Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:20 PM
Markinsac Markinsac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 563
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default 2013 CA AB 871 - Jones - Concealed weapons

This bill would establish that personal protection is good cause for issuance of a license to carry concealed.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...arch_keywords=


Quote:
AB 871, as introduced, Jones. Concealed weapons.

Existing law authorizes the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county to issue a license to carry a concealed firearm to an applicant for that license if the applicant is of good moral character, good cause exists for issuance of the license, the applicant meets specified residency requirements, and the applicant has completed a specified course of training, including firearm safety.

This bill would require the sheriff or head of a municipal police department to issue that license if the applicant meets those requirements. The bill would also specify that good cause, for purposes of these provisions, includes personal protection or self-defense. Because the bill would impose new duties on local law enforcement officials who will be required to issue these licenses if all of the requirements are met, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:24 PM
penguin0123 penguin0123 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,667
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I bet an eCookie that this bill gets traded away in Committee in exchange for some of the other bills (e.g., SB-396, SB-374).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:24 PM
Cruznegao Cruznegao is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Irvine
Posts: 584
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'd love to see that. But will wait seated
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:47 PM
Kid Stanislaus Kid Stanislaus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oakdale, CA
Posts: 4,421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I can't imagine what would move the liberal majority to look twice at this bill.
__________________
Things usually turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:51 PM
desertjosh's Avatar
desertjosh desertjosh is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Stanislaus View Post
I can't imagine what would move the liberal majority to look twice at this bill.
Unfortunately this ^^
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-23-2013, 4:46 AM
Ford8N's Avatar
Ford8N Ford8N is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 4,895
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

It's a dead bill...3.2.1....
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-23-2013, 4:59 AM
LibertyDeath's Avatar
LibertyDeath LibertyDeath is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: High Desert Inland Empire
Posts: 128
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Whoa now, that would basically make California shall issue. Can't have power over an armed populace.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-23-2013, 5:55 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,621
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

We've all seen that "self-defense" as good cause simply won't cut it. We have to go after good moral character = non-prohibited and clarify that Sheriffs must accept applications and process them within a set period of time.

Otherwise you end up with Sacramento - "sorry guys - we simply aren't accepting applications but we'll let you know (maybe) some day when we decide to do so again".
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-23-2013, 6:13 AM
VAReact's Avatar
VAReact VAReact is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hell, eh?
Posts: 1,482
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyDeath View Post
Whoa now, that would basically make California shall issue. Can't have power over an armed populace.
No, it wouldn't -"...good moral character..."
__________________
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member (Defenders' Club)
CCRKBA Life Member
Madison Society Life Member
CRPA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-23-2013, 6:22 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
We've all seen that "self-defense" as good cause simply won't cut it. We have to go after good moral character = non-prohibited and clarify that Sheriffs must accept applications and process them within a set period of time.

Otherwise you end up with Sacramento - "sorry guys - we simply aren't accepting applications but we'll let you know (maybe) some day when we decide to do so again".
Yep! Spit your chew on the sidewalk and lose your license. You no longer have good moral character.

This part can not be dodged!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-23-2013, 6:46 AM
rsacks rsacks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 307
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

All the same, REALLY happy to see someone willing to at least take a stab at it. Good on ya Jones!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-23-2013, 7:07 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,162
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Too ambitious. Efforts like these should be tabled in the same way as SB610 was... This will not make it out of the committee process.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-23-2013, 9:05 AM
Nick Justice's Avatar
Nick Justice Nick Justice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 1,912
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The same idea has been introduced in bills just in the last few years. The ultra-gun-hating public safety committe always kills it.
It needs to intruduced every year, about ten times every year.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-23-2013, 10:26 AM
postal postal is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Riverside
Posts: 4,592
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I applaud the effort, but I think he's taking the wrong approach.

I think he needs to Amend this into the assault rifle ban, which has some chance of passing!

Then, when the ban is struck down, this part can still stand unaffected by the SCOTUS ruling....
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-23-2013, 12:04 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,083
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Too ambitious. Efforts like these should be tabled in the same way as SB610 was... This will not make it out of the committee process.
Wouldn't it be better to have them arguing and wasting time than have anything make it out of committee? The vast majority of laws passes are toxic so I vote for gridlock on new laws.


If something can be fixed or something good pushed through I am all for it, I just haven't seen many good new laws passed in my lifetime.
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union...70812799700206

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-23-2013, 12:08 PM
Vacaville's Avatar
Vacaville Vacaville is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Auburn
Posts: 4,198
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VAReact View Post
No, it wouldn't -"...good moral character..."
That's the part I have problems with. This vague definition takes the teeth right out of this bill.
__________________
“When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.” - Thomas Jefferson

"We are number one, all others are number two or lower." - The Sphinx

"Why does every discussion of culture always degrade into a discussion of burritos?" - GoZoner
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-23-2013, 12:16 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,280
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

I agree this bill has little chance to pass.

However, here is an example of a relatively 'pro-gun' bill, and Assemblyman Jones is not getting even a pat on the head for trying.

Such gestures (sadly, that's all this probably will be) don't take away from other efforts, and DO offer some evidence that the pro-gun side is willing to use the traditional forum.

I say THANK YOU, Brian W. Jones.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-23-2013, 2:12 PM
VAReact's Avatar
VAReact VAReact is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hell, eh?
Posts: 1,482
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I'm going to write ASM Jones about striking the "good moral character" language, or at least substituting "not prohibited from posessing a firearm" or other such language in his bill.
__________________
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member (Defenders' Club)
CCRKBA Life Member
Madison Society Life Member
CRPA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-23-2013, 2:19 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VAReact View Post
I'm going to write ASM Jones about striking the "good moral character" language, or at least substituting "not prohibited from posessing a firearm" or other such language in his bill.
Easy enough to do through this form here: http://www.firearmspolicy.org/the-is...13-2014/ab871/
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-23-2013, 2:39 PM
VAReact's Avatar
VAReact VAReact is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hell, eh?
Posts: 1,482
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Easy enough to do through this form here: http://www.firearmspolicy.org/the-is...13-2014/ab871/
Excellent! I just submitted my suggestions. Looks like I have some more writin' to do on all of the other bills.
__________________
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member (Defenders' Club)
CCRKBA Life Member
Madison Society Life Member
CRPA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-23-2013, 3:40 PM
Springfield45's Avatar
Springfield45 Springfield45 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,974
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Does "Good Moral Character" mean a hefty donation to Sherif Baca.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-23-2013, 5:06 PM
kaligaran's Avatar
kaligaran kaligaran is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,749
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Springfield45 View Post
Does "Good Moral Character" mean a hefty donation to Sherif Baca.
Depends on your definition of 'hefty'.
__________________
WTB: multiautomatic ghost gun with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Must include shoulder thing that goes up. Memberships/Affiliations: CERT, ARRL ARES, NRA Patron Member, HRC, CGN/CGSSA, Cal-FFL
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-23-2013, 7:58 PM
Fate's Avatar
Fate Fate is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Proud Member of the Quitter Club. Moscow, ID
Posts: 8,990
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Springfield45 View Post
Does "Good Moral Character" mean a hefty donation to Sherif Baca.
It does from where I live.
__________________
"On bended knee is no way to be free." - Eddie Vedder, "Guaranteed"

"Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." -Thomas Jefferson
, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr dated August 19, 1785
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-23-2013, 8:15 PM
vector16's Avatar
vector16 vector16 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Above the bridge
Posts: 684
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

this bill would still only apply to counties with less than 200,000 people. Most if not all CA counties have over that population.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-23-2013, 8:24 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,280
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vector16 View Post
this bill would still only apply to counties with less than 200,000 people. Most if not all CA counties have over that population.
You have misread the bill - that is inaccurate.

The the first of the changes are thus
Quote:
26155.
(a) When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, the chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county may shall issue a license to that person upon proof of all of the following:
(1) The applicant is of good moral character.
(2) (A) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.
(B) For purposes of this subdivision, “good cause” includes, but is not limited to, personal protection or self-defense.

Red strikeout is deleted, blue is new, black is existing law.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 02-23-2013 at 8:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-23-2013, 8:58 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,621
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rsacks View Post
All the same, REALLY happy to see someone willing to at least take a stab at it. Good on ya Jones!!!!
"Good on ya"???

Is the good Sheriff following the law?

Let me clue you in - NOT EVEN CLOSE.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-23-2013, 9:00 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,621
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
"Good on ya"???

Is the good Sheriff following the law?

Let me clue you in - NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Whoops - my bad! I thought you were referring to Sac Sheriff Jones of denial by delay fame.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-23-2013, 9:07 PM
epilepticninja's Avatar
epilepticninja epilepticninja is offline
misanthrope
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a van, down by the river...
Posts: 3,584
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
I agree this bill has little chance to pass.

However, here is an example of a relatively 'pro-gun' bill, and Assemblyman Jones is not getting even a pat on the head for trying.

Such gestures (sadly, that's all this probably will be) don't take away from other efforts, and DO offer some evidence that the pro-gun side is willing to use the traditional forum.

I say THANK YOU, Brian W. Jones.
Agreed. I rather see 100 of these types of bills, then 1 bill that is anti-gun. Wish we had more people like Assemblyman Jones.
__________________
"People are fed up with the NRA."

- Gavin Newsom
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-23-2013, 11:35 PM
Spawn's Avatar
Spawn Spawn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Monrovia (LA County)
Posts: 568
iTrader: 0 / 50%
Default

Alright Jones! Keep up the good work. Trying is better than standing by and doing nothing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-24-2013, 7:58 AM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,021
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

if nothing other than watching the anti's hand wring, groan, mumble, talk about blood in the streets the committee hearings should be entertaining.
__________________
just happy to be here. I like talking about better ways to protect ourselves.

Shop at AMAZON to help Calguns Foundation

CRPA Life Member. Click here to Join.

NRA Member JOIN HERE/
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-26-2013, 1:04 PM
sobiloff's Avatar
sobiloff sobiloff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Reno, NV (USA)
Posts: 158
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

NRA's reporting that this bill's going to be heard in committee on April 2:

California: Pro-Gun Bill to be Heard in Committee on April 2


Please contact members of the state Assembly Committee on Public Safety

On Tuesday, April 2, the state Assembly Committee on Public Safety will hear pro-gun Assembly Bill 871. AB 871, introduced by "A+" rated state Assemblyman Brian Jones (R-71), changes the definition of "good cause" for the issuance of Concealed Carry License (CCW) to include "Personal Protection or Self defense" creating a statewide standard for issuing of CCW permits.

It is imperative that you call members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety and respectfully urge them to SUPPORT AB 871. The right to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense is a constitutional right and law-abiding citizens who apply to carry concealed should be allowed to exercise that right rather than it being a discretionary decision at the local level. Please forward this alert to your family, friends and fellow gun owners in California and urge them to do the same.

Assembly Committee on Public Safety:


Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-17), Chairman
(916) 319-2017
E-mail here

Assemblyman Melissa Melendez (R-67), Vice-Chairman
(916) 319-2067
E-mail here

Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D-59)
(916) 319-2059
E-mail here

Assemblyman Holly Mitchell (D-54)
(916) 319-2054
E-mail here

Assemblyman Bill Quirk (D-20)
(916) 319-2020
E-mail here

Assemblyman Nancy Skinner (D-15)
(916) 319-2015
E-mail here

Assemblyman Marie Waldron (R-75)
(916) 319-2075
E-mail here
__________________
Join the NRA!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-26-2013, 1:18 PM
Pardueski's Avatar
Pardueski Pardueski is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Capitola, CA
Posts: 135
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I got an email from the NRA-ILA stating the following:

On Tuesday, April 2, the state Assembly Committee on Public Safety will hear pro-gun Assembly Bill 871. AB 871, introduced by "A+" rated state Assemblyman Brian Jones (R-71), changes the definition of "good cause" for the issuance of Concealed Carry License (CCW) to include "Personal Protection or Self defense" creating a statewide standard for issuing of CCW permits.

It is imperative that you call members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety and respectfully urge them to SUPPORT AB 871. The right to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense is a constitutional right and law-abiding citizens who apply to carry concealed should be allowed to exercise that right rather than it being a discretionary decision at the local level. Please forward this alert to your family, friends and fellow gun owners in California and urge them to do the same.

Assembly Committee on Public Safety:


Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-17), Chairman
(916) 319-2017
E-mail here

Assemblyman Melissa Melendez (R-67), Vice-Chairman
(916) 319-2067
E-mail here

Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D-59)
(916) 319-2059
E-mail here

Assemblyman Holly Mitchell (D-54)
(916) 319-2054
E-mail here

Assemblyman Bill Quirk (D-20)
(916) 319-2020
E-mail here

Assemblyman Nancy Skinner (D-15)
(916) 319-2015
E-mail here

Assemblyman Marie Waldron (R-75)
(916) 319-2075
E-mail here
__________________

Presently Own:
-Mossberg 500
-Kahr/Auto Ordnance 1911 100th Anniversary Edition
-Sig Sauer P229R 9MM
-HK 416D .22
-CZ 75 SP-01 9MM
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-26-2013, 1:41 PM
CessnaDriver's Avatar
CessnaDriver CessnaDriver is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,248
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I know odds are not good but the battle will be joined.
__________________
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic28512_1.gif

"Yeah, like... well, I just want to slap a hippie or two. Maybe even make them get jobs."

Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-26-2013, 1:50 PM
old151's Avatar
old151 old151 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Lancaster, California
Posts: 253
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CessnaDriver View Post
I know odds are not good but the battle will be joined.
Oh, you only fight the fights you can win? You fight the fights that need fighting! A. J. MacInerney

Love that quote
__________________

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-26-2013, 2:24 PM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

This kinda reminds me of a time a rep from Orange County introduced a bill to repeal SB-23. Zero chance of even making it out of committee but hey it's the thought that counts.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-26-2013, 2:24 PM
CBruce's Avatar
CBruce CBruce is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,994
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Assembly Committee on Public Safety:

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-17), Chairman
(916) 319-2017
E-mail here

Assemblyman Melissa Melendez (R-67), Vice-Chairman
(916) 319-2067
E-mail here

Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D-59)
(916) 319-2059
E-mail here

Assemblyman Holly Mitchell (D-54)
(916) 319-2054
E-mail here

Assemblyman Bill Quirk (D-20)
(916) 319-2020
E-mail here

Assemblyman Nancy Skinner (D-15)
(916) 319-2015
E-mail here

Assemblyman Marie Waldron (R-75)
(916) 319-2075
E-mail here
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-26-2013, 2:32 PM
Longrange308's Avatar
Longrange308 Longrange308 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 432
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

This would be a huge leap for California.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-26-2013, 2:40 PM
KEO KEO is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Bay Point
Posts: 78
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Longrange308 View Post
This would be a huge leap for California.
In the right direction for once
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-26-2013, 2:58 PM
JoshuaS's Avatar
JoshuaS JoshuaS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,615
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It is certainly a start, and I would love to see it. And even smaller step was attempted with another bill a little while back that sought to state that victims of hate crimes had a good cause, but that loss. I always thought that could open up some legal challenges against the good cause requirement...


Ideally, assuming that UOC remains banned and the Mulford Act remains, I would like two see a simple elimination of good cause, a change to the word shall, and a definition of moral character as someone who can pass a background check for possessing firearms. Eliminate the option of psych eval, except, possibly, under very narrow circumstances (as a bone thrown in to get passage), define maximum training requirement down from 16 hrs to 8 (or better 4), and eliminate college course option.

At least those things would need to be done to make CA effectively a shall issue state. But any step in that direction, even just symbolically, is good.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-26-2013, 3:55 PM
Longrange308's Avatar
Longrange308 Longrange308 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 432
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KEO View Post
In the right direction for once
Bingo!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:47 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.