PDA

View Full Version : Concealed carry, right or privlege


Piper
08-25-2007, 11:37 PM
I bought two copies of "In Search of the Second Amendment" and I thought it was very informative, except for one area and that's concealed carry. It would seem that there is a general consensus that concealed carry isn't protected under the second and fourteenth amendments. My question is why? The second says that the right can't be infringed and the 14th says that the states can't abridge it. So can someone cite me caselaw that sets this precedent. There are times when concealed carry is practical, such as incliment weather or when it's cold and you're wearing a jacket. So when did it become an action that required permission? What group of legislators said that restricting concealed carry is constitutional? Was it common practice before the ratification of the Bill of Rights? aor did it come about with the black laws? If you know, tell me.

triggerhappy
08-26-2007, 10:31 AM
Why wouldn't it be? "To keep and bear arms" and "shall not be infringed". That aside, every human has a right to defend themselves. The only reason I am getting a CCW is to avoid hassle. If it were not possible (like if I lived in NYC), I'd carry regardless.

I'd think it was part of the "Jim Crow" mentaility, as you hinted at. "We wanna know what coloreds are are trying to defend themselfs from us upstanding white folks". Since that has prety much died, so should the whole notion of CCW necessity.

Piper
08-26-2007, 10:47 AM
I'm thinking the "black laws" are probably what got the ball rolling on restrictive concealed carry laws, but then again I'm not a law scholar. I tried to get some difinitive information from "Team Billy Jack" but they weren't any help. Their response in substance was we don't know nothin' about the second amendment, we're only interested in the 14th amendment and gettin' CCW issued. So it's kind of ridiculous that we're fighting to regain our second amendment rights, but we have no real clue as to the origin and precedence of restricting concealed carry. To me, that should be a priority and a source for undoing restrictive concealed carry laws. But then that's just me.

Fate
08-26-2007, 11:35 AM
There was a time that concealed carry was very common. Many women and well heeled gentlemen carried derringers at least until 1920ish.

dustoff31
08-26-2007, 11:44 AM
There are a number of state constitutions which while allowing people "to keep and bear arms", restrict the carrying of concealed weapons either altogether or as prescribed by the state.

I don't doubt the "black laws" had something to do with this, however many of the states concerned and thier constitiutions existed prior to the Civil War. Don't know if the CCW restrictions were original to those constitutions or if they were later amended.

It's also interesting that most, if not all of these states are now shall issue.

Piper
08-26-2007, 11:49 AM
Thanks for that information bdgfate. So then where's the precedence that is mentioned on the DVD? I figured that was true, I'm assuming then that concealed carry was restricted from people of African descent. I would be very interested in accessing research into restriction of concealed carry in history.

Piper
08-26-2007, 12:04 PM
There are a number of state constitutions which while allowing people "to keep and bear arms", restrict the carrying of concealed weapons either altogether or as prescribed by the state.

I don't doubt the "black laws" had something to do with this, however many of the states concerned and thier constitiutions existed prior to the Civil War. Don't know if the CCW restrictions were original to those constitutions or if they were later amended.

It's also interesting that most, if not all of these states are now shall issue.

I appreciate the input, and I'm aware that states have chosen to claim authority over concealed carry, but is it constitutional as in the case of the 2nd (infringing) or the 14th (abridging)? States have also claimed authority to restrict carry in general, but is it constitutional? If the second and 14th amendments are taken at face value, I would say no. But I have no doubt that the second would resonably restrict carry by drunks, drug addicts, violent criminals and people deemed mentally deficient or incompetant, just as the first amendment resonably restricts speech in that people can't liable, slander, threaten, or incite a person to violence. Or in the case of religion, the first amendment would resonably restrict the practice of human sacrifice or walking naked in public due to some convoluted belief.

The fact that you made the observation about states having restrictions on concealed carry prior to the civil war, again begs the question since the 14th was ratified in 1868, do states have the authority under the 14th to restrict concealed carry?

Those are just some of my obsevations.

bulgron
08-26-2007, 2:36 PM
You might want to read this book (I haven't, btw). From the book's description on Amazon, it appears that early conceal carry laws in the south were designed to stamp out dueling.

http://www.amazon.com/Concealed-Weapon-Laws-Early-Republic/dp/0275966151

I know that about a decade ago, in Alaska you could carry openly but concealed carry was against the law. I asked about that once and was told that if you want to carry a gun, then carry a gun. But if you want to conceal it, then you're probably up to no good and so no one wants that.

Now concealed carry is the accepted norm in the majority of the United States.

As with all such things, the preferred method of carry is culturally-based, and is affected by the passions and prejudices of the current population.

My opinion is that both open and concealed carry should be recognized as constitutionally protected, and then people should just practice the method most preferred by their current culture. The only preferred method of carry that should not be used, and should not be condoned, is no carry at all.

It's important as we move forward with cases like Heller, to seek constitutional protection for both CC and OC. The reason why is that if one is allowed and the other is not, a statist society can still trip you up. For example, consider the concern that if one is carrying concealed, then a flap of the jacket or a misaligned t-shirt could run you afoul of open carry laws. Or, conversely, if only OC is allowed, then a sweater dangling over your side-arm could be construed as concealed carry and again you are in violation of the law.

dustoff31
08-26-2007, 2:58 PM
I appreciate the input, and I'm aware that states have chosen to claim authority over concealed carry, but is it constitutional as in the case of the 2nd (infringing) or the 14th (abridging)? States have also claimed authority to restrict carry in general, but is it constitutional? If the second and 14th amendments are taken at face value, I would say no.
The fact that you made the observation about states having restrictions on concealed carry prior to the civil war, again begs the question since the 14th was ratified in 1868, do states have the authority under the 14th to restrict concealed carry?

Just for the record, I agree with you completely. I cannot cite the specific case, if indeed it was a case as opposed to an opinion. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a federal ruling on CCW. But I read that the federal government has stayed out of regulating CCW and left it up to the states as a "public policy" matter. The context of that discussion was why didn't the full faith and credit clause of the constitution apply from state to state for CCW's, the same as it does to warrants, court judgements, child support, etc. Are these not matters of public policy?

The failure of the SCOTUS to provide a clear ruling as to whether the 2nd is an individual or collective right, is I think central to this discussion. For example, if it is an individual right, then no. The state has no right to restrict it. But if it's a collective right, then yes, they could.

CitaDeL
08-26-2007, 3:01 PM
I bought two copies of "In Search of the Second Amendment" and I thought it was very informative, except for one area and that's concealed carry. It would seem that there is a general consensus that concealed carry isn't protected under the second and fourteenth amendments. My question is why? The second says that the right can't be infringed and the 14th says that the states can't abridge it. So can someone cite me caselaw that sets this precedent. There are times when concealed carry is practical, such as incliment weather or when it's cold and you're wearing a jacket. So when did it become an action that required permission? What group of legislators said that restricting concealed carry is constitutional? Was it common practice before the ratification of the Bill of Rights? aor did it come about with the black laws? If you know, tell me.

Any time a license to perform an action is required, that action, permitted only under license is no longer a right- but a priviledge regulated by the State.

Historically, concealed carry of weapons was frowned upon and considered less than honorable. Concealed weapons obfuscated your intent- and that was less than gentlenmenly. Laws regulating concealed weapons came in the mid 1800's, particularly after the Civil War. Many of these laws were made to criminalize concealed weapons carried by freed slaves- and spread as people were convinced that people hiding weapons should only be allowed to do so with special permission.

Is it Constitutional? No, not really. But will these laws go away if no one stands up to super-Constitutional regulation? No. And few people are willing to put it to the test, especially in 9th Circus land. Hopefully D.C. v. Heller will put the issue back in the forefront.

Surprisingly, as restrictive as the issuances of California licenses to carry concealed are, it is still lawful to carry openly without a license in most areas provided you abide by some specific restrictions.

The quick and dirty recap;

Carry of an unloaded and exposed handgun is lawful without a license or permit anywhere except:

Where someone would reasonably know they were within 1000 feet of a school. (626.9)

In any State or local public building or at any meeting required to be open to the public. (171b)

A State park (CCR Title 14, Div.3, chap. 1, s 4313 (a)) or National Park (36 C.F.R. 2.4(a))

Carry of a loaded and exposed handgun is lawful without a license or permit anywhere except:

In any public place or public street in an incorporated city (ie: inside city limits) or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory. (PC12031)

Where someone would reasonably know they were within 1000 feet of a school. (626.9)

In any State or local public building or at any meeting required to be open to the public. (171b)

A State (CCR Title 14, Div.3, chap. 1, s 4313 (a)) or National Park (36 C.F.R. 2.4(a))

Any other area where State or local ordinance prohibits discharge of firearms.

It is NOT lawful to conceal a pistol or handgun without a permit. (PC12025)

Piper
08-26-2007, 6:00 PM
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you use the 1800's as a model, I guess we would have to define what they considered concealed versus open carry. In the 1800's, would they consider it open carry if it was in an open holster but covered by an overcoat or duster? Or would it be considered concealed carry if a firearm was tucked in a waistband but a man wasn't wearing his jacket at that moment? And what about women? Would a ladies pistol be considered concealed if she had it in her purse? If we assume the 19th century is the beginning of concealed carry laws, it would help to understand their logic in determining just exactly what their criteria was regarding concealed firearms.

Piper
08-26-2007, 6:51 PM
You might want to read this book (I haven't, btw). From the book's description on Amazon, it appears that early conceal carry laws in the south were designed to stamp out dueling.

http://www.amazon.com/Concealed-Weapon-Laws-Early-Republic/dp/0275966151

I know that about a decade ago, in Alaska you could carry openly but concealed carry was against the law. I asked about that once and was told that if you want to carry a gun, then carry a gun. But if you want to conceal it, then you're probably up to no good and so no one wants that.

Now concealed carry is the accepted norm in the majority of the United States.

As with all such things, the preferred method of carry is culturally-based, and is affected by the passions and prejudices of the current population.

My opinion is that both open and concealed carry should be recognized as constitutionally protected, and then people should just practice the method most preferred by their current culture. The only preferred method of carry that should not be used, and should not be condoned, is no carry at all.

It's important as we move forward with cases like Heller, to seek constitutional protection for both CC and OC. The reason why is that if one is allowed and the other is not, a statist society can still trip you up. For example, consider the concern that if one is carrying concealed, then a flap of the jacket or a misaligned t-shirt could run you afoul of open carry laws. Or, conversely, if only OC is allowed, then a sweater dangling over your side-arm could be construed as concealed carry and again you are in violation of the law.

This is good stuff! Thanks for the info on this book. I think I'm going to see if I can get it from Barnes and Nobles or Borders. This is definately what I was looking for. Thanks.

hoffmang
08-26-2007, 7:54 PM
A couple of things:

1. Concealed carry laws pre-dated much of the racist roots of gun control. It was about white on white honor crime, especially in the south.

2. Concealed carry laws weren't about carry - they were about concealment. The idea was that you had an unfair advantage in an otherwise fair (eg.) bar fight. Guy 1 insults guy 2's mother. Guy 1 is carrying concealed. If guy 1 was open carrying, guy 2 would know not to take a swing at guy 1, but instead of what should have been a couple of bloody noses ended up with a dead guy 2. In states that adopted CCW regulation, open carry was an assumed allowed item.

3. As such, I think carry is a right, but method of carry may very well be a privilege. It's much like speech is a right but using a bull horn at midnight in a residential section can be made illegal. Long term I expect that modern times will in fact prefer CCW over open carry due to its positive deterrent effects to crime and I think it wise that compulsory CCW licenses explain the bar fight risks to CCW licensees. As to honor killings, this is one of those things that times really have changed about.

-Gene

ibanezfoo
08-26-2007, 8:38 PM
It says RIGHT to BEAR. And BEAR means:

bear1 /bɛər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bair] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, bore or (Archaic) bare; borne or born; bear·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to hold up; support: to bear the weight of the roof.
2. to hold or remain firm under (a load): The roof will not bear the strain of his weight.
3. to bring forth (young); give birth to: to bear a child.
4. to produce by natural growth: a tree that bears fruit.
5. to hold up under; be capable of: His claim doesn't bear close examination.
6. to press or push against: The crowd was borne back by the police.
7. to hold or carry (oneself, one's body, one's head, etc.): to bear oneself erectly.
8. to conduct (oneself): to bear oneself bravely.
9. to suffer; endure; undergo: to bear the blame.
10. to sustain without yielding or suffering injury; tolerate (usually used in negative constructions, unless qualified): I can't bear your nagging. I can hardly bear to see her suffering so.
11. to be fit for or worthy of: It doesn't bear repeating.
12. to carry; bring: to bear gifts.
13. to carry in the mind or heart: to bear love; to bear malice.
14. to transmit or spread (gossip, tales, etc.).
15. to render; afford; give: to bear witness; to bear testimony.
16. to lead; guide; take: They bore him home.
17. to have and be entitled to: to bear title.
18. to exhibit; show: to bear a resemblance.
19. to accept or have, as an obligation: to bear responsibility; to bear the cost.
20. to stand in (a relation or ratio); have or show correlatively: the relation that price bears to profit.
21. to possess, as a quality or characteristic; have in or on: to bear traces; to bear an inscription.
22. to have and use; exercise: to bear authority; to bear sway.
–verb (used without object)
23. to tend in a course or direction; move; go: to bear west; to bear left at the fork in the road.
24. to be located or situated: The lighthouse bears due north.
25. to bring forth young or fruit: Next year the tree will bear.
—Verb phrases
26. bear down,
a. to press or weigh down.
b. to strive harder; intensify one's efforts: We can't hope to finish unless everyone bears down.
c. Nautical. to approach from windward, as a ship: The cutter was bearing down the channel at twelve knots.
27. bear down on or upon,
a. to press or weigh down on.
b. to strive toward.
c. to approach something rapidly.
d. Nautical. to approach (another vessel) from windward: The sloop bore down on us, narrowly missing our stern.
28. bear off,
a. Nautical. to keep (a boat) from touching or rubbing against a dock, another boat, etc.
b. Nautical. to steer away.
c. Backgammon. to remove the stones from the board after they are all home.
29. bear on or upon, to affect, relate to, or have connection with; be relevant to: This information may bear on the case.
30. bear out, to substantiate; confirm: The facts bear me out.
31. bear up, to endure; face hardship bravely: It is inspiring to see them bearing up so well.
32. bear with, to be patient or forbearing with: Please bear with me until I finish the story.
—Idiom
33. bring to bear, to concentrate on with a specific purpose: Pressure was brought to bear on those with overdue accounts.

CitaDeL
08-26-2007, 9:08 PM
A couple of things:

I think carry is a right, but method of carry may very well be a privilege. It's much like speech is a right but using a bull horn at midnight in a residential section can be made illegal. Long term I expect that modern times will in fact prefer CCW over open carry due to its positive deterrent effects to crime and I think it wise that compulsory CCW licenses :confused: explain the bar fight risks to CCW licensees. As to honor killings, this is one of those things that times really have changed about.

There are already laws on the books restricting things like the volume and the kinds of things that are not acceptable to be said- such as threats or false alarm. There are also laws on the books restricting concealment of weapons, whether a firearm may be loaded, how a firearm may be handled, and where a firearm may be carried. But there are no laws prohibiting exposed carry.

I contend that concealed carry has no crime deterent effect beyond the mere possibility that someone might be armed. Whereas someone who is visiably armed represents a clear threat to any criminal intent, in much the same way an armed, uniformed peace officer does.

Licensed concealment is a privilege doled out to a paltry few club members, who, in some cases are only deserving of such privileges for their political or financial clout. The process of the average person obtaining a LTC requires repeated violations of a persons protected rights- not only their 2A rights, but their 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th amendement rights. It is not only upon application, but these violations continue through renewal, any police detainment, and the possibility that your information will be released to the public through the FOIA, as was exhibited by newspapers publishing licensees information in Virginia and another state I believe to be South Dakota.

Unlicensed exposed carry requires no application, permit, license, background check, registration, good cause statement, declaration of innocence, or any record of your lawful ownership of a firearm. Som that make assertions that exposed carry is a throwback of the 'Old West' and unacceptable in 'modern times' sometimes cite bloody gun battles- but they fail to statistically support the reality that we in this day, are subjected to much more crime than our 'Old West' counterparts ever were. There are two ironies in this- 1st, there was less law enforcement, and 2nd, most of the famous gun battles that can be cited from memory involved law enforcement.

hoffmang
08-26-2007, 9:46 PM
Citadel,

Lets compare two states. State 1 has CCW and state 2 has only open carry.

In state 2, every crook knows that every law abiding citizen will open carry if they are armed. Therefor, all he has to do is wait for the unarmed citizen to pull off whatever crime he wishes to pull off.

In state 1, shall issue CCW is the rule. As such, no criminal can survey the crowd to see who the unarmed law abiding citizens are. As such, even the unarmed see some additional protections.

Also, some pro gun folks just pointed out that the old west really was that dangerous: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_08_26-2007_09_01.shtml#1188076990

Please don't take my statement that CCW is a privilege to state that CCW as implemented by CA is legal or constitutional.

-Gene

CCWFacts
08-26-2007, 11:02 PM
I appreciate the input, and I'm aware that states have chosen to claim authority over concealed carry, but is it constitutional as in the case of the 2nd (infringing) or the 14th (abridging)? States have also claimed authority to restrict carry in general, but is it constitutional? If the second and 14th amendments are taken at face value, I would say no. But I have no doubt that the second would resonably restrict carry by drunks, drug addicts, violent criminals and people deemed mentally deficient or incompetant, just as the first amendment resonably restricts speech in that people can't liable, slander, threaten, or incite a person to violence. Or in the case of religion, the first amendment would resonably restrict the practice of human sacrifice or walking naked in public due to some convoluted belief.

One way to put it: There's how we (individuals) interpret the constitution, and then there's how the courts interpret it. Many individuals (especially on gun forums!) believe the 2nd does protect carrying guns. After all, it says "keep and bear". But I don't think any court has ever backed up that interpretation. There have been very very few 2A cases ever.

What happens when an individual interpretation and a court interpretation disagree? Either the individual must put aside his beliefs and comply, or he must be willing to face the consequences of not complying. The other thing the individual in such a situation should do is serve on juries when he gets his summons.

My individual view: I think the 2A protects carrying, but not in an unregulated way. Requiring a CCW, and providing a reasonable shall-issue process (like in Florida) is I think a reasonable amount of regulation. No regulation (VT-style) also seems reasonable to me. I would be happy either way really. Kind of like chocolate icecream vs. chocolate cake. They both work for me. What does not seem reasonable is what we have here in CA, or what they have in IL (no CCW period).

socalguns
08-27-2007, 6:05 AM
whats next, you're going to argue that the 2nd amendment is only valid for "sporting purposes"? Carrying exposed is like flashing your hi-beams, people notice

Piper
08-27-2007, 6:20 AM
I've read Vermont laws covering concealed carry and it's very simple. The law reads in substance that it is legal to carry concealed so long as a person has no intention of commiting a crime and the person is not prohibited from carrying a firearm. There are also some restrictions on where you can carry, but they are very few, I think a church, bar or government building or anyplace where a sign is posted. But since they have never had laws that prevent carrying, as I understand it, posted signs aren't a problem.

I'm looking forward to this book I ordered last night coming to me. The first five pages that I read definately left me wanting more.

What I thought was interesting was the first concealed carry laws started out in the south and Kentucky had the first concealed law in 1813. Then others like Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas and Indiana jumped on the band wagon. But for the most part, northern states with the exception of Indiana didn't have these laws until the1920's. So it's a realtivly new concept in U.S. history and it needs to end. The problem with these laws was that no one challenged the constitutionality of these laws when they were created and that also has to end.

hoffmang
08-27-2007, 10:38 AM
CCW laws weren't originally about abridging the right to carry - they were about fighting fair. When my fundamental right to not get killed without notice actually comes into conflict with your RKBA, I can see room to legitamitely regulate. If your choices are follow the shall issue certification process or open carry so that I have a reasonable warning that the guy in the bar next to me insulting my wife is either armed or should know better - that seems like a pretty fair balance.

Note that what I'm talking about isn't the CA current situation. It is and was the NC situation for quite some time. You walk into a bar with a handgun on your hip, I know that if I'm unarmed its best that I walk away if you start causing trouble. If you do the same thing concealed, I might challenge you to behave and get myself shot without warning.

-Gene

Piper
08-27-2007, 12:23 PM
CCW laws weren't originally about abridging the right to carry - they were about fighting fair. When my fundamental right to not get killed without notice actually comes into conflict with your RKBA, I can see room to legitamitely regulate. If your choices are follow the shall issue certification process or open carry so that I have a reasonable warning that the guy in the bar next to me insulting my wife is either armed or should know better - that seems like a pretty fair balance.

Note that what I'm talking about isn't the CA current situation. It is and was the NC situation for quite some time. You walk into a bar with a handgun on your hip, I know that if I'm unarmed its best that I walk away if you start causing trouble. If you do the same thing concealed, I might challenge you to behave and get myself shot without warning.

-Gene

I completely understand where you're coming from, but having literally lived by the gun if you will, I think I understand the mentality if only slightly. As a cop, I looked at everyone as potentially having a gun, not as a matter of yanking peoples chains, but as a matter of not allowing me to drop my guard. If that was the only reason for instituting those laws, I think it was rather short sighted of them. I'm still wondering just exactly what they defined as concealed. Considering those places are great for cold weather, I wonder if concealed included wearing an overcoat over you weapon of choice? I guess I'll wait and see what my new book says. Got a great deal on it too.

ibanezfoo
08-27-2007, 2:50 PM
northern states with the exception of Indiana didn't have these laws until the1920's.

It seems like most of the laws contributing to the downfall of the United States came about in the 20's. Now where did I put my time machine....................

-Bryan

hoffmang
08-27-2007, 3:05 PM
Piper: Just so I'm clear with you, there is a lot of room here for reasonable people to disagree. My main point is that CCW laws are not necessarily from the same mold as AW bans or racist controls of later eras. There is an equally valid argument that now that honor killings are generally only gang related (and thus carrying is probably illegal for them anyway) that CCW laws are past their prime.

ibanezfoo: Though CCW laws are pre-20's, it has become clearer and clearer to me that Prohibition and FDR's wacked response to the Depression still leave nasty aftershocks in today's public policy...

-Gene

Outlaw Josey Wales
08-27-2007, 3:17 PM
You walk into a bar with a handgun on your hip, I know that if I'm unarmed its best that I walk away if you start causing trouble. If you do the same thing concealed, I might challenge you to behave and get myself shot without warning.

-Gene

Gun or not it's best to avoid trouble whenever possible. I'd wager more people get stabbed or cut with knives than shot with firearms.

hoffmang
08-27-2007, 3:31 PM
Gun or not it's best to avoid trouble whenever possible. I'd wager more people get stabbed or cut with knives than shot with firearms.

That has to be balanced with preserving some social order. I'll give an example.

A couple of years ago, I'm in line in Customs in Miami coming back from the Caribbean. We've been segmented into US and Non US already. Some guy trys to cut in my long line. Everyone in the room was peeved at the guy, but I'm the guy who was willing to say something. Once I did, it was quickly clear to him that the rest of the crowd was going to back me up. I didn't say something to him with that expectation however.

That challenge was reasonably safe as US Customs is pretty sterile - but I certainly wasn't thinking that quickly. My point is that there is a lot of civil in society that does rely on individuals dissuading certain poor behavior. I don't want to see us lose any more of that capacity than we already have.

-Gene

Piper
08-27-2007, 3:52 PM
I hope I'm not going off into left field, but do you think that our society has gone beyond the "honor killings" of the past, or with the third world moving in, legally or otherwise, is there a chance we could see a resurgence of that?

So far, to date, concealed carry in most of the U.S. has yielded positive results. I can't think of anyplace in the U.S. that doesn't have its share of third world immigrants and at the risk of sounding bigoted I would think that is where that kind of activity would come from. I won't point any fingers but the news has a tendency to bear out where honor killings would be most prominent. Is California really that different from the rest of the U.S.? If it is, maybe that's another reason for me to beat a hasty exit.

bulgron
08-27-2007, 5:28 PM
Is California really that different from the rest of the U.S.? If it is, maybe that's another reason for me to beat a hasty exit.

If CC can work in Texas and Arizona, then it can also work in CA. They're all border states with huge numbers of illegal immigrants moving in and moving through.

The key difference is that CA is loaded with statist liberals that have managed to control the political high ground. Also, it seems like a lot of CA gun owners move away from the state rather than stick around and fight for reform.

I continue to look for some sort of an organized CCW reform effort in this state, but so far all I've found are a bunch of websites where people talk about CCW, but no actual reform activity, as far as I can tell. If there's an organization actively working to elect pro-CCW politicians, I can't find it. I mean, shouldn't there be people trying to push pro-CCW candidates in the primary season? There's a primary season coming up, plenty of state assemblymen and senators are getting term limited out of office. Who's working to make sure those people are replaced via the primaries by pro-gun candidates, especially pro-gun Dem candidates?

You know, pro-gun Dems aren't as rare as some people would like us all to believe. They can be found.

It's frustrating and it makes me want to move to Arizona (I mean, even more than I already do ....)

Piper
08-27-2007, 10:23 PM
I won't condemn anyone who chooses to leave California for a less invasive state. Some people are better suited to following the path of least resistance. But I do find it frustrating when I hear pro-gun leaders talk about how it's just not the right time to do this or do that. To me, people like Marion Hammer are a standard that California pro-gun leaders should emulate. It took her 7 years and alot of hard work to get RTC passed in Florida. Anti-gunners keep chipping away by introducing and reintroducing the same bills over and over again. And we keep defending what we have over and over again. We're so afraid of going on the offensive, fearing that we may send a negative image to people. Personally, just shielding ourselves from the antigun blows sends a negative signal as well. If I were on the fence, not going on the offensive would tell me that progunners are so far out in left field that they know their crazy ideas would never gain support.

The thing is we do have liberal supporters, but to our sensibilities we want no part of an alliance with them. Saying this, I'm reminded of the cliche "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." We may not see eye to eye on alot of things but groups like the "Pink Pistols" or the "Armed Pagans" are at least on the same sheet of music as we are when it comes to self defense. Quite frankly, I don't care which party wins so long as they are pro second amendment. I will concern myself about other issues later.

hoffmang
08-27-2007, 10:41 PM
The Pink Pistols may end up being one of the most effective sources of political power that we in the pro second amendment camp can work with. We should also be focusing on using Jackson against himself by messaging the Deacons for Defense's history. Where are the other minority groups against gun control and what can we do to help start them into motion?

-Gene

Piper
08-27-2007, 10:58 PM
I would be more than pleased to work with a diversity of people. Just having a bunch of european white males standing up and shouting for second amendment rights isn't as good as groups like the Deacon's, Pink Pistols, Second Amendment Sisters, Armed Pagans, JPFO and any politician that's willing to take a stand.

The one thing we have to remind ourselves about is this ain't just about huntin', or protecting ourselves from government. It's about the honest law abiding people of California being able to defend ourselves and our families against the oppresion of criminals that would be very happy if we submitted to their will. It's about our wives being able to protect themselves when we're not there to protect them. It's about people being able to defend themselves from a group of bigots or racists that don't like you because of who you are. That's really what this is all about. And if it has to be, we need to go on the offensive and tell, not ask, the government that if they have no obligation to protect us as individuals, we demand, not request, that they stop restricting our ability to carry the most effective tool available to defend ourselves, our families and our property against criminal oppresion.

bulgron
08-27-2007, 11:45 PM
It's very hard for me to believe that we aren't on the offensive yet.

Will a favorable Parker/Heller ruling put us there? I mean, if SCOTUS were to agree that the 2nd is an individual right, and that the citizens of the United States have the constitutionally-protected right to keep arms, then surely we must have the right to bear them.

And if we have the right to bear them, then how can any law designed to flat-out deny that right, or to be capriciously granted by LEO based on the needs of his campaign bank account, pass constitutional muster?

Regardless, I continue to be disappointed in the apparent disorganization of the gun rights movement in California.

It took gun rights activists in Minnesota 8 years to get shall-issue CCW passed there. And the reasons why they pushed for it, the complaints they had, are almost identical to what we're saying here in CA today (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/959414/posts).

I'm just a guy behind a keyboard. I have zero political experience. so when I say I don't know how to get the ball rolling on a CCW reform movement, I mean it.

But I think we should get the ball rolling.

It seems to me that we should start by looking at the state assemblymen and senators, identify which are pro-gun and which are antis, then look to see which of those anti seats are vulnerable. Because the state is so heavily gerrymandered to the Dems advantage, it seems logical that the thing to do is to push for pro-CCW candidates in the Dem primaries. But how do you identify those candidates and how do you get them the support they need to win their respective primaries?

Remember that for most people, 2A issues are something like 7th or 8th on the list of priorities. So what we need are people who support CCW reform, but who also hold values that resonate with their largely liberal constituency.

It might be wishful thinking on my part, but is it really so hard to find liberal politicians at a local level who understand what the 2A is all about? Has anyone ever even tried?

Or do we just wait for Parker and then, if all the good things come to pass, launch an attack on this state's firearm laws via the judiciary?

Piper
08-28-2007, 8:32 AM
I'm wondering if our pro-gun leaders aren't going their own separate ways in California so they can claim exclusive rights to any RTC reform that happens. Back in 1998 we had, I believe it was AB1630 which was the only pro-gun atempt to get RTC passed. And when it failed, our pro-gun leaders just gave up and we havn't seen another bill like it. Me personally, if I knew how to do it, I would get the sponsors and hit both houses with it until they got so tired of me that they relented. And I would make those that opposed the bill known to everyone in the state and I would tell everyone (more than I do now) how beneficial RTC would be to both those that would and those that won't carry a firearm. We have plenty of ammunition, we're just not willing to use it. Criminals have the advantage, and our politicians are giving it to them, but what's even worse is inaction on the part of pro-gun activism. The cliche "A good defense is a strong offense" really does mean something. I'm tired of defending, I want to do some offending. God knows we as law abiding citizens have been offended enough by politicians and criminals. Politicians and criminals, now there's an unholy alliance.

bulgron
08-28-2007, 9:00 AM
I'm wondering if our pro-gun leaders

I'm fairly new to state-level politics and CA RKBA issues. Who are these do-nothing pro-gun leaders and how do we reach out to explain to them that they need to do some leading?

I hate to say it, but what we might need is a new organization that is established explicitly for pressing the CCW issue in CA. It should start by either getting the support of the do-nothing leaders, or replacing them. It should be non-partisan (Dem and Republican welcome alike) and blind to all other social issues such as gay politics, etc. In order to get CCW in California, we're going to have to put up a giant umbrella that coordinates pro-CCW groups across the political spectrum.

California Self Defense League, anyone?

Of course, the problem with this is that there are already three websites out there that talk about CA CCW (two that are EXCLUSIVELY about CCW), but no actual movement on the political front. Would another website really work? I don't think so. We need actual activism. Sadly, I don't know how to proceed.

I'm open to ideas, though.

hoffmang
08-28-2007, 9:52 AM
Some CCW reforms have been slowly happening. I expect you'll see others - especially post Parker/Heller. Working right now is only to introduce the concept knowing it will not yet pass. Post Heller/Parker and post a few other wins in rolling back some of the AW stuff and the Safe Handgun stuff, I think you'll see a change in political view that will allow a pro shall issue bill to get through.

It's a very hard world out there when you're talking about trying to move forward on CCW while the rest of the board is fighting a defacto new handgun ban and ammo bans...

-Gene

bulgron
08-28-2007, 10:15 AM
Some CCW reforms have been slowly happening. I expect you'll see others - especially post Parker/Heller. Working right now is only to introduce the concept knowing it will not yet pass. Post Heller/Parker and post a few other wins in rolling back some of the AW stuff and the Safe Handgun stuff, I think you'll see a change in political view that will allow a pro shall issue bill to get through.

It's a very hard world out there when you're talking about trying to move forward on CCW while the rest of the board is fighting a defacto new handgun ban and ammo bans...

-Gene

I see. Seems to me that as long as we're playing defense, none of this "rolling back" is going to happen.

When was the last time a pro-gun bill of any sort was introduced into the state assembly, much less passed? As I said, maybe something has happened and I just didn't see it, but so far it looks like what happens in CA is that the antis propose legislation and then the pros run around trying to squash it.

I've attended a few gun rights groups meetings lately. What I hear is people complaining, "I write and write to my representative, I call, I send faxes, and none of it matters. They just ignore me."

Heck yeah, they ignore us. We're hardly an organized and effective political force, especially when all we do is play defense.

hoffmang
08-28-2007, 10:34 AM
AB 2728 passed last year and became law on 1/1/2007.

You should read a lot of the historical postings on here.

Offense:

Off List Lower Receivers
Magazine Fixing Kits for semiauto rifles
Alternative non pistol grips for semiauto rifles
Detachable magazine non SKSes
Single shot exception to the Safe Handgun list
.50BMG non rifles

That's in the last 18 months.

Things that are coming:
large-capacity magazines
AOWs

Regulatory capture is really valuable tool. Its not all about legislation.

-Gene

Piper
08-28-2007, 10:50 AM
I appreciate your observations Gene, but those things that you mention are just examples of retaking old ground. But then again, when you think about it, getting any kind of RTC is just retaking old ground.

Now where did I put that time machine?

tango-52
08-28-2007, 10:51 AM
Regulatory capture is really valuable tool. Its not all about legislation.

-Gene
Along the regulatory line, Gene, let me post a hypothetical since this thread seems to have strayed from CCW. What would happen if a bullet button case were presented to a gun-hating judge in a gun-hating county. The DA has an expert witness (that leaves out Iggy) that testifies that, although the BB meets the letter of the regulations, the regulations aren't in the spirit or intent of the legislation. The judge, looking for any excuse, then throws out the regulations. Do you think that the gun community will then rise up to support an appeal?

Glock22Fan
08-28-2007, 11:08 AM
I'm thinking the "black laws" are probably what got the ball rolling on restrictive concealed carry laws, but then again I'm not a law scholar. I tried to get some difinitive information from "Team Billy Jack" but they weren't any help. Their response in substance was we don't know nothin' about the second amendment, we're only interested in the 14th amendment and gettin' CCW issued. So it's kind of ridiculous that we're fighting to regain our second amendment rights, but we have no real clue as to the origin and precedence of restricting concealed carry. To me, that should be a priority and a source for undoing restrictive concealed carry laws. But then that's just me.

Actually, Billy Jack sent this person an email regarding our interest in fighting only those fights that we thought we could win (as the California Courts have explicitely removed the 2nd from the argument), and I sent him an email explaining how the "Concealed Carry" permit system arose for the days when open carry was normal, and concealed carry generally indicated nefarious intent. I am sorry that this person is unable to appreciate this (no cost) advice, and thereby prolong his pointless persuit of the unattainable.

Perhaps unattainable is the wrong word, in the very long run, but anyone trying to use the 2nd as a primary reason for a ccw permit is, frankly, wasting his time in California until the political climate is very different.

Also, when I hear this constant carping on the "black laws," I am reminded of another Californian activist who has been banging his head against racist brick walls for much too long. Also, as an article (it is on the web but I don't have a link) in a San Francisco paper some 80 years or so suggests, it is clear that much early gun control in California was mainly anti-Chinese immigrant in nature.

Piper
08-28-2007, 11:46 AM
Actually, Billy Jack sent this person an email regarding our interest in fighting only those fights that we thought we could win (as the California Courts have explicitely removed the 2nd from the argument), and I sent him an email explaining how the "Concealed Carry" permit system arose for the days when open carry was normal, and concealed carry generally indicated nefarious intent. I am sorry that this person is unable to appreciate this (no cost) advice, and thereby prolong his pointless persuit of the unattainable.

Perhaps unattainable is the wrong word, in the very long run, but anyone trying to use the 2nd as a primary reason for a ccw permit is, frankly, wasting his time in California until the political climate is very different.

Also, when I hear this constant carping on the "black laws," I am reminded of another Californian activist who has been banging his head against racist brick walls for much too long. Also, as an article (it is on the web but I don't have a link) in a San Francisco paper some 80 years or so suggests, it is clear that much early gun control in California was mainly anti-Chinese immigrant in nature.


Here is an exact quote of the email you sent to me.

"It is not Billy Jack's desire to waste his Team's time chasing clouds as pursuing the 2ND would be. I am not an expert on the 2ND but I am on the 14Th, having had intimate personal experience with it.

I am only interested in protecting the rights of those who apply for and are denied CCW's. If in the course of this effort we reinforce the 2ND in some manner that would of course be a benefit.

Good luck in your pursuits.

Sincerely,


Billy Jack"


I didn't say anything about the black laws in my email to you. I only asked if you had any information on the history of concealed carry laws. Your response didn't answer my question and is therefore useless. Rather then send me this worthless tripe, a better response would have simply been, I don't know. And now you attempt to make me look bad by lieing about what you sent me. "Team Billy Jack" is quickly losing credibility with me.

Glock22Fan
08-28-2007, 12:41 PM
Why not give the second email also? here it is:

In response to your query, we have several issues here.

Regarding concealed carry licenses, this came about during the days (late 19th century) when open carry was common and acceptable. Carrying a concealed gun was considered sneaky, and indicated that you intended to do bad things. After all, if your intentions are good, you can carry openly, can’t you? However, some respectable people did want to legitimately carry a concealed weapon, so they introduced the permit system to distinguish people like bankers from card sharps with a derringer up their sleeve.

Regarding what the 2nd means – it means exactly what the courts say it means, even if you or I think they are wrong.

Unless and until there is a definitive statement from the US Supreme Court that the 2nd is an individual right, and that “own and bear arms” means exactly what it says, no more and no less, we are stuck with the lower courts’ rulings.

In California, these rulings are not particularly friendly, as California’s politicians and populace have a left-wing anti-gun bias.

Therefore, we have to work with what we have got and chip away using the 14th (“hey, if you give Sylvester Stallone one, you should give me one.”)

John

It is well known that Billy Jack has an abrasive style. This come over in the email that you (breaching all of the polite conventions about not publishing private emails without permission) quoted.

However, I fail to see how we were lying, in either our emails or in my response above.

You are welcome to your approach, even though it shows almost total ignorance of the issues that you so freely spout (and yes, you started the slanging match.)

And, as far as whether a gun is concealed if you sling an overcoat over it goes, what part of "concealed" don't you understand? California courts have rules that a gun is concealed if any part of it is concealed. Do I need to give you a link to a dictionary definition?

hoffmang
08-28-2007, 12:46 PM
Along the regulatory line, Gene, let me post a hypothetical since this thread seems to have strayed from CCW. What would happen if a bullet button case were presented to a gun-hating judge in a gun-hating county. The DA has an expert witness (that leaves out Iggy) that testifies that, although the BB meets the letter of the regulations, the regulations aren't in the spirit or intent of the legislation. The judge, looking for any excuse, then throws out the regulations. Do you think that the gun community will then rise up to support an appeal?

Spirit and intent don't matter. The decision would be whether the magazine is detachable pursuant to 11 C.C.R. 5469.14. That doesn't mean we can't get a bad decision. I'm very sure that Calguns (I know I would) and probably NRA-ILA would be willing to back the appeal.

-Gene

tango-52
08-28-2007, 12:51 PM
Spirit and intent don't matter. The decision would be whether the magazine is detachable pursuant to 11 C.C.R. 5469.14. That doesn't mean we can't get a bad decision. I'm very sure that Calguns (I know I would) and probably NRA-ILA would be willing to back the appeal.

-Gene
That's good to hear. Thanks.

Piper
08-28-2007, 12:57 PM
Why not give the second email also? here it is:



It is well known that Billy Jack has an abrasive style. This come over in the email that you (breaching all of the polite conventions about not publishing private emails without permission) quoted.

However, I fail to see how we were lying, in either our emails or in my response above.

You are welcome to your approach, even though it shows almost total ignorance of the issues that you so freely spout (and yes, you started the slanging match.)

And, as far as whether a gun is concealed if you sling an overcoat over it goes, what part of "concealed" don't you understand? California courts have rules that a gun is concealed if any part of it is concealed. Do I need to give you a link to a dictionary definition?

First off, I didn't receive a second email, and I never received any PM's here. So go ahead and try and bail yourself out, you're only making it worse.

Glock22Fan
08-28-2007, 1:04 PM
So go ahead and try and bail yourself out,

I don't think I need to. My mail system says it was delivered.

My conscience is clear. In every respect.

Piper
08-28-2007, 1:06 PM
Contary to what anyone else thinks, your credibility sucks with me.

bulgron
08-28-2007, 2:02 PM
I'm not sure what exactly this friction between Piper and Glock22Fan is all about, but this friction can't possibly be good for run rights in CA.

If CA gun owners can't figure out how to support one another, then there really is no point in pushing on RKBA issues, is there? Divided, we fall.

BTW, who or what exactly is Team Billy Jack?

Piper
08-28-2007, 3:23 PM
I'm not sure what exactly this friction between Piper and Glock22Fan is all about, but this friction can't possibly be good for run rights in CA.

If CA gun owners can't figure out how to support one another, then there really is no point in pushing on RKBA issues, is there? Divided, we fall.

BTW, who or what exactly is Team Billy Jack?

It's about a post earlier in this thread. I mentioned that "Team Billy Jerk" was absolutely no help in an inquiry and he said that I was too stupid to understand his answer. The fact of the matter is, his goofy answer was no help and I called him on it. But is he man enough to accept that he was caught? Nooooo, he has to make up another lie to attempt to cover up the first lie. If his "team" is as good as his lies, I'd represent myself before I let them represent me. And no, it can't be good for RKBA activism. But then again neither is screwing up your credibility by lying.

Librarian
08-28-2007, 3:51 PM
I'm fairly new to state-level politics and CA RKBA issues. Who are these do-nothing pro-gun leaders and how do we reach out to explain to them that they need to do some leading?
California has changed - see the attached graph. The numbers from 1980 to 1992 are actual votes for president; the numbers from 96 onward are voter registration from the Secretary of State's office. Sloppy graph, I know - I'm just trying to show the trend. (I've omitted all the small parties, not from prejudice, but because their numbers are so small they clutter the graph without adding any information.)

Note the the change between 1988 and 1992? That's when the Democrats became the majority party.

Want to guess when we got things like the Assault Weapons law and the requirement to purchase guns through FFLs? [ 1990 and 1991, respectively. ]

Being a Democratic California legislator is not necessarily an indication that the person is anti-gun, but that's the way to bet s/he will vote. Similarly, being a Republican California legislator is not necessarily an indication the person is NOT anti-gun (notice I'm not using 'pro-gun' here), but that's usually what to expect when a measure comes to a vote.

By their lights, they are leading. The general run of Democratic voters does not want to live in a world where violence is possible, and they're desperately trying to wish it away. That's why, when it doesn't work, they just wish harder and call for more laws. That's why our legislature won't introduce or pass laws that liberalize ownership and use of guns. A couple of Republican legislators have tried; usually the bills don't get out of committee.

Left to the voters, as that population is currently composed, the trend will continue as we see today - a few recoveries, more losses. With more losses, guns become both less common, because harder to get for "regular people", and more demonized - look at all the laws!

What we need is a good sound boxing of the ears by the courts. A win in Parker/Heller would be a good start. Crushing a few corrupt CCW issuing agencies will help, too.

Glock22Fan
08-28-2007, 4:13 PM
I'm not sure what exactly this friction between Piper and Glock22Fan is all about, but this friction can't possibly be good for run rights in CA.

If CA gun owners can't figure out how to support one another, then there really is no point in pushing on RKBA issues, is there? Divided, we fall.

BTW, who or what exactly is Team Billy Jack?

Team Billy Jack is lead by a Private Investigator who has been working on CCW issues since the 1980's. He works with an attorney and a number of other people, paid and unpaid (including me in the unpaid category). Collectively, we are Team Billy Jack after the movie "Billy Jack."

We believe in everyone working side-by-side, and if Piper wants to persue his thoughts, that's fine with us. I completely fail to understand why he feels like he does, why he thinks I'm lying or in exactly which post he thinks I called him a stupid idiot.

Having said that, I'm not going to engage in any more debate with him. If he sees this as chickening out, that's his privilege.

There's a link to our website below.

bulgron
08-28-2007, 4:14 PM
Librarian,

There's a big chunk of "Declines to state" in there. I'm one of them. Those people can put pro-gun candidates over the top.

The situation is not hopeless on a legislative front. But we will have to be willing to lose pro-CCW bills in the assembly for quite a lot of years until the message gets out that CCW is a good thing that works well in at least 4/5th of the rest of the country. And we need to work to identify pro-RKBA politicians that we can use to attack anti-RKBA seats cycle after cycle. No question that it's a lot of work. I cannot believe that it's an impossible fight, though.

I just don't understand the reluctance to go all-out to try and make it happen.

That said, I agree that at this point it's Parker and follow-on cases that are our best bet for Shall Issue in this state. If Parker is a SCOTUS win for our side, and it results in 14A incorporation, then that allows us to go bang some heads in the 9th circuit court all over again based on 2A grounds. Won't that be fun? Maybe this time around we can do it in a smarter way than the last time those cases got FUBAR'd.

Librarian
08-28-2007, 4:28 PM
Librarian,
There's a big chunk of "Declines to state" in there. I'm one of them. Those people can put pro-gun candidates over the top.
Really depends on where they are.

For example, in LA County in 2001, 14% were Decline. Dems were 51%, Repubs 28%. Repub+Decline = 42%, 9% behind the Dems.

Similarly, (skipping areas where R's outregister D's, such as Orange and San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino)
Santa Clara County 46% D, 30% R, 19% Decline
San Francisco 56% D, 13% R, 24% Decline
Alameda 56%D, 20%R, 17% Decline.

Current CA legislative districts have been carefully engineered to pretty much maintain the legislative proportions we have.:(

Court things in the next 12 months or so. My version of wishing things into existence...

----------

Just to refine that "depends on where they are" theme:

Secretary of state has 2007 voter registration (http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror_2102007.htm) by assembly and senatorial districts. Just playing with assembly here.

Assume, for this analysis, that Registered Democrats vote only for Democrats, Republicans for Republicans, and un-registered don't vote at all. All three are incorrect, but good enough for this.

Based on registrations, Democrats win 50 of 80 Assembly seats. (2006 election: 49 D, 31 R)

If we assume that all the Decline-to-state people vote for Republicans (another assumption we know is wrong), as well as all the Republicans vote for Republicans, the Democrats win just 26 of 80.

But in 4 districts - 31st, 39th, 46th and 52nd, every vote went to the Democrat - running unopposed. In the 31st, 138,000 were registered (67K D, 50K R, 16K Decline); 45,000 cast ballots. Darn voters....

Megan
08-28-2007, 4:30 PM
Contary to what anyone else thinks, your credibility sucks with me.

ooh! I love a man who makes such high-level intellectual arguments!

Piper
08-28-2007, 4:56 PM
Megan,

Before you get to far into the fray, perhaps you should read this. Considering you have 1 post so far, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Actually, Billy Jack sent this person an email regarding our interest in fighting only those fights that we thought we could win (as the California Courts have explicitely removed the 2nd from the argument), and I sent him an email explaining how the "Concealed Carry" permit system arose for the days when open carry was normal, and concealed carry generally indicated nefarious intent. I am sorry that this person is unable to appreciate this (no cost) advice, and thereby prolong his pointless persuit of the unattainable.

Perhaps unattainable is the wrong word, in the very long run, but anyone trying to use the 2nd as a primary reason for a ccw permit is, frankly, wasting his time in California until the political climate is very different.

Also, when I hear this constant carping on the "black laws," I am reminded of another Californian activist who has been banging his head against racist brick walls for much too long. Also, as an article (it is on the web but I don't have a link) in a San Francisco paper some 80 years or so suggests, it is clear that much early gun control in California was mainly anti-Chinese immigrant in nature.

This is a lie, I would suggest you go through this thread and read what started the arguement. GLOCK22FAN IS A LIAR. This is my final word on this trash.

Megan
08-28-2007, 5:14 PM
What's Glock22 lying about?

I see where you said he said that you are a stupid idiot, but I can't find where he said that either. Are you saying he's edited his posts?

It seems to me that he was being totally fair and reasonable, and you've got all emotional because he didn't agree that your ideas would go anywhere.

Piper
08-28-2007, 5:30 PM
Here is an exact quote of the email that was sent to me.

"It is not Billy Jack's desire to waste his Team's time chasing clouds as pursuing the 2ND would be. I am not an expert on the 2ND but I am on the 14Th, having had intimate personal experience with it.

I am only interested in protecting the rights of those who apply for and are denied CCW's. If in the course of this effort we reinforce the 2ND in some manner that would of course be a benefit.

Good luck in your pursuits.

Sincerely,


Billy Jack"

This was the email I received from him. This was sent to my hotmail account, not Calguns.

I simply asked if they were familiar with the origin of concealed carry laws. On Calguns, he accused me of ignoring his response along the lines of not accepting his response as a valid answer. Had he actually sent the information I requested there would be no arguement. Others, not glock22fan have made posts on this thread about the origins and were far more helpful. To top it off he says he sent me a second response and that's another flat out lie.

I don't accuse people of lying as a norm, but I will not stand by and allow someone to impune my integrity with trash like that. I hope this answers your question Megan. BTW due to the fact that someone gave me an intelligent answer, I purchased a book that gives me everything I was looking for, with no help from "Team Billy Jack"

Piper
08-28-2007, 5:37 PM
I'm thinking the "black laws" are probably what got the ball rolling on restrictive concealed carry laws, but then again I'm not a law scholar. I tried to get some difinitive information from "Team Billy Jack" but they weren't any help. Their response in substance was we don't know nothin' about the second amendment, we're only interested in the 14th amendment and gettin' CCW issued. So it's kind of ridiculous that we're fighting to regain our second amendment rights, but we have no real clue as to the origin and precedence of restricting concealed carry. To me, that should be a priority and a source for undoing restrictive concealed carry laws. But then that's just me.

This is my original post, and all I said was they weren't any help, because they weren't.

Megan
08-28-2007, 5:54 PM
But he also said what about his other email?

In response to your query, we have several issues here.

Regarding concealed carry licenses, this came about during the days (late 19th century) when open carry was common and acceptable. Carrying a concealed gun was considered sneaky, and indicated that you intended to do bad things. After all, if your intentions are good, you can carry openly, can’t you? However, some respectable people did want to legitimately carry a concealed weapon, so they introduced the permit system to distinguish people like bankers from card sharps with a derringer up their sleeve.

Regarding what the 2nd means – it means exactly what the courts say it means, even if you or I think they are wrong.

Unless and until there is a definitive statement from the US Supreme Court that the 2nd is an individual right, and that “own and bear arms” means exactly what it says, no more and no less, we are stuck with the lower courts’ rulings.

In California, these rulings are not particularly friendly, as California’s politicians and populace have a left-wing anti-gun bias.

Therefore, we have to work with what we have god and chip away using the 14th (“hey, if you give Sylvester Stallone one, you should give me one.”)

John

Are you seriously saying that he really made this up, and didn't really send it, just to make you look stupid? Do you think he cares that much about your opinions?

Oh, honey. Have you checked your junk mail folder yet? Or maybe it got lost in the post. Whatever, seems a trivial thing to get so upset about. And totally insulting to start using words like "liar" over something that might just be a childish misunderstanding.

Piper
08-28-2007, 5:56 PM
Let me put it this way, he didn't send it to me. And it wasn't in my junk mail.

Piper
08-28-2007, 6:05 PM
This was my original email to "Team Billy Jack"

Recently I purchased the DVD "In Search of the Second Amendment". It's an incredible presentation to watch, but one curiousity came to my mind as I watched. It would seem that pretty much everyone is in agreement that the second amendment doesn't protect a person who carries a concealed weapon without a permit. My question is why? There are times when it is very practicle to cover you firearm as in the case of inclement weather or when it's just too darned cold. So what is the precedence for this train of thought and when did it come about. As I understand the second and fourteenth amendments, both say that that right can't be infringed or in the case of the 14th, abridged. So, perhaps you can clear this question up for me, I would really like to know.

Thanks for your time.

Megan
08-28-2007, 6:31 PM
Honey, they are basically a commercial operation, offering a service to people who want to use legal recourse to get CCW's and a free service for those who need less help. They also freely share their knowledge of the current CCW situation with anyone who does their homework and asks the right questions.

Basically, they aren't there to write your high school history papers for you.

And bluntly, if you think that the 2nd Amendment, or the history of CCW legislations, makes much difference in the current political and legal climate in California, you are indeed still at the high school level. Maybe that will change, if SCOTUS confirms the Washington D.C. appeal court, but until then talking seriously of the 2nd Amendment in California is a lot of hot air.

Piper
08-28-2007, 6:39 PM
Honey, they are basically a commercial operation, offering a service to people who want to use legal recourse to get CCW's and a free service for those who need less help. They also freely share their knowledge of the current CCW situation with anyone who does their homework and asks the right questions.

Basically, they aren't there to write your high school history papers for you.

And bluntly, if you think that the 2nd Amendment, or the history of CCW legislations, makes much difference in the current political and legal climate in California, you are indeed still at the high school level. Maybe that will change, if SCOTUS confirms the Washington D.C. appeal court, but until then talking seriously of the 2nd Amendment in California is a lot of hot air.

Hm, yeah this is going no where. I don't know who you are, but I certainly know what you're not. Either you're a shill or your Glock22fan, so that's the end of this conversation. As I said before, YOU'RE A FREAKING LIAR AND YOU JUST PROVED IT BY MAKING THIS BOGUS POST.

Kestryll
08-28-2007, 7:12 PM
Piper I don't know what your problem is with Glock22fan or his site but take it elsewhere.
I do not want to see personal gripes played out here nor will I put up with name calling and insults being flung around.

I also am less than fond of people registering multiple accounts to snipe at other members or having friends join to pile on.

This ends here and if it continues in other threads or anywhere I'm going to start closing accounts. I will do the same if I can verify that anyone has registered multiple accounts to have a 'sock puppet' fight for them.

This thread is done, for those still discussing issues of import please feel free to restart your conversation in a new thread.