ServiceSoon
Member
Isn't there a push for a constitutional convention? I didn't see any mention of firearms in the current California State Constitution.
A SHALL issue CCW opportunity in California
- Thread starter eflatminor
- Start date
- Status
jakemccoy
Member
Southern Rebel said:
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
Member
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
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif
Rob P. said:
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.
Last edited:
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
Member
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.
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
Member
Buck Snort
Member
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.
Last edited:
Librarian
Member
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.
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
Member
GJgo
Member
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.
- Status
