Arbitrary Nature of California’s Policy on Who Can “Carry A Concealed Weapon” Exposed by Former Sacramento Sheriff Providing Gun Permit to Friend and Contributor

Your story exposes the lie that the NRA is a Republican organization -- they'll endorse Democrats over Republicans if they believe doing so will better serve their fight to restore and protect the right to keep and bear arms.

Personally, I favor a "shall-issue" concealed-carry permit system like those which exist in many states (thanks in part to NRA lobbying). I'm flexible as to the the amount of training to require. (I've voluntarily taken far more training than my own state's permit system mandates.) Unfortunately, California's Democrat-controlled legislature has shown no interest in providing such a system.

The main thing is to reject systems that uniformly deny permits to ordinary citizens wanting the ability to resist common muggers and carjackers. Compared to that, I much prefer a system in which I can get a permit by contributing a reasonable sum of money to some sheriff's re-election campaign. Having to pay a bribe to exercise my rights stinks, but it is better than not being able to exercise my rights at all.

The article states:
"They also successfully lobbied to get the names of CCW permit holders excluded from the public records law that let to the skirmish in the first place – with NRA support."
Actually,no. The only information exempt from public disclosure in CCW permits and applications is as follows, in Government Code Section 6254 (u):

(1) Information contained in applications for licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 12050 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department that indicates when or where the applicant is vulnerable to attack or that concerns the applicant's medical or psychological history or that of members of his or her family.
(2) The home address and telephone number of peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in applications for licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 12050 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department.
(3) The home address and telephone number of peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 12050 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department.

This story lists only a couple of democrats way back in the 1980's and 90's, but nothing current.

What is the effect of any changes implied?
Since none except an undefined "additional categories of people" was mentioned in this article , probably nothing, as these additional categories probably refer to certain city/county/state employees.

Is San Francisco and LA still issuing to only those with connections?

Democrats have been in control of the legislature for a while, yet there is still no progress to allow an unconnected citizen to legally carry a device for protection.

Perhaps the criminal and gang unions and lobbyists are too strong, still allowing their members a "safe working environment".

Several comments..

You wrote, "....one to Diane (sic) Feinstein, the object of a failed NRA recall after she supported outlawing all firearms in private hands)."

While it is indeed true that Dianne is a full-on self-admitted gungrabbing prohibitionist, the late 1970s matter you spoke of in San Francisco only applied to *handguns*.

Fortuantely, old-line SFPD officers realized what a crock this was. There was intentionally no real accounting for submitted guns other than some kind of total tally count: SF residents who were turning in expensive Colt Pythons, collectible Lugers and P38s, as well as wonderful Smith & Wesson revolvers for destruction were really - de facto - giving them to SFPD officers who instead substituted low-cost Jennings, RG, and low-value 'beater' surplus handguns in the bin to maintain the numeric tally.

Some cops my late father knew freely admitted this, almost as a "Duh, why not?" statement. And while not surprised by such SFPD conduct - many felt SFPD of that era had elements of corruption (today, substituted by incompetence) I'm certainly pleased with the end result of preserving some fine gun specimens.

You also wrote, "...They [Sheriff's] also successfully lobbied to get the names of CCW permit holders excluded from the public records law that let to the skirmish in the first place – with NRA support)."

NRA obviously supports privacy for personally- identifying information of CCW permit holders. Otherwise, that's just advertising that a person's a harder target and increased force is needed or the person has (given nature of restrictive issuance) valuables in transport, etc. I don't think NRA ever has or will support nondisclosure of *reasons" (suitably redacted where necessary) for CCW issuance as this is important for statistics and ongoing political monitoring of the process.

Also, you wrote, "...in the interim, universal handgun registration was in effect enacted".

Not quite. A person moving into CA before 1998 with handguns, or a person who acquired handguns in CA private-party before 1991, are under no obligation to register these guns. (There is a penalty/charge escalator for unpermitted CCW with such guns.) There are multi millions of such legally 'unpapered' guns in CA, and a fair fraction of them passed thru SFPD officers' hands due to Dianne Feinstein's 1978 grab.
DOJ Firearms' recently retired Randy Rossi admitted to me and others in 2004 that that these numbers would stay the same regardless of any political activity.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Every night I thank the Lord that I do not live in Kalifornia ....

Everything Dr. Cavala says is true. What Dr. Cavala did not directly mention is that in 1987-1988 we came very close to a ccw deal but it blew up because the NRA would not agree to my compromise proposal that the Chiefs & Sheriffs wanted which would have made illegally carrying an unregistered gun a wobbler despite the fact that the NRA (through my efforts) got legislation enacted that allowed persons to carry unloaded handguns in locked containers exempt from the carry law and the NRA at that time supported 2 bills by Johan Klehs which required background checks and hence registration on private party transfers using the federal interstate model.

Over time, the Klehs law mandated background checks and registration on all handgun transfers. New residents were covered in 1997 and we have the carrot-stick voluntary program that Mr. Wiese obliquely averts to. In 1999, the Legislature passed and then Governor Davis signed into law AB 491 which created a wobbler for illegally carrying an unregistered handgun.

Wow, it's amazing to see the games that are played both in the article and the comments. Having escaped from North Korea to China before finally moving to the states and getting citizenship, I can only say that I've seen my dreams of the great USA dimenish over time.
I might as well move back to North Korea. The Dear Leader would find a home here in California.

So Dr. Cavala, would you support a shall issue system based on background checks, and a gun safety and proficiency test? You do not make this clear in your post.

The CCW permit system needs to be changed now.

We need a reasonable balance between private rights and public safety.

A blanket ban on carrying guns only ensures that armed criminals will not face legal armed resistance.

I realize many here oppose any gun ownership but gun bans just don't work.

England's violent crime rate, epescially with guns has significantly increased since they banned handguns back in 1997.

The current ccw system makes a mockery of equality under the law and the fact that the abuse comes from many sheriffs in these state is a disgrace.

The reality is most citizens will not go through the trouble and expense of getting a ccw system.

The so called shall issue states have an issuance rate of about 1 to 5 percent of the general population.

A fair and just ccw system would not lead to innocent blood on the streets.

Violent crime is a problem and many issues need to be addressed.

Gun owners could be brought on board to help us if their rights and concerns were respected.

Gun rights yes, but also gun repsonsibilties.

Ending our failed drug war would be a good start.
Reforming how our prisons are run would be another.
Reforming our court system so that the guilty are prosecuted and the innocent are spared.

Nicki

Yes Mr. Cavala, Please state a position one way or another, as it is written you are vauge at best, patronizing at least...

You sound like you believe that the only ones that count here are the politicians, whom, if I understand correctly are provided with security at the taxpayers expense...

I too have not applied for well paying positions within my company because they were located in Kalifornia, a state that appears to have gone so far over the edge with elitist liberal agendas that to an outsider it appears that the crazies have been allowed to run the nuthouse a little too long...

I would like to know when we will be issuing permits for the first amendment and if only rich people able to purchase a permit to speak publicly or will the test be show a good case to be able to communicate a view points. A law-a-biding citizen should not have to ask for permission to protect their self or family from a politician wishing more funds to run for election or get a new home in Reno.

Unfortunately, the very policies that many of the CLEO's have adopted are not being followed even to this day. See several of the cases being brought throughout the state on 14th violations with various departments.

The main problem with the curent CCW system is in leaving the discretion up to local LE. 'Good cause', 'good moral character' are terms thrown around but one really must have deep pockets to get a CCW in many places (or be a friend to the Sherrif).

Hopefully, one of the 3 proposed 'National reciprocity CCW laws' will pass in the next few years. Only then will CLEO's re-examine their policies. Until then, TBJ, and others will push those court cases to try and effect change.

To add, most LE don't seem to understand the basics in OPEN carry for citizens throughout the state. Nor will the DOJ clarify for FFL's the off list lowers now available. This brings problems in and of itself with legally enforcing current law.

Obviously there's a lot of work for the state to do in correcting these issues. If they only had the will to do so.

Post a comment