After Sykes: How to Consolidate Our Legal Gains

[Paladin]

As I was reading thru Nicki's thread re being gracious winners and all the replies, I remembered something that CCW_Facts pointed out a couple of years ago: that once a state goes "Shall Issue" it subsequently does not pass any significant gun rights restrictions (aka "gun control laws").

That got me to thinking what the NRA, CalNRA, CRPA and Calguns (either .net and/or Foundation), need to do is prepare for a MAJOR post-Sykes push to get people to apply for CCWs *and* for those applicants to get everyone they know to apply (or at least know about CA becoming Shall Issue). The NRA should make a Sykes win (assuming we win), the cover story of ALL their magazines and be a top story on their various homepages for a month. Once the "Silent Majority" of gun owners (i.e., CA gunnies who've never heard of Calguns) hear that they can get a CCW to defend them & theirs, we will have gone a long way to ensuring that Sacto stops attacking our rights.

What is even more important is that Shall Issue will get many people who are concerned about their safety, but currently not into guns, to look into them since they can now legally carry. IMO, a disproportionate number of these newbies to RKBA activism will be WOMEN (you can't get more pro-RKBA than actually BA-ing! ).

I heard on the news on the radio this afternoon that over half of the women surveyed are afraid of taking CA public transit because they fear waiting by themselves at the stops. I (and others around here) have often discussed what it will take for more women to join our cause and/or Calguns. I think getting Shall Issue will give us the opening we've been looking for.

Think of all those women practicing various martial arts, trying to learn how, in the midst of an attack by a BG, to hit or grab him and somehow prevail over him. I'm sure many of them have come to realize that unless the BG does something stupid, they'll probably be coming out on the short end of the deal regardless of their training. I'm sure many of them would much rather (or in addition to) have a gun that they can pull out to shoot the BG if necessary (no one likes to bleed). I know in the Shall Issue states, many women got into guns only because of CCWs.

Bottom line: the "Right People" need to start developing a PR/advertising campaign (and I do mean "campaign" as in warfare), so that we can hit the ground running and get as many people on board ASAP after Sykes. The more CCW'ers we have, the more people who are "stakeholders," who have a vested interest in defending our 2nd A RKBA in CA! (An aside: Sacto will notice how many and how quickly people apply for CCWs after Sykes.)

[CCWFacts]

As I was reading thru Nicki's thread re being gracious winners and all the replies, I remembered something that CCW_Facts pointed out a couple of years ago: that once a state goes "Shall Issue" it subsequently does not pass any significant gun rights restrictions (aka "gun control laws").

Indeed! In my view, CCW is sort of a "vaccine" against gun control. It's also the area of gun law that has the most real-world immediate impact on personal safety, so those two factors lead me to put it above all other possible priorities.

And the reason it's a "vaccine" against gun control is simple: gun control consists of a set of hysterical laws regulating minutiae with felony penalties. Barrel shroud, which they don't even know what it is? Felony (old Federal AWB)! Flash hider in California, which they probably also have no idea what it is or why a criminal would care? Felony! 30 round magazine, which you can buy in any gun store out of state? Felony!

But once people are carrying guns in public it takes the steam out of those types of debates. That is what has happened in other states.

The other factor is that, once people have a state-issued permit to carry a gun to defend themselves, it's no longer possible to argue that armed self-defense is somehow wrong. "I've got a permit right here, issued by the state, saying I'm allowed to carry a gun to defend myself, so the state agrees that that is a legitimate use of firearms!"

That got me to thinking what the NRA, CalNRA, CRPA and Calguns (either .net and/or Foundation), need to do is prepare for a MAJOR post-Sykes push to get people to apply for CCWs *and* for those applicants to get everyone they know to apply (or at least know about CA becoming Shall Issue).

Other states that have gone shall-issue have not had big surges in applications. I doubt we could do much to get more of a surge.

The one thing that creates a surge in that is when something like Hurricane Katrina hits. Maybe the NRA should have a contingency plan set up to start running NRA ads here the next time something like that happens.

The NRA should make a Sykes win (assuming we win), the cover story of ALL their magazines and be a top story on their various homepages for a month. Once the "Silent Majority" of gun owners (i.e., CA gunnies who've never heard of Calguns) hear that they can get a CCW to defend them & theirs, we will have gone a long way to ensuring that Sacto stops attacking our rights.

It is very very hard to reach the "silent majority" of gun owners here. Many gun owners in this state are anti-NRA.

Think of all those women practicing various martial arts, trying to learn how, in the midst of an attack by a BG, to hit or grab him and somehow prevail over him.

Ha ha. Yeah, it's foolish. Doesn't matter if she takes 20 years of karate, a 120lbs woman has very poor odds against someone who has studied in the California Prison Dojo.

And I know plenty of single women who in this state who are afraid for their own safety, but hate the NRA and still think that gun laws here keep them safe. Um, no.

I'm sure many of them have come to realize that unless the BG does something stupid, they'll probably be coming out on the short end of the deal regardless of their training.

I think few of them realize it. In the martial arts classes, somehow the "opponent" can always be thrown, pinned down, or punched into unconsciousness, so maybe these women start believing that they will get the same results against someone who has real training in the Prison Dojo.

I'm sure many of them would much rather (or in addition to) have a gun that they can pull out to shoot the BG if necessary (no one likes to bleed).

Unfortunately, most of the single women around here buy the lie: "If you have a gun, it will just make things worse because he'll take it from you and use it against you!" Seriously, I hear that all the time if I bring up guns for self-defense. Most people here really believe that a gun makes the situation more dangerous.

Bottom line: the "Right People" need to start developing a PR/advertising campaign (and I do mean "campaign" as in warfare),

It's only going to matter if it's in the context of a Katrina-like situation where people will understand reality: guns are the only things that mean anything in those situations.

I was in LA when the Rodney King riots got going, and I knew that a lot of NRA-hating liberals were very shocked and appalled by this whole "waiting period" thing. The week after, did they all go out and take the NRA basic course, join the NRA, and vote their sheriff out of office? No way, nothing changed.

I think it's a world view problem. Conservatives think more of consequences, risks, and future negatives. Liberals think more in terms of possibility, positives, and "it will all work out fine". Those views don't change, even when traumatic events occur which show that maybe, just maybe, a little bit of preparedness would be a reasonable course of action.

[M. Sage]

Could be because CCW gets rid of one of CA's problems - it's hard to deny that your neighbors are gun owners when you know that some of them are carrying for protection.

It's also a great way to prove that guns and crime are not the same thing. The numbers don't lie - CCW holders are great, law-abiding people.

[Paladin]

Lot of good points, CCWFacts.

Yeah, I forgot how cooperative dojo "BGs" can be vs the real thing. I'm sure many women (and men) unfortunately will find out the hard way (i.e., when it is too late), that real BGs may not know any martial art style, but they sure know how to fight.

In a thread I posted last week (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=246222), Kansas, after 3 yrs, had only about a 1% issuance rate. If we have that, we'd go from about 32,000 CCWers to about 360,000 CCWers. I think Sacto might notice that.

I think if there is a plan to coordinate saturating ALL the major gun forums with the news of Sykes and the details on applying (perhaps linking to .pdf of official NRA fliers and instructions), just getting all of us net savvy CA gunnies to apply in the first 3 months after Sykes (or whenever "virtual" Shall Issue takes place), would make the news and make Sacto take notice. The more news it gets, the more gunnies and non-gunnies hear about it and want to apply themselves. Plus, the more BGs hear about it and the quicker violent crimes go down. Hey, now THAT is another reason to hit the ground running: so that when the antis/MSM want to see the effects of Shall Issue after a year or two, there will be a clear and significant decrease in violent crimes, just like in all other states that have gone Shall Issue.

KS was one of, if not the, last to go Shall Issue and that was back in 2006. We're a lot more connected than KS was in 2006. With a little planning and organizing, I hope we could get up to 2% issuance -- 720,000 CA CCWers -- within 3 years.

Oh, and let's not forget about Hawai'i. They're also in the 9th Circuit.

[Paladin]

I just remembered something else I came across somewhere in the past few days: a statistic that handicapped people are approx. 50% more likely to be assaulted than non-handicapped people. They are another demographic that our side needs to figure out how to inform of a Sykes win and how to apply for a CCW.

Oh, and that news story I mentioned above re most women being afraid of using CA mass transit: it also said that video cameras do not make them feel any safer, but that a LEO on the bus would. IOW they want "a man with a gun" as long as he's a Good Guy, not a Bad Guy. Even if they won't admit it, women in CA realize that the problem is not the guns. The problem is the evil in men's hearts.

[CCWFacts]

Lot of good points, CCWFacts.

Thank you! And I do agree with you, it would be wonderful to have a significant surge of CCWs (over 3% ?) if we go shall-issue, but... reality is otherwise.

Yeah, I forgot how cooperative dojo "BGs" can be vs the real thing. I'm sure many women (and men) unfortunately will find out the hard way (i.e., when it is too late),

Yup. I've been in several and have seen some very consistent problems:

The women in those classes (with rare exceptions) strike with the strength of a wet noodle. They need to do strength training, and learn how to focus their strikes, but they don't want to do strength training because a) they don't know how and b) they're afraid of getting big muscles.

I have to put my moves at about the 25% level or less when working with any women students, otherwise I can see they are hurting, and they don't like it and they don't see the value in experiencing pain while in training.

Their techniques always work because, in the class, the BG always knows what's supposed to happen, and goes along with it.

I honestly think that training should be segregated. Men should train with men, women with women. Occasionally there should be a mixed course, specifically for the purpose of getting women used to hitting hard and also experiencing resistance and, yes, some pain. I'm normally the biggest and strongest in any of the middle-class dojos I've been to, and there's not much point to it. The one great exception was I took a self defense class at a training facility which I shall not name, in Nevada. I was the biggest / strongest in the class, so the other students could use me for practice, and then the instructor let me use him, with full-strength strikes (with pads). That's the first and last time I've had the opportunity of using full-strength kicks (with pads), and it was great, and all too rare.

that real BGs may not know any martial art style, but they sure know how to fight.

Not only do they know how to fight, but they have about 1000x the pain tolerance that us middle class office workers have. First, it's because they've been through a lot of pain in prison and in their criminal lives. Second, one of the dimensions on the psychopathic scale is pain tolerance. People with exceptional pain tolerance are more likely to be psychopaths, and therefore violent criminals.

So any of the self-defense students' pain-based techniques, like joint locks and pressure points and so on, are worthless. Meanwhile, their damage-inflicting techniques, like kicks and punches, have been practiced at about 20% of the level they should be at, and they practice "pulling" them when sparring... their training ends up being absolutely worthless when they need it most.

I think these classes may be great exercise, they may be fun, but they give their students a dangerously false sense of safety.

You want exercise and fun? Take a martial arts class. You want safety against potential attack by a violent criminal? Carry a gun.

In a thread I posted last week (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=246222), Kansas, after 3 yrs, had only about a 1% issuance rate. If we have that, we'd go from about 32,000 CCWers to about 360,000 CCWers. I think Sacto might notice that.

We'll end up with less than that. I don't have the stats handy but shall-issue states I think range from a low of about 0.5% issuance. We'll be at that level, or lower. Remember, even after we have shall-issue, the process will be as unfriendly as possible, with intentional misinformation and BS thrown in the way of applicants, especially applicants who are not ready to assert their rights. KS' issuance system was covered in the media and it was a reasonable and friendly process. That will not be the case in SF or LA. Even after a Sykes victory, applicants will be told, "you don't need one", or "we don't issue", or "we don't support carrying a gun", or "we don't have the application" or "you're better off with a cellphone" or all kind of other nonsense to deter them from applying.

I think if there is a plan to coordinate saturating ALL the major gun forums with the news of Sykes and the details on applying (perhaps linking to .pdf of official NRA fliers and instructions), just getting all of us net savvy CA gunnies to apply in the first 3 months after Sykes (or whenever "virtual" Shall Issue takes place), would make the news and make Sacto take notice.

It'll make a few urban sheriffs notice, but if 20,000 CalGunners apply, it's hardly going to get the attention of Sacto. And would 20,000 CalGunners really go through the whole process?

With a little planning and organizing, I hope we could get up to 2% issuance -- 720,000 CA CCWers -- within 3 years.

I wish we could but I would bet almost anything it won't happen, short of a "Katrina" type event to get people here motivated.

Oh, and let's not forget about Hawai'i. They're also in the 9th Circuit.

Yup, also another place where few will apply.

[Kharn]

Most states have gone shall-issue voluntarily, (Vermont's current permitless system is a result of a 1903 court decision so they've had 106 years to deal with it) when there was vocal, public support for CCW. Court-ordered shall-issue could have very different or interesting results these days.

[M. D. Van Norman]

[Paladin]

We'll end up with less than that. I don't have the stats handy but shall-issue states I think range from a low of about 0.5% issuance. We'll be at that level, or lower. Remember, even after we have shall-issue, the process will be as unfriendly as possible, with intentional misinformation and BS thrown in the way of applicants, especially applicants who are not ready to assert their rights. KS' issuance system was covered in the media and it was a reasonable and friendly process. That will not be the case in SF or LA. Even after a Sykes victory, applicants will be told, "you don't need one", or "we don't issue", or "we don't support carrying a gun", or "we don't have the application" or "you're better off with a cellphone" or all kind of other nonsense to deter them from applying.

All true except that we have much LARGER populations in/near high crime areas than KS. I think a TON of people in San-Angeles area and Bay Area will jump at the chance once they hear about it. While the relative number (% of total population) may be small, the absolute number will be huge, esp in comparison to our current total of CCWers (as of 2007: ~32,000).

It'll make a few urban sheriffs notice, but if 20,000 CalGunners apply, it's hardly going to get the attention of Sacto. And would 20,000 CalGunners really go through the whole process?

I was emphasizing that we not restrict ourselves to CGN, but that the Right People plan so that all the major national/international gun forums make a big issue of CA going "virtual" Shall Issue. I know many Cal gunnies who have given up or not even tried to promote Shall Issue b/c they think it is a total waste of time and they hang out on forums dedicated to hunting deer or predators or rifles, etc. That is why we must make sure the news is heard far and wide. BTW this will also encourage other (e.g., IL, WI, NYC, etc.).

Yes, Sacto will notice a doubling of CCW holders in CA if we get up to 65,000 in the first year. That is going from about 0.1% currently issued to 0.2% of the population and is doable. That is where, ironically, the restrictive issuance history of major urban sheriffs will help us in making dramatic gains in absolute numbers easy even if the percentage of the total population packing is still small.

Yup, [HI is] another place where few will apply.

Last I heard, in all the HI islands there was only 1 CCW issued, so if only 10 people apply and get issued in the first year there will be a 10 fold increase in just one year. Again, the antis have made it easy for us to have a big relative impact by small absolute increases.

Of course, the ultimate goal is for large absolute numbers of people packing legally.

[CCWFacts]

All true except that we have much LARGER populations in/near high crime areas than KS.

I realize that we have such areas. LA has Compton, SF has Hunter's Point. But those regions are basically not in the consciousness of most people who live in LA and SF. If middle class people in SF and LA had more awareness of what's going on in those areas, those areas wouldn't be what they are. They only continue to exist because they are invisible.

I think a TON of people in San-Angeles area and Bay Area will jump at the chance once they hear about it.

I'm very doubtful! I hope I'm wrong and you're right!

Yes, Sacto will notice a doubling of CCW holders in CA if we get up to 65,000 in the first year. That is going from about 0.1% currently issued to 0.2% of the population and is doable.

I agree. I think that is about what will happen.

That is where, ironically, the restrictive issuance history of major urban sheriffs will help us in making dramatic gains in absolute numbers easy even if the percentage of the total population packing is still small.

Sure, SF will go from 0% to, perhaps, 0.05%, which is an enormous relative change!

Last I heard, in all the HI islands there was only 1 CCW issued, so if only 10 people apply and get issued in the first year there will be a 10 fold increase in just one year. Again, the antis have made it easy for us to have a big relative impact by small absolute increases.

I've heard different numbers on HI, all of them very very low. I assume that most CCW that is happening there would be in the form of various "reserve" officer programs. I seem to recall that HI CCWs are really useless, being confined to one county only. If HI goes shall-issue they will immediately get thousands of CCWs, but the % will still be extremely low (in the range of 0.1% would be my prediction). Probably tourists are more interested in packing than locals.

Of course, the ultimate goal is for large absolute numbers of people packing legally.

I would like it, but going to be slow to get the word out in places like CA, NY and HI. Chicago and DC might be different!

[Glock22Fan]

I think that if we are to get CCW's to spread (once they are Shall Issue) then they have to do something about the cost.

I know that there are some of you who would mortgage the house to get a CCW, but the average person (including me) thinks that $500 is for two years ($5.00 a week) is rather extortionate, especially considering the much lower costs of other state's CCW's (Utah, around $120 for 5 years = more like 50 cents a week).

[Kid Stanislaus]

All this nice talk is predicated on the assumption that we will, in fact, win the Sykes case. Don't underestimate the ability of judges to undermine what would otherwise be a victory for us and don't underestimate the ability of the liberals in the state legislature to pass bills that turn a victory into a hollow one. There is a LOT of unwarranted optimism about court cases now pending. We need to be taking a "wait and see" attitude, otherwise many in our ranks are going to become hight disillusioned. Slow down. Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

[Paladin]

I realize that we have such areas. LA has Compton, SF has Hunter's Point. But those regions are basically not in the consciousness of most people who live in LA and SF. If middle class people in SF and LA had more awareness of what's going on in those areas, those areas wouldn't be what they are. They only continue to exist because they are invisible.

There are a LOT of "those areas" in the SF Bay Area -- East Palo Alto, Hunter's Point, Richmond, Oakland, and Pittsburg being the most notable. Remember, many people who live near those areas (for East Palo Alto, think: Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, Redwood City, etc), or work in those areas (e.g., in Oakland) or have to travel through or near those areas (all of them), are likely to want to carry even though they do not live in those areas. There is a greater number of these people than residents in those areas and they are more likely to have the financial resources and discipline to follow through with the applications too.

A question for you: other than waiting for the next Rodney King-type riots or earthquake, what do you think we can do to increase CCW applications after a Sykes win?

[Paladin]

All this nice talk is predicated on the assumption that we will, in fact, win the Sykes case. Don't underestimate the ability of judges to undermine what would otherwise be a victory for us and don't underestimate the ability of the liberals in the state legislature to pass bills that turn a victory into a hollow one. There is a LOT of unwarranted optimism about court cases now pending. We need to be taking a "wait and see" attitude, otherwise many in our ranks are going to become hight disillusioned. Slow down. Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

I'm not counting on a Sykes win. I have other options.

I'm suggesting that -- since the best legal minds around here think McDonald and Sykes will go our way -- that we not wait until then to get ready for the next step. I'm encouraging us to start making contingency plans so that we can, if we win, hit the ground running. I know the NRA works that way. Just look at all the cases they filed within 24 hours of the Heller decision.

[Kharn]

All this nice talk is predicated on the assumption that we will, in fact, win the Sykes case. Don't underestimate the ability of judges to undermine what would otherwise be a victory for us and don't underestimate the ability of the liberals in the state legislature to pass bills that turn a victory into a hollow one. There is a LOT of unwarranted optimism about court cases now pending. We need to be taking a "wait and see" attitude, otherwise many in our ranks are going to become hight disillusioned. Slow down. Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

If you want to have some fun, read court opinions from the 1800s.
Dred Scott:

More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them [blacks] as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

If even Dred Scott automatically assumed a citizen has a right to carry arms where ever they go, that's a good clue that the right has a very large historical basis. Note the use of 'privileges and immunities', a similar term was put in the 14th Amendment for a reason.