Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: California petition

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    OK guys, I know this is an open carry forum and I would rather open carry anyway.

    But here's 2 question? Do you guys think it would be a successful endeavor to start a shall issue concealed carry petition in California with a special notation that gives immunity to the approving officer from any liability (this liability has prevented a lot of sheriffs to deny CCW)?

    I am not rying to be counter productive, but do you think I would gain the level of support we are seeing with open carry petitions in TX, FL and other states?



  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    KS_to_CA wrote:
    ...with a special notation that gives immunity to the approving officer from any liability (this liability has prevented a lot of sheriffs to deny CCW)?
    I've never heard of this liability before... and I have trouble believing it exists. Please show me some proof if I'm wrong here.

    It's nearly impossible to have the officers held responsible when they do the ('bad') shooting themselves. I've never even heard of one being indicted or sued for a permitee committing a crime.

    Other than that, I think shall issue could be an effective tool in the fight for the decriminalization of our rights.

    ETA: Nor do I think that issuing departments should be held responsible for the actions of permitees. As we all know, people will commit crimes despite the laws. That person could just as easily carried concealed/loaded without a permit in order to carry out their crime.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    "...with a special notation that gives immunity to the approving officer from any liability (this liability has prevented a lot of sheriffs to deny CCW)?"


    I admit I don't have proof to show about this one statement. I solely based it on a number of articles that mentioned several court cases to the effect of assigning liability to the approving authority because of action of the permit holder.

    Although with California's law making history and California judges' "legislative" histories, this possibility is really not far fetched.

    I was just wondering if CA gun owners, their families and friends, and concerned Californians can mount such an endeavor to "force" a shall issue mandate at least to the polls, if not through legislation.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Humboldt County, California, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    The application already has what you're asking about. Page 10 of the state "CCW" app., paragraph 1:
    Section 6 – Agreement to Restrictions and to Hold Harmless

    I accept and assume all responsibility and liability for, injury to, or death of any person, or damage to any property which may result through any act or omission of either the licensee or the agency that issued the license. In the event any claim, suit or action is brought against the agency that issued the license, its chief officer or any of its employees, by reason of, or in connection with any such act or omission, the licensee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the agency that issued the license, its chief officer or any of its employees from such claim, suit, or action.
    The agencies that don't issue don't want to issue.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    AlanR wrote:
    The application already has what you're asking about. Page 10 of the state "CCW" app., paragraph 1:
    Section 6 – Agreement to Restrictions and to Hold Harmless

    I accept and assume all responsibility and liability for, injury to, or death of any person, or damage to any property which may result through any act or omission of either the licensee or the agency that issued the license. In the event any claim, suit or action is brought against the agency that issued the license, its chief officer or any of its employees, by reason of, or in connection with any such act or omission, the licensee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the agency that issued the license, its chief officer or any of its employees from such claim, suit, or action.
    The agencies that don't issue don't want to issue.
    Yea they just making up BS excuses off the top of their heads to get you to go away.


  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    The Madison Society is already moving forward with a lawsuit to push for 'shall issue' in CA. I believe it banks heavily on Nordyke, but I have a good feeling about Nordyke. So, I don't think we have to sell it to the voters at all.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    The Madison Society is already moving forward with a lawsuit to push for 'shall issue' in CA. I believe it banks heavily on Nordyke, but I have a good feeling about Nordyke. So, I don't think we have to sell it to the voters at all.
    That is great news, I am sure such effort is highly appreciated. But yes, I do hope we dont have to sell it to voters at all.

    Can't remember the history of this but, has CA always been a "may issue" (by legislation) or was it changed from a "sorta, kinda shall issue" (by practice).

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    California is, and always has been (as far as I recall) egregiously, unconstitutionally "may-issue".

    Is that the answer to the question you were trying to ask?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    Yup. Thanks.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Gee, I guess I goofed when I didn't sue the DMV for the driver that hit me.
    They issued the drivers licence letting him on the road with that dangerous weapon.
    Is 25 years past statue of limitations in california?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •