PDA

View Full Version : If you could immediately disable one Califorina Firearm restriction...


FlyingPen
04-16-2008, 9:00 PM
What would it be? I'm opening this up to mean that you get to enact one directive without legislative or executive or judicial oversight to make it come true. I'm curious what most Calgunners find the most restrictive gun control or wish they had the right to.

GSequoia
04-16-2008, 9:04 PM
You mean disable one restriction?

FlyingPen
04-16-2008, 9:05 PM
Yup, updated the title, duh thanks for the catch.

Hopi
04-16-2008, 9:05 PM
RKBA addition to our state constitution explicitly protecting individuals citizen rights.

oops, typed this before i saw the 'enact' edited to 'disable'.

colddeadhands
04-16-2008, 9:08 PM
for me personally, ccw is priority.

thazard
04-16-2008, 9:16 PM
To many to choose from :( , had to go with no mag lock since I just finished my build.

Liberty1
04-16-2008, 9:26 PM
12031 will be the key to shall issue or eventually Vermont carry.

eijjie33
04-16-2008, 9:26 PM
do i have to pick only one?:(

CitaDeL
04-16-2008, 9:37 PM
12031 will be the key to shall issue or eventually Vermont carry.

+ 1

This would have the immediate effect of restoring the Second in California by decriminalizing loaded, exposed carry. The next would be repealing State and Federal prohibitions to possessing firearms in a 'school zone'... after that, doesnt matter... No one would need to ask permission and have no need for good cause.

justakid
04-16-2008, 9:39 PM
I think that those who are wanting Vermont carry should just move to Vermont.

Instant success on exposed carry.

deldgeetar
04-16-2008, 9:44 PM
Shall Issue CCW. Almost guaranteed other unnecessary gun control measures will fall after this.

dfletcher
04-16-2008, 9:57 PM
The others are for fun, but the ability to defend myself when out and about comes first.

M. Sage
04-16-2008, 10:15 PM
Shall-issue, if not Vermont Carry.

I think that those who are wanting Vermont carry should just move to Vermont.

Instant success on exposed carry.

Better yet: people who think I shouldn't be allowed to carry can all move to Europe.

gose
04-16-2008, 10:26 PM
Shall-issue, if not Vermont Carry.
Better yet: people who think I shouldn't be allowed to carry can all move to the UK.

Fixed it. There are actually some decent places in Europe that might not want them. The UK will take what they get though...

M. Sage
04-16-2008, 10:27 PM
Fixed it. There are actually some decent places in Europe that might not want them. The UK will take what they get though...

Cause the UK isn't in Europe, I forgot that. :p

You truly have become an American. :chris:

dsinope
04-16-2008, 10:39 PM
Better yet: people who think I shouldn't be allowed to carry can all move to Europe.

Couldn't we just partition the state? Gun-Free Cal (say, the Bay to LA County) and Gun-Freedom Cal (everyplace else)?

I'll say shall issue.

FlyingPen
04-16-2008, 10:50 PM
That's funny as the republican base of California is often called the J or fish hook. That is the interior of the state east of the coasts then wrapping around to the sharp point of the J or hook in San Diego.

The trend in San Diego is turning very blue though.

Socal858
04-16-2008, 11:01 PM
shall issue CCW.

ill take my safety over mag dropping fun. i did my mag dropping over the summers in texas with my family. its pretty cool but gets kinda old fast

CrippledPidgeon
04-17-2008, 12:26 AM
I'd get rid of the handgun list. Seriously annoying. Makes guns not on the list, but brought in by LEOs ridiculously expensive ($1700 premium on an HK45?!), and makes absolutely no sense. Guns that are mechanically no different from a similar model with a different finish aren't allowed (SS P232 is legal, the blued is not). Also then the mag disconnect requirement which, let's face it, is only there to keep idiots from shooting themselves, would go away.

Another that I'd abolish is microstamping. If criminals actually bought guns through dealers, it makes sense. But let's face it, all that will happen is that innocent gun owners will end up getting implicated in firearm crimes.

DedEye
04-17-2008, 1:03 AM
do i have to pick only one?:(

+1 :(.

I voted for CCW though.

chris
04-17-2008, 5:16 AM
how about getting rid of the idiots that propose all this crap. hang mans noos is a good start.


RKBA in the state Constitution with a clause that if F'd with instant removal from office and jail time.

yeah that is a stretch but i can wish for it.

aileron
04-17-2008, 5:30 AM
I think you should of put repeal SB-23 on there. Instead of breaking out bits and pieces for me to choose. But because they were broken out, I voted for CCW, because that is more important to the general welfare of the citizens of this state.

But I would of sold out if I could of chose to lose SB-23. ;)

spencerhut
04-17-2008, 5:48 AM
Living in a county where CCW is almost shall issue (Madera) colored my opinion a little. The wife and I shoot USPSA type matches so being able to buy certain guns and magazines that are verboten in the state is more a priority for us. It sure would be nice to buy a new SVI with some fresh 27 round mags or even get something just for fun like a PS2000 with those cool 50 round mags. Hell, how about just getting anything that is commonly available to the rest of the US?
Obviously priorities change once you have the safety thing covered.

AngelDecoys
04-17-2008, 6:54 AM
RKBA addition to our state constitution explicitly protecting individuals citizen rights.

That would be my 1st priorty. That alone would change the landscape for the rest to follow.

That's funny as the republican base of California is often called the J or fish hook. That is the interior of the state east of the coasts then wrapping around to the sharp point of the J or hook in San Diego.

The trend in San Diego is turning very blue though.

Good idea for a thread. Bravo! Dems and the GOP both have their strategies. Dems learned long ago to push, and support the 'lower' typical non-party municipal roles (school board, city supervisors, etc) with their candidates. Those lower roles then have experience to become viable candidates for further 'higher' office. (That's a Dean strategy mirrored accross the country). The GOP is doing the same strategy now, albeit 10 years behind.

Shall-issue, if not Vermont Carry.

I would love that here. There's a federal CCW bill (http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/04/14/news/041508dcgunrecip.txt) in the works that forces reciprocity between states. If it goes, that Utah/Florida CCW would be valid here in CA.

E Pluribus Unum
04-17-2008, 8:15 AM
But I would of sold out if I could of chose to lose SB-23. ;)

No way would that be a fair trade. We have done a good job at circumventing SB-23. After the Heller decision and the incorporation hurtle SB-23 will be all but null and void anyway. We stand a chance at having unrestricted access to OLL because it is what the army carries. If I am reading it correctly, we may even be able to appeal the full auto ban and have select fire weapons. The "Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986" essentially stops anyone from manufacturing a privately ownede NFA weapon. As a result all of the NFA weapons are WAY over priced. We may be able to manufacture these weapons someday. If not in California, certainly in free states.

The dawn of a new era is amoungst us... :) No more SB-23 is a real possibility.

CCWFacts
04-17-2008, 8:39 AM
I picked "shall issue". That's the only one of these things that will start saving lives immediately, the day it goes into effect.

glockman19
04-17-2008, 9:06 AM
Easy Question:

Shall Issue CCW

FlyingPen
04-17-2008, 9:22 AM
I think lifting of the full auto ban is entirely too optimistic and not realistic at all.

Besides, with how much ammo costs, I think the cost of a range day on full auto would be too cost prohibitive :(

hill billy
04-17-2008, 9:26 AM
Shall issue statewide for sure.

Quake0
04-17-2008, 10:04 AM
Its a hard one to choose. I picked ccw

InvictusManeo
04-17-2008, 10:15 AM
Shall issue.

Californio
04-17-2008, 10:25 AM
I voted CCW because it restores the Fundamental Right of Self-defense, restore that mentality back into the judicial mind and the rest will fall by themselves.

Josh3239
04-17-2008, 11:56 AM
I also choose CCW. Self defense is one of the most important rights a person should have. It is really a silly idea that people walk down the street with no knowledge or means of being able to defend themselves, instead putting their security, bodies, money, and valuables in the hands of Police force. A Police force that cannot keep everyone safe nor can they get all the scum off the streets. It is really unnatural thinking IMO.

High caps would be nice, but reloads is extremely fast with a handgun and they couldn't be used in magazine locked rifles.

No more mag locks would also be nice, but taking 2 seconds more to remove a magazine from my rifle at the range doesn't bother me. Also, magazine locks could be added to any firearm with a little thought and creativity.

I thought about removing the DOJ safe list but then thought what good are all these extra handguns if you cannot carry them for self-defense? To be clear though, I am absolutly not defending the Safe list. I'd just prefer to be able to carry the weapon for self defense.

The 10 day wait period is a pain in the butt, but once again what good is getting a firearm in less than 24hrs if you cannot even carry it for self defense? To be clear though, I am absolutly not defending the 10 days. I'd just prefer to be able to carry the weapon for self defense after 10 days then not be able to carry it after I buy it.

cartman
04-17-2008, 1:15 PM
I think ccw for all counties would do the most to protect the most people.

CitaDeL
04-17-2008, 5:00 PM
I voted CCW because it restores the Fundamental Right of Self-defense, restore that mentality back into the judicial mind and the rest will fall by themselves.

"CCW" restores a right of self defense? Allow me to be devil's advocate for a moment.

If you are refering to a license to carry concealed, you are talking about paying money (or buying) for a piece of paper, surrendering your 2nd,4th,5th, 9th and 14th amendment rights in order to do something that most describe as an inalienable right.

The license to carry concealed confers no rights but only grants you revocable priviledges, governed by an authority possessed by a propensity to usurp powers that were not endowed by the Constitution.

The "CCW" is in effect a taxation on the excersize of a right. So how does buying one 'restore' anything? If anything, it removes your rights- not restore them.

69Mach1
04-17-2008, 5:06 PM
Repeal the SB23 features ban. The most un-common sense legislation ever.

Eric_Oh
04-17-2008, 5:24 PM
"CCW" restores a right of self defense? Allow me to be devil's advocate for a moment.

If you are refering to a license to carry concealed, you are talking about paying money (or buying) for a piece of paper, surrendering your 2nd,4th,5th, 9th and 14th amendment rights in order to do something that most describe as an inalienable right.

The license to carry concealed confers no rights but only grants you revocable priviledges, governed by an authority possessed by a propensity to usurp powers that were not endowed by the Constitution.

The "CCW" is in effect a taxation on the excersize of a right. So how does buying one 'restore' anything? If anything, it removes your rights- not restore them.


So essentially, you're saying that there should be no ccw process at all but rather that, under the 2Am, we are entitled to carry concealed or otherwise. Ultimately, that the system of applying and approving for ccw of individuals is a process that acts in violation of that right by forcing government regulation?

I've never sat down and gave ccw that much thought but thats a good argument. Something to think about....

M. Sage
04-17-2008, 7:53 PM
Couldn't we just partition the state? Gun-Free Cal (say, the Bay to LA County) and Gun-Freedom Cal (everyplace else)?

I'll say shall issue.

No. I live in the Bay Area. If you don't/haven't lived here, you'd be shocked at how many pro-gun people there actually are. Thanks to some "creative" redistricting, we're effectively silenced, though.

Again, if the antis are so bugged about the idea of me carrying, they can go somewhere like China. They'd fit right in.

Zhukov
04-17-2008, 8:13 PM
It's true. All of my friends, who go from being pretty conservative to basically a modern hippie are all pro-gun rights. Some may not choose to own guns, but they don't wish to infringe on our choice to own them and use them in self-defense.

And I know I've converted a few friends of friends from anti-gun to either neutral or pro-gun.

I think the sad part is that the Bay Area is automatically lumped with SF(the bane of the world) in terms of how people think we all view guns.

CA_Libertarian
04-17-2008, 10:01 PM
So many to choose from... how can you choose just one?

I would say decriminalize concealed carry. You have 'shall issue CCW' as an option. I would rather take government out of the business of giving permission to exercise rights, so I can't take that option.

Actually, the one that get's my vote would read "fully repeal the 'California Gun-Free School Zone Act." The presence of guns makes almost any place safer (the only exception I can think of would be a prison). Do it for the children!

CitaDeL
04-17-2008, 11:11 PM
So essentially, you're saying that there should be no ccw process at all but rather that, under the 2Am, we are entitled to carry concealed or otherwise. Ultimately, that the system of applying and approving for ccw of individuals is a process that acts in violation of that right by forcing government regulation?

I've never sat down and gave ccw that much thought but thats a good argument. Something to think about....

(Nodding) Yes. Decriminalize concealed carry (12025) and loaded carry (12031) and possession in a 'school zone' (626.9) and the need to ask permission goes away. No Good cause statements. No political pandering. No repeated violation of your rights. No need to renew.

If I had to pick of the above three, Id want 12031 struck down first.

RedDawn
04-17-2008, 11:25 PM
Shall issue CCW. No brainer.
What's the point of a firearm if you do not have it readily accessible?

Rhetorical question by the way...:rolleyes:

Fantasma
04-18-2008, 12:27 AM
I rather be able to legally protect myself with a CCW the rest of the options are more like a benefit to me.

I don't mind the other stuff its more of a hassle what we have here in california, but CCW 100% its for my safety i wish they gave them more easily.

cbn620
04-18-2008, 1:58 AM
For me it's all about repealing the broken AW ban. I voted for being able to use regular magazines instead of mag locks.

You should have included an option on that poll for repealing the AWB!

Nodda Duma
04-18-2008, 8:55 AM
I thought about choosing to remove the AWB, 10-day wait, and all that, but I realized that in the end what we all really want is lower crime and a greater understanding among Californians on how gun-carrying law-abiding citizens can impact that.

My firearms collection consists entirely of rifles and I suck at pistol shooting, so I don't have any personal interest in Concealed-carry. But even I can see that Shall-Issue Concealed Carry really must be the first choice. Do that, and the resultant effect on crime statistics--as has happened in all other concealed-carry states--will make all other California restrictions fall away that much easier.

-Jason

Black Majik
04-18-2008, 8:59 AM
Definitely shall issue CCW. Though getting rid of the AWB would be a very close 2nd.

Paratus et Vigilans
04-18-2008, 9:46 AM
The others are for fun, but the ability to defend myself when out and about comes first.

+1 Well said. Right to the heart of the matter.

FatOnCoke
04-18-2008, 12:31 PM
I don't care about No 10 day waiting period and Shall Issue CCW in all California counties .

I thought most counties issue CCW now, just not to most people. I don't really have anything I need to use the gun for in less than 10 days.

Getting rid of the AWB about be the best!

FlyingPen
04-18-2008, 12:36 PM
As I understand it, shall Issue means they must issue it unless you're a felon.

stag1500
04-18-2008, 2:41 PM
As I understand it, shall Issue means they must issue it unless you're a felon.

Correct.

thegratenate
04-18-2008, 9:50 PM
I live in a county that issues permits for people who are able to submit good cause. I am in the process of getting my permit approved, and it appears that I will get a permit sometime before the end of the year.

Even with a permit in my wallet my vote would still be the same, SHALL ISSUE CCW, I believe that it is the one thing that is a health issue, while the other options are more of an inconvenience.

We need to work towards removing all of the unconstitutional restrictions from the law books, but that one step, would be a giant leap and help more people than any of the others.

Paladin
04-19-2008, 5:49 PM
As I understand it, shall Issue means they must issue it unless you're a felon.I do NOT claim to be an expert on the Shall Issue states' individual laws, but from what I've read, there are usually also exclusions for people who have specific mental problems, illegal drug arrests, etc.

You can find more info over at the NRA-ILA's website:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=18

As others have said, Shall Issue has been shown to reduce crime. Crimes are what the antis use to sell the public on "gun control." More Guns, Less Crime, Less Gun Control! All other things being equal, Shall Issue, IMO, should make it easier for us to repeal other gun control measures, but the reverse may not be true. As I said in the title of a thread months ago, CCW: There is NO SUBSTITUTE! ! !
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=60176

I am glad to see that Shall Issue continues to beat out the 2nd place choice by more than 2 to 1.

The below I just posted in another thread, but it could fit here too.

*****

The more I think about it, the more I think that VT Carry should be our ultimate goal. To me, the idea that you have the right to use deadly force to defend your/others' lives in public, and yet the gov't that forbids you from carrying a deadly weapon is under no legal duty to protect your life, is ludicrous, esp for females. The only deadly force we can use is unarmed combat or improvised weapons against BGs armed w/knives, clubs and/or guns? That's insane!

For far too long we have put up with some politician w/a shield and a gun paternalistically saying it is for our own good, that the public can't be trusted w/firearms in public, that alpha-male heroes of the "thin blue line" will protect us. Hogwash! Sorry, but in the vast majority of cases, YOU will be your own first responder. The only question is whether you'll be equipped and trained to defend your life or not. LEOs are usually 2nd responders. If they get there before you're dead, great. If not, your descendants can't sue them for having disarmed you.

Someone in another thread (no, I'm not going to track it down), said CCW permits support this loss of our 2nd A RKBA (and someone else said they may be a way of registering gun owners). That is perhaps true, but, IMO, there is no way (barring a serious Heller win) that the PRK will go straight from May Issue to VT Carry. So I see increasing May Issue and then going to Shall Issue as necessary evils until we can get to VT Carry.

*****

http://www.nraila.org/images/rtcmaplg.jpg

Shawn L
04-19-2008, 6:02 PM
CCW for me.

CCWFacts
04-19-2008, 7:42 PM
I do NOT claim to be an expert on the Shall Issue states' individual laws, but from what I've read, there are usually also exclusions for people who have specific mental problems, illegal drug arrests, etc.

Likewise, I have my points of knowledge but I'm not an expert. But what Paladin says is right: CCWs can be denied for a lot of reasons that are less than felonies. This is a good thing, IMHO. If there's documentation that someone is habitually getting drunk and brawling, that's not the type of person who should be CCWing, even if he hasn't had a felony. I believe most states have some mechanism for denying such people. It involves the issuing authority proving "this guy shouldn't be packing", which is the opposite of what we have, where the applicant has to prove, "I should be packing".

I'm sure we all know people who have not had felony convictions, but shouldn't be owning or carrying guns.

wilit
04-19-2008, 7:47 PM
I voted for the 10 day waiting period. I can see maybe having a waiting period for your first long rifle and your first pistol (one 10 day period each) but after that you should be able to cash and carry.

POINTMANDDT
04-19-2008, 8:53 PM
I picked "shall issue". That's the only one of these things that will start saving lives immediately, the day it goes into effect.

+ 1 I couldn't have said it better. Although lets say California became a "shall Issue” state, then what exactly changes when applying. They still have to make sure you are a person of moral value, that you have good reason and no felonies right? I do understand liability is lifted from the issuer, but other then that isn't the above requirements the same. Lastly, what are the chances of California becoming a shall issue state in the next year or two?

CCWFacts
04-19-2008, 9:00 PM
+ 1 I couldn't have said it better. Although lets say California became a "shall Issue” state, then what exactly changes when applying. They still have to make sure you are a person of moral value, that you have good reason and no felonies right?

I must say, you're getting it a bit confused here.

Right now, to get a CCW, you require:


Complying with the application (filling it out, taking the class, etc)
Good character
Good cause

The simplest way for CA to go shall-issue would be to simply get rid of #3, or change it so that "personal protection" is sufficient and issuing authorities have no discretion about that.

I do understand liability is lifted from the issuer,

ISSUING AUTHORITIES ALREADY HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF PERMIT HOLDERS!

Lastly, what are the chances of California becoming a shall issue state in the next year or two?

There are only two possible ways it could happen in the next year or two:

favorable Heller decision, followed by other cases. I think this is not just possible, but likely.
A national reciprocity bill would put tremendous pressure on issuing authorities here to start issuing. This is more of a long-shot than Heller

berto
04-19-2008, 11:43 PM
No more safe list for me. More guns and lower prices.

POINTMANDDT
04-20-2008, 11:36 AM
I must say, you're getting it a bit confused here.

Right now, to get a CCW, you require:


Complying with the application (filling it out, taking the class, etc)
Good character
Good cause

The simplest way for CA to go shall-issue would be to simply get rid of #3, or change it so that "personal protection" is sufficient and issuing authorities have no discretion about that.



ISSUING AUTHORITIES ALREADY HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF PERMIT HOLDERS!



There are only two possible ways it could happen in the next year or two:

favorable Heller decision, followed by other cases. I think this is not just possible, but likely.
A national reciprocity bill would put tremendous pressure on issuing authorities here to start issuing. This is more of a long-shot than Heller

thanks for the information. Now my last question is, what can I do to make fight the for CCW (shall issue)in California. Any direction would be appreciated.

Pointcrossed
04-20-2008, 10:32 PM
thanks for the information. Now my last question is, what can I do to make fight the for CCW (shall issue)in California. Any direction would be appreciated.

It can start with gun laws in California but cant finish there; definitely a good start here.

A few things have to happen in California:

1. Make Voluntary Firearms/CCW training to state citizens through county sheriffs dept a self funded mandate. (like CHP does for motorcycle training, and like the DMV is self funded) Other states do this for CCW.

2. Allow open carry during State Emergencies.

3. Promote civilian marksmanship programs.

4. Make State funds mismanagement punishable that includes the abuse of state funds that only benefit one class of citizen or community. (equal rights to every taxpayer)

caliboy1321
04-20-2008, 10:40 PM
You missed a big one, ability to get NFA items

M. Sage
04-21-2008, 4:58 PM
You missed a big one, ability to get NFA items

.. I can't even have a pistol grip on my detachable mag AK, and you're worried about NFA?

Baby steps, my friend.. baby steps.

caliboy1321
04-21-2008, 5:47 PM
NFA assumes you can have detachable mags because it goes around the aw law ;-)

Corbin Dallas
04-21-2008, 8:22 PM
Where's the "All of the above" button????