Tulare Co. to release names of CCW holders [Archive]

dasARguy

03-25-2008, 01:02 PM

This may not be the right forum to post this info... so apologies if not.
Here goes...I was made aware of this yesterday. The Visalia Times Delta is in the process of obtaining the names of all the registered CCW permit holders in Tulare Co. The reporter's motives and reasons for doing so stem from a report of one of our county board of supervisor's having his gun on his person while on a recent visit to, of all places, Washington DC. the link below is to the Times Delta blog specific to this story. (C & P the link, its hould take you there...)

http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080325/BLOGS06/80324012

The response from the Tulare County Counsel (letter on blog) supports the request. This info available is limited only to the CCW holder's name and the reason given for wanting a CCW.

This to me is an abusive use of access to public records and one can only wonder as to where it will lead. Who knows what "inquiring minds want to know" or do with this info... Screw this!

ghostwong

03-25-2008, 01:11 PM

THis is bad, very bad!!!

Liberty1

03-25-2008, 01:14 PM

Having access to those records is critical to insuring or fighting to insure the process of obtaining a LTC is fair and legal. If one doesn't want the government to collect this info. and have it available for public review we should repeal 12025 and 12050.

GuyW

03-25-2008, 01:18 PM

Until a jurisdiction issues CCWs on a Shall-Issue basis, (and making an exception for disclosing battered women), it's valid and good public policy to allow publishing names of CCW holders.

bulgron

03-25-2008, 01:25 PM

Exactly. The only recourse many people have in poor issuance counties right now is to fight on 14A equal protection grounds, and the only way we can do that is if we can discover the good cause statements used to successfully get a CCW out of our Sheriffs.

The ability to research 14A lawsuits is critical in this state, and must remain no matter how uncomfortable it makes people who are privileged to live in good issuance counties.

CCWFacts

03-25-2008, 01:27 PM

Hey, if CCWers want to keep this stuff private they should start lobbying their reps to pass comprehensive CCW reform in this state. Meaning, files are private, and the GC requirement is removed.

bulgron

03-25-2008, 01:38 PM

The "good moral character" thing needs to be removed too. I mean, how arbitrary is THAT, anyway?

CoinStar

03-25-2008, 01:40 PM

Hey, if CCWers want to keep this stuff private they should start lobbying their reps to pass comprehensive CCW reform in this state. Meaning, files are private, and the GC requirement is removed.

Heh.

How long will it take before someone posts something to the effect of, "Doing that will only ruin CCW in counties with good issuance."?

Piper

03-25-2008, 01:48 PM

Truthfully, I really don't care who knows I have a ccw, but I would be concerned if they knew my address.

I think it would be very easy to implement shall issue in this state under Ca DOJ control. If I had control over it, I would place the application process with DMV and completly remove it from local control. The next step would be to use Live scan for finger printing. This serves several purposes. 1 Police chiefs and sheriffs couldn't use it for political gain and it removes that power from their control and they wouldn't cry about the awesome liability put on them. 2 DOJ already has records of people buying firearms, so it would be simply a matter of them checking their own records to make sure a person is "qualified" to CCW. And 3, like drivers licenses, a persons address could be restricted from public access unless it was needed for a criminal investigation. As for the actual CCW itself, an endorsement on your drivers license should be sufficient. After all, your CDL is for the most part your state ID and permission to drive a car. It might as well be your government permission to excercise your constitutional right as well.

odesskiy

03-25-2008, 01:50 PM

It's public info, who cares. If I had a CCW (fat chance), hell, I'd let you drag my name through the sky hooked up to one of those planes.

gmcal

03-25-2008, 02:02 PM

The problem I see with publishing the names of CCW holders is that if someone got one to protect themself from a specific threat (battered woman getting one to protect herself and possibly her children from the abuser) they lost the element of surprise and the potential threat may use more force (shooting or stabbing instead of hitting) from the onset of the attack knowing that that person is likely to be armed. This is not good for everyone involved.

ghostwong

03-25-2008, 02:09 PM

All I Have to say is this . . . This what I wrote to the Editor

You may want to think twice about this! Do some research on the The Roanoke Times, and the ramifications of releasing a CCW list. You will be placing every law-abiding citizen in danger. The criminal element will now have a list of names, maybe less an address but that can be done on the Internet. Now that you have place law abiding citizens in danger what will your newspaper do when that law-abiding citizen is harmed or injury by said criminal? Please think long and hard about this . . .

Do a search for CCW and Roanoke Times,

trashman

03-25-2008, 02:18 PM

This to me is an abusive use of access to public records and one can only wonder as to where it will lead. Who knows what "inquiring minds want to know" or do with this info... Screw this!

I actually disagree in the california context -- having the "good cause" published will go a long way towards advancing real CCW changes, county by county.

The Roanoke Times (coincidentally, I grew up in Roanoke!..) was off their rocker to publish the CCW list last year.

But as this relates to California, I (being not particularly politically connected...) am not comfortable only having move stars, buddies of LEO's, and political donors be the only recipients of CCW permits. And this is the only way to start changing that.

--Neill

rkt88edmo

03-25-2008, 02:25 PM

Having access to the public records and causes is good.

Publishing the names for no apparent reason than to cause a hubbub is bad.

The newspaper isn't doing anyone a service by reporting names, and they are in fact doing a disservice to applicants and CCW holders.

I actually disagree in the california context -- having the "good cause" published will go a long way towards advancing real CCW changes, county by county.

The Roanoke Times (coincidentally, I grew up in Roanoke!..) was off their rocker to publish the CCW list last year.

But as this relates to California, I (being not particularly politically connected...) am not comfortable only having move stars, buddies of LEO's, and political donors be the only recipients of CCW permits. And this is the only way to start changing that.

--Neill

CitaDeL

03-25-2008, 02:43 PM

Whatever happened to "CONCEALED means CONCEALED"?

Occasionally that sound bite gets thrown in my face as I am proponent of unrestricted carry (open or concealed).

What this shows me is that there is no such thing as licensed concealed carry. Even if you are able to get a LTC concealed- even if you do properly conceal your weapon and adhere to all the policies and regulations- you cannot conceal, because your information is a matter of public record. Your firearm may be completely obscured from view, but since you submitted to the licensing process, passed a background check, and submitted to fingerprinting your information is no longer private or protected.

I may not care who knows that I have a gun (or two or ten), but I dont have to give them my name or tell them where I live. The licensing process takes that away.

Liberty1 is right, abolish 12025 and 12050--- and while you're at it throw 12031, 626.9 out on their ears too.

CCWFacts

03-25-2008, 03:52 PM

I realize that publishing this list does (to some degree) endanger CCWers in Tulare. Oh well. There's no way you can have may-issue without having public records.

There are 1,100 CCWs on the list. If those 1,100 people all demand a meeting with their state reps, and demand that their reps introduce a CCW reform bill (shall-issue + private records), then I will have some more sympathy for them because they are taking action. And if 1,100 people get active, they can either force their rep to take action, or they can get him out of office and get someone else in who will take action. Have they done that?

As it is, these 1,100 CCWers are part of the problem in this state, because they are in a shall-issue location, they have their permits, and they are not doing anything to help those of us in California's urban areas. I'm not going to cry for them until I see them taking some action.

Apathy doesn't arouse my sympathy.

And this applies to a hypothetical battered woman who has a Tulare CCW, too. Is she an NRA member? Has she put in real work to get CCW reform going to help other battered women in places like LA, where no level of danger can get a woman a CCW? Has she demanded a meeting with her state assembly reps, to demand that they introduce a CCW reform bill? Or has she gotten her CCW and then done nothing to help women in similar situations in LA, SF, and the Bay Area?

Rivers

03-25-2008, 04:04 PM

For all the "good" publishing CCW'er names and justifications, that means squat to the battered women and others who need to stay under the radar. If just one person who gets "outed" by this actually is ambushed, do you really think that it's OK because a "greater good" was accomplished? Publishing for the sake of making something public is simply enabling those with less honorable intent.

I'm for CCW records being public record, within privacy limits, but do not believe that they should be published. They should be viewed but not reprinted en masse. If there is an individual permit to be reviewed in a story, the publication should handle it just as they do with juveniles (victims and offenders) and simply withhold the name and particulars.

bulgron

03-25-2008, 04:17 PM

I'm for CCW records being public record, within privacy limits, but do not believe that they should be published. They should be viewed but not reprinted en masse. If there is an individual permit to be reviewed in a story, the publication should handle it just as they do with juveniles (victims and offenders) and simply withhold the name and particulars.

Is there some legal way that a state government can curtail the press' first amendment rights by refusing to allow them to publish public records?

Something tells me that this is a very tricky and dicy path to walk down.

Anyway, now the happy CCW holders in the good issuing counties have first-hand knowledge of the two biggest reasons why they should be pushing for shall-issue CCW. The other being, of course, that a single Sheriff's election can cost them all their permits.

It's really a bad idea to rest contented on your happy condition today, folks. It doesn't take much for you to be just as fuming mad as those of us in the urban counties currently are.

ibbryn

03-25-2008, 04:59 PM

I'm sure the newspapers staff (editors, reporters, administrative staff) will not object to having their names, addresses and other personal info published.

That infos all in the public domain.

If they are not also on the CCW list it can be assumed that they are not carrying a firearm when they are out in public.

No reason why the staff should object to publication of this info...:innocent:

CCWFacts

03-25-2008, 05:33 PM

CSACANNONEER

03-25-2008, 05:37 PM

CCWFacts

03-25-2008, 05:45 PM

I would like to see a list of the names and addresses of everyone that requests this list be made public info. After all, the people that need to know who is armed are the people that I'm the most afraid of.

It's not the same at all. The reason this information is public is so that the public can see if this discretionary system is being abused or not. If the system were shall-issue, these data should be private.

On my previous post about how I'm not weeping for any of these people: This whole thing started when Phil Cox, a Tulare supe, was found to be packing in DC (http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080316/NEWS01/303160001), which is a felony I believe. His statements indicate his absolute ignorance of the firearms law situation in the US; he thought his California permit was valid everywhere. It is not. If he had had any level of involvement or activity in the CCW reform movement he would have known that, or would have known to ask about that. He did not, which proves that he's not involved at all in CCW reform. And, due to his apathy and ignorance, he committed a felony in DC which he happened to get away with. I'm not crying yet.

G17GUY

03-25-2008, 05:47 PM

s2000news

03-25-2008, 05:54 PM

I'll trade giving my name and reason if they provide me with a CCW. :)

CSACANNONEER

03-25-2008, 06:03 PM

It's not the same at all. The reason this information is public is so that the public can see if this discretionary system is being abused or not. If the system were shall-issue, these data should be private.

On my previous post about how I'm not weeping for any of these people: This whole thing started when Phil Cox, a Tulare supe, was found to be packing in DC (http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080316/NEWS01/303160001), which is a felony I believe. His statements indicate his absolute ignorance of the firearms law situation in the US; he thought his California permit was valid everywhere. It is not. If he had had any level of involvement or activity in the CCW reform movement he would have known that, or would have known to ask about that. He did not, which proves that he's not involved at all in CCW reform. And, due to his apathy and ignorance, he committed a felony in DC which he happened to get away with. I'm not crying yet.

I wasn't thinking about it that way. As for Phil Cox, ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law! He should be flogged!

dasARguy

03-25-2008, 06:18 PM

Thanks to ghostwong and trashman for directing me to the Roanoke site. Very informative. And thanks to the rest of the responders. I have earlier today contacted the legal dept of the NRA and our local undersheriff (who oversees the permit process). NRA was familiar with this issue with other states, likely VA and raised some more eyebrows there. The rep said he would pass it up his channels. Our undersherrif indicated that the Times D has requested this info before but apparently there was no publication of names at that time. He is certainly interested in the reporter's/paper's motive but all he can do is comply with the request.

Staying tuned!

Glock22Fan

03-25-2008, 06:29 PM

While we have CLEO's issuing to their friends, and no-one else, we absolutely have to have access to CCW data to fight the fight. Salute, CBS and Guillory all show the appeal courts agreeing with this need.

There is provision for minimal redaction to protect individuals, where revealing the data could indicate a vulnerability.

Whether this data should be published in long lists in the newspaper is debatable. On the one hand, if the paper wants to follow this up by analyzing the proportion of holders that are "connected," then this could be a good thing; if they just want to say "One of these scary people might be living next door to you," then obviously this is bad.

Whichever, we need this law until CCW becomes "Shall Issue" in this state.

TBJ would be totally unable to operate without this data, which has proven (in every jurisdiction we've examined so far) that the Chief/Sheriff is operating illegally.

CCWFacts

03-25-2008, 06:54 PM

And by the way, this incident started when Mr. Cox was off in DC lobbying for funds for Highway 99 etc. He should have also been lobbying for HR 861 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00861:), the national reciprocity bill, which, if it passes, would let him carry in DC. Was he doing that? No. Was he doing anything at all to help his fellow gun owners? No. Was he even a member of the NRA? No (he would have known about the draconian gun laws in DC if he had been an NRA member).

He's getting a free ride from all the work other RKBA activists have done, so I have no sympathy. Him and probably the bulk of the other people on that list.

Remember, 1,100 people is enough to decide a California assembly election. If these people would each donate $100 to a assembly rep who pledged to introduce a shall-issue bill, that's enough to completely fund a campaign. He didn't do any of that, and probably very few people on the list did anything else.

As for publishing the list in the paper: If I were a newspaper editor, I myself would not do that, except maybe to publish a list of LA celebrities and VIPs who have them. But, as you can see, I have no sympathy at all for all these "freeloaders" who have CCWs and are not taking even the most basic steps to do their fair share in defending our rights. If they can afford the $100 or so per year it takes to have a CCW in California, they can afford the $35 per year it takes to be an NRA member, but it's obvious they aren't even doing that. They are not contributing but are reaping the benefits of my NRA membership and all the other work that we here do. They are getting something for nothing. So I have no sympathy.

bulgron

03-25-2008, 07:33 PM

But, as you can see, I have no sympathy at all for all these "freeloaders" who have CCWs and are not taking even the most basic steps to do their fair share in defending our rights. If they can afford the $100 or so per year it takes to have a CCW in California, they can afford the $35 per year it takes to be an NRA member, but it's obvious they aren't even doing that. They are not contributing but are reaping the benefits of my NRA membership and all the other work that we here do. They are getting something for nothing. So I have no sympathy.

Congratulations on the best description of Californians that I've ever seen. Now you know why California is so incredibly screwed up.

yellowfin

03-25-2008, 08:18 PM

Robbery of the individuals' residence may become one problem, as firearms are a desirable target for thieves. The worse problem I think is political harassment from antis much in the same way PETA people threaten and sometimes directly attack hunters. It may be an intention of the journalists to incite such harassment.

CCWFacts

03-25-2008, 08:42 PM

Btw, this Supervisor Cox ha admitted, in a newspaper interview, to committing multiple felonies relating to his gun and his CCW. I'm not up on the DC codes but I assume he committed felonies by carrying without a permit and also by possessing an unregistered handgun in the District. I don't know DC law but I assume there may be other charges for concealing, carrying loaded, importing, transporting, and the ammo. None of these would apply if HR 861 / SB 388 would pass, which Mr. Cox should have been lobbying for.

It would be quite a normal thing for issuing authority to cancel his permit at this point, and Supe. Cox should consider himself lucky that he's not getting extradited to DC.

socalguns

03-25-2008, 10:42 PM

hmm, http://www.equalccw.com/

Yankee Clipper

03-25-2008, 11:50 PM

‘Public information’ regarding who has a CCW, may also be like ‘credit information’ which is now used by many employers to screen prospective employees. I wonder if that's to be our future?

Sundowner

03-26-2008, 05:00 PM

"I'm waiting for one of the people on this list to come onto this thread and post what he or she has done to help those of us "behind enemy lines". - Okay, here I am. And, I've done six of the nine things on your list in the last year (and others that you couldn't think of and probably don't do yourself). And, don't lump me together with Cox or anyone else. Your whiney posts don't engender any sympathy from me. We are all behind enemy lines in California. Your generalizations and mass condemnations are strikingly similar to the tactics used by the Brady Group. Are you possibly a troll? I know a lot of the people on that list and they are all active gun rights people to one degree or another and all but one are NRA members If you want to destroy the pro-gun movement, keep up your divisive rehetoric. You'll split our ranks like the "hunters vs. assault rifle" folks do. You sound like the little boy who doesn't think anyone should go to the circus because his parents won't let him go. How do you think we got the permits? By working for and electing gun-friendly sheriffs for the past 50 years in this county. Our representative, Bill Maze, who we also elect, has fought for gun rights in Sacramento with our support. So go take your self-pity out on someone else. Tulare County will take care of itself.

CCWFacts

03-26-2008, 06:06 PM

I am very happy to be wrong and refuted on this. We're all "behind enemy lines" but some of us (like me) are behind enemy lines in a place that will never issue a CCW without being forced to by legislative reform or the courts. We work and work, knowing that it's not going to result in a CCW this year, or next year, or five years from now, or maybe ten years from now. Often we wonder why none of the reps from the shall-issue areas are introducing CCW reform bills (not even full shall-issue reform, but just some minor improvements). And then we see articles like this one, where Mr. Cox obviously isn't even an NRA member and is not active at all in CCW reform. We feel pretty upset.

As for Bill Maze, I'm ready for him to introduce any type of CCW improvement bill in Sacramento. Something small, like requiring authorities to give yay or nay on GC statements without fees and before processing any other part of the app, or statutory liability immunity for issuing authorities.

As for AWs vs. hunting rifles: I already own and have registered all the AWs I'll ever want to own, and I'm active in working for a repeal or reform of the CA AWB.

bobby7321

03-26-2008, 06:44 PM

i guess i will be on that list if its published.

Sundowner

03-26-2008, 06:53 PM

CCWFacts: Fair enough. Sorry I blew my top but I'm sensitive about being accused of things that aren't true. I will talk to Bill about introducing something concrete about CCW. He spends a lot of time on hunting-related issues. He is being "termed out" after this term but is going to run for the state Senate and I have every confidence he'll win. The good news is that his wife is going to run for his assembly seat and has a very good chance of winning (and she's pro-gun, too, of course).

Specter6A

03-26-2008, 06:57 PM

As a resident of Visalia, I too am one of the CCW permit holders that will appear on the list.

CCWFacts, I have to say I'm shocked and offended by your rude statements and negative opinions about Tulare County CCW permit holders. Just how, exactly, is it our fault that you have problems obtaining a CCW permit?

Speaking for myself, I personally contribute to every major gun rights organization. Additionally, my business, which is part of the shooting industry, contributes to those same organizations as well as the NSSF. My business also contributes to conservative, pro 2nd ammendment politicians.

Just because we live in a permit friendly county, there's no call to treat us like were a bunch of apathetic, unsympathetic elitists.

So, maybe you could tone it down a bit as your current approach is more than a bit counter-productive.

CCWFacts

03-26-2008, 07:24 PM

Just because we live in a permit friendly county, there's no call to treat us like were a bunch of apathetic, unsympathetic elitists.

I apologize. I must say, I am surprised, and pleasantly surprised, by the Tulareans posting in this thread. Cool!

My anger and frustration comes out of two things: First, obviously, I'm in a no-issue area and you can imagine, it's quite frustrating to know that I'll be among the last people in the US who have the possibility of getting a permit. Second, I do feel that our may-issue law has allowed all of us California gun owners to be divided and conquered.

To put some blame on my area: I know many gun owners in LA and SF, and I struggle to think of any who are NRA members. If even 10% of the gun owners in LA were NRA members, that would have a major impact on state politics.

Sundowner: Re your rep: Awesome, that would be so great. I am so looking forward to writing a letter to my reps asking them to support a CCW bill. I know they won't but it will be fun sending it in. And I will demand an in-person meeting with them on this issue, even though they are the most anti-gun reps in the entire state leg.

Even us who are far far behind enemy lines, it's important to keep in contact with our reps, to make sure they know that even in their districts, there are determined fanatics who will fight for our rights and freedoms.

CoinStar

03-26-2008, 07:57 PM

I know many gun owners in LA and SF, and I struggle to think of any who are NRA members. If even 10% of the gun owners in LA were NRA members, that would have a major impact on state politics.

That is way too simplistic.

Having a 10% increase in NRA membership in the metro areas would do nothing more than add 10% more dues-payers to the NRA.

However, having a larger pool of politically active people willing to get their hands dirty is a different story altogether.

I'm in the same boat as you. I live in a no-issue county where permit renewals are shrinking and viable GC is scant. That's why I take issue with some of the comments (here and elsewhere) on this topic.

CCWFacts

03-26-2008, 08:16 PM

That is way too simplistic.

Having a 10% increase in NRA membership in the metro areas would do nothing more than add 10% more dues-payers to the NRA.

However, having a larger pool of politically active people willing to get their hands dirty is a different story altogether.

Just being a passive member of the NRA helps. Raw numbers give the NRA leverage with politicians.

And 100k dues payers = $3.5mil per year. That equals several full-time lobbyists, several lawsuits per year, and all kinds of other activities. How great would it be to have a full-time lobbyist and a full-time lawyer devoted only to LA City and LA County? If we had 100k members here, that would be financially easy.

Of course, active members who vote single-issue, write letters, and donate to politicians, are better than passive members, but even an additional 100k passive members would help a lot.

(My 100k number is a WAG: I'm guessing there are 1mil gun owners out of LA County's 9mil population.)

bulgron

03-26-2008, 08:41 PM

(My 100k number is a WAG: I'm guessing there are 1mil gun owners out of LA County's 9mil population.)

I'd expect closer to 4 mil out of 9 mil population. I know of no reason why LA's firearm ownership rate should be considerably different than the national average.

And it's true that passive NRA members are beneficial.

But even if all an NRA member does is pick up the phone and call an elected politician every now and then, that can be huge. When 100K people start calling a rep's office so that the phone is ringing off the hook, they can't get any work done and that's just painful for them. It makes them pay attention.

It doesn't take much work at all to help the NRA. Just call when the NRA asks you to call. That, alone, is a huge help.

Troutman

03-26-2008, 09:16 PM

CCWFacts,

Didn't you at one time (possibly still) advocate the requirement of a CCW for purchasing ammo? Would you like to expand on that?

CoinStar

03-26-2008, 09:52 PM

But even if all an NRA member does is pick up the phone and call an elected politician every now and then, that can be huge.

Part of what I'm saying is that being politically active isn't dependent on being an NRA member.

...unless you're suggesting that only NRA members own telephones.

CoinStar

03-26-2008, 10:01 PM

And 100k dues payers = $3.5mil per year. That equals several full-time lobbyists, several lawsuits per year, and all kinds of other activities. How great would it be to have a full-time lobbyist and a full-time lawyer devoted only to LA City and LA County? If we had 100k members here, that would be financially easy.

If there were some sort of guarantee that the added revenues from a membership drive would be dedicated to the types of aggressive tactics you've outlined, I'd be more supportive of the idea that an increase in membership would indeed be beneficial.

I'll concede that lining the coffers of the NRA's lobby arm couldn't hurt, but I think that your claims regarding the outcome are sort of ethereal.

I mean no offense by that either.

bulgron

03-26-2008, 10:23 PM

Part of what I'm saying is that being politically active isn't dependent on being an NRA member.

...unless you're suggesting that only NRA members own telephones.

No, no, I was just responding to the "politically active/inactive NRA" angle that the thread took.

I'll take a politically active gun owner who is not a member of the NRA over a politically inactive member of the NRA any day of the week.

CCWFacts

03-26-2008, 10:43 PM

Didn't you at one time (possibly still) advocate the requirement of a CCW for purchasing ammo? Would you like to expand on that?

Sure!

First, let me make clear: if it were up to me, I would throw away most or all of California's firearms laws. I would want our laws to mirror those of Nevada and similar states: shall-issue CCW, no AWB, no state-level restrictions on NFA items. That's what I really want at the state level. If we somehow went even further than that, and got rid of CCW entirely (ie, went to "Vermont carry"), I wouldn't complain about it. If it were up to me at the Federal level, I would probably also get rid of portions of GCA 68, 922(o), and portions of the NFA. Really I think NICS is a good idea and makes sense, but most of the other stuff is both useless, and an infringement of our rights.

With some luck and an honest reading of the 2A, Heller might even give us many of those things. Then I the only thing I will be complaining about is ammo prices for all the ammo I'm buying to feed my FA Saiga (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wg1pFNwTOE).

So it should be clear: I don't actually want to create any additional restrictions on ammo purchases or anything else in California. Whatever laws we have in this state are beyond enough.

I did propose, as a concept, the idea of tying CCW to other things, including ammo purchases. I'm not the only RKBA advocate who backs this idea. The CCW reform movement in Illinois (which is a state with similar resistance to CCW and gun rights) is working for effectively the same thing: their FOID would become a CCW. My concept was to go the opposite way: turn the CCW into a FOID. We would suddenly go from the state with among the lowest CCW issuance rates to the state with the highest CCW issuance rates. It would start saving lives immediately. It would get every gun owner in this state active in CCW. It would put more guns on the street in the hands of trained, safe people.

But it's just a concept. It won't happen. It's easier for the people in Illinois to convert a FOID into a CCW than it is to think about converting a CCW into an FOID, because all the gun owners in Illinois already have FOIDs, whereas few gun owners in CA already have CCWs.

Everyone here knows the downsides of FOIDs: it's a registration of gun owners, it's more regulation, etc. For me personally, well, I already live in a no-issue place, which is never going to change without court intervention, so you can imagine that I'm willing to go through a whole lot of stuff if it would give me a CCW. That skews my perspective on things a lot from gun owners in other parts of the state where CCWs are fairly easy to get.

And I personally already have registered handguns and AWs, so another registration thing wouldn't make any difference to my privacy. I can't lose my "gun owner privacy" because it's already gone. DoJ can type in my name and get a long list of stuff. So again, that's my perspective, which is clearly different from the perspective of people who may still have their firearms privacy (no registered handguns and no AWs). Interestingly, California's current CCW system has no central registry, so if you have a CCW and no registered handguns, you still have your gun owner privacy.

Again, it was just a concept that's not viable, something coming from the perspective of someone who is in a solidly no-issue area and sees no hope for legislative reform, who already is on the DoJ's "gun nut" lists. Someone who thinks we need to do more brainstorming and thinking outside the box about legislative strategies. On that note, one legislative strategy I came up with is statutory liability immunity for issuing authorities for actions of CCW holders. That's a clever strategy to remove the #1 excuse for not issuing. We need to come up with more clever strategies, and think freely about what they might be, and how we can move laterally to end up winning.

And coming back to my first paragraph, about what I really want in gun laws, I firmly believe that CCW issuance is like a "vaccine" against all other forms of gun control. In all the other states that are shall-issue, no substantial gun control has passed since they went shall-issue. I would be willing to give up a lot to get CCW issuance going in this state, because I believe that that is like a chess master giving up a lot of material to get his opponent into an unforeseen checkmate. That's smart chess, and we need smart chess to win in this state, because we don't have blunt, overpowering force or numbers.

Troutman

03-26-2008, 10:59 PM

Sure!

This should tell folks exactly where you stand. I agree with wanting shall issue, however, i would never throw the baby out with the bath.

In your scenario of CCW for ammo - lots of good folks (and a LOT of members of this forum) loose the ability to buy ammo. Home owners trying to protect their families, hunters, etc.

Your response about shedding no tears for the "hypothetical battered woman who has a Tulare CCW" shows you as a person that is self centered and concerned for his own plight only. Not one of those that we as gun owners need the press talking to.

CCWFacts

03-26-2008, 11:07 PM

In your scenario of CCW for ammo - lots of good folks (and a LOT of members of this forum) loose the ability to buy ammo. Home owners trying to protect their families, hunters, etc.

My assumption (for this theoretical concept) is that if CCW were required to buy ammo, all the issuing authorities would have to go shall-issue, just like FOIDs are shall-issue in IL. If that did happen, it would be great; we would have millions more CCWers in this state. If that didn't happen, it would be a massive, total disaster, for exactly the reasons you gave. What would really happen? We'll never know because it will never happen. The likely path (if there is one) to shall-issue in this state is probably going to be the courts, as fall-out from Heller.

Bombast

03-26-2008, 11:07 PM

I'm waiting for one of the people on this list to come onto this thread and post what he or she has done to help those of us "behind enemy lines". I would expect everyone on the list to have done at least three of the following within the past 12 months:

Written a letter to a state rep demanding that he introduce a CCW reform bill
Joined, renewed or donated to the NRA
Taken a non-shooting friend to the range
Written a letter to a federal-level rep about SB 388 (national reciprocity)
Donated time or money to the campaign (either primary or general) of a state elected official who has made a CCW reform pledge
Gotten a friend to apply for a California CCW or a non-res CCW
Demanded an in-person meeting with a state rep about CCW reform
Gotten a friend to join the NRA
Organized or been involved in the Tulare CCW Defenders Club. (Oh wait, there's no such thing because no one there cares enough.)

Anyone on the list active enough to even read Calguns.net?

I'm holding my tears for now.

My father in law - who does not own a computer and therefore does not read Calguns - has a CCW in Tulare. I'll reply for him.

He is a life member of the NRA, and has been for 40 years at least.
He bought life memberships for his kids and grandkids
He is an NRA shooting instructor, and teaches 6th-8th graders to shoot .22
He gives $2000-$3000 per year to political candidates, and their gun rights positions are on his top 5 list of how to rate a candidate (others are the war in Iraq, taxes, strict constructionist judges and free trade).
He meets with his elected representatives at the county, state and federal level. He does not give money to anyone he hasn't talked to. He does talk about gun rights, among his other issues.

I don't happen to have a CCW in Tulare. Mine is in Orange County because I happen to live there. I have done MOST of the things on your list in the past year.

The idea that you want to publish his name and address is going to make him very angry. You can advocate for it if you want, but I think it's a really, really REALLY bad idea. If you're going to throw some California CCW holders overboard for the possibility that somehow it might help you get yours - you are not going to make friends.

CCWFacts

03-26-2008, 11:11 PM

My father in law - who does not own a computer and therefore does not read Calguns - has a CCW in Tulare. I'll reply for him.

That is excellent that he is doing those things, and I take back what I said about apathy in Tulare.

The idea that you want to publish his name and address is going to make him very angry. You can advocate for it if you want, but I think it's a really, really REALLY bad idea. If you're going to throw some California CCW holders overboard for the possibility that somehow it might help you get yours - you are not going to make friends.

I said just the opposite of that: I wouldn't publish them.

As for publishing the list in the paper: If I were a newspaper editor, I myself would not do that, except maybe to publish a list of LA celebrities and VIPs who have them.

Lyrelia

03-27-2008, 12:37 AM

It's not so much that there's apathy amongst those who do shoot in Tulare County as much as the proliferation of ignorance is more abundant than those who shoot. At least, this seems to be so in my experience. I do my part to try to both educate and inspire people to explore things they may be afraid of merely because they don't understand it. That all being said, I don't trust the Visalia Times Delta. Last time they did an article concerning the local college banning smoking from most of its campus and they wanted my opinion on it as a non-smoker, they threw out what I said because it didn't fit with what they wanted to show the public. I don't like media sources that pick and choose exclusively, and I think they're going to try some stunt with this article on CCWs that they're working on. At least, I don't see any good reason for them to be doing this. If they wanted a debate on the issue, there are other sources so that's not what they're after. I haven't been hearing of any accusations of CCWs being granted in this county unfairly. In short, I can't see their investigation leading anywhere good. I'm a person who would like to get a CCW for many reasons, including some regarding a restraining order, robbery, and said person of restraining order having gang affiliations. I can't say that I want anyone to be posting my information anywhere where these people might get a hold of it, because most of them are sure as heck not going to get in contact with the Sheriff's office themselves due to outstanding warrants. I'd like that middleman to stay there, but on the other hand, I'm not going to run away and go into hiding because of these people. I'm going to try to use the courts (like with my restraining order) and protect myself in case that fails (CCW).

However, the consequences nobody seems to be thinking of is are the very social ones. There's a lot of anti-gun sentiment in the bible belt here as I stated at the very beginning. Having this information paraded in front of these people might be bad for one's job security, for starters. I know it's illegal for employers to discriminate like that, but you can bet that they do. I'd just hate to see anyone getting bad press at work or school because of this. I for one wouldn't mind because I'd like to see the sentiment changed since I believe that IT is wrong, not myself wanting to carry. But it's a battle that takes time, money, effort, and maybe legal processes if anything goes sour. I know we all have a responsibility as 2A supporters in this painstaking battle for rights in California, but a lot of these folks didn't ask for it and just don't have the support to take up that battle, even with the NRA and Calguns being the great communities that they are. There's a reason that traits people commonly discriminate against (sexual orientation, for instance) aren't asked about during job applications. Just bear that in mind. I'm curious to see what happens with this, and I'm crossing my fingers that it won't turn into trying to label everyone with a CCW as some sort of reckless evil monster in the public eye.

EDIT: Sorry if this is all a bit willy-nilly. I'm pretty worn out today. My point is that while I wouldn't want to work for someone who would discriminate against me for owning a firearm at all, I can't begrudge other people for not being as much as an activist as I am. They may not have the means or time to fight tooth and nail over every bit of wrongdoing and injustice. That's why we have our liaisons to fight for us. Rather than complain about who's doing or not doing what, how about those of us who can spare the time or money or what-have-you try to find a way that they can be the voice for a disgruntled group that needs strong representation. A good example is how a few good people have done some very good things here at the college with issues that students had beforehand felt hopeless and frustrated with; they just needed someone with the time to go through the processes.

OCResident

03-27-2008, 03:02 AM

I'd expect closer to 4 mil out of 9 mil population. I know of no reason why LA's firearm ownership rate should be considerably different than the national average.

Hmm...:rolleyes:

Uh...Form 4473, question 12k:
Are you an alien illegally in the United States?

tikifrei

03-27-2008, 07:17 AM

CCWFacts....(and all those who like the idea of publishing the names of CCW holders)

Why don't you guys put your money where your mouth is?

Post your real name and address on the forum? Why hide behind a screen name?

How about you list all the guns you own while you are at it? Maybe your children's names?

Well?

Mesa Tactical

03-27-2008, 07:57 AM

Mesa Tactical

03-27-2008, 08:00 AM

I did propose, as a concept, the idea of tying CCW to other things, including ammo purchases. I'm not the only RKBA advocate who backs this idea. The CCW reform movement in Illinois (which is a state with similar resistance to CCW and gun rights) is working for effectively the same thing: their FOID would become a CCW. My concept was to go the opposite way: turn the CCW into a FOID.

You just described a scheme whereby a person would require a license from the state to purchase ammunition.

So what other "RKBA advocates" back this idea?

justakid

03-27-2008, 08:56 AM

You just described a scheme whereby a person would require a license from the state to purchase ammunition.

So what other "RKBA advocates" back this idea?

*Ding. . .Ding* WINNER WINNER!

bulgron

03-27-2008, 09:14 AM

CCWFacts....(and all those who like the idea of publishing the names of CCW holders)

I'm sorry, did anyone here say they like the idea that a newspaper might publish the names of CCW holders?

No.

What we said is that we require the ability to data mine the name of CCW holders and their GC statements for the purpose of 14A equal protection lawsuits. It's the one and only tool currently available to us for leverage against the bad situation in these counties.

That said, this doesn't mean we want to publish that information anywhere, except perhaps as evidence in a court of law, and then only where the information pertains to the issuing situation in our own crappy counties. Certainly a list of CCW holders and their G.C. statements in Tulare Co. wouldn't be relevant to anything we might want to do here in the statist coastal counties.

All I'm seeing in this thread is more proof that CA's CCW laws suck, and that they have been carefully crafted to divide and conquer CA's gun owners.

BTW, I personally hate it that CCW holder's names and their G.C. statements can be data mined via PRA requests. It's a horrible situation, and I for one would be thrilled to see that fixed as part of a broad CCW reform movement in this state.

But not one minute before this state goes shall-issue.

Somebody should lock this thread before it does more damage to the CCW cause....

Glock22Fan

03-27-2008, 09:23 AM

Bulgron is 1000% right.

Furthermore, many of the people on this board either have their full name in their signature block or. like me, would be fairly easy to find/identify from their words or activities. There's a link below that takes you straight to my name and general location.

CCWFacts

03-27-2008, 09:28 AM

CCWFacts....(and all those who like the idea of publishing the names of CCW holders)

I have no idea where you got that. I said exactly the opposite of that.

As for publishing the list in the paper: If I were a newspaper editor, I myself would not do that, except maybe to publish a list of LA celebrities and VIPs who have them.

Read.

BTW, I personally hate it that CCW holder's names and their G.C. statements can be data mined via PRA requests. It's a horrible situation, and I for one would be thrilled to see that fixed as part of a broad CCW reform movement in this state.

But not one minute before this state goes shall-issue.

Exactly.

We support it being public records as long as it's may-issue. We don't support publishing it all in the newspaper. That has happened few times, most recently in Roanoake and previously in Orange County. Didn't help anything.

CCWFacts

03-27-2008, 09:35 AM

You just described a scheme whereby a person would require a license from the state to purchase ammunition.

So what other "RKBA advocates" back this idea?

This was a brainstorm I posted a while ago and lots of people didn't like it. Oh well. I responded to this in detail already but I'll say one more thing: this is exactly what they are working on in Illinois, a state with a similar hostility towards gun rights.

If I needed a license to buy ammo, and that license let me CCW, I would be fine with that.

If I needed a license to drive, or buy beer, or vote, or eat sushi, and that license also let me CCW, at this point, I personally would be ok with that, although I can see that most people would not be. These are all theoretical ideas, none of which are viable.

We need to think creatively about strategies.

bulgron

03-27-2008, 10:28 AM

This was a brainstorm I posted a while ago and lots of people didn't like it. Oh well. I responded to this in detail already but I'll say one more thing: this is exactly what they are working on in Illinois, a state with a similar hostility towards gun rights.

If I needed a license to buy ammo, and that license let me CCW, I would be fine with that.

If I needed a license to drive, or buy beer, or vote, or eat sushi, and that license also let me CCW, at this point, I personally would be ok with that, although I can see that most people would not be. These are all theoretical ideas, none of which are viable.

We need to think creatively about strategies.

I know where you're coming from, but the political reality is that we won't get anywhere by being willing to throw whatever good firearm laws we have in this state under the bus.

We have to figure out a way to fix this state's gun laws without screwing other gun owners in the process. Otherwise, the gun culture in California will implode. I mean, even more than it already has.

After some digging, I believe a political solution is probably not possible. We might be able to make some small gains here and there, if we're determined enough. But because of the larger issues having to do with this state's demographics, as well as this state's GOP meltdown (which is just allowing the Dems to run rampant on their most extremist agendas), politically we're nowhere.

To fix things, we're going to have to take this to the courts. For that to happen, Heller must come back favorable to us. If Heller isn't favorable, we're done. Flat out done. The only thing left to us in that eventuality is a long, slow, painful rearguard action, and hope that the Dems implode in some way that allows the GOP to reassert itself. (Which could happen, given the state's budget mess.)

So. What can we do this year while we wait on Heller and subsequent legal action?

Push for redistricting. It's the one political play available to the California gun community that might make a difference in Sacramento.

And if Heller comes back favorable?

Well, I'm not one of the "right people" which I keep hearing rumblings about, but if I was king of the courts I'd:

Push for 14A incorporation, if it doesn't happen directly from Heller. This probably happens by suing over CA's AW ban, since that ban is almost a complete parallel to D.C.'s handgun ban.
Push to gut or end good cause statements. We have to do it anyway, because otherwise CA will just implement an AW permit system that requires G.C. How we gut or end G.C. depends on the language in Heller:

If Heller has language saying the 2A protects an individual right to self-protection, then force self-protection into G.C. statements via the courts.
If Heller does not have that language, then ask the courts why I have to prove to the government why I should be allowed to exercise my individual right to bear arms.

When the Sheriffs start using the "good moral character" clause to deny CCWs (and you KNOW they'll do it), sue over the arbitrary and capricious nature of "good moral character," which is after all a rather subjective standard.

At that point, the Sheriffs will be backed into a corner where they "may issue", but they're also going to have to explain their reasons for denying someone their civil liberties. I think that's checkmate time.

The way is long and hard.

And there's no guarantee that Sacramento won't get all vindictive and screw with the CCW laws in this state just out of spite.

Not for the weak of stomach, eh?

Interesting times....

yellowfin

03-27-2008, 11:18 AM

jamesob

03-27-2008, 11:54 AM

i have a ccw and live in tulare county. this is the first i heard of this.

GuyW

03-27-2008, 12:52 PM

....one legislative strategy I came up with is statutory liability immunity for issuing authorities for actions of CCW holders. That's a clever strategy to remove the #1 excuse for not issuing....

How 'bout we just publicize current law that says that, so that everyone knows it, and they can personally inform the offending CLEO that they're "full of it" (which they actually already knew)...

OCResident

03-27-2008, 12:53 PM

yellowfin

03-27-2008, 12:55 PM

Are there any candidates running against them? There is also a bit of a problem with pro carry sheriff candidates getting sabotaged. The antis know they can't afford to lose some of them so I'd imagine they're well insulated.

bulgron

03-27-2008, 01:01 PM

I've been asking around about viable pro-gun people who want to run for Sheriff in Santa Clara county, but no one seems able to come up with a name.

If memory serves, Sheriff Smith is up for re-election in 2010. In order to take on a sitting sheriff with the backing of the county's political elite, I think we'd need to start now in order to have a chance of winning.

But so far, whenever I ask the question, I just get shrugs.

CCWFacts

03-27-2008, 02:07 PM

It is hard to take on sitting sheriffs. However... it is not impossible.

Sheriffs elections are mid-term elections, so turnout is low. That means that a small but dedicated group (us) can have more impact.

And the NRA's lack of action on this is disheartening. They should get actively involved. Instead, they have endorsed or supported anti-CCW sheriffs. They need to stop that.

Even Sheriff Baca doesn't win by huge absolute numbers. If even 10% of the gun owners in LA would vote against him, he would lose.

These small-turnout elections (sheriffs) are places where enough single-issue, committed voters can control things, if we had more awareness among gun owners here.

The NRA needs to get more active on the ground here, do more outreach to gun owners in LA and SF, and get more active in sheriff's races.

Are there any candidates running against them?

This is another big problem. It's very difficult to recruit viable candidates to run against deeply entrenched sheriffs such as Hennessey, etc.

jamesob

03-27-2008, 04:49 PM

as for sheriffs go bill wittman in tulare county is a great guy. when i was a leo he wanted me to be a deputy but i turned him down. in fact my dad is a friend of his and he is very pro gun. he does issue ccw's if you really have a need for one. i know you shouldn't need a good reason but not everybody that owns a gun should carry anytime they want.

bulgron

03-27-2008, 05:06 PM

i know you shouldn't need a good reason but not everybody that owns a gun should carry anytime they want.

Really?

And why is that?

Glock22Fan

03-27-2008, 05:39 PM

i know you shouldn't need a good reason but not everybody that owns a gun should carry anytime they want.

I agree with Bulgron. Whereas I know where you are coming from, who are you (or who am I) to decide who qualifies and who doesn't? Not everyone with a car should drive whenever they want, but we give them that ability and (hopefully) catch them if they screw up. This is how it works with most everything else that's legal; why should guns be different?

jamesob

03-27-2008, 07:51 PM

ok there are alot of people that can buy a gun. does that make alright for them to get a ccw, no. my nephew who is addicted to herion and other stuff, has never been charged or arrested for anything. could he go buy a gun threw a dealer? yes. there are no drug test or anything else preventing him from buying one. since he can buy a gun should he be able to get a ccw, after all they don't drug test. now would you want a person to carry a gun with a ccw that has a problem like that? or what about people who cant control their temper? alot of people can buy a gun that have anger problems. should they carry all the time? there are alot of people who can buy guns that should not be alowwed to carry anytime they want. if you think they should there is a big lack of judgement on your part.

CoinStar

03-27-2008, 10:06 PM

The only way we're going to go shall issue any time in the near future is to elect new sheriffs. I don't see why there is not more emphasis on this - especially at the NRA/CalGuns level. Put some money and support into the right candidate and it seems reasonably possible that we can win it over county by county.

The biggest problem I see with this angle is that it's temporary at best (not that I don't think it's a good idea in a broader strategy).

If good CCW issuance is incumbent on keeping select, pro-gun sheriffs in place, then it's not really fixing the problem for the long term.

It would be better to tailor CCW laws via statewide reform so that it wouldn't matter who held the position of bestowing CCW rights on us peasants. Current law simply allows for far too much leeway for those who decide issuance to arbitrarily deny permits.

Fix that part and Sarah Brady could be sheriff and you'd still be able to get a CCW.

CCWFacts

03-28-2008, 01:53 AM

I know where you're coming from,

Lots of frustration is where I'm coming from right now, and you're in the same position.

But because of the larger issues having to do with this state's demographics,

We are losing big-time on the demographics, which is related to...

this state's GOP meltdown (which is just allowing the Dems to run rampant on their most extremist agendas),

In some ways I'm hoping the Dems will get 2/3 control and be able to pass unrestrained budget bills. That's the kind of thing that could lead to a backlash and reinvigorate the GOP and make people want to redistrict. Because I'm certain that this state would have a fiscal meltdown if the Dems get 2/3 control. Every state employee union (and there are a lot of them!) will be able to get lifetime healthcare and all kinds of other stuff that will put this state on course for a fiscal apocalypse.

If Heller isn't favorable, we're done. Flat out done.

I'll probably move. I'm sure that will be a relief to some gun owners in this state who will be rid of yet another fanatic, single-issue gun rights activist who is willing to work hard for years and years even with no visible signs of progress (that's part of being "fanatic").

The only thing left to us in that eventuality is a long, slow, painful rearguard action,

Well, that's basically what we've got right now. We get bad bills and congratulate ourselves for having put in language that weakens them. I'm not saying that's not an accomplishment of some kind, but that's what's going on.

and hope that the Dems implode in some way that allows the GOP to reassert itself. (Which could happen, given the state's budget mess.)

If they get 2/3 control, today's budget mess will look like "fat times".

I'll fight on despite whatever, at least until I move.

CCWFacts

03-28-2008, 02:06 AM

ok there are alot of people that can buy a gun. does that make alright for them to get a ccw, no. my nephew who is addicted to herion and other stuff, has never been charged or arrested for anything. could he go buy a gun threw a dealer? yes.

It's a felony for him to do so. But yes, nothing is preventing him from doing it.

Your point is right: heroin addicts who haven't been busted yet can buy guns. If we went shall-issue, it's seems obvious that that would be even more dangerous.

However... we have 40 states and decades of accumulated evidence on these types of questions, and, despite the reasonable fears about that kind of thing, the evidence shows it doesn't come up as a problem. Why not? I don't know the answer, but somehow, in the shall-issue states, where everyone who has a clean record and takes the training and does the paperwork can get a gun and carry it, we don't see evidence of the problems that you might expect.

Back when Florida became the first urban state to go shall-issue in 1986 they were making a bold experiment. There wasn't a lot of evidence about what happens when you let poor people, people in urban areas, all kinds of people, start carrying guns. Well, it worked fine there, and has for the past 22 years. Approximately 40 states have shall-issue or easy-issue type laws, and so we have a lot of accumulated evidence on these questions, and it's solidly, decisively positive.

Your concern and fear is reasonable but the evidence shows that it doesn't come up in practice.

there are alot of people who can buy guns that should not be alowwed to carry anytime they want. if you think they should there is a big lack of judgement on your part.

Again, your fears are reasonable, but at this stage we have mountains of evidence from 40 states that show that the type of problems you're alluding to just don't come up.

I can only guess about why. Here are some guesses:

The type of people who are addicts have chaotic lives and something like going through the training and bureaucracy of applying filters them out
The type of people who shouldn't carry may get flunked out of CCW training
Having a loaded gun in hand seems to sometimes have a sobering effect, even on angry people. "An armed society is a polite society" seems to work in part because carrying a gun has this "sobering effect".
Most people who can't control themselves do end up getting arrest records, and even in shall-issue states, it's possible for a law enforcement agency to use documented things like arrest records to deny issuance

Those are my speculations about why these problems are conspicuously absent in the shall-issue states.

As I said, there's a mountain of evidence and cumulative centuries of experience in this, so we know the answer now.

bulgron

03-28-2008, 02:12 AM

It is also true that only around 1% to 3% of any given population seems to bother with a CCW license. As you indicate, it's a bit of a hassle to get, and only those people who are most determined to be law-abiding citizens, and who have bothered to study firearms issues, would seem to be the type to bother.

So you self-select heroin addicts right out of that group, on the basis that they aren't exactly the type of people determined to be law abiding anyway.

bulgron

03-28-2008, 02:50 AM

Lots of frustration is where I'm coming from right now, and you're in the same position.

I'm not sure how frustrated I am. It's more that I'm getting increasingly pissed off. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, I'm just getting started on this particular problem.

....will put this state on course for a fiscal apocalypse.

It's already happening with all the teachers getting laid off, and Vallejo near bankruptcy. San Francisco too. Don't think people don't notice things like that. This year is grim because of the huge national backlash against Bush's policies, but if Dems think that this represents a generational shift in the electorate's voting habits, they're as wrong as Karl Rove was in 2004.

The truth of the matter is, Americans want to throw the bums out. And they don't particularly care which party the bums belong to.

There's more potential for political change in this state than people think. It looks static, but what it really is is a complex system that's building up a lot of stress. Sort of like an earthquake.

Anything can happen.

I'll probably move.

I'm now resigned to being stuck in Santa Clara County until my kids get out of high school many years from now. About the only thing that might change that is if the state decided to go house to house confiscating all guns. But thanks to Heller, I doubt very much that anything like that is in the cards in my lifetime, so my wife won't have to decide what to do about her husband that moved to Arizona.

I'm sure that will be a relief to some gun owners in this state who will be rid of yet another fanatic, single-issue gun rights activist who is willing to work hard for years and years even with no visible signs of progress (that's part of being "fanatic").

I don't understand people who come to a board like this and have a problem with someone like you. You sometimes say big, outrageous, controversial things. But so what? Part of fixing our problems involves thinking outside of the box, kicking ideas around that might look seriously crazy in retrospect. It's just part of the process. If that gets people riled up, so be it. We need people riled up. Apathy is what's killing us.

If they get 2/3 control, today's budget mess will look like "fat times".

I might have to put my kids in private school if the Dems get 2/3. Other than that, I'll just be writing a lot of checks to whatever legal team is busy beating the Dems about their head and shoulders with their own stupid gun control legislation.

I won't enjoy the state taxes that they levee, though. Hey, maybe that will be enough to convince my wife to move. Hmmm.....

If the state declares bankruptcy, can they afford to fight big 2A battles all the way to SCOTUS? Just spit ballin' here.

yellowfin

03-28-2008, 08:43 AM

If the state declares bankruptcy, can they afford to fight big 2A battles all the way to SCOTUS? Just spit ballin' here.
And yet they continue as they do now. They still pay the DOJ and various others to hunt down lawful gun owners, discourage millions of dollars of otherwise legal commerce, destroy businesss, etc. What is it that for some reason even when they darn near can't afford anything that still persecution of firearms is so worth it to them? They can't even tell who should be in this COUNTRY yet spending time throwing someone in jail or auditing a business because of a piece of sheet metal and a spring or two that they don't like is all that important?!??! It's like witch hunts against us is their heroin.

Glock22Fan

03-28-2008, 09:23 AM

ok there are alot of people that can buy a gun. does that make alright for them to get a ccw, no. my nephew who is addicted to herion and other stuff, has never been charged or arrested for anything. could he go buy a gun threw a dealer? yes. there are no drug test or anything else preventing him from buying one. since he can buy a gun should he be able to get a ccw, after all they don't drug test. now would you want a person to carry a gun with a ccw that has a problem like that? or what about people who cant control their temper? alot of people can buy a gun that have anger problems. should they carry all the time? there are alot of people who can buy guns that should not be alowwed to carry anytime they want. if you think they should there is a big lack of judgement on your part.

So, I repeat, who are you or I to decide? If you want, as you seem to be saying, that some people should be filtered out, tell us how you would decide how that filtering is to be done? As soon as you start filtering, you have discretion; we know how fairly that is NOT being applied today. If you want to propose that we go "Shall issue to citizens who pass a drug test," I think most of us could live with that. Should we add "and not to people who sometimes get angry and not to people who have been found innocent of murder, even though we know they did it and not to anyone else that I don't trust?"

This leads to what you originally requested, which is "Shall issue except to people that shouldn't carry," that's what we have today - with many sheriffs/chiefs think that nobody except their friends should carry.

As CCWFacts says, some 40 states have determined that "shall issue" does not lead to the problems you anticipate.

CCWFacts

03-28-2008, 11:16 AM

What is it that for some reason even when they darn near can't afford anything that still persecution of firearms is so worth it to them?

It's like a drug addiction for them. SF is gladly pursuing appeals for Prop H (handgun ban) even as they are likely heading towards bankruptcy.

Think of it this way: they're throwing money at their friends, like their friends' law firms, their friends who work in the DoJ, etc. Why would they stop doing this? What difference does it make to a termed-out mayor or termed-out leg. reps what happens to the state a couple of years from now? It makes no difference so they would rather throw money at their friends while they can.

And it's not just governments that do this.

I saw exactly the same thing during the dot-com boom, where some company would have absurd amounts of investor money, and they would blow it all on their own salaries and fun things. They knew they were heading for inevitable, quick, "pull the memory out of the computers" type bankruptcy, but it didn't matter because they were getting what they wanted: big fat salaries for themselves and their friends.

When a company does it, it's the fault of the board of directors for not exercising oversight. When a government does it, it's the fault of the voters. If the Dems do succeed in getting the magical 2/3 number, we're going to see what happens. We're the most prosperous state in the nation, and we have a draconian budget law which says they need 2/3 to pass a budget, and we could find ourselves in bankruptcy.

And yet they would still find the money to prosecute technical firearms violations, firearms non-violations, and defense of unconstitutional laws.

jamesob

03-28-2008, 11:28 AM

your absolutly right there is no way to tell who should have one . thats why its up to the sherriff to make a decision after all the liability falls on him. if he doesn't want to issue one thats his right. there is no good way to decide who should have one and probably never will be a way to decide. what i'm saying is just because you can legally buy a gun doesn't give you the right to carry when you want.

tango-52

03-28-2008, 11:33 AM

thats why its up to the sherriff to make a decision after all the liability falls on him.

The issuing agency cannot be held liable for the actions of the permitee. This is one of the lies that Sheriffs use to justify their illegal issuance policies. Stop spreading FUD.

Glock22Fan

03-28-2008, 12:27 PM

rkt88edmo

03-28-2008, 01:11 PM

Your discretion is appreciated :)

jamesob

03-28-2008, 01:21 PM

if you think a sherriff wouldn't be sued for the actions of someone that was issued a permit you are wrong. why was bryco arms sued for for the actions of one person. if you loan your car to somebody that did not have a licence and killed somebody, you think you wouldn't be sued. after all your not the one who killed them it was somebody else. people sue everybody involved when something goes wrong the sherriff is taking on a liability issue when permits are given. there is no FUD about that. and the ccw as of right now has flaws and is not perfect but there is no good solution. and as i said in my original post, you shouldn't have to have a reason to get one. if you want one you should be able to get one. i simply said there are some people that own guns that should not have them. i did not say in any way that they shouldn't get them, simply they should not have them. it would be impossible to weed out who should have and who should not.

tango-52

03-28-2008, 01:33 PM

if you think a sherriff wouldn't be sued for the actions of someone that was issued a permit you are wrong.

Does the DMV get sued when a drunk driver kills someone? Does the Board for Geologists get sued when there is a landslide? No. Governmental agencies cannot be sued for issuing licenses in accordance with the law. They can be sued if they discriminate on whom they issue licenses. I think that there is more liability in the latter than the former, as the work by Team BJ is showing. But for a Sheriff to say that he won't issue because of liability concerns is a smokescreen. Sheriffs who choose whom they grant a permit are doing so often to reward donors to their political campaigns. It is the only perk that they have to reward supporters and they don't want to give it up.

bulgron

03-28-2008, 01:43 PM

if you think a sherriff wouldn't be sued for the actions of someone that was issued a permit you are wrong.

This is why California should be shall issue on CCW. Right now Sheriff's can't be sued for the actions of a CCW holder, but a lot of people can't seem to understand that. But if the state is shall issue, then the decision is no longer the Sheriff's to make. In that case, the Sheriff clearly cannot be held liable for doing something that the law compels him to do.

But if people are uncomfortable with that, then to further protect our Sheriffs we should make the California DOJ be the issuing authority. Once our Sheriffs are completely out of the CCW loop, then they will be able to rest much easier at night.

Oh, and by the way, American citizens who can pass a criminal background check should be able to legally carry a firearm whenever their best judgement tells them they should be carrying a firearm. It's all part of that nasty little word that some people can't quite seem to understand: freedom (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/freedom). I've linked to an online dictionary to help you with your research into what that word means, exactly.

I particularly like definition 3b:

Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty.

Is our basic philosophy around here coming across crystal clear now?

Glock22Fan

03-28-2008, 02:27 PM

Not for the first time, I am in broad agreement with Bulgron. States like Florida and Utah have it all centralized. One standard across the state. One policy, one application form, one set of fees, one set of rules (none of these pesky local restrictions) and exclude local law enforcement completely.

You take whatever prescribed course there is (if any), send in the application form, fees and fingerprints, they do a background check and you get your permit.

yellowfin

03-28-2008, 02:39 PM

But if people are uncomfortable with that, then to further protect our Sheriffs we should make the California DOJ be the issuing authority. Once our Sheriffs are completely out of the CCW loop, then they will be able to rest much easier at night. There's a problem with that: the DOJ is anti so it would be MUCH WORSE putting it in their hands. They'd love to make it shall issue--with $1000+ application fee, 19/20 @ 25 yards with a snub, and 4 years waiting. The wrong people are writing the rules. They are also not elected, so they can't be removed by the people and really don't answer to anyone. Otherwise they'd have been kicked out long ago for all of this ridiculous nonsense. Putting it in their hands with the composition of the DOJ right now is like treating a rash on your skin by pouring gasoline on it and lighting yourself on fire.

Glock22Fan

03-28-2008, 03:25 PM

bulgron

03-28-2008, 03:33 PM

There's a problem with that: the DOJ is anti so it would be MUCH WORSE putting it in their hands. They'd love to make it shall issue--with $1000+ application fee, 19/20 @ 25 yards with a snub, and 4 years waiting. The wrong people are writing the rules. They are also not elected, so they can't be removed by the people and really don't answer to anyone. Otherwise they'd have been kicked out long ago for all of this ridiculous nonsense. Putting it in their hands with the composition of the DOJ right now is like treating a rash on your skin by pouring gasoline on it and lighting yourself on fire.

If we force shall-issue on this state via the courts, then we'll be able to address the worse of your fears via the courts as well. For example, I don't see how it can be defensible to make non-LEO take a tougher shooting test than LEO must take. I think we can get them on 14A equal protection right there. As for $1000 application fees, I know that in Santa Clara County the Sheriff asked to raise the CCW fees to $1000 so as to cover her costs (yeah right), so we already have that problem here. (I actually don't know if she got her fee hike approved or not.) But excessive fees are easily solved by forcing the issuing agency (DOJ, for example) to prove that they aren't making a profit from the fees.

Finally, maybe what we should do is just add the DOJ to the list of agencies that can issue. So for counties with sane and helpful Sheriff's departments, residents of those counties would not have to take a trip to the DOJ.

Actually, thinking things through here, maybe what we should do is push for CA state residents to be able to get a CCW from any issuing agency anywhere in the state. That way small rural Sheriff's departments can help their budgets out a bit by serving urban dwellers suffering under crappy, statist, un-American, anti-Constitutional Sheriffs.

yellowfin

03-28-2008, 03:38 PM

Hope it would be determined by the legislature?!? Exactly how are they any better right now?!?!??!

Don't see how it can be defensible? NONE OF THE LAWS THEY HAVE NOW are defensible either, but they're still alive and kicking.

Billy Jack

03-28-2008, 03:52 PM

I am reading give CCW issuing authority to DMV, DOJ and so forth. How about DCA or perhaps BSIS? All highly qualified state agencies with investigators. Do you really want Jerry Brown deciding who gets a CCW?

Lets everyone stop and take a deep breath. The current system is not flawed if properly administered. I field questions daily from CCW wantabees that scare the heck out of me. And after looking at CCW files for over 20 years that is saying a lot. Unless members are prepared to devote as much time to politics as to posting you will not change the political climate in California. Judges and juries have sided with Plaintiffs in the majority of California court cases involving CCW's. I am involved in three as I write this post. That is the proper forum at this time. This may actually be enhanced by the pending SCOTUS ruling.

Been working with CCW applicants a long time. Long before I began to post.
Always keep your eye on the ball. Getting a CCW anywhere in the state is a Chess Game. The goal, as all Chess players know is to deprive your opponent of any meaningful moves. I believe it is called Checkmate. We will be calling that out a couple of times this year.

Follow us over at: www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Billy Jack

"When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law....just a fight for survival!" Billy Jack 1971

Glock22Fan

03-28-2008, 03:55 PM

Hope it would be determined by the legislature?!? Exactly how are they any better right now?!?!??!

O.K. Let's leave it all up to people like Sheriff XXX, who will charge you a hidden fee of tens of thousands in donations to his campaign fund and deny everyone else.

In case you haven't noticed, it is quite common for laws to contain restrictions on maximum length of training, maximum fees and so forth.

And, I agree with Billy Jack, it doesn't have to be the DOJ.

CCWFacts

03-28-2008, 09:30 PM

thats why its up to the sherriff to make a decision after all the liability falls on him.

That's absolutely incorrect. That's the excuse they use for not issuing. There's no basis for it. I've asked and looked for any instances of an issuing authority being sued over the actions of a licensee and haven't found any instances of it. I have looked for instances of issuing authorities being sued for permit denial and have found quite a few. And the picture becomes even more clear in other states. Every year, there are murders and other serious crimes committed by permit holders in other states, and, as far as I can tell, no instances of the state issuing authorities being sued.

Stop spreading this falsehood.

CCWFacts

03-28-2008, 09:33 PM

Oh, and by the way, American citizens who can pass a criminal background check should be able to legally carry a firearm whenever their best judgement tells them they should be carrying a firearm.

I agree, except it applies to all legal residents of the United States, not just citizens.

Glock22Fan

03-28-2008, 10:10 PM

So, MrMonkey, the person who video'd the Rodney King beating ended up in jail? If I remember it did have a sound track.

What about those news helicopters videoing chases, and the reporters recording the Hollywood shootout?

Many police cars have cameras/recorders, they are shown on TV reality programs all the time. Why should the police be able to tape, and not us?

What about security cameras in various places, do they have to be turned off whenever a cop comes into sight?

I must admit that for someone who isn't yet qualified as a lawyer, you are pretty sure of yourself on any and every topic. Far more so than is my wife's uncle, who was president of the California bar (or something like that, I've never really bothered to find out) before he retired or, for that matter, any other lawyer I've ever asked any kind of question.

Please quote the penal codes, something that you are seemingly unwilling to do. Then I might take you more seriously.

yellowfin

03-29-2008, 07:40 AM

Every year, there are murders and other serious crimes committed by permit holders in other states, Maybe 1 or 2 tops, if ever. The incidence is so low you're more likely to be hit by a falling piece of an airplane than to see a crime committed by a permit holder.

CCWFacts

03-29-2008, 10:56 AM

Maybe 1 or 2 tops, if ever. The incidence is so low you're more likely to be hit by a falling piece of an airplane than to see a crime committed by a permit holder.

Oh, definitely. Crime rates for CCW holders are very very low. But they aren't zero, so my point is, every year there are victims of serious crimes committed by CCW holders, and yet... there don't seem to be any lawsuits against issuing authorities. My point is, if it were possible to sue an issuing authority for the actions of a permitee, we would see such lawsuits in other states, because there are victims of crimes committed by CCW holders. Not many, but enough that we would certainly have seen such a lawsuit by now if it were possible.

But it's not.

However... "We don't issue because of liability" is the #1 excuse (lie) for not issuing I've heard. I've heard it personally from my issuing authority, I saw it in the news article in Santa Maria, I've heard other people say it. If there's one small, easy-to-pass reform I would like to see now, it would be to put something in black-and-white in the statutes that says, issuing authorities, both personally and as their government entities, have no liability for the actions of CCW permit holders. It's not necessary but I would like it to be there in black-and-white, referring specifically to CCW, and referring both to the authority personally and to his government entity, to completely remove this excuse. It shouldn't be too hard to pass something like that also.

yellowfin

03-29-2008, 11:20 AM

If that works I'll buy you a big steak dinner. It's an excuse just because it's the quickest thing they can think of...bottom line is they'll use ANY excuse. The problem is that there is no punishment for them not issuing, and there very well needs to be.

CenterX

03-29-2008, 11:57 AM

Public assess to information vs public display of said information is a real big difference.

Someone gets your name - you are now a target! Or the poor b$*#$d that has the same name as you is as well.

If you have ever been the target of a mob of misguided kooks then you will understand a concern for not displaying ones name as a gun owner let alone a CCW.

Where do bad guys’ go to rob and steal guns? Where they are!

If I’m not mistaken, a paper printed all of the local CCWs in a different county several years ago and the staff got into legal hot water for exposing someone to a threatening situation. Then I read it on the internet so is it credible?

The public record was set for legal access in a "free and open society" (one of the bases of the constitution of the US of A). It should not and does not give anyone the right to plaster the information across the world, then that becomes invasion of privacy.

Are you on google?
Can someone find you from reading the newspaper?
When will all of your public data starts showing on google under the guise of "safety to the public"? What will you do?

By the way - human rights include the right to self defense so isn't it tyranny to take away anyone’s right - even a drunk or a thief or hooker - to self defense? Are all men graded as some are more equal than others and have more rights than others?
I do believe only the pure are destine to have any rights, for there are folks devising high-tech machines that will someday be used to judge the purity of each living sole in this great land of ours - and the names of the impure will be public record.
On the web! Then it has to be true.

jamesob

03-30-2008, 01:08 AM

That's absolutely incorrect. That's the excuse they use for not issuing. There's no basis for it. I've asked and looked for any instances of an issuing authority being sued over the actions of a licensee and haven't found any instances of it. I have looked for instances of issuing authorities being sued for permit denial and have found quite a few. And the picture becomes even more clear in other states. Every year, there are murders and other serious crimes committed by permit holders in other states, and, as far as I can tell, no instances of the state issuing authorities being sued.

Stop spreading this falsehood.

so what your saying is an elected sheriff can't be sued? thats weird because our sheriff here in tulare co. has been sued for all kinds of incidents. has he ever been sued over a ccw incident, no. a lawsuit involving an incident i guarantee his name would be on the lawsuit. would he be found liable for anything, i dont know maybe not. what i am saying his name would be in a lawsuit because he gave a person the power to carry a loaded firearm in public. and i know a city chief can be sued over certain things as to where a sheiff cant because the sheriff was elected. the truth of the matter is this situation has not happened yet so none of us know what would happen. is what i said fud maybe, maybe not.

yellowfin

03-30-2008, 09:29 AM

Has a sheriff ever been recalled successfully?

Glock22Fan

03-30-2008, 01:26 PM

so what your saying is an elected sheriff can't be sued? thats weird because our sheriff here in tulare co. has been sued for all kinds of incidents. has he ever been sued over a ccw incident, no. a lawsuit involving an incident i guarantee his name would be on the lawsuit. would he be found liable for anything, i dont know maybe not. what i am saying his name would be in a lawsuit because he gave a person the power to carry a loaded firearm in public. and i know a city chief can be sued over certain things as to where a sheiff cant because the sheriff was elected. the truth of the matter is this situation has not happened yet so none of us know what would happen. is what i said fud maybe, maybe not.

James, can I point out that your keyboard has a couple of buttons called "Shift?" If you hold one of these down while you type the first letter of a sentence, or the "i" key when you mean yourself, you will get a capital letter. Use of these, and the "Enter" key occasionally to break your text into paragraphs, will make your text much easier to read.

I know this is just internet, and therefore spelling etc. isn't, maybe, as important as in some other media, but you do want us to read your comments, don't you?

And no, a sheriff can't be sued for reasonable use of his discretion issuing permits, only unreasonable use (abuse). Can't be bothered to look up the statute, but I assure you it is there.

GuyW

03-31-2008, 09:31 AM

....maybe what we should do is push for CA state residents to be able to get a CCW from any issuing agency anywhere in the state. That way small rural Sheriff's departments can help their budgets out a bit by serving urban dwellers suffering under crappy, statist, un-American, anti-Constitutional Sheriffs.

You mean, the state of the law pre-Iselton??

GuyW

03-31-2008, 09:38 AM

...i know a city chief can be sued over certain things as to where a sheiff cant because the sheriff was elected....is what i said fud maybe, maybe not.

I'm extremely dubious that a Chief can be sued for something that a Sheriff can't (except "fundraising").

yellowfin

03-31-2008, 12:11 PM

You mean, the state of the law pre-Isleton?? What was/is Isleton?

CCWFacts

03-31-2008, 12:23 PM

What was/is Isleton?

Chief Byrd, of the tiny town of Iselton, Sacramento County, had a budget problem in 1996. The tiny city was on the verge of being involuntarily disincorporated. Chief Byrd had an idea. He started issuing permits to residents of any city in Sacramento County (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E4DE1539F93AA35751C0A9609582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)and charging high fees for this. There was quickly a line out the door. Budget problem solved.

Unfortunately this came to the attention of the protectors of our freedom in the state legislature, who put a stop to it. They change the law so that a chief can only issue to residents of his own city.

If that were to be undone, so that a chief could issue in any city in the same county (or maybe any city anywhere), we would effectively be shall-issue except in San Francisco. All the large urban counties (except SF) have enough cities that some city would start issuing as a fundraiser. Why not? If you offered permits in LA at $1,000 each, there would be a line out the door and whichever city did it would quickly raise $10mil or more. That pays for a lot of overtime, salary raises, and training sessions in Hawaii.

In the last fiscal year, Chief Byrd managed to collect $49,128 in weapons' permit fees. When he predicted that gun revenue would hit $176,000 this year, the City Council agreed to increase his department's budget by 80 percent. The Chief is expecting two new squad cars any day now.

The same would happen today, and in LA, people would gladly pay a lot more than $150 for permits. People here will spend $150 for lunch, to give an idea of how much revenue there could be in CCWs. There's enough untapped CCW revenue in LA to buy a dozen new helicopters every year, or to offer "we'll make a down payment on your house" hiring bonuses to PD recruits.

Our last Republican AG, Dan Lungren, fought hard to stop it, such as by refusing to run the BG checks on these, and it was eventually stopped in the leg. A couple years later, a shall-issue bill was introduced into the assembly and made it to the floor. We've moved backwards since then.

This would be a great legal change but the memory of Isleton is fresh and I don't see how that would happen.

yellowfin

03-31-2008, 01:38 PM

CCWFacts

03-31-2008, 02:18 PM

Why even have it be high fees? Why not just go for volume and make it statewide? Sure I might pay $500 for shall issue but the point of fact is that A) I don't currently have $500 to spare B) I want as many other people as possible to get them as well, for their own benefit but mostly for the benefit of having a locality with as high a CCW percentage as possible and C) I don't like them getting in the habit of upcharging for a RIGHT.

I'm only suggesting high fees as a way of getting support from LEOs and cities.

Ideally, the fees would be just enough to cover the administration of it, which would probably be in the $100 more-or-less range, like it is in the other states.

As you say, we shouldn't have to "reward" someone for our rights, but I'm willing to do all kinds of things to get issuance started in this state.

One thing would be to give issuing authorities a broad range of prices. The currently-shall-issue locations would leave their moderate prices unchanged, and PDs in LA would see this as an opportunity to give themselves a raise. Not at all ideal, but we're in a difficult position in this state. Other states, like Ohio, have shown a pattern of passing a bad CCW law, and then improving it. That's what could happen here, if we could ever pass any kind of CCW law at all.

BTW, some enterprising city could still repeat the "Isleton Experiment" by imposing very relaxed standards for residency. I'm not sure how residency is defined but there are a broad range of possible meanings of it.

bulgron

03-31-2008, 03:02 PM

BTW, some enterprising city could still repeat the "Isleton Experiment" by imposing very relaxed standards for residency. I'm not sure how residency is defined but there are a broad range of possible meanings of it.

Or enterprising county. Imagine if Kern county or someplace like that declared "residency" to mean your name appears on a rental lease agreement somewhere in the county, and you spend at least one weekend a year in that county. We could quickly set up a CalGuns apartment(*) with about 500 people on the lease and be off to the races.

Just thinking outloud here. :D

(*)Or, heck, make it a CalGuns lodge complete with firing range. Might as well make it fun to go to Kern county. :D :D

Xerxes

04-09-2008, 09:42 PM