I suppose “people who have passed a background check” could be “Just anybody.” It only eliminates people who’ve been convicted of a felony, convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, under indictment for the same or who’ve been recently (within the last 5 years) adjudicated a danger to themselves or others. I see that as “Innocent until proven guilty.” Just as anyone can buy a car without a license, as long as they keep it off public streets.
As far as being able to use a gun as I see fit, that’s just not true. One cannot carry a firearm openly in California (minor exceptions apply, gun ranges, private property hunting etc), and the carrying of a concealed firearm is highly restricted (as is the point of this post, in most jurisdictions it is so highly regulated as to be unobtainable to all but the rich and connected). A person in California is strongly restricted on what firearms they can buy and various modifications and additional parts are restricted or prohibited as well.
What I can lawfully do with a firearm in California is to keep it in my house, where I must keep it under lock and key per the safe storage law. I can carry a firearm in my home, or put it, unloaded, into a locked container that fully encloses the firearm and take it to another place I can lawfully possess it, such as a gun shop, range, friends house or rural private property. I can shoot my firearm only at designated ranges, on private property outside the jurisdictions that forbid the discharge of firearms (which is most incorporated cities and many counties) or on specially designated segments of public land.
And I agree with nearly all of those laws. In the case of the original post, I believe that if you are eligible to own a firearm, have gone through a standard course of instruction and practical qualification that the jurisdiction requires of all applicants and have past the written and practical testing, the jurisdiction should not be able to deny the license to carry a concealed firearm on the unaccountable discretion of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer.
Now if people believe (as many here seem to) that there is never a reason for individuals to keep and bear arms, then this ruling allowing law enforcement to limit concealed carry licences to the rich and connected at their sole discretion is a step in that direction. And I’ll admit, using the scientific concepts of “Number needed to harm” and “Number needed to treat” that allowing people to keep and bear arms may do more harm then good. I’d love for there to be more research on the number of times firearms deterred crime without leading to injury, because the number needed to treat is difficult to calculate without that information.
Rifles also require “safe handling demonstration” But I doubt that the 15-30 minutes of demonstration every time you buy a gun or the Firearms Safety Certificate test would qualify as “training” to them.
Why should any of us support you or anyone else walking the streets with a gun on your person as a matter of course? Does your job require you to shoot people?
I put more faith in them thank my drunk neighbor waving a pistol around in his yard.
Funny. I didn’t take a test when I purchased a pistol within the last decade (for a specific reason).
I filled out a rather large clipboard of paperwork (large compared to Washington State where I am originally from) and had to come back to pick it up after a waiting period. Is your “test” showing them that I know how to load it, empty it, cock the hammer, and pull the trigger? By “them” I mean “the employee of the gun store.”
Back to my first comment, because there are people who are much more likely to be victims of hate crimes. I am not the person who may need it, but people who are more likely to be assaulted should have the option, if they are eligible, to be licensed, regardless of the opinion of the sheriff. The point of this lawsuit is the the CLEO (usually the county sheriff) has the unchallengeable option to deny permits to otherwise eligible applicants. Historically this discretion has been used to deny minorities and all but the rich and those the CLEO is personally connected to.
If you can design a law that doesn’t violate the 14th amendment, and gives preference to those that are truly at a greater risk of attack while discounting the paranoid and potential vigilantes, sure. But there are people, as enumerated above who have a reasonable reason to want the legal ability to carry a firearm to defend themselves.
@enso The safe handling demonstration for handguns was introduced when CA swtiched from the (lifetime) safety card, which I think was called the BFS (Basic Firearm Safety?) to the Handgun Safety Certificate (HSC, good for 5 years), which was 2003 per Dragonbait1. This year the HSC is gone and there is now the Firearm Safety Certificate which covers purchases of handguns and long guns and apparently the safe handling demo now includes long guns as well.
I think that is about all that the test consists of, yes.
In my everyday life (not involved in law enforcement) I am in reasonably close proximity way more cops, some of whom I know shoot poorly, and have yet to have a crazy neighbor wave a gun around, or brandish in any way. Maybe your circumstances and risk analysis are different than mine there.
@Dragonbait1 - CA doesn’t specifically require you to keep your firearms under lock and key though, just reasonably secured.
I consider lock and key reasonablely secured, unless they are on my person or under my direct control. I haven’t gone so far to get a CA approved Safe, (unapproved is just as good, but cheaper) so maybe I still a ways to go.
This type of gun control, where one person has the authority to issue or deny permits at their discretion, easily translates into gun control for the poor. I’m often surprised that many people who push for equal rights, single-payer healthcare, guaranteed income, and other reforms which are intended to improve the lifestyle of people who are poor or otherwise disadvantaged nevertheless don’t have issues with arrangements like these, which can easily block a POC from being permitted, if the issuing authority can make up a reason. It seems inconsistent to me.
Sorry for the run-on sentence. Edited to correct autocorrect.
I am well aware that some of them would rather that. I’m not discussing that, merely trying to illustrate why CA’s current arrangements are fucked up no matter what perspective you’re coming from.
I’ll buy that for every CLEO that never issued a Concealed Carry Permit. Unlike the former Sheriff of Alameda County who issued them to donors and people on the “Sheriff’s posse” an unsworn horse riding auxiliary, made up of his close friends. Or the LA Sheriffs, who are know for issuing CCW’s to rich and famous stars, but not to anyone else.
Discretionary issuance is inherently discriminatory. Especially as there is no guidelines as to “Good Cause” or “Moral Character” and no appeal available.
But hey, this will probably go to the Supreme Court as the “Bear” son of Heller, and If Obama or Clinton get to nominate the 9th Justice, it’ll probably be found that only the police and armed forces have a Constitutional Right to bear arms. enabling the few remaining states that don’t have shall issue concealed licenses to continue to discriminate in who gets to protect themselves.
