2A and CCW - May Issue v Shall Issue

RDak

New member
The question for the court would be IMO can there be constitutional descretion that is objective but allows for CLEO subjectively to deny a permit.

I guess that sounds like a square circle but is this an all in or out proposition?
Can descretion be allowed within a range of obejctive measures? Or would the court take the rigid checklist approach and insist that if one meets A,B,C criteria give them the permit? Would that lead states to then create A-ZZZ criteria instead of A,B,C?

As I stated, and showed in Michigan's CPL application, objective measures carry the day. (There are ALOT of them. :))

I would imagine the liberal Justices would go along with a subjective approval procedure because it would dramatically reduce the number of people allowed to conceal carry (i.e., maintain the status quo so to speak).

How do you apply due process in a may issue procedural situation? You can't IMHO. You have to have objective tests that provide clear evidence a person does or doesn't qualify IMHO. You have to leave subjectivity out of the equation or you end up with the ridiculous situations we see in the VAST majority of may issue States.

How will the conservative Justices look at this issue?........probably go with objective criteria only. It fits the due process requirements. Since objective standards clearly qualify under due process, why would they go for a convoluted may issue scheme? Much like they asked Gura, "if due process will give you what you want, why are you arguing for P&I".

There's absolutely no reason to allow a may issue scheme when shall issue statutes satisfy due process IMHO.

But I really have no idea how this will go with any real confidence TG. We'll just have to wait and see in this or future cases.
 
RDak said:
How do you apply due process in a may issue procedural situation? You can't IMHO.

I think it may be possible and may I very very respectfully submit that you and many other "gun" folk might be a tad biased? I know this might be the way we WANT it to be but I think there might be some good legal justification for some type of LEO descretion if the moral hazard of that method could be mitigated. I agree we will have to see but I do not think "may issue" is completely dead either. We'll see
 

RDak

New member
How dare you say I might be biased TG!! :D

Now, that's one statement you've made that is etched in stone!! :p
 

Jim March

New member
Excuse me TG but, do you have ANY idea how much strong evidence of bias in discretionary permit issuance exists?

Seriously?

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/ccwdata.html

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/oaklandzen.html

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/donperata.gif

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/howardpearl.html

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/aerosmith.html

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/newsday.html

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Books and News/Celebrities Get Guns

And if you read JUST ONE:

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/colafrancescopapers.pdf

I stopped collecting this stuff circa 2005ish. There's a whole bunch more. How about the crooked crony in San Juaquin County Cali who shot at arresting FBI agents with his permitted gun, issued by the sheriff who ended up joining him in federal prison for real estate fraud? Or the initial federal charges against Sheriff Carona of Orange County who was charging a grand a piece? Or the guy who walked into the Monterey County (Cali) Sheriff's office, asked the desk sgt. about CCW and was told flat-out it was $1,500 to the sheriff's re-election campaign? Shall I go on? 'Cuz trust me, I can.

Oh no. This fully discretionary crap has to go.
 
Let's not go painting ALL police officers by the actions of a few apparent miscreants in California, Jim.

There are many dedicated, non-corrupt officers who take their jobs seriously.
 
Jim March said:
do you have ANY idea how much strong evidence of bias in discretionary permit issuance exists?

As I said in my first post there exists a moral hazard with may issue but that with some objective standards it might pass court muster.

As to the statistics:
Justice Scalia said:
We don't -- we don't resolve questions like that on the basis of statistics, do we?

Jim March said:
This fully discretionary crap has to go.

And I think if you read what I have posted then you would see I have no issue with fully discretionary laws going away. However, partial descretion might be allowed if there are some objective parts to it like written explanations of refusals and an appeal process.
 
Last edited:

BillCA

New member
Having followed brother Jim March's exploits to document "May Issue" abuses, I can say that any state that tries to retain "May Issue" will have to have positive rules to keep it.

Most May-Issue schemes stinketh. California's system allows CLEOs and their designates to deny based on their "good cause" not meeting their [arbitrary] level of qualification. Eliminate the "good cause" and now the CLEOs have to look at the character of the applicant.

However, partial descretion might be allowed if there are some objective parts to it like written explanations of refusals and an appeal process.
The "objective" part to any CLEO discretion would be as previously mentioned. To deny the permit, the CLEO has to write a letter explaining the reason for the rejection, under oath.

If challenged, then the CLEO will have to show the source material for his rejection. If that turns out to be repeated calls for loud, drunken parties or brawls at your home, repeated domestic violence calls, personal knowledge of your frequent intoxication, etc. then those documents would support a rejection "in the interests of public safety". If the CLEO cannot support his denial with some sort of documentation, the court should be slamming him with fines/fees each time.

The concern about putting too much pressure on either open or CCW carry is that we could find tight limitations imposed by the legislature. For instance, you apply for a carry permit, but in 1978 had a single FTA (failure to appear). Nope, no carry permit for your, Mr. Scofflaw! They may attempt to classify very minor events as grounds for denial. (The Brady Bunch would likely argue this method.)

California has had a tight-fisted control over any form of loaded carry for too long. I think they'd worry that OC would end up costing too much in L.E. response costs or "high-risk" confrontations. Thus, they'll opt to make CCW permits a "nominal cost" -- $10-$20 for 3-4 years as a processing fee. As a prediction...
- Carry permit will be an endorsement on your CDL/ID card
- The law will not be widely publicized.
- May impose a finite limit on number of guns on a permit.
- May require "registration" of your handgun to you.
- Will increase penalites for unlawful carry & branishing.
- Will create penalties for "exposing" (printing)
- Any misuse will revoke the permit, prevent future CCW.
- If revoked, an OC license will be expensive to obtain.
- May require a short quiz on state storage/safety/use laws

Regulating what they call "misuse" will be permissible. The question will be whether the law will be appropriately written or not.
 
Good points Bill. Yeah I don't see any panacea decisions making CA like Alaska any time soon. I do think the really bad may issue states will have to change their procedures quit a bit but they will not make it easy for you guys out there to carry. IMO.
 
Top