Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: OPEN V. CONCEAL AND CCWs

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

    As residents of California, and those just passing through, we, (in the absence of a federal or state dis-qualifier), have collectively, a state right to carry a handgun OPENLY AND UNLOADED.

    I for one believe that the members of law enforcement who are so concerned that OPEN CARRY causes fear, alarm, stress, anxiety or concern, should take a long hard look at their policies and practices for issuing CCW permits to residents of California. Wouldn't that solve the problems?

    I for one believe that our rights to carry, OPENLY or CONCEALED, are no more important then that of a private business owners right to refuse service or entry to a person in possession of a weapon. I believe that many private business owners would have no current problem with CONCEALED carry and may in the future haveno problem with OPEN carry. But collectively we must support the business owners rights to bar our presence on his property while openly carrying a fiream. I'm not about to get into taking away business and property owners rights.


    As a long time resident of California, I will OPENLY CARRY my UNLOADED handgun whenever I choose, wherever it’s not prohibited. But the record must be clear that I prefer CONCEAL CARRY.

    I am involved in this issue only because it involves a constitutional rights, regardless of which right it is.

    I have a valid reason to carry and believe that no specific reason or justification must be provided to government until they eliminate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.



    STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES IAMDEALING WITH

    THE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ISSUANCE OF CCW PERMIT APPROVALS INCALIFORNIA


    UNDISPUTED FACTS:

    1.The CCW permit in California is a state permit clearly controlled by establishedsections of the California Penal Code.

    2. The state has mandated and approved by law, a standardized application for statewide use, but has failed to implement, supervise or enforce a standardized statewide application process to the detriment of California residents.

    3. State residents in certain counties are frequently denied permits based on submitted statements of “good cause” that are found to be unacceptable in one issuing jurisdiction while acceptable in other more understanding issuing jurisdictions.

    4. The CCW application process in the California permit system leaves many citizens experiencing unequal consideration and approval decisions on applications submitted for the state CCW permit.

    5. The California Penal Code establishes clearly defined requirements that must be met by all applicants

    No State or Federal – (Criminal, Civil or Medical) - Dis-qualifiers:
    Residency:
    Age:
    Training
    Good Character:
    Good Cause:

    6. CCW permits are not currently issued to state residents in a statewide uniform manner due to the vague and ambiguous manner in which the minimum requirements are interpreted, implemented or decided by issuing authorities and their employees.

    7. Decisions being made on the required “Good Cause” statements are regularly being made in an arbitrary and capricious manner, due in part to a possible possibly well organized political or bureaucratic scheme to thwart the issuance for personal protection.

    CONCLUSION:

    The CCW process should be strictly monitored by the state to provide an equal standardized process to all California residents similar to the uniformity found in making applications for a license to operate motor vehicles in California.

  2. #2
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post



    I agree with you on principles, but the devil is in the details.

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

    As residents of California, and those just passing through, we, (in the absence of a federal or state dis-qualifier), have collectively, a state right to carry a handgun OPENLY AND UNLOADED.
    A collective right as we have observed in the second amendment circles, is subject to a myriad of 'reasonable restrictions' on who, where, when and why someone may carry a firearm. As for there being a 'state right', I have yet to see a citation of California law that concludes we have a collective or individual right to carry anything for self-defense beyond our front door step.

    I for one believe that the members of law enforcement who are so concerned that OPEN CARRY causes fear, alarm, stress, anxiety or concern, should take a long hard look at their policies and practices for issuing CCW permits to residents of California. Wouldn't that solve the problems?
    An ever-expanding prohibition of possession of weapons would solve their problem too. It is difficult for anyone to dispute that where children are involved, safety is a significant concern- it is under this premise that prohibitions of firearms anywhere where children congregate will be forwarded
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    My statement regarding a collective right is based on the RIGHT SET OUT IN THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE where we are collectively entitled to apply for the CCW.

    My primary concern is that collectively across the state, attitudes and politics play a significant role in whether or not you are granted the permit applied for by the issuing authority.

    Why should residents of one or more California jurisdictions be granted permits which are valid throughout California while others are denied the same statutory privilege.

    Using the driver's license analogy, it would neverpass judicial muster for different counties to have different rules to obtainCalifornia Driver's Licenses.

    I can understand where the emission/smog standards may differ or the speed limits may differ in different areas of the state, but cannot condone or understand why in oneCaliforniajurisdictionthe issuing authorityaccepts as good cause reasons that arerejected in other locations.

    The CCW permit process is a state process where the legislature intended everyone to be on a level playing field in the application process. Nowhere in the statute does the legislature state or condone different standards.

    A reasonable reason (good cause) should be accepted regardless of the location where the application is submitted.

    Again, I believe that we all share in the protections and rights afforded to us under the provisions ofthe Second Amendment, and can't see it only applying to the Federal Government without addressing and reversing the reasons for abolishing slavery over the objections of several pro slavery states.

    The foundingfathersmay not have known what would happen in the 21 Century, but obviously thought that self defense was something that needed to be memorialized for future generations of citizens.






Posting Permissions

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