Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 125

Thread: Please apply for a CCW prior to open carrying

  1. #1
    Regular Member puppy8agun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    110

    Please apply for a CCW prior to open carrying

    It is important that everyone in CA apply for a CCW prior to open carrying.

    If you are lucky and live in a county that issues and get one then great. If you are denied this will have no effect on future applications.

    Reason:
    You will be much easier to defend against actions if the need shall arise. Keep track of the denial and keep a recorder on you while open carrying. Now is not the time to get in trouble for open carrying.

    The new legislative session is quickly approaching. It is anticipated that another bill to ban open carry will be introduced. Right now the projected author is Assemblyman Tom Ammiano and this bill will be a democratic priority for 2011.

  2. #2
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664
    Tell me again why I should beg permission to carry to tools to defend myself and my family? Because I can't think of any good reason for doing so. Let the tyrants be tyrants; don't acquiesce to their authoritarian demands. I have no interest in bolstering their narcissistic egos or appealing to their vanity. I would tell someone to (discreetly) carry against the law before I told them to beg for a permission slip.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    +1 to wewd.

    I'm not interested in getting permission to exercise a fundamental right. I don't ask the police if I can go to a church or a temple or if I can hand out flyers to people. I'm not interested in asking permission, paying money, taking a class, potentially being subject to a mental evaluation, and having more of my personal information available as a matter of public record (and trusting public employees to correctly redact social security numbers).

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    It makes sense. If the permit is denied (which is just about certain), then if a "no open carry" bill is passed, it is de-facto infringement; since that was your ONLY option at that point. It isn't about asking for permission, it is about positioning for the eventuality of legislative efforts to ban open carry.
    Last edited by wrightme; 11-19-2010 at 04:53 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  5. #5
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    So, I'll go down to the Sheriff's office and ask for an application. They will tell me not to bother becuase I don't have good cause. I'll make me some coffee instead.
    Last edited by Gundude; 11-19-2010 at 05:13 PM.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    So, I'll go down to the Sheriff's office and ask for an application. They will tell me not to bother becuase I don't have good cause. I'll make me some coffee instead.
    That won't document it though. Fill it out, get the denial, THEN you have documentation. That is the point of this.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    +2 to Wewd & Bigtoe416 !

    Robin47

  8. #8
    Regular Member Rich Keagy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    126

    city dweller

    I live within an incorporated city in the County of Riverside.
    Should I apply to the City or County?

  9. #9
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Reason:
    You will be much easier to defend against actions if the need shall arise. Keep track of the denial and keep a recorder on you while open carrying. Now is not the time to get in trouble for open carrying.

    This denial document will help defend myself from what actions? Carrying concealed without a permit? Carrying LOC?
    I have been UOC'ing for over a year now and haven't had a (e) check. I guess I'm staying out of trouble.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  10. #10
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979
    Small warning about applying with the intention of getting denied.

    I can say with absolute certainty that a formal denial will show on an in depth background investigation for a security clearnence.

    However...I don't have a clue or not if it would be considered a negative...

  11. #11
    Regular Member hgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Centreville, VA
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by mjones View Post
    Small warning about applying with the intention of getting denied.

    I can say with absolute certainty that a formal denial will show on an in depth background investigation for a security clearnence.

    However...I don't have a clue or not if it would be considered a negative...
    How stupid will it make those that deny CCWs to citizens look if we get citizens with clearances to apply and be denied?
    You are trusted to hold NATIONAL SECURITY SECRETS but can't carry a firearm for self-defense???

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    104
    ah... no. i am not wasting my money and time to end up getting denied by democratic orange county.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Thumbs up

    Beg for permission to carry. At least you guys in California can carry without government permission. In Tennessee it is illegal to carry a loaded firearm w/o a permit.

    The definition of unloaded is no ammunition in the vicinity of the firearm...

  14. #14
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by puppy8agun View Post
    It is important that everyone in CA apply for a CCW prior to open carrying.
    I don't agree with this statement. One should certainly feel free to open carry without first asking for a CCW. The two modes of carry are really quite different as are their respective PC's.

    I would not first try to get a drivers license just because I wanted only to walk down the street; one mode of "transport" being heavily regulated while the other mode of transport being the history and heritage of mankind since long before the Republic.

    Never ask the government for permission to do something that is not only legal but also an unalienable right.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    I don't agree with this statement. One should certainly feel free to open carry without first asking for a CCW. The two modes of carry are really quite different as are their respective PC's.

    I would not first try to get a drivers license just because I wanted only to walk down the street; one mode of "transport" being heavily regulated while the other mode of transport being the history and heritage of mankind since long before the Republic.

    Never ask the government for permission to do something that is not only legal but also an unalienable right.
    That isn't the point at all.

    If you properly apply for a ccw permit, do you feel that it will actually get approved?


    Once you respond to that question honestly, we can discuss WHY it matters, and WHY it isn't a suggestion that you request permission.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member puppy8agun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    110
    Legal defenses if you are denied, hold a denial and need defended by a lawyer. You should not pay more than $20 for this.

    I was told not to bother but turned it in anyways and asked them to go ahead and process anyways.

  17. #17
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    Never ask the government for permission to do something that is not only legal but also an unalienable right.
    While you are correct, there needs to be some philosophical distinction between what is "legal", and what is an "inalienable right". It's not an inalienable right because of some document that a bunch of dead guys signed 200 years ago; it's inalienable because you are the owner of your body and the master of your life, and out of that self-ownership flows the rights to defend that life-force and the body in which it inhabits. Even without that ancient document, you would still be in the moral right to defend yourself and to use the tools that are best suited to that end.

    The people calling themselves "the government" have no moral authority over any property that you own, least of all your body. By showing them obeisance, you are giving them the very thing they want the most: which is your tacit acknowledgement of their ownership over you, like a master over his slaves. Asking them for permission to defend your life is antithetical to the very core of the self-ownership ideal. A slave can beg his master to spare his life, which the master will if he deems the slave to be valuable enough; but in the end it is not the slave's choice whether he lives or dies. A free man answers to no master, and begs permission of no one, if his life is valuable enough to be saved.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    OP, WEWD, and Bigtoe are all corect!

    Hello All,

    I know it may seem as though I am straddling the fence here, but I am not.

    The OP is pushing a tactic in a strategic campaign to defend civil liberties. We have options for carrying weapons. A person who has exhausted all legal options will be granted deference in a court of law (should be granted deference). Proving due diligence can be huge.

    We should not have to ask permission for a civil right; however, the courts have ruled that when the state has a compelling need, they may "infringe," ever so slightly, using "strict scrutiny" and "narrowly defined" law on our civil rights. This is a fact that we must live with--it is reality.

    A person who proves due diligence and still has his civil rights trammeled, has a much better tactical position while being ejudicated.

    The OP has expressed a good tactical action.

    A law-abiding, criminal-and-mental record-free person who can't legally conceal, and who can't legally OC, has had his civil liberties unduly restricted by broadly written and broadly interpretted law.

    It is patently unConstitutional.

    I have had FBI background checks performed on me. I have a TSA ID card. I have a US passport. I have a federal license for operating merchant vessels that carry passengers and dangerous cargoes. Yet a Sherrif has denied me the ability to carry a gun for self defense after my life was threatened. I have proved due diligence and legal status.

    What more does a court need to prove that a law restricting my 2A rights does not follow "strict scrutiny"?
    markm

  19. #19
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    A person that has exhausted all remedies is Ed Peruta. Another lawsuit would be redundant.
    Patience grasshopper.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    As a legal tactic I understand. For example my handgun permit was suspended w/o a hearing and Tennessee does not allow carry of a loaded handgun w/o a permit. However, in my civil lawsuit the State still says I have no standing.
    I guess I'm going to have to be arrested to show standing.

  21. #21
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkBofRAdvocate View Post
    We should not have to ask permission for a civil right...
    I think it was Heller that said carrying concealed weapons wasn't covered by the 2nd amendment. Applying for a CCW may be beneficial in some court settings, but I don't think it would be correct for it to be beneficial. This is the reason why calguns has gone after getting shall issue CCWs in California first. They need to attack and win the unprotected actions before they win the protected ones. Otherwise it will be an infinitely harder argument.

    Similarly, we can compare getting a parade permit with handing out flyers on the sidewalk. The former is not protected speech, the latter is. If I'm arrested handing out flyers, will it benefit me by having a parade permit for the same location? Maybe. But they're different things and having the permit don't necessarily help your flyer case. The flyer case should be easy to win because it's a clear infringement on a fundamental right.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    I think it was Heller that said carrying concealed weapons wasn't covered by the 2nd amendment.


    Please cite.

    The copy of Heller that I have talks about the heinous restrictions on carry that have been declared unconstitutional in the past.

    "Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban. And some of those few have been struck down. In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid. See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”)."

    see page 57 of heller
    Last edited by kwikrnu; 11-20-2010 at 01:52 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member ryanburbridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Long beach ca, , USA
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by wewd View Post
    While you are correct, there needs to be some philosophical distinction between what is "legal", and what is an "inalienable right". It's not an inalienable right because of some document that a bunch of dead guys signed 200 years ago; it's inalienable because you are the owner of your body and the master of your life, and out of that self-ownership flows the rights to defend that life-force and the body in which it inhabits. Even without that ancient document, you would still be in the moral right to defend yourself and to use the tools that are best suited to that end.

    The people calling themselves "the government" have no moral authority over any property that you own, least of all your body. By showing them obeisance, you are giving them the very thing they want the most: which is your tacit acknowledgement of their ownership over you, like a master over his slaves. Asking them for permission to defend your life is antithetical to the very core of the self-ownership ideal. A slave can beg his master to spare his life, which the master will if he deems the slave to be valuable enough; but in the end it is not the slave's choice whether he lives or dies. A free man answers to no master, and begs permission of no one, if his life is valuable enough to be saved.
    While I could not AGREE more with most of the people who are aginst asking permition I have a question.

    I UOC any time I can. For protection. I am applying for a ccw I do not wish to ask permition. A ccw would be beter for protection.

    It is aginst the law to carry a loaded gun concealed. Would you risk your rights? Would you resist arrest even use lethal force to stay free and out of jail?

    I will apply and work towards change through the courts.

  24. #24
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    +1 to wewd.

    I'm not interested in getting permission to exercise a fundamental right.
    Heller was the only plaintiff to have standing with SCOTUS. Heller applied for and was denied a license. Licensing is not settled but reading the tea leaves suggests its prudent to have either a license or denial if one is engaged in legally risky activism.
    Last edited by cato; 11-20-2010 at 05:46 PM.

  25. #25
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    I think it was Heller that said carrying concealed weapons wasn't covered by the 2nd amendment.
    That was Heller quoting Robertson v Baldwin (1897). It was dicta (in R v B) without analysis and it was not the issue before the court. It's still an open question and states may very well have the ability to regulate/prohibit open vs concealed as has happened in state RKBA jurisprudence. IMO only Vermont's SC got it right and protected both. Licensing is another issue.

    This is a good analysis from the Peruta case judge which addresses this issue http://www.archive.org/download/gov....308678.7.0.pdf see pg7 ln9
    Last edited by cato; 11-20-2010 at 05:45 PM.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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