CCW Frustration with expensive and nearly useless CCW permit

[Experimentalist]

... These decisions are made by courts.


You don't seem to be aware that roughly 45% of the active judges on the 9th circuit were appointed by republican presidents.


The writings of the founders are nearly completely irrelevant today, except for history lessons.

Taking your points in reverse order: The Founding Fathers devoted considerably more thought into the topic of governance than most alive today. They drew heavily upon principles promulgated by the Ancient Greeks - I would suggest the influences of such as Aristotle and Plato to be abundantly useful today. The Founding Fathers struggled mightily with the balance of lawful justice and individual liberties, and baser human nature that gladly trades both for a few more votes, more notoriety, more money. Our Founding Fathers shall not be dismissed out of hand.

A significant proportion of the 9th circuit is indeed represented by Republican appointees. However issues relating to the Second Amendment are very much a distinguishing issue between Democrats and Republicans. I suspect fundamental differences in psychology is at work. I wonder if research on this exists in the sciences.

In closing reference to your first point, I'll offer a quote by one of my favorite Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson: "It is every Americans right and obligation to read and interpret the Constitution for himself".

I sincerely try to understand and respect the thoughts of others. Hopefully I have provided my own light on the subject, whilst minimizing the heat and friction when opposing ideas come together.

 

[Hit Factor]

The writings of the founders are nearly completely irrelevant today, except for history lessons.

Thinking like this is indicative of a rudderless society. Fortunately, this is a rare sentiment outside of the anarchist crowd.

 

[Sparrow Dynamics]

Sorry to be obnoxious, but you are simply wrong on that. You don't get to decide what is unconstitutional and what isn't. You may have opinions on it, but your opinions are not relevant. These decisions are made by courts. And so far, more often than not California's laws are found to be constitutional, but a significant fraction are found unconstitutional. A blanket statement such as yours above is nonsense.

I don't see your statement as being obnoxious. We are having a discussion... you have your opinion, and MattB has his. Great!
Many people who say "CA gun laws are unconstitutional" do believe they are unconstitutional. We don't have to wait for a judge to rule on it to say what we believe. Just like if government searches your home without a warrant and seizes items, then arrests you without due process... you and your family don't have to wait for a judges ruling in order for you to tell others "this is unconstitutional". We all know that laws are occasionally passed that are not made pursuant to the constitution. Lawmakers have admitted to it, so it isn't as black and white when it comes to having a strong opinion concerning calling something constitutional or unconstitutional.

You don't seem to be aware that roughly 45% of the active judges on the 9th circuit were appointed by republican presidents.

MattB and treelogger... It doesn't matter who appointed the activist judges on the 9th circuit. It doesn't matter if they are Democrat or Republican. The 9th circuit is a major problem in our nation because it has an inordinate number of their cases reversed by the Supreme Court compared to other circuits.

The writings of the founders are nearly completely irrelevant today, except for history lessons.

Cambridge definition... Irrelevant, adj. "not related to what is being discussed or considered and therefore not important".

The Founders writings ARE relevant. They ARE related to what is being discussed. We the people, over time, have lost sight of the importance of liberty, and that is what I was trying to get readers to ponder. History is how the Founders came to form their viewpoints, and it is how we form ours.

If you are speaking mainly in terms of legality, you're right, they don't hold much weight anymore (sadly). But I wasn't suggesting what they wrote helps the OP be "legal", in fact quite the opposite. That is why I said "read the quotes and make your own choices in life because you are responsible for you".


I'm sure we will see some things differently, maybe some things the same, either way I appreciate the discussion.

 

[Sparrow Dynamics]

Thinking like this is indicative of a rudderless society. Fortunately, this is a rare sentiment outside of the anarchist crowd.

Rudderless society is a very poignant description of today.

The Founders writings ARE relevant. They ARE related to what is being discussed. We the people, over time, have lost sight of the importance of liberty, and that is what I was trying to get readers to ponder. History is how the Founders came to form their viewpoints, and it is how we inform and form ours.

 

[treelogger]

Many people who say "CA gun laws are unconstitutional" do believe they are unconstitutional. We don't have to wait for a judge to rule on it to say what we believe.

But a significant fraction of California's gun laws have already been checked over by courts of last resort, and found constitutional. In those cases, believing that those particular laws are unconstitutional is simply a wrong statement. Now, it is perfectly legal to make wrong statements. But in general not a good idea.

It doesn't matter if they are Democrat or Republican. The 9th circuit is a major problem in our nation because it has an inordinate number of their cases reversed by the Supreme Court compared to other circuits.

While that it is a common talking point, it is mostly false. The reason the 9th circuit has the HIGHEST NUMBER OF CASES reversed by the Supreme Court is simply because it is by far the largest appeals circuit. There is a nice summary of the statistics at ballotpedia, and the 9th circuit had 246 cases reviewed by the Supreme Court in the last 20 years (and of those 79% reversed); the next highest federal circuit is the 5th, with 111 cases reviewed (less than half of the 9th circuit), and a 75% reversal rate. If you compare the FRACTION of cases reversed instead of the total number, the rate for the 9th circuit is a bit higher with the other circuits, but in line with them. The reversal rates for some other circuits are statistically indistinguishable from the 9th circuit. The thing to remember is that the Supreme Court usually accepts cases that it thinks have been decided wrongly (and that are highly relevant). It tends to not waste its precious time on cases it agrees with.

The Founders writings ARE relevant. They ARE related to what is being discussed. ...
If you are speaking mainly in terms of legality, you're right, they don't hold much weight anymore (sadly).

As you said: They may be relevant to what our society should be like, and what our laws should be. But they are not at all decisive to whether our current laws are constitutional or not.

 

[Experimentalist]

So, let's take the theme of settled law and challenge some conceptions.

I think whatever the President of the United States declares is unquestionably valid and should be followed without question. He has insights the rest of us do not, and after all he was elected by The People to promote and protect their interests. His or her judgement is beyond reproach, given their duly elected position. Each of us must display unquestioning obedience to their word.

The above quote should hit most of us sideways. It is of course very wrong.

Now take that same quote and substitute "Courts" for "President". Hmmmmmmmmmmm? With one branch of Government that quote is plainly wrong. When a different branch of Government is substituted it strikes me to be just as plainly wrong. If a plurality of persons is your determining factor for righteousness then substitute "Congress" for "President". Still wrong. Unquestioning acceptance is for fools.

We are a deeply imperfect species, humans. We take oaths of office - and some sincerely do their best to fulfill those oaths. But enough are corrupt, selfish, and driven by ulterior motives to taint the entire enterprise. The very depth of the pro and anti-gun rift serves as a prime example of this problem. The Supreme Court has in various ways declared the Second Amendment to be an Individual Right, incorporated to the States, and extends beyond the home (and much much more of course). This runs deeply contrary to the ideology of some, who demonstrate outright defiance through legal outcomes contrary to that High Court. Contrary to their oath to be fair and impartial.

We create a Safe Handgun Roster, and yet that segment of our society most likely to point a loaded weapon at another human being under time of grave distress are exempt. We should want that weapon to be demonstrated safe, and yet the Police are not held to that standard. Why? Because the support of the Police Union is needed to help pass the law in the first place. Because corruption. Because some animals are better than others.

I once thought... I still think. There is room to improve our situation. To pass laws to regulate firearms to better protect society. Witnessing how the laws to date are twisted, corrupted... perverted to serve a particular ideology instead of what's fair and right, I'll not support any further regulation of any sort. Instead I think I'll contribute more funds to CRPA, the NRA. I'll continue to vote my conscience. And I'll continue to enjoy the shooting sports. Hell, maybe I even need to buy another gun...

Thanks for reading if you made it this far.

 

[tonyskala]

In regard to the first point, the operative word in “concealed carry” is “concealed.” And you said that being a Democrat makes you sensible (insert huge eye roll), so you might want to consider the old adage “it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.” If you believe that the world is a dangerous enough place to get a CCW permit in the first place, then the sensible choice is obvious.

Regarding the second point, in almost 15 years of daily CCW carry I have never had my weapon inspected by anyone other than a CCW trainer during a few of my biannual renewals. In fact, the only time I was ever pulled over during that time was for speeding, and when I handed my CCW permit to the officer along with my driver’s license, he asked if I had a gun with me. I said yes. He asked where it was. I told him it was in my waistband at about 3 o’clock. He said, “Okay, you don’t show me yours, and I won’t show you mine.” And that was it. He let me off with a warning.

When you have a CCW permit you are considered to be one of the good guys. You have gone through the ultimate background check already, so they know they don’t need to worry about you. The idea that you will be subjected to random weapon checks is laughable. Believe it or not, cops have much more important things to do with their time.

I understand your points but this has not been my experience. I had a few pounds of brass in a bag in my truck a while back and a few fell out and rolled under the seat. They had been rolling around in my truck for months. Got pulled over and those CHP fellas would have thought I was not only transporting machine guns, ammo to use in the guns, but were also looking for a t manifesto to boot and severed heads in a duffle bag.. There must have been 4 cruisers all around me. " where is the gun now?, is it registered?" a million questions and they did that finger swab to see if there was gunpowder on my hands........I am in the SF Bay Area and look Hispanic / Arab and just dont want the attention. And I resent the Democratic eye roll. And trust me... if it is written down and they want to.. they are gonna press the issue and they will dig and find something allowing them to dig further.. and It is gonna cost you to just be safe.... I am a litigious person and it costs money to be right and it costs even more money to prove you aint guilty in the first place. Trust me... you dont want to get caught carrying if you aint supposed to....

 

[tonyskala]

This.. I heard some instructors and policemen from Texas recently talking about how we allneed to learn how to “conceal better” especially in those places we know we can’t and carry and is going to pop off.

That’s when a level headed 2A enthusiast is needed most.

Carry anyways

Yeah.. I like concealed becuase it just makes everyone more comfortable. Displaying it on your hip just causes people to react for the sake of reacting because they are not used to it. Wish it wasnt that way..

 

[tonyskala]

We are of similar opinions...... Involvement in a justified shooting will be extremely problematic even if you are in the total clear and right.... it costs alot of money to be right if the government says your wrong. All I am really saying or wondering is I just wish the laws were more sensible. I dont have an issue with a back ground check and having to wait a few weeks to buy a pistol or rifle... I do have an issue with a check every time I want to buy ammo... I do have an issue with rifles I purchased legally over 10 years ago above board and in full compliance with the law having to go through a second registration period and failing to register them making people felons. I do have an issue with modifications being made to the rifle like the break action that add significant safety hazard to the proper operation of the rifle. I do have an issue with the .50bmg I legally own not being able to pass downed to my son and or nephew as part of my estate. Its legal ownership will end with me in the state of california. This is the nonsensical crud I refer to. But requiring me to attend a safety class or range day every 2 years is not a big deal. In all honesty is a great idea.

 

[tonyskala]

You are? So you elected these people that are doing all this anti-2A legislation then I suppose?

Also....democrat and sensible are two words that shouldn't be in the same sentence. Your post proves that point as well since you helped elect the people that are doing it.

That's just silly..... and actually very telling of yourself. I dont have to agree with all the positions. What is wrong with a little social justice. Once of my best friends and fellow officer in the Army was gay..... He was a gorilla of a fella who killed more people from an apache than my entire company did in two rotations in Iraq. I found happenstance he was gay one day when I asked him why he never chased women around like the rest of us.... That conversation changed my views on it..... Here was a guy who for reasons unknown to him plain and simply did not like women. he did not know why.. he just did not like them...Everytihgn else about him was identical to me and the others in our flight class.... He bench pressed 315 pound, ran sub 6 min miles all day, flew the apache with precision and he liked guys.... In most countries he would have been an outcast... yet he preferred to don a uniform and protect this nation becuase it extended rights to him reguardless of his sexual presence equal to mine. I found that admirable and a quality that should be aspired to..... Now I dont bash all republicans and like the pull yourself up by bootstraps and self reliance attitude but some of them are departing that mindset....... nevertheless this is about a patchwork of confusing laws that complicate gun ownership for folks like myself and presumably yourself who want to remain on the legal side of the law.......... That is it..... California is the most populous state in our union and some of the laws are the reason we have fewer shooting per capita than other states. but the majority of these laws do nothing to prevent the ones they claim to prevent. They just hamper and restrict the folks who are abiding by the laws...

 

[tonyskala]

You think California is bad? Just go out of state with a California issued CCW and see what it does for you...

Some states have repricocitwy with california even though california does not.... I think it is more of a pissing contest between states. If it is really about the process.. California's process is more involved than another state. If you have one in California it should be good anywhere in the US...but it aint.... wish it was..

 

[tonyskala]

Arizona has the solution.

Legal open carry.

California had it up till about 10 years ago.... Truth be told open carry is and can be off putting to some citizens. It is actually much safer to have concealed carry... for everyone. Unless the sensitivity of guns in public subsides. concealed is a far better option.

 

[tonyskala]

Point of order; there is no such thing as "CCW insurance"- and the industry is utterly delighted folks perpetuate that notion. It is "prepaid legal expense" and that is vastly different.

A friend of mine got rolled up in the George Floyd protests a few years back. This fella is like 45 years old and was going out of a Home Depot at like 8:30pm when people all around him were stealing the equipment out front. He got corralled up in the melee and the times he had purchased were not in a bag. he had the receipt and tried several times to prove to the cops he purchased the copper fittings. they were not having it. Long story short he hired a lawyer from Summit Legal defense which is pretty reasonable and it cost him 2500 dollars. They did eventually drop the charges but he has an arrest for inciting a riot and larceny on his name. It came off on public searches but any LEO running his name will see the arrest. There is not disposition on the check of what happened but the arrest is certainly there. He was told it would take another 5 to 7k to try to have it removed as a matter of fact that the arrest should have never occurred but there is no guarantee it will work.. This is not a I heard story. It actually happened to my friend..... It costs money to be right

 

[NedSled]

I'm not in Alameda but the ONLY reason I contemplated getting a CCW would be for hiking. I've seen one too many murder shows about people out and about just on a normal hike meeting the random non-lazy criminal. Also, I'd feel a lot better backing down a trail with a gun between me and my family and a pissed off mt lion than with a stick.

 

[Dvrjon]

California had it up till about 10 years ago.... Truth be told open carry is and can be off putting to some citizens. It is actually much safer to have concealed carry... for everyone. Unless the sensitivity of guns in public subsides. concealed is a far better option.

California had UNLOADED Open Carry until 2012. And under that prohibition you couldn’t carry ammunition with you when you were open carrying. See CA PEN 26350

LOADED Open Carry/Loaded Carry without a license was wiped out in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan and a Republican legislature after the Black Panthers wandered into the Capitol strapped. See the Mulford Act.

 

[tonyskala]

California had UNLOADED Open Carry until 2012. And under that prohibition you couldn’t carry ammunition with you when you were open carrying. See CA PEN 26350

LOADED Open Carry/Loaded Carry without a license was wiped out in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan and a Republican legislature after the Black Panthers wandered into the Capitol strapped. See the Mulford Act.

It has been a while and my memory is not what it used to be. But I remember reading it could not be loaded and or attached to the gun. But a seperate belt pouch with loaded mags was ok. Moot point becuase it is not allowed anymore.

 

[tonyskala]

When I decided to get my CCW, I read the probate code included in the application. I almost decided not to bother with the license since it would be impossible to stay legal. Since getting my license, I haven't carried outside the home because of the legal risk. In my situation, that risk is far greater than encountering a situation that would require my gun for protection. My friend is not so lucky since his job keeps him on the road visiting locations he's never been to before. In his shoes I would stay armed.

In addition to those location restrictions, my license is particularly limited; I can only have two entirely unmodified weapons with no red dots. So, to maintain the relevance of my training (should I even need to carry and be competent), I never use optics.

It's really tough for me to justify the effort to keep my license, but I will maintain it to support the cause as best I can. It's also a matter of pride.

I atually feel the same way. It really makes if difficult to stay legal. I just assumed to not get it. I cant afford the fight...

 

[Dvrjon]

It has been a while and my memory is not what it used to be. But I remember reading it could not be loaded and or attached to the gun. But a seperate belt pouch with loaded mags was ok. Moot point becuase it is not allowed anymore.

-Loaded Open Carry died in 67. After that, while you might carry ammo outside of the weapon, law enforcement often disagreed.
-This came to a head in 1996 in People v. Clark. The Appellate Court determined that “loaded” required a shell be placed in a position ready to be fired.
-In 2012, the statute banned any unloaded open carry.

So, we had 16 years of “Barney Fife” open carry.

 

[tonyskala]

-Loaded Open Carry died in 67. After that, while you might carry ammo outside of the weapon, law enforcement often disagreed.
-This came to a head in 1996 in People v. Clark. The Appellate Court determined that “loaded” required a shell be placed in a position ready to be fired.
-In 2012, the statute banned any unloaded open carry.

So, we had 16 years of “Barney Fife” open carry.

I do remember that having a bandoleer attached to the stock of a shotgun was considered loaded even though there wasnt anything in the physical gun.... Anyway its moot now.

 

[MattB]

With the latest round of upcoming restrictions and additional red tape and costs courtesy of the legislature, I think I’m done. When my permit expires I don’t think I’m going to bother renewing. It’s expensive, time consuming, and the restrictions implemented by the legislature make it extremely difficult to actually carry anywhere. Why do we have to go through years of appeals to even hope to overturn this? Why does California get to have their way during appeals? When do we get to win? I cannot wait to leave this state and never return.