Defensive Carry banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Want to carry a concealed weapon? California could make it harder | The Sacramento Bee

If you don't care to click on the Sacramento Bee article here's the bottom line from the article:
In Sacramento County, where McCarty’s district sits, Sheriff Scott Jones has issued a huge number of concealed carry permits. Under Jones’ tenure, the number of permit-holders has exploded from a few hundred to around 8,000.

“Our sheriff seems to be handing out (concealed carry) permits like candy on Halloween,” said McCarty. “It would put the public more at ease that people who are getting these (permits) truly deserve them, that there’s an imminent threat to themselves.”

8,000 is hardy "huge" in a very, very populous county. The demand results from many years' of having our rights denied. For most of these pieces of legislation our only hope is that the governor still has some common sense. He's actually vetoed some gun legislation in the past.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Can it be true?
A ray of 2A sunshine in a notorious anti 2A state?
Will wonders never cease?

Sent via Tapatalk from somewhere in a distant bunker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
From the diatribe said:
“Our sheriff seems to be handing out (concealed carry) permits like candy on Halloween,” said McCarty. “It would put the public more at ease that people who are getting these (permits) truly deserve them, that there’s an imminent threat to themselves.”
Population in Sacramento County: ~1.4M

"Candies" (permission slips) handed out, to citizens who've hired them: 8000, under the current county sheriff.

The only "deserving" rationale: believing defense of innocent lives matters; and recognizing nobody has a functioning crystal ball on planet Earth to know when such defense will be needed.

Even in the state of California, the Constitution still exists.

Sadly, in the state of California, insanity over the Peruta case and the tenuous hold on power the fatuous have over the citizens means that arbitrary criminalizing of people unless they're actually under an upraised knife continues.

Sad state of affairs. I feel for ya, all who must live under the regime and who are routinely denied full citizenship.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,377 Posts
“It would put the public more at ease that people who are getting these (permits) truly deserve them, that there’s an imminent threat to themselves.”
And there's the problems with the whole thing. I truly deserve to carry a gun because it is my God given right.

See I believe that all men are created equally and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights......yes, I'm certain I read that somewhere.........
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAJOkie

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Regarding so-called 'imminent threat' said:
“Our sheriff seems to be handing out (concealed carry) permits like candy on Halloween,” said McCarty. “It would put the public more at ease that people who are getting these (permits) truly deserve them, that there’s an imminent threat to themselves.”
Question for the anti's: what imminent, unknowing victim of crime can accurately foretell crime is about to strike? That is, when nearly every victim finds crime blowing up right out of the blue, an utter surprise.

^ That's something the little lordships can't ever answer. There is no valid response to that, other than one: nobody can possibly know when a surprise crime of violence is going to appear. It's why everyone's surprised when such things occur. Yet, nobody's life is less valuable because of having no functioning crystal ball in his/her possession.

They'll never understand that. That all upstanding lives matter equally. Prescience doesn't make one person's life more valuable, even if a human could be prescient.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Some of the Sheriffs have been accepting "personal protection" or similar including the Sacramento County sheriff. I can only assume the legislators are nervous about have 8000+ gun-toting citizens in their midst. The proposed legislation has to go through committees and then through both branches, but basically would require per the article that you have evidence of an imminent threat. One typically does not get a notarized letter from a potential assailant prior to being assailed.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top