Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Proposed easing of concealed-weapons law draws fire
Sacramento Bee ^ | Mar. 23, 2009 | Stan Oklobdzija

Posted on 03/23/2009 7:46:05 AM PDT by CarmichaelPatriot

What issue could unite a Republican lawmaker from Southern California and a 46-year-old lesbian from Natomas?

Guns, of course.

A bill introduced in the state Assembly last month aims to make it easier for Californians to obtain a concealed weapons permit.

(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; US: California
KEYWORDS: banglist; california; ccw; concealed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
Who would of thought this would ever be considered?
1 posted on 03/23/2009 7:46:05 AM PDT by CarmichaelPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TPluth

Personal protection is an insufficient reason to have a CCW, according to the Sacramento County Sheriff. What a surprise. Chiefs and Sheriffs don’t want us carrying.


2 posted on 03/23/2009 7:49:59 AM PDT by hoppity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TPluth

California, going “shall issue”? Whodathunkit?


3 posted on 03/23/2009 7:50:22 AM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TPluth
Who would of thought this would ever be considered?

Considered, sure. Passed into law? Good luck.

4 posted on 03/23/2009 7:50:37 AM PDT by GL of Sector 2814 (One man's "magic" is another man's engineering. "Supernatural" is a null word. -- R A Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TPluth

It’s a “shall issue” bill.


5 posted on 03/23/2009 7:51:24 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Security sucks. I want my freedom back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TPluth
"Personal protection is insufficient," McGinness said.

Idiot. Personal protection is paramount.
6 posted on 03/23/2009 7:55:23 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TPluth

Californians with personal responsibility. What a concept. You can bet the terminator will veto this one if he gets a chance. Hitler didn’t like armed citizens out of uniform.


7 posted on 03/23/2009 7:56:35 AM PDT by Steamburg ( Your wallet speaks the only language most politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P8riot

I wouldn’t hold my breath on this making it through the CA legislature.


8 posted on 03/23/2009 7:59:10 AM PDT by drbuzzard (different league)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Valance
Yeah, if personal protection isn't enough, what would be? Saving your own life isn't sufficient to carry a gun?
9 posted on 03/23/2009 7:59:57 AM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TPluth
"Both McGinness and Reed said that in their counties, simply wanting to carry a concealed weapon isn't good-enough cause."

So when are the local law enforcement officers going to be turning their firearms in?
10 posted on 03/23/2009 8:00:12 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

Oh, I’m not. And it doesn’t affect me anyway. I just thought it was interesting that they were even considering it.


11 posted on 03/23/2009 8:00:56 AM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TPluth

You should NEVER have to asl permisdsion, to exercise a RIGHT!


12 posted on 03/23/2009 8:04:26 AM PDT by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TPluth
If the changes proposed by the bill were already in effect, even O.J. Simpson would have been eligible for a concealed weapons permit in California – prior to his recent felony conviction in Nevada, McGinness said.

Whew!

Good point there.

I can just imagine what O.J. could have done in the past if he were able to carry a pistol.

I have visions of death and mayhem.

Thank God it's only a vision.

13 posted on 03/23/2009 8:10:54 AM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, Question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TPluth

I betcha the Governator vetos any statewide shall issue laws.


14 posted on 03/23/2009 8:16:17 AM PDT by Vaquero ( "an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

But then again if Nicole Brown had been packing heat she’d could still be alive today.


15 posted on 03/23/2009 8:20:33 AM PDT by eclecticEel (I already have a Messiah, I don't need another one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: hoppity
Chiefs and Sheriffs don’t want us carrying.

Maybe in the Golden State, but not where I live. The then-sheriff of my county happily signed my application with the remark, "We need more law-abiding gun owners." He's now the US Congressman from my district, but alas has a D behind his name.

16 posted on 03/23/2009 8:26:17 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (So then my skinny date sez, "Does Lane Bryant sell designer jeans?" and that's why the boss hates me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

Vaquero wrote,
“I betcha the Governator vetos any statewide shall issue laws”

Why not ,his dad was involved in that friendly gathering of Socialists, gun control worked in his hometown

FROM ARNOLD EXPOSED.COM
“Arnold openly supported Kurt Waldheim, Former UN chief and a former Austrian politician who participated in Nazi atrocities during World War II. Schwarzenegger’s name remained on Waldheim’s campaign posters, even after allegations of Waldheim’s war crimes were brought to light. Waldheim was even invited to Arnold’s wedding.

His father was a member of the Austrian Nazi Party who volunteered for the infamous SA and became a ranking officer. In the early ‘90s, Spy Magazine printed his father’s Nazi Party membership in their magazine. “
.


17 posted on 03/23/2009 8:26:45 AM PDT by redstateconfidential (" An American Idol President")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: eclecticEel
Perhaps I should have placed a "/sarc" at the end. I didn't deem it necessary however.

My point being, ban ALL the guns and some people will STILL do others harm.

Thus, I agree with you, Nicole most likely would be alive and O.J. dead.

18 posted on 03/23/2009 8:28:03 AM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, Question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TPluth
"Personal protection is insufficient," McGinness said.

In other words, The lives of every Californian is not worth giving up control over the ability to deny carry permits to law abiding citizens.

Make no mistake about it. It is not about guns. It is about control.

19 posted on 03/23/2009 8:36:15 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Socialism is the belief that most people are better off if everyone was equally poor and miserable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GL of Sector 2814

With an overwhelmingly liberal legislature, a fat hog has more of a chance at a slaughter house.


20 posted on 03/23/2009 8:37:21 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Socialism is the belief that most people are better off if everyone was equally poor and miserable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Valance

That comment makes me furious!


21 posted on 03/23/2009 8:38:01 AM PDT by Smogger (It's the WOT Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe

True. I used to be a cop and most brass in CA don’t want the “civilians” carrying.


22 posted on 03/23/2009 8:42:45 AM PDT by hoppity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TPluth

My eyes must not be working properly today. I could have sworn I read that an easing on obtaining a CCW in CA is being proposed!!! Did the world just turn upside down?


23 posted on 03/23/2009 8:51:54 AM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier presently instructing at Ft. Benning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
If the changes proposed by the bill were already in effect, even O.J. Simpson would have been eligible for a concealed weapons permit in California – prior to his recent felony conviction in Nevada, McGinness said.

What a BS argument, talk about a strawman. How about this a-hole; if Brown or Goldman had been armed OJ would be a dead attempted murderer. And no he would not be eligible since he had a prior history of domestic abuse which is a disqualifier.

24 posted on 03/23/2009 9:01:00 AM PDT by JrsyJack (ct)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TPluth

My 82-year-old mom and 89-year-old stepdad both carry. Both aced their targeting tests two weeks ago when renewing. God bless both of them!!


25 posted on 03/23/2009 9:25:43 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Christian and armed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
“So when are the local law enforcement officers going to be turning their firearms in?”

Right after Obumbum becomes an albino!

26 posted on 03/23/2009 9:39:59 AM PDT by paratrooper82 (We are kicking Ass in Afghanistan, soon we will be home to kick some more Asses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TPluth

Politics does create strange bedfellows.


27 posted on 03/23/2009 9:57:28 AM PDT by wastedyears (April 21st, 2009 - International Iron Maiden Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
I can just imagine what O.J. could have done in the past if he were able to carry a pistol.

Having the gun and having the skill to use it well in a life or death situation are two different things. If OJ had a gun and his wife a gun as well as my ccw course she'd be a rich widow today. Think she might want that chance? Why don't we ask the victims in the California crime statistics database if they'd have liked to have had the option of carrying a concealed handgun under training before they'd been victimized? There's bound to be tons of assumption here, many of those victims (like Nicole Simpson) are deceased.

28 posted on 03/23/2009 9:58:50 AM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: hoppity

Chiefs and Sheriffs are not LEO’s, they are first and foremost politicans looking to further their own cause.


29 posted on 03/23/2009 10:07:12 AM PDT by gc4nra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TPluth

There have been “shall issue” bills before and this one will most likely be DOA like the rest of them.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_357_bill_20090219_introduced.html

They have not struck out the good cause portion in the entirety of the bill and here always is the good moral character loop hole.

This bill is in its infancy and needs quite a bit more tightening up. It still is a glimmer of hope but I will believe it when I see its on governors desk


30 posted on 03/23/2009 10:17:19 AM PDT by Polynikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eclecticEel

That is the sign my wife carried during the 2nd Amendment Sisters counterprotest to the Million Mom March in 2000.

It was a big hit with the rank and file L.A.Co Sheriffs Deputies. and LAPD.


31 posted on 03/23/2009 10:17:40 AM PDT by gc4nra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

the juice might have killed his wife or some craziness like that. Its a good thing that he didn’t have a gun, who knows what would have happened


32 posted on 03/23/2009 10:21:44 AM PDT by Bastiat_Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
I can just imagine what O.J. could have done in the past if he were able to carry a pistol.

O.J. was able to carry a pistol. Granted, he would have been in violation of the law. I can only think of two reason why he didn't:

1) He didn't wish to.
2) He wanted to, but was deterred from doing so by his respect and/or fear of the law.

Given what we know of the man, I think we can cross #2 off the list. That only leaves #1.

33 posted on 03/23/2009 10:21:50 AM PDT by GL of Sector 2814 (One man's "magic" is another man's engineering. "Supernatural" is a null word. -- R A Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TPluth
But it's not like she's looking for a showdown, she said. Still, in an emergency, she said she'd like to know that her .45 is close at hand..."I have a fire extinguisher under my sink for the same reason," she said.

Nicely put. And I have a stock answer for the law enforcement administrators who seem chronically afraid of an armed public: "You're fired."

34 posted on 03/23/2009 10:26:46 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polynikes

That is exactly what it does. It strikes the good cause clause, at least according to the link YOU posted.


35 posted on 03/23/2009 10:42:12 AM PDT by CarmichaelPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Valance

It’s time for a Heller lawsuit.


36 posted on 03/23/2009 10:45:03 AM PDT by MSF BU (++)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

Why do they need a targeting test?


37 posted on 03/23/2009 10:46:05 AM PDT by MSF BU (++)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TPluth

Read farther down. They strike the “good cause” initially in SEC. A but leave it in SEC B and C. Thats why I said its in its infancy and needs work


38 posted on 03/23/2009 10:51:08 AM PDT by Polynikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Valance

Correct. Personal protection is ALL there is.


39 posted on 03/23/2009 10:52:08 AM PDT by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive

Yes.

Permission is for privileges.


40 posted on 03/23/2009 10:52:49 AM PDT by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MSF BU

They must not live in Virginia.


41 posted on 03/23/2009 10:57:41 AM PDT by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: gc4nra
“Chiefs and Sheriffs are not LEO’s, they are first and foremost politicans looking to further their own cause.”

Exactly right. Chiefs usually serve at the whim of the mayor.
Also in SF Sheriff Mike Hennesey is supposedly not a LEO but a lawyer. He was serving as sheriff when the law changed to require LEO status for the sheriff position and he was grandfathered in. If anyone knows differently please correct me.

42 posted on 03/23/2009 11:02:13 AM PDT by Polynikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MSF BU

“Why do they need a targeting test?”

It’s part of the requirement to get a CCW permit in CA.


43 posted on 03/23/2009 11:08:39 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Christian and armed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; george76; ...

California


44 posted on 03/23/2009 11:38:42 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA
Oh, that I understood intuitively. If it's like the scams they run in Massachusetts, it's at the discretion of the chief. In Randolph Massachusetts, you had to go through a program run by the Chief's pal, at a steep cost. Prior military training, courses run by the NRA or even the Mass State Police didn't count. The farce got so bad that you had decades long gun owners, many of whom had seen combat in one or more of the major wars, having to waste half a Saturday and several days pay for the privilege of owning a gun. Ridiculous.
45 posted on 03/23/2009 1:21:36 PM PDT by MSF BU (++)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: chuckles
Yeah, if personal protection isn't enough, what would be? Saving your own life isn't sufficient to carry a gun?

It's for the GREATER GOOD.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." ~Hillary, now Sec/State.

46 posted on 03/23/2009 2:14:28 PM PDT by Zeppelin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hoppity
Personal protection is an insufficient reason to have a CCW, according to the Sacramento County Sheriff. What a surprise. Chiefs and Sheriffs don’t want us carrying.

Please.

There are sheriffs and chiefs who are happy to have law abiding citizens carry.

Maybe not where you live, but that's what U-Haul is for.

47 posted on 03/23/2009 2:17:15 PM PDT by mountainbunny (Mitt Romney: Collect the whole set!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TPluth
Among supporters of Knight's bill is Deanna Sykes, co-founder of the Sacramento chapter of Pink Pistols, an international group that advocates gun ownership by gays and lesbians. Their slogan: "Armed gays don't get bashed."

Now this is a new twist on gay rights and the 2nd ammendment. The gay lobby just might be the ones to get this bill passed.


48 posted on 03/23/2009 2:27:18 PM PDT by Clovis_Skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
If the changes proposed by the bill were already in effect, even O.J. Simpson would have been eligible for a concealed weapons permit in California – prior to his recent felony conviction in Nevada, McGinness said.

This seems to miss the point that, even with complete gun control preventing OJ from getting a gun (and which exists only in FairyLand), Nicole Brown Simpson & Ronald Goldman would have been just as dead.

They were slaughtered with knives, not guns.

See, people who wish to do you harm will find a way to do it, regardless of whether they have a gun or not.

Against a much larger combatant, say... an ex-professional football player, for example, someone small and female would have only had anything approaching a sure chance with a gun.

So, while OJ could have had a gun before or after the murders, he didn't have to have one to brutally slaughter two innocent people. Nicole Brown Simpson and/or Ronald Goldman could have used them, but didn't have them to use.

49 posted on 03/23/2009 2:32:15 PM PDT by mountainbunny (Mitt Romney: Collect the whole set!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TPluth

I hope it survives and thrives, but California tends to be quite a bit zany when it comes to preserving pertinent individual freedoms.


50 posted on 03/23/2009 2:34:33 PM PDT by Patriot777 (guns, freedom, law, California)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson