on resident aliens owning handguns, but he is quoted that if it was sustained by the courts, it would have a “salutary effect in checking tong wars among the Chinese and vendettas among our people who are of latin descent.”

We have a direct statement of discriminatory intent, and we have a very strong similarity between California’s current law and similar discretionary permit laws adopted in other states for what are now known to have been racist motives.

Perhaps McKissick’s remarks were only about the ban on possession of handguns by resident aliens?

Well, that’s certainly possible. Chinese immigrants could not become U.S. citizens until 1952, but their children, born in the U.S. were citizens, and would not be affected by the handgun possession ban. Similarly, the phrase “our people who are of latin descent” seems to include both Mexican immigrants, who could become naturalized citizens, and Americans who were merely of Hispanic ancestry. So McKissick seems to be speaking of more than just the alien handgun ban provision.

Was this one law unusual in promoting a racist agenda?

Not at all. Racism was endemic in that period. California, for example, had prohibited resident aliens from buying land a few years earlier, and newspapers of the period are quite blunt that the goal was to prevent Japanese immigrants from buying land and becoming successful farmers. Other bills that were under debate in that same session sought to prohibit Japanese from leasing land, or from having their minor children, who were born here, buy it instead.
The /San Francisco Chronicle/ ran an editorial at this time that emphasized the importance of buying a house, not living in an apartment, because this discouraged large families. The headline for the editorial? “Race Suicide.” And they make it clear that they aren’t talking about the human race – and it appears that they didn’t particularly worry about non-whites reading the editorial and taking offense.

Were there other reasons for this law?

No question about it – there was a dramatic increase in violent crime around the time of World War I, and Prohibition and the widespread use of automobiles plays a big part in that problem. The /Chronicle /is full of armed robbery incidents, especially by minors, often using cars. The newspapers often used the expression “land pirates” to describe them. Another concealed weapon regulation law that was introduced at about the same time, but wasn’t passed, was apparently aimed at discouraging criminal acts. It would have made possession of a concealed gun when arrested for a felony evidence that a felony was intended, and prohibited concealed weapon licenses for aliens and those under 18.
But what I also found interesting was in reading newspapers of the time, especially the /San Francisco Chronicle/, was the evidence that carrying of guns by law-abiding adults was fairly common, and not regarded as especially bad. The July 15, 1923 /Chronicle /article – the only real evidence of intent that we have – describes the law as, “Aimed at disarming the lawless, the bill provides exemptions and exceptions to preserve the rights of those using firearms for competition or hunting or for protection in outing trips.”
There are articles describing how women have taken to carrying guns on a fairly widespread basis, and one judge from New York City suggests that in the near future, brides will walk the aisle with a gun strapped to their waist. An editorial from the /Chronicle/ that mentions that if armed robbers attack you, it’s best to just give them what they want – but there is no suggestion that being armed was worrisome, peculiar, or in some way morally wrong: “The average citizen, even if armed, usually is at a distinct disadvantage when waylaid by bandits and in most cases the possible loss is not worth the risk of resistance. No lack of courage is evidenced by quiet submission to the demands of armed highwaymen.” Of course, a newspaper that runs an editorial decrying “Race Suicide” may have a narrower definition of “average citizen” than we would consider acceptable today.

Does discretionary concealed weapon licensing still have a racially disparate impact?

Yes. The last time the racial impact of California’s concealed weapon licensing system was studied was by the Office of Assembly Research for the California Legislature about 15 years ago. They concluded that those licensed to carry concealed weapons in California are very disproportionately white males. Yet, this is also the group that is least likely to be victims of violent crime. Murder victims, for example, are disproportionately black and Hispanic males. The most serious non-lethal crime is rape – one where men are seldom victims, and white men especially so.

I examined the 1990 concealed weapon permit issuance rates per county, and looked for correlations with various 1990 census data. While this sort of bivariate correlation isn’t the most sophisticated technique for statistical analysis, it does give some very interesting results. There is a +0.47 correlation between CCW issuance rates and the white percentage of California counties, meaning that as the percentage of whites in a county increases, so does permit issuance. The correlation for Hispanic and black populations are -0.40 and -0.43, respectively, meaning that as the percentage of blacks and Hispanics increases, permit issuance declines very dramatically.

There are others who have done research on this issue. Steve Helsley, who retired after many years with the California Department of Justice, now works for the National Rifle Association. In 1974, he attempted to find out what the racial distribution of concealed weapon permits are in California, so he sent out a survey to police chiefs and sheriffs around the state. Mr. Helsley tells me that part way through gathering the data, the California Police Chiefs Association found about the survey, and sent a letter to its members asking them to not answer the surveys. It makes you wonder why they wouldn’t want anyone to know the racial makeup of concealed weapon licensees in California.

Now, there are other possible causes of these strong correlations, such as the strong correlation between race, crime rates, and urbanization, but with the history of racism that underlies concealed weapon permit systems, it certainly seems like a good assumption that the racist intentions behind the law are still in effect today. There are few, if any, permits for other dangerous activities in our society that have this level of almost unlimited discretion.

Because race was never specifically mentioned, discretionary licensing allowed sheriffs, police chiefs, or judges, depending on the state, to issue licenses to carry concealed weapons to whomever they wished. This isn’t the only example of this sort of discretionary licensing of the time being used to implement racist laws without having to say directly what the goal of the legislators was. San Francisco, for example, used a similar form of licensing of laundries to force Chinese out of the hand laundry business in the 1880s, and this was struck down in /Yick Wo/ v. /Hopkins, /118 U.S. 356 (1886).
A law that, while facially race neutral, affects one race far more than another, has disparate racial impact. Similar San Francisco ordinances that had disparate racial impact include the 1870 Cubic Air Ordinance and the Queue Ordinance of 1876, requiring all men’s heads to be shaved within an inch of their scalp going into the San Francisco Jail. Chinese men at the time wore their hair in a queue that had great religious significance, so forcing them to cut their hair was an effective way to get them to pay fines rather than go to jail.
In a number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, disparate impact, along with racist intent and historical background, have been factors in applying strict scrutiny, and determining that equal protection has been violated. Most appropriate to California’s current concealed weapon licensing law appears to be /Hunter/ v. /Underwood/, 471 U.S. 222 (1985), which found a voting rights provision of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 to be unconstitutional because it came out of a constitutional convention whose goals were disfranchisement of blacks, and that disproportionately impacted blacks.

GrizzlyGuy
04-28-2010, 7:09 AM
1) Racist intent of gun laws, particularly in California. Explicit evidence is the best. I think a lot of stuff in "No Guns for Negroes" will go a long way

"Good" news for you: AB 1934 will disproportionately hamper the ability of minorities and the poor to defend themselves from violent criminals. Here is why:

1) Contrary to popular belief, LUCC is not always legal, especially when you are transporting on foot, on a bicycle, or in any other way that does not involve motor vehicles. I explained why that is here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=4187731#post4187731).

2) Statistically, minorities in CA have (on average) a lower income level than whites. Or in other words, minorities are more likely to be poor.

3) Poor people are less likely to own motor vehicles and are therefore more likely to walk or ride a bike to get around town.

Combine all that together and consider the following example scenario: A minority family wants to spend a day at the beach. They decide to ride their bikes to the beach, and must travel through high-crime areas on their way to the beach. If AB 1934 passes, they will have no legal means of carrying a handgun for self-defense. This is because:

a) Like the rest of us non-special people, they can't get a CCW permit.
b) Thanks to AB 1934, they will no longer be able to UOC.
c) The LUCC exemption often available when you combine 12026 with 12026.2 (explained here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=4191214#post4191214)) is not available: it is only available when the destination is private property and the beach is public property.

The only legal way for the family to carry a firearm in this scenario is for them to carry an unloaded long gun. Based on Lori's statement of purpose, that would make the family more of a target for criminals as the criminals would seek to attack the family so as to steal the long gun.

Yet another scenario where the same would be true is the following: rather than go to the beach, the family decides to leave home and take a bike ride (or walk/jog) around their neighborhood, returning home after the ride. AB 1934 will force them to be defenseless while undertaking this inexpensive and healthy recreational activity.

Note also that the general purpose LUCC exemption for transport involving motor vehicles (12026.1 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12026.1.html)) is only available to citizens or legal residents. if AB 1934 passes, it will be virtually impossible for illegal aliens to transport handguns, and leave them wide open to criminal predators. Our Constitution protects all persons equally (whether citizens/legal residents or not), but AB 1934 flies in the face of that concept.

Given all of the above, one might go so far as to characterize AB 1934 as yet another racist gun law.

pullnshoot25
04-28-2010, 9:46 AM
"Good" news for you: AB 1934 will disproportionately hamper the ability of minorities and the poor to defend themselves from violent criminals. Here is why:

1) Contrary to popular belief, LUCC is not always legal, especially when you are transporting on foot, on a bicycle, or in any other way that does not involve motor vehicles. I explained why that is here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=4187731#post4187731).

2) Statistically, minorities in CA have (on average) a lower income level than whites. Or in other words, minorities are more likely to be poor.

3) Poor people are less likely to own motor vehicles and are therefore more likely to walk or ride a bike to get around town.

Combine all that together and consider the following example scenario: A minority family wants to spend a day at the beach. They decide to ride their bikes to the beach, and must travel through high-crime areas on their way to the beach. If AB 1934 passes, they will have no legal means of carrying a handgun for self-defense. This is because:

a) Like the rest of us non-special people, they can't get a CCW permit.
b) Thanks to AB 1934, they will no longer be able to UOC.
c) The LUCC exemption often available when you combine 12026 with 12026.2 (explained here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=4191214#post4191214)) is not available: it is only available when the destination is private property and the beach is public property.

The only legal way for the family to carry a firearm in this scenario is for them to carry an unloaded long gun. Based on Lori's statement of purpose, that would make the family more of a target for criminals as the criminals would seek to attack the family so as to steal the long gun.

Yet another scenario where the same would be true is the following: rather than go to the beach, the family decides to leave home and take a bike ride (or walk/jog) around their neighborhood, returning home after the ride. AB 1934 will force them to be defenseless while undertaking this inexpensive and healthy recreational activity.

Note also that the general purpose LUCC exemption for transport involving motor vehicles (12026.1 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12026.1.html)) is only available to citizens or legal residents. if AB 1934 passes, it will be virtually impossible for illegal aliens to transport handguns, and leave them wide open to criminal predators. Our Constitution protects all persons equally (whether citizens/legal residents or not), but AB 1934 flies in the face of that concept.

Given all of the above, one might go so far as to characterize AB 1934 as yet another racist gun law.

I will be sending this one along :)

OK, so here should be a good one. This may be anecdotal, but it has been rumored that at one point in time, a bill was proposed to ban gun possession from people convicted of DV charges but it was thrown out because it would eliminate a bunch of police officers. Is this true? Anyone got info?

GrizzlyGuy
04-28-2010, 11:14 AM
I will be sending this one along :)

OK, so here should be a good one. This may be anecdotal, but it has been rumored that at one point in time, a bill was proposed to ban gun possession from people convicted of DV charges but it was thrown out because it would eliminate a bunch of police officers. Is this true? Anyone got info?

Glad you liked that one. :)

There is already a federal law regarding domestic violence convictions (info here (http://www.letswrap.com/legal/firearms.htm#misdem)) so I don't know why our state would need/want to pass a law. Maybe they did try to pass one anyway (or before the federal law existed), I don't know.

Here is some more info on what I wrote above: note that the situation for the minority family would be the same if they decided to take public transportation (ex: a bus) to the beach instead of riding their bikes. If they are citizens, they could take advantage of 12026.1 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12026.1.html) to LUCC while on the bus or going directly to or from the bus.

But once they reach the beach, they are in trouble as that concealed carry exemption goes away. They have already gone directly from the bus and would now be merely possessing the firearm. Although they would be 'lawfully possessing' the beach property, the 12026 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12026.html) exemption would still go away since the beach is public property and not private property. Going UOC (currently legal) at that point would be off the table thanks to the new law.

For us privileged white people or the privileged Lori, it's an entirely different story after the law goes into effect. She could drive her family to the beach in her car, with her handgun UOC or LUCC. Once at the beach, she could leave it in her car (locked up or in plain view) with a loaded magazine nearby. When bad guys attack, she runs to her car, grabs handgun, loads it in under 2 seconds just like her video shows (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=293860), and dispatches the bad guy. Her family is safe while the less-privileged, unarmed, defenseless minority family become victims. :(

1911su16b870
04-28-2010, 11:28 AM
I think a visual comparison of California to the rest of the States is helpful. While most states are making it easier to carry, CA is trying to make it more difficult.http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/7514/rtc1986.png

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/2069/rtc2010.png

And this map is not even quite up-to-date, as Iowa will be going from "yellow" to "blue"
http://www.wqad.com/news/sns-ap-ia--iowa-culver-guns,0,1810927.story

Now that is a great "eye-opening" presentation! Let's get this :party: started!

advocatusdiaboli
04-28-2010, 8:01 PM
Very comforting map--I just need to move out of CA. It's my long term gaol--OR or WA is very likely.