A "Middle Ground" between Vermont and Permits?

J

Jim March

New member
As anyone involved in RKBA knows, carry permits have been successful at getting carry rights, but with the downside of "gov't permission to exercise a right" and probably worse, detailed registration.

The *good* news is, it's allowed us to track numbers of permitholders and track crime rates, which is finally giving us hard evidence to back what we've been saying all along. CCW with training programs and background checks have also been "acceptable" in swaying enough state-level legicritters to pass.

"Vermont carry" with no control other than "better not be a felon or have criminal intent" is best, but it's a HARD sell. Hats off to the Ohio effort to put a "Vermont style packing" bill through, it's NOT going to be easy.

Question is, is there a third choice?

What if we allowed "Vermont packing" with no state approval to anyone who has a graduate certificate from a *private* training class. The certificate form is standardized, and the training must contain 4 hours of legal use of force, 2 of safety, 10 of "tactical thinking" or whatever other
defense-related subject the student chooses. You wanna focus on retention/disarms, that's cool...shooting accuracy, fine, more
combat-oriented IPSC-type stuff, hey, whatever you're into. So long as it's 16 minimum hours, so long as 6 hours are as specified, anything goes.

Instructors must be NRA certified.

Now, get caught packing *without* a graduate card, it's maybe a $200 fine *unless* you can show a court the training certificate within, say, 60 days. Sorta like a fix-it car ticket. If you just left the certificate card at home, fine, mail it to the court, problem goes away. If you don't get the card within 60 days the court fines you *and* files a "do not pack for one year" order, break that, it's a $500 fine. I'm just guessing at dollars here, but this sounds close to fair.

The same law needs to make the private records of the training companies sacrosanct. It might be a good idea to make sure the PD databases can identify felons even from other states...if they can't, budget some extra cash for the PD computers in the same bill. It might be a good idea to have "raw numbers" of how many certificate holders are out there for statistical
analysis and criminology in the John Lott tradition.

I'm not certain "straight Vermont" will fly. God bless you in Ohio if you can make it through to law, but that's gonna be rough. If it doesn't look like it's going to make it, consider tacking this on. It gives the "warm fuzzy safety feelings" to the paranoid, but doesn't put in ANY delays in packing (since there's no real risk to non-felons to load up even prior to class) and eliminates the "gov't control" issues.

And if it works for you guys, it'd be a good thing to try in the now-inevitable referendum attempt in California in 2000.

Thank you for listening,

Jim March (in Calif.)
 
Jim-
It might make sense except that it smacks of the infamous post Civil War "poll Tax". Kinda discriminatory against the poor.

I say, "Give everyone a gun; wait one generation; Welcome to Polite Society".
Rich
 
Well, not sure what to say Jim...

The problem is you aren't a politico.... as we all know an idea or concept gets diluted and compromised on before it ever reaches the bill stage...I'm afraid you gave away all compromise latitude before the gitgo and I'd hate to see what this looks like after the politicos got a hold of it. Sorry, but thats how I see it....never show your hand. I say go for Vermont style and make them bleed for anything less.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Jim,

If you run for guv'nah, you've got my vote. But like DC in her sage wisdom advises, bleed them and don't water it down.

Gary
 
That "ask for too much, bargain down to reasonable" approach works well for stuff working it's way through the legislature, no argument.

But...an initiative is different. It's a "one shot wonder" popular vote, it either goes in as worded or gets shot down. Missouri is trying an initiative this spring, but I'm concerned about the wording; if they ain't careful they're gonna wind up with discressionary.

If you've read John Ross's "Unintended Consequences" he says "41 states issue permits". Technically that's true, and somebody from Missouri (such as Ross) where there's no permits at all might look at California and think we've got it good.

When in fact we DO NOT. Hell, Hawaii is worse, they've technically got permits but there's ZERO issuance ever.

Anyways. California ain't gonna get CCW without an initiative, not for at least four years we ain't. It's time to try. Ohio has a far better shot at least of putting shall-issue in, but there's a "Vermont bill" in place and as I said, that's gonna be a NASTY fight. They might do well to "compromise" their way to a "training certificate required" system as I laid out, and I wanted to make sure they realized it's at least a concievable option and better than "heavy permits" in the FL/TX/OK/UT/etc tradition.

As an aside, I sent that to as many people with Ohio RKBA websites as I could find.

Jim March

PS: DAMN LUNGREN TO HELL for being a worse neo-Fascist jackarse than any California Democrat *ever*. If he'd been pro-freedom he'd have one it; as is I'd rather see Davis in than see Lungren get elected despite being a grabbing stormtrooper from hell...if he'd won and gotten the RKBA vote we'd *never* have been taken seriously ever again. But now we've got four years of Davis to deal with...
 
I'm with Jim on the one hand. After all, which of us wouldn't be thrilled with the type of situation that he proposes. Nationwide consistency, reasonable cost (those of us the UC on the brain right now aside, right Rich ?? ;)), noticiable, but not life-long penalty for breaking the law.

Then again, I'm with DC, in that I know anything proposed that is reasonable is going to be molested until it is no longer reasonable.

I guess the best thing that could happen would be a national reciprocity law for nayone with any state issued card. That would push Vermont to enact "cards for the asking" laws (hopefully ??). Certainly anyone who cared enough to carry could get either a resident or a non-resident permit from somewhere. Cost might be more of an issue.. and I have heard that any National Reciprocity would be for Resident permits only. Still, I doubt that anyone is going to call me tomorrow and let me know that we're going to go by the Constitution or anything radical like that, so we have to hope for something.
 
"Vermont should not be screwed with."

They're a small state, they've got LOTS of choices for non-resident permits from neighboring states like NH. We *need* the Vermont example to point to as a "best case scenario" without it sliding down any slippery slopes, thank you very much :D.

I think we need to hold off on any Calif. action plan until we see what happens in Missouri. If they pass a CCW initiative and it creates a decent shall-issue system, then *bingo* - we need a California initiative in 2000 and we're likely to see enough support from the NRA/ILA, CRPA and GOP to make it happen. Hell, we can do it on the cheap - we *know* where "our people" hang out, at gun shops, firing ranges and gun shows, right? A few good gun shows with volunteer staffing would give us the sigs at a fraction of the cost-per-signature of most iniitative efforts!

Jim March
 
Good luck, Jim, in your efforts in California. Man, it would drive the idiots there crazy if the initiative passed. Welcome to the Bujinkan by the way. Here in Georgia I'm going to get busy on trying to restore something our CCW law took away from us when it was passed-the right to carry openly with no permission from anyone. When the CCW law passed we lost that right. I don't know if it was by accident or by design. My very suspicious of government mind suspects it was by design. I'm going to dig and find out.
 
As a Californian, I have to agree with Jim. The initiative process gives us a better shot at passing a legislation such as this than it would ever have with the Damnocrat runned state lawmakers.

There are so many liberals in this state, if we phrase the legislation in a Vermont style, the media and all those activist Hollywood types would swarm over it like ants over a picnic table.
 
Spartacus, thanx. While you're at it in Georgia, see if you can change your gun carry setup to a WEAPONS carry thing, allowing batons, knives, etc. A gun ain't always the right answer, esp. in people-dense spots like public transit, or whatever.

As is, a 4.5" folder concealed can get you jailed even if you can legally conceal a gun...which is about as dumb as it gets, IMHO.

Jim March (who's been looking to flee Calif's insanity and Bud is as well-respected as Dale Seago is...)
 
Jim,Mute..

As you are aware, every initiative that has passed that Liberals didn't like has been overturned either through judicial process or by de facto action:
1)Affirmative Action cessation
2) End to Welfare to illegal immigrants
3)End to bilingual education

On another note, I spent about 2 hrs trying to get CCW stats from my county, and finally was told they don't exist....yeah right!
What was very interesting was the cross-examination I got as to why I wanted the info:
"Are you with a newspaper?" "Are you a reporter?" "What organization are you with?"
"Why do you want this information?" "What do you intend to do with this info?"
Well, I finally got pissed off and asked why all the questions if this information doesn't exist, and therefore I must conclude that it indeed does exist and that the county must be hiding something. I mentioned the Colafrancesco debacle; and then told them that since this info I want doesn't contain personal data (names,etc), had nothing to do with LE investigations, and had no trade secrets or classified data therefore such statistics were not covered by Exemptions 1,6 and 7 and probably not any other exemptions allowed by the FOIA. They weren't happy when I said that ;). So, looks like I have to file an FOIA request.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Jim,

Tennessee is exactly the same as Georgia.. In fact, I think that the "gun only" set up is pretty common in "Shall- Issue" states.
 
Rob: FL and AZ are two "whatever you're into in the way of goodies" states, that's how Mad Dog slings a 10" Panther in his "Dundee Rig" when out on the town.

DC: WHOA there! San Luis Obispo has had a fairly decent rep re: CCW for a long time. Shortly after new years I called down there asking about "what the new Sheriff is gonna do" due to rumors about possible "Gene Byrd-like tendencies". Per the guy who issued under the old old Sheriff and is apparantly staying in that position in under the new, the policies are fairly lax and it's no real problem - if you're in unincorporated areas at least. He also mentioned that AB2022 has changed a LOT of the rules and that they were still trying to sort out exactly what the new deal is...Carona in Orange and many more are saying the same thing. I mentioned Colafrancesco, the guy was shocked.

DC, part of what you might be facing involves "cross jurisdictional agreements". What happens is, a particular PD Chief gets a major bug up the bunghole about the "horrors of armed citizens" (snork) and does zero-issue. And THEN he goes and asks the Sheriff not to ever issue in his town; people applying to the Sheriff then get told "see the Chief" at which point they're SOL.

Now, these agreements are illegal. See also my quote of the Calif. Constitution, Article 1, section 7B. Nobody has EVER managed to call 'em on it by suing under "equal protection" constitutionality issues via the state constitution or Federal 14th amend. I don't mean nobody's won, I mean nobody's TRIED.

First thing, I suggest you sort out EXACTLY what the hell's going on. You may find the Sheriff is NOT the problem, the damn PD Chief is...if so, it MIGHT be possible to talk reasonably about section 7B, quote teh damn thing, threaten to sue if you're being denied purely because of where you live, a BLATANT violation.

The conversation I had around 1/7/99 with the SLO Sheriff's office made me pretty hopeful I could go down there, put up ads in gun shops offering $500 for a week's summer vacation rental per year plus mail forwarding services, get a friggin' permit as long as the address is on unincorporated land.

If that was total BS, LET ME KNOW, OK? But one thing I *know* is that SLO has issued a LOT of permits for it's population, at least by CA standards. That's good from the point of view of a lawsuit; in, say, SF there's a grand total of ELEVEN permits, so it's damned hard to build a case that "class-based issuance" is going on. Most (if not all) are retired cops and unfortunately, AB2022 makes specific provisions for easy permits for retiring cops which probably makes it more or less OK to "treat them differently". But NO other class is so ordained, not DA staff, judges, politicritters, etc. If they're getting permits and you ain't, DOOM ON THE SHERIFF (or Chief).

God I had no idea you were in SLO county.

Jim March
 
Jim...
The new Sheriff (who by winning PO'd the Liberal establishment) had said he was going to "level the playing field" on CCW...he campaigned on pro-gun rights etc. He said it was going to take some time, and he has only had the job for 1.5 months.
Today, I didn't ask for a CCW app, I asked for County CCW stats...thats when it began to get squirrely. What I was told though was that all apps go through one particular Lt. and he makes the decision.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
I see. OK, were I you I'd hold off on gathering data. For starters, you're not going to be able to sue the new Sheriff for actions of the old, so there's no point freaking 'em out by looking up the data or threatening FOI.

The delays are probably for valid reasons. I suggest looking at AB2022, for that matter look up it's *history* - the dang thing was altered COUNTLESS times in committees, poor Rod Wright fought like a maniac to repair it after each "gutting". The end result is a horrendous confusion...there's actually good reason for even a decent Sheriff to have to scratch head on this ugly puppy. Good news is, it WAS worth passing, it fixed a whole lotta stuff.

But for god's sake check on cross-jurisdictional BS if you're in a town or city. And then go do an FOI search on permits issued by the PD Chief, you're more likely to see BS there than in the SLO County Sheriff's office. You've actually got a chance at a permit with them, so I'd think twice about getting attack-dog on their butts.

Jim March
 
Yeah...but its this genetic Sicilian temper :). I can't abide some petty bureaucrat civil servant power trippin. The old sheriff hardly issued any CCW. The politics of the last election were interesting: the old sheriff (retiring) supported the SLO city Chief of Police for his position instead of the guy who won..a Sheriff Lt. It was a North county vs. South county battle and thankfully N. county won. (South county has most of the cities and liberals).

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
If the old Sheriff wasn't issuing then that guy who controlled permits under the old Sheriff lied to me straight off the bat.

No big shock there.

DC, I suggest a cautious, mild-mannered approach until you KNOW who the enemies are...and then attack with no quarter. In some ways I have it easier - with the exception of the CHP and BART police who *can't* issue by law they're ALL enemies. Only decision is "how to attack in the most brutal manner possible".

Jim March

[This message has been edited by Jim March (edited February 16, 1999).]
 
I've been told that an ASP may be carried by a CCW holder in Georgia if they have ASP certification. Supposedly this was a ruling by the attorney general. I haven't checked it yet. A careful reading of Georgia's CCW law reveals that you can often be charged even with the permit. It is written in such a manner that a prosecutor could drive a Mack truck through the loopholes that favor the government. I haven't heard of them doing so but the potential is there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top