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 06-22-2016, 8:34 AM
CaptJim CaptJim is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 42
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Why, why, why ????

IMHO, every statewide pro-gun organization and including a pro-gun organization like NRA's ONLY GOAL for state of CA must focus first on solely to convert our state to become a SHALL ISSUE state !

Everything else in my mind comes second! Including the AWB or ammo restrictions or intelligent (smart) gun technology or whatever other crappy regulation(restriction) Democrats are pushing for...

Let's see what are the common grounds with Democrats and CCW;

- Democrats are strong proponents of Background checks which every CCW have to go thru,

- Democrats are against those scary big black rifles which is not considered a weapon can be carried with a CCW

- Democrats wants only mentally stable people have guns, well many CCW issuing authorities here in our state requires Psychological test for their applicants,

- Democrats wants to limit guns to a reasonable numbers, well CA CCW permit only allows a maximum of 3 handguns to be on your permit no matter how many more you may have at home or workplace,

- Democrats wants ONLY trained people have guns, well a CCW process accomplishes that with its mandatory training requirements,

- As Democrats advocates Terrorists or Felons will be eliminated during a CCW application process and ONLY Law abiding people will be carrying guns,

So, WHY NOBODY on our side talking and advocating in a BIG WAY every chance they get to convert CA into a SHALL ISSUE state?

Also why there is no big media blast to show the hypocrisy of the Democrats if they resist for CA to become a shall issue state?

If every condition for a so called sensible gun control requirements asked by Democrats and anti-gun groups advocate day and night in the media then WHY they are opposing our state to become a SHALL ISSUE ?

Why NOT TO EXPOSE this reality?


Just imagine a conservative saying;

- Background checks? OK!
- Interviewed by authorities? OK!
- Interviewing neighbors or co-workers? OK!
- Checking the residence of the applicant? OK!
- Psychological Test? OK!
- Legally purchased guns with serial numbers reported to the authorities? OK!
- Class Training? OK!
- Demonstrating handling the gun at a shooting situation? OK!

Just ask Kamala Harris and people who think like her if they oppose any of these rules and regulations regarding "gun safety" issues?

When they say "No, these are the great points" then ask them " if so, why you are opposing to implement a law which will allow all of this to be the norm?"

It is interesting that cities like San Francisco or Daly City can harass you in many ways if they find out you're carrying your gun while even with a LEGAL CCW permit, but yet most helpful and understanding towards those who are illegally in the country!

And my friends, that's the meaning of the word "sensible" for Democrats!

I still wonder, WHY?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-22-2016, 8:40 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,326
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Because the democrats don't want you having guns....period. They use all of those as excuses to try and keep you from having guns......not to facilitate responsible to have them.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-22-2016, 9:04 AM
Dutch3's Avatar
Dutch3 Dutch3 is offline
Dirt Farmer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Butte County
Posts: 11,586
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

If shall issue was the only focus, at some point you might achieve shall-issue status.

Then you get your CCW but the only handgun on the roster is the Armatix IP1 and you can't buy any ammo for it.
__________________
Assembly Public Safety Chair Reginald Jones-Sawyer:
..."and with that I'd like to turn it over to my colleague Loni Hancock, Senate Public Safety Chair, and as I like to say, my partner in crime."

Senate Public Safety Chair Loni Hancock:
"Yeah, we do that quite a lot, actually..."

- Joint Legislative Informational Hearing on Firearms - Newsom Initiative #1756 - May 3rd 2016
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-22-2016, 9:09 AM
Messerschmitts's Avatar
Messerschmitts Messerschmitts is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 594
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
If shall issue was the only focus, at some point you might achieve shall-issue status.

Then you get your CCW but the only handgun on the roster is the Armatix IP1 and you can't buy any ammo for it.
THIS ^
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-22-2016, 9:38 AM
Dano3467 Dano3467 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: 85 mi south of Oregon
Posts: 4,983
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Even if they'd compromise w/AWB to give you Shall issue, their pass examples of compromise means nothing if they continue to come back for more & more, till nothing is left.

That's the true goal of Democrats, it would seem to ]never give an inch anymore, till things return to normal should be our creed.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-22-2016, 11:33 AM
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County California
Posts: 600
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptJim View Post
IMHO, every statewide pro-gun organization and including a pro-gun organization like NRA's ONLY GOAL for state of CA must focus first on solely to convert our state to become a SHALL ISSUE state !

Everything else in my mind comes second! Including the AWB or ammo restrictions or intelligent (smart) gun technology or whatever other crappy regulation(restriction) Democrats are pushing for...

Let's see what are the common grounds with Democrats and CCW;

- Democrats are strong proponents of Background checks which every CCW have to go thru,

- Democrats are against those scary big black rifles which is not considered a weapon can be carried with a CCW

- Democrats wants only mentally stable people have guns, well many CCW issuing authorities here in our state requires Psychological test for their applicants,

- Democrats wants to limit guns to a reasonable numbers, well CA CCW permit only allows a maximum of 3 handguns to be on your permit no matter how many more you may have at home or workplace,

- Democrats wants ONLY trained people have guns, well a CCW process accomplishes that with its mandatory training requirements,

- As Democrats advocates Terrorists or Felons will be eliminated during a CCW application process and ONLY Law abiding people will be carrying guns,

So, WHY NOBODY on our side talking and advocating in a BIG WAY every chance they get to convert CA into a SHALL ISSUE state?

Also why there is no big media blast to show the hypocrisy of the Democrats if they resist for CA to become a shall issue state?

If every condition for a so called sensible gun control requirements asked by Democrats and anti-gun groups advocate day and night in the media then WHY they are opposing our state to become a SHALL ISSUE ?

Why NOT TO EXPOSE this reality?


Just imagine a conservative saying;

- Background checks? OK!
- Interviewed by authorities? OK!
- Interviewing neighbors or co-workers? OK!
- Checking the residence of the applicant? OK!
- Psychological Test? OK!
- Legally purchased guns with serial numbers reported to the authorities? OK!
- Class Training? OK!
- Demonstrating handling the gun at a shooting situation? OK!

Just ask Kamala Harris and people who think like her if they oppose any of these rules and regulations regarding "gun safety" issues?

When they say "No, these are the great points" then ask them " if so, why you are opposing to implement a law which will allow all of this to be the norm?"

It is interesting that cities like San Francisco or Daly City can harass you in many ways if they find out you're carrying your gun while even with a LEGAL CCW permit, but yet most helpful and understanding towards those who are illegally in the country!

And my friends, that's the meaning of the word "sensible" for Democrats!

I still wonder, WHY?
First, the lack of shall issue only effects a portion of the state. Many, if not most, Sheriffs are nearly shall issue. On the other hand, the roster, AW and ammo bans effect all of us. Furthermore, sensible when used by Dems does not mean that at all. To Dems, sensible is whatever denies you your 2A rights.

You say: Interviewed by authorities? OK! I have ccws in 4 states and the only interview was by a clerk who merely asked if my information was correct. So no. Your proposal is NOT OK! You also say you are OK with interviewing neighbors or co-workers. Why should my neighbors or co-workers have anything to say about my 2A right to bear arms. NOT OK!
Checking the residence of the applicant? Why? What would they check for? NOT OK! Psychological Test? What would be the criteria? Should you have to pass some psychological test to decide which church to attend or whether or not to attend in the first place? How about the right to be fee of unreasonable searches and seizures, trial by jury and be represented by counsel? How about not being compelled to be a witness against yourself. NO, definitely NOT OK!

You also say that "CA CCW permit only allows a maximum of 3 handguns." That is simply not true. There are 4 on mine and some Cal Sheriffs put no limit on the handguns that may be carried, as is the case with my NV, UT and OR permits.

You also say "As Democrats advocates Terrorists or Felons will be eliminated during a CCW application process and ONLY Law abiding people will be carrying guns." Tell that to the victims in San Bernardino and Orlando.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-22-2016, 12:21 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 373
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Welcome to a fascist state.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-22-2016, 12:45 PM
tacticalcity's Avatar
tacticalcity tacticalcity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Rancho Cordova, California
Posts: 8,811
iTrader: 90 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
If shall issue was the only focus, at some point you might achieve shall-issue status.

Then you get your CCW but the only handgun on the roster is the Armatix IP1 and you can't buy any ammo for it.
Exactly!!!

Basically the OP can't get a CCW in his county/city, and he wants us to focus on that because it is where his personal focus is.

Short sighted and single minded bro. There are many more pressing and frankly more achievable objectives in need of our immediate attention.

I feel his pain...but I am not willing to give up my rights on every other front just so the Supreme Court can refuse to hear the appeal the 9th circuit courts recent decision on Concealed Carry. Which, until we get at least one more conservative appointed to the Court, is exactly what is going to happen.

Who our next President is, is more about who they will nominate to the Supreme Court than it is about anything else they will do as President. The next President will get at least one, possibly as many as three nominates to the Court. If those people are not conservatives, you can kiss the 2nd Amendment and the 1st Amendment goodbye.

Last edited by tacticalcity; 06-22-2016 at 12:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-22-2016, 12:53 PM
Rosebud22 Rosebud22 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 429
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Lets see: Eventually you won't be able to buy a semi auto pistol because microstamping and even if you did, you won't be able to buy ammo because of
GN. So you want a "shall issue for what? A sling shot?
BTW; MOVE!! I live in El Dorado County and it just about "Shall Issue"
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-22-2016, 1:00 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,287
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
If shall issue was the only focus, at some point you might achieve shall-issue status. Then you get your CCW but the only handgun on the roster is the Armatix IP1 and you can't buy any ammo for it.
That, and the list of excluded places to carry would be so large as to make the CCW useless. There would be exemptions from the exclusion, of course, for special people (legislators, judges, ex-cops).
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-22-2016, 1:03 PM
Mute's Avatar
Mute Mute is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Diamond Bar
Posts: 5,670
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Because the Democrats have proven, time and again, that every gun legislation they pass is merely a trojan horse to get more draconian measures through the gate.
__________________
NRA Life Endowment Member
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor

American Marksman Training Group, LLC
Visit our American Marksman Facebook Page
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-22-2016, 1:04 PM
heyjerr's Avatar
heyjerr heyjerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 768
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

The major flaw to your argument is that you believe they will recognize that these are great points.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-22-2016, 2:32 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 9,282
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by heyjerr View Post
The major flaw to your argument is that you believe they will recognize that these are great points.
OP also conveniently forgets the definition of "shall" issue.
__________________
"Tactical" is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf


Originally Posted By System Message:
Why can't you guys participate in a simple discussion about some guy's mom making a porno without violating the COC? This is why we can't have nice things.



“Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.”
Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-22-2016, 2:43 PM
Merovign's Avatar
Merovign Merovign is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 354
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

But we already did that. The big counties dug in their heels and stalled until *another* court changed it back.

That's the way things are done in a corrupt, lawless state.

We haven't suffered *all* the consequences of such a lawless state, *yet*, because of momentum. And only that.

Whole cities run by drug gangs supported by their own elected representatives, giant slums, Detroit-level or even Mexico-level urban rot - it's all coming, because voters are short-sighted, easily manipulated and kind of dumb.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-22-2016, 8:34 PM
CaptJim CaptJim is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 42
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
First, the lack of shall issue only effects a portion of the state. Many, if not most, Sheriffs are nearly shall issue. On the other hand, the roster, AW and ammo bans effect all of us. Furthermore, sensible when used by Dems does not mean that at all. To Dems, sensible is whatever denies you your 2A rights.

You say: Interviewed by authorities? OK! I have ccws in 4 states and the only interview was by a clerk who merely asked if my information was correct. So no. Your proposal is NOT OK! You also say you are OK with interviewing neighbors or co-workers. Why should my neighbors or co-workers have anything to say about my 2A right to bear arms. NOT OK!
Checking the residence of the applicant? Why? What would they check for? NOT OK! Psychological Test? What would be the criteria? Should you have to pass some psychological test to decide which church to attend or whether or not to attend in the first place? How about the right to be fee of unreasonable searches and seizures, trial by jury and be represented by counsel? How about not being compelled to be a witness against yourself. NO, definitely NOT OK!

You also say that "CA CCW permit only allows a maximum of 3 handguns." That is simply not true. There are 4 on mine and some Cal Sheriffs put no limit on the handguns that may be carried, as is the case with my NV, UT and OR permits.

You also say "As Democrats advocates Terrorists or Felons will be eliminated during a CCW application process and ONLY Law abiding people will be carrying guns." Tell that to the victims in San Bernardino and Orlando.
Calm down... Mine is NOT a proposal. I am simply stating what I've been thru for my CCW and it's my reality...
In Monterey County and in San Benito county within the last two years I've gone thru this process and got my CCW from both counties (2 years apart due to moving my residence).
And I've been thru this successfully...
Psychological test, my neighbors were interviewed by a background investigator, my residence were visited by the same inspector. My business partner and referrals were contacted by phone...
OK or not by you, I wanted a CCW and they said that was their rules and as a law abiding citizen I went thru all that hoopla and got mine... I am simply stating that what I've been thru is all the things Democrats advocate YET STILL is not enough in some counties of our state? My question to those counties...
Make SHALL ISSUE does not mean don't ask don't tell and just give it.
My point is even when a law abiding citizen accepts all the rules and regulations like I did, in some counties it is still not enough for those who advocate these rules and regulations. My question to those; " What else do you want?"
All I am asking why in those counties this question is not ask.
Otherwise I am not advocating that your no question ask, just issue county not to change their current CCW process...

I didn't know that some CA Sheriff may allow unlimited weapons as you claim. Good to know.
At my both counties SDs told me it was a max of 3 and also at required NRA CCW class we've been told it was max 3... Maybe it is just in my 2 counties.

I also have UT and NV and OR too... I know the process in those states but it has nothing to do with what's going on here in CA.

I am simply wondering why nobody on our side making a big stink and asking those Democrats why they don't believe the points they make?
I am sure people of San Diego or San Francisco would love to go thru all the hoopla I went thru and still receive their CCW instead of struggling in an un-winnable fight.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-22-2016, 8:36 PM
CaptJim CaptJim is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 42
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by heyjerr View Post
The major flaw to your argument is that you believe they will recognize that these are great points.
Who are you talking about? Who are "they" ?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-22-2016, 8:43 PM
CaptJim CaptJim is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 42
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
OP also conveniently forgets the definition of "shall" issue.
What am I forgetting?


Shall Issue means that as long as you pass basic requirements set out by state law, the issuing authority (county sheriff, police department, etc.) shall issue you a permit.

I couldn't find the definition of what those "basic requirements" limited to.

If you enlighten me please...
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-23-2016, 7:21 AM
2Aon2wheels's Avatar
2Aon2wheels 2Aon2wheels is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 316
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

No. We must fight them everywhere, all at once. Not one inch anymore in CA. The democrat strategy is death by 1,000 cuts/bills here. If we focus on CCW, they will outlaw everything else, in the process making us all felons/undesirables.

Where is your CCW then?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-23-2016, 7:56 AM
nn3453 nn3453 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,202
iTrader: 100 / 100%
Default

You are thinking that our overlords and the electorate are rational humans who can be convinced with sound arguments. There isn't an element of sincerity to the intent behind the laws they are trying to pass. You really think you can have a debate with them and they are going to say "oh yeah, you have a good point, let's make shall issue legal!"

Most liberals who vote for the crooks in power believe that no one needs to own a gun, much less carry one. They will tell you that if you carry a gun it can be used against an innocent person. Good luck with a rational argument.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-23-2016, 8:01 AM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 315
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We need to fight on every front we can. But we only need to win two victories - "bear" and "shall not be infringed". Okay, probably three because while it seems like "keep" should already have been addressed by the Supreme Court, we've already seen post McDonald rulings that eliminate "keep" by forcing people to turn over their lawfully owned standard capacity magazines - kinda counter to the idea of keep. If we can get "keep means keep","bear means bear" and "shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed" all according to the strict dictionary definitions of those 3 terms, anything after that would be a non-starter. Unfortunately, we've dumbed down our education system so much that apparently the "brightest" legal minds no longer understand the meaning of a definition.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-23-2016, 8:11 AM
WyGoSlw's Avatar
WyGoSlw WyGoSlw is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: OC, Cal
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We will NEVER change this state, they will ALWAYS be coming for your guns.
They will NEVER be happy until one of two things happen, either they try confiscating guns (California, good luck with that) or, the state turns blue. Hopefully I'll be living somewhere else before the former happens and the latter will never happen.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-23-2016, 8:30 AM
zuchaka's Avatar
zuchaka zuchaka is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 898
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

You are making a lot of sense OP........the problem is the democrats in California only care about advancing their careers and since so many on the left have an irrational fear of guns + more trust in government than any rational person should have........gun control plays well with left wing voters. It lets them say see we are doing something to protect you from crime we are getting rid of those awful guns no one needs and the republicans won't do anything about the gun problem........

Ya not locking up people that wanna kill us, and government failing to address domestic terrorism is the people fault ........they can spy on us all they want and I am just some loon cause I don't trust government.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-23-2016, 11:31 AM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 9,282
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptJim View Post
What am I forgetting?


Shall Issue means that as long as you pass basic requirements set out by state law, the issuing authority (county sheriff, police department, etc.) shall issue you a permit.

I couldn't find the definition of what those "basic requirements" limited to.

If you enlighten me please...


"Shall Issue" means that if you pay your money and pass the background check, your sheriff "Shall" issue your CWL.

"Shall Iissue" does not include interviews, LE calls to neighbors, relatives, employers, etc. Nor does it include psychological testing, good cause, good moral character, etc.

Simple.
__________________
"Tactical" is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf


Originally Posted By System Message:
Why can't you guys participate in a simple discussion about some guy's mom making a porno without violating the COC? This is why we can't have nice things.



“Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.”
Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-23-2016, 12:19 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,287
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
"Shall Iissue" does not include interviews, LE calls to neighbors, relatives, employers, etc. Nor does it include psychological testing, good cause, good moral character, etc.
If CA was somehow forced into shall issue you can be certain it would be "shall issue if the neighbors approve and you have good moral character". New Jersey courts have ruled that GMC and GC are not challengeable by an equal protection claim since they are, according to said courts, objective and not subjective criteria. California courts would do no less.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-23-2016, 12:25 PM
HardwoodRods's Avatar
HardwoodRods HardwoodRods is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Currently CA, Soon Texas
Posts: 444
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Unfortunately I disagree, we need to fight every battle, every hill needs to be the one to die on. IMO one the reasons we are in this mess is because a methodology was adopted where we didn't fight every battle, we only fought those we thought we could win.
__________________
"A free people ought to be armed" George Washington, 1790

"Don't fire unless fired upon. But if they mean to have war, let it begin here" Capt. John Parker, 19 April 1776, Lexington Green
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-23-2016, 2:24 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 3,153
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
IMHO, every statewide pro-gun organization and including a pro-gun organization like NRA's ONLY GOAL for state of CA must focus first on solely to convert our state to become a SHALL ISSUE state !

We as citizens are having our rights assailed on multiple fronts contantly.

This is a War, not just any one battle. If we concentrate all our efforts on just one front we get immediately outflanked and lose everything.

We need to quit ducking. Ducking is only a viable defensive tactic. You have to swing more, harder, faster, and land blows on all viable targets to win a fight.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-23-2016, 2:48 PM
CaptJim CaptJim is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 42
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mute View Post
Because the Democrats have proven, time and again, that every gun legislation they pass is merely a trojan horse to get more draconian measures through the gate.
I agree 100%

Shortly +1...
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-23-2016, 2:57 PM
CaptJim CaptJim is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 42
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post


"Shall Issue" means that if you pay your money and pass the background check, your sheriff "Shall" issue your CWL.

"Shall Iissue" does not include interviews, LE calls to neighbors, relatives, employers, etc. Nor does it include psychological testing, good cause, good moral character, etc.

Simple.
I am sorry but I disagree with you...

Even though I agree it should be as you say, I do not think it is written anywhere in the law that the local issuing authorities can not scrutinize the applicant and require more safety checks.
Again in their mind, the ONLY and solid meaning of the SHALL ISSUE does mean that the applicant DOES NOT HAVE TO SHOW A REASON (Good Cause) IF he/she passes all the safety checks and completes the required measures...

Again, I do not agree with the current requirements and regulations but again, as long as issuing authority can not deny an applicant willy nelly after he or she meets all the requirements, I am ok with it.

I am not saying state of Vermont must follow this method. Hell no!
All I am saying is that, as long as they do issue CCW for those who meet their requirements, then what is the Democrats excuse to stand in the way of CCW?

That should be mentioned over and over in the media at least here in CA.
Again IMHO... Yours may differ!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-24-2016, 1:11 PM
heyjerr's Avatar
heyjerr heyjerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 768
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptJim View Post
Who are you talking about? Who are "they" ?
They "they" from your original post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptJim
When they say "No, these are the great points" then ask them " if so, why you are opposing to implement a law which will allow all of this to be the norm?"
Folk of the anti-gun ilk will never concede that you have a great point.
__________________
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 7:31 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.