New Initiative to Make California Shall Issue

[Pistology]

There is an initiative in the process of getting on the ballot that would edit (strike / add) the code regarding issuance of concealed permits in California. Follow its official progress, here.

The problem is that the initiative doesn't owe much to the Second Amendment but just limps away from current tyranny with its tail between its legs. Still, it is an improvement. So I guess I'll have to support it in spite of my misgivings including:

1) With last month's ban in California of open carry, 11-0056 does not permit open carry.

2) No limit on the sheriff to deny on the basis of history of substance abuse (from which people recover) or domestic abuse (which may be subject to a vindictive partner).

3) It's onorus specification of firearm(s) permissible to carry.

4) The stingy time interval of validity of only two years for citizens.

To the author, I offerred a link to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1351, which I say is closer to empowerment of the citizen and more restraining of government to infringe on the RKBA.

I'm interested to hear how other states' permits compare to these shortcomings and your personal contentment with your states' recognition of your rights in these regards.
And from Californians - whether this initiative is acceptable sufficiently for your support or what

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[jem102]

There is an initiative in the process of getting on the ballot that would edit (strike / add) the code regarding issuance of concealed permits in California. Follow its official progress, here.

The problem is that the initiative doesn't owe much to the Second Amendment but just limps away from current tyranny with its tail between its legs. Still, it is an improvement. So I guess I'll have to support it in spite of my misgivings including:

1) With last month's ban in California of open carry, 11-0056 does not permit open carry.

2) No limit on the sheriff to deny on the basis of history of substance abuse (from which people recover) or domestic abuse (which may be subject to a vindictive partner).

3) It's onorus specification of firearm(s) permissible to carry.

4) The stingy time interval of validity of only two years for citizens.

To the author, I offerred a link to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1351, which I say is closer to empowerment of the citizen and more restraining of government to infringe on the RKBA.

I'm interested to hear how other states' permits compare to these shortcomings and your personal contentment with your states' recognition of your rights in these regards.
And from Californians - whether this initiative is acceptable sufficiently for your support or what

I truly wish you well but it's going to be tough in CA after years and years of prohibitive laws on the books and a citizenry that honestly sees the 2nd as so much wasted paper.

Come back to TN! Everyone knows red clay is way better for your pistol than sand and salt spray.

[Pistology]

I truly wish you well but it's going to be tough in CA after years and years of prohibitive laws on the books and a citizenry that honestly sees the 2nd as so much wasted paper.

Come back to TN! Everyone knows red clay is way better for your pistol than sand and salt spray.

Thanks, for the hospitalateee, Jem, I'll keep 'em running.

I'd like to see some pre-emption clause like WA has as I posted here. And if I ever hear back from the author of the current initiative, I'll be sure to remind him. CA definitely needs state-level pre-emption of this bastion of universal freedom where communities take it upon themselves to ban nukes, sale of fur clothing, plastic grocery bags.... (I actually agree with the last one, btw, as the city is the default picker upper and the marine wildlife are dependent).
Fun in the sun, sand, spray - all about 65 this morning.

[GM]

It should be very nice, but ... California become a "shall issue" state? Perhaps when pigs fly.

[azchevy]

Any progress is a start. I think it is a losing battle with the morons in Sacramento but good luck nonetheless.