Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

26
sikacz wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 11:13 am
highdesert wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:44 am From reading the draft bill, the state leaves granting a concealed carry license to county sheriff's and police chiefs, the state doesn't want to assume that responsibility. However unless "qualified person" means the same thing in every single county and city that licenses concealed carriers, then we're back to a subjective determination like "good cause". They're pushing for a lawsuit where the courts will make the law.
Qualified person should refer to federal requirements and what is defined or addressed in the constitution and bill of rights. In other words, if you’re not a prohibited person under federal law they need to give you your license once you pass the states testing requirements if any.
Yup. But instead, CA is responding directly to SCOTUS by tightening screws to the point it basically extinguishes "carry." This right after doxing existing CCW holders. I am so fucking pissed at my state government. They are doing this purely out of spite.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

27
featureless wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 11:43 am
sikacz wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 11:13 am
highdesert wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:44 am From reading the draft bill, the state leaves granting a concealed carry license to county sheriff's and police chiefs, the state doesn't want to assume that responsibility. However unless "qualified person" means the same thing in every single county and city that licenses concealed carriers, then we're back to a subjective determination like "good cause". They're pushing for a lawsuit where the courts will make the law.
Qualified person should refer to federal requirements and what is defined or addressed in the constitution and bill of rights. In other words, if you’re not a prohibited person under federal law they need to give you your license once you pass the states testing requirements if any.
Yup. But instead, CA is responding directly to SCOTUS by tightening screws to the point it basically extinguishes "carry." This right after doxing existing CCW holders. I am so fucking pissed at my state government. They are doing this purely out of spite.
I would be too, assholes. It’s time to dump the two asshole parties. Of course that won’t happen even though it should. Both have been corrupted by special interests and are agenda driven ignoring the needs of the majority of the people in this country.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

30
sikacz wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:28 pm
featureless wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 12:58 pm Thanks, Sika. I know it's not abortion or voting, but it's still important.
I agree. I doubt I’ll live to see the light at the end of the tunnel. It just seems to be fading if even a glimmer is seen.
It's becoming a race to see which party can be more regressive. I fully expect new crime bills coming from the Dem side as well.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

31
featureless wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:11 pm
sikacz wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:28 pm
featureless wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 12:58 pm Thanks, Sika. I know it's not abortion or voting, but it's still important.
I agree. I doubt I’ll live to see the light at the end of the tunnel. It just seems to be fading if even a glimmer is seen.
It's becoming a race to see which party can be more regressive. I fully expect new crime bills coming from the Dem side as well.
We will kill democracy using democracy fueled by ignorance.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

32
sikacz wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:15 pm
featureless wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:11 pm
sikacz wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:28 pm
featureless wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 12:58 pm Thanks, Sika. I know it's not abortion or voting, but it's still important.
I agree. I doubt I’ll live to see the light at the end of the tunnel. It just seems to be fading if even a glimmer is seen.
It's becoming a race to see which party can be more regressive. I fully expect new crime bills coming from the Dem side as well.
We will kill democracy using democracy fueled by ignorance.
I agree. I know we Californians whine a lot about our state's gun laws, but we do look at many other issues when we vote. This is a gun forum though and the Democratic Party especially in blue states, treats gun owners like pedophiles with their obsession on gun control. They approach guns like it's the cause of all human tragedies from plagues and homelessness to droughts and beyond. They criticize Republicans for obsessions, but they have them too. "A plague on both your houses." [Shakespeare]
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

35
featureless wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 1:40 pm That about sums it up, highdesert. It is so frustrating. And it's becoming so extreme it's pushed me right out of any interest in voting for them. I can accept diffences on opinions, but an all out war on a disfavored right is as abhorrent to me as what the republicans are doing on abortion.
Sadly agree.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

36
I don't think I can adequately compare gun rights and abortion. Yes, we have laws in California where I can't have certain guns, but I can have others. There is no comparison. A woman can't be just a little pregnant. I think it's a rat fink comparison from a privileged gender. Sorry.

CDFingers
Image
Image

There are things we can replace, and others we cannot.
Time has come to weigh those things--this space is getting hot. You know this space is getting hot.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

37
CDFingers wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 2:03 pm I don't think I can adequately compare gun rights and abortion. Yes, we have laws in California where I can't have certain guns, but I can have others. There is no comparison. A woman can't be just a little pregnant. I think it's a rat fink comparison from a privileged gender. Sorry.

CDFingers
Fair enough with regard to possession. I'm talking about bear. SCOTUS says we have that right and has since Heller. 2A says so plainly in the text. What california is doing is analogous to saying "oh, you have a right to abortion at the one clinic that is open from 2 to 4 on Wednesday after you've gone through the 16 hour right to life training and all of your social media has been approved." That is what california is doing with bear.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

38
Thing I found interesting was the section where the default is "no carry on private property unless the owner has clearly posted signs allowing you to." So unlike many states, where signs are required for a business to opt OUT of allowing carry, in CA businesses have to opt IN.

That makes it much less likely for any business to do so, because of concerns about risk management and/or lawsuits.

That set of laws clearly says "We really don't want anyone, at all, to be able to carry firearms. But since we can't just ban them completely, we are going to make it such a hassle that nobody will want to anyway."

The other big roadblock is requiring "interviews" of not only the application, but 3 personal references. That means that two people other than your spouse or domestic partner have to be willing to vouch for you, which could possibly put them at risk of some future lawsuit or other blowback as a result of your firearm ownership. Yet another way to impede someone from applying for a permit. I, myself, would be very cautious of vouching for someone to get a carry permit unless I knew exactly what sort of liability I had just taken on, and I would have to know them VERY well.

I assume that this forum also serves as "social media" so, assuming they knew to look here, and could somehow link your forum name to you, any posts you make could also be used in considering the approval or denial of a permit.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

40
tonguengroover wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 4:34 pm Google your screen name. Use a different one for every forum.
I do use the same forum name a couple of other places, though I am only a member of a few forums.

Interestingly enough, when I googled it, a link to my membership profile on this forum was the only result listed that was actually me. Though it was buried on the 5th page of results, out of 16 total pages. Other forums on which I have been more active did not show up in the results. Interesting that Google's search bots have this site indexed, whereas others were not.

I don't live in CA and don't plan to relocate there, so it is not an issue for me one way or another. If someone were to want to spend the time reviewing all of my forum posts on this or other forums, I doubt they would find something that besmirched my moral character, unless "posting on firearms-related forums" alone is enough to disqualify me.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

43
sikacz wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 8:56 am So I suppose newsome and other elites will still have their armed security….
I'm sure there will be exempt classes like LEO and private security. Don't bother them with details at the moment. Too busy knee jerking a fix to something that wasn't broken. Prior to NYSRPA, it would seem the existing training and sensitive places were ok. After the inability to deny on "good cause," it would seem carry outside the home needs to be squashed.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

45
sikacz wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 8:56 am So I suppose newsome and other elites will still have their armed security….
It's more than just Newsom, it includes the
First Lady, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Controller, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the State Insurance Commissioner. When directed by the Commissioner’s Office, DPS provides protective services to other elected officials. DPS also provides, as directed, protective services to national and international dignitaries who are visiting California on official business. This includes: the advance security assessments of sites and locations to be visited, safe and secure transportation, protection at designated venues, collaboration with allied agency law enforcement, and other services as required.
https://www.chp.ca.gov/find-an-office/h ... s-division

They have 24/7 security on our dime. I assume the Speaker of the State Assembly and the President pro tem of the State Senate also have CHP security and other legislative leaders. But state officials and legislators don't trust gun owners who don't have felonies or domestic issues or drug problems or...
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

46
This was added to the bill today.
SEC. 33. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to provide protection from escalating rates of firearm violence in public places, it is necessary that this act go into immediate effect.
Gots to be immediate. Blood in the streets, I tell ya.

No sure what suddenly changed that all of this is necessary. I haven't seen any news stories of sudden escalating firearms violence in public places in California.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

50
DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:10 pm Latest "Legal Alert" from the California AG:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/l ... 022-03.pdf
Thanks DM, the CA AG is trying to justify CA's existing gun control laws. They don't want convictions overturned or charges dismissed because of Bruen. Kavanaugh's concurring opinion in Bruen was his and CJ Roberts, it was not the opinion of a majority of SCOTUS, if it was it would have been included in the main opinion.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron