CCW shall issue bill now in play!

imported post

poothrowingape wrote:

Edit: dissregard. i spoke to a police officer and he told me it was legal.

Click to expand...

Even if you got the answer you wanted, I would avoid using LE for legal advice.

I'm not too well read on the transfer laws, but I think all handguns have to be PPT'd or at least DROS'd. I might be wrong on this, but I think you could probably find the answers on CalGuns.net. Anything posted by Librarian is pretty reliable, so maybe search for posts by him and then keyword search from there.

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

poothrowingape wrote:

Edit: dissregard. i spoke to a police officer and he told me it was legal.

Click to expand...

Even if you got the answer you wanted, I would avoid using LE for legal advice.

I'm not too well read on the transfer laws, but I think all handguns have to be PPT'd or at least DROS'd. I might be wrong on this, but I think you could probably find the answers on CalGuns.net. Anything posted by Librarian is pretty reliable, so maybe search for posts by him and then keyword search from there.

Click to expand...

Ya i was talking about doing it legally, meaning filling out the proper forms.

imported post

btw sorry to everyone for hijacking this thread, Where were we?

Oh ya CCW's to be shall issued! woot!

imported post

Use the Intrafamilial Transfer Form on the CA DOJ website. It is 19 bucks and it is trough the mail.

imported post

I sent an email (similar to grumptycoconut's) to my assembly member (Curt Hagman), and I actually got a response in the mail!

I urge the rest of you to do the same.

Here's the text of the response:

Dear <my name>:

Thank you for contacting my office to express your support for AB357 which would give Californian's a license to carry a concealed firearm without having to establish "good cause." This law would extend the license availability to the majority of California's law abiding citizens.

I support this bill and strongly support in the Constitutional right to bear arms. As a Vice-Chairman of the public safety committee, I will urge my colleagues to send this bill to the floor so that California's citizens can exercise their right to protect themselves and their families.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to serve you. Please do not hesitate to call me at 909-860-5560 should you have any questions or concerns. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Curt Hagman
Assemblyman, 60th

Click to expand...

imported post

After reading the entire legislation I will celebrate with reservations.

There is still lots of references to "good cause"

As long as that phrase is in this legislation, California will not be "Shall issue" It will Be "Shall issue with good cause". Which is still what we have. As long as being a living being is not good enough cause then it is still based on somebodies interpratation. So in the long run I see no real change in the law.

Don't want to rain on the parade. And a small success is better than no success so I support this bill. How ever I would not break out the real champagne yet. The Totts will have to do:banghead:

imported post

USPSureShot wrote:

After reading the entire legislation I will celebrate with reservations.

There is still lots of references to "good cause"

As long as that phrase is in this legislation, California will not be "Shall issue" It will Be "Shall issue with good cause".

Click to expand...

Maybe you didn't read the post of the actual changes...the 5th post in this thread.

This legislation specifically strikes out good cause for all county sherrifs.

Good cause would still be required of Chief LEOs of municipal PDs...but who cares, there isn't anything to prevent you as the citizen of a county from going to that county regardless of what city you might live in.

imported post

I'd heard that county sheriffs regularly refused to accept applications from and directed those who lived in an incorporated area within the county to seek permission from their chief of police.

This shall issue legislation needs more teeth.

imported post

wayneco wrote:

I'd heard that county sheriffs regularly refused to accept applications from and directed those who lived in an incorporated area within the county to seek permission from their chief of police.

This shall issue legislation needs more teeth.

Click to expand...

The way I understand it...

Sheriffs don't have the option to refuse applications. They routinely do, but this works out to be them basically telling the applicant, "I will deny your permit if you apply here."

If this bill becomes law, the sheriff - who can't refuse an application from a resident in his jurisdiction - would be required to issue the permit unless the person is prohibited.

(Disclaimer: I'm not extremely well-versed in current CCW permission slip pandering practices, as I have no interest in a permit. So take the above with a grain of salt.)

imported post

In Section 1 of the proposed changes it is clear that "good cause for the issuance" is struck out :celebrate

Section 1.b says "The chief or other head of a municipal police department ofany city or city and county, upon proof that the person applying is
of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and
that the person applying is a resident of that city and has
completed a course of training as described in sub paragraph (E),"

This portion has not been struck. This exact same phrase appears in Section C.

Now the first paragraph of the bill says it will "This bill would delete the good cause requirement"

Am I wrong in saying the bill only strikes the "good cause" from the primary paragraph? Or does the term "delete the good cuase requirement" Mean taht every instance of good cause would be deleted? In which case break out he Dom when it gets passed.

Cheers from Santee

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

So long as there is a test and a tax, I refuse to get a CCW.  I think a background check to make sure you're not a prohibited person is about as intrusive as I would endure.

Click to expand...

CA_Libertarian... This is probably the only area where I disagree with you. This also probably isn't the correct place to talk to you about this, but I have to say it. I think it would be very irresponsible if we allowed everyone and anyone who "can" carry a firearm to do so... If you have been to as many ranges as I have, you very well know that most people shoot guns don't do it very well. In fact, most of them are pretty bad at it (including LEO's). Allowing someone to carry a firearm simply because they pass a background check is like giving a 16 year old a drivers license.

I very much do believe there should be a test. one that is of the same quality as a police qualification test. and i think both the civilian one AND the LEO one should be held to VERY high standards. If you are carrying a gun in public, you better damn well know how to use it, and how to use it well.

That is all I'm going to say about this, if you want to have a discussion about it... we can start a new thread or a PM.

Sorry for the hijack of the thread.

imported post

J.A.G. wrote:

CA_Libertarian wrote:

So long as there is a test and a tax, I refuse to get a CCW. I think a background check to make sure you're not a prohibited person is about as intrusive as I would endure.

Click to expand...

CA_Libertarian... This is probably the only area where I disagree with you. This also probably isn't the correct place to talk to you about this, but I have to say it. I think it would be very irresponsible if we allowed everyone and anyone who "can" carry a firearm to do so... If you have been to as many ranges as I have, you very well know that most people shoot guns don't do it very well. In fact, most of them are pretty bad at it (including LEO's). Allowing someone to carry a firearm simply because they pass a background check is like giving a 16 year old a drivers license.

I very much do believe there should be a test. one that is of the same quality as a police qualification test. and i think both the civilian one AND the LEO one should be held to VERY high standards. If you are carrying a gun in public, you better damn well know how to use it, and how to use it well.

That is all I'm going to say about this, if you want to have a discussion about it... we can start a new thread or a PM.

Sorry for the hijack of the thread.

Click to expand...

J.A.G... This is probably the only area where I disagree with you. This also probably isn't the correct place to talk to you about this, but I have to say it. I think it would be very irresponsible if we allowed everyone and anyone who "can" post on a forum to do so... If you have been to as many forums as I have, you very well know that most people who write opinions don't do it very well. In fact, most of them are pretty bad at it (including LEO's). Allowing someone to express an opinionsimply because they can log onto a computer is like giving a 16 year old a bullhorn.

I very much do believe there should be a test. one that is of the same quality as a News Anchorman qualification test. and i think both the civilian one AND the LEO one should be held to VERY high standards. If you are write an opinion and post it in public, you better damn well know how to use it, and how to use it well.

That is all I'm going to say about this, if you want to have a discussion about it... we can start a new thread or a PM.

Sorry for the hijack of the thread.

1st Amendment is a RIGHT.

2nd Amendment is a RIGHT.

A RIGHT IS JUST THAT, A RIGHT. Any added requirement diminishes it to the status of a privilege.

imported post

Let's face it in order to have the 2nd A rights we are shooting for, there should be no test no class. Vermont and Alaska, how much trouble have they had by the "unwashed" so to speak?

imported post

+1 Decoligny, +10 for doing it with style.

Any time you test or tax a right, it is truly only a privilege. I think it is irresponsible and disloyal to the Constitution to trust the government to regulate a right to any degree.

The only point in the process the government should be involved is if/when someone is negligent in the use of their rights and causes harm to another person.

Take the 'scream fire in a crowded theater' scenario. Do we need to make it a crime to do so? I say let people say/do what they want and bear the consequences of their actions. If someone gets hurt in the ensuing frenzied exodus, let them be responsible for that.

We already know the slippery slopes involved with right regulation. E.g. the FCC, BATFE, etc. To think we can climb part-way back up that slope is naive, IMO.

imported post

USPSureShot wrote:

In Section 1 of the proposed changes it is clear that "good cause for the issuance" is struck out :celebrate

Section 1.b says "The chief or other head of a municipal police department ofany city or city and county, upon proof that the person applying is
of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and
that the person applying is a resident of that city and has
completed a course of training as described in sub paragraph (E),"

This portion has not been struck. This exact same phrase appears in Section C.

Click to expand...

(C) The sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a
municipal police department of any city or city and county, upon
proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good
cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying is a
person who has been deputized or appointed as a peace officer

Section C only applies as to those as indicated in the bold text.


Cliff's Notes:

Section A - Applies to County Sherrifs - Removes 'good cause' and changes may issue to shall issue

Section B - Applies to the head of a municipal (city) police department - unchanged - to my knowledge its not possible to be a resident of a city without also being the resident of some county.

Section C - Applies to all chief LEOs of either a county or municipality - gives them the ability to not charge anything for the license.

imported post

ntnwwnet,

could you post copy of your email here? i'm planning on sending letters out and would like some ideas on how to put my words together.

ntnwwnet wrote:

I sent an email (similar to grumptycoconut's) to my assembly member (Curt Hagman), and I actually got a response in the mail!

I urge the rest of you to do the same.

Here's the text of the response:

Dear <my name>:

Thank you for contacting my office to express your support for AB357 which would give Californian's a license to carry a concealed firearm without having to establish "good cause." This law would extend the license availability to the majority of California's law abiding citizens.

I support this bill and strongly support in the Constitutional right to bear arms. As a Vice-Chairman of the public safety committee, I will urge my colleagues to send this bill to the floor so that California's citizens can exercise their right to protect themselves and their families.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to serve you. Please do not hesitate to call me at 909-860-5560 should you have any questions or concerns. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Curt Hagman
Assemblyman, 60th

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

imported post

w8291 wrote:

ntnwwnet,

could you post copy of your email here? i'm planning on sending letters out and would like some ideas on how to put my words together.

Click to expand...

It was almost exactly what grumpycoconut wrote, just edited in a few places to fit my background (minus the law enforcement part & reworded some sentences to sound stronger). Unfortunately the web form where you send the email didn't send me a copy of the support letter, so I don't have the exact text.

I did, however, reword another version that I mailed & faxed directly to Assemblyman Knight.

Here's that letter: click here

imported post

thanks!

do you guys feel like its much stronger if letters are mailed, faxed, or emailed?
and should the letters be to the capital office or district office?

imported post

Here's the text of my revised letter of the revised letters.

Dear Assembly Member Knight,
I am a resident of Berkeley and although I am not one of your constituents, I want to show my support of your recently introduced bill AB357, making California a "shall issue" state with regard to permits to carry a concealed firearm (CCW).

I know that firearms in general are a hot button issue and any change to firearms laws are politically sensitive but I believe that the issue at hand is more about limiting the leeway of a county sheriff to decide who is worthy of being treated like a responsible citizen even when the citizen meets all requirements of being of good moral character.

One need only look at Orange County to see how damaging and divisive an individual sheriff's CCW issuance policies can be. Sheriff Carona is alleged to have handed out CCW's to wealthy political donors as political pay back and is now under various corruption charges. Now Sheriff Hutchins is retracting CCWs, even from those who have demonstrated a need for them it, leaving her at odds with many Orange County residents and her own board of supervisors. This contrast between two county sheriffs of the same county demonstrates a lack of consistency from our lawmen and can be best addressed by legislating that Sheriffs shall issue CCWs to honorable citizens who apply and have proven themselves law abiding and properly trained. The wording of “may” in any legislation leaves the opportunity for the decision maker for corruption and political favoritism.

imported post

w8291 wrote:

Here's the text of my revised letter of the revised letters. ...

Click to expand...

NICE letter.

One suggestion - use "payback" instead of "pay back"