California CCW Shall Issue Drive...

[WW2]

My argument is moot!

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.

...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.

...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]

Okay...

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]

...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.

 

[Tom Servo]

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.

It's clear that everybody meant well, but the circumstances aren't always thought through. I've always been impressed with Mr. Hoffman's leadership, and this is just another example of why.

 

[maestro pistolero]

One of the troubling issues is that if anyone was EVER prescribed medication for depression (prozac, whatever), or EVER had a drug conviction, that under the proposed law, it would be grounds for the denial of a fundamental civil right. Unacceptable.

More truly great work by Calguns under the leadership of Gene Hoffman. This organization is on fire.