CCW in California

[ke6guj]

what is rkba amendment

Right to Keep and Bear Arms, AKA 2nd amendment. CA does not have a specific RKBA section in the CA constitution, so CA passes anti-gun legislation as says that it does not violate the CA constitution. Once the 2nd is incorporated, then CA anti-gun laws have to comply with the 2nd amendment, which they currently do not have to.

[dark45]

what was their reason for not wanting it

[N6ATF]

If only we got to write the bit "A NO vote on this proposition means..." ... practically all gun owners in large counties will be forced to carry their firearms in plain sight due to equal protection violations by their police chiefs and sheriffs.

[Captain Evilstomper]

THEN you got guys like the people who work in "the gun room" only people who been in there will truly know what i mean. although one guy there is decent and cool enough. has a sleeve tattoo talked to him and he is a decent guy.

HA! That's why i only use the range. and plus, everything is too expensive there...

i moved here from Indiana a couple of years ago, so let me tell you my IN CCW story
i went to the police precinct,checked the 'personal protection' box on he form, paid $25, got fingerprinted, and waited 5 weeks. then i was sent a groovy little piece of paper that said that i was legal to cary concealed. since i'm not a felon and IN is a 'shall issue' state, thatwas the whole deal

[JDay]

...but, the sheeple in Kalifornia are very unlikely to vote pro concealed carry.

I'm not so sure about that, most everyone I know is pro 2nd Amendment around here and I suspect its the same in most of the state. Too many people like to believe that San Fransisco represents the entire state.

[Librarian]

you don't think there is enough pro gun people in Cali?

The evidence suggests the answer is "No"

Well, there have been at least a couple efforts to merely get a RKBA amendment to the CA constitution and they haven't been able to get the signatures for that. And a CCW effort would be even more scary to the sheeple.

As I posted earlier, it's been tried; apparently all of these did not get enough signatures to make it onto the ballot:

1. 1989. "Right to Keep and Bear Arms"
2. 1991 "Firearms Ownership"
3. 1996. "Firearms. Right to Possess and Carry.
4. 1997. "Arms and Ammunition. Unrestricted Personal Possession and Use."
5. 1998. "Right to Possess and Carry Firearms."
6. 1999. - SA 1999 RF 0053, Amendment No. 1-S.
7. 2001 "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" SA01RF0041

In my opinion, it's just not a "bread and butter" issue for many people, and the continuing anti-gun media representations lead many folks, with no reason to have much of an opinion, to lean 'anti', since they seldom see any positive gun messages.

[JDay]

The evidence suggests the answer is "No"


As I posted earlier, it's been tried; apparently all of these did not get enough signatures to make it onto the ballot:

1. 1989. "Right to Keep and Bear Arms"
2. 1991 "Firearms Ownership"
3. 1996. "Firearms. Right to Possess and Carry.
4. 1997. "Arms and Ammunition. Unrestricted Personal Possession and Use."
5. 1998. "Right to Possess and Carry Firearms."
6. 1999. - SA 1999 RF 0053, Amendment No. 1-S.
7. 2001 "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" SA01RF0041

In my opinion, it's just not a "bread and butter" issue for many people, and the continuing anti-gun media representations lead many folks, with no reason to have much of an opinion, to lean 'anti', since they seldom see any positive gun messages.

I was old enough to vote when the petitions for the last four of those would have been getting signatures and I never once saw them, perhaps it would help if they were more proactive trying to get signatures? I know in places like El Dorado county there would be little problem getting signatures.

[lehn20]

There is plenty of PRO gun people in CA to get something passed. The big issue is a already said, MONEY.
The signatures is another thing. Emphasis should be placed on the smaller towns and cities etc where people are more pro guns. Skip most of LA and SF areas and concentrate on places we know they are 2A friendly.

[Librarian]

There is plenty of PRO gun people in CA to get something passed. The big issue is a already said, MONEY.
The signatures is another thing. Emphasis should be placed on the smaller towns and cities etc where people are more pro guns. Skip most of LA and SF areas and concentrate on places we know they are 2A friendly.

Start reading here: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elec...nitiatives.htm

The current initiative signature requirements are as follows:

Initiative Statute: 433,971
Constitutional Amendment: 694,354

Then look at the registration data http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror_102008.htm

 
Report Date Eligible Voters 1 Registered Voters  Percent  Registration Close 2 
   
Oct. 20, 2008 23,208,710 17,304,091  74.56%  

Report Date    Dem     Rep      Other  to State     of Dem of Rep 
 
Oct. 20, 2008  44.4%  31.4%  4.3%  19.9%          26        32

You can't skip the major population centers - 8 million of the registered voters are in Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Avoiding them is "fishing where they ain't".

And clearly you have managed not to experience rejection - "I don't want my name on any list!"

Remember, current estimates are that under 40% of households have a gun, and thereby might be expected to have positive experience with them. With 60% of the households having no experience, how do they get their public-issue information?

The SF Chronicle, the SJ Mercury-News, the LA Times, the Sacramento Bee; SF and LA TV stations and the radio stations. See any there that are at least neutral? See any that will even accept pro-gun money for pro-gun ads? How do we change fifty years of 'guns are bad' when we can't even get into the game to talk to people, and the antis basically get their publicity for free?

[Captain Evilstomper]

librarian:
you are right, and you depress me...

[Librarian]

librarian:
you are right, and you depress me...

I don't think we need to be depressed - merely to recognize that the deck is stacked against us in the "initiative game". As the W.O.P.R. computer said in War Games, "the only way to win is not to play the game."

The courts are the active battlefield. We get anti-gun laws from anti-gun legislators. We get anti-gun legislators from funding by a few anti-gun individuals and organizations, and from voters poorly- or mis-informed on the issue. Legislators pass laws, say 'look what good boys we are, vote for us to get more of the same'.

Most voters don't have an intelligent opinion on guns.

If the laws get thrown out, the funding dries up, the reports back to the voters are less cheerful on the issue, and legislators don't emphasize guns as a campaign or legislative issue.

Voters won't really care either way.

That's what I hope will happen, anyway.

[Capt. Speirs]

yup, it costs money to get the signatures and that can run more than a million, IIRC. And once that happens and you are on the ballot, now you get to compete against the Brady Bunch and the rest of the anti-gun forces.

As a point of reference, each side of the Prop 8 battle spent around $35 million. So, my $50 million guess may be a little high, but it was in the neighborhood.

I'm out of work, I'll help get sigs.

[CAL.BAR]

Well, there have been at least a couple efforts to merely get a RKBA amendment to the CA constitution and they haven't been able to get the signatures for that. And a CCW effort would be even more scary to the sheeple.

It may come down to that, but right now, the Right People have other avenues that they are pursuing that should bear fruit at less expense.

Sorry to say - it's the truth. CA is a lost cause. No one cares about gun rights (even many of the right wingers who vote from the pulpit) Let's review . . . less than 1000 CCW's in OC in a county of over 3 million Most of those CCW's are law enforcement related. No one cares.(I even hate typing it)

CA is gone, and the country is slowly following. Go to the NRA website and track the anti-gun legislation around the country even in formerly pro-gun bastions in the south and midwest. Once anti-gun legislation is passed it is seldom changed. It's like a ratchet - each turn of the crank tightens the noose.

[Librarian]

Sorry to say - it's the truth. CA is a lost cause. No one cares about gun rights (even many of the right wingers who vote from the pulpit) Let's review . . . less than 1000 CCW's in OC in a county of over 3 million Most of those CCW's are law enforcement related. No one cares.(I even hate typing it)

I think I'll take a slightly contrary position. It's not that no one cares - it's that a majority doesn't care, quite literally. The subject is uninteresting to almost anyone until they experience or fear civil unrest on the scale of the Rodney King riots of 1992. I really believe it's a grasshopper/ant thing. "The government will take care of us!" -- until it can't, or won't.

Fortunately, we live in a representative democracy rather than a straight 'majority rules' political system, and we're supposed to respect the rights of minorities.

But gun owners are a minority in the United States today. I hope Heller will turn out to be our Brown vs Board of Education.

ETA: It's also the case that the convinced anti-gun people are a minority, and I estimate them to be a smaller number than the gun owners. It's all the 'fellow travelers' the antis attract who are the problem for political action.

[Steve O]

Right to Keep and Bear Arms, AKA 2nd amendment. CA does not have a specific RKBA section in the CA constitution, so CA passes anti-gun legislation as says that it does not violate the CA constitution. Once the 2nd is incorporated, then CA anti-gun laws have to comply with the 2nd amendment, which they currently do not have to.

HI Jack. Nice to chat to you again.

So who is organizing the movement for incorporation, and how is it going to happen in the next few months?

And say it does happen. Couldn't Obama change everything!