Wednesday, June 18, 2008

California: A Perfect Example of May Issue Problems

Although the majority of our States have gotten rid of the discriminatory "May Issue" CCW permit practices by replacing them with "Shall Issue" CCW statutes, there are still a number of holdouts such as California as just one example. "May Issue" is the practice where a single individual (Usually a City Police Chief or a County Sheriff) is given absolute power to "choose" at his or her discretion who may or may not be granted a CCW permit upon request. "Shall Issue" is the practice of having a black & white list of requirements which must be met, and if they are all met, the requester SHALL be issued a CCW permit, regardless of what the Sheriff or Chief thinks about it. There is a long list of reasons why the unfair & fuzzy "May Issue" practice needs to be replaced by black & white "Shall Issue" statutes in the remaining holdout States, the following are just a few of them.

In "May Issue" States the Sheriff or Chief of Police can arbitrarily choose who receives a permit:

Many were issued to traditional holders . . . But others included wealthy white-collar businessmen, doctors, dentists and financial contributors to Carona's political campaigns.
In "May Issue" States people usually have to try to "prove" that they have reason to "need" to defend themselves.
Newly appointed Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens said Tuesday that she intends to review all the concealed-weapons permits that her indicted predecessor issued and revoke those of gun owners who can't prove a legal need to carry the weapons . . . if there's no need, she'll revoke the permits. "That's probably not going to be popular with a lot of people," she said.
I don't know about you, but I have not yet met anyone who can tell me what day I would need to have my gun with me for my own self defense. That is why I simply carry every day. Even if I did meet someone who could tell me what day I would "need" to bring my gun with me, I wouldn't actually need to go anywhere with my gun in that case because I'd just stay home that day.

Additionally, "May Issue" was first set up as a way to allow racist discrimination to try to keep guns out of the hands of certain races. A racist Sheriff was able to for example, arbitrarily decide that any white person will be granted a CCW permit, while any black person will be automatically denied. There is no requirement in the "May Issue" statutes for the appointed supreme all powerful dictator to state a reason for the denial. A simple "Denied" stamp is all the denied applicant of a "May Issue" permit ever sees (with no refund of application fee, often to the tune of hundreds of dollars, set high to make it harder for the poor to even apply).

I urge anyone living in a discriminatory "May Issue" State to talk to your State legislators & DEMAND that this discriminatory practice be replaced with a fair & balanced black & white "Shall Issue" CCW statute. Or if they won't listen, perhaps a voter approved initiative would be in order. You either meet the State CCW requirements (such as minimum age of 18 or 21, pass FBI & State criminal background checks, pass required shooting skills & written tests, etc) or you don't. That should be the end of the story, rather than adding "Sheriff did not receive generous political contributions" or "applicant is not white" or whatever non-stated reasoning the Sheriff or Chief may also use to deny an otherwise valid application.

Even better, urge your legislators to go Alaska or Vermont style & stop denying citizens their natural & preexisting (even 2nd Amendment protected) right to bear arms for their own self defense without a State approved permit. Whether they bear them in the open or in a concealed fashion is irrelevant so long as they bear them in a law abiding way - as in not used to perpetrate a crime such as armed robbery. I have no problem with leaving armed robbery illegal as it already is - it makes no difference to me if the armed robber is armed with a baseball bat or a gun. Put them in jail & throw away the key. We have no use for armed robbers in our society - the sooner we learn that, the sooner we'll see a drop in violence.


dehakal said...

One of Sheriff Hutchens' coments was that the review was neccessary as Sheriff Corona had issued more CCWs than any other sheriff or chief in the state.
As to writing the various congress critters, with the likes of Feinstein and Sanchez, good luck.

Anonymous said...

Sandra Hutchens is as incompetent as we feared.
Sandra said she looked inside the OCSD first for talent, and then went outside to fill out her Command Staff. Sheriff Hutchens actions are telling everyone that she does not trust or think highly of any of the men and women currently in the OCSD when she had to recruit two of her old cronies from LA. Yet, in Sandra’s infinite wisdom of picking her old cronies from LA, it appears Sandra learned nothing from Carona’s mistake of cronyism. Oh, BUT – Sandra’s LA guys are “qualified”, sure they are … because Sandra’s press release says so? Ok, Sandra Hutchens has proven her incompetency in judging management talent within “her” agency. Strike one…

The positions she filled with current OCSD personnel were good choices, however, those choices were “no brainers” since they were extremely qualified for command staff. Sandra Hutchens should not receive the gold stars for making a correct “no brainer” decision.

Sandra Hutchens inability to fill all of the positions from current OCSD Sheriffs is a definite slap in the face to many qualified men and women in the OCSD who have dedicated their careers to serving the citizens of Orange County and were deserving of the opportunity to serve as Command Staff. There is no way to understate the stupidity and ineptitude of that decision. That proves Sandra Hutchens is not qualified to be elected, or even appointed, as Sheriff of Orange County. Strike two…

If Sandra Hutchens believes that Mike Carona tainted everyone in the OCSD, so only a “couple of OCSD sheriffs” could serve on her command staff and her second in command position had to go to someone outside the department, Sandra Hutchens deserves to be insulted. Stating that the she could not find management talent among the current OCSD sheriff talent pool is defective, detective work and flawed character judgment.

The Orange County Sheriff is supposed to be elected, not appointed.
Sandra Hutchens was a crummy political appointment, especially since the voters were entitled to a special election to fill the vacated post. The back room political process the County Supervisors employed is exactly why the Sheriff is an elected position by State law and not a political appointment reeking with the horrible stench of questionable motives. Sandra Hutchens will be one stupid political appointment that the voters will have to correct in the next election.

We need a national “must issue” law. Thank you for your consideration and time.