PDA

View Full Version : Pro-CCW Flier for You to Use!


Paladin
10-22-2007, 7:23 AM
I spent about 6 hours Sat and Sun making up a flier that says everything I wanted and nothing that couldn't wait until they went to the websites suggested and yet still fit on 1 page and yet have type large enough to be easily read and titles large enough to catch the eye. I started w/someone else's flier, but modified so much that that only the first title and two sentences are not totally original by me. I offer it below for your use and modification (e.g., If you are a minority (and everyone in CA is since there are no longer a majority of whites), you can modify it w/wording to "click" w/your group, whether it be racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, age, or whatever.)

fyi To get it the way I like it I use 16 point Ariel bold center justification for the titles, 10 pt Times Roman for the gaps between titles and paragraphs, 11 pt Times Roman for the middle section's text and 12 pt Times Roman for the 1st and 3rd sections' texts. I use 12 pt TR bold italics center justified for "Having the Right to Defend your Life is Useless Without having the Means of Defending your Life". I also underline the word "Useless" in the previous sentence. All other text is plain TR left justified. It looks a little weird w/some TR text 11 pt and others 12 pt, but using the 12 pt makes those easier to read (think elderly), yet I couldn't fit it all in using 12 pt for all the text. I spent HOURS just whittling down the word count to make it all fit. I've tried to modify the text below to give you a taste of what it looks like when I print it out.

Hope everyone puts it to good use. Print it out on a laser printer. Take it to a Kinkos/other, buy some heavier stock paper in a decent color, bright but not offensive and make photocopies (cheaper than using your laser printer). Distribute.

Primary targets: gun shops and shooting ranges. Secondary targets: high crime neighborhoods.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Ideas on where else to post it/how else to use it?

*****

(use the revised version in my next post below)

Paladin
11-11-2007, 3:37 PM
I revised the flier so that all the text other than the titles is 12 pt Times New Roman and can still fit on one page.

This can be used for passive general promotion (putting them up on telephone poles, at coffee houses, etc) or passive targeted promotion (putting them up at gun shops and shooting ranges).

If a significant proportion of the people who will see the flier might be offended by #4 in the flier, I offer this substitute:
"4. In case of disasters (earthquake, fire, violent civil unrest, WMD attack), a CCW will protect you as you evacuate your home, flee with your belongings and live in a new, unfamiliar location or while you stay in your home but have to be armed when going out because of general lawlessness."

*****

CA Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) Permits

Having the Right to Defend your Life is Useless
Without having the Means to Defend your Life

Cops are minutes away when you have only seconds to live. Pepper spray doesn’t always work. Cops & crooks carry guns because they work. Criminals buy illegal guns as easily as drug users buy illegal drugs. Self-defense is a basic human right. Criminals fear armed victims more than they fear the police, more than they fear going to jail. A gun empowers even the frail, the elderly, the handicapped, and the weak to defend themselves.

Forty states “Shall Issue” Concealed Carry Weapons permits (CCWs) to all law-abiding residents who apply (usually 3-5%). California county sheriffs and police chiefs “May Issue” CCWs. Over 1/3 of California’s counties regularly issue CCWs, but sheriffs of most major urban counties refuse to regularly issue CCWs to their residents. We need to change California’s law so all law-abiding residents can choose to carry a gun to defend themselves – better to have a CCW and not need it, than to need a CCW and not have it.

Five More Reasons to Get a CCW

1. If someone starts stalking you, your spouse/SO, or your child, or if you become a victim of domestic abuse, you might suddenly need to carry a concealed weapon.

2. If you have to: go to a bad part of town; go to an unfamiliar city; take a long road trip; work or commute after dark; have to stay out late; or take public transportation.

3. If you are ever a witness to a violent crime and the suspect gets out on bail (or has his friends come after you) -- you may need a CCW immediately to protect yourself.

4. In case of disasters (earthquake, fire, Rodney King-type riot, WMD attack), a CCW will protect you as you evacuate your home, flee with your belongings and live in a new, unfamiliar location. Or, like New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, you may stay in your home but have to be armed when going out because of general lawlessness.

5. To protect yourself from mountain lions, bears or criminals while hiking or camping in local, state, and national parks or forests.

How to Get a CCW and How to Take CA to “Shall Issue”

• www.californiaconcealedcarry.com – Info re. how to apply for a CCW, how to appeal a denial and how to sue your chief of police or sheriff for discriminatory issuance of CCWs

• www.calguns.net “2nd Amendment, Political and Legal” – Info re. gun issues in CA
www.calccw.com – Info on various cities and counties re CCWs

• www.YouTube.com – search for “The Truth About Right to Carry” and John Stossel's “Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime”

attitudinal
11-11-2007, 7:02 PM
Hi,
This is nice but I take issue with one statement in the flyer: "A CCW does not give you authority to make arrests, stop crime, ...." While technically true that a CCW neither gives you authority to make arrests nor to breathe clean air, I believe it misleadingly suggests that non-LEO's fundamentally lack such rights.

Anyone, even an illegal alien, has a right to make citizen's arrest in California as long as it is done under the guidelines spelled out in Code 837. Of course, please correct me if I don't have my facts straight.

Paladin
11-11-2007, 8:11 PM
Hi,
This is nice but I take issue with one statement in the flyer: "A CCW does not give you authority to make arrests, stop crime, ...." While technically true that a CCW neither gives you authority to make arrests nor to breathe clean air, I believe it misleadingly suggests that non-LEO's fundamentally lack such rights.

Anyone, even an illegal alien, has a right to make citizen's arrest in California as long as it is done under the guidelines spelled out in Code 837. Of course, please correct me if I don't have my facts straight.The statement that "A CCW does not give you the authority to make arrests, . . . ." is NOT in either of MY fliers above. While that statement is in the original flier I started with, as I mentioned in my original post, only the titles and 2 sentences of that flier were used in my flier. In the revised version that is reduced to just the titles and 1 sentence.

TonyM
11-11-2007, 8:14 PM
I would consider revising "nutcase" in #1.

Paladin
11-11-2007, 8:29 PM
I would consider revising "nutcase" in #1.Hmm, to me that is an apt description of a stalker, but if you don't agree, feel free to change it any way you like. The main thing is to help and encourage one another in advancing our 2nd A causes in PRK. My top issue is increasing awareness and issuance of CCWs in this "May Issue" state with the ultimate goal that we join the 40 other states that are "Shall Issue" or better in practice. (IIRC, AL, IA and CT are May Issue in law, but Shall Issue in practice.)

A related goal is passing the NRA's model "Castle Doctrine" law so that a neither a homeowner nor a CCW'er justly defending themselves can be subject to ruinous lawsuits by the BG/their relatives.

After that, repealing the PRK's AWB and passing a RKBA amendment to the PRK constitution.

Once all of those are achieved, I, for one, will no longer refer to this state as the PRK. IMO, it will once again be CA and a member of the US in good standing (albeit still loony). :party:

CCWFacts
11-11-2007, 8:32 PM
This is nice but I take issue with one statement in the flyer: "A CCW does not give you authority to make arrests, stop crime, ...." While technically true that a CCW neither gives you authority to make arrests nor to breathe clean air, I believe it misleadingly suggests that non-LEO's fundamentally lack such rights.

You're interpreting it correctly. The flyer on CaliforniaCCW.org means exactly what it says: a CCW doesn't give the authority to make arrests, or breathe, or a lot of other things. The reason why I put that in there: Yes, under the law, everyone has the power to make arrests under the appropriate circumstances. One of the concerns and arguments against CCW issuance is that it encourages vigilantism or citizens "playing cop". I wanted to reinforce that the purpose of a CCW is not to enforce laws or catch criminals, but rather, self-defense, period. Leave the police work to the police. When there's something like a CCW it doesn't hurt to be clear that the CCW is not related in any way to powers of arrest.

Citizens arrest is on the books but it's not something I would advise anyone to do except under the most extraordinary circumstances (or for making misdemeanor arrests in the presence of a LEO). Beyond the obvious physical danger, there are tremendous risks of civil and criminal liability. LEOs have strong statutory protections in those areas, and yet they still get sued. Lucky for them, they have legal insurance and liability insurance to cover that. None of us non-LEOs have their statutory protections, and most of don't have the type of legal and liability insurance they have. A non-LEO doesn't gain anything by making an arrest, and risks a tremendous amount by doing it. Under extraordinary circumstances, it's the right thing to do, regardless of the risks, but the short easy-to-remember advice is, don't do it.

The only way to make any absolutely true and comprehensive statement about a law is to quote the law in full, which is not a useful way to make a point on a flyer, so I put the statements into short, generally-applicable, generally-true form. In the case of citizens arrest, non-LEOs are subject to strict liability in both civil and criminal court. LEOs are not. That's all the reason I need to know that I don't want to make a citizens arrest except under extraordinary circumstances, and I wouldn't advise someone to do something I wouldn't do myself.

Paladin
11-11-2007, 8:43 PM
The statement that "A CCW does not give you the authority to make arrests, . . . ." is NOT in either of MY fliers above. While that statement is in the original flier I started with, as I mentioned in my original post, only the titles and 2 sentences of that flier were used in my flier. In the revised version that is reduced to just the titles and 1 sentence.I just went back to look over the original flier I started with and . . . I don't think I've used ANYTHING from that flier! Even the title and section titles are different, and the one sentence that I thought was from the original I could not find in it.

That's what happens when you work on a document too long -- you forget all the previous versions/edits you went thru to get where you end up.

attitudinal
11-11-2007, 8:46 PM
The statement that ... is NOT in either of MY fliers
Sorry, I expected the actual flyer was downloadable because you mentioned font size, which won't be preserved if I copy and paste from this forum into a word processor file.

M. Sage
11-11-2007, 8:47 PM
Nice flier! Now I just have to get my printer working...

That's what happens when you work on a document too long -- you forget all the previous versions/edits you went thru to get where you end up.

Lol!

Paladin
11-11-2007, 8:48 PM
Sorry, I expected the actual flyer was downloadable because you mentioned font size, which won't be preserved if I copy and paste from this forum into a word processor file.I gave that info so you would know how to format it after you cut & paste it into your word processor file.

Paladin
11-11-2007, 9:14 PM
In the case of citizens arrest, non-LEOs are subject to strict liability in both civil and criminal court. LEOs are not. That's all the reason I need to know that I don't want to make a citizens arrest except under extraordinary circumstances, and I wouldn't advise someone to do something I wouldn't do myself."Strict liability" is a legal term of art which means liability without fault. It is usually used in regards to civil tort law cases. Very few crimes are strict liability crimes. The legal fiction of "statutory rape" is one that comes to mind. It does not matter if the mistake of fact was perfectly reasonable (e.g., she looked over 18, said she said she was over 18, her parents told you she was over 18, she showed you a valid-looking drivers license and birth certificate that said she was over 18, etc.), and she consented to sexual intercourse, you are still criminally liable for "rape" even if you are without fault.

IIRC, false arrests are NOT strict liability crimes for either LEOs or citizens.

NONE OF THE ABOVE IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. IF YOU NEED LEGAL ADVICE, ASK A LAWYER COMPETENT IN THE RELEVANT AREA OF LAW.

attitudinal
11-11-2007, 9:35 PM
You're interpreting it correctly. The flyer on CaliforniaCCW.org means exactly what it says: a CCW doesn't give the authority to make arrests .... Yes, under the law, everyone has the power to make arrests under the appropriate circumstances. One of the concerns and arguments against CCW issuance is that it encourages vigilantism ....

In the case of citizens arrest, non-LEOs are subject to strict liability in both civil and criminal court. LEOs are not.

I appreciate that you want to distance CCW's from vigilantism and to warn people about liabilities ... but I suggest the simplest way to achieve both is to not mention vigilantism in word or form (mentioning the negative points to it) and to directly warn readers that while anyone can make a citizen's arrest under Code 837, only sworn law enforcement officers have substantial protection from suit and damages for wrongful arrest.

I'm no more eager to make an arrest than I am to witness a crime in the first place, but I think part of a citizen's education should be to learn basics of "when and how" to get involved. If that education is lacking (I certainly never had one), then the process of acquiring a CCW is certainly an advisable time to learn as the empowerment is obvious. You have the right and need to protect others, you just need to be not over-eager to get involved in disputes. You could think you're going to stop a rape in progress, and then the "victim" could turn on you! Such is life.

Sorry if this has turned into a thread hijack, but I think citizen's arrest goes hand in hand with self protection. If people attack me in my home, I'd prefer to arrest them, if feasible, rather than shoot first or rather than let them flee entirely. The same applies if I'm attacked on the street with a CCW (I don't have one, yet).

CCWFacts
11-11-2007, 9:43 PM
I'm no more eager to make an arrest than I am to witness a crime in the first place, but I think part of a citizen's education should be to learn basics of "when and how" to get involved. If that education is lacking (I certainly never had one), then the process of acquiring a CCW is certainly an advisable time to learn as the empowerment is obvious.

Under our current legal system, there's no way for a non-LEO to make an arrest without taking on tremendous liability, even if the arrest and actions are all totally justified. We are "empowered" but have so much liability that it is something I would not advise anyone to do, except under the most extreme circumstances.

Sorry if this has turned into a thread hijack, but I think citizen's arrest goes hand in hand with self protection.

It does not, in our current legal system. You are strictly liable when making an arrest, but you have some liability protection when using legitimate self-defense.

If people attack me in my home, I'd prefer to arrest them, if feasible, rather than shoot first or rather than let them flee entirely.

That could be a very big mistake. You might end up nabbing a violent criminal, who may or may not end up convicted and in prison (the DA may or may not care enough to press charges), but you could easily lose your home in the process of doing it. Option 1: let the guy run away. Option 2: risk my own physical safety in making a very dangerous arrest, without any assistance, and also expose myself to a tremendous risk of being financially ruined. I'll take Option 1.

I'm not making any statements here about whether this is how it should be, only about how it is, here in California.

KylaGWolf
02-28-2009, 8:56 PM
[

Five More Reasons to Get a CCW

1. If a nutcase starts stalking you, your spouse/SO, or your child, or if you become a victim of domestic abuse, you might suddenly need to carry a concealed weapon.

2. If you have to: go to a bad part of town; go to an unfamiliar city; take a long road trip; work or commute after dark; have to stay out late; or take public transportation.

3. If you are ever a witness to a violent crime and the suspect gets out on bail (or has his friends come after you) -- you may need a CCW immediately to protect yourself.

4. In case of disasters (earthquake, fire, Rodney King-type riot, WMD attack), a CCW will protect you as you evacuate your home, flee with your belongings and live in a new, unfamiliar location. Or, like New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, you may stay in your home but have to be armed when going out because of general lawlessness.

5. To protect yourself from mountain lions, bears or criminals while hiking or camping in local, state, and national parks or forests.

How to Get a CCW and How to Take CA to “Shall Issue”

• www.californiaconcealedcarry.com – Info re. how to apply for a CCW, how to appeal a denial and how to sue your chief of police or sheriff for discriminatory issuance of CCWs

• www.calguns.net “2nd Amendment, Political and Legal” – Info re. gun issues in CA
www.calccw.com – Info on various cities and counties re CCWs

• www.YouTube.com – search for “The Truth About Right to Carry” and John Stossel's “Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime”



OK your first reason is a main reason that they WON'T issue a CCW unfortunately which I think is stupid as hell. The police are worried that the victim of a stalker is going to go over to their house and blow them away....so they may not issue it in the case of witnessing a violent crime either. Although as I said I think both reasons are more than enough to CCW. I figure if your law abiding citizen you should have the right to be armed.

Doheny
02-28-2009, 8:59 PM
I would consider revising "nutcase" in #1.

I agree...as well as "bad part of town" and Rodney King. Both of those have certain connotations you may want to avoid (frankly, the can be considered prejudicial.)

Paladin
02-28-2009, 9:05 PM
OK your first reason is a main reason that they WON'T issue a CCW unfortunately which I think is stupid as hell. The police are worried that the victim of a stalker is going to go over to their house and blow them away....so they may not issue it in the case of witnessing a violent crime either. Don't know about this. What I do know is back when I wrote this up, SF had something like 5 murder witnesses killed before they could testify. Fong said something like they'd develop a special witness protection unit or something. One was a guy they put into that witness protection and moved out of the City. He was young and foolishly went back to have his car repaired. IIRC, he was gunned down at the repair shop when he went to pick up his car. :(

Paladin
02-28-2009, 9:31 PM
I agree...as well as "bad part of town" and Rodney King. Both of those have certain connotations you may want to avoid (frankly, the can be considered prejudicial.)Not all "bad parts" of every town are predominately non-white, are they? In California, whites are a minority too. There is no longer a majority race in California.

Would you prefer I use post-Katrina-type disaster instead of Rodney King riots? What recent major riots/looting are Politically Correct to use? :confused: Are you saying that only where whites have done major looting/rioting are we permitted to speak of it, without it being "prejudicial"? Isn't that racist? How can one be prejudicial about what's past? Or only racist?

The Rodney King riots and the post-Katrina looting/violence are only the times I can think of in the past 20 yrs where there was a major break down in law & order that the whole nation witnessed and my readers would know about. If you know of others, please let me know and I'll add/replace RK riots w/it, esp if it occurred in CA.

I hope we are not forbidden to talk about (1st Amendment freedom of speech) and learn from history (e.g., what happened to Reginald Denny). Or can't I mention his name? I guess, as George Orwell would say, some victims are more equal than others. So much for judging people by the content of their character, as manifested by their behavior, than the color of their skin.

surfinguru
02-28-2009, 9:58 PM
Certainly an uphill battle, and I think it may be a little too wordy or too much small print for the concept of where you're suggesting to post them. Remember, most people have a VERY short attention span. KISS is always best for these types of postings.

Also, in regards to reason #1, why not just say "person" instead of "nutjob?" Gets the point across better IMHO.

MadMex
03-01-2009, 6:10 AM
I took a stab at some re-wording and re-ordering the arguments in the paragraph section. Hopefully I can take a stab at word smithing the examples listed.


Having the Right to Defend Your Life is Useless
Without having the Freedom to Choose the Means

Law enforcement is minutes away when your life is threatened to within seconds of existence. Law enforcement and criminals carry guns because they work. Criminals buy illegal guns as easily as illegal drugs. Criminals fear armed victims more than they fear the police, and more than they fear going to jail. A gun empowers even the frail, the elderly, the handicapped, and the weak to defend themselves. Self-defense is a basic human right.

Forty states “Shall Issue” Concealed Carry Weapons permits (CCWs) to all law-abiding residents who apply (usually 3-5%), that is, (insert layman’s definition of S.I here). California county sheriffs and police chiefs “May Issue” CCWs, that is (insert layman’s definition of M.I. here). Over 1/3 of California’s counties regularly issue CCWs, however sheriffs of most major urban counties refuse to regularly issue CCWs to their residents because (insert examples of their B.S. here) . California’s law needs to change to Shall Issue so all law-abiding residents can choose to carry a gun to defend themselves – better to have a CCW and not need it, than to need a CCW and not have it.

socal2310
03-01-2009, 7:04 AM
To me, the flier feel a little bit, how to say this, breathless? I think a scenario might work better than a bare bones just the facts approach.

Ryan

Paladin
03-01-2009, 11:49 AM
Cry me a river...Hmm. This really moves the discussion forward.
you're welcome to use whatever choice of words you like, but you're hurting, rather than helping the cause (I have some experience on this, since I do have a CCW.)I'm not here to get a CCW. That flier is not to be submitted with a CCW application. I'm here to fight for taking CA to "Shall Issue" so all law-abiding people can get CCWs to defend themselves. That flier is to motivate people to join our cause.

If you wanted to, you could use terms such as "civil unrest", which is more all-encompassing, rather than naming specific events. Specific events are far more memorable and motivating than abstract descriptions.

However, I can see your point that for some law-abiding minorities, especially ones who are members of racial/ethnic groups that performed the majority of criminal acts during those events, naming those specific events might close their minds to the rest of the flier. To avoid that, I offer this PC substitute for that paragraph

"4. In case of disasters (earthquake, fire, violent civil unrest, WMD attack), a CCW will protect you as you evacuate your home, flee with your belongings and live in a new, unfamiliar location or while you stay in your home but have to be armed when going out because of general lawlessness."

Now that I've read your signature, your hate-based choice of words makes more sense....
Too funny! Now you have the god-like ability to read what is in my heart.

About 1/2 hr before your postings here I was posting at:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=148494&page=55 and http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=148494&page=56 hoping for more females and non-whites to join the UOC/post-Nordyke LOC ranks. I guess when you fail in your attack of the argument you have to resort to ad hominem attacks.

I've got to get ready to go to my church, a church that is 90+% non-white. The predominate racial group as a whole has a reputation: for caring for their elders; for being pro-marriage and pro-family and anti-fornication and anti-illegitimacy (aka anti "single parenthood"); for studying hard when children & youth and working hard when adults and not being on welfare; for not joining gangs; for not referring to their women as female dogs or prostitutes; for being law-abiding and against criminal activities; for not being drunks, drug users, or drug pushers; for not making songs advocating killing LEOs; for being extremely caring and involved in the upbringing of their children; for not walking around w/a chip on their shoulders -- I could go on, but you should get my point. I won't state their race because most readers will have already guessed it. As Martin Luther King advocated, I admire and agree with "the content of their character," and am not hung up on "the color of their skin." Since I am close friends w/many of them, socializing w/them during the week and weekends, either online and in real life, that is strong evidence they feel the same way. I know this may shock US AG Holder given his recent bashing of America, but it is true (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090218/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/holder_race).

Political Correctness -- the attempt to control people's speech in order to control people's thoughts -- will never work. People will continue to think and speak in private even what they cannot speak in public. If you don't like the reputation of your racial/ethnic group, it is entirely in your racial/ethnic group's own hands to change. The other races/ethnic groups merely observe and learn from your group's behavior.

If you want to discuss this further, feel free to PM me because I don't want to take this thread any further off-topic.

Paladin
03-01-2009, 12:00 PM
I would consider revising "nutcase" in #1.Substituted "someone."