Skip to main content

In a recent diary, I mentioned that "good cause" was struck down over in Cali.

Looks like there's been some rather quick (and good) movement on the issue of concealed carry in certain parts of Cali. Specifically, Orange County.



Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme or somewhere in between, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections.  We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion.
First, as always, the link.

Next, the quote (with my bold):

The Orange County Sheriff’s Department will accept CCW applications which include, in the “Details of Reason for Applicant Desiring a CCW License” (on page 10 of 13 of the California Department of Justice Standard Initial and Renewal Application for License to Carry a Concealed Weapon), that the CCW license is needed for self-defense or personal safety. Applications which include other reasons showing “good cause” for the CCW License as set forth in the Orange County Sheriff’s Department’s Policy 218, License to Carry a Concealed Firearm, will also be accepted.

If the Peruta v. County of San Diego panel decision is withdrawn by a decision to rehear the case en banc in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, or a stay is issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court, we may require applicants to supplement the “good cause” statement for the CCW License in accord with Orange County Sheriff’s Department’s Policy 218.

Please be aware the application process includes an interview, payment of fees, as well as state and local background checks. Successful completion of a firearms course of training is also required.

If you live in Orange County and want to get your carry permit, I'd suggest you do it soon. Hopefully, the ruling won't get overturned but you never know.

It's a lot easier to get your license and then watch people try to take away (or reduce) what you've accomplished then it is to try and get a license under a system that caters only to a certain type.

Some definitions:

Shall issue means that the governing body must issue you a permit if you meet all of the criteria, no subjectiveness.

May issue means that the governing body doesn't have to issue you a permit if you meet all of the criteria. It's subject to the whims of those in said body. In this case, "good cause" (which was used before to make the carry law in this area may issue) now includes self defense. Since anyone can claim self defense as a reason, the decision in that diary I linked to above changes may to shall issue.

Originally posted to Right to Keep and Bear Arms on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:31 AM PST.

Also republished by California politics.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If you count this as a victory, you have low hopes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy
    Please be aware the application process includes an interview, payment of fees, as well as state and local background checks. Successful completion of a firearms course of training is also required.

    I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

    by peterfallow on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:39:23 AM PST

    •  The only thing I really have an issue with (15+ / 0-)

      in that list is an interview. As to the rest, why would I have a problem? I took a class to get my permit, passed a state background check, had a local board approve my permit (shall issue), and paid fees.

      •  "Interview" encompasses a lot.... (12+ / 0-)

        Susquehanna County PA calls their process an "interview", but it's really just going down to the office to fill out paperwork and take a photo taken.

        I had to have an "interview" with Judge Cawley when I lived in Broome County, he just asked me a few questions to flush out my knowledge about Article 35 (our self-defense/use of force statue) and approved my license without any fuss.  I've only heard of two people out of a few hundred that he denied, and having gone through his "interview" and witnessed a few others I can only imagine what they did wrong.  He basically leads you to the answers he wants to hear, so you've got to go into that interview with ZERO knowledge of the law in order to "fail", in which case I've got to question if you really need to be carrying in public to begin with.....

        On the flip side, there are anti-2A Judges in New York State that will call you in for an "interview" and grill you mercilessly.  Of course, these Judges weren't liable to give you a carry license to begin with, unless of course you're rich or well connected, in which case it's a given that you have "proper cause" as defined by Article 400. :)

        There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

        by Crookshanks on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:58:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's the process in all shall issue locales. (11+ / 0-)

      Ranging from blue (Pennsylvania) to crimson red (Louisiana).

      All "shall issue" means is they have a defined list of criteria (you're not a felon, or mentally ill, you've taken an approved training class, etc.) that you have to meet.  Once you've met them they HAVE TO issue the license.

      Contrast that with "may issue" New York, where the law requires "proper cause" for the issuance of a license, but leaves "proper cause" undefined, meaning that the issuing authority can approve or deny your license for almost any reason they see fit.  Tompkins County (home of Ithaca, quite possibly the bluest part of New York State) won't issue carry licenses to retired law enforcement officers, never mind civilians.  Neighboring Broome County will issue them to anyone who asks, provided they take a class approved by Judge Cawley.  Nearby Delaware County issues them to anyone who applies, no training required.  The only difference between these jurisdictions?  The political biases of the County Judges.  They issue licenses under the same state law (Article 400 of the NYS Penal Law), so how do you justify such wildly divergent outcomes?

      Want some extra irony?  Licenses here are valid statewide, so I can carry in Tompkins County all day long and there isn't jack shit they can do to stop me.  All they can do is disarm their own citizens, not ones who might be inclined to visit.

      Anyway, I digress.  We in the RKBA group have no problem with training requirements for concealed carry. We have no problem with background checks for concealed carry.  We simply take issue with systems that allow local officials to interject their political biases into the process.  

      There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

      by Crookshanks on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:50:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd say issuing to anyone, no training req'd... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        splashy

        ...is evidence of a sad and dangerous political bias right there.

        I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

        by labradog on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:55:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It works for Pennsylvania, hardly a crimson red (9+ / 0-)

          state.

          Are you a felon?  No.  Mentally ill?  No.  Pass a background check confirming that?  Yep.  Got $26?  Yep.  Here's your license.  Same day issuance in the vast majority of PA Counties.

          The only difference between PA and Delaware County New York is PA defines their requirements by law.  New York State leaves it up to the Judge to decide what "proper cause" is.  The Judge in Delaware County is a product of his jurisdiction, for better or worse, the same as the Judges from anti-2A counties.

          If New York State wants training requirements they should pass a shall issue law, preferably before the Federal Judiciary writes one for them and takes the decision out of the hands of Albany.

          There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

          by Crookshanks on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 12:05:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I might be mistaken... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peterfallow, JamieG from Md

          ...but didn't Crookshanks say "[w]e in the RKBA group have no problem with training requirements?"

          That said, I'd say issuing to anyone without good cause is a dangerous, political bias.  I'd be right: the Second Amendment is a political matter, and firearms are dangerous.

          •  Defense of yourself is good cause. (10+ / 0-)

            It's not limited to just those who have money, carry money, or who are currently being threatened.

            •  I would also strike "self-defense" (0+ / 0-)

              from the list of good causes.

              •  You'll understand if I disagree with you (9+ / 0-)

                completely.

                What other reason is there? Defense of yourself and your loved ones strikes me as the most important reason to carry a firearm.

                •  Understood (0+ / 0-)

                  As far as I'm concerned, none.  For firearms and a number of other implements.  At the bare minimum, I think Japan's firearm and sword law is where the the rest of the world, but the US especially, needs to be. As for defense of myself and my loved ones, that's a secondary concern to public safety. And just as you believe that signficant social change can produce a safe and armed society, I also believe that public policy can cultivate a gentler, unarmed population.

              •  Seriously??? Self defense is not allowed now? (5+ / 0-)

                Good thing we do not live in your world, we'd all become prey and our species would be extinct.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 01:28:46 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, I doubt we'd go extinct... (6+ / 0-)

                  ...since those doing the preying would also, presumably, be human beings, as human being are still, presumably, the effective top of the food chain these days.

                  Unless you mean vampires.  They would definitely be more pesky, if we were without any means of self-defense.

                  ;-)

                  "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi

                  by theatre goon on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 01:34:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I would hope curtailing the opportunity (0+ / 0-)

                    and necessity for justifiable use of force would not precipitate the collapse of government and civil society.

                    •  It hasn't yet... (5+ / 0-)

                      ...and people have been engaging in armed self-defense long before the existence of this particular government and civil society, so I'll continue to support the ability to engage in effective self-defense.

                      You may choose otherwise, but that does not give you the right to make that choice for anyone else.

                      Now, I'd be all for curtailing the necessity for the use of force in self-defense, but until that happens (unlikely, at best, since crime still exists, even where firearms are not available to the general populace), I'd much rather have the opportunity to use it, when needed.

                      And, since there is no chance in the foreseeable future of that right being taken away from me, I'm good with that.

                      I'd be even happier if there weren't so many Democrats out there who keep forgetting that...

                      "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi

                      by theatre goon on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 01:46:33 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Shit, I forgot about the vampires... :) (3+ / 0-)

                    I'm not so sure we wouldn't be overrun by the lions, tigers and bears...oh and those pesky roaches too!

                    Wait....scratch the roaches...we don't kill them with guns...

                    The deer populations would explode and push out many of the species that live here...effecting the entire food chain, ditto for coyotes, wild boar, etc.

                    We'd easily become prey again, not just from our human competitors but nature itself.

                    No thanks.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 02:27:01 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Self-defense is still permitted (0+ / 0-)

                  just rigorously checked by the justice system and never as a reason to arm yourself.  This isn't exactly an alien state of affairs; it's the way things are in Japan and to a lesser extent South Korea.

                  •  Self-defense is still permitted, you're just (7+ / 0-)

                    denied the ability to effectively exercise it.

                    Awesome system that.

                    Special bonus points to countries like Canada that won't even let you own pepper spray, but still purport that you have the right to defend yourself against aggression.  Guess you're just SOL if faced with a stronger aggressor, multiple aggressors, or happen to be someone with a physical disability that precludes unarmed self-defense.

                    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                    by Crookshanks on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 01:50:16 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yet you have to admit (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Sharon Wraight

                      that Canada has a robust and healthy civil society, despite a stricter legal (if not practical) view of what is and isn't justifiable when it comes to self defense.

                      •  Canada also has quite a bit more that (7+ / 0-)

                        impacts society as a whole than just more strict firearm or self defense laws. Better social safety nets, not quite as crazy laws on marijuana, and their healthcare system is leaps and bounds ahead of US's.

                      •  Correlation does not prove causation. (6+ / 0-)
                        Yet you have to admit that Canada has a robust and healthy civil society, despite a stricter legal (if not practical) view of what is and isn't justifiable when it comes to self defense.

                        There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                        by Crookshanks on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 03:28:36 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No implication of causation intended (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          88kathy

                          Simply pointing out that Canada manages to do just fine without passionately adhering to the right of self-defense.

                          •  Small comfort to someone who is brutalized for (6+ / 0-)

                            want of an effective means of self-defense.

                            There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                            by Crookshanks on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 04:22:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Small comfort, yes (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            88kathy

                            But it is still the reality in the vast majority of countries we count as peers.  I do not see a vast public outcry for the right to keep and bear arms in Canada, the UK, or Japan.  Do you?

                          •  I don't care how those countries feel about RKBA. (6+ / 0-)

                            There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                            by Crookshanks on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 04:39:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You should (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            88kathy, splashy

                            if for no other reason than it shatters the thesis that the public must and always will hold the right of self-defense sacrosanct.  Speaking tactically, you might wake up one day in a country that is no longer impressed by an emotional appeal to the unarmed victim.  We already live in one where a large majority of Americans no longer have personal experience with firearms, after all.  Don't you think that has social and political implications for the right to keep and bear arms?

                          •  Diffrent countries, different cultures. (5+ / 0-)

                            You fail to understand the gun culture if you think its survival is predicated on an "emotional appeal to the unarmed victim".

                            There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                            by Crookshanks on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 05:18:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Rather than speculate (0+ / 0-)

                            about what I know or don't know about the gun culture--which I haven't even brought up---you might explain why our public's attitudes towards self-defense will not converge with those of peer societies.  After all, we're seeing shifts in that direction where it concerns any number of other cultural, social and political matters.

                          •  You also don't see an outcry in those nations (5+ / 0-)

                            for the right to vote for their head of state.

                            I prefer the USA's greater freedom & liberty in both these subjects.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 07:38:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I know you do. (0+ / 0-)

                            But the point is that it's not a value held universally in either space or time.  Simply saying you're entitled to a certain balance of liberty and security doesn't exactly guarantee you'll get it.  You have to work for it, and you have to work to keep it when you get it, or else it won't matter what you prefer.

                            I for one haven't seen anything suggesting that gun rights advocates  has grasped this.  Beyond reactionary organizing, there's little effort to grow beyond your base. Where are the local chapters?  Where are the grade school rifle clubs? What are you doing for suburban and urban outreach?  Where's the push for more affordable firearms and effort to get people who don't own guns down to the shop?  This is why i'm fairly confident the US will continue down the path towards European and Japanese style gun control.  

                          •  In order to continue down that path, first we'd (6+ / 0-)

                            have to be on that path.
                            Both public support & laws (by and large) have been increasing for gun rights since AWB1.

                            However, I do agree that outreach has been underwhelming for gun rights advocates.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 07:59:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think we've seen more polarization in (0+ / 0-)

                            general over the past 20 years, and "gun control" may be a tribal signal of sorts.  

                            Certainly gun rights activists have made legal gains, including Heller/McDonald, expanding the number of shall issue states from 35 to 40 and securing concealed carry licensing in all fifty states.  At the same time, there hasn't been a comparatively significant increase in state assault weapons bans, and those that have them have been forced to deal with their obvious ineffectiveness, easy circumvention, and issues with compliance.  No state has gone so far as to ban semiautomatic firearms.

                            That said, gun ownership has remained either static or has actually declined in the interim.  Nationally, we have had sustained for twenty years a framework for securing background checks for the primary market and established federal regulation for  the manufacture and retail of firearms.  And last year gun control advocates proved they could not only pass new gun legislation in fairly blue states, but also purple ones as well.  I'd point out that during the same salad decade for gun rights, states were approving bans on same sex marriage at a rapid clip.  Attitudes can change quickly.

                          •  Attitudes can change quickly, but you are (6+ / 0-)

                            getting the wrong lesson from the support for same-sex marriage.
                            Support for individual liberty is what is fueling the same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization & gun rights.
                            I don't see the push towards greater individual rights changing anytime soon.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 08:19:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Marriage equality goes well beyond (0+ / 0-)

                            individual liberty.  We're also talking about expanding the scope of non-discrimination--a public rather than individual interest.

                    •  Well, you know, violent felons have mommies (0+ / 0-)

                      too. And the Improver State loves them just as much as it loves the lawful citizen.

                      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath; μολὼν λαβέ - att. Leonidas I

                      by Robobagpiper on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 04:54:45 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  You'd have to renegotiate the terms of why (5+ / 0-)

                    we created our government in the first place.

                    Ours exists at our request and permission...not the other way around, as in your examples.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 02:50:43 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  We do that every single time we have an election (0+ / 0-)

                      make new appointments, changeover the judiciary, pass and amend law and adjudicate it.  We're not entirely beholden dead hand of our founders.  And practically speaking, ours has never existed at the "request and permission" of the people.  A third of the federal government, once appointed, is essentially beyond the reach of anything less than a supermajority, and no administration--starting with Washington's--has tolerated insurrection.  

                      So while culturally we imagine ourselves more sovereign individually than our peers overseas (we're certainly more litigious), the reality is that the state looms large and acts primarily without public guidance or permission.  And our culture apparently accepts it without much complaint.

                      •  Constutional convention? (7+ / 0-)

                        I believe that Gerrilea is speaking of constitutional amendment or constitutional convention.  If you want to change our Constitution we have mechanisms for it.  

                        I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

                        by DavidMS on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 04:03:32 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  We don't have to (0+ / 0-)

                          At least that's my view.  I'm not interested in repealing the Second Amendment.  Hell, even if the courts decided to subject infringements on Second Amendment rights to strict scrutiny, I don't think it's necessary to repeal it to achieve a largely gun-free society.  There's an old saying: never give an order you know won't be followed.  Even if we could tomorrow pass all the gun laws any gun control advocate has ever dreamt about, you would have tens of millions of Americans who simply wouldn't comply.

                          Cultural shifts and education may help explain the drop in median ownership by state (to around 40 percent by the late 1990s).  Government can help shape behavior achieve a great deal without criminalizing it, and I strongly suspect building a culture that--say, like Hawaii--sees little need for firearms ownership will require a consensual program.

                          •  What about since the 90s? (7+ / 0-)

                            I hope you are not cherry picking data.  As of 2011, Gallup reports that 47% of households report possessing a firearm.  Given that many gun owners will lie and say their households does not contain a firearm, I suspect the actual number is more likely to be at the high end of the margin for error than the low end.  

                            I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

                            by DavidMS on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 05:02:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not at all (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm not talking about overall gun ownership, but the median rate of ownership by state (as estimated by FS/S proxy and validated against GSS).  In either case, all surveys agree there has been a decline in the rate of gun ownership since the 1960s.  Could be that population growth alone explains the decline.  Regardless, my point concerns states where gun ownership is considerably below the median.  You can't explain drops there by gun control laws alone.  People are voluntarily going without arming themselves.

                          •  Given how numbers change (8+ / 0-)

                            year on year, I also must wonder if the survey is reliability measuring gun ownership given that it bounces around a bit.  Even if gun ownership has fallen, whats the point.  Even if you don't use a right, that does not mean it goes away.  

                            I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

                            by DavidMS on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 06:58:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  By itself, no (0+ / 0-)

                            But if gun ownership becomes increasingly alien to Americans, they may be more amenable to additional restrictions.  They may vote accordingly, and either directly or through appointment put judges on the bench who may shift the goalposts.  Or you may find yourself in a situation where it is conceivable for three quarters of the states to ratify a Constitutional amendment curtailing gun rights (though I imagine custom and precedent may simple render the 2A a dead letter).

                            That's not a moral argument, simply speculation into the possible future this debate may take.

                          •  During the past 20 years, support for (8+ / 0-)

                            gun rights have increased & support for gun control has decreased.

                            Society increasingly supports individual freedoms and liberties.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 07:42:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Gallup confirms that trend (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea, DavidMS

                            http://www.gallup.com/...

                            Not sure how hard the sentiment is, and let's be fair.  Gun control advocacy's been a mess since the 1994 elections.  In fact, it's still a mess--a series of offensive outbursts of outrage whenever a sufficient mass of privileged victims emerges in the headlines followed by the the same slate of ridiculously ineffectual proposals.  At least on the national scene.  At the state and municipal level the policy movement's been decidedly mixed; you might say there's been a great sort over the past twenty years coinciding with other polarizing vectors.

                            But at least we agree that public attitudes can be shaped.

                          •  Gun control advocates have two problems: (5+ / 0-)

                            1.  They don't show up at the statehouse for hearings and don't know the law particularity well.  The motivation isn't there.  

                            2.  Its hard to motivate people to be involved politically at the grass roots level in the name of an elite cause that at its core says your are too emotional and irresponsible to to be a full citizen.  

                            I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

                            by DavidMS on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 07:01:27 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A decline that can almost entirely be accounted (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru, KVoimakas

                            for by the decline of hunting.

                            As the gun ownership rates went down, the fraction of people who owned guns for self-defense has gone up.

                            The crowd that's already amenable to restriction of arms (which hunting weapons technically are not) has already self-winnowed to a tiny fraction of the electorate.

                            Gun controllers keep trying to appeal to hunters as the "reasonable" gun owners who will throw their weight behind their authoritarian schemes, but there just aren't that many hunters left. The gun owners that remain are such because we believe in the right to be armed, not the right to hunt.

                            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath; μολὼν λαβέ - att. Leonidas I

                            by Robobagpiper on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 04:59:17 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't think that's true yet (0+ / 0-)

                            You're right that as of 2013, the plurality reason for owning firearms has flipped from hunting to self-defense.  On the other hand, 32 percent of gun owners still report hunting as their principal priority.  And even within the 48 percent that keep and/or carry for self-defense, their acculturation into the civil rights aspect of ownership is unclear.  Disappointingly, Pew either didn't ask respondents to rank reasons preferentially or didn't include those results.

                            I have to wonder whether political theater in hunting has shaped some of the more timid and frankly ridiculous restrictions I've seen.  Assault weapons bans, for example, appear to go through great pains to pretend one semi-automatic centerfire rifle is more acceptable than another because it has a wooden gunstock and a fixed magazine.

                          •  This is where we must part ways, ideologically (5+ / 0-)

                            speaking:

                            Government can help shape behavior [to] achieve a great deal
                            Is "behavior modification" even covered in the Constitution???

                            Crime and punishment are.

                            It boils down to the goal, doesn't it?  Are the goals consistent with the reasons we founded this nation? To be free was the goal, wasn't it?  To think and believe as we so chose. Not to have our thoughts, ideals and desires dictated to us unknowingly.

                            You've stated very honestly you want to see this nation disarmed....I do not....even though I chose not to exercise that right.

                            I do not believe it would be constitutional for our gov't to implement any program designed to turn us into any other nation, such as the Japanese have been conditioned to accept their subjugation below their rulers.

                            In fact, it would be treasonous if they tried.

                            Let's teach our children non-violent dispute resolution techniques, teach them tolerance and peace...but leave it up to them to act, believe and think as they will.

                            Give them the facts, not this garbage:

                            http://www.amazon.com/...

                            Second Amendment.  The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 05:40:19 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We're not even at an ideological juncture yet (0+ / 0-)

                            Aside from our obviously diametric views on gun ownership.

                            Whether or not public advocacy and education is constitutionally endorsed, or even permitted, it is simply a fact of life in the republic and always has been.  And in fact, it is almost certainly constitutional in many respects.  Political campaigns are quintessential vehicles for shaping attitudes.  We have entire agencies of government that interface with link environmental, social and economic justice advocates on a daily basis, that inculcate those values through various media to the public.  That by the virtue of governing attempt to draw public support.  

                            If we were to pursue fully socialized health care, would that be treasonous?

                          •  Not even in the same ballpark. (5+ / 0-)

                            Universal healthcare would not be unconstitutional.  We all pay the same, we all get the treatment we need.  A gov't provided service...no problems at all.

                            This is simply not accurate:

                            Whether or not public advocacy and education is constitutionally endorsed, or even permitted, it is simply a fact of life in the republic and always has been.
                            The Underground History of American Education
                            In the final analysis, Gatto believes that compulsory, government-run schooling is inherently destructive to true education, the cultivation of self-reliance, and indeed to individualism - which used to be a defining element of the American character. The true purpose of our public school system in reality has more to do with control than it does with learning.
                            Read the book, I have a copy I could send to you for free.  Once you and I are on the same page when it comes to our actual history then this:
                            We have entire agencies of government that interface with link environmental, social and economic justice advocates on a daily basis, that inculcate those values through various media to the public.
                            Can be understood for what it is: pure elitist propaganda.

                            "We know what's best for you dearie, don't you worry your little head about it.  We'll tell you what to believe."

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 07:02:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  However you want to describe it (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            you seem to accept that "pure elitist propaganda" exists, and you apparently think it's been effective.  Very well then, do we at least agree that "pure elitist propaganda" can shape public attitudes in a way that is unfavorable towards the agenda of gun rights?  That's the only point I'm trying to make.

                          •  Ah...yes it exists but I do not believe it is (5+ / 0-)

                            constitutional or beneficial for any of us or should be used to manipulate the masses without their knowledge OR permission.

                            I have more faith in my fellow humans.  

                            I really do believe education is key.  Give our children the abilities to think critically, logically and with actual facts...let them decide what path their lives take.  That is the essence of freedom, is it not?

                            Let's teach them non-violent means of dispute resolution but also teach them that force really does rule this world.  Give them the tools to be successful in this life as free thinking individuals.  Let them decide what success is and how it is to be defined.

                            Leave the morality up to their family and their own belief system.  If they decide to violate another person's rights, then teach them that there will be consequences administered by the State.

                            Your rights end where mine begin.  I don't wish to manipulated into believing what you do.  If your beliefs are valid, their truths will be self-evident.

                            Let's start from there and move forward.

                            I know in my heart of hearts, that the elitist propaganda has destroyed this nation.  I see the results of their "experimentation" every day of the week.  Adult co-workers with the conditioned emotional maturity of a 4th grader, to adult co-workers in their late 20's & early 30's still living at home quite content that they don't know what they want to be "when the grow up".

                            I see adults acting in such vile and angry manners and thinking it's fun AND acceptable.  To others so helpless that they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

                            That elitist manipulation has conditioned millions into being children forever.  That gov't is the only solution to all of life's problems.  Hell, gov't should be the last.  

                            No thank you, I cannot accept the continuation of this subjugation.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 07:46:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  He's espousing Cass Sunnstein's "Nudge" (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru, gerrilea

                            theory, in which elite technocrats working for neoliberal banisters use Madison Avenue techniques to make us into what their ideology decided we ought to be, because we're too stupid to decide for ourselves.

                            Of course, Cass was the one who felt that the government should "cognitively infiltrate" the internet to sway people towards the government line, and mused the long-term possibility of criminal penalties for those engaged in anti-government speech.

                            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath; μολὼν λαβέ - att. Leonidas I

                            by Robobagpiper on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 05:02:51 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  And/or brute force...if need be.... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Tom Seaview, Crookshanks

                          The restoration of constitutional law sometimes takes force...

                          The Battle of Athens
                          2 AUGUST 1946

                          I wouldn't trust a CC today...we'd lose what's left of this nation in an instant.

                          A Constitutional Amendment could be done...but not very effective without massive protests to go along with it.

                          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                          by gerrilea on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 04:23:58 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  I may be a bit naive but our gov't has always (4+ / 0-)

                        existed at our "request and permission".

                        Maybe those IN gov't have forgotten this simple fact, but I don't live or work in the bubble called, "The US Gov't" and have no need to pretend otherwise.

                        Americans have been conditioned to believe that "the law" is GOD℠...it is not. They are waking up to the fact that "the law" is only meant for you and I, not for all.

                        It is steadily becoming illegitimate, I hope and pray I'm not here when critical mass is attained.  Be very afraid of a man whom has nothing to lose.

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 04:59:29 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Not true (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea

                      English royalty exists at the people's request.

                •  So let me get this straight. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  grover, splashy

                  Guns are needed to avoid extinction of our species?

                  Good thing we do not live in your world, we'd all become prey and our species would be extinct.
                  I can think of a number of things that could result in extinction or near extinction of our species, but a lack of guns in the USA seems pretty low on that list.

                  I'm absolutely amazed how many recs that the fear of human extinction resulting from gun control gets here on Daly Kos.

      •  Small point: (10+ / 0-)

        there are people in RKBA who take a more...Vermontian view of carry (Constitutional carry). There are very few things (beyond the boilerplate) that I'd say ALL RKBAers agree on.

    •  Its the lack of discression that matters (7+ / 0-)

      One of the basic principles of a just political system is a lack of discretion in the issuance of permits and other activities of the state.  Results of interactions with the state should be predictable, its one of the hallmarks of rule of law.  In the bad old days of feudalism, men made changeable rules based on social class.  In a modern state a law is passed and enforced by dispassionate bureaucrats (generally without favoritism).  

      I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

      by DavidMS on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 03:37:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And this is exactly how may-issue works (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kasoru, KVoimakas

        in practice. The politically powerful - even those who want to ban civilian ownership of firearms for the little people - carry guns, and no one else does.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath; μολὼν λαβέ - att. Leonidas I

        by Robobagpiper on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 05:05:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  It Figures (6+ / 0-)

    I can't think of a more rabidly right-wing area in California than Orange County.

  •  We need the same here in New York State (13+ / 0-)

    It's really not fair that I can get an unrestricted pistol license (allowing concealed carry virtually anywhere in the State) simply by writing a "Please, pretty please?" letter to our County Judge while my friends downstate can't get one even if they have documented threats to their lives to contend with.

    I've linked this map before, because a picture is worth a thousand words when it comes to demonstrating the absurdity of our law.

    Green County: Most any citizen can get an unrestricted license, the process ranges from "all licenses are unrestricted" (Delaware, Monroe) to "you have to ask for it and perhaps take an approved training class beforehand" (Broome) but at the end of the day you'll get your unrestricted license.

    Yellow County: Most licenses are restricted, but people have reported success at getting unrestricted licenses, some simply by asking for them, others by taking classes and otherwise demonstrating their aptitude to the issuing Judge.

    Red County: Forget it, unless you're rich or well connected, in which case no problem.  Random example of a celebrity with an unrestricted in New York City: Sean Hannity.

    Yours truly resides in one of the Yellow Counties, and simply had to write a letter to our Judge requesting unrestricted status.  It was granted without much fuss.

    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

    by Crookshanks on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:41:14 AM PST

    •  As owning a gun is hi risk factor of gun injury (0+ / 0-)

      and around 80% of gun deaths are suicides, maybe a lefty judge thought it was a good idea to give Hannity a permit.

      I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

      by peterfallow on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:56:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hur hur hur (11+ / 0-)

        Suicide is funny if it's people we don't like. Jokes on them...

      •  That's a really dickish thing to say.... (9+ / 0-)

        .... maybe you ought to consider walking it back a bit?

        BTW, no Judge entered the decision making process for Mr. Hannity, his license was issued by the City of New York, which means the decision was rendered by NYPD.

        Second point: You don't need a carry license to commit suicide.

        There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

        by Crookshanks on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 12:07:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You don't even need a gun to commit suicide. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          liberalguy, splashy

          But it really is very efficient. If you were to have second thoughts, after the bullet there is no way back. Carbon Monoxide poisoning, overdose, etc - still a way back.

          I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

          by peterfallow on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 12:13:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'd suggest we find out why we're creating (9+ / 0-)

            suicidal citizens in the first place and then let's work together to help them.

            That is, if the goal were ACTUALLY save lives.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 01:32:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Maybe guns should come with warning labels (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tytalus, liberalguy, splashy

              Like Prozac.

              Tell the doctor immediately if you notice worsening depression/other psychiatric conditions, unusual behavior changes (including possible suicidal thoughts/attempts), or other mental/mood changes (including new/worsening anxiety, panic attacks, trouble sleeping, irritability, hostile/angry feelings, impulsive actions, severe restlessness, very rapid speech). Be especially watchful for these symptoms when a new antidepressant is started or when the dose is changed.
              Put down the gun immediately if you notice worsening depression/other psychiatric conditions, unusual behavior changes (including possible suicidal thoughts/attempts), or other mental/mood changes (including new/worsening anxiety, panic attacks, trouble sleeping, irritability, hostile/angry feelings, impulsive actions, severe restlessness, very rapid speech). Be especially watchful for these symptoms when a gun is within easy reach.

              Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

              by 88kathy on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 03:31:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Irrelevant. (6+ / 0-)
            But it really is very efficient. If you were to have second thoughts, after the bullet there is no way back. Carbon Monoxide poisoning, overdose, etc - still a way back.
            I support your right to end your life with whatever means you deem most appropriate, so long as you don't endanger others whilst doing so.

            My body, my choice, right?

            There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

            by Crookshanks on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 01:47:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Some suicide I don't support. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tytalus, grover, splashy
              Suicide is the third leading cause of death for young people aged 15-24 year olds.
              (1st = accidents, 2nd = homicide)

              Suicide is the fifth leading cause of death for young people aged 5-14 year olds.

              Suicide is the second leading cause of death among college students.

              Every day, 22 veterans take their own lives. That's a suicide every 65 minutes. As shocking as the number is, it may actually be higher.
              While your reference to women controlling the biology of their body may seem clever to you. Suicide is not a biological function.

              Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

              by 88kathy on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 03:20:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your body, your choice. (8+ / 0-)

                As far as this:

                Suicide is not a biological function.
                Homo sapiens are blessed with the ability to override their biological impulses.  I can think of a multitude of reasons why I might choose to take my own life.  Who are you to take that choice away from me?

                There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                by Crookshanks on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 03:31:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wow, I never thought I'd see the day that (0+ / 0-)

                  someone in this community actually argued how desirable to the human condition suicide is, that it should be a "right."

                  You know what? There are a lot of people here who have lost parents, siblings, spouses and even children to suicide. I know who many of these members are. I know the stories of what it was like to find the bodies, the guilt, the grief, the anger, the agony.

                  I know the the loss and emptiness that never ever ends.

                  Your comments are so remarkably crass and cruel, I don't even know where to begin.

                  And RKBA community (many of whom I'm friendly with) wonders why so many members of dkos instinctively recoil whenever the the gun issue comes up.

                  Consider this Exhibit A.

                  © grover


                  So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

                  by grover on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:38:35 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Freedom isn't for the weak... (8+ / 0-)

                    As a person whom was suicidal for years because of my gender identity issues...the guns in our home didn't even cross my mind when I jumped off the bridge.

                    Crass, in my opinion, is worrying about the feelings of those whom are left behind.

                    That's truly obscene to me.  

                    But then again, this argument isn't about saving my life or the lives of millions just like me.

                    It's not about anything but what you'll think of me when I'm dead, correct?

                    Why do I say these things?  Because I too once believed as you..."The world couldn't know I committed suicide.  Oh the horror and shame I'd bring to my family!"

                    It had to look like an accident, I was convinced of that!

                    And you know what? All those people I worried so goddamn much about? All of them but my Mother disowned me when I finally accepted that I was truly a woman and told them so!

                    Fuckers!

                    Don't you dare bring your false moral superiority into this conversation.

                    It's about the right to chose your own destiny.

                    If you want to help people then get off the couch and man the suicide hotlines!  Help push policies and laws that ensure Equity Under Law.  Help fund the social safety nets the criminals called the Republican Party have gutted, especially mental health services.  Help end the racist drug war that is stealing the limited resources we have and put those savings into education... Pay our teachers like our lives depend upon it!

                    Wanna make a difference?  Drop this crusade you're on and get to work teaching non-violent dispute resolution and tolerance!

                    Teach and live peace!

                    Maybe then, people like me won't WANT to commit suicide!

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 02:22:38 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Humm.. This rec list diary reveals (5+ / 0-)

                    that several EU countries state that suicide is a human right even for children.

                    http://www.dailykos.com...

                    And Kossacks agreed. So you are several days late.

                    And our bodies are not property of the state. If I get sick of dialysis I am free to stop treatment- effectively committing suicide. Should the state be able to order me - a 35 yr old man to resume treatment?

                    If I use a rope would the anti even care? But use a gun.. same result but OH NOES THE TRAGEDIEZZZZ

                    In the end of all three- I still die leaving mental trauma all around- but its not about that. Its about authoritarian control.

                  •  What's your point? Suicide is selfish? (5+ / 0-)

                    You'll brook no argument from me there.  It's oftentimes the most selfish decision a person could have made.

                    That doesn't change the underlying fact that it's YOUR life though.  Suicide is the quintessential natural law right, one that's impossible for the State to take away from you.

                    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                    by Crookshanks on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 09:22:17 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Picture This... (0+ / 0-)
              I support your right to end your life with whatever means you deem most appropriate, so long as you don't endanger others whilst doing so.

              My body, my choice, right?

              Yes, but if you choose to shoot yourself in the head then someone will have to witness the carnage, as human carnage always evokes revulsion - even EMS and EMT pros are affected a bit by a gory suicide - so that's a choice based in extreme dickishness. The brave thing to do would be to jump off a tall bridge over a river or bay.

              You meet them halfway with love, peace, and persuasion ~ And expect them to rise for the occasion...

              by paz3 on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 05:59:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Yikes! that's kind of pushing the envelope. (7+ / 0-)

        “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

        by ban nock on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 05:17:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  What's "Cali"? (7+ / 0-)

    I was expecting a diary on Colombia. Not familiar with calling California "Cali". SoCal maybe. Is this a new usage?

    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

    by ivorybill on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:48:33 AM PST

  •  The self-defense shall is Dunn. (0+ / 0-)

    I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party

    by voicemail on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 01:55:46 PM PST

  •  I keep being surprised that there is such a thing (10+ / 0-)

    as "may issue".

    I know from following conversations of people who move to NY or Maryland or something that they have to go through some kind of rigmarole to get a permit but the whole concept of not allowing legal law abiding folks to carry seems so out there.

    I think they need to modernise the whole gun thing. Make rules the same everywhere and a modern system of background checks etc.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 05:22:34 PM PST

    •  Enforce the ENTIRE Bill of Rights upon the states. (8+ / 0-)

      The prohibitions applied to the federal government by the Bill of Rights, and those that derive from it and other parts of the Constitution, should be enforced upon state and local governments without exception.
      This should apply to a woman's right to choose, the right to vote, protection against unlawful search & seizure, and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In these and other cases, we should set federal standards for what regulation is allowable, then require that state laws do not exceed these standards.

      If the Second Amendment were correctly enforced, Delaware would need to remove the judges' discretion from our "may issue" CCDW permit system. Maryland and NJ would need to completely gut their firearms laws to meet the federal standard, and NY? Fuhgeddaboutit!

      With any luck, the case diaried here might accomplish exactly that when it reaches the Supreme Court. If only the Supremes would enforce the rest of the Constitution correctly, we might get somewhere in this country...

      Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

      by Tom Seaview on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 07:26:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site