Frontsight goal is good, but...

As a California gun owner and someone who is fairly active on the gun rights front here, I urge everyone to not sign this, and to tell others not to sign this. I know on it's face it looks like a good idea, but upon actually reading the changes to the law, this actually would make things worse, and would be a huge step backwards for California gun owners in terms of their civil rights.

If anyone has any questions regarding this, please ask me, or head over to calguns.net (the leading RKBA website for CA) and comment in this thread:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=520799

There are some major defects in the propose initiative.

[1] Under proposed 26150, certain groups of good, honest people will be barred from obtaining a LTC.

Let's look at those restrictions as they are written in the initiative.

a. 26150 (b) The applicant has no history of medically diagnosed mental illness requiring medication or admission into a mental institution.

This is way overbroad. There are a great many very innocuous medical mental illness diagnoses. For example, if you were so upset when your wife was killed in a car crash caused by a drunk driver that you saw your doctor and got some anti-depressants, you would be disqualified from getting a LTC. Or the death of a child or parent. Or a fire destroying your house. Etc.

These sort of awful life experiences, with their associated severe but short term emotional consequences, could happen to normal, squared away people. There would be no good reason to deny them LTCs.

b. 26150 (c) The applicant has no history of substance abuse.

This refers to any history of substance abuse. The recovering alcoholic, who has been clean and sober for ten years and attending AA meeting regularly would be denied a LTC. One DUI 15 years ago and clean since then -- no LTC for you.

c. 26150 (d) The applicant has no history of domestic violence.

This is very vague. Does "history" include a history as a victim? Does history include an accusation which is determined to be false? How about a TRO brought by a vengeful ex-spouse when the accusations are ultimately found to be entirely without merit?

d. 26150 (f) The applicant is not the subject of a restraining order.

There are all kind of restraining orders. If your crazy neighbor gets a temporary restraining order against you playing music too loud, you're barred from getting a LTC? Give me a break.

[2] The qualification test is ambiguously described.

a. Section 26165(c)(6)(x) requires a qualification score of 70 or better. But although the drills one must perform are specified, the scoring and target are not. Is the standard IPSC target to be used? Or perhaps the NRA 25 yard slow fire bullseye target? Very different targets and very different degrees of difficulty.

[3] This probably can't pass, and we need to understand the political consequences of this initiative not passing. A failure at the ballot box will be used by every anti-gun advocate as evidence that the people of the State of California do not want honest citizens to be able to lawfully carry loaded guns in public.

Please note under California law, problems with an initiative are almost impossible, as a practical matter, to fix. They may not be fixed by the Legislature. They may only be fixed by another initiative.

As a California gun owner and someone who is fairly active on the gun rights front here, I urge everyone to not sign this, and to tell others not to sign this. I know on it's face it looks like a good idea, but upon actually reading the changes to the law, this actually would make things worse, and would be a huge step backwards for California gun owners in terms of their civil rights.

If anyone has any questions regarding this, please ask me, or head over to calguns.net (the leading RKBA website for CA) and comment in this thread:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=520799

There are some major defects in the propose initiative.

[1] Under proposed 26150, certain groups of good, honest people will be barred from obtaining a LTC.

Let's look at those restrictions as they are written in the initiative.

a. 26150 (b) The applicant has no history of medically diagnosed mental illness requiring medication or admission into a mental institution.

This is way overbroad. There are a great many very innocuous medical mental illness diagnoses. For example, if you were so upset when your wife was killed in a car crash caused by a drunk driver that you saw your doctor and got some anti-depressants, you would be disqualified from getting a LTC. Or the death of a child or parent. Or a fire destroying your house. Etc.

These sort of awful life experiences, with their associated severe but short term emotional consequences, could happen to normal, squared away people. There would be no good reason to deny them LTCs.

b. 26150 (c) The applicant has no history of substance abuse.

This refers to any history of substance abuse. The recovering alcoholic, who has been clean and sober for ten years and attending AA meeting regularly would be denied a LTC. One DUI 15 years ago and clean since then -- no LTC for you.

c. 26150 (d) The applicant has no history of domestic violence.

This is very vague. Does "history" include a history as a victim? Does history include an accusation which is determined to be false? How about a TRO brought by a vengeful ex-spouse when the accusations are ultimately found to be entirely without merit?

d. 26150 (f) The applicant is not the subject of a restraining order.

There are all kind of restraining orders. If your crazy neighbor gets a temporary restraining order against you playing music too loud, you're barred from getting a LTC? Give me a break.

[2] The qualification test is ambiguously described.

a. Section 26165(c)(6)(x) requires a qualification score of 70 or better. But although the drills one must perform are specified, the scoring and target are not. Is the standard IPSC target to be used? Or perhaps the NRA 25 yard slow fire bullseye target? Very different targets and very different degrees of difficulty.

[3] This probably can't pass, and we need to understand the political consequences of this initiative not passing. A failure at the ballot box will be used by every anti-gun advocate as evidence that the people of the State of California do not want honest citizens to be able to lawfully carry loaded guns in public.

Please note under California law, problems with an initiative are almost impossible, as a practical matter, to fix. They may not be fixed by the Legislature. They may only be fixed by another initiative.