PDA

View Full Version : News story yesterday.. CCW


Jake71
01-01-2011, 11:47 AM
I apologize for not remembering the state etc..

I saw the news and one state just became a "shall issue"?? state.

The sherrif or chief? said when interviewed that "I HAVE to give anyone who applies for a CCW, a permit. It means that anyone that has never handled a gun or been trained, I MUST give a permit to".

He made it sound like every single person in the state/city/whatever was going to apply for a CCW and there would be mass chaos and needless death.

Are all officials in the position to approve permits, aligned with that narrow minded thinking? He seemed angry in his demeanor..

I'm insulted and I don't even live there.

Window_Seat
01-01-2011, 11:50 AM
The state is Iowa. The have become SI, and they will also recognize every state's CCW permit.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/iowa.pdf

The Democrat-controlled Iowa Legislature last session (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101231/NEWS/12310354/-1/BUSINESS04/New-gun-law-triggers-many-questions-from-public), at the urging of the National Rifle Association, approved the new law in an effort to standardize the way sheriffs issue permits.So what does this tell us?

Erik.

lorax3
01-01-2011, 11:50 AM
Iowa

GWbiker
01-01-2011, 11:50 AM
Iowa has become "Shall Issue". Also will recognize out of state CCW permits.

Sheriff there should be aware of few states that do not require a permit for OC or CC.

Jake71
01-01-2011, 11:55 AM
It's nice to know they have to issue them to people that want. I also don't think it's going to become the wild wild west.

I'll read the links you guys post.

Thanks.

N6ATF
01-01-2011, 12:01 PM
He made it sound like every single person in the state/city/whatever was going to apply for a CCW and there would be mass chaos and needless death.

Are all officials in the position to approve permits, aligned with that narrow minded thinking? He seemed angry in his demeanor..

I'm insulted and I don't even live there.

Of course he's angry; the more law-abiding citizens out there carrying guns, the more criminals (either voluntarily because of self-preservation instinct, or involuntarily out of being shot in self-defense) out of work. criminalsforguncontrol.com is probably his bible.

Window_Seat
01-01-2011, 12:07 PM
My reply updated above to add another link, and I might mention that someone needs to update the Brady Bunch so they can correct their "state gun laws page" and remove 2 points to make it "12 points". I always seem to get really happy when points get removed. :laugh:

Erik.

Paladin
01-01-2011, 12:08 PM
Iowa was like CA: "May Issue" where most counties readily issued, except for the counties where you'd really need a CCW, the counties w/most of the population.

RKBA activists in Iowa have fought this fight for many years and the anti sheriffs and CoPs had carried the day until the NRA got involved. Once the NRA saw that victory could be achieved, they sent their people out there, worked on some issues (said no to Constitutional Carry bill at this time, going for 1/2 a loaf now, other 1/2 in the future -- "compromised, sell-outs, un-principled," yada, yada, yada), threw their weight behind the bill and Iowa is now Shall Issue! I remember reading one article where the sheriff said the NRA strong armed the legislature. LOL

Bottom line: we won, the antis and anti CLEOs lost!

http://www.nraila.org/maps/rtc.jpg

Paladin
01-01-2011, 12:11 PM
Jake, in case you're a newbie, WI will be going from "black" (No Issue) to either "red" (Shall Issue) or "blue" (No permit required) either in 2011 or 2012! :)

CalBear
01-01-2011, 12:12 PM
The wild west apocalyptic predictions have never come true. Not even once. We saw it in FL, DC, Chicago, etc. Fear mongerers are full of it!

CalBear
01-01-2011, 12:14 PM
BTW just goes to show how much we need the NRA. They are our principle legislative force. They just need to learn some l

CalBear
01-01-2011, 12:15 PM
Lessons from SAF and CG on the legal front. Proud to be in the NRA!

Cokebottle
01-01-2011, 12:22 PM
BTW just goes to show how much we need the NRA. They are our principle legislative force. They just need to learn some l
Like McDonald... grabbing credit for a victory.

Iowa was within 2 votes of going AK/VT/AZ carry.
Rather than assist in pushing for those 2 votes, NRA rode in on their white horse and pushed the "shall issue" agenda.

CalBear
01-01-2011, 12:29 PM
They aren't perfect by any means and I can understand the anger surrounding their desire to steal the spotlight. I think they're very important on the national legislative side of things. Anyway I don't want to turn the thread too off topic. I was just in Iowa for Christmas with family and I'm glad they're SI now. Next time I visit, ill arrive armed.

CCWFacts
01-01-2011, 12:30 PM
The state is Iowa. The have become SI, and they will also recognize every state's CCW permit.

Notice a couple of things about Iowa's law:


It has sweeping reciprocity (recognizes all states permits)
It passed by an overwhelming majority


#1 means that it's a stronger CCW law than the older CCW laws (like Nevada and Oregon) which are more restricted. As another example, it looks like Wisconsin may bypass CCW entirely and go from no-issue to Vermont-carry. We've all seen the animated map showing CCW spreading throughout the US over the past 15 years. If you could make a graph that shows strength of CCW law vs. year of passage, it would also show an upward trend, from very restrictive laws to very strong CCW protection.

#2 means that it's beyond political argument. Remember when gun-crazy Texas had to pass their CCW law half a dozen times and finally get rid of their governor to go shall-issue? The fact that Iowa passed its law 44 to 4 in the senate shows what a change of attitude has occurred over the past ten years. If you could make a graph that shows the difficulty of passing a CCW law vs. year, it would show that it's getting easier and easier to pass these laws, until the point now where all states that could have legislative CCW reform have already gotten it (WI coming shortly).

These are all great things for the future of robust gun rights protections and will help us in California, including with federal laws and court cases.

Window_Seat
01-01-2011, 12:33 PM
With your OR, NV, UT & FL Non-Resident permits:

80370

Erik.

dantodd
01-01-2011, 1:10 PM
http://www.nraila.org/maps/rtc.jpg

52 states?

Cokebottle
01-01-2011, 2:23 PM
52 states?
DC would account for one.
I would say that they may be including the possessions as one, but the possessions are also "right denied" and they only list two.

But California really should be green. If you are outside of the "blue" counties, California is actually a reasonable discretionary issue state.

Edit...
Counted up the red states and I get 35, not 37, and they don't have an entry for DC.
I can understand the "confusion" in maybe counting Michigan twice.
Maybe they did the same for the Virginia peninsula east of the bay?

Uriah02
01-01-2011, 3:28 PM
The sherrif or chief? said when interviewed that "I HAVE to give anyone who applies for a CCW, a permit. It means that anyone that has never handled a gun or been trained, I MUST give a permit to".


When a public official does not trust/believe in the people they serve is this attitude a surprise? At the same time it is understandable at the very least that a LEO would have a skewed/unbalanced view of the public by the nature of their job.

WoodTurner
01-01-2011, 3:52 PM
DC would account for one.
I would say that they may be including the possessions as one, but the possessions are also "right denied" and they only list two.

But California really should be green. If you are outside of the "blue" counties, California is actually a reasonable discretionary issue state.

Edit...
Counted up the red states and I get 35, not 37, and they don't have an entry for DC.
I can understand the "confusion" in maybe counting Michigan twice.
Maybe they did the same for the Virginia peninsula east of the bay?

"Alaska and Arizona do not require a permit, but have shall-issue permit systems"

I believe they counted Alaska and Arizona as both shall-issue and no permit required.

Cokebottle
01-01-2011, 4:00 PM
"Alaska and Arizona do not require a permit, but have shall-issue permit systems"

I believe they counted Alaska and Arizona as both shall-issue and no permit required.
Sigh.....


Too bad we can't count them twice in the elections :D

scarville
01-01-2011, 4:11 PM
52 states?
AK and AZ fit into two categories: No restriction and shall-issue.

Apocalypsenerd
01-01-2011, 4:23 PM
So the NRA has good reason to reach across all political parties for pro-2A supporters. This looks like proof of that to me.

chiselchst
01-01-2011, 6:39 PM
52 states?


Ah, there's 57 states according to Oblamo... ;)

tonelar
01-01-2011, 8:09 PM
while every LEO i've encountered is Pro2A, it's daunting how many of their CLEOs are antis-
I'm hoping that's a trend that ends soon.

Liberty1
01-01-2011, 9:10 PM
Wisconsin is not right denied. They have the half loaf which is visable except in school zones.

Paladin
01-01-2011, 10:28 PM
Like McDonald... grabbing credit for a victory.

Iowa was within 2 votes of going AK/VT/AZ carry.
Rather than assist in pushing for those 2 votes, NRA rode in on their white horse and pushed the "shall issue" agenda.They were just about to go Constitutional Carry w/o the NRA even though they FAILED to get even Shall Issue for years w/o the NRA??? Yeah, right.

From the (formerly) Iowa Carry website (http://www.iowafirearmscoalition.com/history.php):
However, the biggest event of 2009 had to be the first meeting between the NRA and Iowa Carry, held in the fall of 2009. During this meeting, the groundwork was laid to create a new level of cooperation between the two groups.

That cooperative effort found results, as the Iowa Senate and House both passed Shall Issue legislation in the 2010 session, and Governor Culver signed it into law. . . .

During the summer of 2010, Iowa Carry decided to change the name of the organization to Iowa Firearms Coalition. The new name more accurately reflects the new goals of the group now that all law abiding Iowans have the ability to obtain a PCW without having to worry about the personal views of any Sheriff. IFC will continue to work toward cleaning up the current law; expanding our gun rights, with full “Constitutional Carry” being part of our eventual goal; protecting the rights that we've already worked hard to restore; and adding the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the Iowa Constitution.

If you don't believe the Iowa Carry people, just watch an Iowa anti sheriff complain that they lost because the NRA, not any other group, got their way.

"It's unfortunate that the NRA was able to come in and push the legislature around and get them to go along with this" (1:22 sec into news video embedded at: http://www.iowacarry.org/

Nope, you know better. :rolleyes:

As a matter of fact, Iowa Carry was so happy w/the NRA that they are now an affiliated club of the NRA!

In case any objective readers doubt the NRA backs the push for Constitutional Carry in Iowa and the continued fight to expand Iowans' RKBA, here's their agenda for Iowa for 2011: state con RKBA amendment; Constitutional Carry; Shall Issue reform; their Model Castle Doctrine law, incl civil suit immunity; preemption reform; and emergency powers reform (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6095) and the same agenda can be found on the Iowa Firearms Coalition website at: (http://www.iowacarry.org/articles/2010/11_7/info.php) Since >80% of NRA-ILA backed candidates won their races in Iowa in 2010, they will be even stronger in that state in 2011 than last year. Translation: they won't have to "push the legislature around" in 2011 since more of it wants what the NRA wants for Iowa.

Sure, the NRA "misappropriated some glory" (:p) in the judicial fight, but let's be honest about the great work they've done legislatively, esp over the past 20 years (aka 1/5th of a century), at both the state level and federal level. I'm glad they are on our side and in the legislative & judicial fights in CA. See: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=378020

Jake71
01-01-2011, 10:58 PM
I think LEO's get the attitude that nonone needs CCW because ALL they deal with ALL day/night IS criminals. I think it gets to the point that they think everyone is a criminal.

With so many red states in that map it's a surprise that CA hasn't bowed to the other states. Seriously if the other states can trust normal citizens why can't CA?

It seem the only REAL criminals are in our CA political offices.

Our state is an example of what not to do. If a crappy economy, infringing on rights of ordinary citizens, taxing citizens to death, protecting big buisness and driving buisness out of the state and just running the state into the ground is their goal... They have succeeded.

I hope it's only a matter of time before this state bows to the CCW, the silly magazine law and other stuff that is common sense to most people except criminals.

Ford8N
01-02-2011, 5:23 AM
I think LEO's get the attitude that nonone needs CCW because ALL they deal with ALL day/night IS criminals. I think it gets to the point that they think everyone is a criminal.

Sorta off topic but you are right. I have several people I know who have gone thru Police Academy and within a year of being on the street they change. Everyone is a suspect. Unless they know you personally they are very reserved about new people. And the real trippy thing is after a while they drop their non police friends. An us vs. them mentality.

With so many red states in that map it's a surprise that CA hasn't bowed to the other states. Seriously if the other states can trust normal citizens why can't CA?

I spoke in person to my State Senator about the facts of CCW. He admitted that yes, crime does go down when a state does become shall issue. But he said that LAW ENFORCEMENT tells him that in California it would be a bad idea. He gave me the old example that if a person gets in a car wreck they will shoot each other. That is what LAW ENFORCEMENT told him. There is where you are getting part of the resistance to CCW. He doesn't care about my opinion, only what the Police tell him.

It seem the only REAL criminals are in our CA political offices.

Our state is an example of what not to do. If a crappy economy, infringing on rights of ordinary citizens, taxing citizens to death, protecting big buisness and driving buisness out of the state and just running the state into the ground is their goal... They have succeeded.

I hope it's only a matter of time before this state bows to the CCW, the silly magazine law and other stuff that is common sense to most people except criminals.

The problem is that the sheep in the ghettos and big cities love the rulers. They vote for them every election. California is a blue state outside of the ghettos and big cities, but as long as the rulers keep the welfare money rolling into the sheep, they will vote to keep the rulers in power.

press1280
01-02-2011, 5:42 AM
I apologize for not remembering the state etc..

I saw the news and one state just became a "shall issue"?? state.

The sherrif or chief? said when interviewed that "I HAVE to give anyone who applies for a CCW, a permit. It means that anyone that has never handled a gun or been trained, I MUST give a permit to".
He made it sound like every single person in the state/city/whatever was going to apply for a CCW and there would be mass chaos and needless death.

Are all officials in the position to approve permits, aligned with that narrow minded thinking? He seemed angry in his demeanor..

I'm insulted and I don't even live there.

A flat out lie. Training is mandatory to get an IA permit. This was obviously a "may-issue" sheriff(like CA, rural chiefs were shall-issue, urban chiefs were may-issue), who's now bitter because he won't be able to sell permits to donors and cronies anymore.

vantec08
01-02-2011, 6:08 AM
A flat out lie. Training is mandatory to get an IA permit. This was obviously a "may-issue" sheriff(like CA, rural chiefs were shall-issue, urban chiefs were may-issue), who's now bitter because he won't be able to sell permits to donors and cronies anymore.

We have a winner. Those with "authority" hate having their wings clipped.

753X0
01-02-2011, 7:13 AM
Like McDonald... grabbing credit for a victory.

Iowa was within 2 votes of going AK/VT/AZ carry.
Rather than assist in pushing for those 2 votes, NRA rode in on their white horse and pushed the "shall issue" agenda.

THIS.

Sorry, but I remember when the NRA sold Cal black gun owners down the river. They kept talking about "sporting purpose". I still support their efforts, but they are not,and never will be, Calguns!

Cokebottle
01-02-2011, 7:49 AM
THIS.

Sorry, but I remember when the NRA sold Cal black gun owners down the river. They kept talking about "sporting purpose". I still support their efforts, but they are not,and never will be, Calguns!
Exactly.

As Gene says... "Chess, not Checkers"

NRA is good at playing checkers. They'll take the most direct path to the most visible victory, possibly at the expense of a larger victory that might take a little more time and resources.
They jumped in and split Alan's time on McDonald... and hired the attorney who argued against Alan in the Heller case... so they could advertise a "victory" under their belt at the SCOTUS level.

Same here. I am a member. So is my wife. We support them through our membership, simply because it looks better when one of their lobbyists walks into a Representatives office and can say "Hi, I'm from the NRA and I represent 2 million of your voters."
I don't believe that the NRA, on the whole, is doing BAD things. Like most, I'll take any victory I can, no matter how small... but I do believe that the NRA could do BETTER things.
Is Iowa a victory? Absolutely. Would AZ/AK carry have been a better victory? Absolutely. Given another year, it might have happened.

The problem here in California is that the NRA works primarily through the legislative process, while the CGF and SAF work primarily through the judicial process. In California, the judicial process is the way to get the majority of the work done on reversing the draconian laws that are already in place. The NRA's work through the California legislative process is primarily helpful in slowing the progression of new, more restrictive measures.


It was the same thing last year when the AMA shot itself in the foot over the new motorcycle exhaust law. The AMA kept pointing out the fact that OEM exhaust systems are either not available, or are prohibitively expensive, for motorcycles over 5-10 years old. The first law was tabled, and when reintroduced in 2010, it was introduced with the condition that it only apply to motorcycles sold after Jan 1, 2011. This completely negated the AMA's entire argument, but still passed effectively the same law.

Barkoff
01-02-2011, 9:55 AM
http://www.nraila.org/maps/rtc.jpg



Does yellow and black stand for highest crime rates in the country?

N6ATF
01-02-2011, 10:11 AM
LOL!

Paladin
01-02-2011, 10:37 AM
THIS.

Sorry, but I remember when the NRA sold Cal black gun owners down the river. They kept talking about "sporting purpose". I still support their efforts, but they are not,and never will be, Calguns!Too funny! You're trying to hijack this thread and turn it into a "let's search throughout the US and find someplace where the NRA once did something wrong so that we can bash them" thread. LOL!

I can't address this particular issue since from Spring 2006 to about 2008 I was busy on www.californiaccw.org pushing Shall Issue.

But like I said, this thread was about Iowa going Shall Issue, not OLLs in CA.

Paladin
01-02-2011, 11:11 AM
As Gene says... "Chess, not Checkers"Yeah, and Gene, Bill, and other CGN & CGF leaders say to support the NRA. That's enough for me.

NRA is good at playing checkers. They'll take the most direct path to the most visible victory, possibly at the expense of a larger victory that might take a little more time and resources.I disagree. You and the others who thought that Con Carry could pass in Iowa were the ones who could only see one step ahead, where Iowa was and where the goal (Con Carry) was and believe it only takes one step to get from the one to the other. The NRA said let's let all of the law-abiding people carry now, if they desire, with Shall Issue (saving lives NOW, rather than leaving them at risk until Con Carry can pass), and then when we have more allies in the legislature after Jan 2011 we'll get rid of the permission slips. They saw at least two or three steps ahead. So-called "principled" people would rather keep law-abiding citizens UNARMED until you get your way.

Let's check back in a year and then another year and see if the NRA "compromises" and doesn't push for and get Con Carry passed in Iowa. If that's the case, I'll be the first to say they're a sell-out. If that's not the case, you'll get to say the NRA's method of building victory upon victory is the right way.

I prefer the NRA's pragmatic approach and I'm sure glad CGF isn't putting Con Carry, or even Shall Issue, before virtual Shall Issue. I'm even glad Gray and Brandon are cleaning up statutory compliance in counties before pushing those counties for vSI. Seems like CGF is following the NRA (i.e., a winner's example), rather than losers (GOA/GOC/JPFO/etc).

They jumped in and split Alan's time on McDonald... and hired the attorney who argued against Alan in the Heller case... so they could advertise a "victory" under their belt at the SCOTUS level.Again, I've granted that they should not have claimed more responsibility than they deserve in Heller and/or McDonald. But this thread is about Shall Issue passing in Iowa, and you keep trying hijack it to turn it into a "let's bash the NRA" thread.

Like most, I'll take any victory I can, no matter how small... but I do believe that the NRA could do BETTER things.Like I said above, let's see what you've accomplished at the local, state, or federal levels of government.

Is Iowa a victory? Absolutely. Would AZ/AK carry have been a better victory? Absolutely. Given another year, it might have happened.Like I said before, let's compare your track record w/the NRA's (at local, state, and/or federal levels). Until you can beat it (or even just match it), why would anyone want to follow your political advice? As for me, the answer to that question means I should not respond to your posts on this subject in the future since I'm wasting my most valuable resource, time, with someone who thinks they know politics, in particular Iowa state gun politics, better than the NRA.

As Teddy Roosevelt said, it is a lot easier to sit on the sidelines and to criticize the man in the arena:
http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Actually, I should turn this into something constructive: If you claim you can do better than the NRA, prove it. This is America, a still relatively free country. Pass Con Carry in Iowa w/o the NRA or its state affiliate. Better yet, start in virgin ground, not land they've already tilled. Pass Con Carry in CA!

The problem here in California is that the NRA works primarily through the legislative process, while the CGF and SAF work primarily through the judicial process. In California, the judicial process is the way to get the majority of the work done on reversing the draconian laws that are already in place. The NRA's work through the California legislative process is primarily helpful in slowing the progression of new, more restrictive measures.Certain amount of truth here, but again, you ignore the good things they've done and are doing judicially. I'll repost this link and encourage unbiased readers to read post #8:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=378020

N6ATF
01-02-2011, 11:14 AM
self-dupe!

Paladin
02-03-2011, 4:06 PM
Well, it's been less than a month since this last NRA bashing and we've got two new threads where the same thing is going on. What a waste of time!

I thought I'd post this update re. Iowa for those objective readers who may be wondering if the NRA's "compromising" by achieving Shall Issue in Iowa was really a sneaky way of preventing Constitutional Carry from passing.

Here's an article by Radio Iowa (http://www.radioiowa.com/2011/02/01/another-constitutional-amendment-on-gun-rights/):

Key quote:
Representative Rick Olson, a Democrat from Des Moines, says it appears to him the N.R.A. is “too big for their britches.”

“The NRA got a big bite out of the apple last year,” Olson says. “It seems like they want to eat the core now, too.”

Olson is referring to the changes in the process of getting a gun permit.

Again, notice how Iowa politicians talk only about the NRA forcing these changes, not about some other orgs. But of course, some CGN posters know better. . . . :rolleyes:

The NRA first secured Shall Issue before advancing on to pushing for Constitutional Carry. Going for half-a-loaf now is only a "compromise" or "sell-out" if you do not fully intend to go for the second half as soon as possible. And, yes, the NRA is pushing for Constitutional Carry in Iowa right now:
http://www.NRAILA.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6191

Again, I call on CGN leadership to post a sticky of what the NRA has done, federal and in CA, over the past, say, 5 years, so that newbies are educated and trolls silenced, or ask/allow a NRA rep to do so.

Otherwise we waste too much time and effort constantly repeating ourselves to stamp out disinformation that, if left unchecked, will weaken us.

Gray Peterson
02-03-2011, 4:46 PM
Like McDonald... grabbing credit for a victory.

Iowa was within 2 votes of going AK/VT/AZ carry.
Rather than assist in pushing for those 2 votes, NRA rode in on their white horse and pushed the "shall issue" agenda.

SRSLY?

Do you realize that A) They didn't have the votes in the Senate for Constitutional Carry and B) Governor Culver would have vetoed it, keeping Iowa in the dark ages when it came to carry for an additional year?

Dude, look at the RKBA amendment. That passes, you will get constitutional carry by constitutional amendment.

Iowa Gun Owners (IGO) and supporters (the major supporters of constitutional carry) did nothing but cause problems, take glory, and spit in people's faces at gun shows (literally). Their outrageous behavior is not befitting a gun rights organization.

IFC and the NRA presence in Des Moines did the job. People can now get 5 year carry license on a shall-issue basis. Numerous friends of mine can carry now where they couldn't at all before. "Do no harm" is important in the lobbying sense, and now they're going for reforms to the shall-issue law, and then constitutional carry.

Pixs
02-04-2011, 9:35 AM
Well, it's been less than a month since this last NRA bashing and we've got two new threads where the same thing is going on. What a waste of time!

I thought I'd post this update re. Iowa for those objective readers who may be wondering if the NRA's "compromising" by achieving Shall Issue in Iowa was really a sneaky way of preventing Constitutional Carry from passing.

Here's an article by Radio Iowa (http://www.radioiowa.com/2011/02/01/another-constitutional-amendment-on-gun-rights/):

Key quote:
Representative Rick Olson, a Democrat from Des Moines, says it appears to him the N.R.A. is “too big for their britches.”

“The NRA got a big bite out of the apple last year,” Olson says. “It seems like they want to eat the core now, too.”

Olson is referring to the changes in the process of getting a gun permit.

Again, notice how Iowa politicians again talk only about the NRA forcing these changes, not about some other orgs. But of course, some CGN posters know better. . . . :rolleyes:

The NRA first secured Shall Issue before advancing on to pushing for Constitutional Carry. Going for half-a-loaf now is only a "compromise" or "sell-out" if you do not fully intend to go for the second half as soon as possible. And, yes, the NRA is pushing for Constitutional Carry in Iowa right now:
http://www.NRAILA.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6191

Again, I call on CGN leadership to post a sticky of what the NRA has done, federal and in CA, over the past, say, 5 years, so that newbies are educated and trolls silenced, or ask/allow a NRA rep to do so.

Otherwise we waste too much time and effort constantly repeating ourselves to stamp out disinformation that left unchecked will weaken us.

Thanks, well said.

Stonewalker
02-04-2011, 9:58 AM
I think LEO's get the attitude that nonone needs CCW because ALL they deal with ALL day/night IS criminals. I think it gets to the point that they think everyone is a criminal.

With so many red states in that map it's a surprise that CA hasn't bowed to the other states. Seriously if the other states can trust normal citizens why can't CA?

It seem the only REAL criminals are in our CA political offices.

Our state is an example of what not to do. If a crappy economy, infringing on rights of ordinary citizens, taxing citizens to death, protecting big buisness and driving buisness out of the state and just running the state into the ground is their goal... They have succeeded.

I hope it's only a matter of time before this state bows to the CCW, the silly magazine law and other stuff that is common sense to most people except criminals.

Jake you are exactly correct. There are many LEO and even man gun rights supporters who believe that Shall-Issue is a bad thing because they uncomfortable with idea of every non-prohibited person being able to legally CCW. One of the stupidest and funniest arguments I've heard is that LEO are worried about giving non-prohibited known gang-bangers CCWs - AS IF THEY WEREN'T ALREADY CCW'ING.

The truth is, we are all protected by Due Process. All people. Legal immigrants, non-citizens, even illegal immigrants. You cannot take away somebody's rights without Due Process. Therefore if they can buy a gun, they can carry it concealed. No matter which group with whom they may be affiliated (1st amendment protections). There are no "Extra" 2nd amendment rights.

I am of course speaking dogmatically because we all know there are dozens if not hundreds of violations of these principles across our nation.

Jack L
02-04-2011, 9:59 AM
The sheriff, like so many sheriffs are first just plain ego punched because they always think they call the shots. Even if that means it's not the best for the citizens. They often power trip over common sense. Mr. Sheriff needs to get active and promote firearms training classes that are reasonably priced and located in all areas of the state.