PDA

View Full Version : SB 610 (2011) Wright/Correa CCW for Elected Officials


TopGun2000
03-24-2011, 10:11 AM
Converting this to the 'official' thread...

Bill Page : http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_610&sess=1112&house=B&author=wright

As introduced Existing law establishes an application process, including a
determination of good cause and completion of a training course, for
persons seeking a license to carry a concealed firearm. Existing law
authorizes the licensing authority of any city, city and county, or
county to charge a fee in addition to the application fee in an
amount equal to the actual costs for processing the application for a
new license, excluding fingerprint and training costs, but in no
case to exceed $100. Existing law provides that no requirement,
charge, assessment, fee, or condition that requires the payment of
any additional funds by the applicant, other than those costs already
specified in those provisions, may be imposed by any licensing
authority as a condition of the application for a license.

This bill would provide that the applicant would not be required
to pay for any training courses prior to a determination of good
cause being made, as specified. The bill would also provide that no
applicant would be required to obtain liability insurance as a
condition of the license.

The bill would require the licensing authority to make the
determination of good cause within 30 days of the application and to
provide written notification of that determination to the applicant,
as specified.

The bill would also provide that the good cause
requirement would be deemed to be met for any applicant who is a
member of Congress, a statewide elected official, or a Member of the
Legislature, for purposes of protection or self-defense, or if the
licensing authority fails to make the determination within the 30 day
period.

The above stricken-out language was amended out of the bill in February.
// Librarian

Existing law requires the licensing authority to give written
notice to the applicant indicating if the license is approved or
denied within 90 days of the initial application for a new license or
a license renewal, or 30 days after receipt of the applicant's
criminal background check from the Department of Justice, whichever
is later.
This bill would instead require the licensing authority to give
written notice to the applicant indicating if the license is approved
or denied within 90 days of the initial application for a new
license or a license renewal. The bill would also require that the
notice provide the specific reason for denial, if the license is
denied.


http://www.gundigest.com/gun-rights/california-concealed-carry-for-politicians-but-not-for-the-people?et_mid=230803&rid=3589848

A California State Senate Committee has been considering a proposal to give a concealed carry permit to, “any applicant who is a member of Congress, a statewide elected official or a Member of the Legislature.”

These elected officials could carry a gun, “for purposes of protection or self-defense.”

As an editorial in the Washington Times noted, “The measure highlights the growing rift between the bureaucratic class and taxpayers who don’t have the luxury of exempting themselves from bad laws.”

The Times added that, “Ordinary Californians who want a concealed carry permit need to apply to the local sheriff. In practice — outside of conservative, rural counties — only celebrities and the well-connected end up obtaining the coveted document. In a state of nearly 37 million, about 40,000 permits were issued in 2007.”

The proposal was made by, “a pair of pro-gun state Senate Democrats…” In a state with such restrictive gun laws, including a ban on high-capacity magazines and so-called “assault weapons,” you might think any law which seems pro-Second Amendment should be supported by gun owners.

However, “Exempting politicians [from unfair concealed carry laws] may be the exception,” the Times argued. “Coddled lawmakers living in gated communities may think they face heightened risk, but it’s unlikely poor residents in sketchy urban neighborhoods have any less of a need.”

Source: Washington Times

bwiese
03-24-2011, 11:00 AM
I wish people would stop being so non-analytical. What's in the paper is not that relevant.

Note that the legislator carrying this bill, Sen. Lou Correa, is one of CRPA's Legislators of the Year and was honored at this year's CRPA gala dinner. He's one of the good guys and would not have gotten this appelation if CRPA and NRA legislative liaisons had issues with him. Sen Rod Wright has been a past CRPA Legislator Of the Year and has carried or assisted a variety of progun bills.

There are tremendous long-term strategic benefits to this bill.

Please read between the lines. :)

Blackhawk556
03-24-2011, 11:10 AM
Does this even have a chance of passing? or is this one of those bills where the author is just trying to make himself look better in front of the NRA/CRPA? If we can read between the lines, I'm pretty sure the antis can as well.

anthonyca
03-24-2011, 11:13 AM
I wish people would stop being so non-analytical. What's in the paper is not that relevant.

Note that the legislator carrying this bill, Sen. Lou Correa, is one of CRPA's Legislators of the Year and was honored at this year's CRPA gala dinner. He's one of the good guys and would not have gotten this appelation if CRPA and NRA legislative liaisons had issues with him.

There are tremendous long-term strategic benefits to this bill.

Please read between the lines. :)

I had a feeling that was what was happening. Set up for an equal protection lawsuit?

Crom
03-24-2011, 11:18 AM
What Bill said...

Any bill that makes it easier for ANYONE to carry in California can only be a good thing. Once a law like that is on the books, it's not too hard to simply expand it later like after a really good court victory.

Spanky8601
03-24-2011, 11:24 AM
What Bill said...

Any bill that makes it easier for ANYONE to carry in California can only be a good thing. Once a law like that is on the books, it's not too hard to simply expand it later like after a really good court victory.

Sounds like the good guys might have a PLAN.

N6ATF
03-24-2011, 12:03 PM
Hey, if a bunch of unconvicted felons can carry, then totally law-abiding people should definitely be able to. Intermediate scrutiny, equal protection and all.

Nick Justice
03-24-2011, 12:18 PM
Lots to think about: What if one of the elected official carriers ends up shooting an innocent? What if one of them shoots a real bad guy? What if there are no problems with any of them for years, or forever? What if they are denied renewals after they leave office? What if their permits are revoked the minute they leave office? What court challenges will it raise?

All of this assuming the passes in the first place...

Gray Peterson
03-24-2011, 12:36 PM
This bill needs to pass. Look at the rest of the bill, and read between the lines.

bussda
03-24-2011, 12:53 PM
Other threads: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=5997313&highlight=correa#post5997313
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=5914964&highlight=610#post5914964
Please read them.

Nick Justice
03-24-2011, 12:58 PM
I agree. The bill needs to pass. There is big equal protection potential here, along with the provision requiring that the reason for denial must be given to the denied applicant.

wildhawker
03-24-2011, 1:05 PM
This bill is hugely **important** for many reasons.

-Brandon

uyoga
03-24-2011, 1:17 PM
Let's get it passed!

MudCamper
03-24-2011, 1:20 PM
I guess I'm just to damn stupid to read between the lines. This bill just pisses me off. Another elite class. We've got the cops, and the judges, and now add the ****ing politicians to the list. If you think that this will help us via equal protection, you're dreaming. The judges will rule against us there. If you think that sneaky comma placement will help us, again, you're dreaming. The judges will rule against us there too. How does yet another protected class help us? It should be going the other way. Take the privilege away from the cops and the judges, and then you'd see some momentum behind CCW reform.

kcbrown
03-24-2011, 1:44 PM
This bill is hugely **important** for many reasons.


Then here's the million dollar question:

Should we account for the effects our support or opposition will have on the anti-gunners' level of support of it? :43:

ken worth
03-24-2011, 2:01 PM
Mudcamper is right. elites getting the right to carry will not trickle down to the common people. they are convinced that they are more valuable then we are. Diane Feinsein has been packin since harvey milk got shot but that hasn't improved our chances of getting a permit. what they think of themselves doesn't equate to what they think of us commoners.

Joe
03-24-2011, 2:05 PM
Pass it!

wildhawker
03-24-2011, 2:17 PM
I guess I'm just to damn stupid to read between the lines. This bill just pisses me off. Another elite class. We've got the cops, and the judges, and now add the ****ing politicians to the list. If you think that this will help us via equal protection, you're dreaming. The judges will rule against us there. If you think that sneaky comma placement will help us, again, you're dreaming. The judges will rule against us there too. How does yet another protected class help us? It should be going the other way. Take the privilege away from the cops and the judges, and then you'd see some momentum behind CCW reform.

The EP angle is somewhat interesting but in the final analysis largely irrelevant. There are other things we need to remedy here in California, and this bill helps those things. Let's ignore the surface-level elitism and look a little deeper on what this bill would mean for the average Californian. Hint: How would my conversations with and letters to counties counsel differ in light of the enactment of this legislation? For obvious reasons, let's not discuss it publicly.

-Brandon

taperxz
03-24-2011, 2:23 PM
Mud, part of reading between the lines is also knowing who is proposing this idea. Both of these State Senators are by in large Pro-RKBA.

Gray Peterson
03-24-2011, 2:35 PM
I guess I'm just to damn stupid to read between the lines. This bill just pisses me off. Another elite class. We've got the cops, and the judges, and now add the ****ing politicians to the list. If you think that this will help us via equal protection, you're dreaming. The judges will rule against us there. If you think that sneaky comma placement will help us, again, you're dreaming. The judges will rule against us there too. How does yet another protected class help us? It should be going the other way. Take the privilege away from the cops and the judges, and then you'd see some momentum behind CCW reform.

Check your PM's by the end of business today, MC. If you can't read between the lines publicly, you'll be explained why privately.

wildhawker
03-24-2011, 3:08 PM
If you want such things to pass aren't you counting on the inability (or disinterest) of some legislators to read between the lines?

Not exactly. Self-interest is even more compelling.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_610&sess=CUR&house=B&author=wright

bussda
03-24-2011, 3:08 PM
Original bill http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_610&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen

It was amended on 3/21 and now the bill has no real positive effect for me.

Crom
03-24-2011, 3:15 PM
I read the actual bill (http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0601-0650/sb_610_bill_20110321_amended_sen_v98.html) and now I can't believe how sweet this would be. Think about the specific arguments in Richards v. Prieto (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Richards_v._Prieto), think about a certain 1984 Ninth circuit civil case that's really important to us... :whistling: I believe I understand.

OleCuss
03-24-2011, 3:32 PM
I don't see any great benefit. They've managed to make it so that you effectively have to do the training course in order to apply. Maybe there's other law that fixes that but I doubt it.

It sticks in my craw that the legislators are carving out a special benefit for snookering their constituents. More elitist garbage.

If there is more good than bad left in the bill after it was amended, then I guess I'll hope it passes - but I think this legislature will ensure that there is no benefit from this bill.

MudCamper
03-24-2011, 3:33 PM
Well I had read the first revision of the bill. Now I just read the latest revision. They've hacked it up quite a bit, altering it's effect. What this means to me is that they will hack it up a few more times before it passes, and it could go anywhere (good or bad) by the time it get's voted on. Now I'm even more confused than before.

cmaynes
03-24-2011, 3:36 PM
all I can picture is Karen Bass with a gun.....

wildhawker
03-24-2011, 3:37 PM
It is early in the process.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-24-2011, 3:37 PM
Not exactly. Self-interest is even more compelling.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_610&sess=CUR&house=B&author=wright

Holy ****! I just read the amended bill. Yep, it sure can be a helpful thing. People, think 'state' versus 'local'.

Uriah02
03-24-2011, 3:45 PM
Same reason I like AB 2115 (ftp://leginfo.public.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2101-2150/ab_2115_cfa_20100405_095955_asm_comm.html).

dantodd
03-24-2011, 4:15 PM
Not exactly. Self-interest is even more compelling.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_610&sess=CUR&house=B&author=wright

Thanks for the link. Sometimes it's nice living in a bankrupt state.

curtisfong
03-24-2011, 5:49 PM
I'm also keeping a close eye on this.

IMO the less said the better right now. There are some wonderful things possible with this bill. Please, reserve judgment until we see the final draft.

For now, if you like, it doesn't hurt to publicly oppose if it suckers a gun grabber into passing something good for us :)

Anchors
03-24-2011, 7:01 PM
Need this to pass. I agree that we should shut up about it though and let the anti politicians pass it and consider it a "win" for their class.

It will make it that much sweeter when we turn the tables (or add a leaves to the table to make it bigger, I suppose) :D

cdtx2001
03-24-2011, 7:05 PM
OH PLEASE LET THIS PASS!!!!! The "us and them" thing is good for all of us in the end

nick
03-24-2011, 7:31 PM
I will support this bill as written :D

Window_Seat
03-24-2011, 8:06 PM
Wow... I like this bill, so for the 4th time...

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/8/27/128643446572698959.jpg

Let's not... :laugh:

Erik.

redneckshootist
03-24-2011, 9:12 PM
I read the amended portion of the bill, it needs to pass I understand how this will help us. Wile I would rather have shall issue this is a step in the right direction.

rivraton
03-24-2011, 9:40 PM
Same reason I like AB 2115 (ftp://leginfo.public.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2101-2150/ab_2115_cfa_20100405_095955_asm_comm.html).

I liked that one too, unfortunately it died last session:(

crackerman
03-24-2011, 9:46 PM
Please read between the lines. :)
I'm an analytical thinker, auditor, have a degree in Forensic Chemistry and Criminal Justiceand am lost. WTF am I missing? :shrug:

Knight_Who_Says_Ni
03-24-2011, 9:56 PM
I'm an analytical thinker, auditor, have a degree in Forensic Chemistry and Criminal Justiceand am lost. WTF am I missing? :shrug:

Opens the door to sue for equal protection. That would open a state wide shall issue correct?

kcbrown
03-25-2011, 6:29 AM
Opens the door to sue for equal protection. That would open a state wide shall issue correct?

Nope.

Peace officers, which includes retired police officers, are also a special class. But "equal protection" has yielded no fruits with respect to that.

If you really expect "equal protection" suits to win against this, you're dreaming.

No, I expect equalization to come from something else, if it comes from anything at all.

wildhawker
03-25-2011, 8:24 AM
True equal protection suits can win; also remember that the AW ban's retired cops

kcbrown
03-25-2011, 8:35 AM
True equal protection suits can win; also remember that the AW ban's retired cops

It's true that it prevents them from registering AWs after retirement, but it doesn't prevent them from acquiring and registering AWs prior to retirement and keeping those AWs after retirement.

In other words, it's a difference that makes no difference. And a difference that makes no difference is no difference in the real world.

wildhawker
03-25-2011, 8:45 AM
Sorry, my phone cut off the last portion of my post but you saw where I was going.

The difference does make a difference. Remember that the retiree component of 12050/26150 et seq has never been litigated; if it were to be, the court would be forced to recognize Guillory and Silviera.

If we already saw the end of jurisprudence on the matters before us, then you'd be right that EP in the case of gun rights is largely irrelevant. However, we're nowhere near the end. It's simply premature to cast that sort of sweeping judgment.

-Brandon

It's true that it prevents them from registering AWs after retirement, but it doesn't prevent them from acquiring and registering AWs prior to retirement and keeping those AWs after retirement.

In other words, it's a difference that makes no difference. And a difference that makes no difference is no difference in the real world.

Echidin
03-25-2011, 8:46 AM
Just read the amended bill and I concur this could potentially be a big step forward.

kcbrown
03-25-2011, 9:05 AM
Sorry, my phone cut off the last portion of my post but you saw where I was going.

The difference does make a difference. Remember that the retiree component of 12050/26150 et seq has never been litigated; if it were to be, the court would be forced to recognize Guillory and Silviera.

If we already saw the end of jurisprudence on the matters before us, then you'd be right that EP in the case of gun rights is largely irrelevant. However, we're nowhere near the end. It's simply premature to cast that sort of sweeping judgment.


Well, then, I eagerly await the lawsuits that will flesh out these areas of the law! Done in a properly strategic manner, of course (meaning: if it takes a while, then so be it. Whatever it takes to win in the long run). :43:

That said, are there not numerous examples of "protected classes" throughout the law, and not just with respect to firearms laws? Is not the existence of those examples sufficient evidence that "equal protection" is a very weak foundation upon which to build?

guntrust
03-25-2011, 9:37 AM
When I filed to run for GOP Central Committee last year, Lou Correa was in line to file as well. Nice guy, I had a pleasant conversation with him about concealed carry, but he is definitely NOT on our side in my opinion. I left with a very strong impression he is not in favor of carry by private citizens. He stated he had good people to protect him, and it would make him nervous if people were allowed to walk around with loaded guns.

The NRA has certainly done some good, but my years as an individual activist/instructor have left me with very ambivalent feelings toward the NRA (though I am a life member). CRPA's endorsement of Lou Correa (while dissing Ignatius Piazza of Front Sight) is Exhibit C. [Exh A being NRA's opposition to Heller; Exh B being NRA's responsibility for CA's current CCW law, though that was quite awhile ago); plenty of other exhibits, too.]

We need the NRA, but honestly Front Sight has done much more to increase my Second Amendment fervor.

The NRA only feeds the beast our Founders warned us about when it panders to the standing army (or elected officials), giving them special rights. No one is above the law, and it is foolish to support a bad law on the notion it will be overturned by the courts (remember McCain-Feingold?).

wildhawker
03-25-2011, 9:58 AM
Being that you seem to prefer Piazza and distrust NRA, we're probably not going to agree on much with respect to political strategy.

I think you're missing much of the same point of this legislation as others have, though I'm not sure if it's because of a focus on one component or if it's due to unfamiliarity with the intricacies of the carry licensing system. Further, I don't see why you would need to *overturn* anything related to the good cause section, as isn't it what we're all seeking? Namely, self-defense is good cause enough. An *expansion* upon that, via Richards or future litigation/legislation, is what we need to accomplish.

When we see what the final version of this bill looks like, better analysis can be made. Until then, I'd prefer to not try and torpedo something that could be a hugely important piece to making carry licensing consistent and accessible for all Californians.

-Brandon

When I filed to run for GOP Central Committee last year, Lou Correa was in line to file as well. Nice guy, I had a pleasant conversation with him about concealed carry, but he is definitely NOT on our side in my opinion. I left with a very strong impression he is not in favor of carry by private citizens. He stated he had good people to protect him, and it would make him nervous if people were allowed to walk around with loaded guns.

The NRA has certainly done some good, but my years as an individual activist/instructor have left me with very ambivalent feelings toward the NRA (though I am a life member). CRPA's endorsement of Lou Correa (while dissing Ignatius Piazza of Front Sight) is Exhibit C. [Exh A being NRA's opposition to Heller; Exh B being NRA's responsibility for CA's current CCW law, though that was quite awhile ago); plenty of other exhibits, too.]

We need the NRA, but honestly Front Sight has done much more to increase my Second Amendment fervor.

The NRA only feeds the beast our Founders warned us about when it panders to the standing army (or elected officials), giving them special rights. No one is above the law, and it is foolish to support a bad law on the notion it will be overturned by the courts (remember McCain-Feingold?).

Gray Peterson
03-25-2011, 10:06 AM
When I filed to run for GOP Central Committee last year, Lou Correa was in line to file as well. Nice guy, I had a pleasant conversation with him about concealed carry, but he is definitely NOT on our side in my opinion. I left with a very strong impression he is not in favor of carry by private citizens. He stated he had good people to protect him, and it would make him nervous if people were allowed to walk around with loaded guns.

I'm a little suspicious because of the underline. People say stupid things and do stupid crap when they are opposite of each other. Besides, Rod Wright is one of our staunchest allies.

The NRA has certainly done some good, but my years as an individual activist/instructor have left me with very ambivalent feelings toward the NRA (though I am a life member). CRPA's endorsement of Lou Correa (while dissing Ignatius Piazza of Front Sight) is Exhibit C.

Can you explain this via PM to me so we don't thread-jack.

Exh A being NRA's opposition to Heller;

What does that have to do with the current bill?

Exh B being NRA's responsibility for CA's current CCW law, though that was quite awhile ago); plenty of other exhibits, too.

90 years ago, so everyone involved with that is long dead. Not to mention A) Open carry of loaded handguns and long arms was perfectly legal and B) There were no "school zones" or much in the way of gun bans at that time. The culture back then is completely different than now.

We need the NRA, but honestly Front Sight has done much more to increase my Second Amendment fervor.

Sounds like a personal problem.

The NRA only feeds the beast our Founders warned us about when it panders to the standing army (or elected officials), giving them special rights.

The NRA has not endorsed the bill, so I don't know where you're getting that impression. I'm personally endorsing it in it's current form for the other changes made and certain other vulnerabilities that would not be prudent to discuss in public.

No one is above the law, and it is foolish to support a bad law on the notion it will be overturned by the courts (remember McCain-Feingold?).

I raise you McConnell v. FEC with Citizens United v. FEC.

zinfull
03-25-2011, 10:13 AM
Well reading between the lines or not I still do not feel I will see any benefits. This is more of a 2 decades vs 2 weeks process. This bill reminds me of the organic farms fertilizer, it stinks but is good.

jerry

dantodd
03-25-2011, 10:25 AM
but it doesn't prevent them from acquiring and registering AWs prior to retirement and keeping those AWs after retirement.

I'm pretty sure that one of Jerry Brown's last opinion's published as AG was that when officers retire their AWs are no longer considered legally registered and must be disposed of or taken out of AW status.

ETA: here is the thread http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=381041 on the opinion. EP does apply.

Window_Seat
03-25-2011, 10:27 AM
Well reading between the lines or not I still do not feel I will see any benefits. This is more of a 2 decades vs 2 weeks process. This bill reminds me of the organic farms fertilizer, it stinks but is good.

jerry

2 decades ago, people were saying the same thing.

Patience is a virtue. Sometimes, even I have to remind myself of that.

http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.gif

Erik.

goober
03-25-2011, 10:47 AM
2 decades ago, people were saying the same thing.

Patience is a virtue. Sometimes, even I have to remind myself of that.



Erik.

nice animation! aesthetically a bit grotesque, but it certainly does the job! :D

stix213
03-25-2011, 12:08 PM
I am a bit disturbed so many people in this thread seem to be against a bill which defines "Good Cause" as self-defense, regardless of how it targets only political elites. Some people have no vision apparently.

zinfull
03-25-2011, 12:09 PM
I am getting to old for virtue. We are still in the yellow now as 20 years ago. I do not want to take my reason for personal defense and have to reason that I have the same exposure as a politician.

jerry

IGOTDIRT4U
03-25-2011, 12:16 PM
I am a bit disturbed so many people in this thread seem to be against a bill which defines "Good Cause" as self-defense, regardless of how it targets only political elites. Some people have no vision apparently.

And it makes it a STATE definition, versus a local (read: county) decision.

geeknow
03-25-2011, 12:21 PM
And it makes it a STATE definition, versus a local (read: county) decision.


Is this the crux of it..?

wildhawker
03-25-2011, 12:29 PM
And it makes it a STATE definition, versus a local (read: county) decision.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for reiterating what so many seem to overlook here in additional to the procedural fixes.

-Brandon

MudCamper
03-25-2011, 1:02 PM
I am a bit disturbed so many people in this thread seem to be against a bill which defines "Good Cause" as self-defense, regardless of how it targets only political elites. Some people have no vision apparently.

It defines self-defense as good cause only for members of the legislature, not for you or me.

Dirtbozz
03-25-2011, 1:08 PM
It defines self-defense as good cause only for members of the legislature, not for you or me.

One step at a time :D .

wash
03-25-2011, 1:10 PM
I was hoping that the bill would create a state wide issuing authority so that normal citizens could bypass their anti sheriff and allow an easy transition to a state wide shall issue system eventually.

I can see some good in it.

Librarian
03-25-2011, 1:13 PM
It defines self-defense as good cause only for members of the legislature, not for you or me.

One step at a time :D .

A journey of a thousand lawsuits, leading in good time to the 9th Circuit, begins with a single bill.

nicki
03-25-2011, 2:50 PM
We should actually suggest to them to expand the bill to include their "staffers" too.

After all, their "staffers" often go with them to public events. Let's really open the door.

Here is the issue, will assembly members vote to keep themselves unarmed.

Nicki

Knight_Who_Says_Ni
03-25-2011, 3:21 PM
Just emailed my senator on why this bill needs to pass, luckily I have a Republican(like that actually means anything...) senator that will hopefully listen to her constituents.

dantodd
03-25-2011, 3:47 PM
I was hoping that the bill would create a state wide issuing authority so that normal citizens could bypass their anti sheriff and allow an easy transition to a state wide shall issue system eventually.

I can see some good in it.

I certainly think that is one possibility. Once the cost of administering the process must be paid for by the state centralizing the process is usually the best easy to reduce those costs. As I said before, sometimes it's good to live in a bankrupt state.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-25-2011, 3:49 PM
I was hoping that the bill would create a state wide issuing authority so that normal citizens could bypass their anti sheriff and allow an easy transition to a state wide shall issue system eventually.

I can see some good in it.

Well, in a way, it does, and leaves the barn door wide open to exapnd on it, a way easy way to expand it.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-25-2011, 3:51 PM
Thank you, thank you, thank you for reiterating what so many seem to overlook here in additional to the procedural fixes.

-Brandon

lol, I thought I did a great job hinitng at that in my post, post #28 in this thread. Guess I need to learn to be a bit more direct...

N6ATF
03-25-2011, 3:55 PM
We should actually suggest to them to expand the bill to include their "staffers" too.

After all, their "staffers" often go with them to public events. Let's really open the door.

Here is the issue, will assembly members vote to keep themselves unarmed.

Nicki

They act like they're above the law, with good reason, because when is the last time they received any real punishment for their crimes, if at all? I doubt they are unarmed.

wildhawker
03-25-2011, 3:58 PM
Most staffers and many members live in shall issue counties...

Gray Peterson
03-25-2011, 5:48 PM
It defines self-defense as good cause only for members of the legislature, not for you or me.

Paul,

You'll have an incoming email tonight. Once you understand the underlying points, I can turn you into a supporter.

gotgunz
03-25-2011, 6:11 PM
If this passes and being an elected official becomes good cause can the rest of us (that don't already have ccw's) use the fact that we may have voted for them as our good cause?

At the interview: "Sir, please explain your need for a ccw"

"I voted for that idiot (insert name of politician here)! "


LOL!

wildhawker
03-25-2011, 6:22 PM
Actually, in the reverse, I can make a compelling argument that it goes to [against] your moral character... :chris:

If this passes and being an elected official becomes good cause can the rest of us (that don't already have ccw's) use the fact that we may have voted for them as our good cause?

At the interview: "Sir, please explain your need for a ccw"

"I voted for that idiot (insert name of politician here)! "

LOL!

kcbrown
03-25-2011, 7:18 PM
Actually, in the reverse, I can make a compelling argument that it goes to [against] your moral character... :chris:

What? That's sacrilege! Everyone knows that politicians are pure* as the driven snow. After all, people wouldn't vote for them otherwise... :puke:






* Pure evil, that is. :43:

One78Shovel
03-26-2011, 6:23 AM
Thaks OleCuss for the link-

Good to hear the ties to CRPA and NRA here but I'm still skeptical.

As for reading between the lines, it's hard to recognize 'the line' as lawmakers have crossed them so many times. lol...

-178S

OleCuss
03-26-2011, 6:48 AM
.
.
.
CRPA's endorsement of Lou Correa (while dissing Ignatius Piazza of Front Sight) is Exhibit C. [Exh A being NRA's opposition to Heller; Exh B being NRA's responsibility for CA's current CCW law, though that was quite awhile ago); plenty of other exhibits, too.].
.
.
.

Personally, I think you're being a bit harsh.

I think CRPA had some issues with their endorsements this last election cycle. It included things like endorsing a State Senate candidate in my district who was not as pro-RKBA (IMHO) and listing her as the incumbent when she was not. I voted for the one CRPA did not endorse - and he won which means that now we have a State Senator who is a gun owner and was dissed by the CRPA. I'm convinced it was a screw-up rather than stupidity or ill will on the part of the CRPA.

I know virtually nothing about the particular endorsement you addressed, but it could be that the issues were not as straightforward as they might have seemed.

I think that the NRA's stance on Heller has been addressed elsewhere. I'd note that an assessment of the viability and strategic value of a case is very different than an assessment of the moral merits of the case.

The NRA and the CRPA have screwed up. I have no doubt in my mind about that. But before I get too harsh on them I should probably call up some of the big-wigs in the CRPA and volunteer to help them with their endorsement procedures?

I have issues with the NRA but overall it is an irreplaceable asset to the RKBA - and the CRPA has great potential.

FWIW

mow
03-26-2011, 7:53 AM
NICE! Let's fast track this one!

If this passes, I see some sweet equal protection opportunities.

I assume we will be advised when to send our letters of support.

zinfull
03-26-2011, 8:31 AM
Even with the "shall issue" aspect I wonder how may politicians will be denied due to past legal problems.

jerry

barthel
03-26-2011, 8:57 AM
I understand the concept of reading between the lines, and HOPE that this turns out to be a good thing for us, but I guess I've lived in the PRK long enough to know that just because it's OK for "them" in no way translates to us, legal or no.

MudCamper
03-26-2011, 3:27 PM
You'll have an incoming email tonight. Once you understand the underlying points, I can turn you into a supporter.

Never got it. You send to .com instead of .net?

Gray Peterson
03-26-2011, 4:15 PM
Never got it. You send to .com instead of .net?

You just got it 20 minutes ago (the email was long). If you have any questions, please email me, because this isn't the place to air it out considering the attention it's bringing....

jaustin612
03-26-2011, 7:09 PM
All people are equal, some are just more equal than others.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-28-2011, 3:49 PM
You just got it 20 minutes ago (the email was long). If you have any questions, please email me, because this isn't the place to air it out considering the attention it's bringing....

Mudcamper, if it isn't clear in a PM, PM me a number and we can discuss. With your strong support of 2A rights over the years, we need you to be on board. Your contributions on this forum have helped me, so I would like to try to return the favor.

Knight_Who_Says_Ni
03-29-2011, 1:45 PM
Just got this back from my Senator, she isn't making a whole lot of sense... I don't understand how giving more people rights is considered weakening the 2A...

Read for yourself:

Mr. Concerned Citizen,

I have consistently opposed and voted against all legislation to weaken the Second Amendment rights granted under the U.S. Constitution. I will continue to fight for the protection of this amendment and will oppose SB 610 should it come before me in the Senate. You may monitor the status of the bill at www.sen.ca.gov/runner.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me.

Sincerely,

Senator Runner

MudCamper
03-29-2011, 3:12 PM
Mudcamper, if it isn't clear in a PM, PM me a number and we can discuss. With your strong support of 2A rights over the years, we need you to be on board. Your contributions on this forum have helped me, so I would like to try to return the favor.

Thanks for the kind words! And Gray also, thank you.

Gray has already given me a ton of info to digest! All quite interesting.

While the bill on it's surface does appear distasteful to me, I understand how it will help us make progress. I'll support it. Hey, maybe for the first time ever, I'll encourage my representatives to support a bill that may actually pass! :)

IGOTDIRT4U
03-30-2011, 11:43 AM
Just got this back from my Senator, she isn't making a whole lot of sense... I don't understand how giving more people rights is considered weakening the 2A...

Read for yourself:

She probably is of the understanding that the bill excludes ordinary citizens who have just as much of a 2A rigth as anyone else, and therefore wants her constituents that voted for her to back in her in her strong support of the 2A. But, she doesn't apparently see the long term end game.

G60
04-05-2011, 4:51 PM
So how does the latest amendment to this bill affect us? Read that the portion giving elected officials automatic good cause got scrapped.

G60
04-05-2011, 4:52 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-guns-20110406,0,4970087.story

Uxi
04-05-2011, 5:14 PM
This needs an Amendment that makes it "May Issue" if they show "Good Cause" like all the serfs have to do.

mosinnagantm9130
04-05-2011, 5:18 PM
This needs an Amendment that makes it "May Issue" if they show "Good Cause" like all the serfs have to do.

That would be kinda counter-productive...

nick
04-05-2011, 5:53 PM
Has anyone seen this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-guns-20110406,0,4970087.story?track=rss

Basically, the provisionthat makes being a member of the legislature a "good enough cause" has been removed. Can it still pass without that provision?

ubet
04-05-2011, 7:14 PM
Check your PM's by the end of business today, MC. If you can't read between the lines publicly, you'll be explained why privately.


Well I am to damn stupid too, can you tell me how this is good, privately, and I will keep this under my hat.

Thanks

cvc04
04-06-2011, 10:27 AM
Has anyone seen this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-guns-20110406,0,4970087.story?track=rss

Basically, the provisionthat makes being a member of the legislature a "good enough cause" has been removed. Can it still pass without that provision?

Is this good for Us?

Mstrty
04-06-2011, 11:04 AM
Is this good for Us?

No. Looks like the provision in this bill is dead. Hopefully we can try again another time.

Gray Peterson
04-06-2011, 11:53 AM
No. Looks like the provision in this bill is dead. Hopefully we can try again another time.

Well, for potential EP issues, yes. However, it was passed out of PS committee with 4-1 margin and sent to appropriations with the remaining changes. I remain in support of the bill. The provision that everyone pretty much objected to here is gone, so there's no point in discussing that aspect further.

The changes here are positive, and actually are quite helpful.

Gray Peterson
04-06-2011, 12:30 PM
Senate Public Safety Committee (http://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewVideo/2259)

Start at 33 minutes.

safewaysecurity
04-06-2011, 12:35 PM
Senate Public Safety Committee (http://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewVideo/2259)

Start at 33 minutes.

35 minutes more like it.

safewaysecurity
04-06-2011, 12:41 PM
So if this were to pass how much would it cost just to apply and find out if you will be approved or denied? Like $20?

Librarian
04-06-2011, 1:03 PM
Well, for potential EP issues, yes. However, it was passed out of PS committee with 4-1 margin and sent to appropriations with the remaining changes. I remain in support of the bill. The provision that everyone pretty much objected to here is gone, so there's no point in discussing that aspect further.

The changes here are positive, and actually are quite helpful.

It's a tiny bit annoying that the bill amendments are not yet (4/6, 1400) posted.

Crom
04-06-2011, 1:20 PM
I don't know much about Senator Wright, but I must say that I was impressed with his passion for this bill and I have to agree that it is still a good bill. It would force the Sheriff's office to make a determine on good cause--prior to making you do or pay for any training and tell you in writing why if you denied.

Gray Peterson
04-06-2011, 2:07 PM
So if this were to pass how much would it cost just to apply and find out if you will be approved or denied? Like $20?

There may be further amendments to the bill.

Gray

wildhawker
04-06-2011, 2:44 PM
There may be further amendments to the bill.

Gray

I'm hearing that further amends are highly likely. Some of its usefulness is gone (currently) but it's still a good bill overall.

-Brandon

safewaysecurity
04-06-2011, 2:49 PM
This notion that there should be liability insurance is insane... it makes absolutely no sense. I didn't even no such a thing existed for CCWs lol. I think they are really just making justifications for them not to vote on this.

tabrisnet
04-06-2011, 3:21 PM
I dunno about liability insurance, half as much as "get me out of jail" insurance... enough to raise bail and pay for my defense. Adding 'wrongful death' liability would have the upside that the insurance lawyers would have an interest in defending my innocence (yes yes, I know that 'not guilty' on criminal liability doesn't entirely shut out civil liability, but it can be a contributory factor)

safewaysecurity
04-07-2011, 6:55 PM
Did this bill pass committee or something? Mr. Nichols wrote on his opinion piece in the examiner that it passed committee.

Librarian
04-07-2011, 7:04 PM
Did this bill pass committee or something? Mr. Nichols wrote on his opinion piece in the examiner that it passed committee.

See the "Votes" on the Bill Page http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_610&sess=1112&house=B&author=wright (also in the first post of the thread)

safewaysecurity
04-07-2011, 7:11 PM
See the "Votes" on the Bill Page http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_610&sess=1112&house=B&author=wright (also in the first post of the thread)

Well I'm confused because it says it passed committee but it was re-referred.. which video was the one we saw here? Was it the committee it was re-referred to? Because I saw the video and it didn't pass.

Librarian
04-07-2011, 8:30 PM
Well I'm confused because it says it passed committee but it was re-referred.. which video was the one we saw here? Was it the committee it was re-referred to? Because I saw the video and it didn't pass.

It apparently was amended in the PS committee and re-referred to the PS committee so they can vote on the amendments - which amendments are still not posted.

Foghlai
04-16-2011, 10:17 AM
I believe the amendments are now available.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_610&sess=CUR&house=B&author=wright

wildhawker
04-16-2011, 10:31 AM
Based on the 4/13 amendment cycle, this is still a good bill for us.

-Brandon

wildhawker
04-16-2011, 10:31 AM
Based on the 4/13 amendment cycle, this is still a good bill for us.

-Brandon

Shotgun Man
04-16-2011, 10:47 AM
Based on the 4/13 amendment cycle, this is still a good bill for us.

-Brandon

So now it doesn't provide for automatic good cause for certain elected officials? That was the whole point of the bill.

Now it seems to deal mainly with outlawing liability insurance and requiring written notice to the applicant of LEO's determination of whether good cause exists.

Not exactly earth-shattering legislation.

goober
04-16-2011, 10:53 AM
So now it doesn't provide for automatic good cause for certain elected officials? That was the whole point of the bill.

Now it seems to deal mainly with outlawing liability insurance and requiring written notice to the applicant of LEO's determination of whether good cause exists.

Not exactly earth-shattering legislation.

but still good, or benign at worst.

wildhawker
04-16-2011, 11:00 AM
First, the "legislator-as-de jure GC" component was an angle which could have been interesting given wonky outcomes of other 'bear' moving parts.

More important for us, however, are the changes related to duties and process. These rate about a 7 or 8 out of 10 in terms of practical significance.

-Brandon

So now it doesn't provide for automatic good cause for certain elected officials? That was the whole point of the bill.

Now it seems to deal mainly with outlawing liability insurance and requiring written notice to the applicant of LEO's determination of whether good cause exists.

Not exactly earth-shattering legislation.

chris
04-16-2011, 11:07 AM
I wish people would stop being so non-analytical. What's in the paper is not that relevant.

Note that the legislator carrying this bill, Sen. Lou Correa, is one of CRPA's Legislators of the Year and was honored at this year's CRPA gala dinner. He's one of the good guys and would not have gotten this appelation if CRPA and NRA legislative liaisons had issues with him. Sen Rod Wright has been a past CRPA Legislator Of the Year and has carried or assisted a variety of progun bills.

There are tremendous long-term strategic benefits to this bill.

Please read between the lines. :)

Lou Correa is a good guy. remember that he was locked out by Don Perata for not going along with his budget crap. +1 for Correa.

tabrisnet
04-16-2011, 11:24 AM
So now it doesn't provide for automatic good cause for certain elected officials? That was the whole point of the bill.

Now it seems to deal mainly with outlawing liability insurance and requiring written notice to the applicant of LEO's determination of whether good cause exists.

Not exactly earth-shattering legislation.


Outlawing liability insurance, or outlawing the REQUIREMENT by the sheriff for the license-holder to carry liability insurance?

Shotgun Man
04-16-2011, 11:46 AM
Outlawing liability insurance, or outlawing the REQUIREMENT by the sheriff for the license-holder to carry liability insurance?

Learn the meaning of the word "context."

Maybe then you will know.

tabrisnet
04-16-2011, 2:10 PM
Learn the meaning of the word "context."

Maybe then you will know.


I know the meaning o f the word context. I also remember there being various sheriffs who wish to require you to carry liability insurance to have a CCW.

However, that does not change the fact that they _could_ be wishing to eliminate the option of such policies... they could pass a law that says that personal liability insurance does not cover lawsuits that follow from the use of a CCW.

Context isn't everything... it just helps.

darkwater
05-27-2011, 8:21 AM
On 3rd reading file today in the Senate, file item 57, so a vote is possible.

MaHoTex
05-27-2011, 8:31 AM
If this passed, wouldn't we all benefit in the long run because of equal protection? Seems like Animal Farm to me, well, before they tweaked the laws anyway: All animals are created equal.

uyoga
05-27-2011, 3:19 PM
The bill would have been great for us, short run and long run . . . until they gutted it with amdmdnts.

morfeeis
06-01-2011, 8:44 AM
Just got an email for turners saying this bill is being voted on today, is this true?

goober
06-01-2011, 8:58 AM
Just got an email for turners saying this bill is being voted on today, is this true?

it is listed in the daily file for today, but the list of bills is HUGE.
it is worth noting that ALL BILLS MUST PASS THEIR HOUSE OF INTRODUCTION BY THIS FRIDAY, JUNE 3rd.

That means today, tomorrow, and Friday the Senate floor sessions will be busy!

KandyRedCoi
06-01-2011, 10:29 AM
http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=sb610&year=2011

wildhawker
06-01-2011, 12:00 PM
SB 610 is a *very* useful tool in the Initiative toolbox. Please help support SB 610 TODAY!

-Brandon

CalBear
06-01-2011, 2:28 PM
Wright is summarizing his bill right now. This bill is going to pass.

SB 610 passes 28-8: Hancock, Leno, Liu, Pavley, Yee, DeSaulnier, Evans, Simitian no

darkwater
06-01-2011, 2:33 PM
And De Leon was conspicuously absent for the vote...

goober
06-01-2011, 2:33 PM
Wright is summarizing his bill right now. This bill is going to pass.

SB 610 passes 28-8: Hancock, Leno, Liu, Pavley, Yee, DeSaulnier, Evans, Simitian no

woohoo!
:party:

CalBear
06-01-2011, 2:40 PM
Just so we are all on the same page, all this bill does, in its amended form, is clarify that sheriffs need to provide an answer on good cause before requiring any further steps in CCW permitting. The automatic good cause for elected officials was removed from this bill a few months ago, and was moved to SB 465 through an amendment:

SB 465: Status (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_465&sess=CUR&house=B&author=wright); Text (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0451-0500/sb_465_bill_20110407_amended_sen_v98.html)

The Bay Area and LA senators who voted against this bill simply want to impede on the CCW process as much as humanly possible.

goober
06-01-2011, 2:43 PM
Just so we are all on the same page, all this bill does, in its amended form, is clarify that sheriffs need to provide an answer on good cause before requiring any further steps in CCW permitting. The automatic good cause for elected officials was removed from this bill a few months ago, and was moved to SB 465 through an amendment:

SB 465: Status (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_465&sess=CUR&house=B&author=wright); Text (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0451-0500/sb_465_bill_20110407_amended_sen_v98.html)

The Bay Area and LA senators who voted against this bill simply want to impede on the CCW process as much as humanly possible.

Not a major win, no... But as Brandon noted, it will help further the Initiative.

MudCamper
06-01-2011, 2:51 PM
The automatic good cause for elected officials was removed from this bill a few months ago, and was moved to SB 465 through an amendment:

SB 465: Status (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_465&sess=CUR&house=B&author=wright); Text (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0451-0500/sb_465_bill_20110407_amended_sen_v98.html)

OK. So what is CGF's stance on SB465? This is the part in SB610 that originally made me want to vomit. But some argued it was a good thing, that somehow it will help us down the road.

wildhawker
06-01-2011, 3:32 PM
I think that anytime the legislature wants to recognize self defense as good cause, it should be supported.

safewaysecurity
06-01-2011, 3:40 PM
What happened to the earlier rejection of this bill because it didn't allow for insurance requirements to be made by Sheriffs? Also what is the deadline for bills to pass out of the state legislature and onto the governors desk? Deadline is June 3rd.

MudCamper
06-01-2011, 4:10 PM
I think that anytime the legislature wants to recognize self defense as good cause, it should be supported.

Except that when a special class has a right that we the peasants don't have, then we don't have those in the special class on our side, because they already have theirs and don't care about us. It's the same with exceptions to all the crazy gun laws for cops. If they weren't excepted, then they'd be on our side fighting with us.

wildhawker
06-01-2011, 4:28 PM
Except that when a special class has a right that we the peasants don't have, then we don't have those in the special class on our side, because they already have theirs and don't care about us. It's the same with exceptions to all the crazy gun laws for cops. If they weren't excepted, then they'd be on our side fighting with us.

Consider those factors long levers we can use to advance our agenda of liberty for all.

kcbrown
06-02-2011, 5:06 AM
Consider those factors long levers we can use to advance our agenda of liberty for all.

I agree with this assessment in the general case, and certainly do with respect to this particular bill.

However, law enforcement is quite different. It has a symbiotic relationship with the court system, and as such the court system treats it with the same "specialness" that the law itself does. That treatment goes all the way up to the Supreme Court itself.

So the leverage that you'd normally get in the court system with respect to any other special class simply won't be there for law enforcement (at best, the lever will be much shorter than it otherwise would be).

Want proof? Just look at the latest Supreme Court ruling in Kentucky v King.


MudCamper may not be correct with respect to the "specialness" of the legislature, but he is certainly right with respect to law enforcement. I don't think we'll ever get the kind of liberty members of law enforcement get, just because of that.

Munk
06-08-2011, 4:49 PM
I love that good cause is met if they don't deny you within 30 days.

JaMail
06-10-2011, 9:28 AM
at first I was upset, then thinking about it, if a bunch of Dem's that are notionally against CCW suddenly have a privilidge that we peons do not, I'm sure some of them will take advantage of it and start carrying, once they have become comfortable with guns as tools, not evil incarnate, perhaps they would be more ameniable down the line to granting us the same privilidge.

baby steps I guess.

Jason P
06-10-2011, 10:32 AM
perhaps they would be more ameniable down the line to granting us the same privilidge.

baby steps I guess.

it's a right not a priviledge, and we are being denied daily...

Glock22Fan
06-10-2011, 10:34 AM
it's a right not a priviledge, and we are being denied daily...

You are right, but we should still take whatever crumbs we can. Eventually we can leverage these into the whole loaf.

Added: Maybe you do see this and didn't make it clear. After all, Steve Knight, last night, did refer to this bill. As I heard him, he said getting a whole CCW shall issue reform through the legislature, with its 52:28 numbers, as being too much to hope for. He explained Wright's bill as being a small step towards this, with the idea, I thought, that maybe we can get everything we want if we take tiny steps, one at a time, towards that goal, and that we might get those through against the odds, whereas a big bill would have 52 automatic "Nay's."

darkwater
09-01-2011, 12:14 PM
SB 610 was voted on in the Assembly a few minutes ago, but not enough members on the floor to reach the majority vote, so it is on call for another vote later today.

Mr. Gatto is the floor manager, and mentioned that even the Brady Campaign withdrew their opposition to the bill. :rolleyes:

darkwater
09-01-2011, 12:43 PM
SB 610 passed the Assembly...back to the Senate to approve the Assembly amendments.

Gray Peterson
09-01-2011, 1:07 PM
Could the op please correct the title of the posting along with the first post?

MatrixCPA
09-01-2011, 1:24 PM
It seems originally part of the intent of the bill was to force the licensing authority to inform the applicant (should they be denied for failing to meet the good cause requirement) specifically why they didn't meet it. That has been amended to require the licensing authority to quote from their published policy regarding the matter. I can see responses now:

Dear Sir,

After careful review of your application, your request for a CCW license is not approved on the grounds you do not meet the good-cause requirement. The specific reason, from our published policy, for this denial is: "Because we said so." If you feel that you have additional information that we should consider, you may re-submit with the revised and updated information.

bwiese
09-01-2011, 1:41 PM
Please support this bill.

Please ignore some of the original uniformed comments earlier in this thread along with the thumbs-down (I wish the mods would remove that).

SB610 is very important.

SwissFluCase
09-01-2011, 2:24 PM
I'd like to see the psych testing option denied.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

MatrixCPA
09-01-2011, 2:28 PM
I'd like to see the psych testing option denied.

That would be great, but I'm sure they're keeping it in there to avoid push-back from those authorities that currently have such a requirement.

Crom
09-01-2011, 2:32 PM
Librarian edited the OP

Last edited by Librarian; 09-01-2011 at 2:43 PM.

SwissFluCase
09-01-2011, 2:36 PM
That would be great, but I'm sure they're keeping it in there to avoid push-back from those authorities that currently have such a requirement.

Perhaps those departments can be grandfathered, while prohibiting new departments from making this requirement.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

MatrixCPA
09-01-2011, 2:47 PM
Perhaps those departments can be grandfathered, while prohibiting new departments from making this requirement.

I would think it is less in our interest to codify separate treatment. The goal is to work toward uniformity. As it stands, this is an incremental improvement which was crafted to be passable.

SwissFluCase
09-01-2011, 2:52 PM
I would think it is less in our interest to codify separate treatment. The goal is to work toward uniformity. As it stands, this is an incremental improvement which was crafted to be passable.

It would seem to me then that the psych testing language should be removed. What makes me uncomfortable is that this bill seems to me legitimizing this practice.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Big Ben
09-01-2011, 3:08 PM
Tagged for further review.

MatrixCPA
09-01-2011, 3:27 PM
It would seem to me then that the psych testing language should be removed. What makes me uncomfortable is that this bill seems to me legitimizing this practice.

It is already legitimized under 26190(f)(1).

Anchors
09-01-2011, 4:46 PM
Awesome. Hopefully this hits the Senate floor shortly. I'm tagging this thread for development.

MatrixCPA
09-02-2011, 8:02 AM
This is item #54 today (9/2). Session was planned to start at 9am. Should be on anytime.

MatrixCPA
09-02-2011, 8:59 AM
They went into caucus right before the item. Should be up next when they get back.

tankarian
09-02-2011, 9:08 AM
Good. :gura:

MatrixCPA
09-02-2011, 9:14 AM
Amendments are concurred 27:9.

donw
09-02-2011, 10:02 AM
Mudcamper is right. elites getting the right to carry will not trickle down to the common people. they are convinced that they are more valuable then we are. Diane Feinsein has been packin since harvey milk got shot but that hasn't improved our chances of getting a permit. what they think of themselves doesn't equate to what they think of us commoners.

this becomes more and more evident each legislative session. legislators and LE ALWAYS want themselves exempted from laws...

IMHO, legislators (Most of) have elevated themselves to a near, deity, status and believe they are entitled to "Special" status.

feinstein is amongst the worse ever legislators to ever have been elected...but hey...that's SF liberals at work...

MatrixCPA
09-02-2011, 10:07 AM
this becomes more and more evident each legislative session. legislators and LE ALWAYS want themselves exempted from laws...

IMHO, legislators (Most of) have elevated themselves to a near, deity, status and believe they are entitled to "Special" status.

feinstein is amongst the worse ever legislators to ever have been elected...but hey...that's SF liberals at work...

The bill was amended to remove that language completely. It's cool now.

goober
09-02-2011, 10:10 AM
this becomes more and more evident each legislative session. legislators and LE ALWAYS want themselves exempted from laws...

IMHO, legislators (Most of) have elevated themselves to a near, deity, status and believe they are entitled to "Special" status.

feinstein is amongst the worse ever legislators to ever have been elected...but hey...that's SF liberals at work...

sometimes it's best to read the whole thread before replying to posts near the beginning.
no, make that ALWAYS. :rolleyes:

safewaysecurity
09-09-2011, 10:44 AM
Is this going to pass?

wazdat
09-09-2011, 11:51 AM
Is this going to pass?

I think it did. From what I can gather, the Senate approved the amendments made by the Assembly.

http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/view/278998

lhecker51
09-09-2011, 12:27 PM
Same reason I like AB 2115 (ftp://leginfo.public.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2101-2150/ab_2115_cfa_20100405_095955_asm_comm.html).

This is one of the arguments against:

According to the California Chapters of the Brady
Campaign to Stop Gun Violence

"The occurrence of PTSD among veterans is well known. Some
estimates of the frequency within our veteran population
range as high as 23 percent. The connection between PTSD,
domestic violence and aggressive behavior has also been
well documented. Moreover, recent studies have established
a link between military service and domestic violence."

As a combat veteran, I have come to realize that there are organizations that are threatened by the existence of combat vets in civilian society and will do everything within their power to limit our rights. These organizations look at us as if we are a dangerous blight on the community as proven by there statement above. This example is exactly why we need specific laws to protect veterans from being discriminated against.

I will now obliterate their argument: Law enforcement demographics include a very significant number of combat vets. It is when we return from combat that we are evaluated for any mental health problems. The system that is in place already makes a determination on our mental health status prior to being discharged and any unresolved issues are identified and treatment is offered with the goal of resolution. If this were not the case, the majority of our law enforcement personnel would be disqualified had they any history of combat related PTSD even if it was resolved.

It is because of our combat veteran status that we are, in reality, better trained to assess and handle a threat situation. If the Brady organization wants to throw statistics out there, why not show the parallels between law enforcement officers and PTSD and domestic violence? They will not. Their argument also fails on another main point: Combat vets already own guns. What will exempting them from a cause statement do to increase domestic violence when the guns are already in the home to begin with? If they are so concerned, why are they not campaigning for better treatment for vets? The answer is clear: They could care less about vets and there statement above supports this contention.

The Brady Campaign to Stop Gun Violence believes combat vets are potential homicidal maniacs and if they had their way, deny us our right not only to own guns, but would advocate institutionalizing us all. From what they stated above, we are ticking time-bombs and therefore a threat to society as a whole. The DHS feels the same way in their assessment report but added the following twist: Potential domestic terrorist described as a returning CONSERVATIVE combat vet that disagrees with the current DEMOCRAT LED administration and joins the Tea Party.