California petition

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?

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)?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

The agencies that don't issue don't want to issue.

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.

Click to expand...

The agencies that don't issue don't want to issue.

Click to expand...

Yea they just making up BS excuses off the top of their heads to get you to go away.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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).

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?

imported post

Yup. Thanks.

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?