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.

View Poll Results: What should Sheriff candidates CCW position be.
Personal protection is good cause. (Hunt) 121 94.53%
Improved issue with some cause. (Hunter) 6 4.69%
May issue for people with cause 0 0%
May issue with good cause, (HUTCHENS) 0 0%
Rare or no issue (Baca) 1 0.78%
Voters: 128. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-17-2009, 2:51 AM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,223
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default CCW good cause, what I'd like to hear.

The good cause for CCW is a song and dance.

What I would like to hear a candidate say is the following:

Our country was founded on the principle that we are all equal under the law and I cannot adminster CCW permits under a discretionary system without violating someone's rights of equality under the law.

Snce issuance is based on my discretion, the only good cause statement I will from ask for from applicants is to write "Personal Protection" and as long as applicants pass the background checks and take required training, I will issue CCW permits.

This is the only way I can administer the CCW permit system without violating someone's equal protection rights under both the state and federal constitution.

A candidate who would take this position would expand his base from people who care about gun rights to equal rights.

So do we want to support sheriff candidates who will dance around or do we want to support candidates who can read art 1 sec 7b of the California constitution regarding equal rights and actually commit to upholding their oath of office.

The only modification of art 1 sec 7b was prop 8 so unless someone wants to change the California Constitution again, it is pretty blantant that state licenses, even if admistered locally, are subject to equal protection.

All applicants who pass the background checks and take and pass training should get a CCW permit unless there is some compelling public safety issue why they shouldn't.

The reality is under a true shall issue system, less than 2 percent of the population will get CCW permits anyway, so we aren't going to have the issue of EVERYONE carrying guns.

We are going to have Incorporation and Sykes will get us CCW, even if it has to be appealed all the way to the SCOTUS.

We need sheriff candidates who understand we are going to win soon anyway and are ready to do the right thing from day one, not sing and dance on the good cause.

So, what do you guys think.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-17-2009, 3:03 AM
AndrewMendez's Avatar
AndrewMendez AndrewMendez is offline
C3 Leader
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 626
Posts: 7,291
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

I should not need any other reason then to protect the life of myself and family, for they are the most important people in the world to me!
__________________
Need A Realtor in SoCal? Shoot me a PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-17-2009, 3:12 AM
engineers101st engineers101st is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: san diego
Posts: 217
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

+100000^
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-17-2009, 3:45 AM
bigcalidave's Avatar
bigcalidave bigcalidave is offline
Pre-Banned
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: St. George, UT
Posts: 4,816
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Personal protection HAS to be the only reason. This state is out of control and bankrupt, how can they afford to even fight this stuff.
__________________
Contact me about Advertising on Calguns.net
Marketing Director, Calguns.net
Dave Shore
NRA Life Member



Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-17-2009, 4:42 AM
mofugly13's Avatar
mofugly13 mofugly13 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 694
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Nicki for Sheriff? Come on up here and take Hennessey's place!
__________________
No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for high-sounding reasons such as "public safety."
A right that can be regulated is no right at all, only a temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government
officials that such right is designed to constrain.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-17-2009, 4:54 AM
jaymz's Avatar
jaymz jaymz is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rancho Cucamomga
Posts: 6,277
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

I guess that "personal protection" will work. I'd prefer no "good cause" at all. Pay your fees, get some training, get your ccw. Should pretty much be the same as getting a drivers license.
__________________
War is when your Government tells you who the enemy is......

Revolution is when you figure it out for yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-17-2009, 5:08 AM
RobG's Avatar
RobG RobG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Prietostan
Posts: 4,732
iTrader: 97 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaymz View Post
I guess that "personal protection" will work. I'd prefer no "good cause" at all. Pay your fees, get some training, get your ccw. Should pretty much be the same as getting a drivers license.
Almost my take except, carry because I want to, get some training, do not pay the state, get the CCW.

Disagree with the CDL analogy. No where is there a constitutional right to drive.
__________________
*PSE Archery* *Gold Tip Arrows* *Riptide Code Red* *Magnus Broadheads* *Scott Release* *Archery Shack bowstrings* *Trophy Ridge bow sights* *Bee Stinger* *Vortex Optics* *EXO Mountain*
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-17-2009, 6:02 AM
PatriotnMore's Avatar
PatriotnMore PatriotnMore is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Anaheim Hills, CA
Posts: 7,076
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
So do we want to support sheriff candidates who will dance around or do we want to support candidates who can read art 1 sec 7b of the California constitution regarding equal rights and actually commit to upholding their oath of office.
We need sheriff candidates who understand we are going to win soon anyway and are ready to do the right thing from day one, not sing and dance on the good cause.
So, what do you guys think.Nicki
What we really need is honesty and clarity from ALL candidates, but since there is very little recourse to force a candidate to keep promises, we often end up with the opposite of what we signed on for.

Notice how we never see legislation which supports ways to punish those who outright lie, implement opposite legislation, or do nothing meaningful to follow through on promises when campaigning, or taking monies from those who give due to political speeches, and promises.

If ever we needed positive legislation that is for the people that would hold the candidates responsible for their words, now is the time.

It would seem to me fraud is a legitimate reason to enact legislation against candidates who take monies from those giving it in good faith based on the candidates own speeches and promises, only to have it used against them through no effort, or opposite effort after elections by the candidate. If a candidate is taking monies from individuals or groups based on favorable works by the candidate on a specific issue, the candidate better understand why, and who they're taking monies from.

How can we expect a new breed of candidate, when
there is no benefit, incentive, or punishment to change?
__________________
‎"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
--James Madison
'Letter to Edmund Pendleton', 1792

Last edited by PatriotnMore; 12-17-2009 at 7:23 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-17-2009, 7:07 AM
jaymz's Avatar
jaymz jaymz is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rancho Cucamomga
Posts: 6,277
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobG View Post
Almost my take except, carry because I want to, get some training, do not pay the state, get the CCW.

Disagree with the CDL analogy. No where is there a constitutional right to drive.
I knew someone would say that, I actually typed a disclaimer pertaining to that, then deleted it. I'm only comparing the process, nothing more.
__________________
War is when your Government tells you who the enemy is......

Revolution is when you figure it out for yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-17-2009, 7:17 AM
guayuque guayuque is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 286
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobG View Post
Almost my take except, carry because I want to, get some training, do not pay the state, get the CCW.

Disagree with the CDL analogy. No where is there a constitutional right to drive.
But the Constitution does not require CCW, either. You can keep arms at home all you want, but moving about the public with CCW is not a Constitutional right.

I also disagree with the DL analogy, but for another reason. Once of the reasons we don;t have a bunch of knuckleheads out there with CCW is the background check and I think we do still need that. And, making the hurdle high in terms of training and interview mean that only some pretty responsible people have CCW privileges.

As to cause, I think personal protection plus a tiny bit more of something should be required. Not quite carrying cash, jewels, etc., but just a bit more than personal protection.
__________________
Firearm owner, licensed hunter, lawyer, and card carrying member of the ACLU.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-17-2009, 8:14 AM
RobG's Avatar
RobG RobG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Prietostan
Posts: 4,732
iTrader: 97 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaymz View Post
I knew someone would say that, I actually typed a disclaimer pertaining to that, then deleted it. I'm only comparing the process, nothing more.
Glad to help


Quote:
Originally Posted by guayuque View Post
But the Constitution does not require CCW, either. You can keep arms at home all you want, but moving about the public with CCW is not a Constitutional right.

I also disagree with the DL analogy, but for another reason. Once of the reasons we don;t have a bunch of knuckleheads out there with CCW is the background check and I think we do still need that. And, making the hurdle high in terms of training and interview mean that only some pretty responsible people have CCW privileges.

As to cause, I think personal protection plus a tiny bit more of something should be required. Not quite carrying cash, jewels, etc., but just a bit more than personal protection.
No, but it does state "bear" which indicates that firearms could be worn, carried, or whatever in public. To "bear" in your home does not seem to be the intent. Of course it is all dependant on what way certain judges sway, unfortunately.

The statement of "pretty responsible" makes no sense. I already have to have a background check, handgun safety card, pick from a "safe list", am limited on magazine capacity, and wait 10 days. What more should one have to do? Training should be something one places on themself.

And why should there be more than personal protection for cause? Isn't that what you are ultimately carrying a gun for?
__________________
*PSE Archery* *Gold Tip Arrows* *Riptide Code Red* *Magnus Broadheads* *Scott Release* *Archery Shack bowstrings* *Trophy Ridge bow sights* *Bee Stinger* *Vortex Optics* *EXO Mountain*
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-17-2009, 8:28 AM
DVSmith DVSmith is offline
Cantankerous old coot
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The OC
Posts: 3,680
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

What I would like to hear is a sheriff say: "I will issue to anyone who apples and is not prohibited from owning a firearm"

The legal reality in California doesn't support that type of policy which requires an honest candidate to state that the legal requirements will be interpreted in the least restrictive way possible.

So none of the above is applicable to what I would like to hear and I don't think you have accurately represented the candidates' positions.

For example, Hutchens isn't "May issue with good cause", she will issue with good cause but her standard for good cause is higher than Carona's and Anderson's were and she issues most permits with restrictions where theirs were issued without restrictions.

Last edited by DVSmith; 12-17-2009 at 8:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-17-2009, 8:30 AM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Seņor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 31,897
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaymz View Post
I guess that "personal protection" will work. I'd prefer no "good cause" at all. Pay your fees, get some training, get your ccw. Should pretty much be the same as getting a drivers license.
Ditto.

As long as the DOJ requires "good cause", then "personal protection" is as good as it should need to be.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-17-2009, 8:52 AM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Seņor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 31,897
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guayuque View Post
But the Constitution does not require CCW, either. You can keep arms at home all you want, but moving about the public with CCW is not a Constitutional right.

I also disagree with the DL analogy, but for another reason. Once of the reasons we don;t have a bunch of knuckleheads out there with CCW is the background check and I think we do still need that. And, making the hurdle high in terms of training and interview mean that only some pretty responsible people have CCW privileges.
I agree with some of that, but not with the "interview" portion.
A right is a right. The DL is not a right so it is not a proper analogy.
Yes, training should be a requirement.

WRT the first statement, in the spirit of 2A, and personal defense stipulations in DC vs Heller, the right to carry a gun outside of the home requires either the right to CCW or the right to LOC.

Arizona has it right.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-17-2009, 11:45 AM
Ducman's Avatar
Ducman Ducman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 951
Posts: 2,130
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Please explain this " Right to Keep and BEAR arms "

and your statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guayuque View Post
But the Constitution does not require CCW, either. You can keep arms at home all you want, but moving about the public with CCW is not a Constitutional right.
__________________
SA PRO LR SA TRP FullRail SA MC Operator Les Baer Thunder Ranch
Project gun: 10-8 performance Operator 2.0 coming soon


sent from my iPhone 1911 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-17-2009, 12:08 PM
RobG's Avatar
RobG RobG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Prietostan
Posts: 4,732
iTrader: 97 / 100%
Default

Realistically the gov't should have to show us, we the people, good cause to not issue the CCW.
__________________
*PSE Archery* *Gold Tip Arrows* *Riptide Code Red* *Magnus Broadheads* *Scott Release* *Archery Shack bowstrings* *Trophy Ridge bow sights* *Bee Stinger* *Vortex Optics* *EXO Mountain*
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-17-2009, 12:19 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Seņor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 31,897
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobG View Post
Realistically the gov't should have to show us, we the people, good cause to not issue the CCW.
That's the whole point of shall-issue.

If a person is not a prohibited person, they should be eligible to CCW (after going through independent training).
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-17-2009, 12:47 PM
supersonic's Avatar
supersonic supersonic is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sactown, Sacramento, Sac, Etc....
Posts: 5,611
iTrader: 160 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ANDREWMENDEZ View Post
I should not need any other reason then to protect the life of myself and family, for they are the most important people in the world to me!
^^^ THIS
__________________
"HAMMER OF JUSTICE CRUSHES YEE!"



*FACTORY-CERTIFIED ARMORER IN SACRAMENTO*http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=393331 GUNS 4 SALE: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=923745 WILSON COMBAT MAGS------ http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=928518
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-17-2009, 1:24 PM
Legasat's Avatar
Legasat Legasat is offline
Intergalactic Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Diego North County
Posts: 4,155
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

"I will approve a CCW to anyone that is not prohibited from legally owning a firearm."

That is what I want hear them say.
__________________
..

.........STGC(SW)


SAF Life Member


NRA Benefactor
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-17-2009, 3:12 PM
supersonic's Avatar
supersonic supersonic is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sactown, Sacramento, Sac, Etc....
Posts: 5,611
iTrader: 160 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legasat View Post
"I will approve a CCW to anyone that is not prohibited from legally owning a firearm."

That is what I want hear them say.
I would go just a bit further, considering all the law-abiding morons we have living amongst us: "I will approve a CCW to anyone that is not prohibited from legally owning a firearm and can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he/she can proficiently handle & operate a firearm SAFELY." - Like so.
__________________
"HAMMER OF JUSTICE CRUSHES YEE!"



*FACTORY-CERTIFIED ARMORER IN SACRAMENTO*http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=393331 GUNS 4 SALE: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=923745 WILSON COMBAT MAGS------ http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=928518
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-17-2009, 3:22 PM
DVSmith DVSmith is offline
Cantankerous old coot
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The OC
Posts: 3,680
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supersonic View Post
I would go just a bit further, considering all the law-abiding morons we have living amongst us: "I will approve a CCW to anyone that is not prohibited from legally owning a firearm and can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he/she can proficiently handle & operate a firearm SAFELY." - Like so.
I think the 2A purists would argue that you are setting limits on a right and that is not acceptable.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-17-2009, 3:25 PM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supersonic View Post
I would go just a bit further, considering all the law-abiding morons we have living amongst us: "I will approve a CCW to anyone that is not prohibited from legally owning a firearm and can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he/she can proficiently handle & operate a firearm SAFELY." - Like so.
Why do you need the last part? Utah doesn't require such a proof, nor does Vermont, Alaska and severl other states. When was the last time you heard of a Utah/Vermont/Alaska CCW holder having a problem that your addition would have fixed?

I'm all in favor of training (just send me the money and book a course!) but empirical evidence that it is necessary is missing. We demand that the antis prove their statements with statistics, yet we accept things like this as dogma.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-17-2009, 7:00 PM
supersonic's Avatar
supersonic supersonic is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sactown, Sacramento, Sac, Etc....
Posts: 5,611
iTrader: 160 / 100%
Default

Woah! Back the F*** OFF, dogs!!!!! Geeeez! This is just my opinion as to not wanting any unnecessary "ND's" along with injury & death that could be prevented with a little training. But, (per your logic) I guess anyone who is legally eligible to own a handgun will know exactly what to do when 'the moment of truth' comes.............just because that person has that piece of paper in their wallet. I guess the 2ndA comes first anyway, though.

I was merely stating that one should only be able to posses a CCW if they know how to use a gun without being a danger to everyone around them. That's all. F**K.
__________________
"HAMMER OF JUSTICE CRUSHES YEE!"



*FACTORY-CERTIFIED ARMORER IN SACRAMENTO*http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=393331 GUNS 4 SALE: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=923745 WILSON COMBAT MAGS------ http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=928518

Last edited by supersonic; 12-17-2009 at 7:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-17-2009, 7:19 PM
DVSmith DVSmith is offline
Cantankerous old coot
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The OC
Posts: 3,680
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supersonic View Post
Woah! Back the F*** OFF, dogs!!!!! Geeeez! This is just my opinion as to not wanting any unnecessary "ND's" along with injury & death that could be prevented with a little training. But, (per your logic) I guess anyone who is legally eligible to own a handgun will know exactly what to do when 'the moment of truth' comes.............just because that person has that piece of paper in their wallet. I guess the 2ndA comes first anyway, though.

I was merely stating that one should only be able to posses a CCW if they know how to use a gun without being a danger to everyone around them. That's all. F**K.
I guess you are a gun control advocate then. In all meanings of that phrase

Seriously though, I was just pointing out that people who believed that the 2nd provides a right and a right can not be conditional may have an issue with proving proficiency before being able to exercise that right. It makes it sound more like a privilege, such as driving.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-17-2009, 8:16 PM
LiberalGunner LiberalGunner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 58
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Do you all really want any "legal" person being able to pack in secret? I understand that some municipalities are over restrictive and favor political contributors, stars and big wigs. I'm not saying that's the right way to go, but come on...there are a lot of idiots out there in the world. If you can't fill out a basic form at your local sheriff's office, can't pass a safety class, or really have a dumb reason for wanting to carry, does it support the public safety and greater good to have these people armed? I know a lot of dumb 18 year olds that I wouldn't want holding a set of car keys. It would be a tragedy for gun rights if "gun rage" replaced road rage and discharging weapons on the streets became as common as DUI's.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-17-2009, 8:37 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Seņor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 31,897
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LiberalGunner View Post
Do you all really want any "legal" person being able to pack in secret?
Yes.

Criminals are already packing in secret.
Quote:
or really have a dumb reason for wanting to carry,
Such as "personal protection", or "Because it is my right and I want the option to carry if I feel the need"?
Your definition, my definition, and Barbara Boxer's definition of "dumb reason" are not going to be the same.
Quote:
It would be a tragedy for gun rights if "gun rage" replaced road rage and discharging weapons on the streets became as common as DUI's.
Again, criminals already carry illegally... concealed and otherwise.
Many otherwise law-abiding citizens also carry concealed illegally simply because they cannot get a permit in their county.

Currently, only 10 states (plus DC) are not "shall-issue".
Two states have no permit requirement... Alaska and Vermont. No training, no test, no background check other than what is required to purchase the gun.
If your fears of "gun rage" replacing "road rage" were true, we would have seen that long ago from Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc....
All of those states have large population centers comparable to Los Angeles with cimilar crime/gang issues... yet crime statistics actually dropped after these states became shall-issue.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-17-2009, 8:37 PM
RobG's Avatar
RobG RobG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Prietostan
Posts: 4,732
iTrader: 97 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LiberalGunner View Post
Do you all really want any "legal" person being able to pack in secret? I understand that some municipalities are over restrictive and favor political contributors, stars and big wigs. I'm not saying that's the right way to go, but come on...there are a lot of idiots out there in the world. If you can't fill out a basic form at your local sheriff's office, can't pass a safety class, or really have a dumb reason for wanting to carry, does it support the public safety and greater good to have these people armed? I know a lot of dumb 18 year olds that I wouldn't want holding a set of car keys. It would be a tragedy for gun rights if "gun rage" replaced road rage and discharging weapons on the streets became as common as DUI's.
This simply has not been the case when states have openly issued CCW. Although elitist attitudes such as yours are commonly used now to deny CCW's. And exactly how will you weed out these said idiots?. And why should I need to conform to what someone else feels is a "reason" to carry. People always assume that if someone does not have a CCW that they will not carry. If you are the type to pull out a gun because of a vehicle crash, then you are probably already carrying illegally. It is interesting the, "I want a CCW but don't want those people to have one," attitude. The constitution was written for EVERYONE, not a selected group.
__________________
*PSE Archery* *Gold Tip Arrows* *Riptide Code Red* *Magnus Broadheads* *Scott Release* *Archery Shack bowstrings* *Trophy Ridge bow sights* *Bee Stinger* *Vortex Optics* *EXO Mountain*
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-17-2009, 9:06 PM
GuyW GuyW is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,303
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LiberalGunner View Post
Do you all really want any "legal" person being able to pack in secret? I understand that some municipalities are over restrictive and favor political contributors, stars and big wigs. I'm not saying that's the right way to go, but come on...there are a lot of idiots out there in the world. If you can't fill out a basic form at your local sheriff's office, can't pass a safety class, or really have a dumb reason for wanting to carry, does it support the public safety and greater good to have these people armed? I know a lot of dumb 18 year olds that I wouldn't want holding a set of car keys. It would be a tragedy for gun rights if "gun rage" replaced road rage and discharging weapons on the streets became as common as DUI's.
The Brady gun-grabbers are down the street on your left....
.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-17-2009, 9:08 PM
Hopi's Avatar
Hopi Hopi is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lassen County
Posts: 7,683
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyW View Post
The Brady gun-grabbers are down the street on your left....
.
actually, I think they were just right here on our nice peaceful forum...
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-17-2009, 10:01 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,708
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I don't know anything about the candidates (other than the incumbent, who I hope moves on to some other line of employment), but I voted for "Improved issue with some cause". I think it's reasonable, given the way our statute is written, for people to have to use a whiff of brain-power and a microliter of ink to write a few more words than just "personal protection". Maybe, "I walk home from work sometimes", or "I go jogging at night", or "I drive through bad areas of town sometimes", or "there was a gang shooting near my house recently" or "I have an 80s style haircut and someone might not like it" or something like that.

Our statute does require the person to be at some elevated risk. Meeting that requirement with just a few more words seems reasonable.

Our statute violates my own personal view of the Constitution, and I hope our statute will soon be demolished by the Sykes case so that the law will become consistent with my view of the constitution, but until then... it seems like the safest option is to put a few words beyond "personal protection". It shouldn't be that much of a strain to think of something.
__________________

Last edited by CCWFacts; 12-17-2009 at 10:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-17-2009, 11:01 PM
M. Sage's Avatar
M. Sage M. Sage is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 19,759
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The whole "good cause" requirement is a complete abomination. "Guh" should qualify as a "good cause statement".
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadbolt View Post
"We're here to take your land for your safety"

"My Safety?" *click* "There, that was my safety"
http://www.huntfishadventures.com/images/nra.gifNRA Member
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-18-2009, 7:43 AM
The Director's Avatar
The Director The Director is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hollywood, baby
Posts: 2,771
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

LiberalGunner.

Cool. The first oxymoron I've had all day.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-18-2009, 8:11 AM
Jamsie567's Avatar
Jamsie567 Jamsie567 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 63
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If you are not objective and genuninely looking for a candidate to support. Please do consider Bill Hunt he has carried the same CCW stance since 2005 and is not pandering for votes. He is very qualified to not only lead the OCSD but has proven to be a man of his word and integrity. In 2006 he stood up for his community against his own boss the now convicted felon Mike Carona.

He is uniquly qualified to be a leader in this movement because he was forced to become a civilian and start his own business. He knows what it's like to have his freedom of speech rights trampled. He commands the leadership of the department by taking on every tough assignment and earning the respect of his pears from within.

Please help join in the effort to elect Bill Hunt as our next SHERIFF!!

Bill Hunt for Sheriff: Talking about CCW's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99J3CojOe0E
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-18-2009, 8:18 AM
supersonic's Avatar
supersonic supersonic is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sactown, Sacramento, Sac, Etc....
Posts: 5,611
iTrader: 160 / 100%
Default

O.K., I see your point, guys. I'm just such a stickler for firearm safety that it came out in my words. You don't know how many times I've watched a person do the demonstration (to get their HSC) and point the muzzle at everyone & everything except a safe direction; keep their finger on the trigger; sweep the muzzle with their own hand(s), only to be allowed to start over & OVER until they get it 'right'. These morons then are allowed to buy the gun of their choice & then become a danger to us ALL! Anyway, it doesn't matter, because even if CA becomes 'Shall Issue,' every applicant will still be required to pass the qualification/training course.
__________________
"HAMMER OF JUSTICE CRUSHES YEE!"



*FACTORY-CERTIFIED ARMORER IN SACRAMENTO*http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=393331 GUNS 4 SALE: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=923745 WILSON COMBAT MAGS------ http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=928518
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-18-2009, 9:09 AM
RobG's Avatar
RobG RobG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Prietostan
Posts: 4,732
iTrader: 97 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
I don't know anything about the candidates (other than the incumbent, who I hope moves on to some other line of employment), but I voted for "Improved issue with some cause". I think it's reasonable, given the way our statute is written, for people to have to use a whiff of brain-power and a microliter of ink to write a few more words than just "personal protection". Maybe, "I walk home from work sometimes", or "I go jogging at night", or "I drive through bad areas of town sometimes", or "there was a gang shooting near my house recently" or "I have an 80s style haircut and someone might not like it" or something like that.
Our statute does require the person to be at some elevated risk. Meeting that requirement with just a few more words seems reasonable.
Really? "Good Cause" is a BS way to say no. Just like me telling my kids, "maybe." And your above list is easily debunked by anyone not wanting to issue.

Don't walk home from work, don't jog at night, don't drive in bad areas, you are not in a gang, change your hairstyle. CCW DENIED.

And I really hate the word, "reasonable."

But I will play. "I want a CCW for personal protection because there is crime in California." Hows that?
__________________
*PSE Archery* *Gold Tip Arrows* *Riptide Code Red* *Magnus Broadheads* *Scott Release* *Archery Shack bowstrings* *Trophy Ridge bow sights* *Bee Stinger* *Vortex Optics* *EXO Mountain*

Last edited by RobG; 12-18-2009 at 9:13 AM..
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 4:14 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.