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 03-31-2017, 7:36 AM
BluNorthern's Avatar
BluNorthern BluNorthern is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lassen County
Posts: 10,149
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default California State Legislature Approves Audit of Concealed Carry Weapon License Program

Kevin McCarty...color me surprised.
This POS has made getting rid of CCW's here his personal crusade.

The California Joint Legislative Audit Committee has approved an audit request by Assemblymember Kevin McCarty (D – Sacramento) to evaluate the negative fiscal impacts and public safety questions raised by Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) license programs in the state.


https://californianewswire.com/calif...ense-programs/
__________________
"I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-31-2017, 7:45 AM
Euphoria526's Avatar
Euphoria526 Euphoria526 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Over yonder
Posts: 3,868
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

How about we study the fiscal impact of useless politicians who don't do anything. Bet we'd save more money and lives...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
I punch paper only because it is illegal to punch people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elpaisa1 View Post
I think flatulence is a more serious crime. I think it should be a misdemeanor with a 1000 dollar fine or 6 months of jail. It should be a felony if done near an open flame.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphoria526 View Post
I'm so awesome, I think I'll quote myself
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-31-2017, 7:47 AM
xtor's Avatar
xtor xtor is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 187
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Constitutional carry, problem solved.

DV65
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-31-2017, 7:48 AM
kriller134 kriller134 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: THE OC
Posts: 1,037
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

So basically they're only auditing Sacramento county since LA and SD are virtually no issue? And where's the public safety issue? Is there a documented incident involving a ccw that put the public in harms way? This is just stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-31-2017, 7:54 AM
BluNorthern's Avatar
BluNorthern BluNorthern is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lassen County
Posts: 10,149
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriller134 View Post
So basically they're only auditing Sacramento county since LA and SD are virtually no issue? And where's the public safety issue? Is there a documented incident involving a ccw that put the public in harms way? This is just stupid.
This is another manifestation of McCarty's ongoing attack on CCW's here in California. Stupid has nothing to do with it, he's had bills killed regarding his persona crusade but that's not going to stop him.
__________________
"I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-31-2017, 8:05 AM
PaperPuncher PaperPuncher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,010
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Study it so they can say it makes more sense to eliminate the program entirely.

How many people will die in Ca. if they can't carry? 100? 200? 20,000?
Not a huge hit.

Are a majority of them Democrats? No, bonus.

Any reason to have a program that costs anything? Nope
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-31-2017, 8:10 AM
BluNorthern's Avatar
BluNorthern BluNorthern is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lassen County
Posts: 10,149
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaperPuncher View Post
Study it so they can say it makes more sense to eliminate the program entirely.

How many people will die in Ca. if they can't carry? 100? 200? 20,000?
Not a huge hit.


Are a majority of them Democrats? No, bonus.

Any reason to have a program that costs anything? Nope
Exactly...they won't even acknowledge Kate Steinle's death or the 2 LE deaths in the Sacramento due to their coddling of illegals here. They certainly won't acknowledge the part they played in those deaths.
__________________
"I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-31-2017, 8:42 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,573
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Won't change a thing here in San Diego. Here we know what it's like to live in a state without CCW's.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-31-2017, 8:53 AM
onelonehorseman's Avatar
onelonehorseman onelonehorseman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southern Liberalandia
Posts: 4,418
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The left in CA will not stop until only LE and the movie industry have guns in this state.

This is just another small step in that anti-2A marathon for them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-31-2017, 9:01 AM
DASchell DASchell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 105
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I can see his point,
“Taxpayers should not be subsidizing gun owners who want to roam our streets with loaded weapons,”.

NOT.

What a F'ing Douc** Bag
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-31-2017, 9:39 AM
Justinoff's Avatar
Justinoff Justinoff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 199
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Call and write this *****
+1 (916) 324-4676
https://lcmspubcontact.lc.ca.gov/Pub...istrict=AD07to stop wasting tax payer money!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-31-2017, 10:06 AM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
Corn-fed and Iowa-bred
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,584
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DASchell View Post
I can see his point,
“Taxpayers should not be subsidizing gun owners who want to roam our streets with loaded weapons"
How about gun owners should not be subsidizing DOJ's extra-curricular activities with the DROS account?
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-31-2017, 10:27 AM
Noggles Noggles is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 224
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I will carry whether or not I have a permit. Ef them.
__________________
- Factory Certified Glock Armorer
- nsdq
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-31-2017, 10:51 AM
ja308 ja308 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9,088
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noggles View Post
I will carry whether or not I have a permit. Ef them.
Make sure your carry gun is REGISTERED !
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-31-2017, 11:09 AM
Adan1809 Adan1809 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: City of Angles, CA
Posts: 46
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noggles View Post
I will carry whether or not I have a permit. Ef them.
You sir is the real MVP
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-31-2017, 11:12 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,099
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xtor View Post
Constitutional carry, problem solved.
Exactly.

THEY implemented a program which requires concealed carriers to get a permit, WE never asked for it. THEY have no right to complain about the price of the program THEY started. If fiscal impact is the concern, then fine, THEY can get rid of THEIR permit requirement.

Weighing the safety issue should be a piece of cake. How many shootings by legal concealed carriers resulted in innocent lives lost, versus how many innocent lives were saved by legal concealed carriers? I'm guessing that ratio is higher than 1:1000. I can't think of a single example of a CCW-holder in CA committing a gun crime.

Legal CCW'ers are NOT the problem, why can't they get that through their thick skulls? Why won't they even TRY to reduce gun violence by increasing (instead of decreasing) the penalties for felonies? Using a gun in a crime should be an automatic 20 years or more in prison. They let these violent people out after only a few months because "they're just misunderstood, and deserve a second or third or fourth chance" and then they wonder why gun violence is a problem. Blame the innocent people who are trying just trying to defend themselves and others... that's their answer? Really???
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 03-31-2017 at 11:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-31-2017, 11:36 AM
onelonehorseman's Avatar
onelonehorseman onelonehorseman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southern Liberalandia
Posts: 4,418
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Exactly.

THEY implemented a program which requires concealed carriers to get a permit, WE never asked for it. THEY have no right to complain about the price of the program THEY started. If fiscal impact is the concern, then fine, THEY can get rid of THEIR permit requirement.

Weighing the safety issue should be a piece of cake. How many shootings by legal concealed carriers resulted in innocent lives lost, versus how many innocent lives were saved by legal concealed carriers? I'm guessing that ratio is higher than 1:1000. I can't think of a single example of a CCW-holder in CA committing a gun crime.

Legal CCW'ers are NOT the problem, why can't they get that through their thick skulls? Why won't they even TRY to reduce gun violence by increasing (instead of decreasing) the penalties for felonies? Using a gun in a crime should be an automatic 20 years or more in prison. They let these violent people out after only a few months because "they're just misunderstood, and deserve a second or third or fourth chance" and then they wonder why gun violence is a problem. Blame the innocent people who are trying just trying to defend themselves and others... that's their answer? Really???
As usual, your comments make a lot of sense.

The problem I see, is that the exercise to audit the permit program probably has nothing to do with improving safety, and everything to do with control. Their end game is to devise reasoning to eliminate CCW state wide, as part of the continuing agenda against civilian gun ownership and use.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-31-2017, 11:39 AM
UP2MTNS UP2MTNS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NorCal
Posts: 273
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noggles View Post
I will carry whether or not I have a permit. Ef them.
Curious about this...are there any cases/precedent of someone getting arrested and charged with illegal possession of a weapon after they stopped some crime or defended themselves?

Or the opposite...someone is illegal CCWing, stops a crime/SD/whatever, police arrest said person, but DA says, 'No...we're not going to prosecute a good samaritan.' ??
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-31-2017, 11:53 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,779
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Exactly.

THEY implemented a program which requires concealed carriers to get a permit, WE never asked for it. THEY have no right to complain about the price of the program THEY started. If fiscal impact is the concern, then fine, THEY can get rid of THEIR permit requirement.

Weighing the safety issue should be a piece of cake. How many shootings by legal concealed carriers resulted in innocent lives lost, versus how many innocent lives were saved by legal concealed carriers? I'm guessing that ratio is higher than 1:1000. I can't think of a single example of a CCW-holder in CA committing a gun crime.

Legal CCW'ers are NOT the problem, why can't they get that through their thick skulls? Why won't they even TRY to reduce gun violence by increasing (instead of decreasing) the penalties for felonies? Using a gun in a crime should be an automatic 20 years or more in prison. They let these violent people out after only a few months because "they're just misunderstood, and deserve a second or third or fourth chance" and then they wonder why gun violence is a problem. Blame the innocent people who are trying just trying to defend themselves and others... that's their answer? Really???
Aren't there a bunch of extra requirements that aren't legally mandated that virtually every issuing county makes permit holders jump through?

That would be a county/sheriff problem, not a California problem. Unfortunately, we all know this investigation will lead to nothing good. If the sheriff had ironed things out before maybe, but now...
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-31-2017, 12:10 PM
coryhenry's Avatar
coryhenry coryhenry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,285
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

What if the report comes back and shows the mismanagement of the programs. As was said, San Diego and LA don't issue so they probably have a surplus and use it for other stupid programs.

Maybe...Just Maybe this will backfire. Of course if it does we will never see it.
__________________
Cory

"Every man dies, not every man really lives!"

Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-31-2017, 12:17 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,099
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Unfortunately, we all know this investigation will lead to nothing good. If the sheriff had ironed things out before maybe, but now...
The funny thing is, it actually might lead somewhere good. If you think about it, there's almost no way they could twist the results of a CCW study to fit their narrative - all of the facts say the opposite of what they want to hear.

Fiscally:
A CCW costs a licensee a LOT of money. First, there's the gun, which the state gets sales tax, FSC fees and DROS fees for. Then, there's the CCW classes, from which the state gets income tax from the instructor fees. Weapons qualifications, which the state also gets income taxes for, plus sales taxes for the hundreds of rounds of ammo required. Then, there's the license itself, which has a multitude of fees involved, which more than cover the administrative costs involved to the issuing agency. Those are just the hard-evidence numerical figures. Add to that the possibility of needing less LEO presence in areas which have well-armed citizens.

Safety:
As mentioned earlier, there is virtually zero safety risk associated with licensed concealed carriers. It's immeasurably low. But the safety benefits have been recorded in great detail, with hundreds (maybe thousands) of violent crimes in CA halted as a result of CCW-holding citizens.

I'm pretty confident that any "study" is going to find all of the above. So this might actually come back to bite them.
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 03-31-2017 at 12:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-31-2017, 12:25 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,821
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So, how is it Az can issue with a $60 fee with 2 print cards and a one sided app... with NO good cause section??? Add to that it took about 3 weeks from send in to receiving.

If it is this much of a "financial problem" then yes, we need Con Carry. I do have a deep loathing for 99% of Ca politicians.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-31-2017, 12:28 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,779
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
The funny thing is, it actually might lead somewhere good. If you think about it, there's almost no way they could twist the results of a CCW study to fit their narrative - all of the facts say the opposite of what they want to hear.

Fiscally:
A CCW costs a licensee a LOT of money. First, there's the gun, which the state gets sales tax, FSC fees and DROS fees for. Then, there's the CCW classes, from which the state gets income tax from the instructor fees. Weapons qualifications, which the state also gets income taxes for, plus sales taxes for the hundreds of rounds of ammo required. Then, there's the license itself, which has a multitude of fees involved, which more than cover the administrative costs involved to the issuing agency. Those are just the hard-evidence numerical figures. Add to that the possibility of needing less LEO presence in areas which have well-armed citizens.

Safety:
As mentioned earlier, there is virtually zero safety risk associated with licensed concealed carriers. It's immeasurably low. But the safety benefits have been recorded in great detail, with hundreds (maybe thousands) of violent crimes in CA halted as a result of CCW-holding citizens.

I'm pretty confident that any "study" is going to find all of the above. So this might actually come back to bite them.
*State findings*

The state finds that the CCW process is grossly inadequate to protect public safety. The average background check for a police cadet candidate costs $3,000. The average spent on CCWs in Sacramento county is $200. This is grossly inadequate to investigate the background of a person to carry a deadly weapon, with less training than a police officer.

There is no evidence that carrying a gun has made the public at large any safer, and numerous CCW holders have nearly created tragedy leaving guns behind in restrooms, forcing the legislature to ban these dangerous carriers of guns from school campuses. Indeed, this increases costs to law enforcement and impacts the public's perception of their own safety.

Finally, the process in Sacramento especially costs more money than it takes in from applicants, even for the cursory and non-thorough background check.

Committee recommends a full, law enforcement style background check for any CCW applicant, costs to be borne by said applicant with no refund for costs if the permit is rejected. Applicant also should attend at least the use of force portions of police academy, costs also borne by applicant. Lastly, upon approval of a permit, the permit holder should post a $5,000 bond to cover any incidental police investigation caused by negligence by the permit holder, so as to make the CCW program revenue neutral, instead of forcing the state to pay for dangerous weapons to be carried by people who aren't thoroughly vetted.

Whose finding sounds more likely from a committee set up by McCarty- yours or mine?
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-31-2017, 12:33 PM
six seven tango's Avatar
six seven tango six seven tango is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: wrong side of the Colorado river
Posts: 1,680
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

FIFY

Quote:
Originally Posted by onelonehorseman View Post
The left in CA will not stop until only LE and the movie industry have has guns in this state.

This is just another small step in that anti-2A marathon for them.
That is their ultimate goal. They're only keeping LE happy until us peons are disarmed. Then they'll go after LE.
__________________


When Injustice Becomes Law, Resistance is Duty

"Our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." AG Kamala Harris referring to San Francisco's sanctuary policy and 7 time convicted felon and illegal alien Jose Ines Garcia Zarate .
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9CA
...Nor may we relegate the bearing of arms to a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.”
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-31-2017, 12:51 PM
crimtide crimtide is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NorCal
Posts: 20
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Glad that this is a top priority of our elected officials in the great state of CA.

The cost of administering the CWW program in CA is a rounding error in the budget. He is pulling this stunt not because he cares about the $$ but because he is concerned that there are more people in CA with CCW that are not LEO.

How has this state gone so far off the rails when it comes these types of things??

Crimtide
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-31-2017, 1:06 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,099
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crimtide View Post
How has this state gone so far off the rails when it comes these types of things??
By liberalism being the latest trendy thing to be. Hopefully someday liberalism will be "too mainstream" and these idiots will find something else to go be activists for.
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:


Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-31-2017, 1:12 PM
numpty's Avatar
numpty numpty is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,039
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onelonehorseman View Post
The left in CA will not stop until only LE and the movie industry have guns in this state.

This is just another small step in that anti-2A marathon for them.
And California politicians who exempt themselves from the very rules they impose on the masses.
__________________
error 500

I owe FP something.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-31-2017, 1:16 PM
BigStiCK's Avatar
BigStiCK BigStiCK is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: ReTard Capital of the World
Posts: 2,929
iTrader: 68 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DASchell View Post

What a F'ing Douche Bag
FIFY.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-31-2017, 1:33 PM
Devilmonkey89 Devilmonkey89 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: North County San Diego
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UP2MTNS View Post
Curious about this...are there any cases/precedent of someone getting arrested and charged with illegal possession of a weapon after they stopped some crime or defended themselves?

Or the opposite...someone is illegal CCWing, stops a crime/SD/whatever, police arrest said person, but DA says, 'No...we're not going to prosecute a good samaritan.' ??
In another state i could see them possibly letting a person walk. But in CA? Not a chance, you'd be prosecuted to the fullest extent, then get sued in civil court by the family as the cherry on top.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-31-2017, 2:36 PM
gmcal's Avatar
gmcal gmcal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,424
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I reside in Stanislaus County and I have a CCW permit issued by the sheriff. IIRC, I paid nearly $200 for my initial permit and $77 at my last renewal. I'm not sure how much the county spent to process my applications.

Taxpayers subsidize many programs they don't use and may not even want so how about we audit every program the state has?

The part that concerns me is the audit looking into the factors the counties use to determine who gets a CCW. More counties have moved to accepting personal defense as good cause but the result of this audit could result in legislation being written that would not allow that.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-31-2017, 4:59 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,701
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yup. Constitutional carry has no effect on taxpayers and it is the purest exercise of an enumerated right.

McCarty can pound sand.
__________________



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
  #32  
Old 03-31-2017, 5:15 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,779
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Yup. Constitutional carry has no effect on taxpayers and it is the purest exercise of an enumerated right.

McCarty can pound sand.
No-issue has no effect on taxpayers and is the purest exercise of a state-sanctioned mandate for safety.

McCarty can destroy issuance.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-31-2017, 5:50 PM
sevendayweekend's Avatar
sevendayweekend sevendayweekend is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 830
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

I wonder how much $ the audit will cost the state
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-31-2017, 6:08 PM
JeffSD's Avatar
JeffSD JeffSD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 785
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Our only hope in California is national reciprocity. At least for people like me who have valid carry permits from other states. But I haven't heard anything about that particular legislation for a while.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-31-2017, 7:12 PM
not-fishing's Avatar
not-fishing not-fishing is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Folsom next to Dyke 8 launch
Posts: 1,914
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

So if previous to McGuinness there was only 300 CCW's issued how much did they cost apiece?

Also how about the cost for LA's 87 CCW's issued and San Diego for the 25 CCW's issued.
Then there's the matter of Bribes paid for these CCW's.

As long as we're doing audits.

I wonder how Texas and Florida do it and California cannot afford to?
__________________
Spreading the WORD according to COLT. and Smith, Wesson, Ruger, HK, Sig, High Standard, Browning
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-31-2017, 7:41 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,099
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by not-fishing View Post
I wonder how Texas and Florida do it and California cannot afford to?
Arizona even makes a business out of selling CCW's to non-residents for $60 apiece, including an FBI background check and everything! And you even get a fancy plastic card!! In CA, after the $500+ I paid for my CCW, training, and related fees, all I got was a piece of paper that they told me to go home and laminate.
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:


Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-31-2017, 7:57 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,990
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Usually, an audit is expected to be unbiased and simply examine information and report conclusive facts. This takes significant time and money.

Fortunately, McCarty has expedited the process by skewing the study parameters (Sacramento/San Diego/Los Angeles) and publishing the study outcomes.
Quote:
“Taxpayers should not be subsidizing gun owners who want to roam our streets with loaded weapons,” said Assemblymember Kevin McCarty. “The dramatic increase of CCW licenses in Sacramento County alone is alarming and presents a number of important fiscal and public safety questions that I am confident the State Auditor will be able to answer. Today’s audit approval by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee sends a clear message to gun owners and the public that responsible private gun ownership should never be subsidized with taxpayer dollars.”
Now, all the Auditor needs to do is find the specific facts which support the specified outcome (and ignore anything else). I could write the report in 15 minutes.

Disclaimer: Personally, I don't "roam" the streets with loaded weapons. But I do keep and BEAR arms in the course of my daily travels.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-31-2017, 8:06 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,099
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
“Today’s audit approval by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee sends a clear message to gun owners and the public that responsible private gun ownership should never be subsidized with taxpayer dollars.”
Irresponsible politicians' salaries and personal vendettas against responsible citizens should never be subsidized with taxpayer dollars.
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:


Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-31-2017, 8:23 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,990
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Today’s audit approval by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee sends a clear message to gun owners and the public that efforts to reduce, impair, limit or eliminate responsible private gun ownership should never be subsidized with taxpayer dollars.”
Said no Democrat, ever.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-31-2017, 8:28 PM
357manny's Avatar
357manny 357manny is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,169
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

how does that guy stay in office? geeze
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 8:32 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.