Using Open carry to get equal ccw issue access.

imported post

I believe we will prevail and get open carry recognized as a constitutional right.

While almost all of us on this forum support Open Carry, many of us would like to have CCW permits.

For me, I don't want one or the other, I want both.

We have a role model of how to use a court ruling that Open Carry is a right of how to quickly edcuate the public and incorporate that right.

Once Open Carry is a right, we can create public pressure which will motivate sheriff's to basically go "shall issue" and not play games with the CCW process.

Our public image though is very important. We will probably make some mistakes, but it is a process.



Nicki

imported post

Actually you all might get a laugh out of this, I just got back from court for a small issue and while there I asked the deputy whith whom I was supposed to apply for a CCW from, the sheriff of the PD. . He said BOTH can issue. When I then mentioned that from my understanding of the law, it had to be one or the other, not both with the authority to issue.

He then said I should just become a reserve sheriffs deputy and then I would automatically get a CCW. . . I politely explained to him that that doesn't help the cause of getting CITIZENS the right to carry and he asked me why they needed to. . . Haha.I started laughing at him. I could not help myself.

imported post

If you are a city resident, the law allows you to go to either the sheriff or the chief of police.

If you are a county resident, you can only go to the sheriff.

In practice, many sheriffs won't issue to town residents unless the police chief has gotten out of the ccw business completely and has given his blessing.

That is illegal, but it is done. So much for setting an example for obeying laws.

It is this type of crap that will come back to haunt them in a lawsuit.



Nicki

imported post

As far as I can tell, the laws governing California LTC issuing are completely unconstitutional, and always have been. Even if each city and county complies with the law, the simple fact that places like SF have the authority to define "good cause" at will violates the 14th amendment.

What I don't understand is why nobody has sued the state.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

As far as I can tell, the laws governing California LTC issuing are completely unconstitutional, and always have been. Even if each city and county complies with the law, the simple fact that places like SF have the authority to define "good cause" at will violates the 14th amendment.

What I don't understand is why nobody has sued the state.

Click to expand...

I think the answer to that lies in the fact thatI believe the law to specify what good cause is, and that based on those definitions so many people don't qualify.

Not everyone owns a business.
Less own a business AND handles large amounts of cash/property on a rutine basis
Less own Jewelry stores
and presumably less people have "reasonable fear for their wellbeing."

I have not looked to much into the CCW, mainly because here all the evidence indicates it is a political thing.

I believe I will attempt to drum up support to run for LA County Sheriff at the next election. . . I will run solely on the persons right to keep and bear arms whether openly or concealed for the purpose of defense of their persons, property, or the persons and property of others.

On the first day I will hold, open to the public, a "CCW Review Day". At all LA County Sheriffs stations across the county people can come and apply for a CCW with immediate review and approval/denial. We will provide

• on-site pshycological testing (as I understand is required in Cali.)
• NICS Background checks.
• Training classes
• Any other services required to meet state requirements.
• Good cause will be defined as ownership of real property and the desire to protect it.

So basically as long as they are legal to purchase a firearm, pass the minimum psych test required by the state and can prove they have property valued over $200 they can get a CCW. . .

I know this is a bold statement, but hey. . Elect me and you will see exactly how prepared I am to take bold action in support of the statement. I hate crime, but I hate the idea of Americans loosing their freedoms more.

imported post

I commend you for wanting to run for sheriff on the ccw issue, but most people don't care about ccw and when you talk about "rights", all the electorate is going to be told is you want to arm everyone.

Most people in LA county and the rest of the state outside the gun community have little or no knowledge how the ccw system works.

Running a campagin against corruption, poor leadership at the top would be far better. Issues like Paris Hilton's DUI and how the sheriff got involved are things people care about.

If you could get the Judge in that case to endorse you or at least give a non endorsement to sheriff Baca, that would be help you alot.

How I would suggest you approach the CCW issuance is simple. As sheriff, you have a obligation under art1 sec7b of the California Constitution to treat all applicants equally under the law.

Good cause is subjective and if you give a permit to some applicants, but no others, you are violating your oath of office.

To avoid expensive civil rights suits, as a matter of policy, all applicants will be treated as if they have good cause, however they will have to pass tight background checks and you are going to increase the mandatory training to get a ccw.

imported post

Theseus wrote:

I know this is a bold statement, but hey. . Elect me and you will see exactly how prepared I am to take bold action in support of the statement. I hate crime, but I hate the idea of Americans loosing their freedoms more.

Click to expand...

I think Nicki is right. A campaign based on unimpeachable integrity would get you a whole lot further than one based on looser issuance policies for LTC.

The fact is, LTC is not a freedom, but a tool of restriction. Giving out more Licenses to Carry concealed is actually increasing gun control, not freedom. All those things you listed beloware in my opinion, infringements;

• [*]on-site pshycological testing (as I understand is required in Cali.)
  [*]NICS Background checks.
  [*]Training classes
  [*]Any other services required to meet state requirements.
  
  [*]Good cause will be defined as ownership of real property and the desire to protect it.

  Click to expand...

The psychological testing and the background checks assume that a person is not fit to carry a weapon- essentially assuming guilt before a crime is commited, violating our 5th amendment rights. The background check is an unwarranted search in violation of the 4th amendment.

Requiring training classes, while prudent, places a burden on the applicant in order to exercize their right to keep and bear arms, as does the application of a tax in the form of licensning fees. To illustrate my point, apply these same requirements to your first amendment rights... You cannot speak unless you are trained to prudently use your mouth for speaking. In order for you to worship at the church of your chosing, you will need to pay an application fee. Journalists must apply for a permit with 'just cause' to write for a newspaper.

Your definition of 'just cause' is (and you will have to forgive me) somewhat amusing from my perspective. You did right in whittling it down, but if we take it literally-A naked man who owns nothing but a loaded hand gun would have 'just cause'. By your definition,the ownership of real property (the handgun) andtheir desire to protect it givesthem adequate cause toobtain a license. If we just eliminate a 'just cause' requirement altogether, we can remove the states meddling in our second amendment perogative and restore the right to its fullness. Anything else is an infringement intended as a disincentive to own or carry a firearm.

Marshaul is 100% correct. 12050 is completely unConstitutional. The only reason it hasnt been challenged is that people continue to exchange their rights for these little privileges under the pretense that these laws are legaland/or the only way they can enjoy the 2nd amendment.

imported post

nicki wrote:

...however they will have to pass tight background checks and you are going to increase the mandatory training to get a ccw.

Click to expand...

Taxation and Testing should never be prerequisites to exercising a right. You really want to keep the tight background checks and increase the training? (I assume more training means more $$ spent on training.)

Bearing arms is a right. I know the politicians and courts don't recognize "concealed" bearing of arms as a right, but that doesn't change the fact. The sooner 'pro-2A' people stop treating our rights like priviledges, the sooner we'll start convincing the people on the fence.

imported post

In truthfullness I would never conceive that I could be elected to sheriff SIMPLY on my position on CCW.

Now, as for the background checks, training, and such. My understanding is that these things are all part of the current CCW application. If I am wrong, then great! I don't profess to know everything in regards to it. But if I was elected I would still be required to behave in a manner consistent with the laws of the US, the State of California, and LA County. I can not, even as sheriff, simply cercumvent the law because I don't agree with it.

Isn't that exactly what we are complaining about LEO's? Using their badge to promote their personal beliefs even though there is no legal precident? Unfortunately that is one of the problems I see. A LE can't change the law, only his undestanding and interpretation of the law in the decision to or not to arrest you. If the officer DOES arrest you, then it is up to the prosecuting official that will then interpret according to his understanding if they were right. Then it may go to a jury, who will then apply their own interpretation based on the instructions given them before deliberation.

Now, as sheriff I would then have the political power to help fight for the cause, and lobby for elimination of these requirements, but I can't ignore them if they are there. What I might also be able to do is re-interpret what a phsychological test is, or what training qualifies for CCW, but I believe those to infact be regulated by someone else.

imported post

We are taking this topic to far afield.

Continue here... http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/13441.html