Wanted to pass this along for the Californians on the board:
http://www.frontsight.com/caccw/
Go get 'em!
http://www.frontsight.com/caccw/
Go get 'em!
Californians, sign petition & collect signatures for shall issue CCW 2012
- Thread starter JKimball
- Start date
- Status
Librarian
Member
Drop by Calguns.net, 2nd Amendment forum, for some discussion of the initiative content and the support for it.
The language in that particular initiative is not very favorable to CA residents.
The language in that particular initiative is not very favorable to CA residents.
Well I didn't read through the entire thread, but I think I got the gist of it. Personally, I think it is pretty shameful of the guys over there opposing it.
They're all skeptical because Piazza is probably just trying to make money. Ha! Well Duh! That would be a gold mine for him if he could start training for CA CCW permits. Why is that bad? How is that a reason not to get behind it?
Then they are concerned that people that have a history of drug abuse could be denied a permit.
Do a survey of criminals, and see how many have a history of drug abuse. It is probably pretty high. I think that is a valid concern for people who might oppose the initiative.
The arguments that it isn't fair for people that have done drugs or are on drugs for mental illness is understandable, but why not make this thing as easy to vote for and to defend as possible? Almost all the high profile mass shootings we have seen in our country have involved shooters who were on prescription meds for mental illness. It is an understandable concern for people on the fence.
Oh well. Maybe they got something better going. I hope so.
They're all skeptical because Piazza is probably just trying to make money. Ha! Well Duh! That would be a gold mine for him if he could start training for CA CCW permits. Why is that bad? How is that a reason not to get behind it?
Then they are concerned that people that have a history of drug abuse could be denied a permit.
Do a survey of criminals, and see how many have a history of drug abuse. It is probably pretty high. I think that is a valid concern for people who might oppose the initiative.
The arguments that it isn't fair for people that have done drugs or are on drugs for mental illness is understandable, but why not make this thing as easy to vote for and to defend as possible? Almost all the high profile mass shootings we have seen in our country have involved shooters who were on prescription meds for mental illness. It is an understandable concern for people on the fence.
Oh well. Maybe they got something better going. I hope so.
bergmen
Member.
I find some wording in the proposed initiative that bother me. Section 3, 26150:
(b) The applicant has no history of medically diagnosed mental illness requiring medication or admission into a mental institution.
(c) The applicant has no history of substance abuse.
(d) The applicant has no history of domestic violence.
The history sources are not defined. (b) Also, there are some medically diagnosed mental "illnesses" that are very effectively treated with modern pharmaceuticals that do not impair function or safety in firearms handling. There should be more specifically defined diseases that disqualify and also those that could be allowed if proper treatment is administered.
(c) Any substance? And what is the legal definition of "abuse"? Can I be denied because I beat a can of Draino with a hammer? This section needs to be specific in that it is intended to cover "illegal drug abuse" and it needs to be specific as to how or what that history is. Neighbor spots you smoking a joint on the back porch and the account of the neighbor is taken at face value? When you were a kid, now as an adult you want a Carry License and get denied? I can see conviction records (NOT arrest records) being considered for clearly defined infractions, not hearsay.
(d) History of DV from where? Unsubstantiated accounts from pissed-off former girl friends or criminal records of filed and investigated complaints?
This thing is way too full of legal vagueness for me and I'm not even close to being an attorney.
Dan
(b) The applicant has no history of medically diagnosed mental illness requiring medication or admission into a mental institution.
(c) The applicant has no history of substance abuse.
(d) The applicant has no history of domestic violence.
The history sources are not defined. (b) Also, there are some medically diagnosed mental "illnesses" that are very effectively treated with modern pharmaceuticals that do not impair function or safety in firearms handling. There should be more specifically defined diseases that disqualify and also those that could be allowed if proper treatment is administered.
(c) Any substance? And what is the legal definition of "abuse"? Can I be denied because I beat a can of Draino with a hammer? This section needs to be specific in that it is intended to cover "illegal drug abuse" and it needs to be specific as to how or what that history is. Neighbor spots you smoking a joint on the back porch and the account of the neighbor is taken at face value? When you were a kid, now as an adult you want a Carry License and get denied? I can see conviction records (NOT arrest records) being considered for clearly defined infractions, not hearsay.
(d) History of DV from where? Unsubstantiated accounts from pissed-off former girl friends or criminal records of filed and investigated complaints?
This thing is way too full of legal vagueness for me and I'm not even close to being an attorney.
Dan
Librarian
Member
For an analogy, would you favor requiring a voter to complete a 3-semester-unit community college class on your state politics before s/he could exercise the franchise?
I think any gun owner should feel a moral obligation to get training, and even more training if s/he chooses to carry in public. Requiring a specific course of training is anti-rights.
I think any gun owner should feel a moral obligation to get training, and even more training if s/he chooses to carry in public. Requiring a specific course of training is anti-rights.
I understand your point. And I agree. I don't know why you guys don't have an initiative for constitutional carry. My point is that this would be a huge improvement over what you have right now. At least for most people. And it is probably more realistic than getting constitutional carry. I'm not saying once you get this to smile and sit down and stop fighting for more freedom.
Librarian
Member
Most of us at Calguns think this initiative is a serious step backwards.
There is also the set of issues around initiatives in general. They used to be something a 'grass roots' campaign could use to get around a recalcitrant legislature; the last time that really worked was the Howard Jarvis Prop 13 campaign of 1978.
These days the process has been seized by 'special interests' (pick your own side); it takes somewhere between 1 and 5 dollars to collect EACH valid signature of the 500,000 needed just to get on the ballot. Then, it takes TENS of MILLIONS of dollars in advertising to get a position to stick in the minds of the voters.
Even if this initiative was wonderful from a gun rights point of view, just suggesting it might be favorable to gun rights would draw the TV and print media into 'protect the children' mode, where every news story would be a free ad opposing it.
History suggests it won't even get on the ballot. I really hope history is right.
There is also the set of issues around initiatives in general. They used to be something a 'grass roots' campaign could use to get around a recalcitrant legislature; the last time that really worked was the Howard Jarvis Prop 13 campaign of 1978.
These days the process has been seized by 'special interests' (pick your own side); it takes somewhere between 1 and 5 dollars to collect EACH valid signature of the 500,000 needed just to get on the ballot. Then, it takes TENS of MILLIONS of dollars in advertising to get a position to stick in the minds of the voters.
Even if this initiative was wonderful from a gun rights point of view, just suggesting it might be favorable to gun rights would draw the TV and print media into 'protect the children' mode, where every news story would be a free ad opposing it.
History suggests it won't even get on the ballot. I really hope history is right.
TT
member
Whether this initiative is good or bad is academic- the California electorate is not going to approve any CCW reform.
Quiet
Member
This is a dead issue...
On 02-01-2012, Front Sight pulled the initiative.
On 02-01-2012, Front Sight pulled the initiative.
Dr. Ignatius Piazza said:
- Status