PDA

View Full Version : when/why is ccw now being called LTC?


gunsmith
08-25-2011, 8:18 PM
Why is it important? <sigh> I miss all the important meetings.

ckprax
08-25-2011, 8:21 PM
See below.

http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=463664

KarLorian
08-25-2011, 8:23 PM
nvm I was to slow to post the link.

gunsmith
08-25-2011, 8:31 PM
so what about us folks that no longer reside in CA, are we too now supposed to use LTC?
I've been calling it c dub for soooo long now, gonna be difficult

Tripper
08-25-2011, 8:35 PM
Why is it important? <sigh> I miss all the important meetings.

I dont know why, and I dont like it

My name is Tripper, and I approve this message

Tripper
08-25-2011, 8:37 PM
I think Gene actually posted a new acronym thread somewhere, that has the rules.
LTC is one of his new rules or something, i haven't actually seen it myself, so its hearsay so far.

Tripper
08-25-2011, 8:38 PM
wow, I must have pressed the spacebar one too many times, i flew right by post #2

steadyrock
08-25-2011, 8:40 PM
Hm.

Calltc.com is still available. Just sayin'. :43:

wildhawker
08-25-2011, 9:10 PM
Hm.

Calltc.com is still available. Just sayin'. :43:

Hey, that's mine! :43:

Connor P Price
08-25-2011, 9:17 PM
Hey, that's mine! :43:

Register it... A parody website would be hilarious.

mag360
08-25-2011, 9:49 PM
you haven't seen it so it's hearsay? Lol ok, the head of cgf asks you to do something and you call it hearsay. Makes sense.

Maestro Pistolero
08-25-2011, 10:32 PM
When/why is this thread necessary?

http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=463664

Time of Flight
08-25-2011, 10:53 PM
Im sticking with CCW. LTC sounds stupid.

Connor P Price
08-25-2011, 11:17 PM
Im sticking with CCW. LTC sounds stupid.

That doesn't seem short sighted at all :rolleyes:. Do you know what "CCW" stands for? Do you know what LTC stands for? How could the old term possibly be better?

hoffmang
08-25-2011, 11:25 PM
Reasonable gun owners know they have a right to carry and don't much care what is required. It is the state of California that is dictate that we conceal. The other side would very much like to impugn concealing as being unmanly.

As such, we seek carry licenses. I see no need to abbreviate them. We have a right to carry just like we have a right to canvass. Both can sometimes require a license so that is what we shall call it.

It just so happens that that is also what California calls it - a License to Carry. It can be granted either concealed in all counties or open in some.

-Gene

scope eye 619
08-26-2011, 12:59 AM
Just one more thing to tack on to our already overly politically correct vocabulary.

oni.dori
08-26-2011, 1:11 AM
Im sticking with CCW. LTC sounds stupid.

So, you would rather be stubborn, than inconvenience yourself for the greater good? What a team player!!! What, LTC doesn't sound "manly" enough for you or something?

Just one more thing to tack on to our already overly politically correct vocabulary.

Well brother, to win, you gotta play the game.

451040
08-26-2011, 2:24 AM
Im sticking with CCW. LTC sounds stupid.

.................... +

Just one more thing to tack on to our already overly politically correct vocabulary.

.................... =


....................http://www.nfscars.net/forum/images/smilies/images_smilies_facepalm.gif

Goosebrown
08-26-2011, 2:43 AM
It may sound lame, but the way we frame our words helps us control the debate and if you control the debate you win the debate. Framing is a very important linguistic concept and working as a unit with the right vocabulary has really helped us on the right in the US since the 1980s. It is less about being politically correct, than to, by our language, alter the debate from one of *allowing* a right to carry a concealed weapon, something vaguely scary to non-gun owners and those in the middle, to granting a license to carry, something that doesn't mention weapon at all or something hidden and concealed, a much easier concept to digest by people in the middle.

Calling it an LTC is, as Gene mentions, more mundane and less threatening like a license to canvass or a license to drive or marry or sell trinkets on the sidewalk. Things un-threatening that are regulated, but common and issued to people daily. A framing where NOT granting the license is the exception not the standard. It changes the entire ground of the debate.

One great example of framing is abortion. It used to be pro-abortion and anti-abortion and now it is pro-life and pro-choice. They mean the same thing, but pro-life frames the debate to be not about the abortion per se, but implies the potential of the fetus to some notional life with commonalities to the listener that do not actually exist for the fetus at the time of an abortion. Pro-choice forces the listener to associate the term with other choices one might make in their lives. Both re-framings of the two sides were made consciously to make their positions more palatable for people in the middle of that fight. And I am ABSOLUTELY NOT STEPPING INTO A DEBATE ON THE ISSUE, just talking about the framing of the arguments.

License to Carry is a very good change in the framing of our fight and I hope that people catch on, difficult as it might be to change.

mag360
08-26-2011, 3:22 AM
License to carry is more layman. It is easier to comprehend. A "concealed carry weapon" is confusing, leads to obfuscation. Do you own a "concealed carry drivers permit" or do you have a drivers license. Now do you get it? What Gene and CGF are proposing is a key strategy in reclaiming normalization of carrying a firearm. The term License to carry accomplishes this.

posted on my palm pre.

ccmc
08-26-2011, 4:29 AM
I gotta say I never understood how CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) equated to a permit or license to carry anyway. To make it so it would have to be abbreviated CCWP or CCWL, right? So LTC makes a lot more sense IMHO. Every state has its own acornym anyway. In Florida it's CWFL (Concealed Weapon or Firearm License), in Connecticut it's a Pistol or Revolver Permit (but I don't think they abbreviate it PRP).

The Shadow
08-26-2011, 5:26 AM
I gotta say I never understood how CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) equated to a permit or license to carry anyway. To make it so it would have to be abbreviated CCWP or CCWL, right? So LTC makes a lot more sense IMHO. Every state has its own acornym anyway. In Florida it's CWFL (Concealed Weapon or Firearm License), in Connecticut it's a Pistol or Revolver Permit (but I don't think they abbreviate it PRP).

Originally, "CCW" was the abreviation for "Carry Concealed Weapon". It was originally an LE acronym, exclusive to California, and gun owners picked it up because permits were obtained from LE. Pretty simple.

The proposal to use "LTC" makes sense since a person is essentially obtaining a permit (license) to carry in the only way California allows a private person to carry a loaded firearm and not be part of an organization licensed by the state.

NoJoke
08-26-2011, 5:41 AM
I think what he's saying is that the desired net outcome is that LTC will help the masses whereas CCW doesn't do that....it creates a privileged class. Over time that mentality persists and it becomes "common knowledge" that only special people can carry. The 2a says otherwise. Time to turn the tables.

tenpercentfirearms
08-26-2011, 5:53 AM
wow, I must have pressed the spacebar one too many times, i flew right by post #2

WOAH! I didn't know spacebar did that! Thanks.

Fjold
08-26-2011, 6:10 AM
Mine says:

"License to Carry Concealed Pistol, Revolver or Other Firearm in the State of California"

Is that, LTCPROOFITSC?

Connor P Price
08-26-2011, 6:17 AM
WOAH! I didn't know spacebar did that! Thanks.

+1 My entire outlook on forum life has changed.

guntrust
08-26-2011, 6:21 AM
"LTC" is a bit misleading and ill-timed, as unless/until AB144 is passed, no license is required to carry.

Tripper
08-26-2011, 6:33 AM
you haven't seen it so it's hearsay? Lol ok, the head of cgf asks you to do something and you call it hearsay. Makes sense.


lol, at that time, I had not heard it from Gene personally, nor had I seen the actual thread, I had only 'heard' mention of it, in other threads, and had not had the opportunity to see the thread myself, so, yes, to me that is hearsay, regardless of who the poster is supposed to be, until i see it myself, its hearsay.

just because someone mentions that 'gene said' does not mean gene really said it.

I still havent read it, and gene hasnt called me up to tell me this plan, so at this time, i still have no clue what the thread is completely about, therefore its all still hearsay to me.

I think I'll start a new thread
"did you hear what gene said"

Tripper
08-26-2011, 6:36 AM
i still dont like it
sorry, couldnt find the appropriate smiley for this

terrapinflyer25
08-26-2011, 6:36 AM
maybe we should tell these guys...
http://www.calccw.com/

markm
08-26-2011, 7:28 AM
Hey OP,

For me, LTC is a better term. I want a "CCW" because I want the most legal method to transport my guns.

If I did not have to have psych eval, or prove an immediate threat requiring possible self-defense action, I would get a "CCW" from Sherriff Bonner (Placer County). I would not use an LTC to conceal on my person*; however, I would use it transport my guns.

My need for an LTC is to avoid LEO detainment and possible arrest for making a simple mistake, like forgetting to close the padlock on my gun container, or carrying my gun from my garage to my car's trunk while the car is in my driveway (I live in overlapping GFSZs: if my guns are not "locked" I am violating the law when doing this).

Yeah, I want an LTC to protect myself from overzealous LEO!

markm
*: If a threat against my life were issued by some thug, that criterion would change.

socal2310
08-26-2011, 7:30 AM
CCW is more comfortable the way an old pair of sweats is. But, the sweats are worn, have holes and just won't stay up without the drawstring since gun owners have woken up and started coming together against our common foes. It's time for a new pair, and LTC works: it avoids the scary "hidden gun" connotations and, better yet, doesn't divide the carry community: Some of us want concealed; some of us want open; and some of us just want to carry a functional firearm and aren't terribly particular about mode.

maybe we should tell these guys...
http://www.calccw.com/

And give them another reason to piss on CalGuns? Sure, why not.

Ryan

ETA: Hey, when did I become a "Senior Member"? My post count isn't that high, and I've only been here for three years!

Crom
08-26-2011, 7:37 AM
"LTC" is a bit misleading and ill-timed, as unless/until AB144 is passed, no license is required to carry.

There is an enormous difference between carrying a useless hunk of metal (UOC), and a loaded gun. You need the license to lawfully carry a loaded gun and that is the point. :cool2:

bombadillo
08-26-2011, 7:52 AM
More freakin acronyms. Great......;)

johnny_22
08-26-2011, 8:00 AM
Ohio used the "License to Carry" instead of "Carrying a Concealed Weapon", since it sounds "better" to the majority. Ohio has shall issue. Was it only because of that; No, but it helps.

This has been recommended for years by gun rights people who are more in tune with improving our image. I bow to their knowledge.

AEC1
08-26-2011, 8:25 AM
I dont care what we call it, so long as we can fix these stoopid laws... Gene I am with you...

Tripper
08-26-2011, 8:44 AM
Gene called
He said
IAG and
CWAJGA
I said
WTH

Hey it's Friday

Connor P Price
08-26-2011, 9:25 AM
"LTC" is a bit misleading and ill-timed, as unless/until AB144 is passed, no license is required to carry.

You can't UOC a functional firearm, it might as well be a brick. We want to carry fire arms, which is a very important distinction.

notme92069
08-26-2011, 9:42 AM
"LTC" is a bit misleading and ill-timed, as unless/until AB144 is passed, no license is required to carry.

AB144 doesn't prohibit carrying a functional firearm If you are open carrying, you really aren't carrying a weapon that is ready to use in defense of yourself or family. You are carrying a worthless hunk of metal and plastic. Worthless only in the context of self defense. Trust me, I know they cost $$$

mtptwo
08-26-2011, 10:26 AM
Just a warning about LTC vs CCW. If you are dealing with an LEO and he runs your info, it will come back to him that you have a "CCW" (assuming that you actually have one). That being the case, don't confuse the LEO by stating that you have a LTC. Chances are, he/she won't know what you are talking about, but they will know if you say CCW.

Anchors
08-26-2011, 10:34 AM
LTC implies the ability to carry without limiting the method. California law calls them LTC.

Even if you don't open carry, I promise that having the option is priceless for transporting a lot of guns or that rare moment when your shirt gets caught on something or blows up and reveals your weapon.

markm
08-26-2011, 11:42 AM
CCW is more comfortable the way an old pair of sweats is. But, the sweats are worn, have holes and just won't stay up without the drawstring since gun owners have woken up and started coming together against our common foes. It's time for a new pair, and LTC works: it avoids the scary "hidden gun" connotations and, better yet, doesn't divide the carry community: Some of us want concealed; some of us want open; and some of us just want to carry a functional firearm and aren't terribly particular about mode.



And give them another reason to piss on CalGuns? Sure, why not.

Ryan

ETA: Hey, when did I become a "Senior Member"? My post count isn't that high, and I've only been here for three years!

Hey SoCal,

Right-on man!

"It's time for a new pair, and LTC works: it avoids the scary "hidden gun" connotations and, better yet, doesn't divide the carry community: Some of us want concealed; some of us want open; and some of us just want to carry a functional firearm and aren't terribly particular about mode."

That sums up my thoughts exactly.

markm

mag360
08-26-2011, 12:10 PM
stop using "ltc" it's a carry license. Write it out. No need to abbreviate.

Tripper
08-26-2011, 12:19 PM
GSTATT

Confusion
08-26-2011, 12:49 PM
I generally confuse LTC with the band Letters to Cleo.. which makes me happy.

lawaia
08-26-2011, 12:57 PM
WOAH! I didn't know spacebar did that! Thanks.

Haha! Awesome! This was so worth reading through the thread!:)

Swift Justice
08-26-2011, 1:15 PM
Just a warning about LTC vs CCW. If you are dealing with an LEO and he runs your info, it will come back to him that you have a "CCW" (assuming that you actually have one). That being the case, don't confuse the LEO by stating that you have a LTC. Chances are, he/she won't know what you are talking about, but they will know if you say CCW.

Not meaning to threadjack, but does that come up by default when they tap into CLETS? I have been told by several long time CHP that when they do a stop and run your ID it doesn't automatically come up, but they can request a "firearms check" which will bring up everything that DOJ has on record that's in your name, whether its listed on your LTC (CCW) license or not...

goober
08-26-2011, 1:38 PM
wow, I must have pressed the spacebar one too many times, i flew right by post #2

WOAH! I didn't know spacebar did that! Thanks.

+1 My entire outlook on forum life has changed.

^this right here is the most valuable information in this thread.

tabrisnet
08-26-2011, 2:16 PM
That doesn't seem short sighted at all :rolleyes:. Do you know what "CCW" stands for? Do you know what LTC stands for? How could the old term possibly be better?


My only objection to the new term is one of grammar. CCW has traditionally been able to be used as a verb (the act of carrying) and abused into a noun (the license).

I then see people use the term CCW, someone else browbeat them into saying LTC... while the first person was using it as a verb.

So, you would rather be stubborn, than inconvenience yourself for the greater good? What a team player!!! What, LTC doesn't sound "manly" enough for you or something?


The point of language and word choice is to actually communicate. I still can't figure out what the politically correct term for some of my friends (and sister) who prefer to have sex with people of their own gender. I remember Patrick-2 recently complaining that calling it a 'gender preference' was an insult b/c it assumed he had a choice!

goober
08-26-2011, 3:02 PM
...



The point of language and word choice is to actually communicate. I still can't figure out what the politically correct term for some of my friends (and sister) who prefer to have sex with people of their own gender. I remember Patrick-2 recently complaining that calling it a 'gender preference' was an insult b/c it assumed he had a choice!

i believe that was Gray, but whatever.
the idea behind using terms that work FOR us has nothing to do with being PC, and everything to do with framing the argument to our advantage.
get over it.

dantodd
08-26-2011, 3:18 PM
My only objection to the new term is one of grammar. CCW has traditionally been able to be used as a verb (the act of carrying) and abused into a noun (the license).

I then see people use the term CCW, someone else browbeat them into saying LTC... while the first person was using it as a verb.

carrying isn't too long a verb to use. To say someone is CCWing though almost always means that they are carrying a concealed weapon pursuant to a license. For that use Licensed Carry or Carrying with a License.

I don't understand the objection people have with trying to disconnect our goal of getting Carry Licenses for anyone with the idea of carrying a concealed weapon. We want to be as inclusive as possible and merely discuss licenses to carry a weapon. Leave it to the state to prove that one is less constitutionally protected than the other.

The point of language and word choice is to actually communicate. I still can't figure out what the politically correct term for some of my friends (and sister) who prefer to have sex with people of their own gender. I remember Patrick-2 recently complaining that calling it a 'gender preference' was an insult b/c it assumed he had a choice!

I don't understand how you are complaining first that we should use an exclusionary term which leaves open carry to fend for itself because you don't see the value in altering your vocabulary and then, in the same paragraph you talk about how people are directly effected by word choice.

Yes, sexual preference is difference that sexual orientation. Yes, a license to carry is different than a concealed weapon permit. Clearly you understand that word choice effects people on the other side of this battles (see "assault clip") so why give them ammo when we can defuse one of their "scary" concepts by word choice?

hoffmang
08-26-2011, 4:27 PM
"LTC" is a bit misleading and ill-timed, as unless/until AB144 is passed, no license is required to carry.
Except in school zones or on campus or except for the fact that even the Federal Courts agree that an unloaded firearm is a pile of bolts...
Just a warning about LTC vs CCW. If you are dealing with an LEO and he runs your info, it will come back to him that you have a "CCW" (assuming that you actually have one). That being the case, don't confuse the LEO by stating that you have a LTC. Chances are, he/she won't know what you are talking about, but they will know if you say CCW.

Just tell the LEO you have a license. Having done it, it works very well. They understand that it's a license.

-Gene

tabrisnet
08-26-2011, 5:05 PM
i believe that was Gray, but whatever.


Yes, it was Gray Peterson. I sit corrected.

the idea behind using terms that work FOR us has nothing to do with being PC, and everything to do with framing the argument to our advantage.
get over it.

Framing the argument to our benefit should not excuse false 'corrections' when someone is actually using a term correctly, and the replacement term is invalid grammatically or technically.

As I have said before in the main thread, I have no problem with the use of the term LTC when I'm speaking of the license. I just think if we're going to ban the word CCW which has two forms (verb and noun) and the 'replacement' is only valid as a noun (technically CCW should ONLY be a verb, but by convention it may be the noun 'CCW License' as well).

Blurring the question by saying Licensed Carry in place of CCW is invalid in AZ, VT, and AK (probably others too), insofar as no license is required. Hell, I think in my home state of MI, I don't need a license to LOC (outside of GFSZ). But I believe that question has been ignored and is not where I was originally going. I was complaining of a grammatical problem, not a semantic one.

dantodd
08-26-2011, 8:00 PM
Blurring the question by saying Licensed Carry in place of CCW is invalid in AZ, VT, and AK (probably others too), insofar as no license is required. Hell, I think in my home state of MI, I don't need a license to LOC (outside of GFSZ). But I believe that question has been ignored and is not where I was originally going. I was complaining of a grammatical problem, not a semantic one.

do whatever you like. Seriously, Gene has asked for what you admit are valid reasons that people refrain from using CCW as a general term in CA, nothing to do with other states.

Do you have the same complaint as vocally when people say CCW in place of concealed carry permit because CCW is grammatically incorrect? If not then your problem is not grammar but grammar I'd a convenient excuse.

Tripper
08-26-2011, 8:13 PM
I hereby copyright any use of the spacebar
Further use shall result in immediate payment to me
If you decide to not make payment as required you are hereby commanded to press the backspace key at once

tabrisnet
08-26-2011, 8:38 PM
do whatever you like. Seriously, Gene has asked for what you admit are valid reasons that people refrain from using CCW as a general term in CA, nothing to do with other states.

Do you have the same complaint as vocally when people say CCW in place of concealed carry permit because CCW is grammatically incorrect? If not then your problem is not grammar but grammar I'd a convenient excuse.

There is some latitude given for historical bad usage, wherein CCW has been used as a noun (just imagine that it stands for CCWL in that case).

Historical bad usage is no reason to create a new term that ends up somehow being abused in the inverse direction (and just out of basic obtuseness, English likes to verb nouns, but nouning verbs isn't as easy).

Again, what I want is to bring up some kind of term like LCC for the verb to carry concealed, and LTC to refer to the license.

The 5th-grade "you owe 10USD to the CGF swear jar" when someone was talking about beaver dams and not damning beavers [to hell] is annoying as well.

Kid Stanislaus
08-26-2011, 8:53 PM
License to Carry is a very good change in the framing of our fight and I hope that people catch on, difficult as it might be to change.

Same people probably have trouble changing their underwear once a week!!:D

audiophil2
08-26-2011, 9:16 PM
LTC is too ambiguous. It does not state what item is licensed to carry. I think more of Long Term Care than anything gun or license related.

CA DOJ refers to the permit as "Carry Concealed Weapon license".
CA PC12050 calls the permit "A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person."

Putting both together and the following would be the closest interpretation:

LTCCF License To Carry Concealed Firearm

In order to future proof any positive legislation it could be:

LTCCW License To Carry Concealed Weapon

The above are kinda long but close to CA definitions.

I prefer

CH[F]L Concealed Handgun[Firearm] License
CWL Concealed Weapons License

of which are already in use by some states. The added bonus is if you have one of these you can say "I'm CHL." "I got my CHL on." I'm CWL (kewl), are you CWL?"

I understand that some gun activists think the term "weapon" should be omitted for the sake of the children but many states do not limit concealed weapons to just guns. LTCCWs can include anything considered a deadly weapon not prohibited by state of federal law/regulation. Examples could be long fixed blade knives, switchblades, collapsible batons, etc. While these items are illegal in CA now there may always be one day that they will not.

dantodd
08-26-2011, 9:38 PM
There is some latitude given for historical bad usage, wherein CCW has been used as a noun (just imagine that it stands for CCWL in that case).


In other words. Grammar doesn't matter unless it's convenient.

dantodd
08-26-2011, 9:45 PM
LTC is too ambiguous. It does not state what item is licensed to carry. I think more of Long Term Care than anything gun or license related.

CA DOJ refers to the permit as "Carry Concealed Weapon license".

...

I understand that some gun activists think the term "weapon" should be omitted for the sake of the children but many states do not limit concealed weapons to just guns. LTCCWs can include anything considered a deadly weapon not prohibited by state of federal law/regulation. Examples could be long fixed blade knives, switchblades, collapsible batons, etc. While these items are illegal in CA now there may always be one day that they will not.

The statute permits licenses to be issued for either concealed or open carry for smaller counties. Also, the point isn't what the DoJ would like to have. The fact is that SCOTUS says we have a right to carry a firearm for the purpose of self-defense in the event of confrontation. It doesn't mention anything about the manner of carry (other than to say, in dicta, that manner limitations are presumably permissible.) The goal is to frame the license associated with exercising that right as broadly as possible rather than as narrowly as possible.

The goal has nothing to do with moving away from weapon but rather from "concealed" as a limit on how we may carry.

Read the briefs in Richards v Prieto. They make it patently clear that what they are suing for is NOT a "CCW permit" but rather that the state recognize their right to "bear arms." This is a critical distinction to make because if we can properly frame the discussion in this manner it becomes the state's responsibility to say WHY one manner of carry is legally preferred over the other.

Connor P Price
08-26-2011, 10:23 PM
This has created sooooo much more drama than needed due to peoples obsessive compulsions to argue over grammar and acronyms.

Don't like LTC as a noun? Say "carry license." Don't think that's specific enough? Say "handgun carry license." Dont like LTC as a verb? Just say "licensed carry" or "licensed carrying." Not sure how to describe somebody who possesses an LTC? Call him a "carry license holder," or say "he has a license to carry a firearm," or "the gubment doesn't stop him from carrying his sig."

Quit worrying about grammar, acronyms, and silly arguments; just recognize the importance behind the general idea. Keep "concealed" out of it, and keep "open" out of it because neither one matters to us strategically at this point in time. All we want is "carry" (read: "bear".)

sandwich
08-27-2011, 12:52 AM
I hereby copyright any use of the spacebar
Further use shall result in immediate payment to me
If you decide to not make payment as required you are hereby commanded to press the backspace key at once

Are you serious?

Those of us who have used command line systems (UNIX, VMS, etc.) and pre-graphical (i.e., text-only) Internet have always used space bar for next page. I started using computers in 1980 and Internet in 1986 and space bars were a natural for paging.

Besides, you probably meant "patent" instead of "copyright."

dantodd
08-27-2011, 1:16 AM
Are you serious?

Those of us who have used command line systems (UNIX, VMS, etc.) and pre-graphical (i.e., text-only) Internet have always used space bar for next page. I started using computers in 1980 and Internet in 1986 and space bars were a natural for paging.

Besides, you probably meant "patent" instead of "copyright."

ummm..... I'm pretty sure he is joking. I am a little befuddled that so many folks didn't know that the space bar also pages too.

markm
08-27-2011, 4:00 AM
The statute permits licenses to be issued for either concealed or open carry for smaller counties. Also, the point isn't what the DoJ would like to have. The fact is that SCOTUS says we have a right to carry a firearm for the purpose of self-defense in the event of confrontation. It doesn't mention anything about the manner of carry (other than to say, in dicta, that manner limitations are presumably permissible.) The goal is to frame the license associated with exercising that right as broadly as possible rather than as narrowly as possible.

The goal has nothing to do with moving away from weapon but rather from "concealed" as a limit on how we may carry.

Read the briefs in Richards v Prieto. They make it patently clear that what they are suing for is NOT a "CCW permit" but rather that the state recognize their right to "bear arms." This is a critical distinction to make because if we can properly frame the discussion in this manner it becomes the state's responsibility to say WHY one manner of carry is legally preferred over the other.

Hey DanTodd,

You wrote: "The statute permits licenses to be issued for either concealed or open carry for smaller counties."

Will you cite the PC section for the LTC/open carry in smaller counties? I am confused and very interested.

markm

markm
08-27-2011, 4:06 AM
Just a warning about LTC vs CCW. If you are dealing with an LEO and he runs your info, it will come back to him that you have a "CCW" (assuming that you actually have one). That being the case, don't confuse the LEO by stating that you have a LTC. Chances are, he/she won't know what you are talking about, but they will know if you say CCW.

Hey mtptwo,

Do think LEO would be confused if a detained person said: "I have a License to Carry a Gun?"

markm

guntrust
08-27-2011, 7:23 AM
Except in school zones or on campus or except for the fact that even the Federal Courts agree that an unloaded firearm is a pile of bolts...


Just tell the LEO you have a license. Having done it, it works very well. They understand that it's a license.

-Gene
Many of you live outside of a school zone, as do I. The only thing keeping you from carrying is your fear of how your neighbors will react. You are not interested in a carry license. All you want is a mere concealed carry license.

If all of you (who can do so legally) would exercise your right to carry, the public would be more educated on this highest deterrent. And any criminal (including the federal court system) not so deterred would be educated on how quickly this "non-functional" pile of bolts can be loaded.

1859sharps
08-27-2011, 7:38 AM
Are you serious?

Those of us who have used command line systems (UNIX, VMS, etc.) and pre-graphical (i.e., text-only) Internet have always used space bar for next page. I started using computers in 1980 and Internet in 1986 and space bars were a natural for paging.

Besides, you probably meant "patent" instead of "copyright."

true, but he is probably too late to patent it. MS most likely already owns that one ;)

dantodd
08-27-2011, 7:44 AM
Hey DanTodd,

You wrote: "The statute permits licenses to be issued for either concealed or open carry for smaller counties."

Will you cite the PC section for the LTC/open carry in smaller counties? I am confused and very interested.

markm

12050(a)(1)(A)ii

Tripper
08-27-2011, 7:53 AM
hey, quit it, and yes, i want to patent it too
of course I'm serious, cant you tell by the serious look on my face.
Just thought that while I was teaching, that I'd show them the trick that the backspace key does, if they were being honorable and doing the 'right' thing when they didnt pay.

in our next session, we will go over the functionality of pressing to keys together (at the same time) such as, pressing and hold the CTRL (far bottom left corner of most keyboards), while holding the CTRL key, press the F4 (the top row of most keyboards)

dantodd
08-27-2011, 8:10 AM
Many of you live outside of a school zone, as do I. The only thing keeping you from carrying is your fear of how your neighbors will react. You are not interested in a carry license. All you want is a mere concealed carry license.

You have no idea what you talking about. At least I hope you don't, because you are spouting really offensive and ignorant things. So, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume ignorance rather than intentionally lying.

Many of the people to whom you refer, including Gene do open carry. The fact that it is politically damaging to do so in some places means they refrain in those locations or times.

So, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't know that rather than thinking that you know these people are working on returning the gun culture and just trying to goad them knowing full well that you are lying.

If all of you (who can do so legally) would exercise your right to carry, the public would be more educated on this highest deterrent. And any criminal (including the federal court system) not so deterred would be educated on how quickly this "non-functional" pile of bolts can be loaded.

How do you expect the federal court system to get "educatedvon how quickly [UOC] can be loaded?". Are you threatening judicial officials or are you threatening legal action? If the former you are exhibiting even less common sense than I thought, if the latter, who is going to file and fund these expensive, complicated suits? Are you capable of leading such a suit? Of funding it?

I didn't think so....

audiophil2
08-27-2011, 12:11 PM
The statute permits licenses to be issued for either concealed or open carry for smaller counties. Also, the point isn't what the DoJ would like to have. The fact is that SCOTUS says we have a right to carry a firearm for the purpose of self-defense in the event of confrontation. It doesn't mention anything about the manner of carry (other than to say, in dicta, that manner limitations are presumably permissible.) The goal is to frame the license associated with exercising that right as broadly as possible rather than as narrowly as possible.

I did not infer anything about what the DOJ would like to have. I simply stated what the DOJ uses, incorrectly, to define a license to have a concealed firearm. If the goal at CGN is to modernize the term CCW for a more accurate and politically correct acronym then LTC is not the best of choices. A lay person would have a hard time understanding what the term defines.
While SCOTUS' intention was to define the minimum right to carry a firearm that does not mean there will not be more lawsuits or legislation designed to expand the original Heller/Nordyke cases. Why limit the future potential at a time when gun rights are advancing so quickly? LTC is so broad it could mean items not related to self-defense. In CA this is very important since recent regulations have prohibited some of the most basic rights such as using a fireplace to heat a house.

The goal has nothing to do with moving away from weapon but rather from "concealed" as a limit on how we may carry.

I'm not seeing that. Are you now inferring that the current legal UOC should now require a license? Seems to me that that would be a major step back in gun rights.

Read the briefs in Richards v Prieto. They make it patently clear that what they are suing for is NOT a "CCW permit" but rather that the state recognize their right to "bear arms." This is a critical distinction to make because if we can properly frame the discussion in this manner it becomes the state's responsibility to say WHY one manner of carry is legally preferred over the other.

R v. P came about because Sacramento was smart enough to stand down. I disagree about the "what they are suing for is NOT a "CCW permit" but rather that the state recognize their right to "bear arms." as from what I read it appears they want a shall issue CHP instead of may issue CHP.


I still see nothing wrong with CCW as a term used when referring to a deadly weapon carried upon a person. My CCW could be my G26, my S&W switchblade, or brass knuckles. For states that limit the legal carrying of a deadly weapon to firearms then CCF would be acceptable.

dantodd
08-27-2011, 12:37 PM
It makes it difficult to reply when you inset your post into quoted text. You may disagree with what we are suing to get. But the attorneys trying the case and the people funding the case disagree with you. Read the briefs. Ignorance is curable.

stix213
08-27-2011, 12:44 PM
Many of you live outside of a school zone, as do I. The only thing keeping you from carrying is your fear of how your neighbors will react. You are not interested in a carry license. All you want is a mere concealed carry license.

If all of you (who can do so legally) would exercise your right to carry, the public would be more educated on this highest deterrent. And any criminal (including the federal court system) not so deterred would be educated on how quickly this "non-functional" pile of bolts can be loaded.

The fact so many UOCers advocate settling for unloaded carry, as if it is equal to loaded carry when your life is in danger, never ceases to amaze me. This seems to be a recurring theme. When the public, including criminals, realizes that every time they see a citizen carrying a gun it doesn't even have any freaking ammo in it, the deterrent aspect will not be as great as you think, and may become an easy source for criminals to acquire additional weapons (my opinion).

LTC is too ambiguous. It does not state what item is licensed to carry. I think more of Long Term Care than anything gun or license related.


License To Carry is no more ambiguous than Concealed Carry Weapon. What weapon does CCW refer to? Is it a license? Why when you apply for a Concealed Carry Weapon do they just give you this stupid card instead of a gun? Is the issued card the weapon? If so why are the edges not sharp? Why does the card say Concealed Carry Weapon when its still a felony to conceal a freaking fixed blade knife? Why is a concealed 10" folding blade perfectly legal without a CCW? Does that mean a 10" folder isn't a weapon? Why is a concealed AK-47 legal without a CCW, but a concealed Ruger LCP is a crime? Are AK-47's not weapons either? :rolleyes:

Also you're missing the entire point of why the name needs to change. Its about being exact in terms just as much as "Assault Clip" is. Its about winning the war of words, not writing a gun dictionary. Plus the term is aimed at those who aren't as well versed in firearms law. License To Carry is extremely self explanatory, without needlessly getting into the nuances of concealed vs open carry that CCW requires you to do.

DVSmith
08-27-2011, 1:04 PM
Seems a tall order to get this group to change from CCW to LTC when there are so many that can't even use 'clip' and 'magazine' correctly.

And for those of you that think everyone on CalCCW beats on CalGuns, I consider myself a member of both and I don't beat on either anymore than the other.

Politics is all about controlling the discussion. Part of controlling the discussion is modifying terminology when it is to your benefit as I am sure Gene has pointed out. I have referred to CCW for a very long time and changing to LTC will be spotty at best and probably based on the audience. My long time CCW buds will likely hear me use CCW. I may be able to use LTC when I speak to non-gunners, but here in the context of CalGuns, I am sure everyone will understand what I am talking about regardless of which I use.

ETA: Hopefully we won't have to suffer LTC nazis when we do use CCW.

stix213
08-27-2011, 1:12 PM
Seems a tall order to get this group to change from CCW to LTC when there are so many that can't even use 'clip' and 'magazine' correctly.

And for those of you that think everyone on CalCCW beats on CalGuns, I consider myself a member of both and I don't beat on either anymore than the other.

Politics is all about controlling the discussion. Part of controlling the discussion is modifying terminology when it is to your benefit as I am sure Gene has pointed out. I have referred to CCW for a very long time and changing to LTC will be spotty at best and probably based on the audience. My long time CCW buds will likely hear me use CCW. I may be able to use LTC when I speak to non-gunners, but here in the context of CalGuns, I am sure everyone will understand what I am talking about regardless of which I use.

ETA: Hopefully we won't have to suffer LTC nazis when we do use CCW.

Where you wouldn't feel comfortable saying "LTC" just say "Carry License" or "License To Carry." No need to always reduce every phrase to the fewest possible letters.

Why are people so stuck on the term "CCW" anyway? This is a term, like Assault Weapon, invented by anti-gunner politicians in order to control and restrict your gun rights. Stop playing their game. Don't say "assault clip," don't say "assault weapon," and don't say "CCW" as if having a concealed firearm makes you more dangerous to society.

tabrisnet
08-27-2011, 1:25 PM
That being the problem I've run into. and my attempts at being a grammar nazi were rebuffed.

tabrisnet
08-27-2011, 1:39 PM
Why are people so stuck on the term "CCW" anyway? This is a term, like Assault Weapon, invented by anti-gunner politicians in order to control and restrict your gun rights. Stop playing their game.

Sunlight Grrrll: We saw the news. You and the Losers called it a day?
Deadly Girl: We?
Sunlight Grrrll: The Femme Five. I'm here to ask you to join.
Deadly Girl: Well then you'd be the Femme Six.
Sunlight Grrrll: There are already eight of us. Traditional counting is an oppressive patriarchal tool.


Many groups like to claim that a term was invented or co-opted by their opposition in order to confine them, to shape the debate against them.

Unfortunately for you and me, any group can choose to take any good and upright word and change its meaning to one that is detestful. There is always going to be drift in the meaning of words.

Once upon a time, 'hacker' didn't mean 'evil computer person'. The term was co-opted and the battle was lost. Outside of the computer industry, nobody knows that it just used to be largely equivalent of "clever and innovative computer geek". Bill Gates might have been happily called a hacker. Linus Torvalds preferred the term in the technical community.

This whole Newspeak thing is actually kind of disturbing, no matter which side is playing the game. They define a word and start using it against us, we invent a word to try to re-frame the debate... and we continue in our pointless arguing and talking PAST each other rather than to each other.

goober
08-27-2011, 1:41 PM
hey, quit it, and yes, i want to patent it too
of course I'm serious, cant you tell by the serious look on my face.
Just thought that while I was teaching, that I'd show them the trick that the backspace key does, if they were being honorable and doing the 'right' thing when they didnt pay.

in our next session, we will go over the functionality of pressing to keys together (at the same time) such as, pressing and hold the CTRL (far bottom left corner of most keyboards), while holding the CTRL key, press the F4 (the top row of most keyboards)

Alt+F4 is better :chris:

audiophil2
08-27-2011, 1:58 PM
License To Carry is no more ambiguous than Concealed Carry Weapon Actually it is. LTC mean you can legally carry a bowling ball. Don't think CA may eventually regulate that?.

What weapon does CCW refer to? As I already stated, carrying a concealed weapon.

Is it a license? No, that is why it should not be referred to as a license.

Why when you apply for a Concealed Carry Weapon do they just give you this stupid card instead of a gun? At no time do you apply for a CCW. You apply for a CCW permit/license to carry concealed pistol.

Is the issued card the weapon? No, it is barely even a card by card standards.

If so why are the edges not sharp? Prevents papercuts

Why does the card say Concealed Carry Weapon when its still a felony to conceal a freaking fixed blade knife? Could you show me where it says Concealed Weapon Permit? Last I saw, it said License to Carry Concealed Pistol, Revolver, or firearm within the State of California". Because only firearms are licensed to be concealed in CA. Come out here to AZ and I would let you meet a friend that CCW's his Class 3 Mac-10 subgun.

Why is a concealed 10" folding blade perfectly legal without a CCW? Because CA PC says it is.

Does that mean a 10" folder isn't a weapon? It is a tool unless you use it as a weapon. It's called a dual use object.

Why is a concealed AK-47 legal without a CCW, but a concealed Ruger LCP is a crime? A concealed AK-47 without the CFL is illegal to carry concealed. You are confused about what constitutes a concealable weapon. If the AK-47 can't be concealed because you are wearing shorts and a wife beater then it is not subject to a license. If you can conceal it under a trench coat then you need the license but even that is vague as 12030 only mentions handguns. If you have an AK-47 registered as a pistol then maybe you have a defense.

Are AK-47's not weapons either? If you don't know I can't help you. :rolleyes:

Also you're missing the entire point of why the name needs to change. Its about being exact in terms just as much as "Assault Clip" is. Its about winning the war of words, not writing a gun dictionary. Plus the term is aimed at those who aren't as well versed in firearms law. License To Carry is extremely self explanatory, without needlessly getting into the nuances of concealed vs open carry that CCW requires you to do.

I have no issue with changing to a better defined and understandable acronym. Just by what you wrote you can see how LTC is just too ambiguous. You do not even understand some of the intricacies of the terms being used.

Dreaded Claymore
08-27-2011, 2:13 PM
I really don't know why everyone insists on abbreviating "LTC." I mean, "license to carry a concealed weapon" is long. No wonder we called that CCW. But "carry license" is short. There's no reason whatsoever to add a word to it ("license to carry") and then abbreviate that.

Enough of this jibba-jabba.

audiophil2
08-27-2011, 2:18 PM
It makes it difficult to reply when you inset your post into quoted text. You may disagree with what we are suing to get. But the attorneys trying the case and the people funding the case disagree with you. Read the briefs. Ignorance is curable.

I read the briefs. All I see are reliefs requesting shall issue instead of arbitrary "good cause" requirements. I'm pretty sure Nordyke took care of the right to bare arms as even stated in the brief.

Connor P Price
08-27-2011, 2:29 PM
I read the briefs. All I see are reliefs requesting shall issue instead of arbitrary "good cause" requirements. I'm pretty sure Nordyke took care of the right to bare arms as even stated in the brief.

You seem to be missing the bigger picture. In the Richards opening brief its clear that all the plaintiffs are looking for is an legal way to bear arms. They have not specifically chosen concealed as their preferred manner of carry. The state of California has made that decision for them by banning the open carrying of functional firearms in the vast majority of circumstances and creating a licensing regime for both open and concealed carry. The open carry licenses are only given in smaller rural counties, not Yolo. Therefor the only option available to Richards is to obtain the carry permit which the state has decided upon.

That's why they are requesting the relief they are. All the want is "carry," the state has decided the rest for them.

Munk
08-27-2011, 3:37 PM
Just one more thing to tack on to our already overly politically correct vocabulary.

Not necessarily politically "Correct", so much as "politically charged". Words carry weight in the minds of the masses. Why do you think "assault weapons" bans were easy to pass?

audiophil2
08-27-2011, 3:42 PM
You seem to be missing the bigger picture. In the Richards opening brief its clear that all the plaintiffs are looking for is an legal way to bear arms. They have not specifically chosen concealed as their preferred manner of carry. The state of California has made that decision for them by banning the open carrying of functional firearms in the vast majority of circumstances and creating a licensing regime for both open and concealed carry. The open carry licenses are only given in smaller rural counties, not Yolo. Therefor the only option available to Richards is to obtain the carry permit which the state has decided upon.

That's why they are requesting the relief they are. All the want is "carry," the state has decided the rest for them.

I must not even be looking at the right photo album. Could you please link to the brief that you are referring to? All I see is the request to go shall issue.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness

dantodd
08-27-2011, 3:49 PM
I read the briefs. All I see are reliefs requesting shall issue instead of arbitrary "good cause" requirements. I'm pretty sure Nordyke took care of the right to bare arms as even stated in the brief.

It is unfortunate that your reading skills are such that you missed important aspects of the plaintiff's case. I can't copy and paste from PDF files on the iPad but start reading at the top of page 38, intnal numbered 26.

Eta: I was posting when you admitted to not knowing what documents you were talking about. It is the initial appeal brief, http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/Richards-v-Prieto-Opening-Brief-20110824.pdf

INDABZ
08-27-2011, 4:15 PM
LTC...makes sense....

CHL....are issued in TX....Concealed Handgun license...

Don't need a license to carry a knife...

You can have a license to carry any handgun or one only for revolvers.....;)

audiophil2
08-27-2011, 5:02 PM
It is unfortunate that your reading skills are such that you missed important aspects of the plaintiff's case. I can't copy and paste from PDF files on the iPad but start reading at the top of page 38, intnal numbered 26.

Eta: I was posting when you admitted to not knowing what documents you were talking about. It is the initial appeal brief, http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/Richards-v-Prieto-Opening-Brief-20110824.pdf

Well, I see a few issues at hand. CA has not made concealed carry the permissible method of carrying a gun. UOC is the least restricted method. LTC slips are available but on a biased basis.
I still stand by my statement that this lawsuit is for shall issue. That does not mean shall issue CHL/CWL. It just means shall issue a license for a person to carry a firearm.
Actively trying to belittle me does nothing to advance this discussion but it does paint a very clear portrait of what your abilities entail. Ignored.

dantodd
08-27-2011, 5:21 PM
Well, I see a few issues at hand. CA has not made concealed carry the permissible method of carrying a gun. UOC is the least restricted method. LTC slips are available but on a biased basis.
I still stand by my statement that this lawsuit is for shall issue. That does not mean shall issue CHL/CWL. It just means shall issue a license for a person to carry a firearm.
Actively trying to belittle me does nothing to advance this discussion but it does paint a very clear portrait of what your abilities entail. Ignored.

First, UOC is not a manner of "bearing arms" as defined in Heller. There is nothing "2A" about UOC, it is about speech.

Second, I'm glad that you now understand that the goal is to regain the right to "bear arms" and not to get just "shall issue" CONCEALED weapons as you previously stated in post 71.

R v. P came about because Sacramento was smart enough to stand down. I disagree about the "what they are suing for is NOT a "CCW permit" but rather that the state recognize their right to "bear arms." as from what I read it appears they want a shall issue CHP instead of may issue CHP.

Finally, just a bit of etiquette, it is poor form to chide someone for belittling you and then doing the same in the very next sentence. At the very least it is rhetorically sloppy.

Connor P Price
08-27-2011, 5:25 PM
Well, I see a few issues at hand. CA has not made concealed carry the permissible method of carrying a gun. UOC is the least restricted method. LTC slips are available but on a biased basis.
I still stand by my statement that this lawsuit is for shall issue. That does not mean shall issue CHL/CWL. It just means shall issue a license for a person to carry a firearm.
Actively trying to belittle me does nothing to advance this discussion but it does paint a very clear portrait of what your abilities entail. Ignored.

California has certainly picked concealed as the method in most circumstances, excepting those areas where permits to carry openly may be issued. UOC is not going to cut it for the state, that isn't bearing arms, its political speech. We will be carrying functional fire arms, not bricks.

ETA: looks like dantodd beat me to it on the uoc bit while I post slowly from my cell phone.

2Bear
08-28-2011, 1:57 AM
stop using "ltc" it's a carry license. Write it out. No need to abbreviate.

I really don't know why everyone insists on abbreviating "LTC." I mean, "license to carry a concealed weapon" is long. No wonder we called that CCW. But "carry license" is short. There's no reason whatsoever to add a word to it ("license to carry") and then abbreviate that.


http://gallery.me.com/therobthomas/100057/CGF_got_LTC_1/web.jpg

wildhawker
08-28-2011, 2:28 AM
Strictly going to your below comments, and not arguing as a matter of my personal preferences, California has absolutely codified and enforced its preference for concealed carry. In order to form a truly informed opinion, you might want to research and consider:

* no. of open carry permits are active throughout the state;
* no. of counties with pop. less than 200,000;
* no. of Californians in all counties with pop. less than 200,000.

(i) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(ii) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000
persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a
license to carry loaded and exposed in only that county a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person.

Bottom line: a Sec. 12050 open carry permit is only available to residents of sparsely-populated counties, highly-restricted, and not issued in practice. However, concealed carry permits are issued, substantially less restricted, and (with few exceptions) valid throughout the state.

-Brandon

Well, I see a few issues at hand. CA has not made concealed carry the permissible method of carrying a gun. UOC is the least restricted method. LTC slips are available but on a biased basis.
I still stand by my statement that this lawsuit is for shall issue. That does not mean shall issue CHL/CWL. It just means shall issue a license for a person to carry a firearm.
Actively trying to belittle me does nothing to advance this discussion but it does paint a very clear portrait of what your abilities entail. Ignored.

Rich Keagy
08-28-2011, 6:16 AM
I like the new TLA (three-letter acronym).
We need a list of approved TLAs.