CCW through initiative process? [Archive]

CitaDeL

03-04-2008, 06:37 PM

So we start out by defining what it is we want with a position piece, writing some proposed legislation, and stand out in front of Walmart and Raley's to collect enough signatures to put an initiative on the ballot.

The problem with this, is the law we need is already on the books and the courts cannot force issuing agencies to exert their discretion. The hangup is with employing a compeling reason for Sheriff's and Police Chief's to issue licenses to carry.

I doubt sufficient signatures could be collected to put it on the ballot.

I contend that we already have the means to push the agenda of lawful armed defense, without asking California voters to support our cause. I believe we should organize our numbers and employ the following;

Apply for a LTC concealed ("ccw") at non-permissive issuing agencies. Using all the recommended actions, submitting their fees, good cause statement, etc. Bring a few friends- organize with other pro-gun groups and go EN MASSE on the same day. Make a line out the door and overwhelm them with sheer numbers of applicants on a specified date and time.

Get denied. Yes, get told NO with a officious letter of denial on the issuing agencies letterhead. Make copies and send a letter your local and state representitives, outlining the issuing agencies abuse of their descretion. It doesnt matter whether or not these representatives are sympathetic- again this would be more effective if done as a group. On the off-chance that your application is approved, more power to you, but opt out of the remaining steps.

Lawfully carry your concealable firearm openly in a belt holster. Remember that letter of denial? Carry that too. If you are confronted by law enforcement or curious onlookers you can say that you applied for a LTC concealed (ccw) and since you didnt have permission to conceal, you must carry exposed to comply with the law. Frame your explanation on that the non-permissive issuing agency is the primary reason you cannot conceal. It isnt necessary to open carry in an organized walk or 'en masse' as with the application process- but get a one or two friends to go with you who, preferably, will participate. Go have lunch. Go shopping at Walmart. Go to the latest 'zombie' movie. Have regular get togethers once a month, once a week, whatever.

Repeat steps one through three, until you achieve desired results. Even if you do not get the results you want, you will still have a positive effect. You will be excersizing your right to carry. You will be educating not just the general public, but law enforcement as well. And you will be getting to do something constructive, rather than await change that will never come on it's own accord.

RAD-CDPII

03-04-2008, 06:46 PM

Crazed_SS

03-04-2008, 07:06 PM

CCWFacts

03-04-2008, 08:02 PM

We mainly need to raise awareness:

1. Fact: 40 other states allow ordinary law abiding people to carry guns, usually requiring training, a BG check, and a reasonable fee

2. Fact: In these 40 states, "everybody" doesn't carry a gun. In fact, only about 1% to 5% of people in these states get CCWs.

3. Fact: Even though not many people take advantage of CCW in the shall-issue states, CCW issuance saves lives every day. See: http://youtube.com/watch?v=soZT__WQKsM for an example of a woman who would be dead if her state (NM) hadn't been shall-issue. She owes her life to an ordinary 72-year-old man with a handgun and a CCW and a shall-issue law.

4. Fact: Doom and gloom predictions like shoot-outs over fender-benders have not materialized in these 40 other states

5. Fact: California's CCW law is one of the last Jim Crow laws in the nation

6. Fact: about 20 California counties make issuance of permits attainable by ordinary law-abiding residents, and these residents can (generally) carry everywhere in California, so we already have ordinary citizens carrying guns on our streets, even in San Francisco and LA.

7. Fact: Big-city sheriffs in this state such as Sheriff Baca are using CCW issuance for political power, without regard to public safety

If gun owners in this state would be aware of this, we would make a lot of progress.

If we could get FFLs active, that would be even more tremendous, but I'm not hopeful of that happening.

Crazed_SS

03-04-2008, 08:09 PM

The issue also needs to be framed correctly. Instead making it about carrying guns, make it about protecting yourself and your family.

artherd

03-04-2008, 11:01 PM

Got $50+mil?
Inititiave is a side-step on aborted or stillborn legislation.

PonchoTA

03-05-2008, 05:55 AM

The issue also needs to be framed correctly. Instead making it about carrying guns, make it about protecting yourself and your family.
In most counties, "Self-defense" or "Personal Protection" are NOT valid reasons to list for your Good Cause statement, and you will be denied. (unless you already have an injuction or a order of protection in fear for your life)

Regularly carrying large sums of money, jewelry, or precious metals IS a good reason however. :rolleyes:

thegratenate

03-05-2008, 06:07 AM

In most counties, "Self-defense" or "Personal Protection" are NOT valid reasons to list for your Good Cause statement, and you will be denied. (unless you already have an injuction or a order of protection in fear for your life)

Regularly carrying large sums of money, jewelry, or precious metals IS a good reason however. :rolleyes:

You did use the qualifier "most", but I still see your post as misleading.
Each county varies, and the ones that issue to common folks are issuing for reasons like "personal protection", while there are counties that respond to reasons like carrying large amounts of money with "get a different job".

The point is that right now every county, and a couple of cities have agendas all their own. This provides an unequal rationing of our rights to us throughout the same state, let alone the country. We should all have the same right to protect ourselves and our loved ones, and a ccw is the best legal way to do that.

JeffCinSac

03-05-2008, 08:44 AM

It's not just about having the money or getting the signatures to get on the ballot. It's about whether or not the referendum will pass, given the demographics and preferences of the voters, and what the notoriously anti-gun California legislature will do to the current may-issue system WHEN the referendum fails.

Do you really think 50%+1 of the voters in California will vote FOR your proposed referendum if it somehow did make it onto the ballot? That's fantasy. I wouldn't even sign your petition, just like I refused to sign the previous RKBA petitions.

1911su16b870

03-05-2008, 08:56 AM

The issue also needs to be framed correctly. Instead making it about carrying guns, make it about protecting yourself and your family.

IMO Make it about womens rights to protect themselves from larger, more muscular predators.

CCWFacts

03-05-2008, 09:25 AM

Any successful initiative process starts out with a paid professional staff to organize signature gathering, and these days they all rely on professional signature gatherers.

They don't start out on a forum.

If, instead of a forum, this were a group that had, say, 500,000 active, organized, involved members, then it would be possible. But a group like that would also have a budget in the millions of dollars. The NRA is such a group, with 4mil active, involved, paying members, but their numbers are much lower in CA.

Effort for an initiative would better to to a simple NRA membership drive here in this state.

bulgron

03-05-2008, 09:34 AM

bwiese

03-05-2008, 09:50 AM

Well, if an initiative won't work, then how can we get shall-issue CCW in this state?

I mean, we can't even get them to bring it up in committee. It's as if everyone in this state just wants to run and hide when the topic gets brought up. How sad is that?

Because we have almost-shall-issue for 50ish counties already. Any move made legislatively to "unify" CCW process will make it worse - PERIOD.

In these 50ish counties, fill out the paperwork right after talk to some people that did it before, and you'll get it.

Carona (aside from his ongoing issues) was very surprised that there wasn't an initial flood of CCW apps when they'd given indications they'd be reasonable on applications. Lotsa people were still running on misconceptions.

Anthonysmanifesto

03-05-2008, 09:52 AM

Since we can't get our elected officials to tackle the shall-issue policy.

I bet we can do it through the initiative process and in doing such at a minimum we can:

1) raise awareness
2) establish a great grass-roots organization
3) put the anti-gun folks on the defensive and force them to spend dollars.

I have not thought this all the way through . But I like the idea.

at about two bucks a signature and probably need about 750K sigs at least depending, that will get you on the ballot.

then youll need about 30-40 million in outreach.

throw in another few million for attorneys and consultants.

and if it fails then you have a strong moral impertiave in the capitol to do just the opposite.

ON CARRYING; I find it interesting that whiel most counties are issuing permits, there just arent that many permit holders. that should show you the level of support you are starting out with.

ON CAMPAIGNING: the last firearms related ballot measure in California was in 1982. We won. the other side has never gone back to the ballot box for gun laws (unless you count banning hunting cougar) . and niether will we. Its a fools errand. Most fail. Many fail repeatedly. I should have been a media consultant making tv and radio buys. Thats where its at.

Piper

03-05-2008, 10:00 AM

bulgron

03-05-2008, 10:02 AM

Because we have almost-shall-issue for 50ish counties already. Any move made legislatively to "unify" CCW process will make it worse - PERIOD.

In these 50ish counties, fill out the paperwork right after talk to some people that did it before, and you'll get it.

Carona (aside from his ongoing issues) was very surprised that there wasn't an initial flood of CCW apps when they'd given indications they'd be reasonable on applications. Lotsa people were still running on misconceptions.

lol. So what you're saying is that those of us who don't live in those 50ish counties are screwed, and that the rest of the gun owners in this state have no interest or desire to help change things for this state to the better.

How nice. They've got theirs, so nothing else matters.

Essentially, California gun owners are just writing off a little over 70% of the this state's population.

This, right here, is the single biggest reason why California is where it is on gun laws: selfishness. It is also a strong indicator to me that I should be putting all my time, energy and money into escaping this state, instead of sticking around in a quixotic-like effort to make things better. And so should anyone else who lives in the no-issue counties and who cares about this issue. Just flee. There's no point in even trying to fix the problem, because not only are we battling the anti-gunners, but we're also battling the pro-CCWers who happen to have gotten what they want.

Seriously, if California gun owners en-mass can't be bothered to help change the laws so that I can get a CCW, then why should I be bothered to pick up the phone and call when something like the lead-ammo ban comes up? After all, I don't hunt so no skin off my nose, right?

Piper

03-05-2008, 10:07 AM

lol. So what you're saying is that those of us who don't live in those 50ish counties are screwed, and that the rest of the gun owners in this state have no interest or desire to help change things for this state to the better.

How nice. They've got theirs, so nothing else matters.

Essentially, California gun owners are just writing off a little over 70% of the this state's population.

This, right here, is the single biggest reason why California is where it is on gun laws: selfishness. It is also a strong indicator to me that I should be putting all my time, energy and money into escaping this state, instead of sticking around in a quixotic-like effort to make things better. And so should anyone else who lives in the no-issue counties and who cares about this issue. Just flee. There's no point in even trying to fix the problem, because not only are we battling the anti-gunners, but we're also battling the pro-CCWers who happen to have gotten what they want.

Seriously, if California gun owners en-mass can't be bothered to help change the laws so that I can get a CCW, then why should I be bothered to pick up the phone and call when something like the lead-ammo ban comes up? After all, I don't hunt so no skin off my nose, right?

I agree with you one hundred percent, which is why I have no doubt California will be the last to get shall issue.

Glock22Fan

03-05-2008, 10:08 AM

I don't think that Bill was saying that we should abandon the others. he was just saying (I think) that a unified system would make it worse for the ones who are comfortable at present. I tend to agree with that. Look at all the hassle we get over what is and isn't an AW, and tell me you would be happy with those anti-gun idiots issuing permits.

The last two posters seem to think that there are only two alternatives: work for unified system or do nothing. That's not so, we can use other tactics against the "No or Barely Issue" counties. That's what TBJ is working on.

bwiese

03-05-2008, 10:11 AM

Bulgron,

The way to fight for CCW (as well as many other things) is in the courts like BillyJack & crew are doing.

We have term limits now in CA so every legislator throws up anything that sticks or gets attention. Any new legislation will be so politicized that it'll make things worse for everyone. We don't wanna go backwards.

Perhaps getting folks to reshape the Republican party their platform (to avoid the 'pro life/pro family' keywords and the perceived religious tilt) so they can get electable people outside of their safe districts seated again might be the most helpful.

bulgron

03-05-2008, 10:30 AM

I think the game is lost so long as Californians are terrified of going backwards. We can't get any real pro-gun legislation introduced into the legislative process (CCW or otherwise) because, apparently, people are terrified of losing a legislative battle and so somehow "going backwards."

Instead, what we should be doing is taking a page from the anti's playbook. They find some anti-gun legislation that they want to pass and they start pushing it. And when it fails, they push it some more. And when it fails, they keep pushing it until it finally passes.

The antis aren't afraid to do this because they "know" they're in the right.

By refusing to push pro-gun legislation, we effectively have given the high moral ground to the anti's because it looks like we have something to hide, or we're ashamed of our position in the debate, or something. At the very, very best, it means no one thinks about this issue, and so we aren't even a consideration in the political calculus that people perform when it comes time to elect their representatives to state government.

Bulgron,

The way to fight for CCW (as well as many other things) is in the courts like BillyJack & crew are doing.

At best, BillyJack is just going to get CCWs for people who can show cause. The rest of us are going to remain twisting in the wind.

The courts can only work to get us shall-issue CCW if Heller results in a grandslam home run. I'm not expecting that, and so I'm not expecting the courts to ever be useful for moving our ball in the right direction.

No, realistically the only way to fight for CCW is to accept that California is going to have to go backwards before we can go forwards. Right now the antis have created a divided house for us, and they're profiting tremendously from it.

CCWs should be applied consistently state-wide, including off-duty police officers, so that we all equally feel the same pain. Then and only then will gun owners get off their political selfish butts and actually do something about the screwed-up nature of this state's gun politics.

But that's never going to happen, is it? Which means that more and more I'm thinking this isn't a fight worth fighting. Better just to move away. And why not? From the latest census data that I've seen, it's all the rage....

:mad:

Anthonysmanifesto

03-05-2008, 10:46 AM

Bulgron,

The way to fight for CCW (as well as many other things) is in the courts like BillyJack & crew are doing.

Perhaps getting folks to reshape the Republican party their platform (to avoid the 'pro life/pro family' keywords and the perceived religious tilt) so they can get electable people outside of their safe districts seated again might be the most helpful.

I call non-germaneness (sp?) !!! the platform is not what people vote for. Bill if you arent careful im gonna get you an appointment to the state party convention ... that'll teach ya!

but back on topic... the courts and a willingnes to fight on the local level to elect pro civil rights candidates in our city councils and county governments is what I see as the most prodcutive per calorie and per dollar right now.

we do not want to screw up the counties that we have by getting a statewide compromise right now.

we can all sense that there is a resurgence in the grassroots and we can prove that we have made headway. but jumping on the ballot isnt the correct path at this time.

yellowfin

03-05-2008, 01:03 PM

CCWFacts

03-05-2008, 01:11 PM

This state's gerrymandering is a big problem for us. The governator had a redistricting initiative in his special ballot. It failed. He's doing it again, this time on the normal November ballot. I hope that will get a warmer reception.

Anthonysmanifesto

03-05-2008, 01:12 PM

Get rid of the gerrymandering which keeps the Assembly full of anti gun people in the first place. Unless you tear down the mechanism which keeps this in place it's still the same battle fought over and over again.

This is a hot topic among a small group of people.

Every time the voters are confronted with a re-districting ballot measure, they vote it down!

The reality is, wihtout the last "gerrymander" the GOP would likely have not picked up 2 seats in teh legislature.

it is going to be very difficult, depending on critieria such as "communities of interest" and respecting local boundaires to change the make up of the seats very much.

can you think of a county that you could re-draw a map and create competitive seats?

bwiese

03-05-2008, 01:13 PM

oerhaps getting folks to reshape the Republican party their platform (to avoid the 'pro life/pro family' keywords and the perceived religious tilt) so they can get electable people outside of their safe districts seated again might be the most helpful.

I call non-germaneness (sp?) !!! the platform is not what people vote for. Bill if you arent careful im gonna get you an appointment to the state party convention ... that'll teach ya!

It's germane because I just saw the platform and the concepts/mindset behind parts of it are what people in CA vote against.

I'd be run out on a rail by the OC party leadership. These folks have no idea how their screwups cross boundaries and effect gunrights.

CCWFacts

03-05-2008, 01:29 PM

I know we had a thread on this before that got locked, but I really wish the Repub party in this state would get more in tune with urban, educated Californians. If they did that, and proclaimed it loud and proud, things would be very different for us. Instead of, "we're the conservative religious party" they should be "we're the party of fiscal responsibility and personal liberty". The former message does not work in this state; the later would.

AfricanHunter

03-05-2008, 01:30 PM

Got $70 million dollars?

That's what it costs to have a fighting chance. And if you go up and lose it makes things worse.

Initiatives are generally well-funded legislative bypasses now, that's all.

Remember, the RKBA initiative process failed.

I work in the business and Bill is exactly right. It would take 70-80 million or more depending on how much was spend against you and polling numbers. Hell, just gathering the sig's needed would cost a million or two (depending) before you even bought media time, etc. The money spent against you and the fact that we would almost certainly start significantly down in polling (which we would have to make up) would make it very difficult to get something like this passed.

Anthonysmanifesto

03-05-2008, 01:49 PM

It's germane because I just saw the platform and the concepts/mindset behind parts of it are what people in CA vote against.

I'd be run out on a rail by the OC party leadership. These folks have no idea how their screwups cross boundaries and effect gunrights.

Bill- if you run for and acheive the GOP nomination in your assembly district, you get a few delegates to the state party. they cant run you out.

a member of the state GOP opined on just this tactic.

http://www.flashreport.org/blog0a.php?postID=2008022114441825&post_offsetP=0&authID=2005091915442370

sorry to deviate from the CCW question...

but I disagree that the CRP's platform harms the outcomes. In fact I beleive that to give up that many GOP members in hopes of getting swing votes is not good math.

CCWFacts

03-05-2008, 01:51 PM

Bill- if you run for and acheive the GOP nomination in your assembly district, you get a fee delegates to teh state party. they cant run you out.

Interesting. It's tragically easy to get the GOP nomination in many districts in this state (including mine). No one wants it. Sometimes no one runs in the primary. Maybe I'll do it.

bulgron

03-05-2008, 02:08 PM

Given the state's perpetual inability to balance the budget, and the consequently across-the-board 10% cut now being proposed by Arnold, I would think that running a campaign against a Dem incumbent based on the incumbent's inability to bring fiscal responsibility to the table would be the thing to do.

In other words, all voter angst against Bush aside, it seems to me that many Dems are very vulnerable this year. You just have to distance yourself from the abortion and god aspect of the GOP is all.

formerTexan

03-05-2008, 02:13 PM

I think an initiative to shorten/limit legislative sessions would be better. Many other state legislative sessions are every other year. Think about how much energy it'll save us when you only have deal with those few certain morons in the state legislature only every other year! :43:

Knauga

03-05-2008, 06:49 PM

Lotsa people were still running on misconceptions.

I hear a lot of whining from people (even those in CCW friendly counties) who think the CCW process in this state is impossible. If you ask them if they've applied the answer is almost always "Why bother, they'll just deny me anyway." I dillydallied around in my county for about 5 years until somebody told me to just go apply, it'll be easier than you think... and it was.

In places like Frisco, Alameda, and LA Counties if you have what would normally be considered "good cause" and are willing to fight for it avail "Billy Jack" of his services. If you are in one of the 50 or so CCW friendly counties get the info and apply.

Piper

03-05-2008, 10:46 PM

I prsonally don't like the intrusive nature of the "investigations" that are made when someone applies for a CCW. And I don't like the idea of the neighbors being contacted. Quite frankly, if a person is not prohibited from possessing firearms, why should they be prohibited from carrying openly or concealed. I think the descretionary "power" to issue or not issue should be taken from local authority and given to DOJ as mandatory shall issue. It's just that simple. As for those of you that have CCW's from your county, that could change with the next sheriff or police chief.

yellowfin

03-05-2008, 11:00 PM

I think the descretionary "power" to issue or not issue should be taken from local authority and given to DOJ as mandatory shall issue. It's just that simple. As for those of you that have CCW's from your county, that could change with the next sheriff or police chief.

All of that is completely accurate, but giving it to the DOJ as it presently exists is like tossing a snowball into a furnace. Their inclinations seem to point to them being completely Bradyized--they'd completely lock down gun ownership in total if they could get away with it. Wouldn't you say? They seem to have no hesitance to imposing whatever absurdities that they possibly can at the present.

Piper

03-05-2008, 11:11 PM

All of that is completely accurate, but giving it to the DOJ as it presently exists is like tossing a snowball into a furnace. Their inclinations seem to point to them being completely Bradyized--they'd completely lock down gun ownership in total if they could get away with it. Wouldn't you say? They seem to have no hesitance to imposing whatever absurdities that they possibly can at the present.

I completly agree with you, that's why along with DOJ taking control of issuance, the shall issue provision should be firmly in place. It would be just like the background they do before giving an FFL the thumbs up on releasing a firearm after the 10 days. There's no discretion to say yes or no, they give the okay because there is no reason not to. And that's the way it should be with CCW's. In fact, because a person can legally possess a firearm, that would be grounds for not denying a CCW.

yellowfin

03-05-2008, 11:17 PM

tango-52

03-06-2008, 06:41 AM

The problem with that then becomes the fact that they would be the ones writing the rules, and they'd put all kinds of things in front of it. You MUST specify that the fees are low like $100 or less, any required classes be freely available (rather than less than once a month, not in all counties, obscure and hard to find, limited # of applicants) and not overly stringent, and so on. They and their masters are all too skilled at killing things with the fine print.

They may write the rules, but those rules are required to have public hearings and go through a significant review process before the can be enforced. Otherwise, they are "underground regulations" that can be challenged and overturned, just like hoffmang & others did last summer with the OLL stuff.

Knauga

03-06-2008, 08:11 AM

mikehaas

03-06-2008, 08:40 AM

I've seen estimates here of up to $70 million to run a state-wide gun initiative. They are all low by at least 100%

Let's look back to the famously doomed RKBA Initiative (the brain child of some very disingenuous anti-NRA people.) NRA did some serious market research into the issue. Try $130 million - which has surely grown larger since then.

Now, consider the fact that NRA only makes about $250 million a year and out of that has to come all operating expenses, funding of educational and shooting programs, and all legislative and election battles for the year. And of course, with an initiative, you could spend all that AND STILL LOSE. And if you DID win, it will be in court the next day. Remember Prop 208? The will of the people was really served there, right? (And just think of the money the CA anti-illegal immigration side blew on that - they have never recovered.)

The sheer size of the state population makes running anything state-wide a ridiculously expensive proposition. Media is outrageous. Just a single mailing to the voters runs tens of millions of dollars. Then we have to talk about the money and resources the enemy will bring to the table AS SOON AS YOUR INITIATIVE QUALIFIES. (and I mean 'immediately')

Can we go back to Planet Earth now?

mikehaas

03-06-2008, 08:47 AM

Also, let's remind calgunners how an initiative can almost ruin you. Why do you think the anti's don't try to ban guns by initiative?

Because the one time they tried it, Prop 15 in 1982 (state-wide ban on handguns), they had their hat handed to them. Set them back for years.

Since then, how have they made ALL their gains? Slow, incremental progress in the legislature.

Yes, Virginia, patience is a *****.

CCWFacts

03-06-2008, 09:10 AM

I agree 100% that trying to get an initiative is a bad idea; just getting onto the ballot costs > $1mil, and it's doomed.

Since then, how have they made ALL their gains? Slow, incremental progress in the legislature.

The reason why people here are proposing it is out of frustration that we're not making tangible (even slow) progress. We're fighting a slow retreat mostly. Our reps can't bring themselves to even introduce helpful bills. Why is it that we had a shall-issue bill in 1998 that went pretty far (passed the assembly) and now, ten years later, people think the idea is just a dream?

bulgron

03-06-2008, 10:09 AM

I
The reason why people here are proposing it is out of frustration that we're not making tangible (even slow) progress. We're fighting a slow retreat mostly. Our reps can't bring themselves to even introduce helpful bills. Why is it that we had a shall-issue bill in 1998 that went pretty far (passed the assembly) and now, ten years later, people think the idea is just a dream?

It's less than a dream. As things stand now, the only possible road ahead is a long, slow decline in the gun culture in California until guns are finally de-facto banned in this state. We're bleeding from a thousand tiny cuts and no one seems to know what to do about it.

It's incredibly frustrating. There's no organization that a guy can really get behind on this, because all the pro-gun groups in this state have decided to just slowly retreat year after year. It's as if the powers that be got together and decided to cede California to the anti-gunners.

sierratangofoxtrotunion

03-06-2008, 10:12 AM

At best, BillyJack is just going to get CCWs for people who can show cause. The rest of us are going to remain twisting in the wind.

The courts can only work to get us shall-issue CCW if Heller results in a grandslam home run. I'm not expecting that, and so I'm not expecting the courts to ever be useful for moving our ball in the right direction.

Billy Jack doesn't do what he does to get one guy a CCW. He does it to expose a flawed system, that the court must then rule to reform. This opens the door to others in the county.

Anthonysmanifesto

03-06-2008, 10:43 AM

Glock22Fan

03-06-2008, 03:04 PM

Billy Jack doesn't just do what he does to get one guy a CCW. He also does it to expose a flawed system, that the court must then rule to reform. This opens the door to others in the county and state.

+1, with my additions in red.

I'm not really trying to say that Santa Maria is as important as Heller, but in some respects saying that a win in Santa Maria will only benefit McCloud is rather similar to saying that victory in Heller will only benefit Heller (or perhaps just the inhabitants of D.C.).

If we win in Santa Maria (and I'm in no doubt about it) it will force Santa Maria to liberalize and legalize their attitude to other CCW applicants. This may even be explicitely demanded by the judge.

Furthermore, the precedent should force other "no issue" departments to review their position. If they don't, then the next win will ramp up the pressure, and then the next. All of these are already in the pipeline. And every win makes the next win easier, whether it it TBJ fighting it or someone else. The next TBJ case, coming soon, is a big city in L.A. County.

JeffCinSac

03-07-2008, 07:00 AM

I agree 100% that trying to get an initiative is a bad idea; just getting onto the ballot costs > $1mil, and it's doomed.

The reason why people here are proposing it is out of frustration that we're not making tangible (even slow) progress. We're fighting a slow retreat mostly. Our reps can't bring themselves to even introduce helpful bills. Why is it that we had a shall-issue bill in 1998 that went pretty far (passed the assembly) and now, ten years later, people think the idea is just a dream?

Um, when that shall-issue bill passed the Assembly, then died in the Senate, the Assembly was controlled by the Republicans. That's why. I'm sorry to say, but the Democrats in California, with a couple of notable exceptions, hate guns. This ain't Idaho.

mikehaas

03-07-2008, 08:58 AM

Um, when that shall-issue bill passed the Assembly, then died in the Senate, the Assembly was controlled by the Republicans. That's why. I'm sorry to say, but the Democrats in California, with a couple of notable exceptions, hate guns. This ain't Idaho.
DON'T BLAME THE DEMOCRATS. The California Republican Party is less than worthless and quite happy to stay in the minority. The biggest stumbling block to fixing things in CA (for ANY issue) is the wretched ONE-PARTY SYSTEM the GOP is content to preserve, permanently fixed to a 1/3 minority.

There is a complete void in state Republican leadership and their internal squabbles are legendary. In fact, a few years ago they had the opportunity to temporarily vote in a GOP senate leader, but their internal bickering resulted in them electing a DEMOCRAT! (No, I don't mean the GOP allowed the Democrats to win - THE REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR A DEMOCRAT AGAINST THEIR OWN SENATOR!) They are absolutely, 100% CLUELESS.

They pushed term limits to get rid of one politician (and term limits has since hurt gun-rights immeasurably.) And they caved on the 2000 California reapportionment (allowing the Dems to further cement their state majority) to strengthen the National GOP in Congress (which has since lost THEIR majority.)

It's amazing NRA accomplishes what it does, because they are *forced* to seek the support of Democrats. Nothing - not a single vote - goes our way without significant Democrat support (which they often get.)

Those who are frustrated with the lack of RKBA progress in California shouldn't complain about NRA or the Democrats, they should STRAIGHTEN OUT THE CALIFORNIA GOP. "Oh, no, don't ask *US* to do anything - as Republican politicians, we're totally neutered."

NOTHING WILL CHANGE IN THIS STATE UNTIL THE CALIFORNIA GOP IS OVERHAULED. And fat chance THAT will happen. They have gotten to the point where they love being in the minority.

H Paul Payne

03-07-2008, 10:58 AM

It's incredibly frustrating. There's no organization that a guy can really get behind on this, because all the pro-gun groups in this state have decided to just slowly retreat year after year. It's as if the powers that be got together and decided to cede California to the anti-gunners.

Yes, the situation in California can be (and frequently is) frustrating. But much of that frustration comes from things we have little control over. Like others doing things that have a negative affect on all of us. Example: All of us, especially here on Calguns.net, know the "Hanna/lead ammo/microstamping" story. The perfect example of defeat, snatched from the jaws of victory.

But when a statement is made that "There's no organization that a guy can really get behind..." I am left to think that you are not looking very closely. The NRA has been here, and will remain here, for as long as it takes!

".....because all the pro-gun groups in this state have decided to just slowly retreat year after year" is a statement that is simply not true! Sorry, but there is not other way to say it. That statement is factually inaccurate!

I suggest that a more accurate statement would be: "At least there's one organization that a guy can really get behind, because the NRA has decided not to just slowly retreat year after year."

That, is a factual statement of truth!!!!

And BTW, the "powers that be" at the NRA, did get together and decided NOT to "cede California to the anti-gunners." Instead, the decision was made to fight for our freedom.

So, if anyone is frustrated with the situation here in California, help us out. Join the team. Give us the strength to continue this fight. Join your local NRA Members' Council and pitch-in some of your time and effort.

Its FREE for NRA members to join your local NRA Members' Council. http://www.calnra.com/volunteer (http://www.calnra.com/volunteer/index.shtml)

Paul

bulgron

03-07-2008, 01:28 PM

".....because all the pro-gun groups in this state have decided to just slowly retreat year after year" is a statement that is simply not true! Sorry, but there is not other way to say it. That statement is factually inaccurate!

I suggest that a more accurate statement would be: [COLOR=Blue]"At least there's one organization that a guy can really get behind, because the NRA has decided not to just slowly retreat year after year." [COLOR=Black]

That, is a factual statement of truth!!!!

Yeah? So where is the pro-gun legislation, of any note, that has been proposed for this next legislative session? Where is the legislation that pushes for shall-issue CCW, or at least takes an incremental step towards it by, for example, amending the list of good causes to include "self protection"?

Or how about some legislation that seeks to simplify and clarify the AW ban?

Or maybe something that makes the approved handgun list a little less contemptible?

Something? Anything?

Know what I see in this sessions proposed firearm legislation? A whole lotta of negative and one, count 'em, ONE bill that won't do any actual harm, but also won't do anything to actually advance my firearm liberties in this state. Instead, all it asks for is a show of hands in support of our liberties. That show of hands may be good, desirable and necessary, but it doesn't do anything concrete for me, does it?

And BTW, the "powers that be" at the NRA, did get together and decided NOT to "cede California to the anti-gunners." Instead, the decision was made to fight for our freedom.

If by fighting for our freedom, you mean going on the defensive and fighting a rear-guard action year after agonizing year, I can tell you the strategy isn't working. I can tell by comparing California's firearm laws to every other state west of the Mississippi (except for Hawaii) and seeing that we aren't doing very well here at all.

So, if anyone is frustrated with the situation here in California, help us out. Join the team. Give us the strength to continue this fight. Join your local NRA Members' Council and pitch-in some of your time and effort.

Its FREE for NRA members to join your local NRA Members' Council. http://www.calnra.com/volunteer (http://www.calnra.com/volunteer/index.shtml)

Paul

Oh, I've joined all right. And I'll be attending the NRA Members' Council meeting in my area at my next possible chance. I'll give them their chance. But I have to admit, I'll be wanting to hear about the positive steps forward that the NRA is planning to take in the near future. I'll be looking to hear about the pro-gun politicians they're trying to get elected to office this year, or the pro-gun bill that they're planning on getting introduced into the assembly, or something. I want to hear about an offensive, not a defensive, game plan.

Because if ALL they want to do is play defense, then I doubt very much that I'll bother to stick around for that. After all, playing pure defense is boring and depressing and just plain old bad tactics besides.

hoffmang

03-07-2008, 02:04 PM

Anthonysmanifesto

03-07-2008, 02:10 PM

what hoffman said.

bulgron

03-07-2008, 02:58 PM

Bulgron,

I guess you missed this last term: http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/fairfax/ab1645signed/

I didn't miss it. It just seems underwhelming in the face of all the other bad things that happened in the last term. After all, the way that law reads, they can't confiscate my guns so long as I own and use them legally. So what happens when I want to leave my house to go collect water after the next earthquake? Oh, right. I have to go unarmed because both open and concealed carry is illegal where I live. :rolleyes:

That said, I'd be happy if I saw something even as limited as that in this session. But there appears to be nothing....

You really shouldn't have been so lazy as to skip the meeting in the East Bay a couple of months back where your specific issue set was fully and completely talked through with these NRA folks above.

My bad, I'll admit. Over the last year I've been working through some significant personal issues that have sucked up a lot of my free time. Besides, if that meeting is the one I think it is, I was under the impression that seating was limited, and so I didn't want to take up a seat that someone more qualified than me could use.

I won't make that mistake again, I promise you.

Where were you when work was being done?

Dealing with personal crap, dude. Which is now (almost) behind me. Plus apparently I've got to get over the wall-flower thing.

As I said, I'm going to give this membership council thing a chance, at least through to the fall. But if I get the feeling that it's a waste of my time, I won't be sticking around much past that.

Edited to add: It was kind of foul. The only folks who seem to care enough about these issues to get off their duff and show up were Bill, ToolboxX, Anthony and one or two others I'm forgetting. It's so much easier to carp on the forum than make time..

Exactly which meeting was this, and when was it held? I remember a meeting from last year -- that I learned about a little late because I wasn't tracking this forum that carefully -- in which the announcement mentioned limited seating. Or was there something else that I missed entirely?

hoffmang

03-07-2008, 03:38 PM

:xeno:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=81543

-Gene

CCWFacts

03-07-2008, 07:39 PM

I'm feeling what Bulgron is feeling here. If you only fight in a retreat, that's a terrible situation to be in. It's demoralizing and ends in defeat, and if defeat is inevitable, why postpone it? I remember when Jay Laseuer introduced AB 448 (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_448_cfa_20060109_123908_asm_comm.html), I knew it wouldn't pass but at least I had something to fight for. And you know what, it was a lot easier for me to harangue my friends into writing letters for something than it is to get them to write letters against one of these incrementally bad bills.

I'm not saying that the NRA is slacking here, just pointing out that there are psychological and motivational benefits to us getting bills we can support. It is demoralizing to have a long list of "nos".

#46 is good though.

hoffmang

03-07-2008, 07:47 PM

Billy Jack's strategy is actually quite good and is the way forward on the CCW issue.

Pushing for statewide shall issue will actually hurt the majority of counties by making it harder than it is to get a CCW there.

Have any of you who are complaining about this issue actually applied and gotten turned down?

-Gene

Paladin

03-07-2008, 09:23 PM

Bulgron,

I guess you missed this last term: http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/fairfax/ab1645signed/

You really shouldn't have been so lazy as to skip the meeting in the East Bay a couple of months back where your specific issue set was fully and completely talked through with these NRA folks above.

Where were you when work was being done?

Edited to add: It was kind of foul. The only folks who seem to care enough about these issues to get off their duff and show up were Bill, ToolboxX, Anthony and one or two others I'm forgetting. It's so much easier to carp on the forum than make time..

-GeneI wished I could have made it. But my Dad wasn't doing well. The morning after the meeting I took him to the ER. He had aspiration pneumonia (because of Alzheimer's disease) and was in the hospital for a week and a half and then discharged to hospice at home. He died on Jan 31. :(

Just a fyi. Now I'll get back to avoiding personal issues, either my own or others (e.g., their beliefs, etc.) so that we can focus on what unites us. (What an incredible idea! :rolleyes:)

Paladin

03-07-2008, 09:49 PM

DON'T BLAME THE DEMOCRATS. The California Republican Party is less than worthless and quite happy to stay in the minority. The biggest stumbling block to fixing things in CA (for ANY issue) is the wretched ONE-PARTY SYSTEM the GOP is content to preserve, permanently fixed to a 1/3 minority.

There is a complete void in state Republican leadership and their internal squabbles are legendary. In fact, a few years ago they had the opportunity to temporarily vote in a GOP senate leader, but their internal bickering resulted in them electing a DEMOCRAT! (No, I don't mean the GOP allowed the Democrats to win - THE REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR A DEMOCRAT AGAINST THEIR OWN SENATOR!) They are absolutely, 100% CLUELESS.

They pushed term limits to get rid of one politician (and term limits has since hurt gun-rights immeasurably.) And they caved on the 2000 California reapportionment (allowing the Dems to further cement their state majority) to strengthen the National GOP in Congress (which has since lost THEIR majority.)

It's amazing NRA accomplishes what it does, because they are *forced* to seek the support of Democrats. Nothing - not a single vote - goes our way without significant Democrat support (which they often get.)

Those who are frustrated with the lack of RKBA progress in California shouldn't complain about NRA or the Democrats, they should STRAIGHTEN OUT THE CALIFORNIA GOP. "Oh, no, don't ask *US* to do anything - as Republican politicians, we're totally neutered."

NOTHING WILL CHANGE IN THIS STATE UNTIL THE CALIFORNIA GOP IS OVERHAULED. And fat chance THAT will happen. They have gotten to the point where they love being in the minority.I'm not sure if this is disagreeing w/you, Mike, or just pointing out something you'd agreed with, but you just didn't mention.

To me, what is truly frustrating is not the Dems, not the Repubs, and not the NRA. What is truly frustrating and majorly hindering our cause is our fellow gun owners and shooting enthusiasts who DO NOT JOIN THE NRA OR THE FIGHT. They refuse to get "plugged in" politically by merely visiting forums like this once a week for a mere 30 min vs wasting HOURS watching comedy re-runs on TV every week or, ever less understandable, spending hours on forums like this, but not regularly visiting this 2nd A/RKBA/law/politics subforum. Or, just spend 10 - 15 min only when a CAL-ERT is sent saying it is time to make a few calls and/or send a few "One-Clicks".

These are people who will happily fear Hillary/BO/McCain to justify their spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on new guns and ammo, and yet won't pony up a measly $30 for an annual NRA membership, or a one-time $1,000 for a Life membership. If the majority of CA pro-RKBA, pro-gun people changed their ways and joined the NRA and got disciplined in doing what the NRA said to do when they said to do it, let's say, for just 5 years, all our Rights and all our guns would be safe and we could get all we wanted ("Shall Issue," repeal of the AWB, etc.).

Yet trying to talk pro-gun people into joining the one truly professional organization that is in the trenches fighting the good fight is like pulling teeth. :mad:

That is truly frustrating.

Bulgron, if you haven't seen some of my previous posts, I don't expect "Shall Issue" to be winnable for 5 to 10 years and even then it will be a knock down, drag out fight unless there are some major changes in either Sacto and/or CA pro-gun people's defeatism.

JMO

bulgron

03-07-2008, 10:22 PM

Bulgron, if you haven't seen some of my previous posts, I don't expect "Shall Issue" to be winnable for 5 to 10 years and even then it will be a knock down, drag out fight unless there are some major changes in either Sacto and/or CA pro-gun people's defeatism.

JMO

In every state that I've looked at, shall-issue CCW became law no less than 8 years (4 election cycles) after people in that state became serious about pushing it.

In all cases that I've looked at, shall-issue CCW happened because some person or group of people got the ball rolling even in the face of opposition from almost every aspect of society -- including other gunners telling them that it's impossible.

In all cases that I've looked at, shall-issue CCW was defeated time and again in the state legislative process, and then often-times in the state's governor's office. But the people who wanted it were stubborn and motivated and they persevered and they kept coming back until they got what they wanted.

So the question is, when are Californians going to stop with the defeatist talk and get the ball rolling? After all, it will take us at least a decade to get all the right politicians elected to make this thing happen.

bulgron

03-07-2008, 10:24 PM

Have any of you who are complaining about this issue actually applied and gotten turned down?

A married man learns not to ask when he knows in advance what the answer will be.

That said, if I thought there was some strategic legal action that could come of my going through the time and expense of getting the Santa Clara Sheriff's office to tell me 'no', I'd go ahead and do it.

hoffmang

03-07-2008, 10:32 PM

Bulgron,

Apply and then complain. You do not know what the answer will be in advance and getting turned down gets you standing. Are you intimidated by the Sherriff?

The states that took 8 years to get shall issue CCW had two things we don't have. They had more than 30% support for the RKBA and an RKBA clause in their state constitutions.

We don't. Learn the politics. If you do a head count you'll find that our assembly and senate are majority anti gun. That should tell you something about our legislative chances on shall issue CCW.

You're also ducking the issue that shall issue will hurt a majority of the counties where its even easier than the standard we could get for CCW issuance.

If you care to change Santa Clara count, call Billy Jack and be prepared to spend time and effort and money beating the sheriff.

Otherwise your asking others to do your work for you.

-Gene

Glock22Fan

03-07-2008, 10:42 PM

If you care to change Santa Clara count, call Billy Jack and be prepared to spend time and effort and money beating the sheriff.

We have already done some legwork here. They are wide open for the right client.

Paladin

03-07-2008, 11:27 PM

In every state that I've looked at, shall-issue CCW became law no less than 8 years (4 election cycles) after people in that state became serious about pushing it.

In all cases that I've looked at, shall-issue CCW happened because some person or group of people got the ball rolling even in the face of opposition from almost every aspect of society -- including other gunners telling them that it's impossible.

In all cases that I've looked at, shall-issue CCW was defeated time and again in the state legislative process, and then often-times in the state's governor's office. But the people who wanted it were stubborn and motivated and they persevered and they kept coming back until they got what they wanted.

So the question is, when are Californians going to stop with the defeatist talk and get the ball rolling? After all, it will take us at least a decade to get all the right politicians elected to make this thing happen.+1 to what Gene wrote: you need to factor in that the current population of the PRK is much less pro-RKBA than those states that needed a decade to pass "Shall Issue." We can't afford to lose any ground, so when we (i.e., the NRA) do charge, we must be very confident that we've done all our homework and we will win the battle.

Re. getting the ball rolling: If you were around here 2 yrs ago, you may have come across this thread of mine: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=31670
As you can read near the end of it, that idea grew into www.californiaccw.org I was the 2nd person over there (after Admin) and spent a LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT trying to make it a success. One of the people I invited to the new forum in its first week was "Billy Jack" and a friend of his from PDO. Unfortunately, BJ's abrasiveness got to be too much and he and his Team had to start their own website where he and they are continuing their fight. Then, Admin and a bunch of his friends got into a major dispute and that caused most of them to leave and start www.calccw.com.

So, I tried getting the ball rolling. Unfortunately, too often, we're our own worst enemy. The activists among us (the 2% of gun owners who are involved in the fight) are too stubborn and opinionated (to the point where "a strength becomes a weakness") to even get along w/each other and the "pacifists" among us (i.e., the 98% of gun owners who are not politically active) refuse to abandon their complacency.

Learn from my mistakes: Support the cause, support the fight, but don't make it a central part of your life because the real fight in Sacto won't be engaged for many years. If we engage it before then, we will lose and many of us will be discouraged and give up the fight and/or leave the state. This fight is more like a marathon or a steeplechase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steeplechase_(athletics), than a 100 meter sprint. You've got to pace yourself to win.

If you want something to do that can have a big impact, replacing anti-CCW sheriffs w/pro-CCW ones in 2010 can free up a major chunks of the state (http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/counties/countiesmap.html). The good news is that gerrymandering doesn't affect county-level offices so we don't need redistricting reform to pass to improve CCW issuance by sheriffs. But the bad news is that replacing anti sheriffs is an inherently difficult proposition, as per a previous thread of mine where I suggested passing local term limits on sheriffs in anti-CCW strongholds (e.g., SF, Ala., CC, LAC). Plus, again, apathy among pro-gunners is rampant. Less than a dozen people stepped forward during the LAC CCW Challenge. Later, after the CCW forum was created, I contacted every IDPA and USPSA/IPSC club in the state telling them about that new forum and very few even got back to me. If those clubs shouldn't be "target-rich environments" for pro-CCW activists, I don't know what would be.

Wish I had better news. Welcome to the PRK. You've got to fight the battle you're in, not the battle you wish you had.

Edit: If you really want a CCW, you don't need to leave the state, but you may need to move to a different county. Use the ease of getting a CCW as one of the criteria when selecting where to live. By just choosing to commute from one direction instead of another may be all that someone would have to do to be able to carry 24/7 anywhere in the PRK. Sheriffs should want people who think they can pass the background check to move into their county, because those people are law-abiding and have clean records.

bwiese

03-07-2008, 11:34 PM

In every state that I've looked at, shall-issue CCW became law no less than 8 years (4 election cycles) after people in that state became serious about pushing it.

Those states don't have the metro/rural skew we do, are not the 6th largest economy in the world, and don't have term limits.

Other states' experiences are somewhat irrelevant, and they also have often have some fairly non-hyper-left Democrats and a functional Republican party that actually cares about winning.

Billy Jack has the right idea. Courts are our friends. Too bad folks don't see his logic.

Knauga

03-08-2008, 01:00 AM

Let us not forget (if you can get one) the CCW laws in this state are some of the best in the nation. What would have to be given up in compromise to get shall issue in this state? In CA, unless specified on your permit, there are very few places you cannot carry. You can legally carry on school property, you can carry in buildings marked "NO WEAPONS". While the owners of those private properties that are marked can ask you to leave, those signs have no force of law and you cannot be arrested unless you refuse to leave (trespassing).

"Billy Jack" and his methods are excellent resources in no issue or near no issue counties. There are around 50 counties with reasonable issue policies, lets let the pit bull loose on the other 8 and bring them up to speed.

bulgron

03-08-2008, 09:29 AM

Bulgron,

Apply and then complain. You do not know what the answer will be in advance and getting turned down gets you standing. Are you intimidated by the Sherriff?

Oh come on. They'd immediately shoot me down on the good cause statement. I don't carry boat loads of money around, I don't have business reasons to frequent bad parts of town, and I'm not a celebrity who attracts a lot of goof-ball attention. Nope, I'm just an average citizen who thinks it would be prudent to carry a firearm from time to time.

So what is the point in going to the time and expense to apply for a CCW when you know in advance what the famously anti-CCW sheriff is going to say? I mean, except to seek your approval?

I can think of a lot of things I'm willing to do in order to get a CCW. Deliberately sticking my hand into an open flame just to see if it'll get burned isn't one of them.

But I'll tell you what, if someone on Team Billy Jack thinks that a guy without a solid GC would make a good client in SCC county, then PM me and we can talk about whether my applying for and being denied a CCW has any legal advantage for them.

My take on TBJ is that they're tripping counties up on either a complete failure to issue at all, or inconsistent issuance. So unless they can show that someone else has been issued a CCW in SCC based on saying just "Self Defense," my applying isn't going to do TBJ or me any good at all.

bulgron

03-08-2008, 09:37 AM

Those states don't have the metro/rural skew we do, are not the 6th largest economy in the world, and don't have term limits.

I think Minnesota may be an interesting case to look at. They have a huge urban/rural split between the Minneapolis/Saint Paul metroplex and the rest of the state, tend to lean very liberal, were once may-issue by the Sheriffs and had a lot of the problems that California currently has because of it, have no RKBA provision in their state constitution, and Minnesotans are about as prickly and independent as they come. (I know because I grew up there.)

Granted, they aren't as large as California (but then, who is?) and as far as I can tell they aren't laboring under term limits. But still, there's a lot of parallels there.

In fact, instead of wasting my time with the kind of negative "it can't happen here" thinking that I'm seeing on this board, I think I'll go away and research Minnesota in depth. Then I'll come back and you can all tell me why that can't work here in California. :rolleyes:

hoffmang

03-08-2008, 11:36 AM

yellowfin

03-08-2008, 01:50 PM

CCWFacts

03-08-2008, 02:14 PM

TBJ and everyone else who is a serious gun rights worker in this state are working to build a record of which good cause statements work and which do not. Hint: Some people get CCW's in Santa Clara County. As such, if you can use one of their already successful good cause statements and you get denied you have an equal protection case.

I'm in the same situation as Bulgron. I don't carry lots of cash for business or otherwise (my business will never have a cash sale). I've never testified against a gang member, murderer or jaywalker. I don't run a jewelry store or gun store. I'm not a judge or a DA or a lawyer. I'm not a medical professional or a PI or a bail bondsman or a bodyguard. I live in a good area (very low crime, very fast police response).

I do occasionally work in some bad areas, including late at night. I do have my own business with access to a bunch of computer stuff. All the computer hardware I work with is commercial-grade stuff and has serial numbers and is impossible to sell on the black market, so I can't even credibly say that transporting computer gear puts me at risk. Seems awfully thin for GC.

There are some other factors I could bring up, like someone who made threats against me that I believe, but he did it in a subtle enough way that I couldn't use them to get an RO. There's also a religious angle; my particular religion is frequently targeted for terrorist attacks. This seems awfully thin, because I don't need a CCW to be armed at religious services.

What good is an equal protection suit going to do me? My GC seems awfully thin for me to want to bet $5k or more in legal fees on it.

I just now looked at BJ's website where he goes over some of the categories that constitute credible good cause, and none apply to me. Some might in future (depending certain directions my business could take me) but not at present.

Probably 90% of CCW holders outside of CA are ordinary people like me, whose GC is the best GC there is: Protection of self and family. Which is the one GC that has no validity in the no-issue urban areas of this state.

So, what do people like Bulgron and me do? Give up? Move?

Librarian

03-08-2008, 03:20 PM

Do they keep the fee if you get rejected? I don't have the money to burn. Also, I seem to remember that they started blocking out the good cause statements to keep people from being able to establish patterns and use the law as a crowbar.
Ordinarily, yes - the fee is supposed to cover the costs of the processing. In some cases it may be arguable just how much 'processing' cost was incurred when it amounted to "Here's another one for the Round File; send the Standard Letter."

hoffmang

03-08-2008, 03:34 PM

There is some desire to push some clarifying legislation that changes how the application process proceeds to address some of these issues.

bulgron and CCW: I would suggest you start the process to obtain the 2 or 3 out of state Permits that one wants to have in case you do get a negative response from CA. Then you've laid the legwork to allow you to apply, and either receive a CA CCW or get standing to be a named plaintiff in a TBJ or similar case. The best thing you can do is get a group of guys together so you can have a few different variations on a good cause statement. Also you'll want to PRA the current good cause statements that have worked. You may be very surprised what actual good cause statements work.

-Gene

Cali-V

03-08-2008, 03:43 PM

I'm thinking that since police chiefs and sheriffs are so concerned about liability, the state should just relieve them of the authority to issue all together, give it to CaDOJ and make shall issue a part of the authority. Since DOJ is the authority for being "permitted" to buy a firearm, they already have the records necessary to complete the process...

On the surface, this is not a bad idea; You also can take local politics out of the equation, reduce the liability concerns, establish a standard evaluation process, and you can always keep local authorities involved by requiring their stamp of approval...

If there was one set of laws rules or standards, for CCW permit issuance; under such a system, because of our collective knowledge, wisdom and experience, we all could benefit.

Also it seems to me that there is a certain degree of inequity inherent in the existing CCW system; when my place residence is almost the most significant factor as to weather or not I even have a chance of being issued a permit... This fact alone calls for a judicial solution...

CCWFacts

03-08-2008, 04:04 PM

There is some desire to push some clarifying legislation that changes how the application process proceeds to address some of these issues.

That's all I'm asking for! I've listed them before, and I'll least again: intermediate legislative changes to PC 12050 that I would like to see, which are short of shall-issue but would be huge improvements. #1 on my list would be something that would help us tremendously and there's no possible way sheriffs and chiefs could oppose it, right?

Something in PC12050 that says, in black-and-white, that issuing authorities, both personally and as their government entities, have no liability for the actions of a CCW holder. I know, they already have no liability, it says so in the GC, it's obvious, but they give BS lines about liability as their excuse. I would like to remove this excuse. Hey they would support it because it removes liability, right?
Switch from cheapo rice paper CCWs to DoJ printed "DL" style
Allow the DoJ to declare reciprocity for other states
Provide some defined appeals process. Right now our appeals process is, you send a letter saying, "I want to appeal" and they send a letter saying, "we affirm our denial"
Statutory damages for wrongful denial
Mandatory keeping of statistics about race, citizenship and national origin of applicants
Add the DoJ as a third issuing authority
Add a non-resident permit option. I'm not talking about a shall-issue one, but just allow a sheriff to issue a normal, state-wide CCW to non-residents. They have this in Oregon I believe.

Any of these changes would be a big victory for us, would help ordinary people like Bulgron and me get issued, and is not biting off the whole enchilada of being shall-issue. I'm not asking the NRA's lobbyists to introduce a shall-issue bill right now, but I am asking them to introduce one of the reforms I listed above, or other ideas that get us incrementally better.

bulgron and CCW: I would suggest you start the process to obtain the 2 or 3 out of state Permits

Done, in my wallet right now.

that one wants to have in case you do get a negative response from CA.

The problem is, I want to have a lawyer work with me on my entire app before I even send it in, to make it as full of legal traps as possible. I want to set myself up in the strongest position. That's a good reason for me to not send it in right now.

The best thing you can do is get a group of guys together so you can have a few different variations on a good cause statement.

To me, that is the strongest thing to do right now. Get a group of ten or more applicants together. Each pitches in $1,000 to retain a lawyer. Lawyer goes over, and then mails all the applicants together. Then suddenly it becomes a big problem for Sheriff Baca, and it establishes that these applicants are ready for a big fight. Letting your opponent know that you won't back down and are ready for a fight is a great way to start things off.

Also you'll want to PRA the current good cause statements that have worked. You may be very surprised what actual good cause statements work.

I'll probably do that. I'm sure there are some horrendous shockers in LA.

CoinStar

03-08-2008, 04:27 PM

Pushing for statewide shall issue will actually hurt the majority of counties by making it harder than it is to get a CCW there.

I'm still not sure I agree with this.

Say that via legislation, something as simple as just striking good cause from 12050 occurred. How would that hinder the rural counties that currently have "good" issuance?

Piper

03-08-2008, 04:35 PM

I don't know if anyone else remembers this, but shall issue lost by two votes in California and those two votes were more like two people not showing up to vote. One of the two was Don Perata, probably because he had a CCW himself and he would have looked pretty hypocritical had he voted against it.

I think if we pushed hard enough like they did in Florida, Nebraska and Kansas, we could do it, but it won't happen because everyone says "it can't be done."

I might add that the reasons under 12050 have been seriously distorted. "Good moral character" is more like Good moral character as the Chief or Sheriff see's it. And Good Cause has become more like extraordinary cause.

hoffmang

03-08-2008, 04:45 PM

CSDGuy

03-08-2008, 04:50 PM

Probably a faster way to a Shall-Issue system would be for a CCW Friendly AG to amend the '77 AG's ruling on Good Cause to say that "Personal Protection" is sufficient good cause, and make it binding on all LE agencies in this state, that would be a kick start. I don't see this happening as the No-Issue (for the average folk) places would be extremely unhappy about this and pressure the AG to NOT do this.

That is, however, another way to go Shall-Issue, as "good cause" isn't statutorily defined.

CoinStar

03-08-2008, 05:19 PM

We don't have the votes to get through something more than:

1. Approve or deny good cause statement before any other requirements including the fee are processed.

Go much further and the CCW process will get worse and not better due to anti amendments to bring the non coastal counties into line.

You're equivocating a bit (albeit unintenionally).

If truly favorable legislation (like striking good cause from the issuance process) were to pass, it wouldn't hinder anyone else in any of the other established pro-CCW counties.

What you're saying is likely very true (and honestly, I agree), but it's a fallacy to state that since only mediocre legislation can be passed, it's better to not bother since it will only hurt others. Nobody is saying that we should pass subpar CCW legislation.

CCWFacts

03-08-2008, 05:25 PM

We don't have the votes to get through something more than:

1. Approve or deny good cause statement before any other requirements including the fee are processed.

That would be a benefit right there. It will make me feel much better sending my checks to the NRA if they can throw us a bone like that. What about some of those other 8 that I listed? Some of them are baby steps. The one about removing any liability for issuing authorities for action of permit holders would be a tremendous win for us, and it's hard to see who could oppose it. Could sheriffs and chiefs oppose a change like that? Could anti-gun legislators oppose that?

There are some places in California where you fill out the form, pay your money, pass your background check, and you're done regardless of what you put in the good cause.

Yes, these places cover about 10% of this state's population probably. You know what, we gun owners in this state all need to work together, and right now the people who are most pro-CCW live in these shall-issue counties and have no reason at all to get off their butts and take any action, and so they don't. Sure, I'm biased because I live in the middle of the most uber-liberal zipcode in the state, but I don't have that much sympathy.

By the way, one good reason to start working on CCW law changes, any changes at all, would be to break the sanctity of the law. Make sure that the leg. knows that that law is not set in stone and is open to being changed.

hoffmang

03-08-2008, 05:34 PM

hoffmang

03-08-2008, 05:36 PM

Maybe I'm not being clear. Your other 7 items are not politically feasible.

Please go do a head count on last years bills and think about what it looks like when the most powerful sheriffs oppose us as well - they like having discretion and arbitrary power (they think.)

-Gene

CoinStar

03-08-2008, 06:02 PM

I'm not equivocating at all here.

Our folks in Sacto can quietly make an administrative change to the process without raising a lot of opposition. Removing the good cause or going shall issue is a huge political issue that will be more than a "technical" change and have political forces much stronger on the other side.

The only CCW shall issue legislation we could get passed would be massively subpar. Just imagine what restrictions Don Pareta's successor would try to put on it. That hypothetical bill would much more severely restrict the carry that the majority of California county residents enjoy.

-Gene

I think you're missing the point here. I'm not debating the feasibility of what could and couldn't be passed in the state legislature. I'm speaking hypothetically at the claim that any legislation (not just what is feasible) would do more harm than good.

Nevermind the hurdle it would be to strike good cause from the law (no debate; it's not likely to pass), just tell me how it would hurt the other counties if it could be done.

I can't think of a single way that it would effect any of the already CCW-favorable counties.

hoffmang

03-08-2008, 07:06 PM

Now that's a hair split. I don't know why you're making that point. There is always legislation that wouldn't hurt CCW holders at all.

"The California Legislature hereby repeals all laws on the keeping or bearing of arms, open or concealed, in this State."

Sadly it has about the same chance of passing.

And you're right - your completely unrealistic hypothetical would also not hurt the very shall issue counties.

-Gene

CCWFacts

03-08-2008, 07:17 PM

Maybe I'm not being clear. Your other 7 items are not politically feasible.

What about the #1 on my wishlist?

Please go do a head count on last years bills and think about what it looks like when the most powerful sheriffs oppose us as well - they like having discretion and arbitrary power (they think.)

#1 on my wishlist is, "issuing authorities shall have no liability for any actions of CCW permit holders". Doesn't that actually help their arbitrary powers? It's also (ostensibly) pro-police, so should appeal across the political spectrum, right?

CoinStar

03-08-2008, 07:20 PM

Now that's a hair split. I don't know why you're making that point. There is always legislation that wouldn't hurt CCW holders at all.

:)
I'm making the point because it addresses what you said earlier and the general sentiment that doing anything other than going the route of suing for our rights is the wrong direction. You said:

"You're also ducking the issue that shall issue will hurt a majority of the counties where its even easier than the standard we could get for CCW issuance."

I disagree. It wouldn't. How could it?

I also don't think it's wrong to take a multi-pronged approach at reforming CCW and that means proposing legislation that is decidedly favorable to making it easier for the average Joe to obtain one.

Yeah, the idea that it can be done by referendum (the original topic of the thread) is sort of out there and I agree that it's a longshot to do a major overhaul via our legislators. But I also see a few people here who don't want to poo-poo every idea other than TBJ's methods.

CCWFacts

03-08-2008, 07:26 PM

"You're also ducking the issue that shall issue will hurt a majority of the counties where its even easier than the standard we could get for CCW issuance."

I disagree. It wouldn't. How could it?

In many ways. They would things to "modernize" our existing CCW, like ban CCW in schools, create statutory ways for businesses to ban CCW, all kinds of things like that.

As was said earlier in this thread, California has among the very best CCW laws in the nation, except for the fact that it's may-issue. Those other wonderful things about our law could be compromised if we were able to get some shall-issue bill through.

And additional requirements could easily be tacked on: psych evaluation, liability insurance, increased fees, etc. Hoops that people in the shall-issue counties currently do not need to bother with.

I, personally, would be ok with that, but of course I'm biased, given that I live in one of the most anti-CCW locations in the state, so a crippled CCW that I could have is a lot better than a wonderful CCW that I can't have. I would be happy to pay a $1,000 fee and go through all kinds of application requirements. But you're asking, "what's the downside, who could it hurt", and, well, there is some downside for the lucky 10% of Californians who live in shall-issue counties right now, who have a very easy process: 8 hour course, fingerprints, $88 app fee, get a piece of rice paper.

As an example of "bad CCW laws that we don't have in California": When Ohio went shall-issue, they didn't change the code that regulates carry in vehicles, so everyone with a CCW had to open-carry in his vehicle. Makes it rather annoying to drive anywhere. Some of the Southern states have crazy laws, like Georgia, which prohibits carrying in public gatherings, state parks, historic site, or recreation area, wildlife management areas, public transportation or public transportation terminals, among other places. That's a crippled, and Hoffmang was making the point that if we tinker with our law, we could get added-on restrictions like that.

CoinStar

03-08-2008, 07:36 PM

In many ways. They would things to "modernize" our existing CCW, like ban CCW in schools, create statutory ways for businesses to ban CCW, all kinds of things like that.

As was said earlier in this thread, California has among the very best CCW laws in the nation, except for the fact that it's may-issue. Those other wonderful things about our law could be compromised if we were able to get some shall-issue bill through.

They *could* be compromised, but you're missing my point also. I'm not saying that we throw support behind reforming CCW where we concede to take compromises here and there to get shall-issue.

I agree, that would hurt the other counties that have good issuance now. What I'm saying is that there isn't anything bad that could come about from, for example, eliminating good cause from the law. ...and I freely admit that such a proposal probably wouldn't fly in the current legislature.

The point I'm addressing though, is the unfounded claim that any action will hurt CCW. It's purely speculative to say that to get one thing, we'll have to sacrifice another and in that case, we simply rescind support for such compromises.

In the end, we lose nothing.

What I'm reading here is an unwillingness to even attempt something that isn't the one method (TBJ) being espoused.

CoinStar

03-08-2008, 07:42 PM

But you're asking, "what's the downside, who could it hurt", and, well, there is some downside for the lucky 10% of Californians who live in shall-issue counties right now, who have a very easy process: 8 hour course, fingerprints, $88 app fee, get a piece of rice paper.

Without taking any other concessions and without adding any other hurdles into the CCW process, how would a guy in one of the "good" rural counties be hindered if good cause was struck from 12050?

CCWFacts

03-08-2008, 07:49 PM

I agree, that would hurt the other counties that have good issuance now. What I'm saying is that there isn't anything bad that could come about from, for example, eliminating good cause from the law. ...and I freely admit that such a proposal probably wouldn't fly in the current legislature.

I agree on both points. Eliminating GC, with no other changes, would be purely positive, and it would put California right at the top of state permit systems (we would only lack reciprocity and non-res permits). But, like HoffmanG said, it's as hypothetical tossing out our whole AWB or other things like that.

What I'm reading here is an unwillingness to even attempt something that isn't the one method (TBJ) being espoused.

I would love to see some legislative action on this, even minor stuff, just to keep it in people's minds that this law is not set in stone, and give us something to keep fighting for.

By the way, there are a few things coming up that might benefit us if they go our way.

Arnie is working (again) to improve redistricting. If we had competitive districts that would be a tremendous help. Arnie seems to be the only Republican leader in this state who is serious about keeping the GOP relevant here.
Heller and Son(s) of Heller. If loaded open carry were somehow a constitutionally protected right, that would lead to our victory.

CoinStar

03-08-2008, 08:05 PM

Getting back to the original topic for a second --the money and effort spent on what would likely be a doomed stab at an initiative to revolutionize CCW in California could be better spent financing "test" cases in counties with zero-issuance.

IOW, the major stumbling block for those who don't wish to follow the advice in regard to CCW application to "try it first, then get denied", is the money.

I would guess most of us don't want to shell out the few hundred dollars just to get our foot in the door and then be arbitrarily denied a permit. In fact, people have said just that in this thread.

If the strength behind TBJ's method is finding discrepancies in denials of CCW issuance where the variables were similar, then the more people applying the better since it provides more fodder for them.

The question is, who's going to finance individuals in these problem counties so they can apply for CCWs without the gamble of losing some of their hard-earned money.

hoffmang

03-08-2008, 08:13 PM

I guess your rights are cheap. They aren't even worth $5000 to you much less $500?

On another point, any CCW bill that could ever hope to be passed soon would make a CCW application process far more onerous for many and would more seriously restrict the privileges a current CCW gives you.

There are and will be many and more court options to explore moving forward. After the impact of those court cases, it will change the political landscape and may further open legislative opportunities to move forward. However we have to lay the ground work in (mostly Federal) court first.

On the liability waivers, yeah - we might be able to get that. I'll mention that to the right people as it should actually get support from many of the guys who would otherwise be against CCW liberalization.

-Gene

CCWFacts

03-08-2008, 08:15 PM

The question is, who's going to finance individuals in these problem counties so they can apply for CCWs without the gamble of losing some of their hard-earned money.

The problem is not just the application fees (which, all together, can be in the hundreds or even thousands of dollars). The problem is that you want to do your application in a way which sets you up for a suit later on, which means the app needs to be prepared as part of a legal strategy. If you're going to win in a legal situation, every action, from the very first action you take, has to be part of that strategy.

Back in the Parker vs. DC days, the DC police chief opened his yapper and said that "if they own functional arms in the home, we'll probably arrest them." Guess what, that little blunder was one of the things that helped the DC plaintiffs have standing. That's an example of the other side making a small mistake early on which hosed them (to our benefit). But the same attention to detail applies to us, and to CCW apps. Applying, as part of a legal strategy, means every action in the application must be part of that strategy, from the very first contact with the issuing authority.

So the fees aspect of this is even the least important reason to not apply-and-be-denied.

CCWFacts

03-08-2008, 08:23 PM

I guess your rights are cheap. They aren't even worth $5000 to you much less $500?

Is that directed at me? If I thought that my $5k in fees would have a reasonable chance of getting me issued, the check will be in the mail first thing Monday morning. But as I said, any GC I put together is going to be thin, and $5k in fees would be $5k gone. If someone explain otherwise, great, $5k is on its way.

There are and will be many and more court options to explore moving forward. After the impact of those court cases, it will change the political landscape and may further open legislative opportunities to move forward. However we have to lay the ground work in (mostly Federal) court first.

I'm hoping for that.

On the liability waivers, yeah - we might be able to get that. I'll mention that to the right people as it should actually get support from many of the guys who would otherwise be against CCW liberalization.

EXCELLENT! THANK YOU! That would be tremendously great, because I hear all the time (including from my own PD), "we don't issue because of liability." Santa Maria PD said the same thing in one of the newspaper articles. I would like to yank that excuse. I know it's just an excuse because I know that the PDs / SDs have no liability for the criminal actions of a permit holder, but they are able to use it as an excuse, and I want that gone. When they throw that at me, I want to be able to throw back at them, "Oh, section 1205.... says, 'there shall be no liability...'".

It's a significant pro-CCW change that would, as you say, get support from a lot of anti-CCW legislators. Please, let's think outside the box here about what kind of legislation we can get passed that might have consequences that the reps voting for it can't immediately see. We need to be like smart chess players here, thinking moves ahead of our opponents.

CoinStar

03-08-2008, 08:26 PM

I guess your rights are cheap. They aren't even worth $5000 to you much less $500?

Who said that?

But also, there is the principal of the matter; one should not have to pay through the nose for their rights.... but that's getting philosophical.

On another point, any CCW bill that could ever hope to be passed soon would make a CCW application process far more onerous for many and would more seriously restrict the privileges a current CCW gives you.

I agree with that since it adds the qualifiers regarding feasibility that were lacking in your previous statements.

That was my point.

CoinStar

03-08-2008, 08:32 PM

The problem is not just the application fees (which, all together, can be in the hundreds or even thousands of dollars).

I'm not so sure about that. What about people who just plain can't afford it?

The problem is that you want to do your application in a way which sets you up for a suit later on, which means the app needs to be prepared as part of a legal strategy. If you're going to win in a legal situation, every action, from the very first action you take, has to be part of that strategy.

All the more reason that having a pro-gun group finance it would be prudent since any one of them worth their salt would be able to craft the application the way they best see it for those exact purposes (winning in a legal situation).

Glock22Fan

03-09-2008, 11:10 AM

People are saying "It's a waste of time applying, so what is the point?"

I understand the waste of time part; I personally live in L.A. County and have a want rather than a need (as understood by most people.)

Therefore I haven't wasted my time applying. Instead I work for Team Billy Jack. It might be a while before our activities affect Baca, but one day they might.

And yes, in some ways Bulgron is right. TBJ, at present, only wants cast-iron Good Causes. This isn't because we think that others shouldn't get CCW's, it is just that we can't afford to do lose even one case. Later on, it might be a different story.

bulgron

03-09-2008, 11:38 AM

I guess your rights are cheap. They aren't even worth $5000 to you much less $500?

This is a rather simplistic (and harsh) statement, and it needs answering.

Like most people in the world, I have only so many resources available to me. This means that I have to pick and choose how I'll expend my resources. We all do.

That means a budget.

Let's just assume for the moment that I can come up with $5K in this year's budget to further my goal to obtain a CCW. The question before me then becomes, how to best spend that $5K to help me get that CCW?

I could, as you suggest, put it towards applying for a CCW, then being denied, then fighting that denial in court only to be denied in the end anyway. I consider this strategy to be little better than throwing my money away. I might as well go to Vegas and gamble the money away, in the hopes of striking it rich and so being free to buy a CCW one way or another.

A second and better (IMO) alternative is to spend that $5K on the election campaigns of pro-gun candidates around the county and state. This is, after all, an election year. Since the number one reason I'm hearing for why we don't have shall-issue CCW in this state is that we don't have the votes in the legislature to get it, doesn't it then follow that I should put my $5K towards political candidates who are pro-gun and pro-CCW? To me, that seems like a bigger bang for the buck. True, it won't get me a CCW this year, but if enough of us do that year after year, might we not eventually achieve the end-goal?

I mean, this all assumes that The Right People (whoever they are) are actually interested in liberalizing CCW in this state. To be honest, after looking at this issue over the last number of months, I'm getting the feeling that The Right People have no interest in liberalized CCW, and in fact would fight against it if it ever became a real political agenda. But maybe I'm just being paranoid.

Anyway, when I go to my NRA Council meeting later this month, I'll be interested in hearing about all the pro-gun and pro-CCW candidates that the NRA is backing in this year's election. Whoever they identify, I'll support with my time and my money. I'll also be interested in hearing about the pro-CCW potential candidates that the NRA is looking at courting for the 2010 Sheriff's election in our county.

I mean, since the NRA isn't pushing any pro-gun legislation this year, I assume they're expending their resources on recruiting and campaigning for pro-gun and pro-CCW political candidates.

Right?

jimx

03-09-2008, 12:08 PM

CCWFacts

03-09-2008, 01:04 PM

I think that not only will you louse the initiative you will stir up anti-gun sediment.

Don't enturbulate the anti-gun sediment!

http://www.energyinst.org.uk/education/glossary/images/sediment.gif

jimx

03-09-2008, 01:58 PM

Don't enturbulate the anti-gun sediment!

Well that’s a word I don’t know. I went to Dictionary.com but got

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enturbulate
No results found for enturbulate.
Did you mean Enubilate (in dictionary) or Inturbulate (in encyclopedia)?

On Urban Dictionary
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=enturbulate
1. enturbulate

Not a real word. Invented and used by Scientologists as if it was, normally providing humorous results.
"Hey man, stop trying to enturbulate us and our religion!"

?????
But on the up side I did find the difference between sediment & sentiment : )

CCWFacts

03-09-2008, 02:51 PM

I know, "sediment" wasn't the right word there but it was wrong in such a right way! I love the image of anti-gunners being a sediment, a sludge of detritus that has fallen to the bottom of the ocean. If that ever happens, I promise I won't enturbulate them.

CoinStar

03-09-2008, 03:24 PM

This is a rather simplistic (and harsh) statement, and it needs answering.

It also it worth pointing out that the statement can very easily be turned around on those who initially said that an initiative effort to put shall issue CCW to the voters is a waste of money.

For all those who pulled numbers out of thin air regarding the cost (the amounts themselves being debatable) to make a ballot initiative succeed, I guess your rights aren't worth paying for, eh?

CoinStar

03-09-2008, 03:34 PM

I think that not only will you louse the initiative you will stir up anti-gun sediment.

Or, the initiative would bring the issue to the forefront of discussion. I think the voters in the state, even those out of the loop of firearms rights, would be interested to know all about the cronyism that is rampant in the existing system.

Besides that, there is precedent where initiatives failed but got the ball rolling elsewhere --not the opposite which is claimed.

In fact, Prop 15 (since it was brought up earlier) is a good example --not a bad one-- of that. The anti-gun movement lost the initiative but they've been on a roll ever since and largely because public interest was piqued. I disagree that it set them back as it was claimed earlier. Just look around...

Librarian

03-09-2008, 03:49 PM

It also it worth pointing out that the statement can very easily be turned around on those who initially said that an initiative effort to put shall issue CCW to the voters is a waste of money.

For all those who pulled numbers out of thin air regarding the cost (the amounts themselves being debatable) to make a ballot initiative succeed, I guess your rights aren't worth paying for, eh?
You seem to have missed post #30 from AfricanHunter I work in the business and Bill is exactly right. It would take 70-80 million or more depending on how much was spend against you and polling numbers.Got a spare million?

CCWFacts

03-09-2008, 04:12 PM

Ditto. All the initiatives that get on the ballot use paid signature gatherers. A typical price for something "hard" like this might be $2 / sig, so it's probably $2mil just to get on the ballot.

Got that much change?

An effort like this requires a paid professional staff to work on it for about a year. Do we have that?

CoinStar

03-09-2008, 04:19 PM

You seem to have missed post #30 from AfricanHunter Got a spare million?

You seem to have missed post #94.
Are you not willing to spend some money on your rights?
That was the point.

The amounts to fund a successful initiative vary and that's what I meant by them being "debatable". I didn't rummage through the CA SoS's data to find an average cost and I've already agreed that an unfunded, grassroots effort is a losing a proposition.

CoinStar

03-09-2008, 04:34 PM

Got that much change?

Think what $2 million could buy...

At roughly $500 per application, that's 4000 potential CCW applications and thus 4000 potential cases for TBJ to pursue assuming all are denials.

Isn't that the whole point?

GuyW

03-09-2008, 05:27 PM

There is a huge amount of grassroots work necessary before any Initiative is rolled out.

Many CA gun owners and hunters know nothing about the topics discussed on CalGuns, and some probably even agree with "handguns only for cops".

Those folks must be engaged one-on-one by pro-gunners and hopefully made full allies...

we need at least a solid gunowner base to start with...

Librarian

03-09-2008, 05:39 PM

You seem to have missed post #94.
Are you not willing to spend some money on your rights?
That was the point.
My point was the 'thin air' comment. As to spending money, I don't have it. When I do, I can consider investing some in the political process.

stag6.8

03-09-2008, 05:41 PM

Librarian

03-09-2008, 06:59 PM

I read earlier on this thread about making the calif. doj the deciding factor in issuing ccws for calif......I agree with that if it was to become a shall issue state...It makes all things equal(we pray).....and takes power out of the hands of police depts...where only the elite and big money campaign contributions prevail(sylvester stallion to name a few)....to buy a gun you need a background check through the FBI and doj anyway....on a money note...the governator...would love the fees to get a ccw to go towards the state budget...which is a trainwreck....id be willing to pay 250 bucks a year and qualify twice a year at a gun range for a ccw if it became shall issue....im sure others would be willing too also....regardless...we have to start somewhere....has anybody went to the doj and tried this?

I think the major problem with getting the laws changed is that taking a more "shall issue'' position cannot be shown to be beneficial to a candidate for office getting elected. It's really a 'what's in it for me?' situation, and in political calculations 'it's the right thing to do' does not qualify, at least not often enough.

Most people in California just don't care. I do. I guess most members of Calguns do. We could guess that maybe 35% of the adults in California might have an opinion based on something like fact (that's the same 35% which is the given guess at the number of households, nationally, which own a gun. Right? Wrong? Nobody is sure.)

But that leaves 65% with no opinion or negative opinion, plus the portion of the 35% that hates handguns. Changing enough minds and concentrating those votes in districts where it could make a difference to a candidate is the hard task.

hoffmang

03-09-2008, 11:12 PM

I made my harsh statement about your rights not being worth even $500 to some people in this thread in direct response to the "futile and expensive to even try to apply" comments above.

5 guys who budget $5K in any one county can win a Federal lawsuit. That's far more feasible than spending some one else's money on a futile proposition fight.

Anyone who thinks that keeping our rights are free or easy, hasn't really thought through the responsibilities that citizenship entails.

-Gene

CCWFacts

03-09-2008, 11:19 PM

Hoffmang, my question and challenge remains:

I'm ready to send $5k right now to do the whole process of applying and filing a Federal lawsuit. But as I said, my GC is thin.

Can you honestly tell me that, even with my thin GC, a Fed. lawsuit is worth it? If it is, I'm doing it. I want my CCW and $5k is easily worth it.

In fact it will be more than $5k because I'll be able to get together 5 other people and we'll come up with $10k or more for this.

But we all have "thin" GC. Should we "pull the trigger" on this?

Putting it another way:

If "thin" GC + $5k = 90% success of CCW in LA and SF, there must be hundreds or thousands of people who would go for it, including me.

The only thing that is stopping me is that I'm not at this point convinced that "thin" GC + $5k will achieve anything. I'd love to be wrong on that.

I know that solid GC + legal fees will work.

mymonkeyman

03-09-2008, 11:52 PM

I'll be licensed to practice within a year and then I hope to use my firm's resources to litigate pro bono, if an appropriate case comes up.

bulgron

03-10-2008, 07:41 AM

I'm ready to send $5k right now to do the whole process of applying and filing a Federal lawsuit. But as I said, my GC is thin.

I am not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell a federal lawsuit won't win you a CCW if you have a thin GC. You might want to try talking to TBJ, though, to see what they think as they seem to be the leading experts on 14A lawsuits over poor CCW issuance.

Things could change rapidly if Heller goes the right way, and then Son of Heller goes the right way. If Heller results in strict scrutiny and SOH results in 14A incorporation, then the next thing to do is attack the constitutionality of good cause statements. Once those are declared unconstitutional, then a thin GC isn't going to matter any more. Then we can come back around to TBJ and a 14A equal protection lawsuit.

But for right now, guys like you and me are just plain screwed. Especially given the refusal of most gun owners in this state to back a shall-issue political play. (That almost makes me madder than the liberals who are actively pushing anti gun laws. At least the anti's don't represent a back stabbing.)

If I could talk my wife into moving out of California, I would. None of this is worth the hassle. It shouldn't even be a hassle. The good news is, with the state's budget woes, it's possible that the education system will get hammered and that might be the final straw that I can use to leverage my wife out of this hole.

I'm going to get a CCW one way or another. The only question is, what state is going to be supported by my tax dollars when I get it....

CoinStar

03-10-2008, 09:26 AM

5 guys who budget $5K in any one county can win a Federal lawsuit.

So conservatively speaking, for $25k per county and in 58 counties statewide, "we" could win a liberalized CCW policy for at maximum, $1.45M, right?
Is that what you're saying?

What was that figure for the NRA's total yearly income in a previous post? $250M? And what was the cost estimate of a successful ballot initiative in that same post? Greater than $140M? So at a savings of $138M over a guaranteed to fail initiative effort, the self-proclaimed heavy hitter of the pro gun lobby could score a HUGE win in California.
So where's the support?

Glock22Fan

03-10-2008, 09:33 AM

Please, please, please do not start a flurry of possibly poorly prepared attempts to get cases into court. However many tens of thousands you have, bringing a lawsuit against Baca with anything except a cast-iron Good Cause is doomed to failure, unless and until we can demonstrate, in advance, that he is going to lose it.

Let TBJ's attempts mature and see what changes that brings to the landscape. Ditto Heller.

I think we will see a quiet revolution soon. And once Sheriffs/chiefs realize that the dozens of people (we hope) that get CCW's with Good Causes are not causing mass shootouts in the street, perhaps they will realize that they can loosen the strings a little more.

CoinStar

03-10-2008, 09:34 AM

But for right now, guys like you and me are just plain screwed. Especially given the refusal of most gun owners in this state to back a shall-issue political play. (That almost makes me madder than the liberals who are actively pushing anti gun laws. At least the anti's don't represent a back stabbing.)

I would guess that even if a well-written initiative for shall-issue CCW was put in front of some of the people voicing opinions here, they would pick from a litany of unfounded reasons and refuse to sign it.

The antis don't have to put up a fight when the opposition is concentrated on the inside of the ranks.

bwiese

03-10-2008, 09:39 AM

Please, please, please do not start a flurry of possibly poorly prepared attempts to get cases into court. However many tens of thousands you have, bringing a lawsuit against Baca with anything except a cast-iron Good Cause is doomed to failure, unless and until we can demonstrate, in advance, that he is going to lose it.

Let TBJ's attempts mature and see what changes that brings to the landscape. Ditto Heller.

Correct. The real thing we'll have to worry about, post-Parker/Heller is every idiot with a bar card trying to pull another Silviera idiocy.

We just don't need any more Gary Gorskis.

CCWFacts

03-10-2008, 09:48 AM

Ok, this confirms what I said: showing up with a "thin" GC (the opposite of "cast iron", and exactly what Bulgron and I have) is "doomed". I'm hanging on to my $5k for now.

Another topic: for people in SF the situation is even more grim. With absolutely solid GC, SF will still fight the permit all the way. They will gladly go to trial. They will gladly go to appeals, knowing they will lose. They like spending legal fees because it goes to the mayor's friends and makes him look good at the same time. By the time SF hits bankruptcy Newsome will already have moved on to other things.

bulgron

03-10-2008, 12:25 PM

Another topic: for people in SF the situation is even more grim. With absolutely solid GC, SF will still fight the permit all the way. They will gladly go to trial. They will gladly go to appeals, knowing they will lose. They like spending legal fees because it goes to the mayor's friends and makes him look good at the same time. By the time SF hits bankruptcy Newsome will already have moved on to other things.

Is there anyway to sue Newsom and his minions personally for obstructing the issuance of CWPs? Could we get to them on a civil liberties lawsuit if the 2A is found to be an incorporated fundamental individual right, with strict scrutiny and all the rest of it?

If we can sue them personally, then we can make that problem go away.

And, yes, if you ask me, they deserve to be sued personally. Same goes true for certain Sheriffs around the state.

H Paul Payne

03-10-2008, 12:49 PM

Bulgron,

You really shouldn't have been so lazy as to skip the meeting in the East Bay a couple of months back where your specific issue set was fully and completely talked through with these NRA folks above.

Where were you when work was being done?

Edited to add: It was kind of foul. The only folks who seem to care enough about these issues to get off their duff and show up were Bill, ToolboxX, Anthony and one or two others I'm forgetting. It's so much easier to carp on the forum than make time..

-Gene

I didn't miss it. It just seems underwhelming in the face of all the other bad things that happened in the last term.

That said, I'd be happy if I saw something even as limited as that in this session. But there appears to be nothing....

My bad, I'll admit. Over the last year I've been working through some significant personal issues that have sucked up a lot of my free time. Besides, if that meeting is the one I think it is, I was under the impression that seating was limited, and so I didn't want to take up a seat that someone more qualified than me could use.

I won't make that mistake again, I promise you.

As I said, I'm going to give this membership council thing a chance, at least through to the fall. But if I get the feeling that it's a waste of my time, I won't be sticking around much past that.

Exactly which meeting was this, and when was it held? I remember a meeting from last year -- that I learned about a little late because I wasn't tracking this forum that carefully -- in which the announcement mentioned limited seating. Or was there something else that I missed entirely?

Anyway, when I go to my NRA Council meeting later this month, I'll be interested in hearing about all the pro-gun and pro-CCW candidates that the NRA is backing in this year's election. Whoever they identify, I'll support with my time and my money. I'll also be interested in hearing about the pro-CCW potential candidates that the NRA is looking at courting for the 2010 Sheriff's election in our county.

I mean, since the NRA isn't pushing any pro-gun legislation this year, I assume they're expending their resources on recruiting and campaigning for pro-gun and pro-CCW political candidates.

Right?

Bulgron,

You seem to have a lot of passion in your feelings of support for the Second Amendment freedoms we all wish to restore, and protect. But you also seem to be missing some of NRA's activities in California.

As an example, you stated (above): "...the NRA isn't pushing any pro-gun legislation this year" and we all know that this isn't an accurate statement. To see the truth, all anyone has to do is view the front page of CalNRA.com (http://www.CalNRA.com) or Calguns.net (http://www.Calguns.net) .

And since this isn't the first time you have had problems with certain facts, related to the NRA, see: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1048650&postcount=51
I will make a special offer, just for you.

On March 18, 2008, we will be hosting a meeting of the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County at the Courtyard by Marriott in San Jose, near the airport. I see that Santa Clara County is where you are located, so I will meet with you PRIVATELY and with no distractions before the meeting. You can tell me what you think the NRA should do, and I will explain to you what we are currently doing.

This will be your own special meeting, like we held in Richmond, but just with you. See: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=924831#post924831

I have recently received a lot of input from some Calgunners, related to our pro-Second Amendment efforts in California. Some of it is pretty good as is. Some of it needs a little refining.

With that in mind, I have decided to make time available to discuss these matters with some of you. Your input is important to me and I'd like to have the benefit of your thoughts and feelings in a two-way conversation.

Many of you have stated that you are happy with the fact that the NRA is so active in California and I hope you will also appreciate the fact that we are asking for your input and advice. We really do want it. Ed, Mike, the NRA leadership, and I, feel that this state is important and nothing we do is in a vacuum. We are all (and that includes you) are in this together. So we should function like a team and communicate in the most effective ways possible.

This forum, Calguns.net, is great, but strategy and tactics cannot effectively be developed in view of the public and the enemies of freedom also.

This is what I would like from you, if you are interested in attending:
Send me an email (not a PM) with your name and complete contact information. BTW, all contact information will be treated as highly-confidential NRA Membership Data.
Inform me of the basic topic(s) that you would like to discuss. Ex: local organization, CCW reform, legislative issues, election issues, etc.
Include your NRA status - Member, Life member, non-member, former member, etc.
Include firearms-related affiliations - Gun Clubs, Second Amendment Oranizations, shooting teams, political groups, etc.
If you have experience that you believe would be a valuable asset to the NRA, please include that information.
Optional: a bio of yourself and any relevant information that you would like to include.The reason that I am asking for this information, is so that I can prepare to conduct a productive meeting with people, most of whom, I have never met. I have found that if I know "who" I'm talking to, I don't have to spend as much time in the meeting "getting to know them."

If this sounds like something you are interested in, send me an email. If not, thanks for reading this. But please be aware that I am quite serious when I say that I would appreciate your input. Many people say, "The NRA should do ........." Now, is your chance to give us your thoughts and ideas.

Lots of things need to be done to restore our freedoms in California, and it is up to us to get it done. I hope you will continue to assist the NRA in our efforts.

Thank you, in advance, for your consideration of this request. And please remember, any personal and/or contact information you share with me remains confidential.

Paul

So just send me an email, with the information requested in the above quote, and I will reserve a private meeting location.

My offer is quite genuine, and I look forward to our discussion an await your email.

Paul