PDA

View Full Version : LCAV analysis of 2011 CA legislation


CalBear
04-11-2011, 10:53 PM
It's really, really hard to comprehend their absurdity.

http://www.lcav.org/states/California_Legislation.asp

Some lumps of coal:

The good cause requirement, under which an applicant must demonstrate a particularized, justifiable need to carry a concealed firearm, serves as an important gatekeeper to prevent the issuance of concealed carry licenses to individuals who have no reason to carry a weapon in public.

While carrying a concealed handgun in public might make the firearm holder feel safer, it places the public at an increased risk of gun violence.

Moreover, SB 610ís requirement that local law enforcement agencies be required to provide the specific reason for the denial of a concealed carry license application in writing is an unnecessary additional burden on those agencies.

The recent surge in open carrying Ė at, among other places, coffee shops, political rallies, and public parks Ė only creates more opportunities for everyday interpersonal conflicts to turn into deadly shootouts.

Moreover, SB 427 would help keep guns out of the hands of gang members.

BobB35
04-12-2011, 5:41 AM
These morons again. Why can't they go away? Oh thats right they are liberal lawyers from SF and they have nothing better to do.

I think a counter organization should be started.

GOAAL

Gun Owners Against Activist Lawyers.

The stated mission would be to prevent lawyers from trying to influence congress critters when it comes to the law. They can still litigate, but they are banned from any form of communication with legislators. They are limited to only 30 text messages per month, because text messages kill kittens, just ask said legislators and so on and so on.

I like my snappy name, but don't believe in FB so if some one wants to set up a page go for it.

SanPedroShooter
04-12-2011, 6:27 AM
Almost all the analysis is predicated on the fact that gun laws, from HSC to UOC actually work as intended.
Let me save you the trouble of reading it,
If the law restricts or curtails your right to own or carry firearm, it is essential. Full stop.
It doesn't matter how crazy or ill thought out or how unfair. Essential.
I think they are afraid that if they start to let the reign slip, the horse is gonna bolt on them, just like it did in just about every other state in the last ten years.
My question, if according to Julie Left-witch, gun laws don't reduce crime.... well then???
You see where I am going with this?

I would not be suprised to hear LCAV was becoming about as credible as brady.... even among rabid anti's...
Its kind of sick and funny to see rich liberal white lawyers argue to impose the sort jim crow meets Nuremberg mash-up that is California gun law in 2011...

I hope the NRA is doing a similar write up for the benefit of our masters in Sacramento.

"someday you'll be in the ditch, flies buzzing around your eyes, blood on your saddle..."
Bob Dylan- Idiot Wind

Crom
04-12-2011, 7:19 AM
They work hard to subvert our new found right. We must be smarter and work even harder. Donate when you can and volunteer when possible.

CHS
04-12-2011, 10:54 AM
While carrying a concealed handgun in public might make the firearm holder feel safer, it places the public at an increased risk of gun violence.

That would be factually incorrect, and most likely just a bold-faced lie on their part.

The bottom line is in the last 20 years we've had the 50 United States go from practically zero-carry, to the majority being shall-issue. Crime has gone down.

And while we can't say for sure if it's the carrying of concealed firearms that has contributed to the drop in crime, we can absolutely say that there is no increased risk of gun violence due to this.

Also, the people carrying *ARE* the public.

dark_ninja
04-12-2011, 11:31 AM
Moreover, SB 610ís requirement that local law enforcement agencies be required to provide the specific reason for the denial of a concealed carry license application in writing is an unnecessary additional burden on those agencies. Finally, to the extent permitted by state law, law enforcement agencies should be allowed to require that an applicant secure liability insurance, which would benefit both the license holder and the general public by helping to guarantee that victims of gun violence are adequately compensated.

Their BS version...

Moreover, SB 610ís requirement that local law enforcement agencies be required to provide the specific reason for the denial of a concealed carry license application in writing is an unnecessary additional burden on those agencies. Finally, to the extent permitted by state law, law enforcement agencies should be allowed to require that an applicant secure liability insurance, which would benefit both the state of California and criminals by helping to guarantee that criminals are adequately compensated.

Cleaned up a bit to reflect the truth more accurately.

CalBear
04-12-2011, 11:46 AM
Moreover, SB 610’s requirement that local law enforcement agencies be required to provide the specific reason for the denial of a concealed carry license application in writing is an unnecessary additional burden on those agencies. Finally, to the extent permitted by state law, law enforcement agencies should be allowed to require that an applicant secure liability insurance, which would benefit both the license holder and the general public by helping to guarantee that victims of gun violence are adequately compensated.

Their BS version...

Moreover, SB 610’s requirement that local law enforcement agencies be required to provide the specific reason for the denial of a concealed carry license application in writing is an unnecessary additional burden on those agencies. Finally, to the extent permitted by state law, law enforcement agencies should be allowed to require that an applicant secure liability insurance, which would benefit both the state of California and criminals by helping to guarantee that criminals are adequately compensated.

Cleaned up a bit to reflect the truth more accurately.
Their POV fits in nicely with the UN definition of self defense being more an abridgment of the criminal's right than an exercise of the would be victim's rights.

I wonder if members of LCAV would still think self defense is an abridgment of a criminal's rights if some criminal ever tried to rape them.

dark_ninja
04-12-2011, 11:54 AM
AB 809: Requiring Long Gun Record Retention

AB 809 (Feuer), similar to last yearís AB 1810, would bring much-needed uniformity to the reporting and retention of firearm sales records in California. Law enforcement efforts to investigate gun crimes and disarm dangerous criminals are aided by the Automated Firearm System (AFS) database, which contains records of all handgun transfers. However, state law currently requires that records of long gun sales be destroyed by DOJ instead of being entered into AFS.

Under AB 809, DOJ would no longer be forced to destroy copies of long gun transfer records; DOJ would instead input these records into the AFS database. AB 809 would also require that the same information be entered on a Dealerís Record of Sale (DROS) form, regardless of whether the firearm is a handgun or a long gun. Statutory provisions exempting certain long gun transfers from recordkeeping and reporting requirements would be removed, creating uniform reporting for the transfer of handguns and long guns.

Policy Considerations: AB 809 would help California law enforcement:

*

Quickly identify the owners of crime guns and expose channels of illegal gun trafficking. Without long gun records, law enforcement must painstakingly trace a recovered long gun from the manufacturer to the firearms dealer who sold the weapon, to the last known purchaser.
*

Get firearms out of the hands of dangerous felons, domestic abusers, and mentally ill individuals who still own guns even though they are ineligible to possess them. Currently, law enforcement may use a state database to identify prohibited persons who own handguns, but not long guns.
*
Huh,isn't that was a DROS is for? To make sure you are eligible to purchase a firearm? Regardless of it being a handgun or long gun!?

Be forewarned about the presence of guns at private residences when responding to emergency calls. Officers currently may use the AFS database to check whether a person at a residence owns any handguns, but they have no way of knowing whether a person owns any long guns.

Unless this was some serious DV call I don't see the relevance of this arguement

Status: Hearing in Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 12.

These guys just need a good excuse to waste of OUR taxes!!!