A SHALL issue CCW opportunity in California

[eflatminor]

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?

 

[lechiffre]

about 10 years ago shall issue ccw in california failed by ONE vote. better luck this time.

 

[big_bang]

The number (357) is certainly serendipitous

 

[Sixtigers]

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]

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, [strike]that good cause exists for the issuance,[/strike] 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), [strike]may[/strike] 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]

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]

done

 

[jakemccoy]

It won't pass.

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

 

[gofast]

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]

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]

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]

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, [strike]that good cause exists for the issuance[/strike], 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), [strike]may[/strike] 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]

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]

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]

I think it may actually pass but I bet there will be a challenge from San Francisco or something like that.

 

[Sixtigers]

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]

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]

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]

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]

This could be an excellent source of revenue for california.

 

[TAB]

Actually no it won't be, as by law they can only charge what it costs to process/records of the app.

 

[WardenWolf]

Even if it passes the state legislature, I expect the governor to veto it.

 

[TRGRHPY]

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.]

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]

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.