PDA

View Full Version : SB 1567 (La Malfa) 2012: LTC holders exempt from 10 day wait


TB84
02-25-2012, 4:58 PM
SB 1567 (La Malfa) http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1567&sess=CUR&house=B&author=la_malfa

BILL NUMBER: SB 1567 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT


INTRODUCED BY Senator La Malfa

FEBRUARY 24, 2012

An act to add Sections 26975 and 27652 to the Penal Code, relating
to firearms.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


SB 1567, as introduced, La Malfa. Firearms: waiting period:
exemptions.
Existing law prohibits a dealer from delivering a firearm to a
person within 10-days of an application to purchase, within 10 days
of the submission to the Department of Justice of any correction to
the application, or within 10-days of the submission to the
department of a firearm purchaser fee, whichever is later. Existing
law provides that this 10-day waiting period does not apply to the
sale, delivery, or transfer of firearms to a full-time paid peace
officer who is authorized to carry firearms while in the performance
of duties, or to a dealer who delivers a firearm, other than a
handgun, at an auction or similar event, among other exceptions.
Existing law generally prohibits the carrying of concealed
firearms without a license. Existing law permits a sheriff or head of
a municipal police department to issue a license to a person who
submits an application to carry a concealed firearm upon proof that
the applicant is of a good moral character, that good cause exists
for the issuance of the license, and certain residency requirements
are met.
This bill would provide that the 10-day waiting period does not
apply to the sale, delivery, or transfer of firearms to any person
who is authorized to carry a weapon in a concealed manner pursuant to
the above provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 26975 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
26975. The waiting period described in Section 26815 does not
apply to the sale, delivery, or transfer of firearms made to any
person who is authorized to carry a weapon in a concealed manner
pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5.
SEC. 2. Section 27652 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
27652. The waiting period described in Section 27540 does not
apply to the sale, delivery, or transfer of firearms made to any
person who is authorized to carry a weapon in a concealed manner
pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5.

schneiderguy
02-25-2012, 5:30 PM
Would be a step in the right direction :)

morrcarr67
02-25-2012, 5:44 PM
I wonder if that law suit brought by the CGF has anything to do with this?

mag360
02-25-2012, 5:48 PM
ahhh finally. The problem is that one of the most conservative reeps (laMalfa) who is outspoken against the high speed rail is carrying it. I wish him luck but until we get guys like Mike Gatto running the bill it has a very slim chance in passing, but it will be fun seeing the excuses from the civil rights haters like Kevin DeLeon, Nancy Skinner, Mark Leno, Darrel Steinberg try to refute why this is a bad idea.

wildhawker
02-25-2012, 5:49 PM
I wonder if that law suit brought by the CGF has anything to do with this?

:whistling:

Sunday
02-25-2012, 6:43 PM
Lamalfa is supposed to be running for Wally Hergers seat as Wally is retiring.

Ubermcoupe
02-25-2012, 7:25 PM
This would be great... If I lived in a county that issued LTCs... :(

Nor Cal Scot
02-25-2012, 7:36 PM
Wow, lamalfa is actually doing something worthwhile? And herger...gtfo finally.

mag360
02-25-2012, 7:51 PM
you mean the "save our state" donation bill LaMalfa ran doesn't count as doing something, haha.

Apocalypsenerd
02-25-2012, 8:03 PM
So if this bill passes and is signed into law, does it moot the lawsuit?

mag360
02-25-2012, 8:13 PM
no because the lawsuit covers everyone, this exempts the LTC'ers. Good for some now, better for evryone when the lawsuit wins.

mag360
02-25-2012, 8:14 PM
where is the damn repeal of SB23 already!?!

Gray Peterson
02-25-2012, 9:09 PM
So if this bill passes and is signed into law, does it moot the lawsuit?

Only a part of it. The as-applied challenge in re LTC holders would be nullified, but the facial challenge in toto as well as the other as-applied challenge provisions.

pointedstick
02-25-2012, 9:24 PM
Oh very nice. Offer them two choices: roll the dice court, or try to moot the lawsuit by grudgingly offering us some of what we want. This seems like a good strategy for the kinds of incremental gains we need.

Gray Peterson
02-26-2012, 1:33 AM
Btw, a bill like this would increase the "buy in" for LTC's in the future, increasing the numbers of LTC holders in general.

mag360
02-26-2012, 2:48 AM
I agree, people would value getting/keeping an LTC that much more. Any way it can be amended to exempt NICS as well? Isn't that done in AZ with an LTC?

RTribble88
02-26-2012, 3:52 AM
They should add security guard firearms permit holders to that list. Other than that I think its a great step forward

Quiet
02-26-2012, 4:48 AM
I agree, people would value getting/keeping an LTC that much more. Any way it can be amended to exempt NICS as well? Isn't that done in AZ with an LTC?

In order to get the NICS exemption, the CA DOJ has to petition BATFE.

Mesa Tactical
02-26-2012, 7:04 AM
Btw, a bill like this would increase the "buy in" for LTC's in the future, increasing the numbers of LTC holders in general.

Indeed. It would make an LTC worth getting even if you never intended to carry.

j.hors
02-26-2012, 7:25 AM
Maybe I missed it, or I'm just trying to stretch it, but I didn't see it saying a valid California LTC. It just says any person authorized to carry concealed. So would that make an Arizona LTC valid for the exemption?

Zimz
02-26-2012, 8:27 AM
Maybe I missed it, or I'm just trying to stretch it, but I didn't see it saying a valid California LTC. It just says any person authorized to carry concealed. So would that make an Arizona LTC valid for the exemption?

As this is a bill in CA, I'm sure its a given that the phrase "In CA" doesn't have to be included. Arizona LTC isn't valid in CA

Arondos
02-26-2012, 8:32 AM
Why should someone with a LTC be exempt and not Joe Average citizen?

Another law to create another special exempted class when it comes to a basic right.

If we have to keep a ten daylong ridiculous wait then it should apply to everyone or it should be gotten rid of.

Mesa Tactical
02-26-2012, 8:37 AM
Why should someone with a LTC be exempt and not Joe Average citizen?

Because we already know the LTC holder has guns.

The ostensible purpose of the waiting period is for "cooling off." Obviously, anyone who already owns one or more guns ought to be exempt from the waiting period. The problem with that is the only way to determine whether or not someone should be exempt is to assemble a database of gun owners, and you know where that could lead.

So exempting LTC holders is a first step.

morrcarr67
02-26-2012, 8:38 AM
Maybe I missed it, or I'm just trying to stretch it, but I didn't see it saying a valid California LTC. It just says any person authorized to carry concealed. So would that make an Arizona LTC valid for the exemption?

Read this section from the OP.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 26975 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
26975. The waiting period described in Section 26815 does not
apply to the sale, delivery, or transfer of firearms made to any
person who is authorized to carry a weapon in a concealed manner
pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5.
SEC. 2. Section 27652 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
27652. The waiting period described in Section 27540 does not
apply to the sale, delivery, or transfer of firearms made to any
person who is authorized to carry a weapon in a concealed manner
pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5.

Here is a thread on PC 26150 started by Gene:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=384933

PC 26150 is the PC for a CA LTC.

10001110101
02-26-2012, 8:42 AM
Would be nice to get this expanded to include the Certificate of Eligibility as well. That would make that piece of paper worth a whole lot more.

j.hors
02-26-2012, 8:43 AM
Read this section from the OP.


Here is a thread on PC 26150 started by Gene:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=384933

PC 26150 is the PC for a CA LTC.

Oh ok, thanks. Like I said I thought I was missing something.

morrcarr67
02-26-2012, 8:45 AM
Oh ok, thanks. Like I said I thought I was missing something.

Very easy to do.

Californio
02-26-2012, 8:53 AM
How about no HSC (tax) too.

RobG
02-26-2012, 9:32 AM
Why should someone with a LTC be exempt and not Joe Average citizen?

Another law to create another special exempted class when it comes to a basic right.


Exactly.

Because we already know the LTC holder has guns.


And I could just as easily prove I too already have guns.

While good on the surface, it only helps that small percentage of those fortunate enough to live in a county that issues.

Mesa Tactical
02-26-2012, 9:35 AM
And I could just as easily prove I too already have guns.

How, by carrying a gun with you into the store when you make a purchase? Why not propose that to the author of the bill?

ap3572001
02-26-2012, 9:39 AM
How, buy carrying a gun with you into the store when you make a purchase? Why not propose that to the author of the bill?

I agree. If You can show that You ALREADY have firearms, why should You wait ten days to get another one?

I carry a pistol off duty 24/7 for almost 20 years.
When I want to pick up a CZ .22 rifle for my son to shoot, I still have to wait ten days.....
To cool off I guess.....

RobG
02-26-2012, 9:42 AM
How, by carrying a gun with you into the store when you make a purchase? Why not propose that to the author of the bill?

Sure, why not? I have a copy of the transfer form and the gun. Is the LTC'er not going to carry his gun into the store and show his card?

Mesa Tactical
02-26-2012, 9:44 AM
Sure, why not? I have a copy of the transfer form and the gun. Is the LTC'er not going to carry his gun into the store and show his card?

Why not propose that to the author of the bill? Logically, you wouldn't even need to show the gun was legally yours; simply that you had access to it.

The LTC has a government document (his permit) that says he already owns a gun (or owned one at the time the permit was issued).

dieselpower
02-26-2012, 9:51 AM
They need to just issue a card, with a Registration number and searchable data base. If the card #, Name and CA ID all match the data base = gun owner = no waiting period....without linking that RIGHT to a certain HANDGUN.

LTC is governed by a CLEO and also linked to expensive training programs run by a 3rd party (for profit instructor)...

This is a step in a direction NOT backwards... thats it.

It still means I have to;
1) Pass a NICS
2) Pass a DROS
3) Pass a HSC
4) Buy a HANDGUN
5) Apply to a CLEO for a LTC FOR THAT HANDGUN
6) Pay a Private Instructor, who is approved by that CLEO, pass his class.
7) Wait to get the CLEOs final approval


all before I can buy other firearms same day. So the guy without a previous handgun purchase is a threat to society....

Mesa Tactical
02-26-2012, 9:53 AM
They need to just issue a card, with a Registration number and searchable data base. If the card #, Name and CA ID all match the data base = gun owner = no waiting period.

You really want a government database of gun owners? Really?

RobG
02-26-2012, 10:02 AM
Why not propose that to the author of the bill? Logically, you wouldn't even need to show the gun was legally yours; simply that you had access to it.

The LTC has a government document (his permit) that says he already owns a gun (or owned one at the time the permit was issued).

Access does not imply ownership or eligibility. My proposal to the author would be to ditch it in its entirety. Having a LTC does not somehow make one "better/more qualified" than those who cannot obtain one.

NorCalDustin
02-26-2012, 10:37 AM
Why should someone with a LTC be exempt and not Joe Average citizen?

Another law to create another special exempted class when it comes to a basic right.

If we have to keep a ten daylong ridiculous wait then it should apply to everyone or it should be gotten rid of.
Where does it say that you have the basic right to NOT wait a 10 day period before taking possession of a new firearm?


With respect to LTC holders being special... If you look, AB2615 seeks to change the good cause requirements.. That paired with the legal battles being done on our behalves it's not unreasonable to think that perhaps we will see more LTC's in the future AND more kinds of exemptions.

Also consider that your argument may be used at some point in court. Maybe if you can prove there is a special class of people in CA you can invalidate all of those special exemptions. You could only prove such a thing if you allow it to take place, which in the mean time, still benefits Californian's as a whole.


Remember, It's MUCH easier to make these small changes over time than getting the public & politicians to swallow the idea of no "10 day wait" for all the crazy gun owners out there...

tabrisnet
02-26-2012, 11:27 AM
Where does it say that you have the basic right to NOT wait a 10 day period before taking possession of a new firearm?


With respect to LTC holders being special... If you look, AB2615 seeks to change the good cause requirements.. That paired with the legal battles being done on our behalves it's not unreasonable to think that perhaps we will see more LTC's in the future AND more kinds of exemptions.

Also consider that your argument may be used at some point in court. Maybe if you can prove there is a special class of people in CA you can invalidate all of those special exemptions. You could only prove such a thing if you allow it to take place, which in the mean time, still benefits Californian's as a whole.


Remember, It's MUCH easier to make these small changes over time than getting the public & politicians to swallow the idea of no "10 day wait" for all the crazy gun owners out there...

I believe this was the idea behind the CGF's approval (but no lobbying or outright backing) of SB610 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=412633)

Gray Peterson
02-26-2012, 12:10 PM
How about no HSC (tax) too.

LTC holders are exempt from needing an HSC.

wildhawker
02-26-2012, 12:20 PM
10001110101,

See our case Silvester v. Harris. I am a plaintiff and have a COE.

-Brandon

TreeServ
02-26-2012, 12:28 PM
Why should someone with a LTC be exempt and not Joe Average citizen?

Because those LTC have already been through a vetting process above and beyond what Joe Average has...and demonstrated training and need to have a firearm now, not in ten days.

Gray Peterson
02-26-2012, 12:30 PM
Exactly.

And I could just as easily prove I too already have guns.

While good on the surface, it only helps that small percentage of those fortunate enough to live in a county that issues.

Access does not imply ownership or eligibility. My proposal to the author would be to ditch it in its entirety. Having a LTC does not somehow make one "better/more qualified" than those who cannot obtain one.

You realize that this bill is one of many addressing the waiting period, and could be amended at any time by the bill author on his own motion in the committees, right? You know what a "gut and amend" means in bill parlance?

I'm quite certain that this bill would not have been introduced if it weren't for CGF's lawsuit in Sylvester v. Harris. I can't go into further detail publicly as to why this bill would help normal gun owners who aren't LTC holders.

In Washington, we have a significant minority of gun owners who do not carry with their CPL's acquire a CPL purely in order to exempt themselves from the 5 day waiting period. They often work themselves into carriers later on down the line.

wildhawker
02-26-2012, 12:43 PM
Point of information: in the parlance of California legislative process, the term you use as 'gut and stuff' would more properly and generally be known as a 'gut and amend'.

goodlookin1
02-26-2012, 12:47 PM
I like the idea only because of what it means for further lawsuits down the road, but until CA goes Shall Issue, I will not support it (even though it would benefit me, being a holder of a LTC). I dont support laws that create unequal treatment to citizens. Because you live in a county that gives out LTC's, you are exempt? That's just not fair because many counties dont/wont issue.

Now if CA were Shall Issue, then anyone who wants a LTC can get one, and the onus is on YOU to be exempt from the 10-day wait. Then, of course, there is still the issue of some LTC fees being too high and puts it out of reach for some people, thus making it unfair still. But that's another issue.


But I have to say, I wouldnt lose sleep at night if this passed :p

Gray Peterson
02-26-2012, 1:01 PM
I like the idea only because of what it means for further lawsuits down the road, but until CA goes Shall Issue, I will not support it (even though it would benefit me, being a holder of a LTC). I dont support laws that create unequal treatment to citizens. Because you live in a county that gives out LTC's, you are exempt? That's just not fair because many counties dont/wont issue.

Now if CA were Shall Issue, then anyone who wants a LTC can get one, and the onus is on YOU to be exempt from the 10-day wait. Then, of course, there is still the issue of some LTC fees being too high and puts it out of reach for some people, thus making it unfair still. But that's another issue.


Some things are easier to pass when certain other things are not as easily available. Anything that allows a person to get exempted from the 10 day wait that's accessible to any law abiding citizen of the state, any at all, for now in the "green" counties, pre-Richards. Think in a legal sense rather than a legislative one, and you'll get what I'm talking about.

Check.

wildhawker
02-26-2012, 1:01 PM
goodlookin,

Cutting off your nose to spite your face is not a viable strategy. Think equal protection.

-Brandon

dieselpower
02-26-2012, 1:11 PM
You really want a government database of gun owners? Really?

No... and I didnt offer that. Those who don't want to be on a list, don't apply for the card. Those who do, don't have to wait ten days. Those who don't apply for the card have to wait ten days.

simple. Its the same thing as this bill yet...
1) I don't have to buy a handgun in order to be allowed to buy ANY firearm without a ten day wait.

2) I don't have to ask a CLEO for permission to carry a handgun...what if I don't want to carry a handgun NOR do I want talk to a CLEO.

3) I don't have to pay a Instructor to teach me about LTC laws and liability just to NOT wait ten days to buy a shotgun.

If you want to require some sort of REGISTRATION and vetting process before a person is allowed to buy ANY firearm without a ten day wait...DO IT!!!!! Don't hide that behind another law.

My father once told me if you want to drive a nail into a piece of wood, you don't do anything fancy, you don't make a big deal out of it...you just hit the dam thing with a hammer.

Hopalong
02-26-2012, 1:12 PM
I guess this falls under the category of

"Be thankful for small favors", or throw a dog a bone.

The whole thing is silly and contrived, just like all the other "California only" laws

As a person with a LTC, you'd think I'd be happy.

I'm not. I'd much rather have the 10 day wait go away for everybody

I'd much rather have shall issue for everybody, and the Roster go away for everybody.

This reeks of "divide and conquer", it's embarrassing.

wildhawker
02-26-2012, 1:18 PM
Hopalong, you're thinking uni-dimensionally.

Ubermcoupe
02-26-2012, 1:27 PM
Because those LTC have already been through a vetting process above and beyond what Joe Average has...and demonstrated training and need to have a firearm now, not in ten days.

Nope, I disagree.

It means the successful LTCer has jumped through the hoops a COP/Sheriff has set up, wether that be a background check, a psych check, or being buddy buddy.
And the need for a firearm now begins with wanting to defend one’s self against everyday danger.

I don’t want to sound like i’m jumping on you but if you believe the victim of a crime that has already happened is in more danger than someone who has yet to be a victim of a crime than you are drinking from the same trough as those funny legislators.
The need begins once someone says “I want to be able to defend myself from harm.” That is enough demonstration of need for me.

Having a LTC does not somehow make one "better/more qualified" than those who cannot obtain one.

Agreed.

Having an LTC in CA just means that one has applied for and been granted an LTC based on the preference of the issuing COP or Sheriff.

Some COPs/Sheriffs issue
Some make you jump through hoops
and some only issue to the 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 .01% who are some how “more qualified” than everybody else.

I kind of like how diesel power put it: “Its a step in a direction that is not backwards”

Hopalong
02-26-2012, 1:35 PM
I understand your point, but I don't necessarily agree.

I don't view this as having anything to do with "chipping away" at our chains

I look at this as a mutually exclusive event

Contrived to placate gun owners in the short term.

And, long term, if the 10 day wait was to go in front of a court as unconstitutional

I think that the anti gun lobby could actually argue that

"All a guy has to do to have the 10 day wait go away, is get a LTC"

FF/EMT Nick
02-26-2012, 1:51 PM
Does this effect the 1in30 rule in any way, i.e. would one be able to buy multiple hands in say "two weeks"?

aklover_91
02-26-2012, 2:14 PM
Because we already know the LTC holder has guns.

The ostensible purpose of the waiting period is for "cooling off." Obviously, anyone who already owns one or more guns ought to be exempt from the waiting period. The problem with that is the only way to determine whether or not someone should be exempt is to assemble a database of gun owners, and you know where that could lead.

So exempting LTC holders is a first step.

So why are we registering our handguns, and in the near future, our long guns if it isn't so they know who has a piece?

Rhetorical question. I know how porous the records are, just saying. Most of what this state does doesn't make a lick of sense.

ETA: I know it's a good thing as far as our strategy is concerned, doesn't mean I can't be frustrated.

Librarian
02-26-2012, 2:25 PM
Does this effect the 1in30 rule in any way, i.e. would one be able to buy multiple hands in say "two weeks"?

Nothing in the bill mentions that.

Gray Peterson
02-26-2012, 2:42 PM
Nothing in the bill mentions that.

A multiple handgun buyer would still need a C&R/COE combo. The bill does not exempt LTC holders from that, as it is currently written.

Gray Peterson
02-26-2012, 2:45 PM
Some COPs/Sheriffs issue
Some make you jump through hoops
and Some don’t issue at all

I kind of like how diesel power put it: “Its a step in a direction that is not backwards”

The underlined is not correct. No sheriff can pull a "don't issue at all". Chiefs of Police can get out of the business, but not sheriff's. See Salute v. Pitchess.

Gray Peterson
02-26-2012, 2:50 PM
I understand your point, but I don't necessarily agree.

I don't view this as having anything to do with "chipping away" at our chains

I look at this as a mutually exclusive event

Contrived to placate gun owners in the short term.

And, long term, if the 10 day wait was to go in front of a court as unconstitutional

I think that the anti gun lobby could actually argue that

"All a guy has to do to have the 10 day wait go away, is get a LTC"

That won't fix the issue, because LTC currently takes longer to get than a 10 day wait.

Also, anti-gun lobbies are not parties in court. Only the state is.

OleCuss
02-26-2012, 2:52 PM
I'd not previously visited this thread and I find it delightful!!!

We need to support this bill. It obviously will do some good for those with a carry license, but that is the minor part of it.

Gray and wildhawker are sort of hinting - and I think they've hinted too much. This is a good bill with the potential to be a very good bill (unless it gets the gut and amend treatment).

I think I know what Gray and wildhawker are getting at, but I think that the potential good actually goes further although it is more subtle in nature.

goodlookin1
02-26-2012, 2:55 PM
Some things are easier to pass when certain other things are not as easily available. Anything that allows a person to get exempted from the 10 day wait that's accessible to any law abiding citizen of the state, any at all, for now in the "green" counties, pre-Richards. Think in a legal sense rather than a legislative one, and you'll get what I'm talking about.

Check.
I totally get what you're saying. I still dont like the unequal treatment aspect of it though. I only hope we dont end up with a court case that drags on for years because it hinges on the outcome of another case. I can see it now:

- 10 day wait unconstitutional case ongoing
- In the meantime, CA passes new law where if buyer has LTC, then no 10-day wait
- CA argues there is a way to bypass 10 day wait, so not unconstitutional
- CGF/plaintiff says 10 day wait mandatory for people in counties with No-Issue LTC
- Case decision pending outcome of Shall-Issue LTC case
- Nordyke v2, here we come

Sorry, I'm a pessimist!



goodlookin,

Cutting off your nose to spite your face is not a viable strategy. Think equal protection.

-Brandon

Equal Protection is my beef with this legislation, in the sense that there is none! What am I missing here? Are you infering by "think equal protection" that there will be a lawsuit using the Equal Protection argument and will be impossible to lose, resulting in either Shall Issue OR no 10-day wait? I'm lost on what you mean by that...

Mesa Tactical
02-26-2012, 2:56 PM
Access does not imply ownership or eligibility.

Do you truly not understand the logic behind the waiting period?

If I walk into a gun store with a gun in my hand, it is pretty clear proof that I have access to a gun and don't need a cooling off period to buy another one. Doesn't even matter whether the gun is mine. It's in my hands!

Ubermcoupe
02-26-2012, 3:40 PM
The underlined is not correct. No sheriff can pull a "don't issue at all". Chiefs of Police can get out of the business, but not sheriff's. See Salute v. Pitchess.

Yea, I get it, however issuance to a very select few, and I mean FEW is a de facto non issuance.

wildhawker
02-26-2012, 3:48 PM
Do you truly not understand the logic behind the waiting period?

If I walk into a gun store with a gun in my hand, it is pretty clear proof that I have access to a gun and don't need a cooling off period to buy another one. Doesn't even matter whether the gun is mine. It's in my hands!

I completely agree with you but would like to offer that, as a practical matter, such evidencing of possession is extraordinarily unlikely to come through legislative means. ala NICS.]

-Brandon

Gray Peterson
02-26-2012, 4:40 PM
Yea, I get it, however issuance to a very select few, and I mean FEW is a de facto non issuance.

"Non-issuance" is a legal term of art. There is no "de facto", only "de jure", for the purposes of Salute.

Hopalong
02-26-2012, 6:09 PM
That won't fix the issue, because LTC currently takes longer to get than a 10 day wait.

Also, anti-gun lobbies are not parties in court. Only the state is.

In this instance, for all practical purposes

"State" and "anti-gun lobby" are synonymous.

As far as "fixing the issue"?

Since when does a court want to "fix" an issue?

Seems to me they just want arguments to hide behind, even if they make no sense.

After all, didn't the court in San Diego rule against LTC

Because you could open carry?

That didn't address or fix the issue, seems silly, and makes no sense

Just like a ruling would be that would cite

"Get an LTC, and there is no 10 day wait"

dantodd
02-26-2012, 7:31 PM
The simple fact is that the legislators believe that as long as we have a "may issue" system those who have an LTC are "like them" and part of the political elite because the sheriff has anointed them. The legislators are more likely to grant this group of people, hand selected by the sheriff, a free pass on the waiting period. If we succeed in getting "shall issue" the legislators won't view LTC holders as "special people" and will be less likely to grant them any special privileges.

NorCalDustin
02-26-2012, 9:58 PM
The simple fact is that the legislators believe that as long as we have a "may issue" system those who have an LTC are "like them" and part of the political elite because the sheriff has anointed them. The legislators are more likely to grant this group of people, hand selected by the sheriff, a free pass on the waiting period. If we succeed in getting "shall issue" the legislators won't view LTC holders as "special people" and will be less likely to grant them any special privileges.

As its been discussed/briefly hinted at by people in the know... This passing would open up some things to help EVERYONE.

Mesa Tactical
02-27-2012, 5:56 AM
So why are we registering our handguns, and in the near future, our long guns if it isn't so they know who has a piece?

That's a fair question. So the next question is, do we as gun rights advocates want to enshrine firearms registration as a legitimate method to prove gun ownership for the purposes of avoiding the cooling off period?

Something to discuss. I'm not sure I am in favor of this, since I'd be more interested in seeing the registration go away than the 10-day wait.

I'm further not confident that we will find the courts holding that such contemporaneous possession sufficiently undermines the government's interest in applying a background check requirement ala NICS.

That's a different issue. The mere possession of a handgun doesn't mean one is possessing it legally. The NICS check would still be required. But at least the 10-day wait could be avoided.

In theory.

[And then there wold be the added bonus of the hilarity that would ensue when non-eligible people showed up at the gun store, handgun in hand, only to fail the NICS check, with the FFL's next call being to 911]

Calplinker
02-27-2012, 8:54 AM
So, what's the likelihood that this bill makes it through the legislature and get's to Brown to sign?

Anyone care to wager a guess?

Does it have the backing of any of the rank and file legislators who seem loathe to move any legislation that does ANYTHING to benefit gun owners?

My heart sure hopes so, but my head thinks not.

TreeServ
02-27-2012, 9:51 AM
Point made, the other side of the coin that I did not look for...

Arondos
02-27-2012, 10:50 AM
Because those LTC have already been through a vetting process above and beyond what Joe Average has...and demonstrated training and need to have a firearm now, not in ten days.

Maybe there should be a special law for those who served and went through a "vetting process." Like we need another special class of citizen and more complications to the gun laws here. I was through a "vetting" process to get a secret clearance and held it for many years. This involved WAY more than a Sheriff does for a LTC.

The required training for a LTC is a joke. One of those feel good laws that really doesn't accomplish much IMO. Just a hoop to hop through.

Again training...I have an HSC waiver because I am retired military. Navy, submarines, I touched a firearm on average of about once every two plus years for 40 rounds to qualify as part of my duties. I shoot and handle weapons more now that I am retired than I ever did while active duty.

My point is I don't think people with a LTC should have special benefits anymore than any other citizen does. I don't think someone should have to prove they have a need to carry anymore than I think they should have to prove a need to vote. But our legislators and I disagree on that point.

darkwater
04-26-2012, 8:14 AM
Failed to get out of committee

CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : S.B. No. 1567
AUTHOR(S) : La Malfa.
TOPIC : Firearms: waiting period: exemptions.
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 04/16/2012


TYPE OF BILL :
Inactive
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 04/24/2012
LAST HIST. ACTION : Set, first hearing. Failed passage in committee.
COMM. LOCATION : SEN PUBLIC SAFETY

TITLE : An act to amend Sections 26150, 26155, 26185, 26950,
27535, and 28220 of, and to add Sections 26975 and 27652
to, the Penal Code, relating to firearms.

zinfull
04-26-2012, 8:58 AM
no surprise

jerry

12voltguy
04-26-2012, 9:18 AM
:facepalm::rolleyes:no surprise

jerry

it is to me.
I know our laws on guns make no sence
but I thought the logic on this one so clear that there could no way be any to not agree.....:facepalm::rolleyes:

zinfull
04-26-2012, 9:50 AM
If they used logic then CA would not be in the mess it is in now. They will never pass anything that will "weaken" the current gun laws.

jerry

The Original Godfather
04-26-2012, 10:03 AM
Whether or not you fully agree with the bill or not, support it.

This is a bill that we can win. It's something that both sides can vouch for. And that's what's important - this is something that we can actually win.

The more legal/political wins we get, the more momentum we create, and surely (even if slowly), we will regain our rights.

12voltguy
04-26-2012, 10:06 AM
Whether or not you fully agree with the bill or not, support it.

This is a bill that we can win. It's something that both sides can vouch for. And that's what's important - this is something that we can actually win.The more legal/political wins we get, the more momentum we create, and surely (even if slowly), we will regain our rights.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8472540&postcount=71
posts says we already lost????????????? wtf?:confused:

darkwater
04-26-2012, 10:30 AM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8472540&postcount=71
posts says we already lost????????????? wtf?:confused:

I don't think he read it. There may be a chance to re-introduce it in another legislative cycle, but if the Public Safety Committee is always going to be stacked with at least 2/3rds follow-the-party-line Democrats, we'll almost never get the simple majority needed to get it out of committee.

12voltguy
04-26-2012, 10:35 AM
I don't think he read it. There may be a chance to re-introduce it in another legislative cycle, but if the Public Safety Committee is always going to be stacked with at least 2/3rds follow-the-party-line Democrats, we'll almost never get the simple majority needed to get it out of committee.

guess I just read the bad:(

The Original Godfather
04-26-2012, 10:59 AM
I don't think he read it. There may be a chance to re-introduce it in another legislative cycle, but if the Public Safety Committee is always going to be stacked with at least 2/3rds follow-the-party-line Democrats, we'll almost never get the simple majority needed to get it out of committee.

Right. I was getting at that we have to start somewhere, with bills that we can actually win. It wont happen with an "all or nothing" approach.


Failing to get out of committee is common. Whatever revisions they need to make to appease the not-so-anti-gunners will be made. Even if it's the slightest step, or shuffle, or nudge in the right direction is still a win.

12voltguy
04-26-2012, 11:04 AM
Right. I was getting at that we have to start somewhere, with bills that we can actually win. It wont happen with an "all or nothing" approach.


Failing to get out of committee is common. Whatever revisions they need to make to appease the not-so-anti-gunners will be made. Even if it's the slightest step, or shuffle, or nudge in the right direction is still a win.

:thumbsup:

Librarian
04-26-2012, 11:14 AM
Here's the vote doc UNOFFICIAL BALLOT
MEASURE: SB 1567
AUTHOR: La Malfa
TOPIC: Firearms: waiting period: exemptions.
DATE: 04/24/2012
LOCATION: SEN. PUB. S.
MOTION: Do pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.
(AYES 2. NOES 5.) (FAIL)


AYES
****

Anderson Harman


NOES
****

Hancock Calderon Liu Price Steinberg

sharxbyte
04-26-2012, 11:16 AM
This is great. Unfortunately Sac county isn't effectively issuing CCW's at this time, but in Oct. I aim to get my guard card and that may speed up the CCW process a bit.

wildhawker
04-26-2012, 11:18 AM
How will a guard card speed up the carry license process?

sharxbyte
04-26-2012, 3:47 PM
According to one of the guards I know (and this could be completely irrelevent, because she got her card and CCW 7 years ago) the course she took included CCW training. She was issued the the CCW within 2 months of completing the course and paperwork. Not sure if it was just faster then, or if armed guards are considered LEO's and so get theirs processed when regular Civ's cant???

wildhawker
04-26-2012, 6:11 PM
While the licensing authority may accept the BSIS training for the purposes of a 26150 license, there are no shortcuts through the application process.

-Brandon

dantodd
04-26-2012, 6:28 PM
This is great. Unfortunately Sac county isn't effectively issuing CCW's at this time, but in Oct. I aim to get my guard card and that may speed up the CCW process a bit.

Keep us posted, I'm sure Brandon would like to know if having a guard card gets you an earlier appointment etc,

wildhawker
04-26-2012, 6:56 PM
Dan is reading my mind.

mag360
04-26-2012, 8:21 PM
crap crap crap crap I wanted this. The only reason they didn't pass this is to piss us off. There is absolutely no possible way this could reduce crime by not voting for it. Just a blatant big "eff you" to gun owners.

interstellar
04-26-2012, 8:49 PM
This issue will be present in the documentary "Bullet Button" - see thread in forum.

Kris

sharxbyte
04-26-2012, 10:33 PM
Oh, if it speeds up the process I'll let you know ;) that would be some wonderful ammunition right there... Maybe the sac PD chief would issue to a security guard?

Bhobbs
04-27-2012, 6:38 AM
Wow I'm so shocked this failed.

:rolleyes:

This had no chance in hell. No pro gun bills have any chance in hell of passing in this state.

Gray Peterson
04-27-2012, 7:34 AM
Wow I'm so shocked this failed.

:rolleyes:

This had no chance in hell. No pro gun bills have any chance in hell of passing in this state.

SB610. Emergency Powers law. AB2728.

mag360
04-27-2012, 9:19 AM
I'd just like to hear their arguments against this.