 |
|
|
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
I would have no problem for CCW's for anyone who has completed the same training given to law enforcement, who has all weapons registered, including verification they were obtained from legitimate, licensed gun dealers, or with affidavits to that affect for guns purchased from individuals, and who have all passed psychological and criminal background checks. They should also be cleared for not having any drug or alcohol issues. Since most NRA extremists would fight this as an unfair intrusion, this scenario is unlikely to be implemented, so I would then NOT support CCW's for the average idiot that comprises our population.
|
|||
|
 |
That is not reasonable, nor is it a good idea. Law Enforcement has a completely different set of criteria than does a private citizen in the exercise of lethal force.
All handguns sold / transferred in California have been required to be registered at time of transfer for well over a decade. And the Dealer's Record of Sale (DROS) on handguns was de facto registration for decades prior to that.
All handguns transferred for more than a decade have required a licensed firearms dealer to process it... which includes the registration. All these things, so far, that you want are already done and have been for years. Or perhaps you just aren't hip to what the firearm laws in California are?
A criminal background check is already required under current law, and has been for decades. As to a psychological evaluation... if the state mandates that for the exercise of an otherwise enumerated right, is the state prepared to pay for that? I think that could be an interesting legal challenge.
And you would prove that... how?
And this last statement lays both you and your agenda bare. You don't care about firearms, their use, carry or the very serious real world implications that even owning a firearm entails and that responsible firearm owners... like several who post here, understand deeply. I would submit it is your elitist attitude about us "average idiots" that is more of the problem than it is of the solution. |
|||
|
I say if you are really afraid, carry a gun anyway. What reason would there every be for an upstanding citizen not doing anything wrong to be stopped and patted down anyway?
If you have to use it, just say you were on your way to or from target practice and toss away your shoulder holster. You're going to have to make up a believable story such as you told the bad guy to halt and he started laughing, giving you time to retreive and load your gun from your locked and approved carrying case. When the bad guy calls you on it and says you were carrying concealed, who is the cop going to believe? After all you prevented an old lady from being mugged, arrested a robber at gunpoint and waited around for the police like a good citizen. Just do your Paul Kersey imitation, pat yourself on the back for being a hero and go home and don't talk about it. You're not a hero to get recognition, you do your good deeds selflessly for the benefit of society. You guys really don't want to carry a gun around. It's uncomfortable and screws up your clothes - plus how are you going to explain it to friends? You don't think they aren't going to look at you funny when they find out? How are you going to explain it to the regular people in your world? You need to carry a gun? You guys need to think a few more steps ahead here. You open a huge can of worms when you carry a concealed weapon. You need a really good reason to justify something this extreme. Just buy some insurance and quit worring about someone ripping off your car stereo or stealing your flat screen. If you are home when the thieves come buy, don't worry because it's still legal to have a gun in your home and California still has the make my day law as applies to defending your home. If you do start carrying... the most likely scenario is that the bad guy is going to take it away from you and bust a cap in your arse and then the bad guy will have another gun to victimize other innocent people all thanks to your foolish decision to walk about town carrying a gun. This whole "issue" is bogus. |
||||
|
|
|
FWIW... I carried a firearm off duty for many years as a working LEO. I no longer have that privilege as I gave up that line of work a couple of years ago. Never had to explain anything to my friends and was always discrete.
I can not agree with your idea that it is better to break the law than it is to try and change it Misanthrope. And as for being worried about someone stealing my stuff in my home, that is not really the issue since one may carry ono their own property without any government oversight required. Apples and oranges. As to buying insurance and not worrying about it, what I worry about is what the bad guy does to me and not to my stuff. May I suggest you look at the ever escalating violent crime numbers in California? Street crime against the person, home invasion, robbery (both armed and strongarm) are all steadily rising. Are the police going to be able to defend you or I on the street or in our homes? Remember they are under no obligation or duty to do so, the Supreme Court has ruled so. Finally, your pat answer about the "likely scenario" being a takeaway demonstrates your lack of knowledge on the matter. You're reading from the gun grabbers playbook. |
|||
|
Your chance of being a crime victim is extremely low in spite of media accounts. The chance of you getting into an encounter with a criminal where your life is threatened justifying the use of a gun is far more remote still. The chance of your gun being stolen from you and used in a crime is higher. Just going with the odds it will do more harm than good. I'd suggest hiding under your bed if you are so afraid of going outside unarmed. What's illegal about carrying unconcealed if you are so fearful? Put your gunbelt right next to your skirt and high heels so you don't forget it when you go out.
You can't let your fears run your life or be the source of obcession over guns. |
||||
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by joetryb:
I would have no problem for CCW's for anyone who has completed the same training given to law enforcement,>> I agree fully. California State law specifies the training required and all CCW applicants MUST have taken a certified class (and passed shooting requirements). In some cases, these classes actually exceed those required for law enforcement. If someone is qualified, why NOT issue? A trained citizen is an aware citizen who will most likely NOT get into a situation that requires producing a weapon. The training helps an individual be more aware of their surroundings...and the best defense is to turn and walk away rather than into a situation. Lets push for a State mandate to have counties issue to ALL qualified citizens - rather than to SOME that a Sheriff decides meets his "requirements". Since all applicants must undergo training certified by the State and a full background check through the State, perhaps the issuing party should BE the State rather than by County? Any thoughts on that? |
||||
|
One that proposes statistics indicating a low chance of crime inflicted upon themselves is, in my mind, the "pig that lives in the straw hut". Frankly, when people are being shot standing at a fast food counter, sitting in a class at school or minding their own business in traffic, not to mention raped while walking through a busy parking lot with their baby in arm... it is time to change the laws concerning self protection. Criminals are consciously feasting on an unarmed population and taking every advantage. Believe me when I say that I chose the word advantage carefully.
My guns may get stolen, sure, a fact of life... however with Mexico down the street, no matter how many guns are stolen here it will NEVER be harder than handing over $300 for a handgun from Mexico or South America. We dont have to worry about Canada because firearms are essentially banned. No wonder that the average middle income home has to worry about home invasion.... those have risen dramatically there... so has all of the other types of violent crimes. Big Dog, your argument is eloquent and well stated with fact and little emotional response. Cheers. |
||||
|
Just another perspective. I am not worried about myself while I am getting a burger in downtown Santa Rosa. However, if I am with my wife in a park where I am away from others I am concerned. I am not talking just of our areas, but wilderness areas of the Sierras. You still need a permit issued in your area to legally carry. There is no quick response from the police, because there are no police or rangers close. I agree that training should be mandatory with regular qualifying. I don't have a problem with knowing what I'm doing and being able to do it.
|
||||
|
What is the big deal with the issue anyway? Why is everyone so cranked up about the issue, other than California is so restrictive of ones rights? All the whiners are so afraid that responsible people will have a way to protect themselves, is just another real issue of people wanting to stick their nose in other peoples business! You would think that they would have the same zeal to punish gang members or criminals who have weapons instead of someone who is not a threat to peacefully carry one. Other states don't have much issues about it, and in fact the crime rate plummets down in places like Florida when they allowed everyday mon and pops, grandmas and grandpas to carry. Why would anyone expect the police to protect them? That is being just plain foolish, one must take their own well being into their own control. Let the anti gun people choose not to own one, Just like Diane F. she is against them, but has one......Just don't understand that logic! If one could guarantee that criminals didn't have them, then I would agree that there would be no need for one, until then I would like the playing field even...........
|
||||
|
|
|
So then your position is it is better to accept being a victim and hoping that, should that chance befall you, the bad guy will take pity on you? No thanks, I'd much rather be in charge of my own destiny than have it be in the hands of a violent predator. Even if it's only a chance.
Really? Your source for this assertion is?
I'm not afraid to go out unarmed. I would just prefer to be able to go out armed.
If you knew what you were talking about, instead of talking smack, you would know exactly what is and is not legal and prudent regarding open carry in California.
I don't. Why is it that you anti's automatically presume that some people who take their lives and safety more seriously than you are somehow nuts? |
|||
|
Why aren't you protesting California's laws about open carry rather than complaining about concealed carry?
If you're not afraid to go out, why do you want to go out with a gun? Perhaps you can provide a source to justify the probability that you will need the gun? What are the chances? Have you ever been out and about and randomly come across a situation where your life or someone else's was directly threatened justifying the use of deadly force? I doubt it. Most police never face such a situation in their entire careers, but you, the random citizen who claims not to be afraid, still doesn't want to take the infinitesimal risk? Baloney! You and subjoe don't have a reason other than claims to a Constitutional right or some such nonsense. But no protests over California's laws against carrying a loaded firearm in public? There is just no reason to take you seriously and the local Chiefs of Police are correct in denying you a CCW when you don't have a good reason for one. I wouldn't issue you guys a stick of bubble gum. People with a good reason for it, who apply through the legal process and have no other legal barriers get a CCW. "I need it for self-defense" is total and complete malarky. There's a lot of other things you can do to protect yourself. And just how do you explain it to regular people when you go out with your gun? I don't understand your mind. |
||||
|
I was thinking of filing a writ of mandate forcing the SRPD to issue a permit. Here is the problem 90% of the licensed private investigators are retired police officers, they are exempt and allowed to carry a weapon WITHOUT ANY additional training or yearly qualification (private person must renew annually) - The problem here is the brothers in blue keep business to themselves, I am unable to fill the request of a client wanting to hiring an armed private investigator becuase the City of Santa Rosa wont issue me a permit - mind you I have passed 6 background checks with the state and qualify 4 times per year. So in Sonoma County only a former law enforcement office gets those high paying jobs.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
You'll be hit for sanctions and costs if you file for a frivilous writ like that. The issuance of the CCW permit is a discretionary act of your local chief of police or county sheriff not subject to mandamus. The chief of police or sheriff is immune from lawsuit for the exercise of discretionary acts too.
Spend your money on a physical trainer and get some therapy to deal with fear and anxiety problems. Face the world without having to lean on a gun. If that crutch is there, you'll rely on in and use it whether you really need it or not. Get psychological help if you truly believe you need to carry a gun around. It's not rational by any reasonable standard. |
||||
|
|
|
To what end? Open carry of an unloaded firearm is legal, but since an unloaded firearm isn't much good that is kind of pointless isn't it? A loaded firearm may not be openly carried in any incoporated city aside from LEOs and individuals licensed to carry openly such as armored car messengers and some private security guards. Since the highest risk of crime is in the urban incorporated cities, again what is your point.
Aside from previously pointing out the I was a LEO how is it any of your business? Why is there a need to define a probability. The earnest hope is that one would never have need of a weapon, but in the moment when, by fate or by chance you suddenly find yourself needing and you don't have one available to use, then the math devolves very quickly to very bad percentages. Bottom line, if you don't want to own or use a firearm then don't. It really is a personal choice. But it is not right to deny someone who chooses to accept that responsibility the use of one if they are otherwise qualified under the terms of the current law? By the way, I don't see any answer to my question to you about the source for your assertion that the chance of having a weapon taken away is much higher. Care to respond to that?
I came across such situations quite often in my law enforcement career. Not sure where you are getting your information from about "mMost police never face such a situation in their entire careers". Maybe in more rural states but it's an everyday occurrance for many, particularly in the heavily urbanized areas. Recent experiences the past couple of years in and around SoCo attest to it. Thats part of why the job is more than a little stressful. So who is full of baloney now?
Please show me where I have claimed the carrying concealed is a Constitutionally protected right? That is not, and never has been my position. I believe strongly that concealed carry should be licensed with training, checks and balances in place. My gripe is and has been the capricious nature of permit issuance across California, not just in SoCo.
Which would explain a lot wouldn't it. When you are trapped in the bad end of an argument you resort to insults. Very typical.
In some counties yes. San Francisco, Marin, Alameda and Contra Costa counties issue none or just to a privileged few. Were you aware that outgoing State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, held a concealed weapon permit from Alameda County, one of perhaps a dozen or less issued, for many years? While he worked as hard as he could to take everyone else's firearms away. Senator Feinstein had a permit from the City and County of San Francisco when no one else did aside from a few reserve police officers. These days no one in San Franisco gets a permit. That, really, is the point you see.
And I would submit that you don't know any more about what I do to protect myself than I know about what you do. So this statement of judgement on your part is what is malarkey.
That's why it's called "concealed carry". I can dress in shorts and a tee shirt and you would never know I was carrying. I had nothing to explain to anyone. And just how is it that because I choose to try and defend myself when confronted that I am not "regular people"? That's a little judgemental of you as well. But then that seems to be what it is that you do. |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page Next | Last |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | Pressdemo.com | ||
| Servlet | eve1db012 | ||
| Version | 1.2.23 build 9234 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Pressdemo.com Style" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
