Priority rank deregulating firearms in California

[hoffmang]

I was thinking (usually dangerous) about what the priorities are or should be for rolling back bad gun laws in California. Here is a list of the bad gun laws I think are the most disliked. Note that I am leaving a couple of things out that people don't like like bans on tracer rounds - mainly because that law didn't come out of anti-gun bias but instead anti-fire bias. Also note that there are a couple on here that I'm not sure I wouldn't like to keep. This is not my order, I want to hear your order - especially for you top 5 and bottom 5.

1. NFA AG "no issue"

2. 12276.1 "Evil Features"

3. Residency proof requirements for handguns

4. CCW may issue

5. Waiting periods for existing gun owners

6. Waiting periods for new gun owners

7. Handgun registration

8. Required Private Party Transfer

9. Ban on open carry loaded

10. Inspect/violate 4th Amendment to check for unloaded transport

11. Handgun transport restrictions

12. Large Capacity magazine restrictions

13. California 01-FFL licensing limits

14. "Safe" Handgun List

15. .50BMG ban

16. HSC

17. AWCA named firearms

Assume we can only get one of these at a time so in sequential order, which are most important to you and which are least?

I think my order is 4, 2, 14, 12, 10, 5. I think I can live with 16 and 8 and maybe 6 not ever being repealed... I could especially live with 8 if there was no waiting period for PPTs.

Thoughts?

-Gene

[Crazed_SS]

I'd like to see Shall-Issue CCW permits and SB23 repealed.

[SemiAutoSam]

Would like to see the entire list you have up there Gene and as well the mc Clure Volkmer May 19 1986 BS taken away. But I guess taking away the tax and or regulation of NFA or completely repealing the NFA would do all of that.

[Bill_in_SD]

4, 9, 14, 12, 7 in that order

All are legislation not clouded by 'sporting purposes' - it is all about self-defense.

Bill in SD

[Librarian]

Hmm. Mine is very similar.

4 because it's an obvious violation of 'equal protection' and because it has been shown that it can't hurt. People carry anyway; shouldn't we, in general, prefer to have folks get some instruction before they do? (I know others disagree, but I view CCW the same way as I view a driver's license - minimum standards for use in public. Rationally, adding CCW examination to DMV offices seems right.)

2 because 'evil features' are silly. The Federal 'evil feature' law had a 10 year trial. At the end of the trial, many whiny people tried to convince us that we'd experience a lot of gun crime again. 1) hasn't happened, and 2) no reasonable person would have expected it to - the kinds of weapons described in the Fed AW ban were never used much in crimes before the ban, during the ban, nor are they now after the ban.

14 the 'safe' handgun list isn't. California LEO are exempt, and the rest of the world can use them with no greater number of civil suits for handgun technological failures than what we see in California. Villaregosa and friends were clear that the list was not for anything about safety. Since it wasn't intended for it, and it isn't about safety, it ought to go.

12 Magazine restrictions don't make sense, either, so pretty much the same reasons as 14. There's no data indicating people are shot significantly more often using semi-autos vs revolvers, nor is there evidence shootings are killing more people based solely on the number of rounds available. California really doesn't need to be 'special' in this way.

And, perhaps it is an indication of accommodation to constant irritants, but I just can't get exercised about much else on the list. I wouldn't be sad to see them go; none of them is a good idea, in my opinion; but none of them really gores my personal ox. I apologize for my short sightedness.

[hoffmang]

Sam,

I am limiting this to California State laws.

Librarian,

I don't think you're short sighted at all. Some of my thinking is to try to focus what I want to concentrate upon. A lot of the annoying stuff is just that - annoying.

A friend of mine advocates that we just try to push a compromise position that expands the scope of COE or COE + C&R so that if you have one or both, you're exempted from much of the garbage. People who don't care would be limited some, but any of us who care would be able to live in a free state...

-Gene

[383green]

Here's how I would order your list, from highest priority to lowest, with comments added:

7. Handgun registration
[registration has no purpose other than to enable confiscation]

9. Ban on open carry loaded
11. Handgun transport restrictions
4. CCW may issue
10. Inspect/violate 4th Amendment to check for unloaded transport
[we have a right to keep and bear arms]

5. Waiting periods for existing gun owners
6. Waiting periods for new gun owners
[a right delayed is a right infringed]

14. "Safe" Handgun List
12. Large Capacity magazine restrictions
1. NFA AG "no issue"
2. 12276.1 "Evil Features"
15. .50BMG ban
17. AWCA named firearms
[I lump these all together as various piecemeal gun bans]

16. HSC
[essentially a handgun purchase license; a right does not require a license]

3. Residency proof requirements for handguns
[why should I need to prove state residency (with easily forged papers, for that matter) in order to exercise a federally-guaranteed right?]

13. California 01-FFL licensing limits
8. Required Private Party Transfer
[I see no reason to require an FFL, anyway. Governmental control of the supply and transfer of weapons amounts to infringement.]


In general, I believe that I should be able to walk into Wal-Mart, pay cash, and walk out with a select-fire M4 carbine. Or an M1911. Or an M3 grease gun. Or an M249. You get the picture. And I should be able to carry said weapon, openly or concealed, loaded or unloaded, as I see fit, with utter impunity. I'm a law-abiding citizen, and I ought to be a free man. But I'm not a free man under our current legal system, and neither are you. :mad:

[leelaw]

1. Shall-issue CCW

2. Repeal handgun safety roster

3. Repeal SB23

4. No waiting period for existing gun owners

5. Repeal full capacity magazine ban

[383green]

A friend of mine advocates that we just try to push a compromise position that expands the scope of COE or COE + C&R so that if you have one or both, you're exempted from much of the garbage. People who don't care would be limited some, but any of us who care would be able to live in a free state...


Granting special privileges to some folks because they have two pieces of laser-printed paper issued by a parasitic bureaucracy offends me to a certain extent, but something like this may still be acceptable if considered as a interim step towards re-establishing Constitutional rights for all. Particularly considering that the COE and C&R are essentially shall-issue. And furthermore considering that I already have both. ;)

If something like this went through, I would not hesitate to take advantage of it, even if I find it philosophically distasteful. Furthermore, I'd vocally advocate that other folks jump on the COE and/or C&R bandwagon, and help spread the word on how to do that. All the while, continuing to try to obsolete the need to have either a COE or C&R to exercise my rights.

[hoffmang]

383,

Let me be clear that when my friend advocates that, he does that out of political "reality" not best or should outcomes.

-Gene

[383green]

383,

Let me be clear that when my friend advocates that, he does that out of political "reality" not best or should outcomes.


I understand and agree. I got my C&R FFL and COE for the very same reason, despite believing that it is wrong that I should need to obtain either one to do the things that they let me do.

[Can'thavenuthingood]

CCW shall issue
SB 23 features
Dump the safety roster & drop test. Has there been a gun that failed?
Or at a minimum do away with the extortion fees they charge the mfg to list.

Political reality of expanding the COE is a mixed bag for me. First is why not get rid of the laws that made the COE a needed document. If not that then why do I, with a COE have to wait for my new gun? And if I have a COE, howcum I cannot CCW? They do not trust their own people to say I'm okay, a good guy? Then how am I to be expected to trust these same people?

Where's the logic?

Its controlled fee based revenue enhancement. Safe has nothing to do with it.

Vick

[XDshooter]

These should be put into order.


CCW should definitely be shall issue as long as someone can pass a course they can get a permit for concealed or open carry. Both need permits though. Also same with handgun transport, if you have permit then you can transport as you wish, but if not, locked box or trunk for you.
4. CCW may issue
9. Ban on open carry loaded
11. Handgun transport restrictions


I don't have a problem with these. I don't want criminals or illegal immigrants having guns here. I can wait so they can't own guns. Not 10 days, but something less. Same with background checks. I have no problem with these. I don't want felons having guns and crazy MFs either. Also if you can't pass the HSC, you definitely don't deserve to have any firearms.
3. Residency proof requirements for handguns
5. Waiting periods for existing gun owners
6. Waiting periods for new gun owners
8. Required Private Party Transfer
16. HSC

The following are worthless bureaucratic BS.
2. 12276.1 "Evil Features"
7. Handgun registration
10. Inspect/violate 4th Amendment to check for unloaded transport
12. Large Capacity magazine restrictions
13. California 01-FFL licensing limits
14. "Safe" Handgun List
15. .50BMG ban
17. AWCA named firearms


I don't know what this is. Maybe no issue CCW at all?
1. NFA AG "no issue"

[hoffmang]

I realize a couple of these may be a little unclear:

3. Residency proof requirements for handguns
I wasn't saying that proving residency was bad - just the very capricious list of how you do that.

1. NFA AG "no issue"
It is basically impossible to get the required CA DOJ blessing to acquire automatic weapons, silencers, and short barreled long arms.

-Gene

[fatirishman]

What I personally find most inconvenient and what I philosophically most object to are very different questions. While as a true, fire breathing, Lincoln hating "taxation is theft" libertarian, I believe all are wrong (at least to the extent they are imposed via coercion), I personally object to (find most personally inconvenient) the AWB, high cap ban and lack of shall issue. However, I must say that, in addition to the lack of shall issue, I find the pistol list truly troubling. While many of us on this list can afford high-end pistols such as HKs, etc. (and I do love my HK), one would be hard pressed to come up with a morally more monstrous idea than the list and lack of carry - those of us that can afford high end stuff are, in general, those who least need it. OTOH, the ability to purchase a functioning pistol - and carry it - for cheap, is crucial to the poorest and most vulnerable amongst us. Thus, much though it pains me to acknowledge, the worst rules are the ones that generally impact most of us least - not, eg, the lack of $2,000 dollar rifles, but the lack of $80 pistols.

[PLINK]

A friend of mine advocates that we just try to push a compromise position that expands the scope of COE or COE + C&R so that if you have one or both, you're exempted from much of the garbage. People who don't care would be limited some, but any of us who care would be able to live in a free state...

-Gene


I would get a COE if

1. Allowed the ownership of CA's so called AW's.
2. Allowed the purchase of standard cap mags.
3. No waiting period
4. Allow issue of CCW

Currently there is no real reason to get one unless you want to buy more than one handgun a month and cash/ carry C&R long gun with a C&R FFL purchased from 01 FFL. Here are my finger prints, my money and the annual fee = thanks for nothing.

[XDshooter]

I realize a couple of these may be a little unclear:

3. Residency proof requirements for handguns
I wasn't saying that proving residency was bad - just the very capricious list of how you do that.

1. NFA AG "no issue"
It is basically impossible to get the required CA DOJ blessing to acquire automatic weapons, silencers, and short barreled long arms.

-Gene

Thanks Gene. I looked up the NFA. Most other states get all the good ****uff, why can't we.

As for residency, DL should be good enough.

[Ford8N]

1 #2
2 #14
3 #5
4 #12


I know of states in Free America that all your items are legal and they have a much much lower crime rate than Kalifornia. Basically, it's ridiculous that here, something is a Felony, but cross some border line and it is legal.

[CitaDeL]

I think that the focus of any effort should be to restore the "keep and bear" part of our rights first, rather than trouble ourselves with the particulars of unbanning specific weapons and accessories.

Repeal PC12031 and PC626.9

This would allow a person to carry a loaded firearm pretty much anywhere ( except State and National Parks, public building and meetings..etc) and diminish the dependance on Sheriffs and Police Chiefs to become 'Shall Issue" with CCW Licenses. (I am not a proponent of more licenses, background checks, or other means of registering of gun owners.)

The other thing that would be helpful is to enact complete State preemption of all firearms laws so that no local regulation could be more strict than State law.

[spencerhut]

I'd like to see an exemption for any gun that is custom made for competition purposes. How many low life bad guys are going to pay ~$1k plus for a customized firearm? Custom might mean it has special grips BTW or that you simply want/need a particular gun for competition.
Why should people that compete and are as (or more) familiar with firearms than most LEOs be held to follow the same nanny standards (safe handgun list) as the general non proficient public? 99% of the people I shoot with are the safest, most honest, law abiding people you will ever run across, the rest are LEOs. :rolleyes: The exempt weapon would once in your possession remain legal and be treated just like any other CA "normal" firearm even if you stop competing for some reason.
After we get this to pass we can work on a competition exemption for standard cap mags for use in competition only.

You would have to:
1. Show proof of club membership, any local gun club, NRA etc.
2. Show proof of competing in an event suitable for the custom weapon in question. For pistols this could be any IDPA, IPSC, Steel Challenge type event. For rifle it could be any of the military matches where you need an AR or similar to be competitive.
3. Fill out some form stating the above two things are true and swear by it.
4. Order a gun from an FFL (including out of state gunsmiths

I think this would do several good things for us.
1. For those of us that compete, we can have an STI, etc. etc. built up all nice and legal.
2. Those that do not compete might be tempted to just to get a gun they have an eye on.
3. Spark more sales of guns and custom work.

[1911su16b870]

1. Shall-issue CCW

2. Repeal handgun safety roster

3. Repeal SB23

4. No waiting period for existing gun owners

5. Repeal full capacity magazine ban

Ditto with leelaw...:)

[TTT]

A#1- CCW reform.

To me everything else is in the ‘nuisance’ category (not that I don't respect the right of others to be angry about the other stuff :D).

[luvtolean]

My list is not an intellectual one, it's a practical one for the whole state (my county is better than most others on CCW, so I could rate it lower as it is doable here, but I'm sure I'll move in the future so CCW has to rate high).

Some of the other stuff is a bigger affront to the Second IMO, but they don't currently impact my ability to enjoy the guns I want in the manner I do.

These are the ones that irritate me often enough that they are factoring into my GF and I's decision of whether to stay in Cali after she graduates or not.

So:

2- 12276.1 "Evil Features"
12- Large Capacity magazine restrictions (getting freaking hard to find/expensive, ie- $40 for Beretta 92 mags, scandalous!, and don't function properly, ie 10 rd Glock mags suck)
4- CCW may issue
1- NFA
14- "Safe" Handgun List
3- Residency proof requirements for handguns

[shark92651]

What if I want the same gun, but don't belong to any club? I don't think we need to create a new class of gun owner - the whole list should be done away with.

I'd like to see an exemption for any gun that is custom made for competition purposes. How many low life bad guys are going to pay ~$1k plus for a customized firearm? Custom might mean it has special grips BTW or that you simply want/need a particular gun for competition.
Why should people that compete and are as (or more) familiar with firearms than most LEOs be held to follow the same nanny standards (safe handgun list) as the general non proficient public? 99% of the people I shoot with are the safest, most honest, law abiding people you will ever run across, the rest are LEOs. :rolleyes: The exempt weapon would once in your possession remain legal and be treated just like any other CA "normal" firearm even if you stop competing for some reason.
After we get this to pass we can work on a competition exemption for standard cap mags for use in competition only.

You would have to:
1. Show proof of club membership, any local gun club, NRA etc.
2. Show proof of competing in an event suitable for the custom weapon in question. For pistols this could be any IDPA, IPSC, Steel Challenge type event. For rifle it could be any of the military matches where you need an AR or similar to be competitive.
3. Fill out some form stating the above two things are true and swear by it.
4. Order a gun from an FFL (including out of state gunsmiths

I think this would do several good things for us.
1. For those of us that compete, we can have an STI, etc. etc. built up all nice and legal.
2. Those that do not compete might be tempted to just to get a gun they have an eye on.
3. Spark more sales of guns and custom work.

[spencerhut]

What if I want the same gun, but don't belong to any club? I don't think we need to create a new class of gun owner - the whole list should be done away with.

I agree, I'm just trying to think incrementally. I think this is our best chance for success to remove restrictions that have been incrementally placed on us.

[rbgaynor]

Ditto with leelaw...:)

1. Shall-issue CCW

2. Repeal handgun safety roster

3. Repeal SB23

4. No waiting period for existing gun owners

5. Repeal full capacity magazine ban

+1 to this list

[CCWFacts]

I would put CCW reform above all else, and the reason for it is simple: People change their views based on what they experience, not based on abstract ideas. And we better start changing some views on gun rights in this state, unless we want to have a UK-style system here eventually. The right to keep and bear arms is an abstract idea, whereas carrying a gun daily for legitimate self-defense is an experience. To me, self-defense is the origin of the RKBA. We have a right to keep and bear arms because we have a right to self-defense. If you get people to understand that they do have a right to self defense, and guns play a role in that, then all the other stuff follows.

Looking at it from the other direction, if people are carrying guns every day as a normal thing, it deflates the meaning of hysterical fights over cosmetic features, safety lists, all this other nonsense.

So I would say that CCW is the key to everything else, and would put it first and foremost.

But hey, that's just me. I can understand that everyone has different priorities.

If I had to pick priorities 2, 3 and 4, they would be:

2. Repeal the mag ban. This is a functional issue. The AW ban is annoying, but it's more cosmetic than functional.

3. Open up new registrations for AWs. Repealing the AW ban would be nice also, but either way is fine.

4. Get rid of the NFA (virtual) ban. I know, it's not high on most people's priorities list, but it is on my list. These guns are normal things, they are used for sports and fun and self-defense, and should be available here.

Oh and the handgun safety list is ridiculous. Best would be to repeal it. Even without repealing it, they could make it less annoying by letting manufacturers get approval for types, instead of individual models.

[KenpoProfessor]

Alright guys, I'm gonna rub a little salt in the wound a bit.

I don't have to worry about any of the issues listed. In fact, my buddy who helped me get here (who BTW, I can't thank enough) was given one of my rifles yesterday for all his help, no paperwork. I'll have my CCW in a couple of months so for the time being, it's open carry for me YYYYIIIIIPPPPEEEEEE.

Have a F'n great gun carryn' Kenpo day

Clyde

[Can'thavenuthingood]

Isn't there a rule that bans out of staters from posting?:D

Vick

[Scarecrow Repair]

Isn't there a rule that bans out of staters from posting?:D

Vick

I think he should start his own forum, called, say, azguns, pronounced with a soft "zz".

:-)

[bwiese]

I think battles should be chosen judiciously.

Ammo fights will be the biggest. The Brady types internally say this is what they're moving toward - that ammo bills "are the AW bills of the 1990s".

Other minor bills - even if perceived as 'not too harmful', like lost/stolen mandatory reporting - have to be fought vigorously because they form the skeletal framework for later bills that are more eadily passed. It's far easier to pass a seemingly-trivial amendment to a bill than the original watered-down bill. There is a good chance that SB23, if it stood on its own and was not patched into an extant Roberti-Roos, would not have passed.

There's a reasonable chance we can kill AWCA in the next 4 years, regardless of Parker. There is a chance AB50 50BMG ban could fall with it (I have to look into that more deeply.) We've already eviscerated these laws pretty well and caused DOJ to act in very peculiarly helpful ways :)

Even despite the above, with a post-Parker-derivative focused outside DC, we may well have an AW permit system but it will be nondiscretionary. There may be a 'processing fee', and requirement for taking an added safety test or other similar BS but these will be trivially surmountable.

We may also be able to legislatively tweak the Roster/safe handgun laws a bit. You might remember that PPT exemptions were put in and supported for all sides because they feared an illegal unpapered marketplace for folks that couldn't get rid of their guns. The ability for an FFL dealer to buy up and resell non-Rostered handguns would help reduce risk of this.

As for the 'safe handgun' list, many many handguns can be rendered into a 12133PC-exempt form (single-action revolver or single shot, as long as dimensionally compliant). I think we'll see more of that soon ;)

Surprisingly, Carole Midgen's (D-SF) proposed bill to give a card to those taking delivery of a handgun (DROS papers let you acquire but do not prove you were delivered) may well help take down the waiting period for subsuquent firearm purchases. This could turn into something like Las Vegas' purple card system for handgun purchases - esp combined with instant check.
(After all, instant check must keep the legislature happy: they want it for ammo sales!)

What I'd like to see attacked/riven asunder:
- AW laws;
- mag capacity restriction laws;
- Roster of safe handguns;
- statewide nondiscretionary CCW;
- CA interference in Californian buying a firearm out of state for
usage out of state;

I think NFA attempts should be deemphasized for political reasons. We have far to go before we even start worrying about that.

[CCWFacts]

Even despite the above, with a post-Parker-derivative focused outside DC, we may well have an AW permit system but it will be nondiscretionary. There may be a 'processing fee', and requirement for taking an added safety test or other similar BS but these will be trivially surmountable.

I'm fine with regulations like that (registration, safety test). The big thing is re-opening registrations, and somehow letting us have access to normal capacity magazines. All modern handguns these days are based on double-column mags.

- statewide nondiscretionary CCW;

When is the NRA going to start working on this? There was a shall-issue bill that made it to the floor in 1997. When are we going to see another one introduced? We need to open the legislative debate on this. I realize it won't pass, but the fact is, we need to keep on introducing these bills. It took the state of Texas, cowboy state that it is, about four tries to pass their CCW bill. It will be more difficult here, so we need to start getting these bills in. By the way, there are a bunch of incremental steps that get us a lot of what we want without being openly shall-issue. Things like increasing the maximum fees, or creating a denial appeals process that favors the applicant. Any of these would be a win.

I think NFA attempts should be deemphasized for political reasons. We have far to go before we even start worrying about that.

Totally. I'm a supporter of NFA ownership but it should not be on the "to do" list in this state, until after we have shall-issue and the AWB is remedied in some way (either abolished, or registration is re-opened). Realistically, fixing NFA issues is something that only 1% of gun owners even know or care about, so it's a fairly hopeless issue. And Hollywood would lobby against it because it would remove the monopoly that some of their props companies have. I hope someone at some point gets an opportunity to challenge NFA bans and 922(o) using the Parker decision. Could happen!

[bwiese]

I
When is the NRA going to start working on this? There was a shall-issue bill that made it to the floor in 1997. When are we going to see another one introduced?

Why do work on this if you don't have the votes?

The NRA is not in the business of spinning wheels. If CCW issuance can be a byproduct of something else, that may be the way it happens (and/or court settlements).

[Charliegone]

IMHO, 2 12 and 14 in that order.

[blacklisted]

I would reduce possession of tracer rounds to something other than a felony (infraction, perhaps).

[CCWFacts]

The NRA is not in the business of spinning wheels. If CCW issuance can be a byproduct of something else, that may be the way it happens (and/or court settlements).

It's not spinning wheels. These bills had to been introduced multiple times, over several years, to get passed in most other states. The first time the bill is introduced it is hopeless, but it opens the debate. The second time, there is more debate. The third or forth time it can pass. We need to get started with this, even knowing we're not going to pass it the first time.

Of course, I love the idea of attaching it to something else or making it a byproduct of something else.

And as I said, there are various shades of gray between where we are now and true shall-issue. How about creating an appeal process that favors applicants? That might be all we need. What about removing the must-be-a-county-resident requirement, so any sheriff could issue to any state resident? What about allowing the AG to enter into reciprocity agreements with other states? What about allowing an issuing authority to seal CCW records, provided that authority adopts a shall-issue policy? All these are incremental steps that are short of shall-issue but are victories for us.

[KenpoProfessor]

I think he should start his own forum, called, say, azguns, pronounced with a soft "zz".

:-)

I can smell the jealousy from here :D

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

[M. Sage]

My take:

1. "Safe" Handgun List

2. Waiting periods for existing gun owners

3. 12276.1 "Evil Features"

4. CCW may issue

5. Large Capacity magazine restrictions

6. Required Private Party Transfer

7. Waiting periods for new gun owners

8. Handgun transport restrictions

9. Residency proof requirements for handguns

10. Ban on open carry loaded

11. .50BMG ban

12. Inspect/violate 4th Amendment to check for unloaded transport

13. Handgun registration

14. California 01-FFL licensing limits

15. HSC

16. NFA AG "no issue"

17. AWCA named firearms

Top five:
Right now, I think our biggest threat is in the "safe" handgun list. What a useless POS that is!

Waiting periods... Argh. IMO, the easiest to get rid of would be waiting for people who've already got guns. The argument for eliminating that, at least, is airtight.

Large capacity restrictions... I bought some ten-round Carbine mags, and honestly felt like a loser holding them, seeing as how I've got (and have used!!!) a fifteen sitting out of state for it.

Bottom five:
NFA... it'd be nice, but we really should start a bit lower (on the $$ scale, that is.)

Handgun registration, HSC... eh, they're not good things, but not that horrible, really. Be nice when they're gone, but for now? Not top-priority in my mind.

AW "named" firearms... eh. There are sooooo many off-lists that if we can get rid of the "featured" and high-caps bans, we'll be cool.

[Satex]

Top to bottom: 4, 9, 11, 7, 2, 14, 15, 16, 17

[Number 6]

It's not spinning wheels. These bills had to been introduced multiple times, over several years, to get passed in most other states. The first time the bill is introduced it is hopeless, but it opens the debate. The second time, there is more debate. The third or forth time it can pass. We need to get started with this, even knowing we're not going to pass it the first time.

You are assuming that if it is introduced it would even be heard. The Speaker of the House determines when and if a bill will be heard, and chances are that given the current congressional makeup such a bill would never even see the light of day.

[CCWFacts]

You are assuming that if it is introduced it would even be heard. The Speaker of the House determines when and if a bill will be heard, and chances are that given the current congressional makeup such a bill would never even see the light of day.

It would not be heard. It would die in committee. But at least it would give us a bill number to start working on and create a rallying point. CCW is an issue that gets people stirred up, and gun owners in this state need to be stirred up. The NRA has lately been doing an excellent job at stopping bad bills, and has had a few successes with good bills that do some minor things. I don't want to downplay how good that is... but what about a bill that's good in a big way?

CCW reform has support in California. Gun owners here are figuring out that CCW has happened in 40 other states and now they are asking, what about our state?

Four California congressmen (national) have signed on as co-sponsors of HR 861, the national reciprocity bill (http://californiaccw.org/posts/list/3190.page), so CCW is a live issue even in this state.

[JALLEN]

What would be so awful about enacting a scheme similar to what Florida or Texas or similar states have, which seem to work so very well in those states?

[xenophobe]

Primary:

California NFA laws will be the first to be attacked. That is where all the big money and deep pockets are.

RR/SB-23/Mag Capacity

CCW shall-issue

Everything else is secondary, IMO.

[CCWFacts]

What would be so awful about enacting a scheme similar to what Florida or Texas or similar states have, which seem to work so very well in those states?

Those systems would be wonderful. I think FL's law is the ideal type of law for California: solid BG checks, mandatory training, mandatory live-fire, sealed (private) records, state-issued forgery-resistant cards, and a computer database of CCWs so LEOs can check them. If, through some magical intervention, I was able to take control of CA's legislature long enough to pass just one bill, it would be a copy of FL's CCW law. To me, that is the golden ideal for this golden state. (NB: It's not ideal for every state; VT-style works well in states where most people have had shooting and hunting experience and know how to handle guns safely, so I wouldn't want to impose an FL-style system in those states. But for California, FL's law would be perfect. Not that I would complain if we had VT-style here, mind you.)

My suggestions were merely ideas for incremental improvements. I strongly believe in incremental progress. We've lost so much through a long series of small increments. Focusing on big wins means we end up with a lot of small losses. Not good. So instead of focusing on the big win of shall-issue, what about a series of increments that get us there a little bit at a time?

[luvtolean]

Even in shall issue states, CCW permit rates are quite low. Much lower than the percentage of people who own magazine fed rifles.

I have not seen the energy at the range in Cali in a decade that the OLL work has done. Even more than that, it brings people together.

If you want to get people out shooting, get them into an OLL AR/AK.

A friend of mine shot a few rounds out of my AR and AK pattern rifle, and he can't stop talking about it. This is a guy who hadn't shot a rifle in a very long time...

[Wraith]

"Safe" Handgun List. CCW shall-issue. SB23 has got to go, along with the ridiculous magazine restriction. I hate that one. The ten day wait period....Especially if you've already bought guns. Duh.

[wutzu]

1. CCW Shall Issue
2. Safe Handgun List
3. SB23 (AWs, magazines)
4. NFA shall issue
5. 50 BMG

[mcubed4130]

Interesting.

So... in effect the thought process is, that a COE - would be like a drivers license for a car... interesting.

No - COE = more regulations - less freedom

Have COE = less regulation - more freedoms.

That's easily worth the $100 or so, to get a COE.

Now since, I live in the - none shall have a CCW county of Santa Clara... this will certainly color my thinking as well.


In order:

4. CCW may issue
11. Handgun transport restrictions
2. 12276.1 "Evil Features"
12. Large Capacity magazine restrictions
17. AWCA named firearms
10. Inspect/violate 4th Amendment to check for unloaded transport
1. NFA AG "no issue"
15. .50BMG ban
14. "Safe" Handgun List
7. Handgun registration
13. California 01-FFL licensing limits
5. Waiting periods for existing gun owners
9. Ban on open carry loaded
6. Waiting periods for new gun owners
8. Required Private Party Transfer
3. Residency proof requirements for handguns
16. HSC

-M3

[Smokeybehr]

I say that we should roll everything back in the order that it was put into place.

Failing that, we should put together an "Omnibus Civil Rights Restoration Act" that wipes everything out, and makes us as free as the other 45 states (omitting HI, MA, NY, and IL)