The concealed carry law in California could change substantially if Assembly Bill 357 is passed.
As it stands now, the Sheriff in any California County can issue a CCW to a resident of the state if they meet certain requirements. The code affected is California Penal Code Section 12050, the guidelines for how one qualifies for a concealed carry permit.
One of the most ambiguous and spottily applied requirements is the element of showing good cause to the Sheriff in applying for the concealed carry permit. Upon good cause is language whose interpretation can vary from Sheriff to Sheriff, and places the application at the discretion of the individual Sheriff. The concept of AB 357 is to remove that language so that, if the applicant otherwise meets all other requirements, then the permit is issued.
AB 357 takes the ambiguity and wide latitude out of the hands of individual Sheriffs who may personally oppose concealed carry and compels the granting of the permit. In the language of the amended version contemplated, the words may issue are struck and replaced with shall issue.
Good cause is of interest to every head of household in California. Being at the mercy of thugs is one concept, and being at the mercy of the system is to get it from both sides. In thinking it over, heads of household need to discover these truths law enforcement officers and 80 million gun owners know so that each parent or newlywed can make their best informed decision. This is the short version, the very short version.
1. Police have no duty to protect you. If you cannot complete the request for emergency aid, if you cannot say it clearly, if the dispatcher cannot take the call, if someone cannot call for you and get through, if the assets are unavailable, if they cannot be sent, if they cannot drive fast enough, if they get a priority call, it is all the same: they don’t arrive in time. Lawsuit after lawsuit for failure to protect results in the same ruling: "Police have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others." For instance, Lynch v. N.C. DOJ and Castle Rock v. Gonzales, United State Supreme Court, 2005. This is no bash of our officers, it is often one of the first facts they mention on the subject.
2. You can locate and complete as much training as you like in handgun use, concealed carry, close quarter operations, self-defense tactics, self-defense law, traveling armed, secure-your-weapon against takeaway attacks, and many more. What the anti-gun activists decline to mention is that such classes are available from FBI, Military, and Police instructors for private citizens. These courses are very affordable and offered throughout the year. The part the anti-gun movement forgets to mention is that law enforcement officers and gun owners are not foes, but allies.
3. The average citizen is possessed of all legal authority to act in preventing a violent act, especially those acts which threaten them or loved ones. This authority follows the citizen wherever he or she goes. Individuals may use up to lethal force when facing grave danger; without this knowledge or the ability to respond in reasonable purpose, crime prevails and taxes our state on a scale some can barely imagine.
.jpg)
AB 357 can change the entire complexion of how crime is managed in California. This does not mean settling disputes in anger as the issue has been deceitfully painted, nor does it mean vigilanteism; it means that honest people who might have been a statistic of violence – very severe violence, such as rape, mayhem, beatings or abductions (which are on the increase) – can stop grave danger like the millions of other acts of violence are interrupted by armed citizens nationwide on their own legal authority.
Multiply this by thousands and you have a community which declares what it will no longer tolerate in crime, and summons the system to assist, and not to oppose citizen authority any longer.
Americans may understand root canal, life insurance, unemployment, illness, calories, and home repair, but how the household will meet, manage and survive an encounter with violent crime is the most neglected area of household management.
AB 357 can change this for the better. Learn more here.
________________________
John Longenecker is author of Safe Streets In The Nationwide Concealed Carry Of Handguns — Meeting Dependency And Violent Crime With American Spirit, Independence, And Citizen Authority.
Comments
Good article! I called my state politicians the other day and incouraged them to vote YES on ab 357, the shall issure bill.
With crime on the rise, people losing jobs, and the criminal element look for ways to take advantage of law abiding citizens--we need a direct way, beside police, in protecting themselves and love ones, in puting a stop, not kill, those that will do harm to the inocent.
I hope my fellow law abiding americans will encourage their state assemblymen and senators to vote a YES on AB 357, its only right!
John Longenecker's article on AB 357 is superb! Here in Placer County our sheriff is making every effort to reduce CCW permits.Even long-time (30+ yrs.) CCW holders are being told that "self-protection" is no longer an adequate reason. What has happened to common sense in our society! We are upside down!
here is the article that I promised
It's about time that California follows the lead of the vast majority of states. My entire family and I support and applaud Assemblymember Knight's bill. I encourage everyone to call or write the committee assembly members involved with passing this bill as well as your local assembly member. Making your desire known is how this bill will pass.
I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT...
WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED , OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS
gun law
I'm just wondering if California had long ago passed a law of this type (Shall Issue CCW) if the recent killings in Oakland of four police officers might have been prevented by One Lone Citizen with a CCW and armed at the time of the shootings to stop the carnage of that mad parolee with one well placed shot?
From what I understand in States that have passed Shall Issue CCW laws they have not become the 'prophesied' lawless wild west scenario of gun-fights in the streets but on the contrary the incidents of all crime has been reduced.
I am all for this sane and much needed change in our California law.
Here's a good example of why the "shall-issue" Bill should be adopted. A co-worker of mine is from Israel. He told me that the CCW permits are like driver's licenses, just about everyone has one. They are able to stop suicide bombers before police respond all the time because the majority of population carries...and are all ex-military. I think that there should be good background checks, possible psych evaluations, these layers of screening are good, and an annual safety course requirement and qualification as well would be a good thing. I think criminals would think twice about robbing people, carjacking, taking hostages, etc. If they knew that others could be armed. And this would keep us all safer. Criminals will carry firearms illegally anyways.
It is time to make California a shall-issue state so the law abiding, upstanding citizens who desire to carry and protect themselves can do so. I am former California CCW holder (it expired while I was in another state) and cannot now get another one because the San Diego Sheriff does not allow them. Such a permit can be a valuable life saving tool, as I saved my daughter and myself from an imminent attack late one night at a gas station simply by unzipping my "camera bag" and exposing my weapon as the bad guy approached us in a maniacal rage. Legally carried weapons are the ultimate deterrent to crime when there are no law enforcement folks nearby. Quite simply, the good citizens of California need to be able to defend themselves should the need arise and with proper training should be allowed to do so.
As a former resident of CA and current CCW permit holder in the state of Utah, I am watching the progress of AB357 closely. I'm pulling for you guys! Kudos to Assemblyman Steve Knight for taking the initiative to introduce this much needed legislation.
Having lived in both "red" and "blue" states, I certainly feel safer in the red states that have shall-issue CCW. I did have a CCW while living in CA - it was granted to me only because I am a best-selling author; you have to be famous to have any rights in CA, remember? Needless to say, I carried all the time as I felt the need to do so.
Now that I'm in Texas, which is shall-issue, I carry as often as is practical, yet I don't feel the NEED to carry 24x7, primarily because I know that other honest citizens around me are also carrying and that acts as a huge deterrent against violent criminals.
If CA ever goes shall-issue, I might actually consider moving back someday! That is, if they do something about their taxes :)
Like Jay, I am a former resident of (Modesto) ca. We moved to S.L.C. Utah in 2006. Soon after moving here, me and my wife got our carry peremit. We both feel so much safer now. Good luck California on AB 357 that would be great.
The butt heads in Sacramento will never pass AB 357 or anything like it. They strongly believe
that criminals should not be shot while at work. That's the end of it.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!