PDA

View Full Version : Los Angeles Times Article on CCW legal appeals


HowardW56
02-19-2012, 5:41 PM
Gun owners hope to win the right to carry concealed weapons

By Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times
February 20, 2012

In an unusual twist, optimism among California gun enthusiasts stems from recent legislation banning them from openly carrying even unloaded handguns.

Chuck Michel's strategy for crime-fighting rests on the element of surprise: Keep the bad guys guessing who's armed and who's not.

"If 5% of the ducks could shoot back, you're not going to go duck hunting," said the Long Beach lawyer representing many Californians denied concealed weapons permits and, in his view, their constitutional right to self-defense.

Link to article (http://By Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times February 20, 2012 In an unusual twist, optimism among California gun enthusiasts stems from recent legislation banning them from openly carrying even unloaded handguns. Chuck Michel's strategy for crime-fighting rests on the element of surprise: Keep the bad guys guessing who's armed and who's not. "If 5% of the ducks could shoot back, you're not going to go duck hunting," said the Long Beach lawyer representing many Californians denied concealed weapons permits and, in his view, their constitutional right to self-defense.)

The comments should be interesting......



LINK FIXED!

CALI-gula
02-19-2012, 5:42 PM
LA TIMES ACTUALLY DOING AN ARTICLE ON PURSUIT OF CCW IN CA?

DID HELL JUST HIT -120 FAHRENHEIT?


Gun owners hope to win the right to carry concealed weapons:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-right-to-carry-20120220,0,4684092.story?track=rss

By Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times / February 20, 2012


"In an unusual twist, optimism among California gun enthusiasts stems from recent legislation banning them from openly carrying even unloaded handguns.

Chuck Michel's strategy for crime-fighting rests on the element of surprise: Keep the bad guys guessing who's armed and who's not.

"If 5% of the ducks could shoot back, you're not going to go duck hunting," said the Long Beach lawyer representing many Californians denied concealed weapons permits and, in his view, their constitutional right to self-defense.

For decades, that argument has fallen flat in the courtroom. Judges have routinely held that denying permits to carry loaded firearms in public does not infringe on gun owners' right to keep and bear arms.

But now, some gun owners hope that courts will soon reverse course and find that they have a right to secretly tote their weapons in public. Ironically, their optimism stems from a piece of gun control legislation that took effect last month and bans them from openly carrying even unloaded handguns.

AND SO ON..... SEE LINK ABOVE.

.

Bobby Hated
02-19-2012, 5:54 PM
i cant believe the times wrote a balanced article on ccw.

maybe us going and picketing in front of the times building last year did something for the cause. i thought i was just going for the good company. ha ha

GettoPhilosopher
02-19-2012, 6:12 PM
i cant believe the times wrote a balanced article on ccw.

maybe us going and picketing in front of the times building last year did something for the cause. i thought i was just going for the good company. ha ha

That was a great day. I didn't realize you were there too!

CALI-gula
02-19-2012, 6:12 PM
And they actually got the names of the key-players right. Gene is mentioned in there: I thought that was really cool. :thumbsup:

.

farmerjoe
02-19-2012, 6:13 PM
I guess all the hipsters buying guns helps. It's a shame it costs so much to do a ballot initative on something like this.

GMG
02-19-2012, 6:14 PM
Kudos to the L.A. times.....................But still a long distance!

Gray Peterson
02-19-2012, 6:20 PM
Gun owners hope to win the right to carry concealed weapons

By Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times
February 20, 2012

In an unusual twist, optimism among California gun enthusiasts stems from recent legislation banning them from openly carrying even unloaded handguns.

Chuck Michel's strategy for crime-fighting rests on the element of surprise: Keep the bad guys guessing who's armed and who's not.

"If 5% of the ducks could shoot back, you're not going to go duck hunting," said the Long Beach lawyer representing many Californians denied concealed weapons permits and, in his view, their constitutional right to self-defense.

Link to article (http://By Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times February 20, 2012 In an unusual twist, optimism among California gun enthusiasts stems from recent legislation banning them from openly carrying even unloaded handguns. Chuck Michel's strategy for crime-fighting rests on the element of surprise: Keep the bad guys guessing who's armed and who's not. "If 5% of the ducks could shoot back, you're not going to go duck hunting," said the Long Beach lawyer representing many Californians denied concealed weapons permits and, in his view, their constitutional right to self-defense.)

The comments should be interesting......

Link is bad.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-right-to-carry-20120220,0,4684092.story

That being said:

""I expect the Supreme Court to decide as courts around the country have decided in hundreds of cases that there is not a 2nd Amendment right to carry guns in public places," said Jonathan E. Lowy, legal action director for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence."

Just an FYI: This guy is arguing in front of the 10th Circuit in Peterson v. Martinez. Unfortunately, given that he's opposing amicus counsel, I cannot say the various forms of profanity and insult that one is used to seeing me hurl towards these craven anti-gunners....

bussda
02-19-2012, 6:29 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-right-to-carry-20120220,0,4684092.story

ke6guj
02-19-2012, 6:32 PM
:dupe:

yup, by one minute, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=537922

HowardW56
02-19-2012, 6:35 PM
Link is bad.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-right-to-carry-20120220,0,4684092.story

That being said:

""I expect the Supreme Court to decide as courts around the country have decided in hundreds of cases that there is not a 2nd Amendment right to carry guns in public places," said Jonathan E. Lowy, legal action director for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence."

Just an FYI: This guy is arguing in front of the 10th Circuit in Peterson v. Martinez.

Jonathan E. Lowy forgets that the Supreme Court does not take guidance from the lower courts, it dispenses guidance to the lower courts...

HowardW56
02-19-2012, 6:44 PM
The Times actually included a map with county permit issuance stats...

Map Graphic (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-right-to-carry.eps-20120219,0,1939703.graphic)

wildhawker
02-19-2012, 7:03 PM
I wonder where they got their data...

CGF Carry License Sunshine for the win.

Mr_Monkeywrench
02-19-2012, 7:11 PM
Wow, the last comment on the article is really sad. My heart breaks for her

SanPedroShooter
02-19-2012, 7:28 PM
Do ever get the feeling that people that argue for gun control dont really understand the issue? Not the paid lawyers (cant really call them 'people) or sockpuppets, just the average person that says stuff like, 'whats next? Are people going to carry nukes derp....?

I used to get angry, but now I just wonder, how much do people really understand about what we all know inside and out? Seems like very little. I just hate seeing some random person stick there oar in with, "I dont own a gun but..." Or my favorite, "I'm in the NRA but...."

HowardW56
02-19-2012, 7:38 PM
Do you ever get the feeling that people that argue for gun control dont really understand the issue? ........


I used to get angry, but now I just wonder, how much do people really understand about what we all know inside and out? Seems like very little. I just hate seeing some random person stick there oar in with, "I dont own a gun but..." Or my favorite, "I'm in the NRA but...."


How do you explain to someone a passion for collecting revolvers, or shooting every weekend...

I get blank stares when I tell people I collect revolvers, but own semi-auto handguns too...

Or the shock when they ask if I keep a loaded gun and I answer with "Several"...

SanPedroShooter
02-19-2012, 7:55 PM
Right, but I am speaking about the just the most basic info about guns and gun laws. Explaining that guns are fun and its a hobby I find pretty easy. Explaining that owning a firearm is a fundemental right... Christ, or even how to buy one in California...

I think there is a huge disconnect somewhere.

Scarecrow Repair
02-19-2012, 7:56 PM
I wonder where they got their data...

CGF Carry License Sunshine for the win.

OK, I'm curious. It says right there on the pic "Source: Calguns Foundation". Did they contact you for something and you steered them to that picture, or did they find it on their own?

Full Clip
02-19-2012, 8:04 PM
Wow, the last comment on the article is really sad. My heart breaks for her

From Deborah Courtney? Yes, horrifying...

Rossi357
02-19-2012, 8:06 PM
Or the shock when they ask if I keep a loaded gun and I answer with "Several"...

Ask me that and the answer is....All of them.

HowardW56
02-19-2012, 8:08 PM
Ask me that and the answer is....All of them.

I don't keep the guns in the safe loaded...

SanPedroShooter
02-19-2012, 8:10 PM
Real cop or troll?

I've been in law enforcement for over 20 years and my experience is that the those who are the most anxious to carry loaded, concealed weapons have neither the training nor the judgment required to make what could be a life or death decision.

In the worst cases, they have a comic book perception of things--doubtless gleaned from watching TV detective or western shows--and, while they think they could react in the same fantasical way that the actors do, armed criminals typically give no warning before they shoot their victims.

HowardW56
02-19-2012, 8:40 PM
Real cop or troll?

I've been in law enforcement for over 20 years and my experience is that the those who are the most anxious to carry loaded, concealed weapons have neither the training nor the judgment required to make what could be a life or death decision.

In the worst cases, they have a comic book perception of things--doubtless gleaned from watching TV detective or western shows--and, while they think they could react in the same fantasical way that the actors do, armed criminals typically give no warning before they shoot their victims.

I'd bet Troll :troll:

hoffmang
02-19-2012, 8:49 PM
OK, I'm curious. It says right there on the pic "Source: Calguns Foundation". Did they contact you for something and you steered them to that picture, or did they find it on their own?

I pointed them in that direction. The work up for the story was happening when I was at CES.

I do love the Bradys. They really don't like cases like this (http://174.123.24.242/leagle/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19811454630P2d824_11423.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985).

All these district courts keep splitting with modern State Supreme Courts. That'll cause problems :)

-Gene

23 Blast
02-19-2012, 8:53 PM
I've been in the fire department for over 20 years and my experience is that the those who are the most anxious to carry charged fire extinguishers in their cars have neither the training nor the judgment required to make what could be a life or death decision.

In the worst cases, they have a comic book perception of things--doubtless gleaned from watching TV shows like Emergency 51 and movies like Ladder 49--and, while they think they could react in the same fantasical way that the actors do, fires, especially car fires typically give no warning before they spread quickly out of control.

Changed some parts to show how silly the anti-gunners' arguments are.

HowardW56
02-19-2012, 9:03 PM
Changed some parts to show how silly the anti-gunners' arguments are.

:rofl2:

SanPedroShooter
02-19-2012, 9:09 PM
I am worn out over there. I must have left 20 comments and replies. I think a lot of the commenters are seriously plugging their own names, hoping to be 'discovered' in the LA times comment page. I **** you not.

We live in an incredible (take that however you want) state, and I am pilgrim in an unholy land.

safewaysecurity
02-19-2012, 9:12 PM
They really don't like cases like this (http://174.123.24.242/leagle/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19811454630P2d824_11423.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985).


-Gene

Holy crap! How come I never knew about this case? It's directly analogous to the firearms in the home/outside the home cases we are dealing with today.( Just pointing out the obvious ). It is a state supreme court case though, wonder how persuasive it will be to judges. How many cases have had this case cited? I'm guessing all of them do now.

HowardW56
02-19-2012, 9:14 PM
I am worn out over there. I must have left 20 comments and replies. I think a lot of the commenters are seriously plugging their own names, hoping to be 'discovered' in the LA times comment page. I **** you not.

We live in an incredible (take that however you want) state, and I am pilgrim in an unholy land.

Are you CCWINLA?

SanPedroShooter
02-19-2012, 9:17 PM
Yup. And I am going to bed. You and I seem to be the only 'pro' side of the argument over there. Tough crowd, although I searched a few odd names (looking for sockpuppets), and I came up with more than a few people that spend a lot of time drive by commenting on every article in the paper, going back years. A lot of their bios also say they are actors/directors etc etc.. Thats why I am convinced this is just another way to 'network'. Jesus Christ, only in LA....

HowardW56
02-19-2012, 9:19 PM
Yup. And I am going to bed.


You were very busy, good job!

Alan Block
02-19-2012, 9:34 PM
But if you are one of the few people being attacked, you deserve the right to defend yourself.

hoffmang
02-19-2012, 9:50 PM
Holy crap! How come I never knew about this case? It's directly analogous to the firearms in the home/outside the home cases we are dealing with today.( Just pointing out the obvious ). It is a state supreme court case though, wonder how persuasive it will be to judges. How many cases have had this case cited? I'm guessing all of them do now.

Modern State Supreme Court cases are quite persuasive. You'll begin to see it in all of the carry appeals.

-Gene

mag360
02-19-2012, 9:59 PM
man there are some stupid trolls on the comments.

23 Blast
02-19-2012, 10:03 PM
Yup. And I am going to bed. You and I seem to be the only 'pro' side of the argument over there. Tough crowd, although I searched a few odd names (looking for sockpuppets), and I came up with more than a few people that spend a lot of time drive by commenting on every article in the paper, going back years. A lot of their bios also say they are actors/directors etc etc.. Thats why I am convinced this is just another way to 'network'. Jesus Christ, only in LA....

Its the LA times. If I ever need to get my blood pressure up, I just read the comments section of the LA Times. The hatred and ignorance of the comments are matched only perhaps by Youtube for sheer idiocy and filth.

Thanks for your noble efforts, CCWinLA. Some people just won't see the light, until they're facing down an armed criminal (and perhaps having to defend not just their own life, but the lives of a spouse and/or children) with nothing more lethal than their fists and feet and maybe a kitchen knife.

Liberty1
02-19-2012, 10:07 PM
CN just chimed in with the comment essentially crying 'look at me, look at me'!

phalanxbl
02-19-2012, 10:24 PM
Its the LA times. If I ever need to get my blood pressure up, I just read the comments section of the LA Times. The hatred and ignorance of the comments are matched only perhaps by Youtube for sheer idiocy and filth.

Thanks for your noble efforts, CCWinLA. Some people just won't see the light, until they're facing down an armed criminal (and perhaps having to defend not just their own life, but the lives of a spouse and/or children) with nothing more lethal than their fists and feet and maybe a kitchen knife.

One of my more persuasive arguments has been to pose the following hypothetical to people, especially those who ask me if the world would be better off if all guns disappeared:

Suppose your mother is at home by herself and has no firearms, and several men break in, also all unarmed. Who do you think is gonna win that fight, the robbers or your mom? Do you expect your mom to win fisticuffs against several younger, faster, stronger crooks?

That one usually gets them to at least pause and think rationally for a second or two. All but the most rabid anti-gun people will admit that a gun in their mom's hands gives her the best chance at surviving. The most rabid will say something along the lines that a gun would only escalate the situation and that surrendering would be better. Then I have to point out that 1 in 3 home invasions result in serious injury or death for the victims when the victims did not resist.

I also find that many people underestimate the consequences of a serious injury. They think it's like TV shows where people magically bounce back from severe trauma. The truth is that serious injuries can leave permanent damage, and linger for your entire life. My mom has a friend whose son was struck in the head just once by a thug who swung a scooter at him. Permanent brain damage, and that family is on the verge of losing their home because of the medical bills stacking up on them. So yeah, sure, on the stat sheets that crime doesn't go down as a "murder", but it still damn well ruined lives. That night would have ended better had the son been able to defend himself.

Rossi357
02-19-2012, 10:26 PM
Charles Nichols at 10:35 PM February 19, 2012
Not a single mention of my Federal Lawsuit to restore Loaded Open Carry to California -> http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

Had to laugh. Everyone is ignoring him. Poor baby.

Goosebrown
02-20-2012, 3:40 AM
I read through the comments section and actually, I am a little sad. Some of the commenters are so removed from reality that it they can't be having normal lives. One, the Hill guy, I googled him and looked at his resume and he is really seriously under-employed, he has to have issues...

I like the fight against Brady and the *thoughtful* ones, but the sad zealots are a pathetic lot.

CitaDeL
02-20-2012, 5:46 AM
Real cop or troll?

I've been in law enforcement for over 20 years and my experience is that the those who are the most anxious to carry loaded, concealed weapons have neither the training nor the judgment required to make what could be a life or death decision.

In the worst cases, they have a comic book perception of things--doubtless gleaned from watching TV detective or western shows--and, while they think they could react in the same fantasical way that the actors do, armed criminals typically give no warning before they shoot their victims.

Unfortunately, this could very well be a real cop. I have first hand experience with law enforcement who believe that they can discern who does and does not have the judgement necessary to defend themselves with a firearm, and even though it exceeds their authority to do so, intend to abbrogate the right to keep and bear arms for their politically and personally motivated whims.

Aldemar
02-20-2012, 6:50 AM
Don't get too excited about the LA Times haveing a balanced story about firearm issues just yet. This is a link to their editorial page from today (2/20/12)

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-guns-20120220,0,3821863.story

Nothing has changed it appears.

HowardW56
02-20-2012, 6:55 AM
KNX 1070 am, picked up this article... What I heard was factual/neutral reporting...

HowardW56
02-20-2012, 7:13 AM
Don't get too excited about the LA Times haveing a balanced story about firearm issues just yet. This is a link to their editorial page from today (2/20/12)

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-guns-20120220,0,3821863.story

Nothing has changed it appears.

At least that is on their editorial/opinion page. I guess they are entitled to their opinions too, no matter how vehemently I disagree…

Aldemar
02-20-2012, 8:33 AM
At least that is on their editorial/opinion page. I guess they are entitled to their opinions too, no matter how vehemently I disagree…

Very true, but if any aspect of gun law comes to a public vote, there is no doubt as to how their voting recommendation would go. No matter how logical we can make the concealed/unconcealed arguments, the Times will always side with the Bradys and their ilk. That editorial proves that.

bodger
02-20-2012, 9:39 AM
Real cop or troll?

I've been in law enforcement for over 20 years and my experience is that the those who are the most anxious to carry loaded, concealed weapons have neither the training nor the judgment required to make what could be a life or death decision.

In the worst cases, they have a comic book perception of things--doubtless gleaned from watching TV detective or western shows--and, while they think they could react in the same fantasical way that the actors do, armed criminals typically give no warning before they shoot their victims.

Unfortunately, this could very well be a real cop. I have first hand experience with law enforcement who believe that they can discern who does and does not have the judgement necessary to defend themselves with a firearm, and even though it exceeds their authority to do so, intend to abbrogate the right to keep and bear arms for their politically and personally motivated whims.

I agree. I recently had a conversation with a Senior Lead Officer of the LAPD about this very subject, and his outlook on LTC was almost exactly the same as the quote from the LEO above.
I guess a lot of them believe it's better to have few citizens shot and killed by criminals than to risk having a legally armed populous that thinks it's all going to be like a TV drama if they ever need to use their weapon in self defense. These anti-LTC LEOS ignore the fact that the irresponsible use of firearms that they fear doesn't seem to be happening in a state like Arizona where you don't even need a permit to carry concealed.

We're supposed to be good sheep and depend on the government to defend us.

mag360
02-20-2012, 10:06 AM
the trolls are out in force on the LA times page today, need to get more of us commenting. AND voting ;)

Mesa Tactical
02-20-2012, 10:09 AM
In the worst cases, they have a comic book perception of things--doubtless gleaned from watching TV detective or western shows--and, while they think they could react in the same fantasical way that the actors do, armed criminals typically give no warning before they shoot their victims.

Oh, the irony, since comic book perceptions of guns based on movies and teevee is exactly what motivates the grabbers.

Gray Peterson
02-20-2012, 11:53 AM
All,

Please do not use the term "libs", or "liberals" or "Dems" in the LA Times comment thread. It dilutes your arguments and you folks are getting blowback from "Dem gunnies" and "liberal gunnies" and making yourselves look stupid. The more you make it a political philosophical argument or a partisan argument, the more you dilute the perception that it is a right that is beyond politics.

The biggest anti-gunners in the state, the sheriff's who deny carry licenses to people and violate things like equal protection and state laws, are mostly conservative republicans, not democrats. See Sheriff David Livingston of Contra Costa County, and Sheriff Laurie Smith of Santa Clara County, as an example.

problemchild
02-20-2012, 12:33 PM
Actually you are more confused or uninformed than the anti-gunners.

Gun bans have "NOTHING TO DO WITH SAFETY"!

Never have and NEVER will. Guns are banned for control over the people by the elite globalists that want total control over the sheep. The anti's will say its all about safety and the useful idiots will march in goose-step because they are too stupid to see the real agenda.

The worst part of this is the whole pro-gun side arguing about safety and wasting time over it when you could spend your time in more useful arenas. Nothing is legal past "shall not infringe".

2A did not say:

Shall not infringe unless in a large city
Shall not infringe unless in California
Shall not infringe unless you can prove you need a gun
Shall not infringe unless it holds less than 11 rds
Shall not infringe unless unless its a removable magazine
Shall not infringe unless its approved by DOJ for sale in CA
Shall not infringe unless convicted of arguing with your wife
Shall not infringe unless your in a school zone

2A says ----> SHALL NOT INFRINGE!!!!!!!!!

Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1
: to encroach upon in any way that violates the rights of another



One of my more persuasive arguments has been to pose the following hypothetical to people, especially those who ask me if the world would be better off if all guns disappeared:

Suppose your mother is at home by herself and has no firearms, and several men break in, also all unarmed. Who do you think is gonna win that fight, the robbers or your mom? Do you expect your mom to win fisticuffs against several younger, faster, stronger crooks?

That one usually gets them to at least pause and think rationally for a second or two. All but the most rabid anti-gun people will admit that a gun in their mom's hands gives her the best chance at surviving. The most rabid will say something along the lines that a gun would only escalate the situation and that surrendering would be better. Then I have to point out that 1 in 3 home invasions result in serious injury or death for the victims when the victims did not resist.

I also find that many people underestimate the consequences of a serious injury. They think it's like TV shows where people magically bounce back from severe trauma. The truth is that serious injuries can leave permanent damage, and linger for your entire life. My mom has a friend whose son was struck in the head just once by a thug who swung a scooter at him. Permanent brain damage, and that family is on the verge of losing their home because of the medical bills stacking up on them. So yeah, sure, on the stat sheets that crime doesn't go down as a "murder", but it still damn well ruined lives. That night would have ended better had the son been able to defend himself.

A-J
02-20-2012, 1:04 PM
Real cop or troll?

I've been in law enforcement for over 20 years and my experience is that the those who are the most anxious to carry loaded, concealed weapons have neither the training nor the judgment required to make what could be a life or death decision.

In the worst cases, they have a comic book perception of things--doubtless gleaned from watching TV detective or western shows--and, while they think they could react in the same fantasical way that the actors do, armed criminals typically give no warning before they shoot their victims.

Man that could totally go either way. I say this because you have to look at the genre of people that LEOs tend to interact with most often. Without pointing to any particular group, I would say the LEOs not working traffic tend to deal with the "less eloquent" persons of our society, to put it in a very PC like way. Of course, there are also (in all likelihood) a small percentage of LEOs who feel that way. Don't get me wrong, the people who want a CCW because they have crime fighting fantasies do exist, and they're the most vocal IRL IMO. The folks who are well trained generally do not go shooting off at the mouth about what they can do (except when at the range with their buds).

Martial arts is a good example of this. The guy (or girl, I'm not sexist) that has studied their art since they were kids and have progressed steadily up the ranks and really know how to handle themselves does not walk around yelling "I know KARATE!!" At the other end, you get some nimrod (usually a guy, I'll admit) who took like 2 classes, he's gonna walk around saying dumb things like "I know karate fool! Don't mess with me."


Overall, it's nice to see an article that has balance.

press1280
02-20-2012, 2:08 PM
Link is bad.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-right-to-carry-20120220,0,4684092.story

That being said:

""I expect the Supreme Court to decide as courts around the country have decided in hundreds of cases that there is not a 2nd Amendment right to carry guns in public places," said Jonathan E. Lowy, legal action director for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence."

Just an FYI: This guy is arguing in front of the 10th Circuit in Peterson v. Martinez. Unfortunately, given that he's opposing amicus counsel, I cannot say the various forms of profanity and insult that one is used to seeing me hurl towards these craven anti-gunners....

I don't even think the number is over a dozen, especially since this "only in the home" theory for some odd reason has no historical basis whatsoever and has never been mentioned until recently :facepalm:

BTW-I wanted to read that state supreme court case, but the link isn't working for me.

Kid Stanislaus
02-20-2012, 2:11 PM
I've been in law enforcement for over 20 years and my experience is that the those who are the most anxious to carry loaded, concealed weapons have neither the training nor the judgment required to make what could be a life or death decision.

And of course the police excell in that regard.

In the worst cases, they have a comic book perception of things--doubtless gleaned from watching TV detective or western shows--and, while they think they could react in the same fantasical way that the actors do, armed criminals typically give no warning before they shoot their victims.

Evidently you don't frequent websites that report the civilian use of firearms for self protection.

curtisfong
02-20-2012, 2:55 PM
I agree. I recently had a conversation with a Senior Lead Officer of the LAPD about this very subject, and his outlook on LTC was almost exactly the same as the quote from the LEO above.
I guess a lot of them believe it's better to have few citizens shot and killed by criminals than to risk having a legally armed populous that thinks it's all going to be like a TV drama if they ever need to use their weapon in self defense. These anti-LTC LEOS ignore the fact that the irresponsible use of firearms that they fear doesn't seem to be happening in a state like Arizona where you don't even need a permit to carry concealed.

We're supposed to be good sheep and depend on the government to defend us.

Typical LAPD elitism. That's their culture. They think they are soldiers.

GMANtt
02-20-2012, 2:55 PM
Actually you are more confused or uninformed than the anti-gunners.

Gun bans have "NOTHING TO DO WITH SAFETY"!

Never have and NEVER will. Guns are banned for control over the people by the elite globalists that want total control over the sheep. The anti's will say its all about safety and the useful idiots will march in goose-step because they are too stupid to see the real agenda.

The worst part of this is the whole pro-gun side arguing about safety and wasting time over it when you could spend your time in more useful arenas. Nothing is legal past "shall not infringe".

2A did not say:

Shall not infringe unless in a large city
Shall not infringe unless in California
Shall not infringe unless you can prove you need a gun
Shall not infringe unless it holds less than 11 rds
Shall not infringe unless unless its a removable magazine
Shall not infringe unless its approved by DOJ for sale in CA
Shall not infringe unless convicted of arguing with your wife
Shall not infringe unless your in a school zone

2A says ----> SHALL NOT INFRINGE!!!!!!!!!

Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1
: to encroach upon in any way that violates the rights of another

This should make it an open and shut case.

Bobby Hated
02-20-2012, 5:43 PM
that quote was def a LEO.

the best part is when LEO's like that who think they are well trained come out with their tac/duty rig and shoot a IDPA or USPSA match for the first time. then they check the scores a couple days later only to find out they came in 47 out of 50.

hoffmang
02-20-2012, 8:47 PM
Part of the reason CN is so unhappy is that he's the person who spun this article up. It should tell you something that the writer and editorial staff decided to excise him from it...

-Gene

hoffmang
02-20-2012, 8:47 PM
Part of the reason CN is so unhappy is that he's the person who spun this article up. It should tell you something that the writer and editorial staff decided to excise him from it...

-Gene

ke6guj
02-20-2012, 8:51 PM
:kest:

HowardW56
02-21-2012, 6:08 AM
Part of the reason CN is so unhappy is that he's the person who spun this article up. It should tell you something that the writer and editorial staff decided to excise him from it...

-Gene

He is trying to be relevant, he just doesn't know how to... :eek:

Mesa Tactical
02-21-2012, 6:11 AM
Part of the reason CN is so unhappy is that he's the person who spun this article up. It should tell you something that the writer and editorial staff decided to excise him from it...

Ouch, that's gotta hurt!

ConcernedCitizen
02-21-2012, 7:04 AM
Love the comments!
There's one at 6:13 am talking about OC not fitting in with the "beach vibe"! Hey, they just invented a right to "beach vibe"! And it trumps the RKBA!

And the one at 7:39 am taliking about a "...paranoid existential rampage of calculated slaugter..." No wait--- who's paranoid?

Made my morning, seeing how these folks "think".

Mulay El Raisuli
02-21-2012, 7:05 AM
I pointed them in that direction. The work up for the story was happening when I was at CES.

I do love the Bradys. They really don't like cases like this (http://174.123.24.242/leagle/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19811454630P2d824_11423.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985).

All these district courts keep splitting with modern State Supreme Courts. That'll cause problems :)

-Gene


GREAT case! Sitting around for 30 years isn't good, but at least it's there.


The Raisuli