VOTE YES for California - AB 357

[zeplin]

VOTE YES for California - AB 357

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A bill which would change California law on CCW,
effectively making the state "Shall Issue" and removing the
arbitrary discretion of Sheriffs to withhold permits for
political reasons, AB 357, has been referred to the Public
Safety Committee. Please call and tell these people to VOTE
YES for AB 357.

California - AB 357 - Call Now and urge to vote YES

BILL NUMBER: AB 357 INTRODUCED

BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Knight

FEBRUARY 19, 2009

An act to amend Section 12050 of the Penal Code,
relating to firearms.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 357, as introduced, Knight. Firearms: license to
carry concealed firearm.

Existing law authorizes the sheriff of a county, upon
proof that the person applying is of good moral
character, that good cause exists, and that the person
applying satisfies any one of certain conditions, as
specified, to issue a license for the person to carry a
concealed handgun, as specified.

This bill would delete the good cause requirement, and
require the sheriff to issue the license if the other
criteria described above are met.

By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement
agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local
program.

The California Constitution requires the state to
reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain
costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions
establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on
State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs
mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs
shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

The Shall Issue bill, AB 357, has been referred to the
Public Safety Committee. Please call and tell these people
to VOTE YES for AB 357.

Jose Solorio - Chair, Anaheim CA

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0069
Tel: (916) 319-2069
Fax: (916) 319-2169

Curt Hagman - Vice Chair, Diamond Bar CA

CAPITOL OFFICE
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-319-2060, 916-319-2160 fax

Warren T. Furutani, Long Beach CA

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0055
(916) 319-2055
(916) 319-2155 Fax

Danny D. Gilmore, Hanford CA

CAPITOL OFFICE
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-319-2030, 916-319-2130 fax

Jerry Hill, San Mateo CA

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0019
Tel: (916) 319-2019
Fax: (916) 319-2119

Fiona Ma, San Francisco CA

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0012
Tel: (916) 319-2012
Fax: (916) 319-2112

Nancy Skinner, Oakland CA

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0014
Tel: (916) 319-2014
Fax: (916) 319-2114

Call early and often! We need this to pass!

[The Cable Guy]

Nice, as much as I would like to see this passed, I doubt that the liberals are going to allow law-abiding citizens to carry scarry assault pistols.

[LAschoolCop]

No sounds good to me...........

[RicardoTubbs]

You're more likely to see our new administration ban civilian ownership of firearms or more specifically anything more than a Red Rider BB Gun before you see CA changing to a right to carry state. Change is coming, but not that kind.

If CA did become a right to carry state, I could just see all the road rage situations quickly escalating into 417's. That's just what CA needs, angry drivers carrying firearms...

[SoCalSheriff]

If CA did become a right to carry state, I could just see all the road rage situations quickly escalating into 417's. That's just what CA needs, angry drivers carrying firearms...

I dont think so. We average 1 or 2 "Road Rage" releated 417's a week already.

With current law, the chances are the brandisher is a Dirtbag. I would think the dirtbags would be less likely to pull their weapons if there was a great possibility the other driver would be shooting back.

Knowing there was a greater chance of everyone carrying might just decrease the number of 417's.

[Blkside]

If CA did become a right to carry state, I could just see all the road rage situations quickly escalating into 417's. That's just what CA needs, angry drivers carrying firearms...


Yeah cause California is the only state that has road rage. Lets hope the politicians dont read this... They may think its true. I think this is a great chance for california at least to show that its not its own country and should if nothing else accept other states concealed carry permits. I think this state spends way too much time effort and MY money to try to prove we are better than the other states and sad part is were pretty pathetic for such a large state...

[IE Copper]

I'm curious, why is California pathetic? If this state is so pathetic I'm sure you will be able to easily explain.

As to this bill, I say No. The last thing we need is a bunch of rice rocket driving 18 year olds packing heat. I dont want to have to worry about every DUI suspect having a gun in their pocket either.

On a side not, does anyone think that all of the wanna-be cops and hopefulls have been becoming more and more arrogant? It was not long ago that any law enforcement hopefuls on this site where very respectful. This comment is in reference to multiple topics recently, not necessarily this one.

[ownerop]

I'm curious, why is California pathetic? If this state is so pathetic I'm sure you will be able to easily explain.

As to this bill, I say No. The last thing we need is a bunch of rice rocket driving 18 year olds packing heat. I dont want to have to worry about every DUI suspect having a gun in their pocket either.

On a side not, does anyone think that all of the wanna-be cops and hopefulls have been becoming more and more arrogant? It was not long ago that any law enforcement hopefuls on this site where very respectful. This comment is in reference to multiple topics recently, not necessarily this one.

Here we go again, the streets are going to full of old west style shootouts. What a bunch of BS, what an elitist point of view.

When was the last time you arrested a guy for 12025 or 12031, and the guy was an otherwise law abiding citizen? Probably never. If you are from the IE like your forum ID suggests, you probably know that is it very easy to get a CCW permit from the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Dept. the
Sheriff and most of the dept. is extremely Pro CCW, they issue over 3000 permits to law abiding citizens every single year and they are so back logged in the CCW process that it takes close to 1 year to get one. There aren't any problems with these CCW holders having road rage incidents and brandishing their weapons, in fact CCW holders statistically are less likely to get involved in any illegal activity than even off duty police offcers are; yes this is a well documented fact, CCW holders are amongst the most law abiding citizens and your fears are completely unfounded.

[IE Copper]

I'm curious about how my fears are unfounded. Which part is not true. That 18 year old rice rocket driving, gun toting kids is scary? Or that DUI suspects toting concealed guns is scary?

[nobodyjr]

As to this bill, I say No. The last thing we need is a bunch of rice rocket driving 18 year olds packing heat. I dont want to have to worry about every DUI suspect having a gun in their pocket either.



You have to be 21 to buy a handgun.

The last gun my squad found was on a DUI driver... so if you aren't worried about that now, you should be.

I'm for it.

[08duramax]

Wow you are a cop and don't know you have to be 21 to buy or even transport a handgun, and you are trying to lecture us? Since when is having an opinion considered arrogant? How's the weather up there on your high horse?

[08duramax]

Wow you are a cop and don't know you have to be 21 to buy or even transport a handgun, and you are trying to lecture us? Since when is having an opinion considered arrogant? How's the weather up there on your high horse?

[08duramax]

I for one approve of the new law

[BobbyB]

I too would support a "shall issue" Bill. Its GENERALLY NOT the law abiding folks we need to be worried about, and the criminals dont care what the law is anyway. I dont have the raw numbers right in front of me, but I'd bet that if you looked into the number of "gun crimes" in other shall issue states, you'd probably find fewer violent crimes than you find in Ca. Sure, at first there would probably be a spike of gun related crimes, but very quickly the crooks would most likely start to think twice because they just wouldnt know which potential victim is not really a "sheep". As far as worrying that everyone is going to be "packing heat"..you should be worried about that right now. CCW or not, any Mope can get a gun, so the risk to us is already there.

[RicardoTubbs]

Our opinions are just that, opinions. I'm sure the lean to the left CA Legislators and CA Supreme Court will make the "appropriate" decision that would be in the "best interest" of CA.

Possible Senario: (OFFICER) Sir, can I see your CDL? (JOE CITIZEN) Sure, Officer, I have a firearm concealed in my waistband and have a CCW. (OFFICER) OK, don't reach for or around it. (JOE CITIZEN) Yes sir, here's my CCW card...oh, and here's my CA medical marijuana card if you're wondering why there's a prescription sitting on the passenger seat. (JOE CITIZEN) Sir, are you guys still hiring?

[pulicords]

I'm curious about how my fears are unfounded. Which part is not true. That 18 year old rice rocket driving, gun toting kids is scary? Or that DUI suspects toting concealed guns is scary?

Not only are all 18 year olds "toting" handguns already in violation of the law, DUIs (carrying guns or not) are also criminals. The belief that "shall issue" laws increase the numbers of armed criminals on the street (or crimes committed) is simply unsupportable hysterics. Those states that have enacted "shall issue" laws simply haven't seen the mass numbers of abuse, that anti-gun opponents of this legislation have shrieked about. Bad guys with guns will still carry them and honest citizens with guns won't abuse their new ability to protect themselves. Nothing will change except that those wishing to CCW will be required to take several hours of formalized training to qualify for that privilege. If someone has a history of DUIs or is convicted of DUI while CCW, it would constitute "cause" for revocation of their permit. Simple as that.

If a citizen's mental and criminal history is clean enough to allow them to exercise their right (per the U.S. Constitution) to own and possess firearms in their home, workplace or other locale, then it's unreasonable to deny them the ability to carry a weapon concealed. In CA, "may issue" laws are routinely used to deny every otherwise qualified applicant his/her CCW simply to protect the issuing authority (Sheriff or Chief of Police) from civil liability. Judges, celebrities, wealthy residents and other supporters of the local chief law enforcement executive will often get the permits, but anyone else is told to "rely on the police/sheriff's departments for protection."

Requiring LE executives to issue CCW permits to those qualified to own weapons (who receive reasonable training to carry concealed and obey the rules associated with issuance) to protect themselves, doesn't threaten public safety, lessens the risk of civil liability to the issuing authority. It is simply wrong to deny those applicants the legal ability to CCW, based upon the unsupportable claims of those who would prohibit all possession of firearms if given the opportunity.

[pappabacon]

Possible Senario: (OFFICER) Sir, can I see your CDL? (JOE CITIZEN) Sure, Officer, I have a firearm concealed in my waistband and have a CCW. (OFFICER) OK, don't reach for or around it. (JOE CITIZEN) Yes sir, here's my CCW card...oh, and here's my CA medical marijuana card if you're wondering why there's a prescription sitting on the passenger seat. (JOE CITIZEN) Sir, are you guys still hiring?

That was funny.

[zeplin]

TEXAS Conviction Rates for Concealed Handgun License Holders
Reporting Period : 01/01/2005 - 12/31/2005


http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2005.pdf



Total Convictions in TEXAS 60,873

Convictions of CHL Holders 153

CHL Holder Percentage of Total Convictions 0.2513%

[DOAcop38]

I dont think so. We average 1 or 2 "Road Rage" releated 417's a week already.

With current law, the chances are the brandisher is a Dirtbag. I would think the dirtbags would be less likely to pull their weapons if there was a great possibility the other driver would be shooting back.

Knowing there was a greater chance of everyone carrying might just decrease the number of 417's.

Though not usually more than"limited" CCW in opinion, I agree. As long as there are enhancements for anyone who is a CCW possessor who "willfully" brandishes in a rude and threatening manner ( no immediate threat to themselves or others).for the typical joe scum? felony period for any brandishing( no probation, jail time and clean the damn freeways after jail)

I believe in LAW and regulation-period.The only folks who worry me are the "guns and glory, no laws rule me"types who think unrestricted carry is their "God given" right........

[DOAcop38]

TEXAS Conviction Rates for Concealed Handgun License Holders
Reporting Period : 01/01/2005 - 12/31/2005


http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2005.pdf



Total Convictions in TEXAS 60,873

Convictions of CHL Holders 153

CHL Holder Percentage of Total Convictions 0.2513%

nice to know- HOWEVER, Texas tends to be a BIGGER gun community and culture than CA. Folks in Texas would rather talk, holler, or smack you in the face BEFORE they go to guns........ CA is a different monster all together( more violent crime, larger gang population, larger # of incarcerated people).Even if all the decent folks are armed , that -just like the state of Florida,where CCW is permitted, crime will neither go up, NOR go down. Citizens will only have the option to better protect themselves(provided the gangsters don't pre plan and come better armed)

[avalon42]

Carrying CCW is a huge responsibility...and liability (criminally and civilly). Considering California only offers a 16 hour certification requirement class (8 on range, 8 in classroom) for CCW permits, while peace officers have nearly 10X as many hours on Use of Force, I say negative.

[DOAcop38]

I'm curious about how my fears are unfounded. Which part is not true. That 18 year old rice rocket driving, gun toting kids is scary? Or that DUI suspects toting concealed guns is scary?

sadly they are ALREADY carrying them! A general CCW permit law would only make it more likely to run into the knuckleheads that have "NOT YET" been arrested who will be armed. most of the arrests I've encountered of people with guns in vehicles have been those type of folks( and yes, they tend to be BIGGER adam henry's than the typical women scared of being attacked late at night or even the hardcore parolee )

[pulicords]

A general CCW permit law would only make it more likely to run into the knuckleheads that have "NOT YET" been arrested who will be armed.

Sorry to correct you DOA, but the real statistics don't bear out your "feelings." In those states with "shall issue" laws, only a small fraction of people issued CCW permits have problems. The vast majority, we never even have contact with. When you have problems with someone carrying unlawfully, they may not have prior arrests, but are obviously not above criminal behavior (as they're carrying unlawfully).

Most people who own guns don't even have LE contact, save for being "victims" or "witnesses" in incidents (ie: T/Cs or crimes they report) or are "regular folks" we might cite for minor traffic offenses. Your assumptions about them stem in large part from the fact that you don't participate in shooting sports with people outside of LE and usually don't deal with gunowners unless they're a violator.

When states (like CA) allow general prohibitions against CCW by honest, law abiding people, they rely on "feelings" and suppositions that are unsupported by the facts. Like the fear of "gun toting 18 year olds" (the minimum age for handgun ownership is 21), fear trumps reality. An honest CCW "shall issue" law in CA, wouldn't result in gunfights between regular citizens anymore than the fact that cars operating on the highways (capable of driving faster than 55 mph) result in everyday drivers participating in street races. :rolleyes:

[RicardoTubbs]

Senario (Because senarios are cool) CA moves to "Shall Issue" and say good gun toting NRA supporting law abiding guy is at the ATM when some turd comes to 211 him with a simulated weapon, hand pointing through jacket pocket at victim. Result is poor turd's heartbeat is secured by good guy. This would be a situation to prove "Shall Issue" works; however, average middle class working guy will probably loose his house when turd's family comes with all their lawyers because deadly force in their eyes and most liberal eyes was unnecessary...you know, there was no weapon, and he was a good kid who went to church and never would hurt anybody. As a matter of fact, he was a Criminal Justice student at the local JC. Poor working class guy doesn't have a County, City or State to protect him Civilly.

Maybe in Texas and Florida stupid lawsuits aren't filed like they are here in CA.

I'm not trying to be negative, just real. As a civilian before LE, I was all for "Shall Issue." Call me jacked up but as a LEO, I don't see a benefit to "Shall Issue" in CA.

This is just my opinion.

[DOAcop38]

Sorry to correct you DOA, but the real statistics don't bear out your "feelings." In those states with "shall issue" laws, only a small fraction of people issued CCW permits have problems. The vast majority, we never even have contact with. When you have problems with someone carrying unlawfully, they may not have prior arrests, but are obviously not above criminal behavior (as they're carrying unlawfully).



I actually meant the "fringe" types who would probably,( sooner or later) get stopped anyway for viol. of 12031(a) PC with or without a CCW permit, just as you stated. Don't want you to confuse my line of thought ( it would be the same as saying we should expect mom and pop driver to be frequent traffic violators because every other nut is one).I still believe in limited CCW permits, over none at all......

[DOAcop38]

Senario (Because senarios are cool) CA moves to "Shall Issue" and say good gun toting NRA supporting law abiding guy is at the ATM when some turd comes to 211 him with a simulated weapon, hand pointing through jacket pocket at victim. Result is poor turd's heartbeat is secured by good guy. This would be a situation to prove "Shall Issue" works; however, average middle class working guy will probably loose his house when turd's family comes with all their lawyers because deadly force in their eyes and most liberal eyes was unnecessary...you know, there was no weapon, and he was a good kid who went to church and never would hurt anybody. As a matter of fact, he was a Criminal Justice student at the local JC. Poor working class guy doesn't have a County, City or State to protect him Civilly.

Maybe in Texas and Florida stupid lawsuits aren't filed like they are here in CA.

I'm not trying to be negative, just real. As a civilian before LE, I was all for "Shall Issue." Call me jacked up but as a LEO, I don't see a benefit to "Shall Issue" in CA.

This is just my opinion.
CA- more lawyers than clients to defend them( actually cited an "unemployed" lawyer on century Blvd recently for expired reg- he sarcastically joked that he'd finally have a court case to try !:rolleyes:)

Most of the "shall carry"/may carry states have a "stand your ground law or legal opinion"- problem with that is that most of those states have NO PROBLEM throwing your butt in ail 'til kingdom come if you violate the law, whereas here we think nothing of giving a FELON summary probation and a free ticket back into the streets ( of course then, he/she will stop by and file a vindictive/ harassing I.A. complaint on the arresting officers). a "may issue" permit might be okay though,becuase I've seen alot of my "not so nice" Ca. neighbors, and most are dumb enough to think a verbal altercation or somebody "looking at you funny" is grounds to claim "self defense"......

[zeplin]

I've seen alot of my "not so nice" Ca. neighbors, and most are dumb enough to think a verbal altercation or somebody "looking at you funny" is grounds to claim "self defense"......

So.... give those dummy's guns so they can cull themselves out of the gene pool.:D:D:D

[Markb1983]

Well, I can add to this. I was 18 years old when I had recieved my CCW in the state MN at the age if 18. Thats right, 18. I went to the chief and told him i desired to have a permit and it was granted. Was I ready for the responsibility,no. Did I make any mistakes or criminal boo boo's. Not at all.

Our society is nuts on gun rights and gun control. I am for both. I Dont want Mr. Joe Sh*t bag armed as the next guy supporting the 2 amendment. But on the same flip side, don't hammer me for some aholes irresponsibilities.

On the other note, whats up with this state on not being able to have an
m4. Or high cap mags? That doesnt make sense. If im gonna kill someone, im using a bigger round than a 5.56x28mm Like the California approved Solcom II by springfield armory. Battle rifle.:rolleyes:

[Markb1983]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joBMq6b4MmE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGGmFj9282Q&feature=related

[pulicords]

.....average middle class working guy will probably loose his house when turd's family comes with all their lawyers because deadly force in their eyes and most liberal eyes was unnecessary...you know, there was no weapon, and he was a good kid who went to church and never would hurt anybody.

Poor working class guy doesn't have a County, City or State to protect him Civilly. Maybe in Texas and Florida stupid lawsuits aren't filed like they are here in CA.

I'm not trying to be negative, just real. As a civilian before LE, I was all for "Shall Issue." Call me jacked up but as a LEO, I don't see a benefit to "Shall Issue" in CA.

Ok, you're "jacked up!" (I guess this means you've got the attitude that, "I've got mine now, Jack!"??? :confused: )

As for "liability concerns" in possible civil actions involving self-defense: Citizens who carry can always obtain insurance for legal service, if necessary. Since I've retired from LE and obtained a PI license, I've done just that. There's lawyers in Florida and Texas that would jump on the lawsuit bandwagon just like in CA, but there's also insurance companies who would offer coverage to people who decide they want the ability to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits. In the end, it should be up to the individual (who decides to carry) to make that decision and incur the costs involved. They don't need a "mommy state" to decide for them that it's not worth it.

The most significant problem with "may issue" vs "shall issue" is abuse of their authority on the part of LE executives. When chiefs and sheriffs refuse to issue CCW permits to anyone but political friends and judges, then claim that all the other applicants haven't shown sufficient "need", their standards are unfair. If the executives are really afraid about incurring liability, "shall issue" laws remove that issue. When there's real "cause" to deny someone a CCW, I have no problem seeing it denied, but if a chief or sheriff is only concerned with covering their own butt from liability, then their authority is being abused, and their "discretion" should be limited.

[RicardoTubbs]

Ok, you're "jacked up!" (I guess this means you've got the attitude that, "I've got mine now, Jack!"??? :confused: )


Kind of yeah, but kind of no. I didn't realize the civil reprecutions of "clean shoots" until entering LE. We are entering real "Change" here in America as indicated by the past election (America Voted)...that means the growing concensus is limited folks should be armed and people who are shot/killed are victims because society failed them. Often times people say "I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six." If you lost your home, family, boat, vacation home, and even dog....everything you worked hard for years to obtain...would that be much better than being carried by six in this economy? Of course, their is always tent city in Sacramento to fall back on.

Perhaps liability insurance for "Shall Carry" individuals will be underwritten by our very own historical icon of American Insurance and Financial Services giant, AIG. We can keep the billions of federal bailout aid pouring into the victim's family pockets for years to come.

LE is changing from the hard charging politically conservative tough on crime mindset to the Fluorecent Reflective Safety Vest (As Required By CA State Law) wearing softies whom are the new era of LE due to the ecomomy and new kinder, softer, and gentler recruitment efforts. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, only that it is part of America's Change. We are swinging back to the left on the pendulum from where it has been leaning right for a while.

For as many solid arguments of "Shall Carry" that are presented, there will be twice as many arguments against it. Currently the arguments against will carry more weight based on the makeup of CA and US Legislature.

[pulicords]

Kind of yeah, but kind of no. I didn't realize the civil reprecutions of "clean shoots" until entering LE. We are entering real "Change" here in America as indicated by the past election (America Voted)...that means the growing concensus is limited folks should be armed and people who are shot/killed are victims because society failed them.

We are swinging back to the left on the pendulum from where it has been leaning right for a while.

I've been involved in LE since the mid-70's and those civil repercussions might seem like new "change" to you, but in fact they have been evolving steadily for decades. Even so, the fact is that "shall issue" laws have become the norm with the vast majority of states. The recent "Heller" decision (affirming that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right) was overwhelmingly approved of by the general populace in virtually every poll taken afterward.

The "changes" discussed during the last election cycle scrupulously avoided the issue of the 2nd Amendment and even the leader of the House (Pelosi) castigated the new Attorney General for prematurely suggesting new measures to limit firearms ownership. She knows as well as any liberal Democrat (in CA and outside this state) that their majority doesn't in any way equate to a mandate on firearms related legislation. If they attempt to equate it as such, their majority will be lost very, very promptly.

[DOAcop38]

So.... give those dummy's guns so they can cull themselves out of the gene pool.:D:D:D

you do realize that ,within a few yrs, the population of California (legal)-36 Million- would drop probably by HALF under that scenario.......:p:p:p

[Badkharma]

Carrying CCW is a huge responsibility...and liability (criminally and civilly). Considering California only offers a 16 hour certification requirement class (8 on range, 8 in classroom) for CCW permits, while peace officers have nearly 10X as many hours on Use of Force, I say negative.

......with the major difference being that sworn officers use their firearms within the scope of their job and duties (ie. enforcement), whereas the CCW holder would (hopefully) carry only for the purpose of self-defense and not enforcement. Big difference.

[MarioS]

I highly support this. I am preparing a statement and will mail it to the representatives when finished. Many tend to think that crime will somehow increase under a "shall issue" state, when really, the opposite trend has been witnessed. And, with much respect, I kindly ask some of the LEO's in opposition of the bill to consider that sworn LEO's do not need a CCW...but if you were not a LEO and this were not the case, would YOU believe in the permit and your personal right to have one, having seen the crimes you have witnessed on your beats? I would certainly hope so.

Cut from a webpage, and there is more where this came from: "Now, what do the FBI Uniform Crime reports show about firearm issues? Well, when looking at the issue of allowing people to carry concealed firearms (31 states currently allow any law abiding citizen to be able to get a permit to carry a concealed firearm, no "need" is required, which allows them to carry a firearm concealed just about anywhere they go), the FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that states allowing concealed carry by the general public have a 28% lower homicide rate, and 33% lower firearm homicide rate and a 38% lower handgun homicide rate.

To look at a specific state, Florida started allowing concealed carry by the general public in 1987. In that time, their homicide rate has dropped 27%, its firearm homicide rate has dropped 34% and their handgun homicide rate has dropped 38%. In the same period, the national rates rose 8%, 28% and 43% respectively."

I'm curious, why is California pathetic? If this state is so pathetic I'm sure you will be able to easily explain.

As to this bill, I say No. The last thing we need is a bunch of rice rocket driving 18 year olds packing heat. I dont want to have to worry about every DUI suspect having a gun in their pocket either.

On a side not, does anyone think that all of the wanna-be cops and hopefulls have been becoming more and more arrogant? It was not long ago that any law enforcement hopefuls on this site where very respectful. This comment is in reference to multiple topics recently, not necessarily this one.

But there are lots of 18 year old, "rice rocket" driving punks packing heat now...illegally with stolen firearms. Heck, even a few of the 12-14 year olds in the inner-city area near my town are strapped, and they have gang affiliations. The punk gangsters here can buy a pistol for $50...locked, loaded, ready to go. I would rather have more law-abiding, good-hearted guns on the street than scumbag, gangster weapons. I still HIGHLY support background checks and interviews, along with skill/knowledge qualifications, before actually being issued a CCW permit.

Beyond that, as much as I respect law enforcement (obviously), we all know that you can't be everywhere on your beat at once. You might be a minute away from a crime in progress when seconds count. And more good-hearted, armed, law-abiding citizens out there, the better, IMO.

......with the major difference being that sworn officers use their firearms within the scope of their job and duties (ie. enforcement), whereas the CCW holder would (hopefully) carry only for the purpose of self-defense and not enforcement. Big difference.

+1, but I also agree with those that say more training might be necessary. It takes longer than the required amount of time to become proficient with a firearm in various scenarios, nevermind learning how to shoot under stress. And I feel like more detail should be placed into shooting classes on how to select proper ammunition, etc.

There may be a few handful of cases where the two types of training might somewhat cross over, say if an armed citizen witnesses a crime in progress and decides to intercede in order to protect someone's life. My firearms instructors always warned us to never use our weapons unless we were ready to face the lawsuit that would inevitably follow. But as they say, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

[Garbage Man]

The biggest problem as I see it is there will be a great increase in the number of people leaving their guns in their cars and having them stolen, I dont want to see gun theft getting as common as GPS thefts. I hope that the new laws would have some consequences placed on those CCW holders who have their guns stolen from them when they leave it someplace stupid.

Does anyone know if gun thefts have increased in the states that went to right to carry?

[CAleo]

The biggest problem as I see it is there will be a great increase in the number of people leaving their guns in their cars and having them stolen, I dont want to see gun theft getting as common as GPS thefts. I hope that the new laws would have some consequences placed on those CCW holders who have their guns stolen from them when they leave it someplace stupid.

Does anyone know if gun thefts have increased in the states that went to right to carry?

I understand your point, but, there are a lot of places that you can't take a CCW into. Some of those CCW permit holders may have been abiding by the law and leaving their gun behind (i.e., private business has a sign that says no guns allowed. According to the CCW rules you must ask the private business for permission to carry your CCW in their business. Also if you enter into a person’s house you must ask for permission to carry your CCW in their home as well).

A lot of CCW permit holders tend to just leave it in their vehicles rather then ask for permission to carry inside the business or home of a private person. The reason behind just leaving it in their vehicle rather than asking for permission is to keep the business owners and the home owners from "freaking out."

[zeplin]

I understand your point, but, there are a lot of places that you can't take a CCW into. Some of those CCW permit holders may have been abiding by the law and leaving their gun behind (i.e., private business has a sign that says no guns allowed. According to the CCW rules you must ask the private business for permission to carry your CCW in their business. Also if you enter into a person’s house you must ask for permission to carry your CCW in their home as well).

A lot of CCW permit holders tend to just leave it in their vehicles rather then ask for permission to carry inside the business or home of a private person. The reason behind just leaving it in their vehicle rather than asking for permission is to keep the business owners and the home owners from "freaking out."

Most folks I know with CCW carry everywhere where it isn't a felony if you're caught. Too easy to break into a car. More responsible to have it on your person, that way you know where it is seems to be the opinion from those I have spoken to.

[LA DEP]

you do realize that ,within a few yrs, the population of California (legal)-36 Million- would drop probably by HALF under that scenario.......:p:p:p

and the problem with that would be???????:D

[CAleo]

Most folks I know with CCW carry everywhere where it isn't a felony if you're caught. Too easy to break into a car. More responsible to have it on your person, that way you know where it is seems to be the opinion from those I have spoken to.

That is cool and all, but it is against the law. CCW holders that I know are law abiders and tend to adhere to what the law says.

The CCW holders I know would rather abide by the law and have their gun stolen, then have to be arrested and lose their privilege to carry all together.

[zeplin]

That is cool and all, but it is against the law. CCW holders that I know are law abiders and tend to adhere to what the law says.

The CCW holders I know would rather abide by the law and have their gun stolen, then have to be arrested and lose their privilege to carry all together.

In most cases it is only a trespass offense. Example, you go into a restaurant and it has a sign, no firearms allowed. If you're careless enough to be tagged, the owner/manager has to ask you to leave. You then have until the local police arrives to leave without any problem. They cannot hold you until the police arrive. If you are still there when the police arrive it is just a trespass offense. If you're dumb enough to get caught twice and stay until the police come, you lose your permit.

[MarioS]

I agree that most CCW holders would probably abide by the law and just leave their weapon in the trunk. However, if you were carrying properly, nobody should EVER catch on that you have a weapon anyway.

[IE Copper]

When this thread first came up I made statements that were anti-AB357. I said that I didn't want to have to worry about armed citizens. In the last week or two I have took time to do my own research on the subject. I have read hundreds of blogs, and mass amounts of information on "shall issue" states and states which allow unloaded and loaded open carry.

My opinion has changed completely. I still think that very strict training and background requirements should be met. If these requirements are met, citizens should be able to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. I believe that the state of California is currently going against the constitution, and reform is not only necessary, but it is owed to the citizens of this state.

I welcome a future that includes armed citizens. Where citizens can protect themselves from criminals who would prey on them. I don't want to be a citizen's ONLY form of defense when they are forced to protect their property, themselves and their loved ones.

I vote yes on Ab 357

[Garbage Man]

That is cool and all, but it is against the law. CCW holders that I know are law abiders and tend to adhere to what the law says.

The CCW holders I know would rather abide by the law and have their gun stolen, then have to be arrested and lose their privilege to carry all together.

Then most CCW holders you know are completely irresponsible. Think about what you are saying "We would rather let a criminal get our gun then be told to leave a business if we are caught carrying it," because, somehow, it might be possible to lose your CCW. In other words most CCW holders you know are only thinking about themselves, and have no clue how common vehicle burglary is. If you are going to a private place where you do not intend to take your gun then you have a duty to the public well being not to bring the gun at all. For example I used to attend Avengers Football games (Alas now a defunct league) and Staples Center would not allow cops to carry guns inside. Even though I knew I was going to be in downtown LA, a place where I would very much like to have a gun, I always left it at home.

The practice of just leaving it in your car is shamefully irresponsible. Why not just drive up to the local gang and give them your gun? I am not opposed to CCW but this is a perfect example of why many citizens are too naïve to be permitted this right. If we pass a CCW law then I hope we will also have a law that specifically prohibits leaving it anywhere but on your person or in a safe.

[IE Copper]

I usually see eye to eye with you Garbage Man, but I don't on this one. For one, if your gun is locked in your car you have secured it to the best of your ability. Vehicle burgs may be more common, but residential burgs happen alot also. Do you advocate everyone locking up every gun they own in a safe at home with armed guards, if they dont have the gun on them?

I for one would not want to drive though LA without my gun just because I know that I can't carry it at my destination. Can you imagine your wife hearing this; "we are sorry Mrs. Garbage, but your husband was carjacked and shot to death. Why didn't he have his gun on him?"

The possibility of your vehicle getting burged just does not justify driving unarmed if you have the capability of being armed.

[pulicords]

I used to attend Avengers Football games (Alas now a defunct league) and Staples Center would not allow cops to carry guns inside. Even though I knew I was going to be in downtown LA, a place where I would very much like to have a gun, I always left it at home.

GM- The first time I went to the Staples Center I was CCW and there were no metal detectors/security screening. I wasn't aware of the policy there and when I returned a few years later, "learned" about it too late. I had to return to my car, conceal my weapon there and lock it inside. The superior court judge who invited me to attend the event with him was as disgusted as I was and wanted to argue with the security guards. Although I said it wasn't worth the debate, I changed my mind when we left at the conclusion of the game. Parked in a red zone (in front of the same "VIP" entrance we had entered) was the limo and associated (armed) CHP security for our governor and his "entourage."

The fact that "Arnold" and his family/friends/associates are extended this kind of courtesy for a sporting event (it's wasn't an official appearance), but a fully sworn peace officer wasn't disgusted me enough that I won't return to that venue again. Yea, it's their right as property owners to decide who (and under what conditions) they'll allow inside their building, but it's also my right to decide whether or not I want to give them my business. I won't give them mine, and recommend the same to all similarly minded officers.

[CAleo]

Then most CCW holders you know are completely irresponsible. Think about what you are saying "We would rather let a criminal get our gun then be told to leave a business if we are caught carrying it," because, somehow, it might be possible to lose your CCW. In other words most CCW holders you know are only thinking about themselves, and have no clue how common vehicle burglary is. If you are going to a private place where you do not intend to take your gun then you have a duty to the public well being not to bring the gun at all. For example I used to attend Avengers Football games (Alas now a defunct league) and Staples Center would not allow cops to carry guns inside. Even though I knew I was going to be in downtown LA, a place where I would very much like to have a gun, I always left it at home.

The practice of just leaving it in your car is shamefully irresponsible. Why not just drive up to the local gang and give them your gun? I am not opposed to CCW but this is a perfect example of why many citizens are too naïve to be permitted this right. If we pass a CCW law then I hope we will also have a law that specifically prohibits leaving it anywhere but on your person or in a safe.

Zeplin, in his earlier post stated that most CCW holders carry their CCW into all places with the exception of those places that it is a felony to carry them into. Well when those CCW holders go to a place where it is a felony to carry into then what do you suggest those CCW holders to do then, lock it in their vehicle?

Look I know vehicle burgs are a "dime a dozen." But CCW holders need a place to store their weapon when abiding by the law. I would much rather the laws be relaxed regarding CCW holders but, it is what it is. Sometimes abiding by certain laws are "shamefully irresponsible" but it is the law and we should abide by it. If you don't like the law then get it changed.

[CAleo]

Then most CCW holders you know are completely irresponsible. Think about what you are saying "We would rather let a criminal get our gun then be told to leave a business if we are caught carrying it," because, somehow, it might be possible to lose your CCW. In other words most CCW holders you know are only thinking about themselves, and have no clue how common vehicle burglary is. If you are going to a private place where you do not intend to take your gun then you have a duty to the public well being not to bring the gun at all. For example I used to attend Avengers Football games (Alas now a defunct league) and Staples Center would not allow cops to carry guns inside. Even though I knew I was going to be in downtown LA, a place where I would very much like to have a gun, I always left it at home.

The practice of just leaving it in your car is shamefully irresponsible. Why not just drive up to the local gang and give them your gun? I am not opposed to CCW but this is a perfect example of why many citizens are too naïve to be permitted this right. If we pass a CCW law then I hope we will also have a law that specifically prohibits leaving it anywhere but on your person or in a safe.

Also, I sometimes go to places unplanned when I am out and about as do CCW holders do as well. Some CCW holders may not anticipate going to a place that prohibits the carrying of a CCW. What about a situation where you want to attend the Avengers game, but afterwords you want to also go into the shops of downtown LA? Your argument makes since but there are always exceptions, and don't you always want to be prepared?

[zeplin]

old age setting in

[avalon42]

......with the major difference being that sworn officers use their firearms within the scope of their job and duties (ie. enforcement), whereas the CCW holder would (hopefully) carry only for the purpose of self-defense and not enforcement. Big difference.

I understand...but my point was on the hours and content of a CCW class. It is not enough IMHO to license someone to carry under CCW. Based on what was covered in my CCW class, I think agencies should readily "audit" the content of the courses.

I base this standpoint after taking a California approved CCW course (then carrying CCW for 1 1/2 years), then PC832, then onto my Reserve Academy.

[CAleo]

Zeplin

You took the context wrong to by earlier post to Garbage Man.

What I meant was take your gun, but don't break the law by carrying everywhere you go. There are going to be occasions where a CCW holder will need to lock the weapon in the car. It is what it is. At least you aren't too far from your car and you may be able to get to your car if something goes down and you need it. Going all the way back home to pick it up ain't gonna work.

Garbage Man was making the argument that it was better to leave the gun at home if the holder was going to go to a place that prohibits the carrying of the CCW. My argument is how can you anticipate where you are going to go at all times?

Owning and carrying a weapon is going to take a certain amount of risks. Whether you have it at home or in your car, it still can be stolen either in the car or from your home. CCW holders should carry their guns wherever they go but should lock it up when they are going to enter an area where it is prohibited to do so.

I would hate to see a CCW holder get jammed up for something stupid......and in court they won't be able to say "hey I broke the CCW law because I was worried that if I left it in my locked vehicle it would have been stolen." That defense won't fly.

[Garbage Man]

When you decide to go out in public carrying a gun you take certain responsibilities upon yourself. Most of those responsibilities are obvious and I should not need to go over them here. One responsibility, which does not seem as obvious to some, but is just as important, is weapon retention. Just as it is your responsibility not to use the gun on an innocent, it is your responsibility to prevent anyone else from using your gun.

Should we have a gun safe in our homes, someone asked?

Answer OF COURSE YOU SHOULD.

But you have a greater culpability when you choose to bring your gun outside. If some gangbanger got one of my guns it would weigh very heavy on my conscious. From that day forward every time I heard of a cop or other innocent being murdered by a gun I would wonder if it was mine that had been used.

As for Staples Center I assure you it angers me to no end, and YES I have had times where I had to leave my gun in my car due to some gun phobe policy at some venue and YES I have put my gun in the car begrudgingly, but when I returned to that venue I left the gun home.

As for patting yourself on the back for being MR Law Abiding by not bringing it in whenever you go on private property, that simply not the case. You are not breaking any serious laws by carrying a gun onto private property without owners consent. If they catch you, (For example if the Mouse House finds out I ALWAYS carry there) all they do is tell you to leave. Its is not even trespass if your agree to go.

Really what this issue is about is that far too many CCW holder, and cops frankly, regard the right to carry as a right to stash their gun in their car. They never really Carry the gun on their person they just leave it for some gang member to find it and use the private property rule as an excuse.

If every now and then you have to leave your gun in the car so what? I am talking about the people who put a gun in their glove box and leave it there all the time.

Make all the excuses for it you want, and make sure you have them practiced when you meet the widow of a fellow cop who was murdered with your gun.

[IE Copper]

Garbage Man wrote:
"Make all the excuses for it you want, and make sure you have them practiced when you meet the widow of a fellow cop who was murdered with your gun."

Garbage Man, come one, you are going way out on a limb here. I could tell you to practice your excuses so you can recite them the next time you have to roll code. You may have to tell some widow that you TCed into her husband's vehicle on accident. Rolling code, and locking your gun in you vehicle are both legal right?

Nobody will advocate leaving your gun in your vehicle when you get home. But leaving your gun locked up in your vehicle in public is not only legal, but it is completely except able. According to your philosophy, every person must have excuses ready for anything they do, incase they have to tell a grieving widow that they accidentally got their husband killed...

[FJDave]

It may be legal (leaving a gun locked in the car), but it's against my department policy.

[CAleo]

When you decide to go out in public carrying a gun you take certain responsibilities upon yourself. Most of those responsibilities are obvious and I should not need to go over them here. One responsibility, which does not seem as obvious to some, but is just as important, is weapon retention. Just as it is your responsibility not to use the gun on an innocent, it is your responsibility to prevent anyone else from using your gun.

Should we have a gun safe in our homes, someone asked?

Answer OF COURSE YOU SHOULD.

But you have a greater culpability when you choose to bring your gun outside. If some gangbanger got one of my guns it would weigh very heavy on my conscious. From that day forward every time I heard of a cop or other innocent being murdered by a gun I would wonder if it was mine that had been used.

As for Staples Center I assure you it angers me to no end, and YES I have had times where I had to leave my gun in my car due to some gun phobe policy at some venue and YES I have put my gun in the car begrudgingly, but when I returned to that venue I left the gun home.

As for patting yourself on the back for being MR Law Abiding by not bringing it in whenever you go on private property, that simply not the case. You are not breaking any serious laws by carrying a gun onto private property without owners consent. If they catch you, (For example if the Mouse House finds out I ALWAYS carry there) all they do is tell you to leave. Its is not even trespass if your agree to go.

Really what this issue is about is that far too many CCW holder, and cops frankly, regard the right to carry as a right to stash their gun in their car. They never really Carry the gun on their person they just leave it for some gang member to find it and use the private property rule as an excuse.

If every now and then you have to leave your gun in the car so what? I am talking about the people who put a gun in their glove box and leave it there all the time.

Make all the excuses for it you want, and make sure you have them practiced when you meet the widow of a fellow cop who was murdered with your gun.


Good point, but in the area where I'm from, there are very few private businesses that have that "no gun" policy. Most businesses are happy to have a law abiding citizen with a CCW.

[CAleo]

It may be legal (leaving a gun locked in the car), but it's against my department policy.


Wow, what does your department ask you to do when you are in a sally port about ready to book in a 10-15?

Just curious. We all lock our gear up in the patrol car's trunk, before booking in a 10-15 into our local jail.

[FJDave]

Normally they have the gun lockers at the jail with individual keys. But that's not the spirit of the law. We still lock the guns in the trunk instead of the lockers....it avoids the "oops" factor 2 miles down the road :D The policy is applied to guns and POVs.

[CAleo]

Normally they have the gun lockers at the jail with individual keys. But that's not the spirit of the law. We still lock the guns in the trunk instead of the lockers....it avoids the "oops" factor 2 miles down the road :D The policy is applied to guns and POVs.

Ah I see what you were saying.

The "oops factor" been there done that:o Only once though!!! thank God.

[FJDave]

The "oops factor" been there done that:o Only once though!!! thank God.

Yeah, you are NOT alone!! :D hahahahaa

[Garbage Man]

Garbage Man wrote:
"Make all the excuses for it you want, and make sure you have them practiced when you meet the widow of a fellow cop who was murdered with your gun."

Garbage Man, come one, you are going way out on a limb here. I could tell you to practice your excuses so you can recite them the next time you have to roll code. You may have to tell some widow that you TCed into her husband's vehicle on accident. Rolling code, and locking your gun in you vehicle are both legal right?

Nobody will advocate leaving your gun in your vehicle when you get home. But leaving your gun locked up in your vehicle in public is not only legal, but it is completely except able. According to your philosophy, every person must have excuses ready for anything they do, incase they have to tell a grieving widow that they accidentally got their husband killed...

So you're saying if you kill someone rolling code that's not your fault? Rolling code unsafely is not legal or excusable. When it comes to ethics I'D rather be "way out on a limb" than not even in the tree.

[IE Copper]

"So you're saying if you kill someone rolling code that's not your fault? Rolling code unsafely is not legal or excusable. When it comes to ethics I'D rather be "way out on a limb" than not even in the tree."

If I am safely rolling code, and within my policy, I can still get into a TC. If I get into a TC their is the potential of a fatality. We are nit picking scenarios here. What it comes down to is a simple question. Is it wrong, ethically or otherwise, to LEGALLY leave your weapon locked in your vehicle if you go somewhere where they wont allow you to carry concealed? I say, absolutely not.

Your comment indicates that I am "not even in the tree." How could something that is completely legal, something that many people do, be "not even in the tree?"

[zeplin]

"So you're saying if you kill someone rolling code that's not your fault? Rolling code unsafely is not legal or excusable. When it comes to ethics I'D rather be "way out on a limb" than not even in the tree."

If I am safely rolling code, and within my policy, I can still get into a TC. If I get into a TC their is the potential of a fatality. We are nit picking scenarios here. What it comes down to is a simple question. Is it wrong, ethically or otherwise, to LEGALLY leave your weapon locked in your vehicle if you go somewhere where they wont allow you to carry concealed? I say, absolutely not.

Your comment indicates that I am "not even in the tree." How could something that is completely legal, something that many people do, be "not even in the tree?"

It's a Catch 22 thing.

Gun stolen out of car.

Why'd you leave your gun in the car? Because they don't allow them inside.

Careless and caught with gun inside.

Why'd you take your gun inside? Because the last time I was here I left it in the car and it was stolen out of my car.

[Garbage Man]

"So you're saying if you kill someone rolling code that's not your fault? Rolling code unsafely is not legal or excusable. When it comes to ethics I'D rather be "way out on a limb" than not even in the tree."

If I am safely rolling code, and within my policy, I can still get into a TC. If I get into a TC their is the potential of a fatality. We are nit picking scenarios here. What it comes down to is a simple question. Is it wrong, ethically or otherwise, to LEGALLY leave your weapon locked in your vehicle if you go somewhere where they wont allow you to carry concealed? I say, absolutely not.

Your comment indicates that I am "not even in the tree." How could something that is completely legal, something that many people do, be "not even in the tree?"

If you are following your policy you may have an accident but it will because the other driver caused the accident. That can happen at any time to anyone and sadly all too often does. I am not sure why you feel that is a relevant example but there is no point in belaboring that or we will get off focus here.

As for how can I say that something is unethical when it is legal and everyone does it? I can only expect that you can realize the answer to that yourself. I can offer you a thousands examples of perfectly legal conduct that is still wrong and prevalent. I don't really need to do I?

I have agreed with you on most issues but I am seeing a pattern of rationalizations to my points here. Meaning I just don't think you are thinking about your responses and offering opinions based on reason. I suspect I have struck a nerve here by challenging you on something you do often and have justified in your mind that it is OK.

As far as the issue of just how accountable is any individual for any action they take, it really depends on how likely it is that their action will result in harm. The issue is one of negligence, is it negligent for you to leave a loaded unlocked gun in your car when you know someone may break into the car and take it? Well I guess that depends on how likely it is. Obviously it's not guaranteed to be broken into but I think it is much more likely that it will be broken into then your house. I imagine you don't think the odds are very high that your car will be broken into and that is the true reason you leave your gun there, making this is a fair place to say that we will have to agree to disagree in the interest of peace.

Two last questions,

Have you considered the almost tactical irrelevance your gun has if you just leave it in your car? Unless you are planning on getting into a road rage gun battle, what good does it do you there?

Is there any way I could talk you into putting a gun lock on your gun, so that at least when a cop does his job and catches the guy breaking into your car he is not confronted by a suspect armed with your gun?

[IE Copper]

Garbage Man, If you are going to debate a subject with me, please respond to comments that I actually make.

In reference to your statement that it is wrong, and irresponsible, to lock your gun in a vehicle if you go somewhere that won't allow you to bring it inside, I told you that you were going a little out on a limb.

You then told me that my statement was not only "out on a limb", but it was "not even on the tree."

I responded:


"Your comment indicates that I am "not even in the tree." How could something that is completely legal, something that many people do, be "not even in the tree?"


Now you say:

"As for how can I say that something is unethical when it is legal and everyone does it? I can only expect that you can realize the answer to that yourself. I can offer you a thousands examples of perfectly legal conduct that is still wrong and prevalent. I don't really need to do I?"

As we can clearly see, I never asked how something can be unethical if it is legal, and everyone does it. I asked how my statement is " not even on the tree." By substituting in the word "ethical" you make it sound as if I am saying that if something is legal, and everyone does it, it is ethical. I never said anything of the sort. If you are going to respond to things I say, please make sure that I actually said them.

Also, the answer is, no. If I lock my gun in my vehicle, I will not also put a gun lock on it.

[Garbage Man]

My statement was when it comes to ethics I would rather be out on a limb...

My point being I would rather take ethics to an extreme than not be ethical at all. I was not accusing you of being unethical. The tree is a metaphor for the tree of ethics. I admit a silly metaphor but I had to work with your "out on a limb," comment, you need to feed me better straight lines. I have substituted nothing. I am sorry if my ill attempt at being profound left you confused, but I have merely paraphrased your statements and done so quite fairly. The reason I did not just cut and past your comments is I wanted to realize what you were saying.

Saying:

How could something that is completely legal, something that many people do, be "not even in the tree?"

When according to my statement we were talking about ethics (As far as ethics I would rather be out on a limb ECT) than it is a very fair summary to reply;

As for how can I say that something is unethical when it is legal and everyone does it?
You have no grievance I have been completely fair.

[CAleo]

Bottom line here is this:

To: CCW holders, remember, you got your CCW by passing a background check and being a law abiding citizen.

Don't give that privilege up because of a few businesses or public buildings don't allow you to carry within their area of influence. Granted I think it is stupid, but as I have said before, it is what it is.

Lobby your senator to get the law changed that is all you can do. Just because you probably will get away with carrying in the above described places doesn't make it right.

You got your CCW because you are law abiding, continue to do so and you will have nothing to worry about.

Lock it in your car if you need to, but as Garbage Man has mentioned it is a possibility that it may be stolen, USE DISCRETION.

If you are in the ghetto and you can't carry into a certain place for one reason or another take the gun home and come back another day. I sure would hate to have my gun "ganked" from me as I'm sure you all would as well.

[IE Copper]

I concede.

I just found where you referred to being out on a limb in regards to ethics. My statements were under the assumption that you meant that my view on locking guns in a vehicle were "not even on the tree."

Anyway, move along, nothing to see here...

[Garbage Man]

I concede.

I just found where you referred to being out on a limb in regards to ethics. My statements were under the assumption that you meant that my view on locking guns in a vehicle were "not even on the tree."

Anyway, move along, nothing to see here...

agreed

[pulicords]

This debate (about securing guns in vehicles) has me shaking my head. I've found it necessary to occasionally leave firearms in my locked car (ie: learning too late about Staple's policy or while stopping for lunch on hunting trips) and never had a problem. The statistical probability of a burglary to my car during those rare instances when I leave a gun inside are probably astronomical.

On the other hand, I worked for a chief who twice had his firearm(s) stolen from an unsecured vehicle while "entrusted" to unknown valet(s)! I wonder what the probability of that happening was???? :rolleyes:

[IE Copper]

A gun should never be left in your vehicle in any situation other than temporarily. If you are somewhere where you can not carry.

I wont get specific because many IE officers probably know the specifics of this story, but I took a 459 of an officer's vehicle where the gun was stolen and used in a crime. He left the gun under his drivers seat every night for years before this happened. There is no excuse for leaving a gun in your vehicle when you get home.

[CAleo]

A gun should never be left in your vehicle in any situation other than temporarily. If you are somewhere where you can not carry.

I wont get specific because many IE officers probably know the specifics of this story, but I took a 459 of an officer's vehicle where the gun was stolen and used in a crime. He left the gun under his drivers seat every night for years before this happened. There is no excuse for leaving a gun in your vehicle when you get home.


Agreed

[Garbage Man]

A gun should never be left in your vehicle in any situation other than temporarily. If you are somewhere where you can not carry.

I wont get specific because many IE officers probably know the specifics of this story, but I took a 459 of an officer's vehicle where the gun was stolen and used in a crime. He left the gun under his drivers seat every night for years before this happened. There is no excuse for leaving a gun in your vehicle when you get home.

Wait a minute, Where was this information when you were debating me? That would have made my whole point. What the heck were you arguing with me for if you agreed with what I was saying all along? you're killin' me IE:D

[Reservetobe]

Back to the issue at hand.


The shooting incident in NY, should be a good case of citizen conceal carry. The poor people in that office were defensless against a maniacal killer with the intent to kill as many people as possible. Had just one ccw holder been in that office, the results may have been drastically different, but NY much like California is very anti gun.

I support citizen ccw if they are background checked and pass a basic course of handgun safety, a course as in depth as a police academy is completely unnecessary, this is for self defense only, not to learn how to make felony stops and enter dwellings like you learn in a police setting.

[mikemi1951]

In 1978 some police chief's & sheriff's in Florida asked the legislature to promote shall issue. In every state that followed some in law enforcement predicted that blood would run in the streets with every fender bender. Bullets would fly with every dispute. Well guess what....didn't happen. The rate of persons with permits being involved in gun crime is less than 1%. This is not new ground as the majority of the states have been shall issue for many years and not one state has moved to rescind the law. California is no different than any other state. We have the very rich and the very poor, we have crime ridden areas and safe cities. The persons who apply for and should receive CCW are by in large law abiding citizens. On the other hand the criminals already carry weapons and they do not care what laws are on the books.

Lastly the California Penal Code should apply equally in the entire state. The so called good cause provision in 12050 PC is different in some counties than in others. This needs to be addressed.

[The Dude]

When this thread first came up I made statements that were anti-AB357. I said that I didn't want to have to worry about armed citizens. In the last week or two I have took time to do my own research on the subject. I have read hundreds of blogs, and mass amounts of information on "shall issue" states and states which allow unloaded and loaded open carry.

My opinion has changed completely. I still think that very strict training and background requirements should be met. If these requirements are met, citizens should be able to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. I believe that the state of California is currently going against the constitution, and reform is not only necessary, but it is owed to the citizens of this state.

I welcome a future that includes armed citizens. Where citizens can protect themselves from criminals who would prey on them. I don't want to be a citizen's ONLY form of defense when they are forced to protect their property, themselves and their loved ones.

I vote yes on Ab 357

IE, I commend you for having the intelligence to realize there may have been gaps in your initial argument and taking the time to do your own research, accept a newly acquired point of view, and for having the fortitude to come back and make this post.

:)

[zeplin]

9th circuit got this one Right!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95767

[DAL]

This law is very poorly written. The only standard for issuance is that the applicant be "of good moral character," a term that is undefined. Obviously, no real thought went into this bill. I believe it was introduced simply to show that the author is pro-gun.

It was defeated in committee, with 5 No votes and only one Aye. This was to be expected given the composition of the legislature.