PDA

View Full Version : AB 2615 (Jones) 2012: LTC self-defense ='good cause'


Librarian
02-25-2012, 6:23 PM
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2615&sess=CUR&house=B&author=jones

Existing law authorizes the sheriff of a county or the chief or
other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and
county to issue a license to carry a concealed firearm to an
applicant for that license if the applicant is of good moral
character, good cause exists for issuance of the license, the
applicant meets specified residency requirements, and the applicant
has completed a specified course of training, including firearm
safety.
This bill would require the sheriff or head of a municipal police
department to issue that license if the applicant meets those
requirements. The bill would also specify that good cause, for
purposes of these provisions, includes personal protection or
self-defense.

valkylrie
02-25-2012, 6:27 PM
I like it, I like it a lot.

But it should be added that GMC= Not prohibited

wilit
02-25-2012, 6:34 PM
I like it. I wonder why we still leave this decision up to the Sheriffs though. Why isn't it regulated by the DOJ much like Utah and Florida? I figured if it were regulated by the state, it'd be easier to force their hand into shall issue rather than fight individual Sheriffs.

Rossi357
02-25-2012, 6:52 PM
Do you suppose they have seen the handwriting on the wall?

ewarmour
02-25-2012, 6:58 PM
Jones, Brian W. 77th District?

Casey
02-25-2012, 7:01 PM
I predict it will NOT make it out of the first committee hearing.

Ubermcoupe
02-25-2012, 7:03 PM
I’m for it! :D

tabrisnet
02-25-2012, 7:08 PM
GC is relatively unassailable, except under 14A EP grounds. Yes, we have had some successful lawsuits, but it has still require much effort to get this far with lawsuit, and requires a lot of evidence/discovery.

GMC is considerably easier to argue for, and much harder for the SOs to come up with a sufficient argument as to the lack thereof.

Thus I welcome this law, even if I have little faith it can pass.

mag360
02-25-2012, 8:05 PM
it's being carried by a tea partier from a rural san diego area, I really hope it passes but damn, they need to find dems to do these.

njineermike
02-25-2012, 8:15 PM
I predict it will NOT make it out of the first committee hearing.

Unfortunately, I agree with you.

1JimMarch
02-25-2012, 8:17 PM
What does "GMC" mean?

socal2310
02-25-2012, 8:20 PM
What does "GMC" mean?

"Good Moral Character"

Dreaded Claymore
02-25-2012, 8:49 PM
I like it. I wonder why we still leave this decision up to the Sheriffs though. Why isn't it regulated by the DOJ much like Utah and Florida?
Because it was passed back in the '30s for the express purpose of disarming Chinese and Mexicans. In Florida, the current law was passed in the '80s for the purpose of fulfilling the right to bear arms.

Our regime is more fiddly and bureaucratic, and harder to navigate, because it was intentionally designed that way.

Danz la Nuit
02-25-2012, 8:50 PM
Is this the right "Jones"?

arc.asm.ca.gov/member/77/

Wrangler John
02-25-2012, 11:16 PM
Because it was passed back in the '30s for the express purpose of disarming Chinese and Mexicans. In Florida, the current law was passed in the '80s for the purpose of fulfilling the right to bear arms.

Our regime is more fiddly and bureaucratic, and harder to navigate, because it was intentionally designed that way.

Don't forget the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed by Congress in 1882 and not repealed until 1943. California's law prohibiting Chinese from marrying whites wasn't repealed until 1948. In 1854 Chinese were classified with blacks and Indians by the California Supreme Court and prohibited from testifying against whites in courts of law. Indeed, if I recall my California history classes, the state simply stopped publishing anti-Chinese laws out of embarrassment prior to their official repeal.

Gun control was another mechanism to deny certain minority groups civil rights.

Some day I would like to see a LTC administered by the DMV, requiring only an additional background check and submission of training certificate. It could all be done at the same time as a driver's license. Providing that Constitutional carry is never obtainable, of course.

Tacobandit
02-26-2012, 6:59 AM
I predict that sheriffs and COP will interpret it as u still need to have a valid threat against you before they will issue as the writing isnt specific enough

Mrbroom
02-26-2012, 7:05 AM
Is this the right "Jones"?

arc.asm.ca.gov/member/77/

Yep.. He was the one that told ole Cheeseburger Portantino that we would support AB144 if it had included the "Shall Issue" clause...

erik_26
02-26-2012, 7:10 AM
It looks good on paper but....

I shouldn't need a permission slip from any form of Government to carry any of my firearms.

There are lots of prohibited people that carry their illegal firearms, illegally on their person.

I would like to see LTC or CCW go away completely.

Mrbroom
02-26-2012, 7:13 AM
Great video of him speaking on the floor!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD_ylPw2WpY

Purple K
02-26-2012, 8:19 AM
Don't forget the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed by Congress in 1882 and not repealed until 1943. California's law prohibiting Chinese from marrying whites wasn't repealed until 1948. In 1854 Chinese were classified with blacks and Indians by the California Supreme Court and prohibited from testifying against whites in courts of law. Indeed, if I recall my California history classes, the state simply stopped publishing anti-Chinese laws out of embarrassment prior to their official repeal.

Gun control was another mechanism to deny certain minority groups civil rights.

Some day I would like to see a LTC administered by the DMV, requiring only an additional background check and submission of training certificate. It could all be done at the same time as a driver's license. Providing that Constitutional carry is never obtainable, of course.

There are some Shall Issue states that already use the DMV as you describe.

Kid Stanislaus
02-26-2012, 8:49 AM
I predict it will NOT make it out of the first committee hearing.

I predict that when it is read in committee the folks in San Diego will be able to hear a loud roar of laughter coming from Sacramento!:eek:

Kid Stanislaus
02-26-2012, 8:52 AM
GMC is considerably easier to argue for, and much harder for the SOs to come up with a sufficient argument as to the lack thereof.

The sheriff does not have to come up with a sufficient argument as to the lack thereof. The law allows him to decide what is or is not good moral character. If he decides that parting one's hair down the middle is a sign of poor moral character then that's the way it goes down.:mad:

Mesa Tactical
02-26-2012, 9:04 AM
It looks good on paper but....

I shouldn't need a permission slip from any form of Government to carry any of my firearms.

There are lots of prohibited people that carry their illegal firearms, illegally on their person.

I would like to see LTC or CCW go away completely.

You get right to work on that.

ewarmour
02-26-2012, 9:46 AM
It looks good on paper but....

I shouldn't need a permission slip from any form of Government to carry any of my firearms.

There are lots of prohibited people that carry their illegal firearms, illegally on their person.

I would like to see LTC or CCW go away completely.

I would rather have a shall issue permission slip that says I can carry than a douche bag sheriff that "decides" weather I can carry or not.

tabrisnet
02-26-2012, 10:00 AM
The sheriff does not have to come up with a sufficient argument as to the lack thereof. The law allows him to decide what is or is not good moral character. If he decides that parting one's hair down the middle is a sign of poor moral character then that's the way it goes down.:mad:


Hmmm. Maybe. But until now, GC has been the main blocker. I can't think of too many (publicized?) cases where a CCW application was rejected based solely on GMC. However! It is worth noting that until this year, the SOs were not required to tell us WHY they rejected.

Thus it may also be unknowable whether the rejections were, until now, predicated [solely] on GMC.

I do not necessarily believe that we can eliminate the lawsuits (albeit I would wish it to be so), but I think that bringing an argument on the correct application of GMC is much easier, to at least restrict for discretion. Meanwhile, establishing the record of someone's (legally speaking) GMC is much easier than dealing with "Well, each person's Good Cause is different, b/c there are circumstances as to how rapeable Paris Hilton is, for why she gets to have a CCW".

HOWEVER, if I were to put my 'kcbrown' hat on (I am not, afaik, as old and crotchety as he :oji:), I might then surmise that this law may moot our current lawsuits, which have been primarily litigating GC (on EP grounds), and then we end up with another fight, solely on GMC. In this fight, the SOs step up and somehow make the ludicrous claims that parking & speeding tickets are sufficient proof of lack of GMC.

:facepalm:

erik_26
02-26-2012, 12:07 PM
You get right to work on that.

It would require people taking back there state/country.

We would need major funding to run ads on TV. Hundreds of thousand of people to protest in the street. People to stop the government.

A few activist willing to risk it all by not disarming.


We both know there is a better chance of winning the lottery then having a true revolution. Besides, no one wants to be inconvenienced. It is far to easy to sit on the computer and complain then to take real action.

I would rather have a shall issue permission slip that says I can carry than a douche bag sheriff that "decides" weather I can carry or not.

Agreed. I would rather have shall issue over nothing.

But we shouldn't need anything at all. There are laws in place for when you use your firearm the wrong way (i.e. Murder, armed robbery.... etc.). If you have a 'permission slip' saying you can carry a gun will not lessen or cancel out a murder charge.

ap3572001
02-26-2012, 12:28 PM
I like it!!!!

We are on he way to SHALL ISSUE.

I hope......

CCWFacts
02-26-2012, 1:41 PM
I predict it will NOT make it out of the first committee hearing.

No it will not. 12 years ago, a bill like that passed all the way through the Assembly. Last year it died in committee. This year it will be the same. California has changed. The last time a Republican presidential candidate carried California was in 1988. We are finished here and will only make progress through the court system. No gun control reforms, however small, are viable now. Remember last year they tried to change something so that honorably discharged vets wouldn't need to take the HSC, and they couldn't even pass that? Yeah. I can't think of any less controversial, less significant change we could make, and that died.

Demographic changes have happened here which are irreversible and which have made the GOP a permanent minority party. In fact the Dems will have a super-majority in the legislature this year, and the Republican party will have nothing to say about what goes on in our state.

I am very very sad that our state may become like a Detroit with better weather. If you could go back in time to Detroit in 1960, and ask people what they thought their city would be like in 25 years, they would have described a beautiful, productive, safe city, a modern dream. The reality turned out to be something different. I'm worried that California today is at the same point Detroit was in in 1960.

Who is going to be our next governor? Could it be Gavin Newsom? Kamala Harris?

kcbrown
02-26-2012, 1:49 PM
HOWEVER, if I were to put my 'kcbrown' hat on (I am not, afaik, as old and crotchety as he :oji:), I might then surmise that this law may moot our current lawsuits, which have been primarily litigating GC (on EP grounds), and then we end up with another fight, solely on GMC. In this fight, the SOs step up and somehow make the ludicrous claims that parking & speeding tickets are sufficient proof of lack of GMC.


Richards addresses both GC and GMC if I'm not mistaken. Mooting GC won't moot the GMC part of the case as far as I know, but the legal experts will have to weigh in on that.

Is there anyone as old and crotchety as me? :oji: :eek: :D

Librarian
02-26-2012, 2:28 PM
Is there anyone as old and crotchety as me? :oji: :eek: :D
Crotchety is a state of mind, but I don't think you're "old".

Mesa Tactical
02-26-2012, 3:07 PM
We both know there is a better chance of winning the lottery then having a true revolution. Besides, no one wants to be inconvenienced. It is far to easy to sit on the computer and complain then to take real action.

You say you want a revolution? Don't you know that you can count me out.

Revolutions are messy.

Gray Peterson
02-26-2012, 3:25 PM
No it will not. 12 years ago, a bill like that passed all the way through the Assembly. Last year it died in committee. This year it will be the same. California has changed. The last time a Republican presidential candidate carried California was in 1988. We are finished here and will only make progress through the court system. No gun control reforms, however small, are viable now.

SB610.

CCWFacts
02-26-2012, 3:50 PM
SB610.

That's true and that was a very good bill for us. However I think that may be the last we can hope for. Redistricting is going to gain the Democrats a few more seats and therefore a supermajority.

I would like to emphasize, this isn't the swing of a pendulum which will eventually swing back and Republicans will be in power later. No, this is a permanent shift.

Tacobandit
02-26-2012, 4:18 PM
Who all do we need to write to in order to support this bill?

Gray Peterson
02-26-2012, 4:38 PM
That's true and that was a very good bill for us. However I think that may be the last we can hope for. Redistricting is going to gain the Democrats a few more seats and therefore a supermajority.

I would like to emphasize, this isn't the swing of a pendulum which will eventually swing back and Republicans will be in power later. No, this is a permanent shift.

SB610 was passed by veto override majorities in both the Senate and the Assembly.

Librarian
02-26-2012, 4:45 PM
Who all do we need to write to in order to support this bill?

Start with your very own Assembly person, then

the Assembly Public Safety Committee (http://apsf.assembly.ca.gov/) itself:
Assembly Public Safety Committee
1020 N Street (LOB), Room 111
Sacramento, California 95814
916.319.3744 phone
916.319.3745 fax

then the members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee: http://apsf.assembly.ca.gov/membersstaff

CCWFacts
02-26-2012, 5:00 PM
then the members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee: http://apsf.assembly.ca.gov/membersstaff

I will indeed contact them and I encourage everyone to do so.

However, look at the breakdown:


Tom Ammiano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ammiano) - chair, left-wing lunatic
Steve Knight - Vice Chair
Glibert Cedillo
Curt Hagman
Holly Mitchell
Nancy Skinner


Republicans in bold. Notice we have two Republicans and four Democrats. Last time LTCs came up the vote broke down purely on party lines and it will again this time.

Don't let this stop you from contacting them - we have the right to express our opinions to our representatives, something which most of the world does not have. However, please do so with understanding of the situation, and start thinking about what the parties represent and what's the future of California.

kcbrown
02-26-2012, 5:06 PM
SB610 was passed by veto override majorities in both the Senate and the Assembly.

That's because it was essentially benign. Good for us, yes, but only in minor ways, at least as regards immediate effects. Any major good from it is strategic in nature and dependent upon other changes that have not happened yet and are not visible to the legislators.

Gray Peterson
02-26-2012, 5:36 PM
That's because it was essentially benign. Good for us, yes, but only in minor ways, at least as regards immediate effects. Any major good from it is strategic in nature and dependent upon other changes that have not happened yet and are not visible to the legislators.

Takes more games off the table.

hoffmang
02-26-2012, 9:51 PM
Richards addresses both GC and GMC if I'm not mistaken. Mooting GC won't moot the GMC part of the case as far as I know, but the legal experts will have to weigh in on that.

Peruta would be mooted by the passage of this as it didn't challenge Good Moral Character. Richards would not be mooted as it did.

-Gene

Mesa Tactical
02-27-2012, 6:08 AM
That's true and that was a very good bill for us. However I think that may be the last we can hope for. Redistricting is going to gain the Democrats a few more seats and therefore a supermajority.

Maybe it's time to start thinking seriously about getting those Democrats on our side.

BobB35
02-27-2012, 6:30 AM
will not pass...ever

Scarecrow Repair
02-27-2012, 8:04 AM
Maybe it's time to start thinking seriously about getting those Democrats on our side.

What do you suggest -- spiking their KoolAid?

Mesa Tactical
02-27-2012, 8:16 AM
What do you suggest -- spiking their KoolAid?

Engaging them in discussion, taking them to the range.

Stop calling them names - that would be a start, and pretty effortless, too.

Unless folks really want to marginalize themselves in the future, like that's supposed to be some kind of desirable outcome.

Crom
02-27-2012, 8:19 AM
That's true and that was a very good bill for us. However I think that may be the last we can hope for. Redistricting is going to gain the Democrats a few more seats and therefore a supermajority.

I would like to emphasize, this isn't the swing of a pendulum which will eventually swing back and Republicans will be in power later. No, this is a permanent shift.

Let us not forget that it was Democratic Senator Rod Wright (http://sd25.senate.ca.gov/) who introduced and shepherded SB 610 to passage into law. Not all of 'em disagree with us.

Maybe it's time to start thinking seriously about getting those Democrats on our side.

Winning hearts and minds is important.

1859sharps
02-27-2012, 9:01 AM
It looks good on paper but....

I shouldn't need a permission slip from any form of Government to carry any of my firearms.

There are lots of prohibited people that carry their illegal firearms, illegally on their person.

I would like to see LTC or CCW go away completely.

True, but even some "free" states started with NO LTC, then Passed LTC, the saw it worked so good they have dropped the need for LTC.

Lets get LTC, LTC make it so that anyone with a clean background can get one. make it normal for people to carry...then we can look at getting rid of the "permission slip". Again, we got here with baby steps, we can get out of it with baby steps.

Of course if we can by pass a couple of those baby steps I am not opposed to that, BUT I am also ok with taking baby steps to reverse the anti gun laws if that is what it takes.

No it will not. 12 years ago, a bill like that passed all the way through the Assembly. Last year it died in committee. This year it will be the same. California has changed. The last time a Republican presidential candidate carried California was in 1988. We are finished here

If we are "finished here" it's only because people keep hanging their hopes on the Republican party. PLEASE STOP thinking of the 2nd amendment as a Republican Party issue. IT IS NOT. it's a civil rights issue that is party independent.

Maybe it's time to start thinking seriously about getting those Democrats on our side.

BINGO!

Dreaded Claymore
03-05-2012, 3:22 PM
I will indeed contact them and I encourage everyone to do so.

However, look at the breakdown:


Tom Ammiano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ammiano) - chair, left-wing lunatic
Steve Knight - Vice Chair
Glibert Cedillo
Curt Hagman
Holly Mitchell
Nancy Skinner


Republicans in bold. Notice we have two Republicans and four Democrats. Last time LTCs came up the vote broke down purely on party lines and it will again this time.

Don't let this stop you from contacting them - we have the right to express our opinions to our representatives, something which most of the world does not have. However, please do so with understanding of the situation, and start thinking about what the parties represent and what's the future of California.

Your description of Tom Ammiano as a "left-wing lunatic" is terribly premature. Follow your own link, and read:
Tom Ammiano (born December 15, 1941) is an American politician and LGBT rights activist from San Francisco, California.
While there is a great deal of overlap between people who are pro-LGBT rights and people who are anti-gun-rights, they are not necessarily so by any means. Ever heard of the Pink Pistols? Write to him about them, and how pro-gun-rights bills will restore the rights of GLBT people to defend themselves from monsters like those who killed Matthew Shepard and Gwen Araujo. It can only help.

thedrickel
03-06-2012, 11:14 PM
Your description of Tom Ammiano as a "left-wing lunatic" is terribly premature. Follow your own link, and read:

While there is a great deal of overlap between people who are pro-LGBT rights and people who are anti-gun-rights, they are not necessarily so by any means. Ever heard of the Pink Pistols? Write to him about them, and how pro-gun-rights bills will restore the rights of GLBT people to defend themselves from monsters like those who killed Matthew Shepard and Gwen Araujo. It can only help.

LOL, Tom Ammiano? Seriously? He is just about as anti-gun as politicians can get.

njineermike
03-07-2012, 7:37 AM
Your description of Tom Ammiano as a "left-wing lunatic" is terribly premature. Follow your own link, and read:

While there is a great deal of overlap between people who are pro-LGBT rights and people who are anti-gun-rights, they are not necessarily so by any means. Ever heard of the Pink Pistols? Write to him about them, and how pro-gun-rights bills will restore the rights of GLBT people to defend themselves from monsters like those who killed Matthew Shepard and Gwen Araujo. It can only help.

Ammiano is one of the Brady campaigns picks for office. Really think he's on our side when it comes to voting FOR 2A rights? See who they choose before thinking his affiliations are harmless.

http://www.bradyvoter.org/endorsements?s=1

sd_fox_racer
04-11-2012, 9:31 AM
i just want my ltc is that so much to ask for :(

greasemonkey
04-11-2012, 9:37 AM
i just want my ltc is that so much to ask for :(
Yes and no. How much did you contribute to your current Sheriff's election campaign and are you one of his/her drinking buddies? [edit- drinking buddies w/ Sheriff implies Mark Pazin in Merced Co., not San Diego.]

uyoga
04-11-2012, 9:49 AM
While this bill defines "good cause" as personal protection or self defense, and is certainly a step in the right direction, it still leaves "good moral character" undefined and totally at the Issuing Agency's unfettered discretion.

"Good Cause" should not even exist as a requirement. "Good Moral Character" needs to be defined as: if you are allowed to possess according to Federal and State statutes, you have good moral character.

glockman19
04-11-2012, 11:34 AM
It looks good on paper but....

I shouldn't need a permission slip from any form of Government to carry any of my firearms.

There are lots of prohibited people that carry their illegal firearms, illegally on their person.

I would like to see LTC or CCW go away completely.

+1.

Tack
04-11-2012, 11:43 AM
I know and like Brian Jones. This does not surprise me. Let us make the opposition vote this down... and then make them pay for their vote in the next election.
Which committee is it in?
Fixed it
I will indeed contact them and I encourage everyone to do so.

However, look at the breakdown:


Tom Ammiano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ammiano) - chair, left-wing lunatic
Steve Knight - Vice Chair
Glibert Cedillo
Curt Hagman
Holly Mitchell
Nancy Skinner


Republicans in bold. Notice we have two Republicans and four Democrats. Last time LTCs came up the vote broke down purely on party lines and it will again this time.

Don't let this stop you from contacting them - we have the right to express our opinions to our representatives, something which most of the world does not have. However, please do so with understanding of the situation, and start thinking about what the parties represent and what's the future of California.

Rob

Tack
04-11-2012, 11:47 AM
It looks good on paper but....

I shouldn't need a permission slip from any form of Government to carry any of my firearms.

There are lots of prohibited people that carry their illegal firearms, illegally on their person.

I would like to see LTC or CCW go away completely.
Erik, please look up utopia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia)

Uxi
04-11-2012, 12:25 PM
Maybe it's time to start thinking seriously about getting those Democrats on our side.

Ha ha, good luck with THAT.

Revolution sounds more plausible. :D

HowardW56
04-11-2012, 12:35 PM
I predict it will NOT make it out of the first committee hearing.

Unfortunately, I agree with you.


:iagree:

Lacunacraft
04-11-2012, 1:02 PM
True, but even some "free" states started with NO LTC, then Passed LTC, the saw it worked so good they have dropped the need for LTC.

Lets get LTC, LTC make it so that anyone with a clean background can get one. make it normal for people to carry...then we can look at getting rid of the "permission slip". Again, we got here with baby steps, we can get out of it with baby steps.

Of course if we can by pass a couple of those baby steps I am not opposed to that, BUT I am also ok with taking baby steps to reverse the anti gun laws if that is what it takes.



If we are "finished here" it's only because people keep hanging their hopes on the Republican party. PLEASE STOP thinking of the 2nd amendment as a Republican Party issue. IT IS NOT. it's a civil rights issue that is party independent.



BINGO!

You are correct. This is a Civil rights issue, we have to make this a non-partisan issue. Will it take time? of course, nothing worthwhile is done overnight.

By keeping it as a Republican issue, we can guarantee almost no traction here as the party pretty much doesn't exist here. If you look at voter registration it is starkly in favor of democrats, BUT there has been a huge rise in independent voters and not all dems are anti-gun. We have to build a coalition of all people if we want to get things done legislatively.

I think we can though. This website is proof of that IMO.

oepirate
04-12-2012, 10:57 AM
Hearing canceled at the request of author.

Not sure what happens after this but this is its currently listed status.

CCWFacts
04-12-2012, 11:38 AM
I predict it will NOT make it out of the first committee hearing.

Of course. Either they will find a way to not schedule it at all for a hearing, or it will die on a party-line vote.

Mesa Tactical
04-12-2012, 12:29 PM
Ha ha, good luck with THAT.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=118

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172

nicki
04-12-2012, 2:39 PM
Contrary to what some might believe, California is part of the United States and rulings from other courts will boomerang back here.

We just had three different courts rule that the right to bear arms does extend outside of the home in Maryland, North Carolina and West Virginia.

Two federal courts here in California ruled we had the right to bear arms in public, then our state legislature closed the weasel clause the federal judges used to protect the current CCW system.

Not all federal courts are slow, in fact the one's that are pro gun have the nickname, rocket dockets.

The sheriffs across the state are not stupid and we will see a shift where more and more will start issuing.

This is going to be a ground game battle which we are in better shape than the antis because unlike them, we actually have people on the ground.

How fast we get ccw will depend on how much effort people will put in it.

I believe we will go no higher than an en band hearing because I have a feeling that the other side wants to avoid a Supreme court ruling on carry at all costs so they will stall to the en band, then throw the case so that we can't appeal to the SCOTUS.

Nicki

Glock22Fan
04-12-2012, 3:05 PM
The sheriff does not have to come up with a sufficient argument as to the lack thereof. The law allows him to decide what is or is not good moral character. If he decides that parting one's hair down the middle is a sign of poor moral character then that's the way it goes down.:mad:

More likely it goes something like:

"I've only issued 6 LTC's so anyone carrying on my streets is almost certainly a criminal. This applicant wants to carry on my streets, so he/she must be a criminal. Ipso facto. Denied."


Hmmm. Maybe. But until now, GC has been the main blocker. I can't think of too many (publicized?) cases where a CCW application was rejected based solely on GMC. However! It is worth noting that until this year, the SOs were not required to tell us WHY they rejected.


So having decided you must be a crook, but knowing they cannot say so, they make up some B.S. about G.C.

Uxi
04-12-2012, 3:20 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=118

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172

You going to hold your breath for the Democrat in the Assembly or State Senate that proposes anything that not only isn't a blatant infringement of the RKBA, but something that facilitates it? Yeah, me neither.

I'm not entirely facetious with the "good luck." I hope that demonization and demagoguery from the Left can become a debate within both parties rather that 70-30 for within the Republicans and 99-1 against from the Democrats.

Kid Stanislaus
04-12-2012, 6:59 PM
I predict it will NOT make it out of the first committee hearing.

^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

scoobyj
04-12-2012, 8:51 PM
:95:

mag360
04-12-2012, 9:40 PM
we need a "gun owners caucus" that members of both parties can be lobbied to join.

j.hors
04-17-2012, 2:37 PM
I heard this was going up today, had anyone heard anything?

CCWFacts
04-17-2012, 3:51 PM
Your description of Tom Ammiano as a "left-wing lunatic" is terribly premature.

No it isn't. Tom Ammiano is a left-wing lunatic. He will not be satisfied until California looks like North Korea and someone stomps his brains out in a re-education camp.

While there is a great deal of overlap between people who are pro-LGBT rights and people who are anti-gun-rights, they are not necessarily so by any means.

I agree. Tom Ammiano is a left-wing lunatic who happens to be gay. Being gay isn't the cause of his problems.

Ever heard of the Pink Pistols? Write to him about them,

He doesn't care.

and how pro-gun-rights bills will restore the rights of GLBT people to defend themselves from monsters like those who killed Matthew Shepard and Gwen Araujo. It can only help.

He doesn't care.

There are gays on our side. Ever heard of the Log Cabin Republicans? Ever heard of gay San Franciscan Peter Thiel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel)?

Long term, gays have no future in the Democratic party and will join the Republican party.

Gray Peterson
04-17-2012, 4:07 PM
No it isn't. Tom Ammiano is a left-wing lunatic. He will not be satisfied until California looks like North Korea and someone stomps his brains out in a re-education camp.



I agree. Tom Ammiano is a left-wing lunatic who happens to be gay. Being gay isn't the cause of his problems.



He doesn't care.



He doesn't care.

There are gays on our side. Ever heard of the Log Cabin Republicans? Ever heard of gay San Franciscan Peter Thiel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel)?

Long term, gays have no future in the Democratic party and will join the Republican party.

Yeah, sorry, but no way that will happen. This is why Ammiano as a gay man hates guns and gun owners:

The California Republican Party affirms the family as the natural and indispensable institution for human development.

A strong and healthy family unit is the heart of the home - a safe surrounding where family decisions are made, children are raised, and morality is taught. The family is a foundation upon which American society has grown and prospered for over 200 years. We support the two-parent family as the best environment for raising children, and therefore believe it is important to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. We believe public policy and education should not be exploited to present or teach homosexuality as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle. We oppose same-sex partner benefits, child custody, and adoption.

The United States Constitution guarantees the right of its citizenry to keep and bear arms.
One of the first acts of a totalitarian society is to disarm its people. California`s gun control laws only serve to disarm law abiding citizens, not criminals. We oppose any further gun control legislation and support the right of all California citizens to own and bear guns and ammunition for any lawful purpose. We call for statewide legislation to allow qualified law abiding citizens in California to carry concealed weapons. We support allowing citizens to use deadly force to protect lives and property. We also support including all of these rights in the California constitution.
Finally, we call for the elimination of waiting periods to purchase firearms and instead support complete implementation of instant background checks.

This is why Ammiano will never support shall-issue. He did, however, vote for SB610 while it was in his committee last year, and it was sponsored by a Democrat, not a Republican, and it had more to do with fairness issues involving paying a bunch of money up front to be considered in getting a license. Senator Wright sold it well.

sharxbyte
04-17-2012, 5:26 PM
Who do we write in to to show our support? Do we have a list of committee members?

MultiCaliber
04-18-2012, 8:28 AM
:95:

:rofl2:

I never noticed that one before. Hilarity.

mag360
04-18-2012, 10:10 PM
rod wright is da man.

SoCalXD
04-19-2012, 7:54 AM
When the government makes the exercise of natural rights illegal, it legitimatizes and validates the right of citizens to declare the government a tyranny and overthrow it by force, no less disregard the unjust laws of the tyrants.

It's such a shame for law abiding citizens to have to deal with such tyranny.

Swatter911
04-19-2012, 4:52 PM
The word from Sacramento today is that this bill is dead.

kcbrown
04-19-2012, 7:21 PM
The word from Sacramento today is that this bill is dead.

Nope, never saw that coming... :rolleyes:

Sunday
04-19-2012, 7:34 PM
When you go shooting with gay people they become fellow shooters!!!

tsuggs
04-23-2012, 1:00 PM
Bill will be heard tomorrow, Tuesday April 24, 9:00am in Sac. Will anyone be there to support it?

I will!

j.hors
04-23-2012, 1:04 PM
Bill will be heard tomorrow, Tuesday April 24, 9:00am in Sac. Will anyone be there to support it?

I will!

I would but I am to far south to make it

NoJoke
04-23-2012, 1:54 PM
i just want my ltc is that so much to ask for :(

Today, yes it is. You may not have with you, a means of self defense of your choice.

Even with the words so clearly written, "....shall not be infringed."

I still fail to see how such intelligent people cannot apply 3rd grade reading comprehension to the supreme law of the land.

Are they THAT weak?

1859sharps
04-23-2012, 2:26 PM
The word from Sacramento today is that this bill is dead.

Even if this is the case...that the bill even got introduced is progress. ;)

One78Shovel
04-23-2012, 3:00 PM
.

There are lots of prohibited people that carry their illegal legal firearms, illegally on their person.


There, fixed it for you. :)

Prohibited by the Sherriff who denies intial and appeal LTC's?

-178S

darkwater
04-26-2012, 8:17 AM
Failed in committee

CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : A.B. No. 2615
AUTHOR(S) : Jones (Coauthors: Cook, Donnelly, Nielsen, Olsen, and
Valadao).
TOPIC : Concealed weapons.

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 : In committee: Set, final hearing. Failed passage.
COMM. LOCATION : ASM PUBLIC SAFETY

TITLE : An act to amend Sections 26150 and 26155 of the Penal
Code, relating to concealed weapons.

Uxi
04-26-2012, 8:21 AM
Of course it did. This State is lost.

axel4488
04-26-2012, 8:53 AM
agreed. If they can't make money off it or if it doesn't help illegals with free everything, they want nothing of it.

Gray Peterson
04-26-2012, 9:30 AM
Of course it did. This State is lost.

Right, because getting frustrated over something that never is gonna pass legislatively is the right way to go...

njineermike
04-26-2012, 9:42 AM
Right, because getting frustrated over something that never is gonna pass legislatively is the right way to go...

This. We know these will never pass, but pushing them shows we're still paying attention. Its also why SCOTUS decisions matter, and why we need to sue the pants off the local, state and federal govt every time we have the chance to have the laws that violate the 2A overturned. Which takes money.

For everybody who doesn't contribute to the CGF, NRA, 2AF or any other legally minded, litigious group capable of exherting political and legal pressure on those who would remove our right, stop complaining. You're getting exactly what you paid for. Nothing.

Librarian
04-26-2012, 11:24 AM
The vote: UNOFFICIAL BALLOT
MEASURE: AB 2615
AUTHOR: Jones
TOPIC: Concealed weapons.
DATE: 04/24/2012
LOCATION: ASM. PUB. S.
MOTION: Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
(AYES 2. NOES 4.) (FAIL)


AYES
****

Knight Hagman


NOES
****

Ammiano Hall Mitchell Skinner


ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING
*********************************

Vacancy

sharxbyte
04-26-2012, 11:27 AM
It will pass!!! *knocks on wood*

disturbed1
04-26-2012, 12:26 PM
so, it is going to be on the ballot?

Gray Peterson
04-26-2012, 12:48 PM
so, it is going to be on the ballot?

Richards first.

Burbur
04-26-2012, 3:39 PM
My favorite part is that 6 (six) people get to decide that this gets stopped in its tracks. That's neither Democratic nor of the Republic.

tabrisnet
04-26-2012, 4:18 PM
My favorite part is that 6 (six) people get to decide that this gets stopped in its tracks. That's neither Democratic nor of the Republic.

It may not be much on direct democracy, but it surely qualifies under republican. We have representatives (who may or may not sufficiently represent all of their constituents), who have further delegated powers in order to achieve a more efficient (parliamentary) process.

Definition of REPUBLIC (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic)
a)
(1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

b)
(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
(2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

RMP91
04-26-2012, 4:39 PM
That's it, I'm done with this state. I may have been born and raised here, but this is way too much...

T-Minus 2 years, 63 days till Operation: Final Exodus...

Gray Peterson
04-26-2012, 5:01 PM
That's it, I'm done with this state. I may have been born and raised here, but this is way too much...

T-Minus 2 years, 63 days till Operation: Final Exodus...

You'll have a carry license by then after Richards accomplishes permanently what this bill did not.

Have you helped fix your situation? Or did you expect the legislature to fix it for you?

kcbrown
04-26-2012, 5:08 PM
You'll have a carry license by then after Richards accomplishes permanently what this bill did not.


We'll see. I hope you're right.

But I expect you're wrong. The anti-gun strongholds will fight this to their dying breath. I expect we'll win Richards, but that's just the start of what we'll need to win before we get a usable right to carry in the anti-gun strongholds.

Uxi
04-26-2012, 5:37 PM
Right, because getting frustrated over something that never is gonna pass legislatively is the right way to go...

I'm way past frustration. Acceptance? Resigned to the inevitable? The problem is that the legislature isn't static and going to rest with the status quo, much less if we should get a remedy on carry through Federal court. I don't expect this legislature to just take it, do you?

Of course, any obstruction they throw up with result in more lawsuits. More appeals, and more decades. Hopefully my grandchildren as yet unborn can one day bear arms.

Gray Peterson
04-26-2012, 7:21 PM
I'm way past frustration. Acceptance? Resigned to the inevitable? The problem is that the legislature isn't static and going to rest with the status quo, much less if we should get a remedy on carry through Federal court. I don't expect this legislature to just take it, do you?

Of course, any obstruction they throw up with result in more lawsuits. More appeals, and more decades. Hopefully my grandchildren as yet unborn can one day bear arms.

That's it, I'm done with this state. I may have been born and raised here, but this is way too much...

T-Minus 2 years, 63 days till Operation: Final Exodus...

Now that I'm home rather than doing this on my breaks at work...

I have never seen such BAWWING in a thread in a long time.

RMP, where in the hell were you the last few years? You expected instant gratification? Did you really think this bill was going to pass this year? Did you actually think that ANYTHING that says "good cause is self defense" would come from anything but a federal judicial decree?

It took over 13 YEARS to get carry passed in Missouri. It took nearly 15 years for Minnesota to have a carry law. You're lucky we're likely getting it within two years via court order.

RMP also in San Carlos, in San Mateo County. It's not impossible to get a carry license there, either, while you're waiting for Richards. Btw, also, have you contributed to CGF for Richards and the other cases which would judicially accomplished what the legislature could not? Have you volunteered to help?

BAWWING gets us nowhere.