Please apply for a CCW prior to open carrying

John Pierce · Nov 23, 2010

While I understand the point of your post, we do not advocate for people to break the law. We need to CHANGE the laws of the 50 states to achieve constitutional carry and people breaking the law does not forward this agenda.

Thanks.

John

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.

Gray Peterson · Nov 23, 2010

Sons of Liberty said:
From California DOJ's Standard Application for CCW License form:

Psychological Testing
In addition to licensing requirements as specified by the licensing authority, jurisdictions may require psychological testing on the initial application. If required, the applicant shall be referred to a licensed psychologist used by the licensing authority for the psychological testing of its own employees. Any fees charged will be the responsibility of the applicant and such fees shall not exceed $150.00 for an initial test. Additional psychological testing of an applicant seeking license renewal shall be required only if there is compelling evidence to indicate that a test is necessary (PC section 12054(c)).

1) Very few jurisdictions actually require that. There are significant restrictions on this, including it having to be used on all local employees, not just sworn officers.

2) 5th amendment still applies. A psych test is an interrogation. Never forget that. You can go through the psych eval, but you can refuse to cooperate and hand them a sheet of paper advising that you'll be exercising your right to remain silent.

hoffmang · Nov 24, 2010

Seriously,

Please apply for a carry license. A denial is an insurance policy for anyone who is denied and then choses to carry.

Please see the recommend process here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=366342

-Gene

Coded-Dude · Nov 24, 2010

I'm waiting to get another handgun before i apply. I want to register two guns for ccw. should have my 1911 sometime next month! :banana:

CenTex · Nov 24, 2010

wrightme said:
What "decision" regarding Heller is wrong? and actually, concealed IS mentioned on p2.

I was referring to what the 2nd amendment itself was stating...it does not say one word about concealed carry. I may not have stated it clearly. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

wrightme · Nov 24, 2010

CenTex said:
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.
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.

Huh? What do you mean to say? If carrying arms by "the people" is a Right, how can carrying concealed weapons NOT be covered by the 2nd Amendment?

Coded-Dude · Nov 24, 2010

unless there is some hidden text that articulately explains how, when, and where "keep and bear arms" is to be exercised, one could come to the conclusion that all forms of carry are covered.

wrightme · Nov 24, 2010

Coded-Dude said:
unless there is some hidden text that articulately explains how, when, and where "keep and bear arms" is to be exercised, one could come to the conclusion that all forms of carry are covered.

Exactly. Yet as near as I can tell, CenTex appears to disagree.

PavePusher · Nov 24, 2010

puppy8agun said:
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.

You have failed to provide evidence of your request for a First Amendment permit prior to posting this. I note that there is no such requirement embodied in the Second Amendment. Quite the opposite, actually.

coolusername2007 · Nov 24, 2010

hoffmang said:
Seriously,

Please apply for a carry license. A denial is an insurance policy for anyone who is denied and then choses to carry.

Please see the recommend process here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=366342

-Gene

An insurance policy for exercising your unalienable rights? That kind of sounds like a constitution. Or is it just me?

Skit play:
Prosecutor: Why did you open carry? Don't you know it scares the Bradys?

UOC'er: Because I couldn't get a CCW permit.

Prosecutor: So because you couldn't get government permission, you wrecklessly decided to exercise your rights!? What makes you so special mister!?
The End

I suppose if you want "standing" in a law suit but that would mean you'd have to break the law and claim damages based on civil liberties infringements.

I've thought a lot about applying because my sheriff supposedly issues them to all who apply. But I have decided that I wouldn't be following their rules. I wouldn't be getting 3 personal reference letters. And I wouldn't be licking their boots with creative prose in the good cause section. I'd simply state "Self Defense". So I suspect my app would be rejected for being incomplete and generally being an a-hole.

wewd · Nov 24, 2010

Administrator said:
While I understand the point of your post, we do not advocate for people to break the law.

I advocate for people making their own decisions while understanding what the consequences of those decisions may be. I believe that those who stand on principle are the ones who will contribute more to a greater, freer society than those who give in to coercive threats and fear, though I bear no ill will toward those who do. It's not cowardly to give in to the demands of an aggressor who is holding a gun against your head.

Administrator said:
We need to CHANGE the laws of the 50 states to achieve constitutional carry and people breaking the law does not forward this agenda.

The Constitution neither protects the rights of the people nor prohibits the government from taking those rights from the people. If anything it has permitted every single act the government has taken since its inception, as everything the government does is Constitutional until the government itself decides that it's not. Either that, or it is simply powerless to prevent it (which is most likely, as it's just a piece of paper).

The only way that rights may be protected or taken away is through the use of force, and right now the government has the undisputed monopoly on force. They have the perceived legitimacy, the rule of law (which does not apply to them), and they have all of the (well-armed) enforcers. You could beg and plead with an armed intruder in your home not to take your property or your life, but in the end, he's the one with the gun.

Gray Peterson · Nov 24, 2010

coolusername2007 said:
An insurance policy for exercising your unalienable rights? That kind of sounds like a constitution. Or is it just me?

Skit play:
Prosecutor: Why did you open carry? Don't you know it scares the Bradys?

UOC'er: Because I couldn't get a CCW permit.

Prosecutor: So because you couldn't get government permission, you wrecklessly decided to exercise your rights!? What makes you so special mister!?
The End

That skit play would not happen in that way. The reason why puppy and Gene are asking people to apply is because of some situations which are occuring in other states is that when convictions for unlawful carry is coming up, the state Supreme Court justices keep asking and demanding to know why the criminal defendants did not apply for a license first (this occured in Massachusetts and Maryland).

We believe that some state criminal law systems, rather than dealing with the underlying issue of the constitutional violations, will simply state that criminals cannot challenge criminal convictions under 2A unless they made what is called a "good faith attempt" to apply for a license and get denied. It's completely wrong procedurally, but that's the way it currently is going. Consider it a weak vaccination.

I suppose if you want "standing" in a law suit but that would mean you'd have to break the law and claim damages based on civil liberties infringements.

I've thought a lot about applying because my sheriff supposedly issues them to all who apply. But I have decided that I wouldn't be following their rules. I wouldn't be getting 3 personal reference letters. And I wouldn't be licking their boots with creative prose in the good cause section. I'd simply state "Self Defense". So I suspect my app would be rejected for being incomplete and generally being an a-hole.

Nothing wrong with that. You shouldn't have to cooperate with illegal and unlawful requirements.

cato · Nov 24, 2010

coolusername2007 said:
I've thought a lot about applying because my sheriff supposedly issues them to all who apply. But I have decided that I wouldn't be following their rules. I wouldn't be getting 3 personal reference letters. And I wouldn't be licking their boots with creative prose in the good cause section. I'd simply state "Self Defense". So I suspect my app would be rejected for being incomplete and generally being an a-hole.

Follow Gene's sample to a T and you've got a $20 insurance policy which could also help the RKBAs fight should you ever be charged with something. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=366342

No need to send in 3 letters. Gene's letter is in strict complience with the law so even if they don't process your ap. you are covered after 90 days elapsed if you've made copies and documented mailing and receipt

Sons of Liberty · Nov 24, 2010

wewd said:
I advocate for people making their own decisions while understanding what the consequences of those decisions may be. I believe that those who stand on principle are the ones who will contribute more to a greater, freer society than those who give in to coercive threats and fear, though I bear no ill will toward those who do. It's not cowardly to give in to the demands of an aggressor who is holding a gun against your head.

The Constitution neither protects the rights of the people nor prohibits the government from taking those rights from the people. If anything it has permitted every single act the government has taken since its inception, as everything the government does is Constitutional until the government itself decides that it's not. Either that, or it is simply powerless to prevent it (which is most likely, as it's just a piece of paper).

The only way that rights may be protected or taken away is through the use of force, and right now the government has the undisputed monopoly on force. They have the perceived legitimacy, the rule of law (which does not apply to them), and they have all of the (well-armed) enforcers. You could beg and plead with an armed intruder in your home not to take your property or your life, but in the end, he's the one with the gun.

Well said!

CenTex · Nov 24, 2010

wrightme said:
Exactly. Yet as near as I can tell, CenTex appears to disagree.

I was speaking in the negative. That is exactly my point. There are no assigned ways to carry or restrictions mentioned in the 2nd amendment. Therefore, it is up to the person with the firearm to decide how he/she wants to carry. There is no mention of a permit or license needed to carry. If it is an inalienable right, which it is, you should be able to carry however darn well you please with all the freedom you yourself choose...without any interference from anyone, anything...except your own conscience.

PT111 · Nov 25, 2010

Some very good points brought up by both sides in this discussion. I think that the OP's point is based on good reasoning and can help if one wants to join in with his approach to the problem. His proposal is probably based on the circumstances leading up to the Heller case that everyone should read the background and understand where the OP is coming from. A very good synopsis of this can be found here and everyone should read the section on the Lower Court background before jumping into the actual ruling. There were originally six people involved in the case but only Heller actually made it to the SCOTUS.

The court's opinion first addressed whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5–12). The court concluded that of the six plaintiffs, only Heller — who applied for a handgun permit but was denied — had standing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

wrightme · Nov 25, 2010

CenTex said:
I was speaking in the negative. That is exactly my point. There are no assigned ways to carry or restrictions mentioned in the 2nd amendment. Therefore, it is up to the person with the firearm to decide how he/she wants to carry. There is no mention of a permit or license needed to carry. If it is an inalienable right, which it is, you should be able to carry however darn well you please with all the freedom you yourself choose...without any interference from anyone, anything...except your own conscience.

Of course, that is exactly how it should be. Tell us all where it actually works that way, and let us all move there.

Oh, wait, we are ALL living where it should work that way, and this thread is a discussion of a tactic towards that goal. EVERYONE that thinks this thread is about asking permission to exercise a Right is missing the point entirely, or is obtusely refusing to acknowledge it to just make a soundbite out of "I ain't asking permission."

CenTex · Nov 25, 2010

Personally, I have no issue with anyone wanting to apply for a CCW...to show to the courts that you tried to get a permit...should the sheriff deny your application...and therefore, you chose to open carry within the law*. In fact, I have no issue with any law-abiding citizen wanting to apply for a CCW. Nonetheless, if we are to limit ourselves to the strict reading and understanding of the 2nd amendment, all laws restricting citizens the right of ownership, right to use, and the right to decide the manner in which firearms are to be carried should be considered unconstitutional. If there were a way to check, and there probably is, we probably would also find that citizens who served time for a felonious criminal act were also allowed to carry a firearm once they served their time and paid their debt to society. These restored citizens would have as much right to carry in order to defend themselves as any other citizen against assault.

* A firearm carrier should not have to worry about what the feds, states, locals say is "within the law." The 2nd amendment established what is "within the law."

CenTex · Nov 25, 2010

wrightme said:
". . . EVERYONE that thinks this thread is about asking permission to exercise a Right is missing the point entirely . . . "

+1

Gray Peterson · Nov 26, 2010

wrightme said:
Of course, that is exactly how it should be. Tell us all where it actually works that way, and let us all move there.

Oh, wait, we are ALL living where it should work that way, and this thread is a discussion of a tactic towards that goal. EVERYONE that thinks this thread is about asking permission to exercise a Right is missing the point entirely, or is obtusely refusing to acknowledge it to just make a soundbite out of "I ain't asking permission."

Some people would rather perpetuate their own victimization of being unable to carry an effective self defense gun rather than "dirty themselves" with applying for a license.

Please apply for a CCW prior to open carrying

Administrator

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Newbie

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator