a different approach to getting concealed carry in California

Until now the approach of 2A supporters has been to try to make California change from "may issue" to "shall issue". Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, a Republican from Riverside County, is taking a different tack -- she has introduced a bill (Assembly Bill 757) mandating that self-defense qualifies as "good cause" to grant a concealed carry permit under California's "may issue" policy.

link:
http://kfiam640.iheart.com/articles/local-news-465708/lawmaker-gun-permits-should-be-granted-15568085/

excerpt:

It will be very interesting to see what happens with this. Of course, everybody in California should please write your representatives!

 

That's my county.

I like it but it will probably go no where because its being introduced at the State level.

The thing is, its up to the Sheriff to determine what is 'good cause'. The riverside County Sheriff could, if he wanted to, already accept 'for self defense' to be sufficient. But he doesn't. I have read that he will well written good cause statement that is somewhere in between 'for self defense' and 'I have a documented threat of my life with a restraining order in place and carry large sums of cash or I'm a movie star/politician'. But Im also under the impression that more get rejected than approved in Riverside County. Its seem to be better than some and morse than others like Sacramento and Orange Counties for example.

Thanks for being it up though.... I hadn't heard about it, yet.


ETA : here is the Bill

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB757

 

That would be nice, but most likely such anything the antis realize is a pro-firearrm bill will go nowhere in the state legislature. So it just pleases the base in the rural area that she is trying without actually resulting in any change. They probably know that too, so may or may not even really be in favor of it knowing it wouldn't go anywhere.

California is really dependent on outside help right now, federal level protections that the state must abide by.

One of our funniest moments was when one of the sponsors of our most anti gun bills for years got into trouble for illegal arms trafficking. The guy making endless legislation to remove citizen's guns was behind smuggling arms in other parts of the world. Some of these people are just hypocrites. They exempt themselves from some of the anti-gun legislation, they have armed guards, but they try to keep guns out of the hands of everyone else. While turning the law enforcement officers that are typically from our ranks and more like us than them against us in enforcing such BS. So we battle ourselves.

Since the 2010 prop 14 the state legislator is so permanently Democrat that every Republican (typically rural counties) can vote for something and still just be ignored.
The top two candidates mean that in many places Democrats fight each other exclusively. The legislator is as such so overwhelmingly biased that such bills face an almost impossible uphill battle. Until gun rights become a Democrat thing as well...

 

I should add that the fact that you can get a concealed carry permit good throughout the entire state simply because you reside in a county with a firearm friendly sheriff is a 'loophole' in the state at this point.

That may see change for the worse at some point in the future, becoming only valid in the county it is issued in or some other nonsense if legislators take enough notice of it.

Being in a county that sometimes gets a sheriff that is pro firearm and issues permits readily until replaced by a sheriff that does not is about the best you can get in CA at this point, and the makeup of the state legislator makes it quite apparent that is a better option than anything they would replace it with.

 

This is as ignorant as it is wrong, and fails as a strawman fallacy.

No one believes that equal protection of the law applies solely to ‘illegal’ immigrants or ‘liberal’ college students, or that rights should be ‘granted to a select few.’

Her statement is a ridiculous lie.

And the Constitution acknowledges the right of individuals to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – a right that is not ‘unlimited,’ a right subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

As long as state officers are acting in accordance with state and local laws concerning the issuance of carry permits, their determinations are perfectly lawful and appropriate, having nothing to do with whether those officers ‘believe’ in the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court alone determines which laws comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence and which laws do not. Until such time as the Court rules to invalidate may issue laws, those laws are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner ‘violating’ the rights of California gun owners.

Melendez would be well-advised to stop with the ignorant, partisan, hyperbolic nonsense about rights, privileges, and ‘beliefs,’ and instead focus on changing California permit issuance law to a shall issue standard.

 

Otto Von Bismark quoted that in 1867. He also said, Making laws are like making sausage. It is better unseen.

 

Actually, I believe its you that's using a form of strawman fallacy. Lets break this down.

She did not claim that.

Only after you inserted the word 'solely'.

She didn't claim or allude otherwise.

Heller and McDonald differ than your opinion.

Well, No. The Supreme Court doesn't alone determine. Other courts rule on 2A matters as well. The Supreme Court is the final say.

No. They are not 'perfectly Constitutional'; they are presumed to be Constitutional.

Umm..... ok. Perhaps self evaluate that.

Which is what she is doing.

She wants to change and standardize the GC requirement to 'self defense' which would essentially result in a de-facto Shall Issue policy. This is an attempt to make it an easier sell that simply stating Shall Issue of which many will just say 'You mean ANYone can CC a gun?!?...NO!!!"

It forces the question of 'Do people have the right to self defense by way of CC'ing a gun in public".

Of which CA legislators will likely say No.

Next Bill "Allow people to Open Carry in public with a permit for the reason of Self Defense"

Of which CA legislators will say again, No.

Off to CA9 then to SCOTUS it goes.

 

When I first read her quote, I took it that she was using absurdity to illustrate the absurd.

But then again, we are talking about a state legislator from California...

 

Thanks for typing that out; it was my intent to do similar, but your version is better. Seems some folks have never seen a gun law they didn't approve of, which is just weird for a gun forum....


Larry

 

In my opinion, Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez is demonstrating some much needed 'testicular fortitude', even though in a losing effort.

A lot of Californians have complained over the years to the effect of 'why don't Republicans ever introduce their own pro-gun bills?' The answer, bitter as it is, has been 'the bills never get out of committee'. Expending 'political capital' on such a bill reduces the possible influence a Republican lawmaker could have, as the minority party.

But this year, the (D) have a 2/3 majority in both our Assembly and our Senate. The D's don't need Republicans for anything. The (R) have no influence, unless a (D) might feel pity or patronizing.

A legislator cannot diminish his/her influence below zero. Introducing this bill is 'telling truth to power' with no risk to effectiveness.

As to her comments

, those are snark. California is tilted so far left that we fly-over people in the hinterlands are dismissed. She wants to point out the contrast.