PDA

View Full Version : Am i the only one not satisfied with "shall issue CCW"?


yiha
03-29-2006, 10:28 PM
Yes its nice to get a ccw, but..

IMO
What they are doing is transforming a right into a privilege.

By putting them selves in the position that they have to grant people the possibility to do something wich is really their right, its a slippery slope to stricter control from there.

anybody agree/disagree?

Guinness
03-29-2006, 10:37 PM
I see the your point and agree...

kantstudien
03-29-2006, 10:43 PM
So your solution is... no CCW required concealed carry?

yiha
03-29-2006, 10:44 PM
yes exactly.

1911_Mitch
03-29-2006, 10:50 PM
aka Vermont and Alaska

blacklisted
03-29-2006, 10:51 PM
Something that already exists in Alaska and Vermont, and would be great here :)

It would have to be concealed, open carry would not work in California.

They could add on a provision that says if a gang member is caught, or if the gun is used during a crime, it will be prosecuted the same way. Something like that.

kantstudien
03-30-2006, 12:03 AM
yes exactly.

Sounds good to me, but wouldn't you want required training in some way?

Rumpled
03-30-2006, 12:31 AM
I would beg for shall issue for CCW.
Here in CA it's "I might issue" if you contribute enuff.

Super_tactical
03-30-2006, 9:12 AM
I would beg for shall issue for CCW.
Here in CA it's "I might issue" if you contribute enuff.
No, it's if you are a politician or a famous socialist you can have a permit.

Surveyor
03-30-2006, 9:21 AM
No, it's if you are a politician or a famous socialist you can have a permit.

Anti-Gun Sean Penn has a violent record (punching paparazzi) yet somehow he has a CCW.

rips31
03-30-2006, 12:07 PM
They could add on a provision that says if a gang member is caught, or if the gun is used during a crime, it will be prosecuted the same way. Something like that.
i think there's already a law about using a firearm in the commission of a crime.

http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/analysis.html?file=sb_388_cfa_20050418_100225_sen_ comm.html

DrjonesUSA
03-30-2006, 3:18 PM
Yes its nice to get a ccw, but..

IMO
What they are doing is transforming a right into a privilege.

By putting them selves in the position that they have to grant people the possibility to do something wich is really their right, its a slippery slope to stricter control from there.

anybody agree/disagree?


I could not possibly agree more with you.

DrjonesUSA
03-30-2006, 3:19 PM
Sounds good to me, but wouldn't you want required training in some way?


Serious question for you:

Would you support required tests before a person is allowed to speak, read, write, type, or otherwise publicly broadcast their opinion?

Please state precisely why or why not.

DrjonesUSA
03-30-2006, 3:20 PM
a politician or a famous socialist


That's a redundant phrase, particularly in this state.

grammaton76
03-30-2006, 3:25 PM
No, it's if you are a politician or a famous socialist you don't need a permit.

Fixed it for you.

artherd
03-30-2006, 9:54 PM
Sounds good to me, but wouldn't you want required training in some way?
**** NO! Let me rephrase. I am absolutely in favor of required training, licencing, background checks, etc. I just cannot abide by any branch of the GOVERNMENT having any part of it!



But I would like a free training program with catered food and a $50 gift certificate for ammo.

If the state were *serious* about their duties to promote the general welfare, preserve the blessings of liberty, etc. that is what they would do with our tax money.

Mark in Eureka
03-30-2006, 10:42 PM
I do not feel that permits should be required, however, I do not wish to go to jail so I will comply with the rules and get one. Makes life simpler.

DParker
03-31-2006, 8:38 AM
As much as WE believe that the second amendment gives us the right to walk around armed, remember that the courts have ruled otherwise.

We must work with what we have...and "shall issue" is probably the best we can get without a clear Right to Keep & Bear in our STATE constitution. And let's face it, in Kalifornia that is not going to happen...especially when the NRA won't even help us.

I really think the best short term strategy is to fight for national reciprocity. With ~38 states now "shall issue" and with Republican congressional control, that might actually happen. Then Kalifornia will have to honor all the other state's CCWs and we will then win the issue "through the back door".

DrjonesUSA
03-31-2006, 9:20 AM
**** NO! Let me rephrase. I am absolutely in favor of required training, licencing, background checks, etc. I just cannot abide by any branch of the GOVERNMENT having any part of it!



But I would like a free training program with catered food and a $50 gift certificate for ammo.

If the state were *serious* about their duties to promote the general welfare, preserve the blessings of liberty, etc. that is what they would do with our tax money.

Well that doesn't make any sense.

If the govt. wasn't responsible for the mandatory training program, who would be?

The girl scouts?

anothergunnut
03-31-2006, 6:36 PM
I agree with DrJonesUSA. Do you need a permit to purchase a printing press? Does a convicted felon lose his right against unreasonable searches and seizures?

JAMES77257
03-31-2006, 6:59 PM
I don't want any old Joe Blow carring a gun. I have a CCW, and I respect the way I was investigated in order to get it. On the other hand, some counties don't even concider giving them out, which is stripping us of our rights.

Isn't there a happy medium?

ligamentum flavum
03-31-2006, 8:50 PM
If we lived in an ideal world, where everyone was responsible and reasonable, then sure, toss out CCWs like candy at Halloween. Let's be realistic here. With all the mindless mishaps that we've either heard about or personally witnessed, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a certain level of proficiency/physical ability before we start tossing out CCWs to everyone?

Comparing free speech to CCWs is somewhat unfair. While "free speech" and the right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution, it does not mean they're the same. Words, as far as I know, have never DIRECTLY killed or injured anyone (again, i stress the word DIRECTLY). I understand that words are powerful, but I'm not afraid of anyone with Tourette's syndrome. Also, slander and libel are not protected free speech. I am afraid of someone CCWing who can't get their shots on a B-27 silhouette target from 10 feet away.

taloft
03-31-2006, 9:14 PM
If we lived in an ideal world, where everyone was responsible and reasonable, then sure, toss out CCWs like candy at Halloween. Let's be realistic here. With all the mindless mishaps that we've either heard about or personally witnessed, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a certain level of proficiency/physical ability before we start tossing out CCWs to everyone?

No, they don't seem to be suffering these supposed problems in Vermont or Alaska. What makes you think it will be different here? Lots of people in this state don't even own a gun, let alone want to carry.

Oh, we might get a rash of morons in the hospital who shot themselves in the butt while re-holstering but, that would only be for a week or two. Then the Darwinian award winners would weed themselves out.

ligamentum flavum
04-01-2006, 1:44 AM
No, they don't seem to be suffering these supposed problems in Vermont or Alaska. What makes you think it will be different here? Lots of people in this state don't even own a gun, let alone want to carry.

Oh, we might get a rash of morons in the hospital who shot themselves in the butt while re-holstering but, that would only be for a week or two. Then the Darwinian award winners would weed themselves out.


FWIW:
Data from CDC website
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html

Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000 in year 2002.
California: 44/35,001,986 - Crude Rate = 0.13
Vermont: 3/616,424 - Crude Rate = 0.49
Alaska: 1/641,483 - Crude Rate = 0.16

WokMaster1
04-01-2006, 7:27 AM
FWIW:
Data from CDC website
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html

Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000 in year 2002.
California: 44/35,001,986 - Crude Rate = 0.13
Vermont: 3/616,424 - Crude Rate = 0.49
Alaska: 1/641,483 - Crude Rate = 0.16


Wow, it's amazing & Bill Lockyer deserves all the credit banning AW, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. I can just see him saying that to himself or his staff......:mad:


Question? If you have a CCW permit from a "shall issue" county & you were stopped by San Francisco PD & obviously they found you carrying (legally) will they still give you "$hi#" & legal troubles? Or rather can they?

ligamentum flavum
04-01-2006, 10:05 AM
Question? If you have a CCW permit from a "shall issue" county & you were stopped by San Francisco PD & obviously they found you carrying (legally) will they still give you "$hi#" & legal troubles? Or rather can they?

Certain CCWs are issued with specific provisions that states validity only in the county of issuance, or only when traveling to and from work, etc. So if the permit holder was CCWing outside of those provisions, then they could be in some hot water if caught.

swhatb
04-01-2006, 11:09 PM
Question? If you have a CCW permit from a "shall issue" county & you were stopped by San Francisco PD & obviously they found you carrying (legally) will they still give you "$hi#" & legal troubles? Or rather can they?
if your CCW is NOT restricted, then your OK. some people have restrictions placed on them. beware of SFPD. if any part of the weapon is shown, holster, grip, the nice blue steel, it's gone. beware of the wind! a few lawyers have had there taken for such cause, SFPD says it drandishing. it's not but... charges droped, weapon destroyed. they just chucked up the loss, bought a new one and added it to the CCW permit. advice, don't carry a Kimber Custom!

filefish
04-02-2006, 12:06 AM
Serious question for you:

Would you support required tests before a person is allowed to speak, read, write, type, or otherwise publicly broadcast their opinion?

Please state precisely why or why not.


The libs agree: “the pen is mightier than the sword”

there is astrong argument for "speach control" legislation

filefish
04-02-2006, 12:08 AM
Well that doesn't make any sense.

If the govt. wasn't responsible for the mandatory training program, who would be?

The girl scouts?


shure they would probably do a much beter job

DrjonesUSA
04-03-2006, 1:04 PM
Question? If you have a CCW permit from a "shall issue" county & you were stopped by San Francisco PD & obviously they found you carrying (legally) will they still give you "$hi#" & legal troubles? Or rather can they?


Good question. I would think that they couldn't really charge you with anything, since Prop. H as worded seems to only apply to RESIDENTS of SF.



No, they don't seem to be suffering these supposed problems in Vermont or Alaska. What makes you think it will be different here? Lots of people in this state don't even own a gun, let alone want to carry.

Oh, we might get a rash of morons in the hospital who shot themselves in the butt while re-holstering but, that would only be for a week or two. Then the Darwinian award winners would weed themselves out.

Your second paragraph does not make any sense when preceded by your first paragraph.

They haven't had a rash of "morons shooting themselves in the butt" in Alaska or VT. :rolleyes:



I don't want any old Joe Blow carring a gun. I have a CCW, and I respect the way I was investigated in order to get it. On the other hand, some counties don't even concider giving them out, which is stripping us of our rights.


Let's just pass a law to stop criminals from carrying guns illegally! That'll do it!



Isn't there a happy medium?

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

-Barry Goldwater.



If we lived in an ideal world, where everyone was responsible and reasonable, then sure, toss out CCWs like candy at Halloween. Let's be realistic here. With all the mindless mishaps that we've either heard about or personally witnessed, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a certain level of proficiency/physical ability before we start tossing out CCWs to everyone?


Please explain how it is that AK and VT, where you need no permit of any kind to carry a firearm, have not had any "mindless mishaps".


Comparing free speech to CCWs is somewhat unfair. While "free speech" and the right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution, it does not mean they're the same. Words, as far as I know, have never DIRECTLY killed or injured anyone (again, i stress the word DIRECTLY). I understand that words are powerful, but I'm not afraid of anyone with Tourette's syndrome. Also, slander and libel are not protected free speech. I am afraid of someone CCWing who can't get their shots on a B-27 silhouette target from 10 feet away.

Again, please explain VT and AK and all the other states that have very easy to obtain CCW permits.

I'd also like to point out that cases of a CCW holder shooting an innocent bystander are practically non-existant.

In fact, in about 5 years of being on various online gun forums, I cannot recall ever having read of a single case.