California CCW Shall Issue Drive...

[WW2]

Hi All;

Front Sight Firearms Training Institute is spearheading a drive to get a “Shall Issue” proposition on California’s November Ballot. If you are a registered voter in California I urge you to go to the Front Sight web page, print out the petition (4 pages), sign it as required, and then send it back as per the instructions. If you have a few shooting buddies or family members, who are also registered voters in California, each petition has room for four signatures so have them sign also.

Please remember that each petition must be signed by registered voters in the SAME County. If you live in different counties please use one petition for each county.

At the very least, just sign it yourself and send it in! Also, once you sign one of these petitions please do not sign another one as that is a duplicate signature that will be discarded. We need 505,000 signatures so we can vote on this!

Any additional information is available at their site at: http://www.frontsight.com/caccw/

Even if you never plan to CCW it is still important that we protect our Second Amendment Rights!

By the way, take time to read the FAQs and the text of the proposition. I believe that it is a reasonable proposition for CCW that will satisfy both the pro and anti gun people.

By the way, the California Attorney General’s office wrote the title for the proposition to be as ANTI-gun as possible; so read the text rather than the misleading summary.
Of course, this is a good idea for any proposed proposition as the summaries are often misleading...

Disclaimer: I am not associated with Front Sight other than as a subscriber to their email newsletters.

Thanks for your time to read this thread!

[HarrySchell]

Thanks for the tip...hadn't seen this!

[Frank Ettin]

Note that this is a really lousy idea. The initiative has been extensively discussed at Calguns. The initiative has some serious defects which are discussed in that very lengthy thread, including those I've out lined in this post there:

....a bunch of us are saying that we don't want this initiative because it's lousy legislation that harms the RKBA.

There 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....

Please also see this post in which my objections are challenged and I respond.

There are many of us who would like to see "shall issue" come to California. This initiative is not, however, the way to do it.

[Al Norris]

First things first. Read the initiative and scrutinize it very well before you decide to sign you name: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/ini..._firearms).pdf

Understand that the GOC (Gun Owners of California), CalGuns Foundation, CA Rifle & Pistol Assoc. are all against this. It is their considered opinion that if this passes, almost no one in CA will be qualified to have a concealed permit. It is also their opinion that should it be defeated (here's the catch-22), the anti's will be able to tout - "SEE! The People of CA don't want guns on the streets!!"

The only sponsorship is from Front Sight! You have to ask yourself, Why?

For an answer, look at the new training requirements. You will find them on pages 5 & 6 of the linked PDF. Specifically on page 6, I know of only one training organization that includes those criteria in their standard 2 day pistol course (16 hrs... Exactly what is required in the proposition. Hmmmm...).

Now I'm all for enterprising folks making a buck. But this seems just a little coincidental.

[Jim March]

It's worse than that. Whoever wrote this has a serious problem with anything related to psychology. "Any psychiatric prescription" disqualifies. That's just bonkers (pardon the pun). And it's also a core religious belief of Scientology...and guess what, Iggy Piazza is very obviously a Scientologist. He can deny it all he wants, but he uses very specific terms from Scientology in his marketing, his proposed street names and more.

Yes, I know we don't normally talk religion around here. But Iggy appears (REALLY appears!) to have cooked his faith right into this legislation.

THAT I have a problem with.

[Frank Ettin]

But please, let's leave religion and Scientology out of the discussion. There are enough problems with the initiative without muddying the waters.

[hermannr]

I have a very simple "shall issue" proposition:

Any person 18 years or older, that can legally possess a firearm as per federal law, upon application, shall be issued a permit to carry a firearm.

Now isn't that simpler? This would cover both OC and CC.

Here in WA it is almost that simple..they have a $55.25 fee for 5 years, you have to be 21, and you have to be fingerprinted, but if you can legally possess a firearm, you can obtain a concealed permit here. No permit needed for OC.

[Jim March]

But please, let's leave religion and Scientology out of the discussion.

Great. Convince Iggy of that concept.

Saying Scientologists don't like shrinks is no more controversial than saying that Catholics don't use birth control, or Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote.

It is absolutely fair game to point out that Iggy cooked his faith into proposed legislation.

[Al Norris]

BTAIM Jim, it isn't at all obvious to the casual voter, so it shouldn't be even discussed. You are not going to convince anyone who hasn't looked at that religion, that this is what was done.

We know for a fact that David Clark wrote the proposition. There are no facts to support the idea that Mr. Piazza had anything to do with the writing. Supposition will not get it at TFL.

However, discussing the obvious failures of this proposal, is fair game.

Heck, discussing the required training, training that parallels Front Sights own program is kosher. Gathering the names and addresses of all those that sign the proposition, is a great (underhanded, to me) way to advance the business of Front Sight. It's a ready made audience!

[Jim March]

Can we discuss what a known crook Iggy is? Like, say, how he continued to market high-end memberships that included an onside residence AFTER he killed off the residential development program?

And yeah, I can prove that.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Jim March

Can we discuss what a known crook Iggy is? Like, say, how he continued to market high-end memberships that included an onside residence AFTER he killed off the residential development program?

And yeah, I can prove that.

Let's be clear, Jim. We will not go there. If you insist, at the very least your posts will be deleted. Are we clear?

[HarrySchell]

Thank you, Fiddletown and Mr. Norris, for your cites and comments. I have tossed the initiative endorsement into my round file.

[foxmulder241]

This would eliminate the sheriff/police chief in getting to decide who can and can't have a a CCW, It's a step in the right direction, slowly chip away at California's gun laws.

No one else is even trying to get these laws changed, Right down to the fact no one is doing anything about California still has an approved gun list when the Heller decision said guns in common use can not be ban

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by foxmulder241

...It's a step in the right direction, slowly chip away at California's gun laws....

You're not paying attention. Listening carefully --

This is NOT a step in the right direction. This is NOT slowly chipping away at California gun laws. The defects in this law will be set in stone. As a practical matter it is not possible to change a law adopted by initiative. An initiative in California can be changed only by another initiative.

So if this initiative will is adopted, it would forever bar hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of Californians from getting a LTC even though they may lawfully own guns under federal and state law.

Also, this probably can't pass. 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.

Originally Posted by foxmulder241

...No one else is even trying to get these laws changed,..

That is simply false. There are numerous Second Amendment lawsuits pending in California begin handled by extremely competent lawyers, including Alan Gura (who won Heller and McDonald). The Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation heavily involved in an organized, well planned course of litigation to deal with California gun laws.

[Al Norris]

Fox, here is a listing of the CA cases of interest that I have compiled. It gives lie to the claim that:

No one else is even trying to get these laws changed, Right down to the fact no one is doing anything about California still has an approved gun list when the Heller decision said guns in common use can not be ban

Because of the nature of CA politics and the composition of its legislature, there is no hope whatsoever of a legislative remedy. It is and will be up to the Courts to resolve the issues. It will be up to seasoned civil rights attorneys to select plaintiffs and issues to attack.

1. Nordyke v. King: 9th CCA
2. Pena v Cid: CAED
3. Richards v. Prieto: 9th CCA
4. Jackson v San Francisco: CAND
5. Peruta v. County of San Diego: 9th CCA
6. Parker v. California: State
7. Enos, et al v. Holder, et al: CAED
8. Haynie et. al. v. Harris: CAND
9. Scocca et al v. Smith et al: CAND
10. Bauer, et al v. Harris, et al: CAED
11. Jeff Silvester et. al. vs. Kamala Harris, et. al: CAED

Of these cases, you will note that 3 of them are at the 9th Circuit - One step away from SCOTUS.

I have left off of the above list, 4 cases brought by well meaning but inexperienced civil rights attorneys, that will actually harm this effort, should they lose, appeal to the 9th and lose (and at the moment, they are losing at district), thereby setting adverse precedent.

[Tom Servo]

The single biggest threat that we have to our firearms freedoms is rash and unwise litigation – ostensibly from our side – that is done by people who frankly do not know what they are doing and have no business doing it.

-- Alan Gura, Grass Roots North Carolina Gala for Gun Rights, Charlotte NC, 14 May 2010

Going forward, this is about strategy. Far too many of us fail to get that.

[WW2]

Valid death threats or harrassment are the only criteria where issuance of a CCW permit will be considered for personal protection. The Riverside County sheriff does not issue permits to "provide a feeling of safety" or to alleviate a "fear of victimization".

From page 4 of the Riverside County Application for CCW.

So, Fiddletown, et al, you believe that this is better than the proposed initiative?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by WW2

...So, Fiddletown, et al, you believe that this is better than the proposed initiative?

They're both bad. But --

[1] As outlined by Al Norris in post 15, and by me in post 14, there is an organized program of litigation being pursued in several States. There is some solid precedent for the proposition that constitutionally protected rights may not be subject to the discretion of public officials, so "may issue" is highly vulnerable to judicial challenge.

[2] If the initiative gets on the ballot, it's virtually certain to fail, and that failure will seriously set back the fight for the RKBA in California.

[3] Do you not understand from post 3 how egregious and unjust some of the terms of the initiative are and that were the initiative adopted those defects would, as a practical matter, be impossible to fix?

[4] As the initiative is written, hundreds of thousands of honest Californians who may lawfully own guns would nonetheless be barred from obtaining a LTC.

[5] Do you not understand that, as Al, pointed out in post 4, the major California gun-rights advocacy groups are against this initiative.

[Frank Ettin]

The proposition has been withdrawn: http://www.frontsight.com/CACCW/.

[WW2]

This puzzled me; so I spent a great deal of time thinking about it. Then it dawned on me; people who are against this initiative think it is a proposal for a NEW law! Nothing can be further from the truth! This is an initiative that takes the existing law and removes the more restrictive portions that issuing agencies use to deny permits. Items such as "good moral character" and "good cause" are removed from the EXISTING law. Please note that the items objected to in the posts above ARE ALREADY EXISTING LAW!

If you go against this initiative you are saying that the current law is better than the initiative. If you truly believe this, then go ahead and fight this initiative.

As of now, I CANNOT GET A CCW because I do not contribute money to the Riverside County Sheriff's re-election campaign and I do not have an active death threat against me with appropriate restraining order to prove the threat.

As far as the litigation is concerned, your faith in the judicial system far exceeds mine.

I agree that the ideal law is that anyone may carry open or concealed unless their right to keep and bear arms has been removed by due process of law. In Riverside County California, the law is that nobody gets CCW unless they meet the criteria of the above post or give a bunch of money to the Sheriff's election campaign, or they are an LEO.

So, I am in favor of this initiative as it is far better than the current law even with all its flaws; that leaves me armed with only a walking stick!

By they way, thanks to all of you for this discussion. As I have come to expect from TFL'ers, the vast majority of posts are intelligent, well thought out, and well argued! Keep up the good work!

[WW2]

Thanks Fiddletown, you posted while I was typing a reply.

This shows that we are all trying to work together to get the best solution for RKBA in California.

The fight for our rights continues!

Now, back to our regularly scheduled gun talk...

[Frank Ettin]

This is now moot, but I need to address a couple of points.

Originally Posted by WW2

...people who are against this initiative think it is a proposal for a NEW law! Nothing can be further from the truth! This is an initiative that takes the existing law and removes the more restrictive portions that issuing agencies use to deny permits...

This is not correct. We well know that the initiative is amending existing law. That's how it's done.

There is current law on this subject. To change existing law the initiative must amend existing law. And it proposed to do so in a number of ways.

Please remember that I am a lawyer. I practiced law for more than 30 years before retiring. I've read a lot of statutes and a lot of amendments of statutes. I've also written some statutes and amendments.

Originally Posted by WW2

...Please note that the items objected to in the posts above ARE ALREADY EXISTING LAW!...

And this is flat wrong.

Here is California Penal Code 26150 as it exists now:

(a) When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person, the sheriff of a county may issue a license to that person
upon proof of all of the following:
(1) The applicant is of good moral character.
(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.
(3) The applicant is a resident of the county or a city within the
county, or the applicant's principal place of employment or business
is in the county or a city within the county and the applicant
spends a substantial period of time in that place of employment or
business.
(4) The applicant has completed a course of training as described
in Section 26165.
(b) The sheriff may issue a license under subdivision (a) in
either of the following formats:
(1) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(2) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000
persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a
license to carry loaded and exposed in only that county a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person.

Here is 26150 as it would have been amended by the initiative:

Note the differences. It is the convention when showing amendments to a law to show deletions as strike-out text and the additions in italics. While the amendment proposed by the initiative removes the good cause requirement, it adds (in the italicized text) a number of new requirements, including no history of psychotropic drugs, no history of substance abuse, etc., -- the new requirements that caused us to be so concerned.

[WW2]

Thanks for the informaion Fiddletown. Your legal expertise far exceeds mine (only studied enough law to get my BSc in Business Management Computer Methods).

Although the argument is currently moot; the plan is to wait for the current legal cases to run their course. If the resolution is not CCW friendly the proposition will be tried in the 2014 election. Hopefully it will not be necessary but if it is, hopefully it can be fine tuned to better suit our needs.

Meanwhile, I will continue to be armed with a 2.5" folding knife and a stick (seriously)!

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by WW2

...the plan is to wait for the current legal cases to run their course. If the resolution is not CCW friendly the proposition will be tried in the 2014 election. Hopefully it will not be necessary but if it is, hopefully it can be fine tuned to better suit our needs....

That's the plan. If we need to go to the initiative, we have some good ideas about how to write the amendments.

[Al Norris]

From this post, By Gene Hoffman, Chairman, The Calguns Foundation over at CalGuns.net this morning (used with permission):

All,



I met with Dave Clark, the initiative sponsor, and Ignatius Piazza, the founder and director of Front Sight, in San Jose this past Monday afternoon.

I was able to walk through our concerns with the initiative both as written and based on the current timing vis-à-vis this election cycle. We additionally discussed some of the other concerns that have come up in discussion here at Calguns.net.

It is very clear that this proposition is through the direct and personal impetus of Dave Clark out of a sincere desire to “do something” about carry in California. As a more limited user of the internet, Mr. Clark was not as aware of the national carry strategy, its status, or how serious the Sunshine Initiative’s results already are here in California. That puts an onus back on all of us to spend more time keeping fellow shooters who aren’t online informed.

It’s also quite clear to me now that I’ve spoken to them both that Mr. Clark approached Dr. Piazza for his support and that Dr. Piazza has only the best of intentions to support reform in California. Dr. Piazza also pointed out quite correctly that California law prohibits any other use of the petition signatures (Cal Elec. Code 18650) and that his sign up form clearly delineates between the petition and adding oneself to the Front Sight mailing list. My previous concerns on that matter were incorrect and for that I apologize.

After speaking with Dr. Piazza, I believe that the Front Sight organization and member base can be a valuable asset to the pro gun movement. Dr. Piazza generously agreed to assist Mr. Clark in securing the required signatures for shall issue carry with no intent for his personal gain. Dr. Piazza and his Front Sight organization stand ready now, and in the future, to assist as needed. I thank him for that. 



Most importantly, we were able to come to an agreement that I think is very good for all supporters of carry rights in California. In return for our support of a ballot initiative on shall issue carry with some important caveats, they have agreed to withdraw the ballot initiative this cycle and instead target the 2014 election cycle with a unified ballot initiative.

We have agreed to improve the various structural concerns in the proposal itself regarding items like past mental illness and substance abuse, yet still present a ballot initiative that the general public as well as gun owners will fully support.

They have agreed to let the current Supreme Court bound cases including Richards v. Prieto and Peruta v. San Diego proceed such that, if we have a cert grant in a carry case, we would all agree to delay a proposition until that grant or circuit split was resolved.

This creates an excellent back stop to the current litigation strategy nationwide as, should the Supreme Court not take up carry, it would then be appropriate to begin the efforts to ride the changing perception of arms to a win at the ballot box.

It takes unusual and unusually serious men to change course when they’ve already created momentum. We should all thank and support them for working with the community and building a broader coalition to make sure that a robust right to carry becomes the norm in California and support them as they explain to supporters why this improved plan of action makes sense.

-Gene

This is what real life diplomacy is about.

It also appears I need to extend a public apology to Dr. Piazza, for intimating ulterior motives. Gene wouldn't have written what he did if there was any doubt.

So I extend my apologies, Dr. Piazza, both here and in my email. That you were willing to change strides when things appeared to be picking up speed, shows more honor than most we see today.

My respects, Dr. Piazza.