PDA

View Full Version : California Advanced Weapons Permit


559luke
01-13-2011, 9:25 AM
Iíve got a proposal for CGF / CalGuns. I propose that we lobby Sacramento to pass a law creating an Advanced Weapons Permit (AWP). This would be akin to a commercial driverís license. All qualified citizens can get a Class C drivers license to operate cars and likewise they can purchase basic firearms such as shotguns, hunting rifles and handguns with 10 round magazines. The AWP would be like a Class A driverís license. It would require special training and additional fees, but with it you could own and operate more advanced weapons just like a Class A driver can operate an 80,000 pound tractor trailer. With an AWP one could legally own semiautomatic assault weapons with high capacity magazines and handguns with high capacity magazines.

In order for one to be qualified for an AWP I would suggest that there be stringent requirements for background checks, training, secure storage and other qualifications. This would ensure that only qualified individuals were able to be in possession of these weapons. In addition there would be annual checks to make sure that permit holders remained qualified going forward. For example, getting a DUI would result in a suspension of your AWP.

I propose that in order to get an AWP and applicant would pay a one time fee of $500 to $1,000 plus $50 to $100 per year. This high fee would limit the applicants to only serious enthusiast and provide for the stringent background checks. Plus this allows Sacramento a good argument for this law, revenue. Letís say 100,000 Californiaís were granted permits at $1,000 each thatís $10 million dollars to support the program and assist the state with itís budget crisis. I would be happy to pay this fee for an AWP and the ability to own these weapons.

What does everyone think about this proposal?

EBR Works
01-13-2011, 9:27 AM
How about we just get the AWB, handgun roster and hi-cap mag restrictions eliminated rather than create further stupid, expensive, unconstitutional regulation...

charliedontsurf334
01-13-2011, 9:28 AM
I say get rid of the unconstitutional laws that we already have. Registration leads to confiscation.

Quinc
01-13-2011, 9:29 AM
For that high of a fee I better be able to buy and use a Class 3 50bmg.

Robidouxs
01-13-2011, 9:29 AM
What's to say they increase the one time fee to $5000 to $10000? Or the yearly renewal payment to $500 to $1000?

DannyInSoCal
01-13-2011, 9:30 AM
It's makes to much sense - Andin the wake of the AZ tragedy - No politician is going to propose anything making hi-cap mags acceptable under any circumstances.

Great idea though...

uyoga
01-13-2011, 9:30 AM
Do we really want to create "yet another class" of law abiding citizen?

joefreas
01-13-2011, 9:31 AM
Sounds like a steb backwards to me-

MultiCaliber
01-13-2011, 9:32 AM
An interesting idea, but overall I don't see it as being worth the $$$ and time lobbying/writing up laws, etc just to spend more on special permits to maintain and yet more background/information checks. Fail, says I.

JimWest
01-13-2011, 9:36 AM
Do we really want to create "yet another class" of law abiding citizen?

The OP's concept parallels what I was thinking here:http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=382235

And I think the answers there pertain here, all of which changed my thinking.
But the quote above sums it up nicely.

So, short answer was, be patient and wait for the constitutional rights of "all the people" to be respected and secured. :cool2:

lazyworm
01-13-2011, 9:38 AM
I vote no. Don't feed the bureaucracy.

ENTHUSIAST
01-13-2011, 9:40 AM
How about we just get the AWB, handgun roster and hi-cap mag restrictions eliminated rather than create further stupid, expensive, unconstitutional regulation...

This. Thread done.

DRH
01-13-2011, 9:42 AM
What does everyone think about this proposal?

I already have assault weapons, high capacity magazines and pistols with high capacity magazines. Therefore I think that your idea is a terrible infringement on my rights.

zhyla
01-13-2011, 9:45 AM
Sure, let's make it so only well-off people can buy fun guns.

No.

ddestruel
01-13-2011, 9:53 AM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that........."


If we are equal why do we insist on compromising to create further hierarchy in a system where it’s a fundamental right.

Next thing we should do is create a licensing system to voice our opinions in public. Class 1 for inside your house, class 2 with further training, college education and a nominal fee that can be increased if the public opposition becomes to vocal and class 3 reserved only for politicians and government employees and the elite with lots of money


a few years ago i might have piled on to this idea since compromise was our only option before heller, but now the wind is to our backs, public opinion is changing and the powers to be that we all support have a fairly organized plan in place to pick apart and create a plethora of court challenges adn victories that will define, shape and give us further ammunition to rein in the un-necessary regulation of law abiding citizens collecting and using federally defined as not "unusual or dangerous" firearms.


Give an inch they will take a mile. its time to take back some ground we've been on the compromise and retreat mode since the 1920's in CA.

OleCuss
01-13-2011, 9:54 AM
Maybe if the AWP were intended for fully automatic firearms, howitzers, Claymores, grenades, and the like. . . Then I might favor it.

Otherwise it is a very bad idea. It's actually trying to set up a system to abridge your right to keep and bear arms.

The intent of the OP should be satisfied by requiring firearms training in Junior High, High School, and College. If you refuse the training then maybe we can talk about degrading your RKBA a little (not convinced of even that).

choprzrul
01-13-2011, 9:54 AM
Looks like OP is proposing that we have to buy our civil rights.

Didn't they try this with a poll tax?

The ONLY place I intend to send money for my civil rights is here:

:gura:

Steveo8
01-13-2011, 10:00 AM
ANTI!! 3 posts and he wants to create a new class!

ZombieTactics
01-13-2011, 10:04 AM
Initially, I admire the "thinking outside the box" aspect of this notion.

It occurs to me on further reflection that it's really thinking INSIDE the box though ... the box of "we need permission from the government to exercise god-given, constitutionally-protected rights."

sooo ... FAIL

Decoligny
01-13-2011, 10:10 AM
Iíve got a proposal for CGF / CalGuns. I propose that we lobby Sacramento to pass a law creating an Advanced Voting Permit (AVP). This would be akin to a commercial driverís license. All qualified citizens can get a Class C drivers license to operate cars and likewise they can vote for city council members and dog cathcers. The AVP would be like a Class A driverís license. It would require special training and additional fees, but with it you could vote in more advanced elections like for State Legislators just like a Class A driver can operate an 80,000 pound tractor trailer. With an AVP one could legally vote in elections at the State, or maybe even the National level.

In order for one to be qualified for an AVP I would suggest that there be stringent requirements for IQ tests, familiarity with current events, and mandatory political science classes. This would ensure that only qualified individuals were able to be vote. In addition there would be annual checks to make sure that permit holders remained qualified going forward. For example, getting a failing to vote in all elections would result in a suspension of your AVP.

I propose that in order to get an AVP an applicant would pay a one time fee of $500 to $1,000 plus $50 to $100 per year. This high fee would limit the applicants to only serious enthusiast and provide for the stringent background checks. Plus this allows Sacramento a good argument for this law, revenue. Letís say 100,000 Californiaís were granted permits at $1,000 each thatís $10 million dollars to support the program and assist the state with itís budget crisis. I would be happy to pay this fee for an AVP and the ability to vote in these elections.

What does everyone think about this proposal?

Just get rid of the stupid laws.

safewaysecurity
01-13-2011, 10:11 AM
ANTI!! 3 posts and he wants to create a new class!

My thoughts exactly. What he is proposing is very similar to european guns laws.... :puke:

wazdat
01-13-2011, 10:12 AM
I vote "No" to further infringements and regulation.

Thank you.

70extreme
01-13-2011, 10:19 AM
Wow! People on this board "get it". We shouldn't need extra special permission to exercise our constitutional rights.

dustoff31
01-13-2011, 10:21 AM
What does everyone think about this proposal?

No much, I'm afraid. CA already has the has the power issue permits for pretty much anything firearms related. How well is that working out?

Pred@tor
01-13-2011, 10:25 AM
Wow... the things I have been seeing on here lately here are just... Odd. Gun Owners wanting to go backwards? I do not get it...

russ69
01-13-2011, 10:36 AM
No.

incredablehefey
01-13-2011, 10:41 AM
yea and when CA just starts denying these "special permits" what are you going to do? Just another way for the state to get your money and restrict what you have.

now that i think about it.... we see you trollin, we hatin!

arc
01-13-2011, 10:53 AM
OP, It's only natural that you feel this way, you've lost something, your constitutional right to bear arms has been arbitrarily taken away by the State of California. You're going through the classic stages of grief ::

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

You're currently in the bargaining stage, trying to beg the state to find someway to get your rights back. All of these other posters have pointed out why this is a bad track to take. Don't worry, it will pass. Soon you'll be depressed and convinced that nothing will ever change and that you'll never be allowed the right of self defense. There are a number of people on this board who are currently in the depression stage.

And then after that you'll accept the only solution is to fight for your rights by contributing here in terms of volunteering, discussing, and donating to CalGuns. We're all in this together, and it won't be easy, and it won't be quick, but it WILL get done.

We will get our rights back.

-James

bruss01
01-13-2011, 11:04 AM
I see where the OP is trying to go. It would probably be an easy sell to the legislature if you tickled the right people's ear. And a lot of people would probably take advantage of a process like this if it were available. I confess I would. However, does that make it right? No. It sets a very bad example and creates a very bad precedent, violating some very fundamental principles.

I agree, the right way to go about this is to challenge the laws in court.

If we lose out on that score (let's say the 10 round mag limit) then maybe some "bargaining" to buy a bit of wiggle room is in order. Still sticks in my craw, though.

Lrchops
01-13-2011, 11:09 AM
I’ve got a proposal for CGF / CalGuns. I propose that we lobby Sacramento to pass a law creating an Advanced Weapons Permit (AWP). This would be akin to a commercial driver’s license. All qualified citizens can get a Class C drivers license to operate cars and likewise they can purchase basic firearms such as shotguns, hunting rifles and handguns with 10 round magazines. The AWP would be like a Class A driver’s license. It would require special training and additional fees, but with it you could own and operate more advanced weapons just like a Class A driver can operate an 80,000 pound tractor trailer. With an AWP one could legally own semiautomatic assault weapons with high capacity magazines and handguns with high capacity magazines.

In order for one to be qualified for an AWP I would suggest that there be stringent requirements for background checks, training, secure storage and other qualifications. This would ensure that only qualified individuals were able to be in possession of these weapons. In addition there would be annual checks to make sure that permit holders remained qualified going forward. For example, getting a DUI would result in a suspension of your AWP.

I propose that in order to get an AWP and applicant would pay a one time fee of $500 to $1,000 plus $50 to $100 per year. This high fee would limit the applicants to only serious enthusiast and provide for the stringent background checks. Plus this allows Sacramento a good argument for this law, revenue. Let’s say 100,000 California’s were granted permits at $1,000 each that’s $10 million dollars to support the program and assist the state with it’s budget crisis. I would be happy to pay this fee for an AWP and the ability to own these weapons.

What does everyone think about this proposal?

I am thinking this is a joke? You are asking for more laws, more GOVERNment regulations, and more taxes. We need to stand against the already rediculous gun control laws and fight back, not implement more laws and restrictions!

If you had this AWP,, some one who has one would screw it up for everyone else and you would be in the same boat!

California needs to get back to pre 91 and have less Gov't control.

This would be like building a tree house with manhole covers!

Purdey
01-13-2011, 11:35 AM
ANTI!! 3 posts and he wants to create a new class!
Oh knock it off. :rolleyes:

The OP thought about something, put his idea down in writing and then posted it for feedback. Take issue with the substance of his comments. Don't simply resort to the brain-dead "ANTI!!" chant...

OleCuss
01-13-2011, 11:40 AM
I agree. No need to claim that the OP is a troll or really wishes to mess up our RKBA.

I don't think the AWP concept is worthy of supporting but that doesn't mean that his/her heart isn't in the right place.

Purdey
01-13-2011, 11:42 AM
yea and when CA just starts denying these "special permits" what are you going to do? Just another way for the state to get your money and restrict what you have.

now that i think about it.... we see you trollin, we hatin!
More crap. You dislike someone's posting so you roll-out the old "trollin" response. I find it sort of sad.

Posting #29 (for example) was a constructive response to the OP. Posting #29 actually took a little thought and time to formulate. It added to the discourse and helps to educate. "...you trollin, we hatin!" is merely crap on the other hand...

Purdey
01-13-2011, 11:43 AM
I agree. No need to claim that the OP is a troll or really wishes to mess up our RKBA.

I don't think the AWP concept is worthy of supporting but that doesn't mean that his/her heart isn't in the right place.
Precisely.

Sniper3142
01-13-2011, 11:45 AM
Short Answer: NO

Long Answer: NOPE


How about we DON'T try and create another special class of citizens.
How about we NOT try to unconstitutionaly deny 2nd Ammendment rights to those without certain Financial means.

Oh... and Welcome to CalGuns.

Uriah02
01-13-2011, 11:50 AM
I appreciate your brainstorming to loosen some of the chains but to compare a driver's license to a weapons permit is apples to oranges, unless we get an constitutional right to drive. As many have said I will echo, get rid of the bad laws instead of going around the bad laws.

Arondos
01-13-2011, 11:51 AM
I'm going to have to agree with the the nope. Let's just restore the rights we should have and not restrict everyone's rights because of the acts of a few deranged individuals.

Purdey
01-13-2011, 11:53 AM
Short Answer: NO

Long Answer: NOPE


How about we DON'T try and create another special class of citizens.
How about we NOT try to unconstitutionaly deny 2nd Ammendment rights to those without certain Financial means.

Oh... and Welcome to CalGuns.
Yeah? Are California CCW license holders a "special class of citizens?" I don't think they are but most pay fairly stiff fees and get checked out fairly in-depth before they are issued their permits.

I personally would like to see a USDWP (Ultramatic Super-Dooper Weapons Permit) that allows everything the proposed AWS allows plus everything a CCW allows plus all NFA controlled weaponry AND a 20% discount at all Tommy's World Famous burger joints. Maybe I'm just dreaming...

Lrchops
01-13-2011, 11:55 AM
This is the best place for a debate amongst the like minded. The 'trolling' thing never occurred to me! I'm not that sofisticated. Did I spell that right?

Purdey, that is some funny right there!!!! HAHAHAHA

OleCuss
01-13-2011, 11:59 AM
This is the best place for a debate amongst the like minded. The 'trolling' thing never occurred to me! I'm not that sofisticated. Did I spell that right?
.
.
.


Yur speling iz purfikt

hnoppenberger
01-13-2011, 12:02 PM
How about we just get the AWB, handgun roster and hi-cap mag restrictions eliminated rather than create further stupid, expensive, unconstitutional regulation...

seriously, thank you.

op- you have been in CA too long. take that 1000 bucks plus whatever each year and donate it to CGF and let them give you back your rights you thought you needed to pay extra for.

Phouty
01-13-2011, 12:03 PM
Good try OP, but...thank you. NO!
Very bad idea, and reasons for that were spelled out in many previous posts.
I do agree though, that you've just tried to think "outside of the box".


Why not for example, ask our geniuses in legislature, to pass the laws mandating every person in public to wear kevlar helmet and full body armor, or a bulletproof vest?
Or even better, complete ban on being....in public, unless licenced by gov.?
Please, let's not subscribe to insane logic of antis under the motto of "save our children".

Purdey
01-13-2011, 12:08 PM
This is the best place for a debate amongst the like minded. The 'trolling' thing never occurred to me! I'm not that sofisticated. Did I spell that right?

Purdey, that is some funny right there!!!! HAHAHAHA

Half-cocked judgments of "trolling" and being "anti-gun" short circuit (or de-rail) too darned many discussions that might just lead to a litte insight.

Purdey
01-13-2011, 12:13 PM
Yur speling iz purfikt

He mite bea tranned as an injineir.

Hank Dodge
01-13-2011, 12:38 PM
How about we just get the AWB, handgun roster and hi-cap mag restrictions eliminated rather than create further stupid, expensive, unconstitutional regulation...


I think that the first response to this asinine suggestion for more laws, added restrictions, fees, etc. is spot on! There is really no additional commentary needed, although it has been nice to see that Calguns members are holding true to principle on this one.

GIVE US BACK OUR RIGHTS CALIFORNIA!!!!!!!

:mad:

wazdat
01-13-2011, 12:45 PM
OP, It's only natural that you feel this way, you've lost something, your constitutional right to bear arms has been arbitrarily taken away by the State of California. You're going through the classic stages of grief ::

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

You're currently in the bargaining stage, trying to beg the state to find someway to get your rights back. All of these other posters have pointed out why this is a bad track to take. Don't worry, it will pass. Soon you'll be depressed and convinced that nothing will ever change and that you'll never be allowed the right of self defense. There are a number of people on this board who are currently in the depression stage.

And then after that you'll accept the only solution is to fight for your rights by contributing here in terms of volunteering, discussing, and donating to CalGuns. We're all in this together, and it won't be easy, and it won't be quick, but it WILL get done.

We will get our rights back.

-James

Well said. :clap:

Wherryj
01-13-2011, 12:59 PM
I suggest that we get a federal "advanced knowledge permit". The average drone is allowed to watch only MSNBC and get their news from the WashPo and the NYT.

Those who go through stringent testing and pay the $100k a year for the permit are allowed to use other sources for their information.

Hey, if it works for the 2A, why not go for the 1A?

How about an "advanced freedom from unreasonable search permit"? If you pass the grueling psychological tests and hold a government position (ie. Federal Judge, King of Peons status, etc.) then you are free from unreasonable searches. Anyone who hasn't been thoroughly investigated and ruled to be "one of us" is subject to violation of their Constitutional rights at whim because it makes us feel safer.

NotEnufGarage
01-13-2011, 1:27 PM
Wow! People on this board "get it". We shouldn't need extra special permission to exercise our constitutional rights.

Exactly!

How about this instead? Any politician proposing a new law that infringes on our Constitutional rights can be taken out into the public square and be whipped with wet noodles until they agree to read, memorize and obey the Constitution?

incredablehefey
01-13-2011, 1:37 PM
im sorry if offended anyone with my troll statement but i went through the same process of becoming licensed to do my job at a significant cost (every 2 years) just because the state deemed it necessary to get rid of people not qualified. Do you know what it did NOTHING, the under qualified people still do the job anyway. Do robbers dros there guns? NO! If they dont follow the rules now why the hell would they follow the rules after it becomes more costly and more difficult to do. All something like the OP's idea would do is make normal people more likely to become criminals, because if the choice to buy a gun is to spend $1000 on a special license on top of the already inflated gun prices + taxes on all of it and a dros, or just go to the parking lot and be done with it, what would you do??(and all of you people who make over 100k dont count)

i wont take back the troll comment, if i went on to a pro choice web sight and made a comment like "well abortion is bad but if you have to pay a $1000 fee for a special permit you should be able to get one" i would be labeled a troll as well

im not trying to be a jerk, and dont take me too serious, i am only one person and this is my opinion

GutPunch
01-13-2011, 1:39 PM
Initially, I admire the "thinking outside the box" aspect of this notion.

It occurs to me on further reflection that it's really thinking INSIDE the box though ... the box of "we need permission from the government to exercise god-given, constitutionally-protected rights."

sooo ... FAIL

This exactly.

bwiese
01-13-2011, 1:43 PM
And in which particular CA legisliatve session does the OP think this is politically achievable?

CGF does not lobby except in certain limited technical matters. We have the fine NRA and CPRA lobbying team up there, working against incredible odds.

What we achieve in the future will be thru the courts, with incremental minor 'fixup' legislation coming thru in the background (think of how AB2728 happened).

Dexster
01-13-2011, 1:44 PM
No.

same here.

559luke
01-13-2011, 1:49 PM
From the OP:
Thank you all for the replies. I fully expected to get flamed for bringing up this discussion. I completely agree that more laws / regulation is a bad thing. Also I agree with the give an inch they take a mile argument. The AWP fee (tax) would become the new tobacco tax and would be driven up at every chance. Giving control of this over to the legislature is also definitely a bad idea. These are clearly some of the weaknesses of what I've brought up.

The point I was trying to make revolves around the fact that we have all already lost these rights. The courts have ruled that the states can impose reasonable restrictions. I'm hopeful that the current challenges can reverse this, but its a hard fight and who knows what will happen.

The AWP would be an effort by enthusiast that would basically come right out and say that we agree that these types of weapons should not be available to unqualified persons, and that we are willing to accept some control, regulation and fees in order to have access to these weapons instead of the outright the outright ban that we've got now. Would we be giving up any rights that we have now? Is this the first step down a slippery slope? That's open for discussion.

Another question is why do we want these weapons? Many would say that I want them because it's my 2A right. Many others would say that I want them because I'm jealous of the YouTube videos of people firing their 30 round AR-15s. If we want them only for 2A then fight it out in court and maybe lose. If we want them for recreation then regulating these weapons would be OK imho.

D.M.C.
01-13-2011, 1:50 PM
I'd say no, I'll pass. It's too much of a step backwards and creates a slippery slope I'd rather not tread on.

Untamed1972
01-13-2011, 1:51 PM
I vote NO on anything that creates new powers, controls and bureaucracies in the hands of inept gov't officials. If there was a way for CA to take something like that and totally F it up.....THEY WILL!!!

More gov't, more control, more regulations and licensing IS NOT the answer. Not to mention something fees that high could be considered discriminatory against those of lower income.

OleCuss
01-13-2011, 2:22 PM
559luke:

I appreciate your comments but it really isn't jealousy.

Not too long ago I was a commissioned officer in the California Army National Guard. My assigned weapon was the M9 (a 9mm handgun). In a firefight I wanted to be able to competently utilize the M16's (and later M4's) which were ubiquitous within my infantry battalion. I knew I wouldn't get enough range time with the rifles so before the AWB went into place I bought and registered one. To this date is it configured exactly as I bought it and is virtually identical to what was the standard issue M16 (minus select fire, of course). I didn't buy the thing because I thought it was cool but because I actually needed the competence.

Now, years later, I still have my RAW and I've got more 30 round magazines than I have use for (truth be told I only use my 10 rounders).

At this stage I find the AWB utterly bizarre. Someone needs to explain to me why my neighbors can't have a RAW like I do? The thing won't leap out of its safe and shoot anyone. The 30 round magazines would be very handy in certain defensive situations and I don't understand why they can't have them like I do? Why is it that someone who was not old enough or financially situated as I was back then not now able to buy an AR-15 now that they are old enough and can afford one?

Since the 2nd Amendment's primary purpose was to ensure that the population was armed to the teeth and able to overthrow a tyrannical government, how does it comport with the 2A that this potentially tyrannical government should restrict the firepower of its population either by regulation or by restricting the rights of the individual?

Why is it that a device designed to muffle the report of a firearm is essentially illegal in this state? There are an awful lot of us who have suffered hearing loss due to the fact that our government requires that our firearms be loud and obnoxious.

Point of the above is that regulation has resulted in harm and disadvantage to our fellow citizens and that is ridiculous.

Now back to the very concept of regulation. A few years ago an organization to which I belong objected to the abuse of certain terms which had the potential to harm the individual. They decided to pursue regulation or legislation to ensure that those who had been behaving badly could not continue to do so - I argued vociferously against doing that. Well, I lost - and today those members of my organization pretty much have to tell people how to sue them and the ones who had been abusive don't have any stricture at all prohibiting them from doing what they were doing.

Regulation is almost always something to be fought. One way that you know that an individual or an organization is a dolt is if they actually go to the government and request regulation - they will ensure that you feel that you were raped (and without the benefit of a prophylactic).

I'd go back to my previous response. If you want people to be specially trained, petition to get the schools to provide firearms training.

And if you think that special training with firearms is appropriate and should result in special access. Then you should be fighting to let vets have access to pretty much everything. I mean, how many LEO's have been trained to use a grenade launcher, a SAW or a Ma Deuce? What's more, how many of them have been required to lug around fully automatic weapons and to function in a full-on firefight utilizing both light and heavy weaponry with artillery and air support?

But still, veterans are considered incompetent to handle firearms whereas an LEO who has been a desk jockey their whole career is considered competent to CCW, have high-cap mags, etc. And yes, there are highly competent LEO's out there (some of them vets) whom I'd love to have at my back in a firefight but there are some I've met who don't even know what kind of weapon their issued handgun is (that is not a joke).

The current legal and regulatory environment is a joke and any attempt to replace it with a rational one is doomed to utter failure. The only way to have a rational system is to remove the current one and then leave the bare framework available to deny access to weaponry (guns, knives, vehicles, chemicals, bats, flashlights, etc.) to violent felons and the psychotics.

Hank Dodge
01-13-2011, 2:52 PM
The AWP would be an effort by enthusiast that would basically come right out and say that we agree that these types of weapons should not be available to unqualified persons, and that we are willing to accept some control, regulation and fees in order to have access to these weapons........


As someone who has been a safe and responsible firearm owner for over 30 years, has successfully completed various training programs, and a competition shooter....I just don't get it!! I have a clean background, yet have zero chance of obtaining a CCW permit due to the local political climate. The powers that be don't consider self defense to be a valid reason to issue one to "just anyone" in the community. It will be the very same thing on a state level. Only the rich campaign contributers will be granted permits. A normal blue collar worker like myself will remain one of those "unqualified persons" that you speak of.

:mad:

Purdey
01-13-2011, 10:38 PM
From the OP:
Thank you all for the replies. I fully expected to get flamed for bringing up this discussion. I completely agree that more laws / regulation is a bad thing. Also I agree with the give an inch they take a mile argument. The AWP fee (tax) would become the new tobacco tax and would be driven up at every chance. Giving control of this over to the legislature is also definitely a bad idea. These are clearly some of the weaknesses of what I've brought up.

The point I was trying to make revolves around the fact that we have all already lost these rights. The courts have ruled that the states can impose reasonable restrictions. I'm hopeful that the current challenges can reverse this, but its a hard fight and who knows what will happen.

The AWP would be an effort by enthusiast that would basically come right out and say that we agree that these types of weapons should not be available to unqualified persons, and that we are willing to accept some control, regulation and fees in order to have access to these weapons instead of the outright the outright ban that we've got now. Would we be giving up any rights that we have now? Is this the first step down a slippery slope? That's open for discussion.

Another question is why do we want these weapons? Many would say that I want them because it's my 2A right. Many others would say that I want them because I'm jealous of the YouTube videos of people firing their 30 round AR-15s. If we want them only for 2A then fight it out in court and maybe lose. If we want them for recreation then regulating these weapons would be OK imho.
I really appreciated your posting. No I really wouldn't want to apply for an AWP but I appreciated you providing a framework to at least think about the current situation from a different angle. If there was some intelligent discussion about your proposal, a tiny grain or two of worthwhile information would likely be distilled out.

No question that this new information might indeed be against the AWP but that's fine -- it would be of benefit. The reductionist chant "NO! 2A is my right! Troll/anti!" does nothing except to make some people feel good about themselves.

Sitting here right now I wonder how many people would apply for a AWP if doing so allowed individual Californians to own any firearm (including NFA firearms within federal guidelines) and to carry a concealed firearm state-wide? I also wonder how that number would change as the vetting process became tighter and tighter?

Thanks for your original posting.

Anchors
01-13-2011, 11:30 PM
Bad idea.

Why restrict my legal right even more.

I don't see blood running in the streets were all the things above mentioned are legal without a special permit.

Yes there was one shooting in Arizona.
How many have there been in New Jersey, New York, Chicago, Maryland, and California? (tough laws)

Case closed.

JagerTroop
01-13-2011, 11:39 PM
...The point I was trying to make revolves around the fact that we have all already lost these rights. They are not lost... just misplaced. Don't worry. The boys at CGF, Gura, CRPA will find them ;)

The AWP would be an effort by enthusiast that would basically come right out and say that we agree that these types of weapons should not be available to unqualified personsUnqualified?! I'm not sure what that means. The only unqualified persons I can think of are Un-Americans!, and that we are willing to accept some control, regulation and fees in order to have access to these weapons instead of the outright the outright ban that we've got now.So, you'd be willing to trust the people that robbed you of your rights? Not only that, but PAY THEM to get some back?!! That would be like someone stealing your car, then renting it back to you. Sounds ridiculous, I know. Well, that's what you're proposing. Would we be giving up any rights that we have now?Yes. Further infringement of our 2A rights. Is this the first step down a slippery slope? Absolutely!That's open for discussion. No discussion needed.

Another question is why do we want these weapons?None of their damn business. Many would say that I want them because it's my 2A right. Many others would say that I want them because I'm jealous of the YouTube videos of people firing their 30 round AR-15s. If we want them only for 2A then fight it out in court and maybe lose. If we want them for recreation then regulating these weapons would be OK imho.If we lose, then we try again. Never give up. How would you feel if the government regulated other forms of recreation?
The National Sporting Goods Act of 2011... LOL. $200 NSGA tax stamp on a football.
"Sorry son. I'd love to play catch, but I need to get a lawyer, a trust, submit the forms and taxes, wait 3 months, and then you can only play with it, but only when I'm there. Otherwise it has to be locked in my safe. We also need a locked container to transport it to the park, and we can't make any other stops on the way there and back."

I commend you for thinking, only because most people just go with the flow. However, this is a very bad idea. More regulation, more governing, only leads to more restriction, fewer rights, and more of your hard earned dollars spent just trying to "feel free".

N6ATF
01-14-2011, 12:23 AM
:rofl:

vincnet11
01-14-2011, 12:50 AM
What does everyone think about this proposal?Expensive

pitchbaby
01-14-2011, 12:55 AM
What ever happened to just trying to free Kommie Kalifornia?

Ford8N
01-14-2011, 5:34 AM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that........."


If we are equal why do we insist on compromising to create further hierarchy in a system where itís a fundamental right.


Um...that quote is a crock in this state..California. It does not apply to us.



Initially, I admire the "thinking outside the box" aspect of this notion.

It occurs to me on further reflection that it's really thinking INSIDE the box though ... the box of "we need permission from the government to exercise god-given, constitutionally-protected rights."

sooo ... FAIL

I agree with this....except the FAIL part. The OP was just putting out an idea.

the_quark
01-14-2011, 5:49 AM
It has occurred to me before that, if they'd taken this approach with the AWB - there's a $400/year shall-issue license - the bullet button (and CGF) probably wouldn't exist. All us really serious folks would've grumbled about it, but figured it was the cost of doing business, and just paid it.

B Strong
01-14-2011, 7:01 AM
Iíve got a proposal for CGF / CalGuns. I propose that we lobby Sacramento to pass a law creating an Advanced Weapons Permit (AWP). This would be akin to a commercial driverís license. All qualified citizens can get a Class C drivers license to operate cars and likewise they can purchase basic firearms such as shotguns, hunting rifles and handguns with 10 round magazines. The AWP would be like a Class A driverís license. It would require special training and additional fees, but with it you could own and operate more advanced weapons just like a Class A driver can operate an 80,000 pound tractor trailer. With an AWP one could legally own semiautomatic assault weapons with high capacity magazines and handguns with high capacity magazines.

In order for one to be qualified for an AWP I would suggest that there be stringent requirements for background checks, training, secure storage and other qualifications. This would ensure that only qualified individuals were able to be in possession of these weapons. In addition there would be annual checks to make sure that permit holders remained qualified going forward. For example, getting a DUI would result in a suspension of your AWP.

I propose that in order to get an AWP and applicant would pay a one time fee of $500 to $1,000 plus $50 to $100 per year. This high fee would limit the applicants to only serious enthusiast and provide for the stringent background checks. Plus this allows Sacramento a good argument for this law, revenue. Letís say 100,000 Californiaís were granted permits at $1,000 each thatís $10 million dollars to support the program and assist the state with itís budget crisis. I would be happy to pay this fee for an AWP and the ability to own these weapons.

What does everyone think about this proposal?

Bad, bad, BAD idea.

In allowing any tiered excercise of rights, those rights are further restriced, and in acknowledging that permits from the government are required for the excercise of rights, the possibility then exists that said permits can be denied or eliminated.

The other aspect of this that fails is the linkage of the excercise of rights to income for the state - once that floodgate is opened and found to be Constitutional, you can look forward to needing a permit to exercise any right.

creekside
01-14-2011, 9:24 AM
The problem with voluntary regulatory schemes is that they are so very easy to unobtrusively tighten later on.

Today's $30 permit can become a $300 permit. Today's 10 round limit can become a 3 round limit. Today's 'assault weapon' can start to include Grandpa's deer rifle and even a Glock. The creeping erosion through rules, "minor technical changes" and shift of public and political opinions.

Look at Australia's firearms licensing system if you want a taste of what can happen when the bureaucrazy is allowed to grow unchecked.

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/services/firearms/licences_and_genuine_reasons

I wouldn't trade temporary freedoms today for permanent loss of rights tomorrow. Just my 0.02

KALIDAWG8996
01-14-2011, 10:14 AM
My thoughts exactly. What he is proposing is very similar to european guns laws.... :puke:

Better than Australian laws:D

Bruce
01-14-2011, 10:14 AM
Um....no.

It says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.",and not, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall, subject to government permission, be infringed."

lrdchivalry
01-14-2011, 1:30 PM
Iíve got a proposal for CGF / CalGuns. I propose that we lobby Sacramento to pass a law creating an Advanced Weapons Permit (AWP). This would be akin to a commercial driverís license. All qualified citizens can get a Class C drivers license to operate cars and likewise they can purchase basic firearms such as shotguns, hunting rifles and handguns with 10 round magazines. The AWP would be like a Class A driverís license. It would require special training and additional fees, but with it you could own and operate more advanced weapons just like a Class A driver can operate an 80,000 pound tractor trailer. With an AWP one could legally own semiautomatic assault weapons with high capacity magazines and handguns with high capacity magazines.

In order for one to be qualified for an AWP I would suggest that there be stringent requirements for background checks, training, secure storage and other qualifications. This would ensure that only qualified individuals were able to be in possession of these weapons. In addition there would be annual checks to make sure that permit holders remained qualified going forward. For example, getting a DUI would result in a suspension of your AWP.

I propose that in order to get an AWP and applicant would pay a one time fee of $500 to $1,000 plus $50 to $100 per year. This high fee would limit the applicants to only serious enthusiast and provide for the stringent background checks. Plus this allows Sacramento a good argument for this law, revenue. Letís say 100,000 Californiaís were granted permits at $1,000 each thatís $10 million dollars to support the program and assist the state with itís budget crisis. I would be happy to pay this fee for an AWP and the ability to own these weapons.

What does everyone think about this proposal?

WOW! Paying the state to exercise your Constitutional right, I call that soft tyranny.

lrdchivalry
01-14-2011, 1:43 PM
From the OP:
Another question is why do we want these weapons?

As olecuss pointed out the primary purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that the people had the ability to defend themselves against a tyranical government. If the government has a monopoly on force, then they can do what ever they want to it's own people.

As my signature line states:
Originally Posted by Parker Vs. DC
To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).

N6ATF
01-14-2011, 2:00 PM
WOW! Paying the state to exercise your Constitutional right, I call that soft tyranny.

I call it bribery. The State's clearly demonstrated interest is in disarming the law-abiding and protecting criminals AT ALL COSTS. The only way to change their default position is to pay them to allow you to exercise your inherent human rights.

brando
01-14-2011, 2:55 PM
FWIW, this is similar to how it is in New Zealand. I actually like it a lot better than the crap you have to go through in free states when submitting a Form 1 or 4.

Ford8N
01-14-2011, 4:35 PM
Um....no.

It says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.",and not, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall, subject to government permission, be infringed."


California already does that.

jpigeon
01-14-2011, 8:41 PM
We should not need a piece of paper or plastic to exercise a guaranteed right. I want my 1A licence...

hawk81
01-14-2011, 9:50 PM
We should not have to have a liscense to exercise our god given rights. Men did not grant us these rights. California is in violation of the constitution, period.




Iíve got a proposal for CGF / CalGuns. I propose that we lobby Sacramento to pass a law creating an Advanced Weapons Permit (AWP). This would be akin to a commercial driverís license. All qualified citizens can get a Class C drivers license to operate cars and likewise they can purchase basic firearms such as shotguns, hunting rifles and handguns with 10 round magazines. The AWP would be like a Class A driverís license. It would require special training and additional fees, but with it you could own and operate more advanced weapons just like a Class A driver can operate an 80,000 pound tractor trailer. With an AWP one could legally own semiautomatic assault weapons with high capacity magazines and handguns with high capacity magazines.

In order for one to be qualified for an AWP I would suggest that there be stringent requirements for background checks, training, secure storage and other qualifications. This would ensure that only qualified individuals were able to be in possession of these weapons. In addition there would be annual checks to make sure that permit holders remained qualified going forward. For example, getting a DUI would result in a suspension of your AWP.

I propose that in order to get an AWP and applicant would pay a one time fee of $500 to $1,000 plus $50 to $100 per year. This high fee would limit the applicants to only serious enthusiast and provide for the stringent background checks. Plus this allows Sacramento a good argument for this law, revenue. Letís say 100,000 Californiaís were granted permits at $1,000 each thatís $10 million dollars to support the program and assist the state with itís budget crisis. I would be happy to pay this fee for an AWP and the ability to own these weapons.

What does everyone think about this proposal?

ro442173
01-14-2011, 9:58 PM
How about requiring that people first take a class, pay yearly fees, and be restricted with a given number of words in order to exercise the 1A?

A right is a right.

On a second note, TBJ, is that you???

IrishPirate
01-14-2011, 9:59 PM
I like the idea.....but not if it's something you have to pay for. if you just prove you're not a thug wanna-be and have respect for firearms and know how to use them, then you should be allowed to buy whatever you want.

Purdey
01-15-2011, 6:38 PM
I like the idea.....but not if it's something you have to pay for. if you just prove you're not a thug wanna-be and have respect for firearms and know how to use them, then you should be allowed to buy whatever you want.
That of course gets the "2A It's my right!" people upset.

It also brings up the question just how are you going to determine who is not a "thug wannabe", who has actual respect for firearms and who knows how to use them. Maybe the third quality you mention can be objectively tested. The other two? Not so much.

Personally I'm more worried about a whack job extremist buying a gun. You know, like those who get rejected for military service? The question again is how to test -- maybe the DOD has some guidelines? Still there will be people screaming that anyone can still get a gun by stealing one or "buying on on the street in an hour."

formerTexan
01-15-2011, 7:31 PM
How about a tax AND a written test so that one can vote? Oh wait, that was a bad idea too...

Vipersx911
01-15-2011, 7:53 PM
Personally I think with the history of recent supreme court rulings, we should build a case of the infringement of our rights in California. Once we have a solid case take it to the supreme court and let the supreme court strike down the violations of the second amendment that CA calls gun law.

559luke
01-15-2011, 9:51 PM
I really appreciated your posting. No I really wouldn't want to apply for an AWP but I appreciated you providing a framework to at least think about the current situation from a different angle. If there was some intelligent discussion about your proposal, a tiny grain or two of worthwhile information would likely be distilled out.

No question that this new information might indeed be against the AWP but that's fine -- it would be of benefit. The reductionist chant "NO! 2A is my right! Troll/anti!" does nothing except to make some people feel good about themselves.

Sitting here right now I wonder how many people would apply for a AWP if doing so allowed individual Californians to own any firearm (including NFA firearms within federal guidelines) and to carry a concealed firearm state-wide? I also wonder how that number would change as the vetting process became tighter and tighter?

Thanks for your original posting.

You're welcome. Thanks for the comments

Databyter
01-15-2011, 10:09 PM
How about we just get the AWB, handgun roster and hi-cap mag restrictions eliminated rather than create further stupid, expensive, unconstitutional regulation...

This

We don't need new solutions.

We need to get rid of the old problems.

In this case all the laws that block and restrict the right for the tools necessary to defend yourself.

CCWFacts
01-15-2011, 10:35 PM
I know I'm in the minority (for this forum) on this... but I would be fine with an Advanced Weapons Permit type of thing. I've already had plenty of training and I don't mind having more. I've already had plenty of BG checks and they can do more if they want to. I don't mind some fees.

It should be shall-issue. It should include CCW and also waive all our state-level NFA laws.

I would prefer for us to dump all of our state-level gun laws in the dustbin of history, but failing that, something like an AWP would be fine.

Politically, as reasonable as this idea sounds, I think it's impossible, because any loosening of restrictions just ain't going to happen in California's legislature. We're going to win in courts, and courts are going to just delete sections of law, and will not create new ones like an AWP. Who knows how the legislature will be able to respond to court losses, but they won't be able to do much.

Databyter
01-15-2011, 10:41 PM
I know I'm in the minority (for this forum) on this... but I would be fine with an Advanced Weapons Permit type of thing. I've already had plenty of training and I don't mind having more. I've already had plenty of BG checks and they can do more if they want to. I don't mind some fees.

It should be shall-issue. It should include CCW and also waive all our state-level NFA laws.

I would prefer for us to dump all of our state-level gun laws in the dustbin of history, but failing that, something like an AWP would be fine.

Politically, as reasonable as this idea sounds, I think it's impossible, because any loosening of restrictions just ain't going to happen in California's legislature. We're going to win in courts, and courts are going to just delete sections of law, and will not create new ones like an AWP. Who knows how the legislature will be able to respond to court losses, but they won't be able to do much.

I understand your point of view, and it's a reasonable compromise. But remember that we aren't dealing with reasonable people. You meet them half way, and give them new tools (like a gun licensing legislation with more tidbits) and then the next year you're going to have to meet them halfway on whats left.

Eventually that creeping incrementalism is going to have us compromising that we can have one bullet for every 100 hours of training we get or something equally ridiculous.

I am all for proactive training programs and safe gun handling and would like to see more carrot than stick to accomplish this.

the_quark
01-15-2011, 10:45 PM
I'll say this was an idea Gene and I brainstormed pre-2008, as a political compromise in Sacramento.

What happened in 2008 was Heller. After that, it became clear that we should get as much as we can without it.

I agree that, within the framework of California politics (absent the 2nd and 14th Amendment), it's not a bad practical approach. But, now that we're winning in court, let's see how much of that we can get with no regulatory approval, for all citizens. As is their natural right.

If we got something like this now, it would give the courts a "pressure relief valve" to not roll back restrictions on our rights.

hawk81
01-16-2011, 12:39 AM
You guys are the problem. Compromising our rights away to anti American pieces of **** is total crap. God given rights can not be compromised. You guys need to instill this into your brains. I would rather fight tooth and nail and loose than to compromise. If you believe in something, you believe in it 100 percent, or not at all.


I'll say this was an idea Gene and I brainstormed pre-2008, as a political compromise in Sacramento.

What happened in 2008 was Heller. After that, it became clear that we should get as much as we can without it.

I agree that, within the framework of California politics (absent the 2nd and 14th Amendment), it's not a bad practical approach. But, now that we're winning in court, let's see how much of that we can get with no regulatory approval, for all citizens. As is their natural right.

If we got something like this now, it would give the courts a "pressure relief valve" to not roll back restrictions on our rights.

AIMSMALL
01-16-2011, 1:18 AM
Bad idea, :no::nono::nuts:

the_quark
01-16-2011, 9:30 AM
You guys are the problem.

I just have to say, that's rich. What have you, personally done to increase gun rights in California? How many lawsuits have you been a plaintiff in, how many charities have you founded, how many good men have you personally been involved in keeping out of prison for exercising their fundamental rights? Yeah, I'm the problem. :rolleyes:

Compromising our rights away to anti American pieces of **** is total crap. God given rights can not be compromised. You guys need to instill this into your brains. I would rather fight tooth and nail and loose than to compromise. If you believe in something, you believe in it 100 percent, or not at all.

This kind of thinking gets us nowhere. Do you carry concealed without a license? Do you own machine guns? No? Then you've "compromised" on your rights.

Moving incrementally is how the bad guys got us into the mess we're in. We're not going to go from the current hole we're in to completely unrestricted gun rights in one step. If we weren't winning in the courts, we'd have to win politically. One possible way to begin that journey would be through a licensing scheme as described here. Is it ideal? No. Am I happy it's not going to be needed? Yes. But, if the court had decided in Heller that we didn't have a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, or in McDonald that it didn't apply to the states, that's a political path I would've considered to work within the political system to retain and restore the legality of our rights.

Anyway, you have fun screaming "NO COMPROMISE!" while you bury your guns in the back yard. I'm actually going to work to reduce the legal restrictions to firearms ownership in this state.

CrippledPidgeon
01-16-2011, 10:04 AM
I propose that in order to get an AWP and applicant would pay a one time fee of $500 to $1,000 plus $50 to $100 per year. This high fee would limit the applicants to only serious enthusiast and provide for the stringent background checks.

...

What does everyone think about this proposal?

Yea... no. I can't afford that kind of BS and pay for my shooting habits at the same time.

PhantomII
01-16-2011, 10:06 AM
How many would go for something like a one time NICS type check?

Say a $25 fee similar to a DROS check now to cover the cost of the background check.

Once you are cleared, you can buy any whatever guns, ammo, magazines, etc. you desire.

Provide your ID at the time of purchase. The ID is not tied to what was purchased, just a verification that you are not a prohibited person (prohibited person being a convicted violent felon or certified lunatic and little, if anything else.) and off you go.

No 10 day wait, no restrictions on out of state purchases OK to carry open or concealed and valid nationally.

cdtx2001
01-16-2011, 11:34 AM
How about we just get the AWB, handgun roster and hi-cap mag restrictions eliminated rather than create further stupid, expensive, unconstitutional regulation...

No more regulations, just work on the above^^^^^

PsychGuy274
01-16-2011, 11:46 AM
Iíve got a proposal for CGF / CalGuns. I propose that we lobby Sacramento to pass a law creating an Advanced Weapons Permit (AWP). This would be akin to a commercial driverís license. All qualified citizens can get a Class C drivers license to operate cars and likewise they can purchase basic firearms such as shotguns, hunting rifles and handguns with 10 round magazines. The AWP would be like a Class A driverís license. It would require special training and additional fees, but with it you could own and operate more advanced weapons just like a Class A driver can operate an 80,000 pound tractor trailer. With an AWP one could legally own semiautomatic assault weapons with high capacity magazines and handguns with high capacity magazines.

In order for one to be qualified for an AWP I would suggest that there be stringent requirements for background checks, training, secure storage and other qualifications. This would ensure that only qualified individuals were able to be in possession of these weapons. In addition there would be annual checks to make sure that permit holders remained qualified going forward. For example, getting a DUI would result in a suspension of your AWP.

I propose that in order to get an AWP and applicant would pay a one time fee of $500 to $1,000 plus $50 to $100 per year. This high fee would limit the applicants to only serious enthusiast and provide for the stringent background checks. Plus this allows Sacramento a good argument for this law, revenue. Letís say 100,000 Californiaís were granted permits at $1,000 each thatís $10 million dollars to support the program and assist the state with itís budget crisis. I would be happy to pay this fee for an AWP and the ability to own these weapons.

What does everyone think about this proposal?

I'm sorry, but this is one of the stupidest things I heard in a long time. The state has no business licensing a Right; has no business charging money to exercise a Right; and has no business over-regulating a right.

FatalKitty
01-16-2011, 11:49 AM
I already have the last permit I will ever need for any weapon

it's called the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment

wildhawker
01-16-2011, 1:15 PM
I laugh everytime I see the "I don't need no stinking permits" posts.

I'd bet that 99.999% don't LOC, CCW without a permit, have FA without stamps...

xenophobe
01-16-2011, 1:27 PM
In order for one to be qualified for an AWP I would suggest that there be stringent requirements for background checks, training, secure storage and other qualifications. This would ensure that only qualified individuals were able to be in possession of these weapons. In addition there would be annual checks to make sure that permit holders remained qualified going forward. For example, getting a DUI would result in a suspension of your AWP.

Do you work for the Brady Campaign? It sure sounds like it.

1911su16b870
01-16-2011, 2:27 PM
We should not have to ask anyone for permission to defend ourselves and our loved ones. Many consider sbr in 556 an ideal cqb home defense and clearing tool.

Shrubmaster
01-16-2011, 2:35 PM
I'm sorry, but this is one of the stupidest things I heard in a long time. The state has no business licensing a Right; has no business charging money to exercise a Right; and has no business over-regulating a right.

Amen to that.

Bruce
01-19-2011, 7:21 PM
FWIW, this is similar to how it is in New Zealand. I actually like it a lot better than the crap you have to go through in free states when submitting a Form 1 or 4.

You mean sorta like this??

Right to own a gun? Sure, but I think there should be different levels here. I don't think anyone, meaning the average citizen who watches too many John Woo films and knows jack about firearms, should have a RIGHT to have anything they want. I think that should require trust and demonstrated proficiency. I think if they categorized weapons and made each category available based on a proven track record of lawfulness and training/proficiency, then lots of the problems would be resolved. For example:

Category 1 - Slide Action/Breach Shotgun, .22LR bolt action rifles

Category 2 - Centerfire Bolt Action Rifles and Handguns

Category 3 - Semi-Auto shotguns and Rifles

Category 4 - Assault Weapons (Category 3 military-style weapons)

Category 5 - Short Barrelled Rifles/Shotguns

Category 6 - Class III

The way an individual acquires a permit to own a certain category requires training and background checks. Initially, anyone could own Category 1. That would be the 2nd Ammendment issue - "If you're scared, you can buy a shotgun to protect your home or if you want to plink, go buy a plinker." Nothing is required besides the DROS and background check.

The other categories require state/gov sanctioned firearms training. Of course there would have to be a standard somehow and people should actually be able to fail - for instance, the dickhead that was flagging the hell out of me at the range the other day. Once that requirement is met, the individual gets an updated permit that says Cat 2. Now he can go into a store, show that permit and buy a handgun, etc.

Each step up is just another hoop to go through. The point being is that if an individual wants access to the most "evil" weapons not only does he have to prove trustworthy to society (clean record), he's got to pass quite a bit of training.

Even looking at this from the Gun Control Advocate's point of view, this would make access limited and set restrictions. Only the most qualified get access to the "evil" stuff. I think that would satisfy some of their concerns.

From our point of view, if you could have an SBR or a semi-auto Barrett .50, wouldn't you take the effort to get qualified?

It's a win-win senario and honestly, I think this kind of compromise on both sides is the only way we'll be able to reach some common ground and progress.

The Electrician
01-19-2011, 7:35 PM
Hi-cap? You mean standard mags and not low-cap map!!!

highpowermatch
01-19-2011, 10:13 PM
OP, It's only natural that you feel this way, you've lost something, your constitutional right to bear arms has been arbitrarily taken away by the State of California. You're going through the classic stages of grief ::

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

You're currently in the bargaining stage, trying to beg the state to find someway to get your rights back. All of these other posters have pointed out why this is a bad track to take. Don't worry, it will pass. Soon you'll be depressed and convinced that nothing will ever change and that you'll never be allowed the right of self defense. There are a number of people on this board who are currently in the depression stage.

And then after that you'll accept the only solution is to fight for your rights by contributing here in terms of volunteering, discussing, and donating to CalGuns. We're all in this together, and it won't be easy, and it won't be quick, but it WILL get done.

We will get our rights back.

-James

Dude, that was awesome. :D

smarter
01-19-2011, 10:28 PM
OP want to pay my fee for me? No? That's my answer to your proposal. The 2nd Amendment is my permit.

stix213
01-20-2011, 12:05 AM
If for some reason we were unable to get the AW ban thrown out, I would think getting new AW registrations available would be an easier route than a new permit system. Shouldn't need any new legislation.

Though I'd put money on getting the AW ban tossed outright.

I don't understand the fear over AW's anyway. Criminals don't even want to use them as you can't conceal them. What good is it to a criminal if you see him coming with a gun 100 yards away?

dirtydeedsdoneinthedesert
01-20-2011, 12:30 AM
No laws is good laws.

N6ATF
01-20-2011, 12:48 AM
Unless you're a criminal, then 20,000 laws are good, because they disarm your victims for you.

Wrangler John
01-20-2011, 3:54 AM
Hey, I got it! Let's pass a Motor Voter type bill. Everybody that applies for a new or renewal driver's license is legible to vote and receive a CCW permit after signing the request form and passing a NICS check. It comes from the state - no county sheriff's at all! It's just an endorsement on the back of your license. We all have the right to keep and bear arms for self defense, but driving they say is a privilege, so you can get the CCW without a driver's license, right at the DMV.

Well, that my fantasy. Oh no, I gotta go, that damn tooth fairy just ran off with my dentures again. :)

NSR500
01-20-2011, 4:33 AM
Iíve got a proposal for CGF / CalGuns. I propose that we lobby Sacramento to pass a law creating an Advanced Weapons Permit (AWP). This would be akin to a commercial driverís license. All qualified citizens can get a Class C drivers license to operate cars and likewise they can purchase basic firearms such as shotguns, hunting rifles and handguns with 10 round magazines. The AWP would be like a Class A driverís license. It would require special training and additional fees, but with it you could own and operate more advanced weapons just like a Class A driver can operate an 80,000 pound tractor trailer. With an AWP one could legally own semiautomatic assault weapons with high capacity magazines and handguns with high capacity magazines.

In order for one to be qualified for an AWP I would suggest that there be stringent requirements for background checks, training, secure storage and other qualifications. This would ensure that only qualified individuals were able to be in possession of these weapons. In addition there would be annual checks to make sure that permit holders remained qualified going forward. For example, getting a DUI would result in a suspension of your AWP.

I propose that in order to get an AWP and applicant would pay a one time fee of $500 to $1,000 plus $50 to $100 per year. This high fee would limit the applicants to only serious enthusiast and provide for the stringent background checks. Plus this allows Sacramento a good argument for this law, revenue. Letís say 100,000 Californiaís were granted permits at $1,000 each thatís $10 million dollars to support the program and assist the state with itís budget crisis. I would be happy to pay this fee for an AWP and the ability to own these weapons.

What does everyone think about this proposal?

I think it is Asinine.

Andy Taylor
01-20-2011, 8:21 AM
Sounds like a steb backwards to me-

this

70extreme
01-20-2011, 8:49 AM
Advanced weapons permit makes as much sense as:

Advanced free speech permit
Advanced right to breathe permit
Advanced right to have children permit
Advanced right to worship permit

Get it yet? A human right does not require a permit from a corrupt government.

the_donald_
01-20-2011, 8:57 AM
Instead, perhaps, it may be better to invite new shooters to accompany you during your recreational activities.

Get involved with local efforts and candidates that are like-minded. (i.e. Sunshine Initiative, donations to CGN/CRPA/NRA, etc.)

Strive to carry yourself in a manner that creates a positive image of firearms enthusiasts.

And fight like hell to keep what little liberties we do have, and work to gain back those which we have lost.

2 cents...grain of salt...all that jazz.

jnojr
01-20-2011, 9:03 AM
What does everyone think about this proposal?

Eh, it was a lot easier to just move out of the state. I have all of that stuff and a lot more, with no fees or permits or bureaucracy.

Glock22Fan
01-20-2011, 9:05 AM
Not only "NO!" but "Hell, NO!"

BigBronco
01-20-2011, 9:17 AM
Hell no. Set the constitution right a again! " SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

Beatone
01-20-2011, 9:44 AM
How about we just get the AWB, handgun roster and hi-cap mag restrictions eliminated rather than create further stupid, expensive, unconstitutional regulation...

This would sum it up for me.

wecf
01-20-2011, 10:27 AM
Hey I would like to propose that we give the great state of California's politicians more money to line their pockets and pass more anti-gun laws with.....

dexter9659
01-20-2011, 12:49 PM
Or sac could just spend $100,000,000 less and have the same effect. The laws will be overturned in time.

stix213
01-20-2011, 1:10 PM
I would rather fight tooth and nail and loose than to compromise.

Wow, I would choose compromise over lose geez. What kind of nonsense is that? You'd seriously rather lose all your gun rights if you can't get every single thing you demand?

I'm glad you aren't actually "helping" and people with brains are.

a1c
01-20-2011, 1:19 PM
Hmmm... My problem with this is that it has no blueprint to evolve from, and it would require a ton of new paperwork and personnel. That's a major problem when you try to introduce new legislation.

How about we just lobby for shall-issue at the state level? Or even at the county level in those non-shall issue counties? A lot of Calgunners already are. Join the effort.

70extreme
01-20-2011, 1:56 PM
Stix223 - They have a gun to your head and demand your wallet and your nice watch. You can kid yourself that you "won" when you compromise and only give them your wallet.

The fact of the matter is that both those items belonged to you and any way you look at it - you lost.

Glock22Fan
01-20-2011, 2:49 PM
Stix223 - They have a gun to your head and demand your wallet and your nice watch. You can kid yourself that you "won" when you compromise and only give them your wallet.

The fact of the matter is that both those items belonged to you and any way you look at it - you lost.

And if you persuade them to go away by giving them your wallet only, you can be sure they will be back next week for your watch.