In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
A Call For A Ban On California CCW
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
A Call For A Ban On California
Concealed Carry Permits.
By Ralph Weller
CalNRA.org Contributing Editor
11 June, 2002 - Every so often I come up with an idea that I know is not going to be popular. This one, like some others in the past, have gotten me into trouble with some of my friends in the pro-gun community. This one will no doubt raise eyebrows and possibly more.
It's time to end California's discretionary concealed carry permit system. End it, not in favor of a "shall issue" system that most states have, but it end completely. California won't get a "shall issue" system with this crop of people in Sacramento so there is no reason to fool ourselves into believing that it's a possibility.
No, it's time to end this nonsense in believing that we have some sort of fair and unbiased process in place. It is not fair and it is biased.
The number of people with concealed carry permits in California is quite literally a handful. In some counties, Sheriffs haven't issued a single CCW permit in decades and have no intentions of doing so because it's "policy."
Oh, there are some of us little folk out there who have permits, albeit a small number. Most are of the well-connected kind. Wealthy contributors, politicians and well-to-do business men with community clout tend to make up a significant number of permit holders in those communities where that kind of stuff counts.
One of those with a discretionary CCW is Senator Don Perata, who represents an area in California which includes the community of Oakland. Oakland is no heaven on earth, as many residents will tell you. Just walking down some streets to the local 7-11 can be a life threatening experience. Getting a CCW simply because random shootings and high levels of murders are atrociously high is not enough cause for a law-abiding citizen to get a CCW in that area. But, Sen. Don "I've got my CCW, so who cares," Perata has one. He is one of the very few in his community. Senator Perata claims the militia is out to get him. Now, if that's "good cause" as defined by state law, it seems there should be better claims than his.
SB-1283, authored by Senator Ray Haynes, would define "good cause" for victims of domestic violence and hate crimes and provide the means by which a CCW could be issued. Under current law, victims of domestic violence and hate crimes are frankly left out in the cold. They don't have enough "good cause." When the bill came up for a vote in the Senate Public Safety Committee, the lone supporter of the bill, Sen. Margett voted yes, and the balance, decidedly anti-selfdefense, voted no, or abstained because they lack the political guts to take a stand. The bill has been languishing since and it is doubtful it will go anywhere.
Isn't that just cute. The Democrats, the self-proclaimed defenders of women and minorities can't muster any votes from their own kind on the committee allowing their constituency they pander to so heavily, to defend themselves when threats are known, documented, and police reports exist supporting their assertions. Yet, Senator Don, "I've got my CCW, so who cares," Perata manages to carry a .45 caliber semi-auto because of... well, 'threats by militiamen.'
No, it's time to end it. Senator Ray Haynes or some other pro-rights legislator needs to introduce a bill ending California's discretionary concealed carry law. It's time to make the likes of Senator Perata justify why he has more rights than the citizens he represents. It's time to make political cronies of the Democratic party justify why certain people consider themselves a worthy target requiring a CCW and those who have documented threats against their lives are not worthy of the same right.
It's time to see if anti-gun legislators, who willingly deny their constituency the means to self-defense, will also deny Perata and political operatives in their communities the very precious right to defend their own lives, if they have the guts.
It will be an enlightening experience to see how anti-gun Democrats squirm to justify their own self-interests. We've already seen with Senator Hayne's bill that documented threats to "ordinary" citizens, as some politicians refer to us, are not worthy of "good cause," but maintain the notion that carrying a large sum of money, jewelry or threats by an imaginary militia group are. Wealth seems to have more value than life in Sacramento. But that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Most single and battered mothers with documented threats against their lives could never muster enough money to be a significant impact on their campaign.
End it for everyone including off-duty law enforcement. If 'call a cop' is good enough for civilians, heck, it ought to be good enough for off-duty cops as well. End the unfairness. Make everyone squirm.
Push the "no guns for anyone except us" Democrats into a corner. Make them pay the price. Let Perata hire a bodyguard or security firm or remain defenseless. A lot of us in California have to do exactly that. We should share the rule of law equally, not just for the elite.
Mostly, I want to tell Senator Perata, if the discretionary system is ended, using similar words he used to tell Junior Olympians when their firearms were banned two years ago, 'If you don't like it, move to Texas.'
CCW holders, please don't send me a hoard of emails verbally castrating me on this issue. In excess of 99.9% of Californians couldn't get a CCW permit if they tried. A lot of people have been threatened, severely injured or died because of the inability to defend themselves in this state. We all have to sacrifice and most Californians have been doing it for decades. It's now your turn to sacrifice with the rest of us. If we can't get a reasonable CCW system in this state, it needs to be forced. One way to end it, is to end for everyone, including off-duty law enforcement. Then, stand back and watch the fur fly.
Even anti-gun nuts in the media will have a fit over this one. Maybe they'll change and come to their senses. But if they don't, they should no longer be amongst the privileged either.
End the unequal application of the law NOW. End discretionary CCW permits. I am serious, really.
The comments expressed by the author do not represent the views or policies of any pro-gun rights organization, its officers or members.
rweller@cris.com
http://www.calnra.org/ccwban.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Concealed Carry Permits.
By Ralph Weller
CalNRA.org Contributing Editor
11 June, 2002 - Every so often I come up with an idea that I know is not going to be popular. This one, like some others in the past, have gotten me into trouble with some of my friends in the pro-gun community. This one will no doubt raise eyebrows and possibly more.
It's time to end California's discretionary concealed carry permit system. End it, not in favor of a "shall issue" system that most states have, but it end completely. California won't get a "shall issue" system with this crop of people in Sacramento so there is no reason to fool ourselves into believing that it's a possibility.
No, it's time to end this nonsense in believing that we have some sort of fair and unbiased process in place. It is not fair and it is biased.
The number of people with concealed carry permits in California is quite literally a handful. In some counties, Sheriffs haven't issued a single CCW permit in decades and have no intentions of doing so because it's "policy."
Oh, there are some of us little folk out there who have permits, albeit a small number. Most are of the well-connected kind. Wealthy contributors, politicians and well-to-do business men with community clout tend to make up a significant number of permit holders in those communities where that kind of stuff counts.
One of those with a discretionary CCW is Senator Don Perata, who represents an area in California which includes the community of Oakland. Oakland is no heaven on earth, as many residents will tell you. Just walking down some streets to the local 7-11 can be a life threatening experience. Getting a CCW simply because random shootings and high levels of murders are atrociously high is not enough cause for a law-abiding citizen to get a CCW in that area. But, Sen. Don "I've got my CCW, so who cares," Perata has one. He is one of the very few in his community. Senator Perata claims the militia is out to get him. Now, if that's "good cause" as defined by state law, it seems there should be better claims than his.
SB-1283, authored by Senator Ray Haynes, would define "good cause" for victims of domestic violence and hate crimes and provide the means by which a CCW could be issued. Under current law, victims of domestic violence and hate crimes are frankly left out in the cold. They don't have enough "good cause." When the bill came up for a vote in the Senate Public Safety Committee, the lone supporter of the bill, Sen. Margett voted yes, and the balance, decidedly anti-selfdefense, voted no, or abstained because they lack the political guts to take a stand. The bill has been languishing since and it is doubtful it will go anywhere.
Isn't that just cute. The Democrats, the self-proclaimed defenders of women and minorities can't muster any votes from their own kind on the committee allowing their constituency they pander to so heavily, to defend themselves when threats are known, documented, and police reports exist supporting their assertions. Yet, Senator Don, "I've got my CCW, so who cares," Perata manages to carry a .45 caliber semi-auto because of... well, 'threats by militiamen.'
No, it's time to end it. Senator Ray Haynes or some other pro-rights legislator needs to introduce a bill ending California's discretionary concealed carry law. It's time to make the likes of Senator Perata justify why he has more rights than the citizens he represents. It's time to make political cronies of the Democratic party justify why certain people consider themselves a worthy target requiring a CCW and those who have documented threats against their lives are not worthy of the same right.
It's time to see if anti-gun legislators, who willingly deny their constituency the means to self-defense, will also deny Perata and political operatives in their communities the very precious right to defend their own lives, if they have the guts.
It will be an enlightening experience to see how anti-gun Democrats squirm to justify their own self-interests. We've already seen with Senator Hayne's bill that documented threats to "ordinary" citizens, as some politicians refer to us, are not worthy of "good cause," but maintain the notion that carrying a large sum of money, jewelry or threats by an imaginary militia group are. Wealth seems to have more value than life in Sacramento. But that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Most single and battered mothers with documented threats against their lives could never muster enough money to be a significant impact on their campaign.
End it for everyone including off-duty law enforcement. If 'call a cop' is good enough for civilians, heck, it ought to be good enough for off-duty cops as well. End the unfairness. Make everyone squirm.
Push the "no guns for anyone except us" Democrats into a corner. Make them pay the price. Let Perata hire a bodyguard or security firm or remain defenseless. A lot of us in California have to do exactly that. We should share the rule of law equally, not just for the elite.
Mostly, I want to tell Senator Perata, if the discretionary system is ended, using similar words he used to tell Junior Olympians when their firearms were banned two years ago, 'If you don't like it, move to Texas.'
CCW holders, please don't send me a hoard of emails verbally castrating me on this issue. In excess of 99.9% of Californians couldn't get a CCW permit if they tried. A lot of people have been threatened, severely injured or died because of the inability to defend themselves in this state. We all have to sacrifice and most Californians have been doing it for decades. It's now your turn to sacrifice with the rest of us. If we can't get a reasonable CCW system in this state, it needs to be forced. One way to end it, is to end for everyone, including off-duty law enforcement. Then, stand back and watch the fur fly.
Even anti-gun nuts in the media will have a fit over this one. Maybe they'll change and come to their senses. But if they don't, they should no longer be amongst the privileged either.
End the unequal application of the law NOW. End discretionary CCW permits. I am serious, really.
The comments expressed by the author do not represent the views or policies of any pro-gun rights organization, its officers or members.
rweller@cris.com
http://www.calnra.org/ccwban.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878