This is a discussion on AB 357 - Shall Issue Bill Announced in CA within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; If you are from California, please take a few moments and look at the link below. This is the bill we have been waiting for ...
Array
If you are from California, please take a few moments and look at the link below. This is the bill we have been waiting for and could very well put an end to the ridiculous "good cause" standard in CA for obtaining a Concealed Carry Permit.
Legislative Inquiry
Read through the bill (it is pretty short) and then write a letter to your congressman, senator, state assemblyman, and state senator. Urge everyone you know to support this bill, but most importantly get the word out!
Glock 19
Springfield XD45
Para Ord SF-45-A
Being a victim is a choice, it doesn't have to be yours - Support Concealed Carry on Campus
Array
Good luck!
Biker
Array
Sure wish you guys would draw a line straight east from Big Sur and split the state in two. Leave the Granola Crowd down south and let the good folks up north live a normal life!
Treat me good, I'll treat you better. Treat me bad, I'll treat you worse.
Array
How true...Originally Posted by AZ Husker
Good luck! Contact the legislators... over and over.
My Music: www.reverbnation.com/dickiefredericks
New tunes added.
"The Double Tap Center Mass Boogie. Learn it, know it, love it, shoot it. Good guys should live, bad guys not so much. " - Ted Nugent 09
Array
They see $$$$$$
Array
Just contacted my representative & senators today about the H.R. 45 bill... looks like I'm gonna have to get right back to 'em about this one!
Array
Good Luck. Hope it goes through. Also question paragraph B
Still says MAY issue creating two standards or classes.(B) The chief or other head of a municipal police department
of any city or city and county, upon proof that the person applying
is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance,
and that the person applying is a resident of that city and has
completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E),
may 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:
Array
I suspect that Paragraph B might still be a small issue, but dept heads will have a considerably harder time denying applications. This may also be just a residual piece that they didn't cross out.
The good thing is that moral character is fairly hard to deny. Furthermore, provided people do the required training, it'll be hard to continue denying applications.
Glock 19
Springfield XD45
Para Ord SF-45-A
Being a victim is a choice, it doesn't have to be yours - Support Concealed Carry on Campus
Array
Good luck, but will this ever make it out of committee to be voted on? I would be surprised if it did in Kalifornia.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."
- Thomas Jefferson
"I'm the arrow, you're my bow, shoot me forth and I will go"
"Do not let any individual posts put a knot in your Big Boy Under-Roos"
Array
At the present time, a permit may be issued by the local police chief or the County Sheriff. Since either may issue and most chiefs defer to the sheriff, there was no need to change the language. Chiefs who defer to the sheriff might not have the ability to comply, all sheriffs do even if some (L.A. County and all counties in the Bay Area) rarely issue.
If this were to pass, it would make California one of the least restrictive concealed carry states. Unfortunately, there still won't be any reciprocity (a few states recognize California permits, but California doesn't recognize permits for any other states).
Ryan
Those who will not govern their own behavior are slaves waiting for a master; one will surely find them.
Array
If they pass a reasonable "shall issue" law there, I very well may move to California! There for the first time last year, I loved it.
Best of luck to the long suffering, yearning to be free Californians!
Regards, T Bone.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". Benjamin Franklin
Array
As a practical matter the law has little chance of passing. If somehow it does pass and get signed (slim) the reality is that it won't make much difference in who gets a permit.
County Sheriff's already have a lot of discretion on what process is required in order for an applicant to get a CCW permit. They can require a psychological exam paid for by the applicant ($300+) They can require that the applicant only use "approved" firearms instructors from a special list kept by the SO. (Instructors who charge 4X the normal rate) They can require letters of reference (1 county requires 5) from friends and neighbors (NO family or relatives) of the applicant which state that the author of the letter knows that the reference is so that the applicant can get a license to carry a concealed weapon. They can restrict what, when, where, and how the applicant can carry a weapon. Etc., etc., etc.
None of those discretionary rules will change if the State goes "shall issue." Which means, as a practical matter, the SO will have the ability to make it so difficult or expensive that most people won't bother.
Glad you liked it here Tbone. Please come back soon. (We need the tourist dollars very much right now.)
Last edited by Rob P.; February 25th, 2009 at 02:00 PM. Reason: lock & load
Array
I beg to differ, the sooner we go bankrupt so that all state union contracts can be canceled the better.
Ryan
Those who will not govern their own behavior are slaves waiting for a master; one will surely find them.
Array
We do NOT need this. Bankrupting the State is an idea that is filled with folly. If it happens we get Federal intervention on every level.
The feds will have to step in to preserve our Penal system. The Feds will have to step in to preserve our interstate highways. The Feds will have to step in to preserve our natural resources. And the list goes on right down to control of our water and power.
WE DO NOT NEED federal oversight and control of our state! And, no matter what, we still get to pay for it through our taxes. Taxes which will have to be raised to pay for the "extra help." And I shudder to think of what would happen if some bureaucrat in DC is the person/entity responsible for deciding what to do about offshore oil drilling.
If the contracts between the various unions and the State are too exorbitant, then the next round of discussions and negotiations can take that into consideration. That is the purpose of that method of employment.
I do believe that the various personnel who are responsible for negotiating with the unions need to BE FIRED and replaced with others who are a bit more cognizant of the the true costs and true budget for the department they are negotiating for. Apparently the personnel who are doing this right now are incapable of negotiating a good deal on behalf of the State. But that is a strongly held personal opinion.
In any event, we do not need to bankrupt the State to return to prosperity. We need those people in positions of trust to do their jobs and represent the PEOPLE and not self interest.
Sorry for the thread hijack. We now return you to your regularly scheduled work avoidance routine.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
