Please apply for a CCW prior to open carrying

MarkBofRAdvocate said:

We should not have to ask permission for a civil right...

Click to expand...

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.

bigtoe416 said:

I think it was Heller that said carrying concealed weapons wasn't covered by the 2nd amendment.

Click to expand...

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

wewd said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

bigtoe416 said:

+1 to wewd.

I'm not interested in getting permission to exercise a fundamental right.

Click to expand...

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.

bigtoe416 said:

I think it was Heller that said carrying concealed weapons wasn't covered by the 2nd amendment.

Click to expand...

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.uscourts.casd.308678/gov.uscourts.casd.308678.7.0.pdf see pg7 ln9

kwikrnu said:

Please cite.

Click to expand...

I can't find it. I withdraw my comment and apologize for giving out questionable information.

cato said:

Heller was the only plaintiff to have standing with SCOTUS. Heller applied for and was denied a lcense. 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.

Click to expand...

Great point.

I'm in agreement with puppy. I also believe she is agreeing more with some of the tactics that have been pursued by CGF and friends (the right people). It is good to see open carriers educate themselves on the legal issues of standing and providing for stronger criminal defenses should our good meaning activists find the strong arm of the law bearing down on them. I hope she continues to explore these issues and gives good advice. (Still wish the mass OC events would yield to smaller groups (2-3) going about their business (w/ recorders).

Gundude said:

A person that has exhausted all remedies is Ed Peruta. Another lawsuit would be redundant.
Patience grasshopper.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. After reading the case pdf linked here, it looks possible that Peruta may rest on residency, and not provide the case law that many hope for. I could be wrong, and reading that file sure has some good points in it.

Basically, it says that DC v Heller did NOT provide a presumption of constitutionality for existing laws.

wrightme said:

Not necessarily. After reading the case pdf linked here, it looks possible that Peruta may rest on residency, and not provide the case law that many hope for. I could be wrong, and reading that file sure has some good points in it.

Basically, it says that DC v Heller did NOT provide a presumption of constitutionality for existing laws.

Click to expand...

The county stipulated that he was a resident earlier in the procedings.

bigtoe416 said:

I think it was Heller that said carrying concealed weapons wasn't covered by the 2nd amendment.

Click to expand...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I know that I am preaching to the choir . . . . but please permit me to go on.

Let me say that it is "We the People" who are the ones who are represented as the authors of the Constitution...not the militia. Every reference to "the people" is quite clearly referring to the citizens of a new nation and all future citizens . . . not to a militia. We are not a nation of militia. The framers of the Constitution saw a ready-to-arms militia within the existence and power of an armed citizenry. This militia is rightfully formed by "the people" when called to defend their community, territory, or nation. There was not to be a tax-supported, armed, standing army. They knew the danger of that with the British army lording over them.

To continue; the arms of the militia were already owned and carried by "the people." When the emergency ended, "the people" took their arms back home and carried them about as they chose and the militia ceased to be until called upon for the next emergency. It was sheriffs and constables at the bidding of mayors and councils that started enforcing unconstitutional laws against the law-abiding citizens of communities because of the actions of the criminal factor. We still see that going on today. Law-abiding citizens are continually punished by more and more laws for the crimes of the unlawful. The majority suffer due to the actions of the few. Notwithstanding, no one can create laws that criminals will obey. Our problem is that we do not have genuine, speedy trials that harshly punish law breakers. They have no fear. There are more laws protecting them from being prosecuted than there are laws to punish them for their crimes against society.

Further, there is no mentioned on how "the people" shall bear those arms. That clearly implies that "the people" would have the "right" to bear arms in any manner they so choose. If we look back in history, we will see our forebears carried firearms in various ways in "all" places, until those rights were infringed upon. Until that egregious intrusion on their rights, none of their carry methods or where they carried were considered illegal.

The Bill of Rights are statements preventing the states and federal government from walking all over our inalienable rights.

BigToe416 said, "I think it was Heller that said carrying concealed weapons wasn't covered by the 2nd amendment." If this is true, the decision regarding Heller is wrong. No one can garnish from the few words of the 2nd amendment that concealed carry is covered. There is no mention of concealed carry, open carry, or otherwise. There is only the mention that carrying arms by "the people" is a right.

End of sermon. Choir dismissed.

CenTex said:

The decision regarding Heller is wrong. No one can garnish from the few words of the 2nd amendment that concealed carry is covered. There is no mention of concealed carry, open carry, or otherwise. There is only the mention that carrying arms by "the people" is a right.

End of sermon. Choir dismissed.

Click to expand...

What "decision" regarding Heller is wrong?

and actually, concealed IS mentioned on p2.

For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

Click to expand...

wewd said:

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.

Click to expand...

There is method to the madness. Rome wasn't built in a day and our time to shine will come sure enough.

Seems to me that being denied can only hurt your case if arrested and tried. It would show that you were deemed unfit or your cause was deemed trivial. In effect, you were given consideration for permission to carry a gun and the government, (scarcasm on) who obviously knows what's best for a safe and secure society (scarcasm off), has already judged you unworthy of such a stupid request. Now the prosecutor is just asking the jury to agree with the "experts". Great stuff...if you're a prosecutor.

Sons of Liberty said:

Seems to me that being denied can only hurt your case if arrested and tried. It would show that you were deemed unfit or your cause was deemed trivial. In effect, you were given consideration for permission to carry a gun and the government, (scarcasm on) who obviously knows what's best for a safe and secure society (scarcasm off), has already judged you unworthy of such a stupid request. Now the prosecutor is just asking the jury to agree with the "experts". Great stuff...if you're a prosecutor.

Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't. Unless you were actually deemed unfit. That isn't the case from what I hear in CA, though. It is "deemed unjustified" that fits. That is much different than "unfit," and would NOT hurt a subsequent legal action.

wrightme said:

No, it wouldn't. Unless you were actually deemed unfit. That isn't the case from what I hear in CA, though. It is "deemed unjustified" that fits. That is much different than "unfit," and would NOT hurt a subsequent legal action.

Click to expand...

From California DOJ's Standard Application for CCW License form:

A previous denial for lack of GC will have no bearing in the coming licensing regime and certainly no bearing in a criminal proceeding.

Rich Keagy said:

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

Click to expand...

Check this out. And apply to the county. They have to accept your ap.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=352777

cato said:

A previous denial for lack of GC will have no bearing in the coming licensing regime and certainly no bearing in a criminal proceeding.

Click to expand...

But it may well have bearing in a Rights proceeding.

puppy8agun said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is a good defense: "I applied for a concealed carry permit, but was denied, thereby leaving California's unloaded open carry as my only lawful avenue of redress with respect to exercising my Constitutional right to defend myself and protect my family against unlawful activity."

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.

Click to expand...

The second issue is that if everyone applies for a CC permit, but they're routinely denied, it'll simply push the denial rate through the roof. That's excellent fodder when compared to most gun-friendly states, where CC approval rates are almost invariably above 90%. Those two stats, side by side, are excellent arguments to help defeat any future open carry ban attempt Kali-Dems may inflict upon California citizens.

And I'll be looking out for Tom Ammiano. To contact him now, with letters in the hopes of convincing him that his efforts are not only unlikely to bear fruit, but simply wrong in light of Constitutional law and the freedoms for which American stands, just contact him via his website, here.

His website says he's a strong advocate "for schools, health care and civil rights," so hit him on the civil rights side of the RKBA, particularly citing ACLU cases supporting our RKBA. It's difficult for all but the most fractured minds to say they support civil rights while simultaneously denying the civil (and Constitutional) right to keep and bear arms.

Riverside CCW

Rich Keagy said:

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

Click to expand...

Unless things have changed recently, you can apply with the COP or the SO. I would try the SO, as Sniff seems more reasonable than RPD, especially since their new COP is from LAPD, the land of "no permits unless you are beautiful and famous."