A SHALL issue CCW opportunity in California


PDA






eflatminor
February 23, 2009, 02:26 PM
I just spoke with Assemblymember Knight's office in Sacramento. He has introduced a bill (AB357) that would make California a SHALL issue state for CCWs. While it's always a good idea to contact YOUR assemblyman to show support of the bill, Mr Knight's assistant urged me to send or fax a letter to his office. The idea being that each letter received will help in justifying support. We've got 31 days (after 2/19) until the bill goes to the safety committee, probably followed by the rules committee. Either way, call the representative of your district and please send or fax a letter in support of AB357 to Mr Knight's office:

Steve Knight
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 319-2036, (916) 319-2136 fax

Heck, even if you don't live in California, send a letter! What could it hurt?

If you enjoyed reading about "A SHALL issue CCW opportunity in California" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
lechiffre
February 23, 2009, 04:31 PM
about 10 years ago shall issue ccw in california failed by ONE vote. better luck this time.

big_bang
February 23, 2009, 04:38 PM
The number (357) is certainly serendipitous :)

Sixtigers
February 23, 2009, 05:11 PM
It won't pass...but knowing that there's an individual that actually represents my wishes on the matter is both gratifying and encouraging! I'll be sending a letter!

Hmmm...upon reading the actual wording of the bill, I'm not nearly as excited. This only seem to affect rural folks. Those living in areas with an incorporated township (read: Any city that has it's own police force) still need a "good cause" statement and approval from the chief of police. Does nothing for 99% of folks here.

Still...progress in the right area, I suppose. Just not for me or anyone I know.

harrygunner
February 23, 2009, 05:52 PM
The timing could be good since the Sheriff of southern California's Orange County has become the "poster child" of all that is bad about "may issue".

Her actions have lead to national news articles of her fighting her law-abiding constituents and the Board of Supervisors that appointed her, over CCW permits.

Note: The rural reference in the bill is about open carry.

Proposed changes to current law:

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 12050 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
12050. (a) (1) (A) The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may shall issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver,or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in either one of the following formats:
(i) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(ii) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in that county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

TAB
February 23, 2009, 05:58 PM
I think we would have a much better chance getting a bill to pass if we actually defind what good cuase is. Right now its what ever the issuing agency wants it to be.

jakemccoy
February 23, 2009, 06:37 PM
done

jakemccoy
February 23, 2009, 07:09 PM
It won't pass.

...and opponents of Obama said he wouldn't win.

gofast
February 23, 2009, 07:31 PM
As I understand it the Sheriff of a California county has precedent over the Chief of a particular city. If you apply to the Chief of the city in which you live they may issue. If you apply to the Sheriff of the county in which you live they shall issue. The Chief of a city can refer all CCW applications to the Sheriff, but no vice versa. So, if the bill were to suceed all of California would indeed be a shall issue state.

Lightninstrike
February 23, 2009, 07:33 PM
I'm from Kansas now but used to live in SoCal. For crying out loud send an email or letter. Doesn't cost much and every little bit helps.

springer7676
February 23, 2009, 09:16 PM
Hope it passes for you guys. Here on the East Coast the cities are the most dangerous places for civilians, not the counties. 100+ murders a year not counting the steet robberies, car jacking, rapes, beatings etc that my local city has to offer.

TexasRifleman
February 23, 2009, 09:21 PM
The actual document :

AB 357, as introduced, Knight. Firearms: license to carry concealed firearm.
Existing law authorizes the sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists, and that the person applying satisfies any one of certain conditions, as specified, to issue a license for the person to carry a concealed handgun, as specified. This bill would delete the good cause requirement, and require the sheriff to issue the license if the other criteria described above are met. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 12050 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
12050. (a) (1) (A) The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may shall issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver,or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in either one of the following formats:
(i) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(ii) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in that county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

Good luck! Hope this goes through.

azhunter122
February 24, 2009, 12:50 AM
Hopefully it will pass, I just don't know if it will do any good for such an anti gun state but it is still a positive step.

steverjo
February 24, 2009, 03:32 AM
I am sending my comments in favor or this bill. It is about time and I hope that all others comment in favor of it as well.

Please people, lets make this happen.

Prince Yamato
February 24, 2009, 05:04 AM
I think it may actually pass but I bet there will be a challenge from San Francisco or something like that.

Sixtigers
February 24, 2009, 01:07 PM
GoFast, you are correct, sir. I'm in Kern County, in the city of Ridgecrest. I must apply through the chief of police of the city of Ridgecrest. If I am turned down by his office, then I "can" apply through the Sherrif's department. Unfortunately, our new sherrif doesn't seem to be CCW friendly anymore.

Still, I'm gonna keep my fingers crossed!

Superlite27
February 24, 2009, 02:37 PM
Just a suggestion from the peanut gallery:

Even though letters sent to assemlyman Knight help by showing support, wouldn't letters sent to opponents also help?

I'd suggest posting politician's contact info who are opposing this bill and flooding them with "shall issue" support letters as well. I don't know how effective this would be, but every little bit helps, right?

If someone can write one letter, two shouldn't be that much more difficult.

Just my 2 cents.

jakemccoy
February 24, 2009, 03:04 PM
Legislators consider a single letter as representing a certain number of people who feel the same. For example, the number may be 10,000 people or whatever other estimate they use. The reasoning is if one person took the effort to read the news, to read the bill and to write a letter, then a certain number of other people are likely to feel the same way.

It's important to remember that most anti-gun folks are generally apathetic about gun control issues, except when they're arguing at the dinner table. They're unlikely to take the time to write-in to oppose this bill. So, let's take this opportunity to shine!

By the way, that's a good suggestion, Superlite.

Southern Rebel
February 24, 2009, 03:29 PM
I cannot understand why "may issue" versus "shall issue" can stand up under scrutiny from the point of "equal protection under the law". If my ability to carry is totally dependent on one individual's opinion, it becomes obvious that friendships, political ties, money, etc will taint this process.

Thus, if I am denied, why could I not seek legal remedy and request a reasonable sample of apprioved versus rejected applications? I suspect it would be easy to demonstrate the lack of impartiality and fairness in the process. (It might require some financial assistance from the NRA.)

SoCalShooter
February 24, 2009, 04:13 PM
This could be an excellent source of revenue for california.

TAB
February 24, 2009, 04:17 PM
Actually no it won't be, as by law they can only charge what it costs to process/records of the app.

WardenWolf
February 24, 2009, 04:44 PM
Even if it passes the state legislature, I expect the governor to veto it.

TRGRHPY
February 24, 2009, 04:49 PM
Here on the East Coast the cities are the most dangerous places for civilians, not the counties.

For clarification, the city is part of the county which is why sheriffs deputies can enforce the law within city limits. It is frequently incorrectly stated that a sheriff deputy cannot pull over someone in city limits.

Rob P.
February 24, 2009, 05:09 PM
Practically, the proposed change won't do anything.

Under the current law, the Sheriff has the ability to impose certain "conditions" upon a CCW applicant. One is requiring that the applicant be certified by a qualified firearms instructor. One trick to keeping the number of applicants down is to require that the instructor be selected from a list of "approved" instructors who charge 4X the normal going rate for firearms instruction.

Another trick is to require a psychological test. This is available under the current licensing scheme. If the state goes "shall issue" then most of the sheriffs will require that the applicant be "sane" and will require a psych eval. Which the applicant has to pay for himself to the tune of about $300.

Then there's the requirement of 5 letters of reference that specifically mention that the letter author knows that it is for the purpose of obtaining a concealed weapons permit.

The list of ways to do an end-run around the law is endless.

An easier method of getting rid of the current "may issue" problems is to simply define "good cause" so that a majority of the population meets that threshold.

VegasGeorge
February 24, 2009, 05:22 PM
I strongly urge all you Californians to write or fax all your representatives urging support of this bill. I sense a strong current moving among the States toward relaxing gun control and opposing federal controls. Obama's (ingenuous) statements seemingly supporting the 2nd Amendment have turned the heads of some liberals. The time may be right. Push this real hard.

ServiceSoon
February 24, 2009, 07:01 PM
Isn't there a push for a constitutional convention? I didn't see any mention of firearms in the current California State Constitution.

jakemccoy
February 24, 2009, 07:15 PM
I cannot understand why "may issue" versus "shall issue" can stand up under scrutiny from the point of "equal protection under the law". If my ability to carry is totally dependent on one individual's opinion, it becomes obvious that friendships, political ties, money, etc will taint this process.

Thus, if I am denied, why could I not seek legal remedy and request a reasonable sample of apprioved versus rejected applications? I suspect it would be easy to demonstrate the lack of impartiality and fairness in the process. (It might require some financial assistance from the NRA.)

For such a lawsuit, you run into at least two problems:

1. Lack of standing to change the law. In fact, the court is unable to change the law. The legislators must do so.

2. The result of such a lawsuit may get you a CCW permit, but it won't change the law.

We're trying to change the law here for everybody!

jakemccoy
February 24, 2009, 07:21 PM
Over the last few decades, the trend has been for states to become "shall issue", not "may issue". California is part of a shrinking minority of states. Watch the graphic below. You'll be amazed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

An easier method of getting rid of the current "may issue" problems is to simply define "good cause" so that a majority of the population meets that threshold.

How do we get rid of "may issue" while still keeping the words there? We couldn't. We'd end up with citizens having to take the county to court to sue over the definition of "good cause". The definition would be litigated to death in court. Gun owners wouldn't even bother going through the process because the ordeal would be too taxing. Plus, "may issue" is just wrong on its face.

Zoogster
February 24, 2009, 10:56 PM
Isn't there a push for a constitutional convention? I didn't see any mention of firearms in the current California State Constitution.
You clearly are not part of CA politics.
The last thing you want is to push for in CA is all the anti politicians coming together to decide on firearm wording to be put into the constitution because it would be wording that allowed for greater gun control.
It would include something like "as allowed by law" essentialy meaning any law could override existing forms of state preemption.

There is millions of firearm supporters in CA. A good number of them are naive though and agree to feel good sounding measures aimed at destroying gun rights. The kind sold as anti-crime, save the children, protecting the police, etc legislation.
Millions more are against firearms. The San Francisco Bay area is in general very anti-gun and quite influential. San Francisco even trying various bans, and banning gun shops itself that fortunately did not stand up.
Los Angeles is in general also very anti firearm rights. Politicians in thier election slogans even mention being tough on guns as a selling point. Not tough on bad people with guns, "tough on guns".
Most of the state by area is pro gun, but by population it is anti.

Most firearm victories in the state are won by showing contradictions in law, and abuses at the local level.
Some of the bans in San Francisco being overcome initialy because the CADOJ had control of gun sales, not the city. Essentialy winning by pitting two anti-gun elements against eachother and showing one had jurisdiction and not the other. Not because the gun law was found unconstitional or a violation of rights (which post Heller it could be.)

So the last thing you would want to do is open up writing an all encompassing gun control statement in the constitution. It would likely sound pro-gun, while including as I said "except as provided by law" or "that comply with law" or "The people shall have the RKBA as provided by law" or some similar nonsense. Words that legalize all gun control while appearing to be pro-gun.
Like Mexico's Article 10 in thier Constitution, or Iraq's Constition as heavily influenced by our government.
Calling for a Constitional Convention in an anti state to permanently 'adjust' the Constition with words that will effect gun rights from then on can be foolish and work against you.

No thanks.

SCMtns
February 25, 2009, 02:05 AM
I've already contacted a number of lawmakers about this. I'm not really getting my hopes up, but it sure would be nice. I was born and raised in Texas, and as soon as I turned 21 I could have gotten myself a CHL. Never did. I guess I was a lot more complacent about such things in my 20's-- I grew up shooting with my dad around our ranch and then with my friends when I got older, but for some reason had no desire to carry a gun around back then.

Then I moved to Northern California 5 years ago. I haven't had any scary incidents change my mind-- in fact, the couple times that somebody's wanted trouble with me, I've been the scary incident that happened to them, without ever needing a firearm. But there's two things that make me wish I could carry these days: 1) I'm a little older, and no longer feel bullet-proof and immortal, and 2) now I've got some elitist morons telling me I can't.

There are people with carry permits in the Bay Area, but they're all rich, famous, and/or politically connected, as if this were a 3rd-world country in which there are no rights-- only privileges to be allocated according to social status. In the Bay Area, only the wealthy can be entrusted with effective means of self-defense? The rest of us just have to hope the cops show up in time? Makes me angry every time I think about it. It's as blatantly un-American as a policy can get. If AB 357 passes, I'll camp out in the parking lot to be the first to apply under the new rules. Dammit.

MovedWest
April 13, 2009, 08:22 PM
If I read this correctly it looks like this bill is up for it's first hearing tomorrow:

Link (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_357_bill_20090409_status.html)

Does anyone have more info about it? Any numbers on how we stand?

-MW

Buck Snort
April 13, 2009, 08:42 PM
Any sheriff who wants to can hang the whole thing up on "good moral character". As I understand the law it'd make the applicant "prove" good moral character. Does a letter from your minister saying you don't fart in church "prove" you've got "good moral character"? Its a joke. As a matter of fact, its a pathetic joke.

Librarian
April 13, 2009, 09:06 PM
Hearing was postponed to the 21st. No votes, no public positions on it yet from legislators other than Mr. Knight.

As to misconduct by issuing authorities, we have that problem now; 357 doesn't give them any more opportunities.

Better to support the bill and get a couple more Sheriffs in the fold. San Francisco and Los Angeles will need lawsuits anyway.

MovedWest
April 21, 2009, 09:07 PM
Bad news guys...

http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab357&year=2009

-MW

GJgo
April 21, 2009, 11:39 PM
That's too bad. I grew up in CA, and the current situation there WRT the 2A is a major reason why I wouldn't consider moving back.

If you enjoyed reading about "A SHALL issue CCW opportunity in California" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!