Long Island Shooters Forum banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,448 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Front sight is trying to change the California CCW laws and procedures from may issue to SHALL issue by getting the initative on the 2012 ballot by a signature petition drive. I fully support them as you should and if you have any relative in California to get them to sign the petition and return it to front sight.

I know that some here thought that the unloaded open carry in California was foolish...over time their Constitutional 2nd Admendment has gone for open loaded, to unloaded to NO open carry at all.. they don't issue Concealed carry permits unless you have money, notoriety, or connection to who you may know. LAPD lost a lawsuit over this very issue.* Everytime a state regulates or curtails a Constitutional right it affects all of us and can eventually worm its way into our lives. My 2 cents

For those who want to pass it on to any friends or family in California here's the links to those web sights. I have passed them on to my family with hopes that

http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2012/01/09/front-sights-monday-blog-shall-issue-concealed-carry-for-california/

http://www.frontsight.com/pdf/Initiative-Petition.pdf

Copy of email to front sight.
Hi,
I applaud and wish you success in your effort to change California's CCW permit procedures. I have purchased handgun courses from Front sight that my family and I look forward to using in the coming year. As a person that has family in Ca. and visits them frequently over the past 25 years, I was appalled and wrote letters and emails to the then governor Arnold Schwarzenegger urging him to oppose, micro stamping, the restriction of magazine capacity to 10 rounds and making manufacturer's meet a certain standard for a handguns' to be sold in California, as to no avail.
I URGE you to to also drop the qualification clauses from your petition.
As to no person should have to prove they are qualified to have a Constitutional right. Imagine if the state set or applied a standard for you to practice your religious faith or speech, based on passing a test and you we not allowed to practice it until we give you a license to.
I urge you to revise your petition to reflect this.

*LAPD still not compliant refusing to issue Ca. CCW to this date from lawsuit in 92 and 94 or even comply with court's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,448 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Front sight is trying to change the California CCW laws and procedures from may issue to SHALL issue by getting the initative on the 2012 ballot by a signature petition drive. I fully support them as you should and if you have any relative in California to get them to sign the petition and return it to front sight.

I know that some here thought that the unloaded open carry in California was foolish...over time their Constitutional 2nd Admendment has gone for open loaded, to unloaded to NO open carry at all.. they don't issue Concealed carry permits unless you have money, notoriety, or connection to who you may know. LAPD lost a lawsuit over this very issue.* Everytime a state regulates or curtails a Constitutional right it affects all of us and can eventually worm its way into our lives. My 2 cents

For those who want to pass it on to any friends or family in California here's the links to those web sights. I have passed them on to my family with hopes that

http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2012/01/09/front-sights-monday-blog-shall-issue-concealed-carry-for-california/

http://www.frontsight.com/pdf/Initiative-Petition.pdf

Copy of email to front sight.
Hi,
I applaud and wish you success in your effort to change California's CCW permit procedures. I have purchased handgun courses from Front sight that my family and I look forward to using in the coming year. As a person that has family in Ca. and visits them frequently over the past 25 years, I was appalled and wrote letters and emails to the then governor Arnold Schwarzenegger urging him to oppose, micro stamping, the restriction of magazine capacity to 10 rounds and making manufacturer's meet a certain standard for a handguns' to be sold in California, as to no avail.
I URGE you to to also drop the qualification clauses from your petition.
As to no person should have to prove they are qualified to have a Constitutional right. Imagine if the state set or applied a standard for you to practice your religious faith or speech, based on passing a test and you we not allowed to practice it until we give you a license to.
I urge you to revise your petition to reflect this.

*LAPD still not compliant refusing to issue Ca. CCW to this date from lawsuit in 92 and 94 or even comply with court's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
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.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top