New from Billy Jack

[G17GUY]

Because idiots that can't write or think on their own will copy existing good cause as boilerplate, word-for-word, screwing it up for other folks - instead of thoughtful wording that captures the proper essence of a prior validated-thru-issuance good cause statement.

So, good cause for one person is not good for another. A ccw is not a school paper!

If I own and operate a 7/11 and my friend owns and operates a am/pm you think our good cause statements need to be any different?

If my wife wants to carry a firearm to allow her to have the ability to protect her family, other mothers that want the same need to say it with different words?

[Sobriquet]

Sorry, but the way you worded your response, it almost looks like you're accusing me of being in the TBJ camp. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but if it is, be aware that I have nothing to do with TBJ.

Nope, I intended nothing of the sort. Sorry if you took offense.

Proves how little you really know about how it all really works, How do you think TBJ can give examples that would be any good in all of several hundred different issuing authorities?

I understand all too well how the current system works. My view is that transparency is a good thing when it comes to discretionary systems. If the good cause statements were always released without having to jump through hoops (for all issuing authorities), it would be harder for them to favor supporters.

Because idiots that can't write or think on their own will copy existing good cause as boilerplate, word-for-word, screwing it up for other folks - instead of thoughtful wording that captures the proper essence of a prior validated-thru-issuance good cause statement.

I understand your view, but I respectfully will disagree for the same reason I mentioned above. Just because some harm could come from information doesn't mean it should be suppressed. Hopefully this will all be moot after Sykes. There shouldn't be a discretionary permitting system to exercise a natural right.

[Roadrunner]

Okay, so who is this "Billy Jack" character, and what kind of track record does he have?

He sounds like he has a very mercenary attitude toward the CCW problem, yet he wraps himself in the image of a hippie icon from the '60's. In my opinion, that doesn't exactly instill confidence in his abilities to perform.

For those of you that seem to have an aversion to a 2A activist mentality, why? Everyone who claims to be in this fight better have an activist attitude or you're worthless. But then again that is also my opinion.

[AEC1]

Because idiots that can't write or think on their own will copy existing good cause as boilerplate, word-for-word, screwing it up for other folks - instead of thoughtful wording that captures the proper essence of a prior validated-thru-issuance good cause statement.

Bill,
I have tremendous respect for you and all that you have done. But are you saying that if you are the product of a CA public school, and thus not as literate as others you should not have a CCW?

This again goes back to the racist origin of Gun Control, keep guns out of the hands of lower social classes. I dont care if you have 2 gold teeth, can't read and your only job is collecting alluminum cans. If you are elligible then you should have the same right that a well dressed, well spoken banker would have, maybee more as the areas of town you live in are most assuredly more dangerous. Just my two cents,

[HunterJim]

How much would it cost me to have TBJ evaluate my good cause statement?

I emailed them one and they replied IIRC a day later for no charge.


jim

[bwiese]

Bill,
I have tremendous respect for you and all that you have done. But are you saying that if you are the product of a CA public school, and thus not as literate as others you should not have a CCW?

Please understand context.

Pre-Sykes (and likely during its course until resolved), if a dozen people come up with word-for-word identical good cause statements, the first one may get the CCW and the rest will be denied.

The issuers will just say the subsequent applicants "are copying a recipe" and will MORE LIKELY DENY the app for such statements.

The asshats that simply copy others' GC statements will screw themselves and others down the line. Having somebody bright, like TBJ, work the system with their knowledge of many GCs filed, and their results, in given areas is the only way sometimes.

It doesn't mean it's right, it just means "it's the way things work in this environment" until change comes down thru other means.

[AEC1]

Please understand context.

Pre-Sykes (and likely during its course until resolved), if a dozen people come up with word-for-word identical good cause statements, the first one may get the CCW and the rest will be denied.

The issuers will just say the subsequent applicants "are copying a recipe" and will MORE LIKELY DENY the app for such statements.

The asshats that simply copy others' GC statements will screw themselves and others down the line. Having somebody bright, like TBJ, work the system with their knowledge of many GCs filed, and their results, in given areas is the only way sometimes.

It doesn't mean it's right, it just means "it's the way things work in this environment" until change comes down thru other means.

Understood, thanks for the clarification.

[G17GUY]

Please understand context.

Pre-Sykes (and likely during its course until resolved), if a dozen people come up with word-for-word identical good cause statements, the first one may get the CCW and the rest will be denied.

The issuers will just say the subsequent applicants "are copying a recipe" and will MORE LIKELY DENY the app for such statements.

The asshats that simply copy others' GC statements will screw themselves and others down the line. Having somebody bright, like TBJ, work the system with their knowledge of many GCs filed, and their results, in given areas is the only way sometimes.

It doesn't mean it's right, it just means "it's the way things work in this environment" until change comes down thru other means.

context noted, down the line good cause should be no more than a list of items on the ccw application from which the applicant checks one.

[DDT]

If one gunnie has information from PRA requests etc. that might be helpful to others and withholds that information they are no friend of the movement.

[Sobriquet]

I was under the impression that TBJ was charging for reviewing GC statements. That's what's always been indicated on this board - I haven't had personal contact with them.

My point was that it would be nice for people capable of drafting their own statements without assistance to have some guidance of the types of GC that have been approved within their area. I'm not advocating cookie cutter CCW apps.

If indeed TBJ isn't charging for their services, I think they have a serious PR problem on this board because they've been mischaracterized. That said, I tend to agree with DDT's statement.

[AEC1]

If you check out CACCW.org I think they have some info there by county

Rich