[gunsmith]

Revenue! CA needs revenue!...I know I would shell out a Ben Frank
or 2 for a CCW in CA.
How do we get the Idea to Arnold that he (CA) could get loads of extra
cash by going (say) FL style or AZ style CCW.
While I am more in favor of the Constitution being my only permit,it beats a no CCW.
JIM? right up your alley?

[tyme]

I don't live in Kali, but IMO, no. Never tax/regulate something for no good reason. The tax/regulation will be perpetual and it will irritate the proles, which is a bad thing for any government.

CA needs money? Get all the illegals hooked up to flywheels and export excess power to other states.

[Carnitas]

Good Idea!

But instead of a new tax you could just put all the state workers that he's going to have to cut to work processing the paper work. There's already a pretty fair cost associated with the process.

Grow the "good" government, shrink the bad.

[Airboss]

How about a $100 Liberal Tag on the Californial hunting license.Unlimited bag limits.Charge $150 for non-resident
Get rid of two problems at once,

[Standing Wolf]

Actually, it's much more likely the People's Republic of California will begin licensing people to own firearms at all.

[Jim March]

Right now, local agencies can pick up $100 for processing a CCW app.

Even if you doubled that, it wouldn't make any difference...the departments that are acting like they are now (zero-issue, or corrupt/racist/cronyist) aren't going to change.

And we don't have the political capital to pass shall-issue. IF Arnold is hugely successful with the economy over the next 2/3 years, and the GOP manages a comeback in the legislature, then it becomes thinkable.

But.

There are things we can maybe do now. One possibility is to set up "oversight" somehow, possibly based on the Connecticut model (denial appeals panel), or a model where the panel can only act when presented with evidence of misconduct (which God knows there's enough of!). The situation today is that the courts won't act unless there's absolutely proven racism...plain illegality or cronyism, they don't care. There are high-level influencial Dems in the legislature who know that the CCW system we have today is just utter doggie doodoo and might support some sort of oversight program. If done right, and complaints of illegality/racism/corruption and such get investigated properly, we'll generate the data we need for more complete reforms down the road.

Can't say more yet.

[Gray Peterson]

You mean the board of Firearms Permit Examiners?

[Jim March]

Ummmm...Lonnie, what are you talking about? Sorry, not enough info to process...

[Gray Peterson]

Board of Firearms Permit Examiners (http://www.bfpe.state.ct.us/)

[Jim March]

OK, now we're on the same page, that's what Conn. uses.

Something like that might work, but then again the Conn. system is falling apart because they can't deal with the workload - and the local agencies have realized they can *control* that workload by deliberately screwing as many people as possible.

In California, multiply that problem at least what, tenfold, due to both our population and the long-term pattern of screwing.

So what I think we need is a "modified Conn. model" whereby the board is able to act only in cases where there's illegality/corruption/racism/equal protection violations...but then hand down some pretty fierce medicine so that the agency nailed, and likely others, won't screw up in that fashion again. That would allow one action by a California oversight board to affect multiple cases, versus the purely one-at-a-time process in Conn.

Ain't no WAY we're gonna solve the Calif mess one permit applicant at a time :fire:.

[Gray Peterson]

Something like that might work, but then again the Conn. system is falling apart because they can't deal with the workload - and the local agencies have realized they can *control* that workload by deliberately screwing as many people as possible.

This has been happening? I think the courts could smack down on that real quick if someone filed a lawsuit. The CT courts have ruled that need is not in the criteria for determining if someone is eligible for a permit.

[Jim March]

Yes, it's been happening. According to some CT activists, the review board is now backed up a full year. With a one-year delay to score CCW, many (most?) people don't bother.

The situation is bad enough that we may have to re-think labeling CT a "de-facto shall-issue state".

And no, trust me, don't assume the courts will do squat. There's no "individual right" in that circuit or state const.

:cuss:

[Gray Peterson]

This is an RKBA provision in the state constitution in CT.

[Gray Peterson]

Jim,

I talked to a few people in Connecticut and gave them links to this thread. They're not sure what you're talking about.

[Jim March]

Huh. I heard that from a local there.

I'll make some phone calls Monday, sort it out.

[JeffS]

You should ask Arnold to support CA CCW. I would like to know if I should bow down before you... or watch you eat a large dish of humble pie due to the pre-election statement of a pro-gun candidate besides Tom (Schwarzenegger). I don't think he is pro-gun at all, but if he's the stealth candidate, I will be pleasantly surprised.

I'm more of the type that defines a duck by his walk and not by his qwack. I need to see Schwarzenegger's walk since his qwack hasn't been pro-gun in my opinion.

[Jim March]

There is NO way that a shall-issue bill will get past the legislature this coming year. Ain't gonna happen, it'd be stupid to try as it would "tip our hand".

Better to try for a legislative fix involving "oversight of CCW misconduct". THAT we can perhaps make fly...and it'd set the stage for further reforms.

Meanwhile, we'll see *rapidly* where Arnold's head is at when the legislature proposes yet another per-bullet tax or similar stupidity. It's guaranteed they'll try, to push pressure on Arnold early in his tenure. His best counter will be "dammit, let's stick with dealing with this financial disaster" and for the most part, side-step most gun stuff for at LEAST the first year, maybe two. After that, if he's actually helped perform a turnaround, that's when to try and roll the gun crap of the Davis years back.

[gunsmith]

His best counter will be "dammit, let's stick with dealing with this financial disaster

Thats my whole point!
How many handgun owners are in CA?
If half paid 300$ for a ccw how much $
would go into the state coffers?
a bunch?:D

The Dem's like $$$ don't they?

[Jim March]

Oh man.

Gunsmith, right now the local agency gets $100, Cal-DOJ gets $90, plus $25 for fingerprinting, plus $100+ for training, PLUS up to $150 to see a shrink if the department is into that and jeeeezuz, we've got the most expensive permit in the nation already. And *that* is so long as they're actually obeying the rules, a lot of departments add to the above illegally.

Are you saying you want to add another $200 to that?

Sigh. It might almost be worth it in trade for shall-issue, but it won't fly. No way. The Dems and media have too much political capital tied up in grabberism. It'll take a couple years to wean 'em off that political line, if it's possible at all.

[gunsmith]

What about that "hate crime" ccw thing the pink pistols were doing last year?
could we push him to sign that?
He could look like he's battling "hate crimes"
....would that work?

[Andrew Rothman]

How about this?

If California went to a Vermont-style carry, they could save millions by dismantling a bunch of useless laws and the bureaucracy that goes with them!

[Carnitas]

Jim,

You gotta admit, it would be fun to get a law sponsored with an obscene tax on issuance of the permits. The dems would love it. Then once its in place have a minority group lined up to protest the tax as unfair to the disadvantaged that need the permits the most; then get the tax lowered to somthing reasonable. That's the kind of thing the opposition would pull.

[Jim March]

Carnitas: hmmmm. That's twisted enough that it MIGHT work. But, I suspect shall-issue won't pass at any price, not even a grand a pop or whatever :rolleyes:.

And yes, *Arnold* would indeed pass the CCW for hate crimes/domestic violence thing, but the legislature won't.

I think we're better off trying to create a CCW oversight process, and maybe declare exactly what parts of the CCW data are public record. I think that'd be more useful than the hate crime/domestic thing, long term.