An Open Letter to Hawthorne Police Chief Stephen Port

Michael,

How does the local statute on carrying a concealed weapon read? Does the statute or ordinance have a due process clause? Does it list the criteria for approval or denial?

Personally, I would have sent a certified/return receipt letter requesting a written explanation for the denial before I wrote the letter that you did. You might have burned a bridge prematurely.

California's CCW is among the worst in the nation. It is purely discretionary, and most urban sheriffs and PDs refuse to issue to almost anyone. A few years back LAPD got busted for issuing no permits at all (before that, only one - to then-Police Chief Daryl Gates), but even that depended on the view that the PD had a duty to consider applications for CCW, not that it had a duty to actually issue them to anyone in particular.

Michael could, theoretically, re-apply with the County of Los Angeles, as both the County Sheriff and the local Police Chief have authority to issue CCWs. I don't think he'll fare any better at the county level, though.

I have no right to a written explanation. The permits are issued purely at the discretion of the issuing authority (chief or sheriff).

And no, Sheriff Block doesn't issue them either, although the Angry Clam informs me that he does send out actual rejection letters.

I just...I just blink my eyes in amazement everytime this crops up - actually watching people feel the need to carry a concealed weapon in public...

If I were to take a live, armed weapon and carry it on my person, in public, it would eat away at my sanity just as if it were emitting lethal radiation. To know that I carried an instrument of sure and certain death on my person, available and ready to be pulled out and used at a moment's notice to possibly kill...a child. A homeless person. An innocent.

Obviously that is not your intent. You want to protect yourself - maybe that is how you feel in California. But being brought up in Eastern Tennessee I've never once felt the need to protect myself from imminent bodily harm in public. And if I were aware of a location that might be unduly hazardous - a dark alley, a badly lighted parking area - I would avoid it. I've never been mugged, nor can I readily pull up a name of any person I've ever met that's been mugged or even bodily threatened in my whole life.

What scares me most is the arbitrary nature of self-defense. What line must be crossed to signal to you that there is imminent danger or threat? Is it a criminal pulling a gun on you? In which case, unless you're a gunslinger, you're not going to outdraw him. Is it someone pulling a knife? Threatening words? Bad language or rude gestures? Where is that one point where you decide, "Yes, my life or the life of my loved ones is in danger and I must now take it upon myself to take the life of another person." What if the guy is reaching into his jacket, and you are sure, absolutely certain that it is a weapon. You pull your gun and shoot--and see he's reaching for his wallet. Or worse, you miss and hit a child running in the street. Where is that line?

The radiation would rot my brain and I would never be able to live with myself.

Maybe it's different in California. Maybe it's different in Tennessee. Maybe I don't love my family enough...maybe I love them too much. But I know myself, and know that if I surrendered to the paranoia - and I mean that in the most basic sense - there would be no turning back.

I'll stay in the light, thanks.

The radiation would rot my brain and I would never be able to live with myself.

Barry, I am glad that you are not going to carry a weapon to protect yourself. I don't think that you are qualified. Of course, that does not mean that others are not, and your decision not to has no bearing on their decision to carry a weapon.

Barry,

I have no problem pulling up the names of several people I know who have been robbed at gunpoint. Crime happens, sometimes even in broad daylight. If it hasn't happened to you, you're lucky -- but not superior to those who have been victims.

No offense, Barry, but you're really going overboard here. I mean really, if you feel this way about carrying a gun, how scared do you get driving a car near pedestrians? You can kill a lot more people a lot faster with a car, and all it takes is a momentary lapse of attention, and no intent whatsoever. The gun will sit quietly in its holster until you pull it out, requiring both intent and deliberate action.

You can argue the benefit of carrying a firearm, and question someone's justification if you like, but speaking of a concealed firearm as if it emits radiation says more about you than it does about anything else. I know that I'm engaging in the popular pastime of "psychoanalyzing from a distance" and I apologize for that, but really, getting so intense about the mere proximity of a gun is a little silly. It's only a tool, and if you aren't comfortable with it that's OK, but some of us are trained, comfortable, and interested in keeping one handy.

Long version at Interocitor. But the Gates suit was "Lake vs City of Los Angeles" (might not be avaialable online), and there are subsequent suits, which I link to. One was by a LAKE party, and failed due to said party not wanting to complete a new application. The other against Pitchess succeeded as far as requiring the sheriff to actually consider the application (which had been rejected out of hand).

To determine, in advance, as a uniform rule, that only selected public officials can show good cause is to refuse to consider the existence of good cause on the part of citizens generally and is an abuse of, and not an exercise of, discretion.

Barry--

Are you so morally arrogant that you think that you've got the ethics market cornered? The fact that you don't believe in self-defense does NOT give you the right to impose that belief on others. That is as indefensible as me imposing my religion on you.

Kevin: Thanks for the great info. I'm adding it to my FOIA request.

Barry: Please don't carry a gun if you don't want to. You're under no obligation. As for myself, I know plenty of people who have been robbed.

If it's protection you want, why not carry something concealed like a Tazer or knife? Both legal (with some exceptions in California). At least no innocent bystander is likely to get injured while you engage in a shoot out with your would-be assailant.

Throughout my career I have encountered hundreds of assaulted victims. I have never met one who said the circumstances of their assault would have changed, had they been armed with a concealed weapon. Quite the contrary, a handgun in anyone's hands, during an assault - by whatever means - is likely to make the fit hit the shan in a heartbeat. Nor have I ever encountered a 'robber' armed with a handgun who ran away, when his victim pulled out theirs. Though I guess you could be the exception. Do you really want to take that risk?

Consider also the response of law enforcement to you, while waving a gun in the air for the purposes of 'self defense'. I know few cops who are telepathic and immediately know that you are the 'good guy' while responding to the scene and viewed from inside a patrol car. Yelling, "Hey, I'm the good guy, I have a permit." doesn't really cut it.

Yes it's obscene that there are thousands of illegal handguns on the streets, but that's no reason to make a bad situation worse. Another gun on the street, is just that. Many 'illegal' handgun carriers are just as capable as you may be, the fact that you may have passed all test requirements doesn't necessarily make you anymore proficient at 'crunch time'.

I have carried a legally concealed weapon for years, throughout California, including L.A. I have never had cause to use it and perhaps, even though well trained, at times it may have given me some false bravado. Sure, I 'feel' safer when walking up to an ATM at midnight, but the real question is what am I going to do when an assailants own handgun, knife or other weapon, is six inches from the back of my head. And...why am I there in the first place!

Consider this also, the fact that you composed and sent your 'letter of complaint' to the Hawthorne Police Chief, may have unwittingly exposed a psychological trait, which could reinforce the reason not to have granted a CCW permit in the first place. I think you have now burned any bridge you may have had, short of legal action.

Most Cops carry concealed weapons on and off duty, yet rarely, are they involved in circumstances requiring the use of their firearm. Before you consider taking this issue further, I would strongly recommend looking into an evening 'Ridealong' program with your local P.D. You may change your mind completely...

The best argument for liberalized concealed carry is not that YOU will better be able to protect YOURSELF if attacked. It's that, if concealed carry is liberalized, OTHERS will be more likely to intervene if you are attacked.

Miscreants and predators seldom target an area that has high rates of concealed carry -- and "high" needn't be more than about 5%. The risk of an armed intervention is just too great for the payoff.

Concealed carry is a bit like a vaccination against a very contagious disease. In terms of preventing an epidemic, your immunity is less important than the immunity of those around you.

Plug: As far as burning bridges go, it's not like they were going to reconsider if I asked nicely.

As for the rest, guns are tools. Just because I had one with me doesn't mean I'd whip it out every time I was threatened. But if I was with my wife, girlfriend, kid, whatever, and someone tried to kidnap them, at least I'd have an effective option for trying to protect them. Now, I have no options other than to watch passively and call the police.

Guns can obviously be used dangerously, but you can't make the assumption that I'd use them that way.

As for knives, it's totally illegal to carry any blades in California that are intended to stab people. I can carry any knife I want, but if it's for "self-defense purposes" then it's illegal. That's my reading of the laws, anyway. So advising me to carry a knife as a weapon is advising me to commit a felony.

I don't know much about tazers, but I haven't read much good about them. If I'm going to shoot someone, I'm going to want them dead. What am I supposed to do with a slightly stunned PCP addict? That's silly.

I have had a CCW permit for over 5 years (I live in Knoxville, TN.) At no point have I felt "irradiated" with an urge to go gangbusters on the homeless nor have I ever had the occasion to defend myself (I hope I NEVER have to). Barry, do you hear voices in your head telling you to kill people when you carry a pocket knife?...or swing a baseball bat with your kid?

Hm. Absent your "good cause" statement, it's pretty much impossible for a third party to make an independent evaluation of whether the chief erred in denying your application.

I'm not expert, or even vaguely informed, about gun-control laws. But from your account it seems that the way the law is written gives the police chief the authority to deny pretty much whomever he wants if he judges that the community's interest in safety (by virtue of not having several hundred or several thousand additional self-appointed dispensers of deadly force running around) outweighs the given individual's reasons for wanting to carry a concealed gun.

But if you're going to go to the trouble of publishing this letter, I'm curious why you don't go the whole nine yards and publish the "good cause" statement, too. You say it would compromise your safety to do so, which seems kind of unlikely, some ways, but again, none of us are really in a position to evaluate that. If you can't divulge the actual statement, can you at least explain a little more how or why it would compromise your safety to do so?

Yes, criminals who wish to will still be able to get guns, despite your being denied the concealed weapon permit. And if your blood is spilled by one of those criminals in a manner that a weapon-carrying Michael Williams could have prevented, your blood will be on the chief's hands. But so, too, would the blood be on his hands if he approved your application after you had failed to supply any particularly good reason for carrying such a weapon, and then you lost your cool one day after someone cut you off on Hawthorne Blvd., or something, and used your deadly force in some inappropriate manner on the other guy.

As someone who sometimes transits Hawthorne, it seems to me that the policy under which you were denied might well be one that, overall, enhances, rather than detracts from, community safety. Again, we can't really tell, can we? The law puts that decision-making power in the chief's hands, rather than ours (our yours), and you haven't supplied a crucial part of the evidence he used in reaching his decision.

Maybe this is some horrible injustice. Maybe it's just you whining. We can't tell.

after you had failed to supply any particularly good reason for carrying such a weapon

I don't see any thing here:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

that says anything about having a "good reason" or a "permit" to carry. And I'll state right here that this is your permit to carry.

Barry,

You're well within your rights to not carry a concealed weapon. As for your extreme "radiation" views, read the following article and then consider your position again.

"http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,510054129,00.html"

Note the following couple of paragraphs:

Before leaving their home, the couple argued about Guenon taking his Ruger 9 mm pistol with him. He usually left the gun at home but said he'd felt antsy all day and wanted to take it that night. His wife didn't like guns and asked him to leave it at home.
This argument — and Guenon's decision to leave the gun behind — plagues him today. Because 30 minutes later, as the family cowered under a table about 10 feet from where Martinez unloaded his .22-caliber pistol into Rasmussen and Parker, the former police officer reached for his gun, and it wasn't on his hip.

Let's try this again and see if the link works:

Here's the article

Plug carries, but thinks that others shouldn't.

I go by what people do, not by what they say. When cops and govt officials neither carry or rely on those who do, I'll take their "don't carry" advice seriously.

As far as Barry goes, I'm touched by his concern for the safety of folks who might attack him, but I don't share it. In fact, I think it encourages attackers.

This is directed mainly at Barry but everyone else should feel free to chime in at any time.

I worked for some years as a civilian fingerprint tech for the Columbus, Ohio PD. In that time I've come across many people who were victims when simply having a gun would have saved them. This has a great effect on me, so much that I started a free firearms training course. I've been doing it for 13 years now and, yes, some of my students were able to save their lives and those of their children because they had the means of defense.

I'm dedicated to trying my best to ease some of the suffering that is visited on the innocent. I spend way more money than I should, make sacrifices when there's no obligation to do so, and do it for no reward other than the hope that one of my students will be better prepared to help themselves when the time comes.

So far as increased danger from a better armed public goes, not one of my students has ever had an accident. They have never been involved in an unjustified shooting. Unjustified fears are just that, unjustified.

So far as the reason for advocating concealed carry, Mr. Porretto hit the nail on the head.

"The best argument for liberalized concealed carry is not that YOU will better be able to protect YOURSELF if attacked. It's that, if concealed carry is liberalized, OTHERS will be more likely to intervene if you are attacked."

At this moment, Ohio doesn't have a concealed carry law, and it's been a felony to carry a concealed firearm for 65 years. That has never stopped any criminal I've ever met, though. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

So what happens if I witness a violent attack? Can I, a competition shooter with close to 20 years experience, be able to help? Can I even defend myself? Obviously not. The best that I can do is cower in terror and hope that the perp chooses to kill the person huddled next to me.

That feeling of helplessness might be fine for some, but I find that the helplessness eats at me like cancer. Not the knowledge that I could help if I have the means.

James

PS So far as tasers or pepper spray goes, they simply don't work. And, yes, I know from experience that they don't. CS or CN spray does work as long as the perp is 15 feet away or less, and even then it simply makes it easier for you to go HTH. It wouldn't prevent anyone from shooting the guy with the spray can like few well-aimed shots would.

I don't think issuing CCW permits has caused any problems.

Most of the people I know here in Kentucky have CCW permits. Even our secretary does, and she once shot her ex-husband in the chest with a .357, then sent him to jail for 5 years.

Aside from CCW we have open carry, and a girl I go caving with even used to do her grocery shopping with a gun on her hip. She's had to pull it a couple times, since she often works alone in the woods.

Despite this difference in our CCW permit rates, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics based on data from the FBI's uniform crime report, the percentage of homicides committed with a gun in 2000 was 69.6% in both Kentucky and California. But we only had 193 homicides, not 2079.

According to the FBI 58,066 police officers were assaulted and 56 of them were killed in 2002. Could that less than 0.1% death rate during an assault have something to do with the gun on their hips and their knowledge of how to use it? In the past 10 years 8 Kentucky law enforcement officers have been killed, versus 62 in California. Obviously our concealed and open carry laws aren't causing any bloodbath amongst our police.

I think the Cheifs in California are just towing the party line and conventional California wisdom on this one.

Barry: if you actually believe that crap about a radioactive gun eating away your sanity, it's time to check yourself in and get the help you desperately need. Your sanity has already been eaten.

Plug: your theory that "another gun on the street, is just that" is an interesting one, but it's a tad inconsistent with the data from Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming, Israel, and roughly half the Swiss cantons. Apart from these minor empirical difficulties, your theory is rock-solid.

Hey, Plug, what kind of psychological trait does Michael's letter expose? My degree is in molecular bio, not psych, so I can't tell. It seems like a really reasonable letter of complaint... unless complaining itself is the psychological abnormality. But that seems weird, cause I'd think complaining after applying for something and being rejected with no justification, after you'd met all the stated requirements, would be a pretty normal reaction. Could you go into a little more detail about that? Thanks! :)

I live in South Carolina, and plan on having a CCP soon. I do not yet have the money saved up to buy a gun. When I'm sitting in my car at a well-lit ATM machine, I'm constantly looking around. I know that with my window rolled down, even for a very short time, someone could come running over and threaten to take my money from me, or try to jump into the car by pushing me out of my seat. If I had a handgun underneath my blazer, I know for a fact that I would still look around. But I would no longer feel like a helpless, petite woman. Cops can't be everywhere at once, and when my neighbor got robbed a few years ago, the cops took 20 minutes to show up.

www.flashbunny.org

Michael, if you decide the fight is not worth it (and only you can make that decision), consider tranferring to Washington State. Washington is a shall-issue state and doesn't have a training requirement (though I recommend that everyone take at least a basic handgun course before deciding to carry, as I did).

Barry and Plug, I support your right to choose not to carry if you don't want to. However, that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to prevent me from defending myself in the most effective possible way. I could post, oh, about a thousand pages of information to support the fact that liberal concealed carry results in a net benefit to society. I leave it as an exercise for you to expend the minimal level of effort to find this information online.

I will, however, post a few links which I hope will enlighten you about why I and others have decided to carry a concealed weapon.

Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun:
What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life
An essay by Eric S. Raymond who you may recognize as one of the big names in the Open Source software field.

A Nation of Cowards
An essay by Jeffrey R. Snyder (who gave permission to Eric Raymond to host a copy on his site). Mr. Snyder also has a book, "Nation of Cowards," which includes this essay and several others. I highly recommend this book to everyone who carries, is thinking about carrying, or who thinks it's a bad thing to carry.

Raging Against Self Defense:
A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
An article by By Sarah Thompson, M.D. which attempts to analyze why people have seemingly irrational views toward gun control. Barry, your post especially made me think of this article. Please, please read this with an open mind. It is not my intention to be insulting, far from it. I hope that this article will open your eyes and, should you determine that what it says applies to you, that it will get you thinking about your views and whether or not they are rationally driven.

In addition, I would like to point you toward John Lott's definitive statistical study of gun control, "More Guns, Less Crime." He shows, with rigorous statistical analysis, that the introduction of liberalized concealed carry (i.e. shall-issue) results in a reduction in crime. Many have tried to refut his findings, but none have withstood scrutiny.

In the letter of complaint it states that dignity was taken away by refusing to grant a permit. This is incorrect.
Dignity was taken away when it was demanded that a person jump through all the hoops & grovel for permission to exercise a fundamental Right. I honestly cannot see how people find it acceptable, let alone dignified, to beg for approval & then pay a fee in order to be able to exercise the Right of Self Defense.
So while I agree that the sheriff should be held accountable, it's not for denying the permit in question, but for even suggestion that he would enforce a law requiring one in the first place.
But should anything happen where a firearm could have prevented harm to anyone, the sheriff would be responsible to a small degree for denying the permit, but the person who should have been carrying should bear the brunt of the blame. Not for not being able to acquire a permission slip from his county master, but for placing an immoral & unjust law above his Right & needs in the first place.
My advice would be to carry regardless of any law to the contrary if you feel the need. Much better to try to fight an unjust law (even in an unjust system) than to have your relatives do it for you after the funeral services. Or worse, for you to fight it after the loss of a loved one to a violent crime.
& yes; if you carry without getting "Massey's permission" you'll be in for legal trouble if caught. But I would prefer legal trouble to being defenseless. Learn the law as it applies to you, & develop sound, rational arguments as to why that law is invalid. It's not that difficult seeing as how the law uses prior restraint to deny a person their Right to Arms. Even so most judges will turn a deaf ear. Challenging the law is a direct affront to their power as well as that of the local LEO's & most (but not all) judges like their power too much to listen to reason. Juries are another matter. Much better chance to nullify an unjust law with a jury, although judges step in & try to make that difficult as well.
In any event, know the law & why you're breaking it. & don't do so silently; discuss with you friends, co-workers, any & everyone you can why this law is immoral & should be disregarded. Try to get them pissed off about it so they'll at least remember this affront to our freedoms if they don't actually make efforts at changing this "law".
As for Barry, I think the basic point has been made; if you don't feel comfy carrying then by all means don't. Just don't try to deny others the choice that is rightfully & solely theirs to make.
As for Plug...that post was a text book example of the elitist attitude of far too may LEO's. Hypocrisy would be a good word to describe advising someone against carrying while that person giving the advice carries himself.
As for the advice about doing a police ride along - yes, everyone should. But not to learn how dangerous the world is or to see how difficult a cop's job is, but to keep the damn cops in line. I could be wrong but an armed civilian in every squad car would cut down significantly on the occurrence of Rights violations by cops. You know, violations such as arresting someone & confiscating their property simply because they chose to exercise their Right to Arms w/o the permission of the local constabulary.
But attitudes such as those demonstrated by plug are part of the problem; weapons carrying should be reserved for those who are elite in nature, such as government employees & those with government approval. But I fear the worst part of the problem is the acceptance of this attitude, as evidenced by even applying for a permit in the first place, let alone not throwing the bums out of office that imposed upon our Rights in such a manner.
But carry if you feel the need. Laws to the contrary be damned, as well as those who made them & those who would enforce them. & try to oust the miscreants from office; both those who made & those who enforce this "law".

Just for *hits and giggles I live in South Carolina and I got more crap trying to get a card from my local library than I did obtaining a CWP.

Live long and prosper y'all

Here's a California solution to the problem. Find out what elected officieal hires this joker and simply take that job. Proceed to fire him.

It worked for Sonny Bono. Just be careful on the ski slopes.

Stay the course. Assert your rights, and refuse to accept perpetual victimhood, my brother!

Yours is a valid, fair and accurate report of a just cause! Stay the course!

Good luck and God bless!

Thank you all for your support. I'm pretty sure I'm going to file the FOIA request on Monday, and I hope things go smoothly.

Just remember, Sen. Paula Hawkins and the courthouse steps in Miami, circa 1984, How about the Doctor an his wife KIDNAPPED just 2 weeks ago in Arkansas, The Senator was a VICTIM, The Doc was not (he had a concealed handgun, the perp who was wanted for two murders an elderly couple, a shooting of his ex gf's mother, and pistol whipping the ex's son 16 yrs old). Look up the stats on the town in GA that has MANDATORY gun ownership. Kenesaw or something like that. Law or no if I feel threatened I WILL CARRY. Arestraining order is just a piece of paper, and the local law enforcement is under NO LEGAL COMPULSION to PROTECT YOU.

First of all, the "radiation" comment was a metaphor I was attempting to use to illustrate the effect possessing a gun on my person would have on my mental well-being. I didn't intend it to be taken anywhere near literally - I thought that would be obvious, but perhaps not.

Second, nowhere in my comment did I try to "impose" my belief on anyone. Nor did I attempt to be morally or ethically superior to anyone, I simply expressed a continued amazement that people find life in public dangerous enough to feel that carrying a concealed weapon is both necessary and beneficial. Several people mention they know dozens of other people who have CCW's - including a secretary who once shot someone in the chest(?) - I myself know of noone who does personally (except those I've met blogging).

Yes, random violent episodes do happen, such as the event cited by Steve, but unless I'm just missing the news they are few and far between. Perhaps I just happen to live in a sane part of the country.

And to the others, no, I don't hear voices in my head telling me to kill my children with baseball bats, nor do I feel compunctions to veer my car off the road into a crowd of people. I understand the lethal potential of a car, but it has other primary uses like, oh, say, transportation. A gun does not.

> First of all, the "radiation" comment was a metaphor I was attempting to use to illustrate the effect possessing a gun on my person would have on my mental well-being.

Then don't carry.

> I understand the lethal potential of a car, but it has other primary uses like, oh, say, transportation. A gun does not.

Few people's lives are saved by cars. Lots of peoples lives are saved by the use of guns.

And, for all this "primary uses" stuff, cars are amazingly lethal. Maybe we should stop worrying about intention....

Yes, criminals use guns as well. However, gun control doesn't disarm them, so the only question is what we should do about non-criminals.

Barry believes that the safety of criminals is our primary responsibility. I'm not looking to encourage criminality so I disagree.

"I understand the lethal potential of a car, but it has other primary uses like, oh, say, transportation. A gun does not."

You are completely wrong.

Firearms are necessary to compete in sports that are accepted even at the Olympics. Hunting and target shooting are legitimate uses. Every single game warden and natural resource officer will tell you that populations of game animals need to be controlled through hunting to avoid the dangers of disease, inbreeding and destruction of their food supply.

They are the best tools for controlling vermin on the farm, and no farmer I've ever met would consider a suggestion that they give up their guns as being sane, let alone reasonable. (Please note that even England and Japan, countries with incredibly oppressive gun control, allow their farmers to own guns.)

And, of course, there's the use that you seem to be deliberately ignoring. The very legitimate and necessary use as a tool to protect innocent people.

It's true that you don't feel comfortable with the last reason I cited. But making up wild assertions that run counter to the facts aren't helping your case.

James

Sorry to hear of your recent loss of dignity. Hope you find it soon or otherwise can recover quickly.

By the by, have you considered a self-defense course? I highly recommend Tai Kwan Leap. The babes dig it too.

I'm so very, very, glad I live in a "shall issue" state--Washington. I know a man, legally blind, who walked into the police department with his seeing-eye dog and got a CCW.

For clarification...
Whether or not I carry a concealed weapon has nothing to do with an elitist atttitude. Police officers are extensively trained to carry weapons, both concealed and exposed, on an off duty . Furthermore many departments actually mandate that their officers carry concealed weapons whilst off duty. Though perhaps my training and experience would make me somewhat 'elite'. I hold my experience and training above your or anyone elses, 'CCW permit approval' or their prowess at hunting, any day, regardless of how many days you spent on the range or deer they shot.

I have no problem with anyone carrying a firearm, concealed or otherwise, if the State permits it, with some reservations, and the issue is fully recognized by its population. My primary concern, and supported by most Ca. Police Chiefs, is that the validity of the applicant is simply not known. It is better to err on the side of caution for overall public safety. Therefore denial is usual, with or without cause. I don't think you originally articulated your need well enough, or you didn't have just cause and it didn't satisfy the reviewer. At this juncture, any addendum - including your letter - rightly or wrongly, will be viewed with cynicism.

I do not profess to be any psych. - just A LOT of years of experience dealing with people at their worst (and occasionally 'best'). Knowing how 'the system' works, your response to permit denial would have served best by requesting a face to face interview, (with The Chief - or a subordinate) rather than a rambling complaint, which is probably already in the 'round' file.

Arming yourself with a 'knife' is permissable - as I said "with some exceptions" - those are outlined in 12020 PC (dirk or dagger) and 653K PC (switchblade/flick-knife) Most other knives are perfectly permissable - though that may be a little 'too up close and personal' for you. However, it may become 'illegal' if you profess to carry it for self defence purposes. Dhuuuh! And if you REALLY need to defend yourself - openly carry a machette. I'm not aware of any law which specifically prohibits it, though you might get 'detained' and a few strange looks.

Having read all these posts, for and against, I still am at a loss as to how and when you intend to 'use' the firearm AND GUARANTEE PUBLIC SAFETY AT THE SAME TIME. Jeeze, even the well trained, and experienced can't do that! That's why they train extensively, with real life scenarios to reduce potential liability. Neither does 'Little Bob's' 1984 Miami incident buy much comfort or persuasion for me. Anything more recent, say in the past TEN YEARS...?

Okay, so your 'wife and kids' are under threat,(heaven forbid) and being whisked away by a bad guy, you will do what??? "...Drop my kid, or I'll shoot..." C'mon...they are now being jeopardized twice - once by the bad guy and now by you. Of course he's a rational, right-minded individual, who can be appealed to with a sense of moral responsibility.

Scenario 2, ...Parking your car on the street, you feel threatened. The ranting, raging psycho guy, is waaay too far in your face, and he needs a reminder to, " back off buddy, and I, I, I,...I m'mm'mean business" ...out comes the gun. Oops, possible misdemeanor, or worse...gun seized as evidence. Possible jail time...$$$$$$

Scenario 3, You are under attack and the onlookers, all armed with there own concealed firearm come to your rescue. What, here in California? - in your dreams. Yeah, I bet that happens all the time in 'liberalized' States. In Ca.... "Witness, what witness, I didn't see anything" Better yet, you go to their aid...can you say "law suit"? $$$$$$

Of course I could go on and on...but let's talk reality, that sort of thing happens how often in Greater L.A. with it's 13 odd million population? You have more chance being injured by a drunk driver - I know, lets give everyone cars, that should minimise some risk. Surely a more appropriate tack is to not put yourself or family in harms way in the first place. South Central, East L.A., Compton etc., are not places to go carol singing, okay! Well they are, but there's a risk attached.

If this or any other State allows CCW permits and have stats. to show it reduces crime, I'm all for it, but I'm not convinced it works well in an overpupulated, psycho-ridden, road-raging, gang menacing L.A. - The latter two categories will likely better a young white college grad. armed with his shiny .357 without thinking twice, - but if it makes you 'feel' safe - carry one anyway. I bet you will never JUSTIFIABLY use it.

There are far more incidents of, "...Cop shoots good guy with a gun...", than there are "...Good guy with gun saves family from certain death." Of course there are stories where someone might have been saved, if only they had there gun with them - but who knows. Exposing a firearm in the heat of the moment frequently has dire and unintended consequences. Pulling a gun out is a VERY SERIOUS MATTER. You have about a nano-second to make a decision and you had better be right, whether you 'use' it or not.

In closing, whether or not you get a permit, or carry a weapon anyway,(I AM NOT DICTATING THAT YOU SHOULD NOT NOR AM I ANTI-GUN), I ask you consider my points and be mindful of consequences.

If you are really serious about fending off would-be attackers, carry a big plaquard identifying yourself a being, 'Armed, but Defensively Untrained' (English, Spanish, Tagalog, and all other Asian and Mid Eastern languages and dialects) for all the world to see, don't just leave the rest of us innocent folk guessing while we cower behind parked cars and you satisfy a need.

Finally, Publicola is just plain whacko if he thinks that an armed civilian in every patrol car is his idea of public safety. It is idiotic and demands no further comment. The guy that said Tazers, pepper spray etc. are not effective, has never been 'shot' or 'gassed' ...I have and it is God awful during, and for a good five to ten minutes afterward. I couldn't even wipe drool from my chin...let alone muster any kind of attack. Though granted they can be a little hit and miss, hey, just like a bullet.

My advice...take up kick-boxing...keep the gun at home.

Plug,
Whether I'm "whacko" or not is a completely different issue; one I'm sure which you could find a few people to agree with you on.

But my "suggestion" about armed citizens is no more ridiculous than yours about doing a "ride along" with cops. Do you really think that cops alone deal with the bad part of society? Ever notice that cops show up after the fact more often than not? That would mean civilians deal with the bad guys on a far more frequent basis than cops. Want a ride along program that shows the darker side of life? Find a Pizza Hut & ask to ride along with one of the drivers. Far more dangerous occupation than law enforcement.

& actually if I had my druthers, there would be armed citizens in place of, not addition to cops. We all have the responsibility of preventing &/or stopping crime. I see no reason to create a special class of civil servant to replace our obligations as citizens.
But an armed citizen with each & every cop would benefit the People. Not because the cop would have instant back-up to protect himself against the people with, but more likely that the People will have instant back-up to keep the cop from disregarding their Rights.

Now as far as a cops special training goes...I know dozens of competitors who could out-shoot any cop any day of the week on a shoot/no-shoot type course of fire. Face it - most cops simply don't practice any more than they have to to qualify. & considering the number of accidents attributable to law enforcement relative to their numbers I feel much safer with armed citizens.

So I submit that the special training that you claim LEO's receive is really not that special or effective. Hell, I doubt it would allow someone place at a civilian handgun match, let alone win.

"I have no problem with anyone carrying a firearm, concealed or otherwise, if the State permits it, with some reservations, and the issue is fully recognized by its population. My primary concern, and supported by most Ca. Police Chiefs, is that the validity of the applicant is simply not known. It is better to err on the side of caution for overall public safety. Therefore denial is usual, with or without cause. I don't think you originally articulated your need well enough, or you didn't have just cause and it didn't satisfy the reviewer. At this juncture, any addendum - including your letter - rightly or wrongly, will be viewed with cynicism."

& that whole paragraph I have issues with. First of all I simply don't recall the Good Lord coming down from on High & granting any cop, sheriff, legislature or government the authority to tell a person he may or may not carry the means of Self Defense. So you not having a problem with it as long as the government approves is tantamount to saying that if the government disapproves you'd back them up on that as well. In which case both you & the government would be guilty of infringing upon the Rights of the individuals under your jurisdiction.

Lemme try to make it clear: despite laws on the books, or policies in common use, it is up to the individual, not the sheriff, police chief, judge or anyone else, if they should exercise their Right to Arms. The arrogance involved with saying that you have concerns about public safety as your rationalization of denying a person the ability to carry a weapon is sick. What you are doing is condoning the denial of a person to defend themselves should the need arise, all the while carrying a weapon yourself. That is hypocrisy plain & simple.
Again, it is not your position or anyone elses to decide whether or not another may carry.

That in & of itself sums up the elitist attitude nicely. In essence you're saying that the common person should not carry a weapon because of the danger, but cops are better than common people so they should carry.

& the scenarios you raise..there are an equal number on both sides of the issue that we could drag out. But the end result is the same: having the potential to cause harm is not the same as causing harm & potential alone should not be addressed. If we go by the numbers cars are much more lethal than firearms. Drive one through a crowded mall & you'll kill more people in less time than any mass shooting that's occurred in the U.S.
But we don't ban cars or severely limit who may drive. Hell, even felons can get a drivers license. People are routinely trusted with objects responsible for almost twice as many yearly deaths as firearms, yet you'd have the state severely curtail who carried the means of defense? & don't even get me started on the estimates of defensive gun uses in the U.S. per year. They range from 80,000 to 2,500,000.

So I find your view to be a little flawed. Civilian gun ownership & possession has benefits that seem to outweigh the harms exponentially, whie government approval to carry weapons is a direct & insulting violation of our Rights.

& I disagree with you that you're not anti-gun. You do seem to favor some, if not all forms of gun control (judging by implication, please correct me if I'm wrong). You may not want to seem to be anti-gun, but if you favor prior restrainst gun control that deals with mere possession or ownership, then you're anti-gun. The only question is to what degree of anti-gun are you. I assume you'd stop short of disarming cops but there's a lot of room to operate between that & being pro-gun.

& if you want something more recent than 1984, here's a link to sites dealing with defensive firearms use by civilians. The most recent story is from December 11th, 2003.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/

But I have some advice for you: quit being a cop. It seems to have colored your thinking into an "us or them" box & the only way to rid yourself of that is to go back to being one of us peasants. Besides, if you find another career you won't have to enforce unconstitutional gun laws that your state seems to pass like fresh prunes.

& for the heck of it, here are two links for y'all to check out.

The first highlights the difference between gun control & gun safety

http://libertybelles.org/articles/gunsafety.htm

& the second deals with the good news, bad news & truth about concealed carry permits

http://www.jpfo.org/alert20031129.htm

I do not trust any government that does not trust an armed population.

I think it's obvious that if Barry thinks handguns emit radiation he is a nutcase. Really Barry just because you are too much of a coward to defend yourself doesn't mean I can't defend myself with leathal force if neccasary.

Have you checked eBay?

"The radiation would rot my brain and I would never be able to live with myself."

Barry, a good tinfoil hat will protect you from that radiation. Go to my site for directions on making your own !

Hey guys, I think Barry was speaking metaphorically about his own perspective on carrying. He can have his own opinion, and I'm sure he's not alone in his feelings about guns.

Plug: I appreciate the many points you bring up, but in the end I'm not really interested in increasing public safety. I think if I had a gun the public would be marginally safer, but more importantly, I'd be a lot safer. And if you extend that and let everyone have a gun, big deal. The people who want to hurt me already have them.

Anyway, maybe I should consider asking for a face-to-face interview before I do anything else. I don't get the feeling they'd acquiese, but it's worth a shot.

"If this or any other State allows CCW permits and have stats. to show it reduces crime, I'm all for it, but I'm not convinced it works well in an overpupulated, psycho-ridden, road-raging, gang menacing L.A. - The latter two categories will likely better a young white college grad."

The statewide stats in shall-issue states - particularly those what switched from may- or won't-issue status over the past 20 years - are clear. Stats for LA, NYC and Chicago are not available, but only because nondiscretionary CCW hasn't been tried there (CA and NY have highly restrictive CCW; IL forbids it altogether). But stats on many other large cities in shall-issue states (e.g., Phoenix, AZ; Houston, TX) are available, and there's little reason to assume the result would be all that different in LA.

Before I start on Publicola, though there is really no need to. I do not have to defend myself, or my opinions, in bringing possible consequences for carrying a concealed firearm, to Mr. Williams' attention. And for providing advice on how best to have dealt with the resulting rejection.

As for comparing Law Enforcement to Pizza delivery drivers...Oh well, I guess you have your opinion too. I strongly suggest you go on a ride-along with a Pizza delivery guy, and take your gun with you, who knows you may get to shoot the customer because he didn't have the correct change.

Do I believe everyone in the U.S. should be allowed to carry a firearm, certainly not, especially Publicola. Therefore some, if not many restrictions should be imposed, the least of which is the sanity of the applicant.

Publicola, YOU are the very reason FOR gun control. I do not want you anywhere near me, while armed, under any circumstances I might find myself in. I'll take my own chances, thankyou very much.

But, I would REALLY like to hear from anyone, who has legally defended themselves or another, by using a previously concealed firearm, while being victimized by a weapon carrying assailant. AND, if the Police responded to the scene, what course of action occurred following the incident. Restrict responses to California, if you will.

Having carefully read Plug statements, I find a distinct lack of intellectual honesty.

I also would advocate that Plug live in the way he wants persons not part of his fraternity to live, that is, unarmed. I have known personally many police officers, and they are not magically endowed with Jedi-Like prowess with Firearms. Most of them have 5-10 hours of range instruction when the join the force, and an hour or two each year. Contrast that with an enthusiastic recreational shooter who puts in 5-10 hours each month.

I am a fairly skilled martial artist, proficient in both unarmed combat and with a few weapons. When someone asks me about self defense my first response is, Acquire a firearm. There may be debate over the exact type of firearm, but that is always going to be the best choice.

I am a 6 foot tall 250 lb man who bench presses over 300 lbs and has over 10 years of consistent practice in martial arts, Yet I would hesitate to confront an unknown assailant without a firearm in hand. Why you ask?

Because the assailant is unknown! He may (probably does) have a firearm of his own. And if I challenge him, and he finds me threating, will he not employ it? He may have friends nearby to assist him. I DON'T KNOW. So I am left with two choices when I witness something untoward (A man menacing a woman for instance). Watch from a distance and hope someone else can intervene, or arm myself, and politely inquire as to the nature of the difficulty.

Plug wrote:

Publicola, YOU are the very reason FOR gun control.

And I say: Plug, you are the reason for the Second Amendment!

One more time:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What is so hard to understand about the phrase "shall not be infringed"? You don't need a permit.

Barry, my comments to you regarding your feelings about driving a car had nothing to do with the potential good uses of driving. I used it as a comparison mostly because I do think of those catastrophic outcomes when I'm driving. I don't think you're nuts because of your "radiation" comments, if only because they seemed a little bit similar to my reaction to driving.

Of course, I still drive, because those horrible outcomes are only a remote possibility, and with care they can be minimized even further. The benefits outweigh what is really a fairly small risk. The risk involved with carrying a firearm are even smaller, as statistics bear out.

I make these comments in the (possibly futile) hopes that you will understand my point: Carrying a firearm is just one of many risky things we can do, and the level of that risk must be considered in context. Never carrying a firearm does NOT guarantee you will be free of firearm violence, just as always carrying one does not guarantee you will be a victim of same.

Three brief points here:

1) There's lots of states without this "discretionary" process in the carry permits...36 at last count. These states aren't experiencing problems with the permitholders who are willing to go through background checks and (usually) training...those people CAN be trusted. Tennessee is one of the examples - go ask your local cops as to whether or not the permitholders are causing problems.

Theorizing over how "awful" concealed carry might be is just silly.

2) The California system is both racist and corrupt. Evidence of sales of permits for campaign contributions, and massive disparities along the lines of gender, race and economic class abound. See also http://www.equalccw.com/expose.html for a start, esp. the Fresno, Oakland and Sacramento materials as a start.

3) Even if you believe in gun control, and there's a ton of evidence it flat doesn't work but I won't go there for now, you do NOT want gun control being handled in as obviously as "elitist", racist and corrupt a fashion as this. If this kind of garbage is what's needed to maintain gun control, then the whole concept needs re-thinking.

Upshot: activists such as Michael and myself aren't arguing against the training and background checks. On the contrary, we can cope just fine with reasonable objective standards.

It's the *subjective* standards that suck.

Jim March

I would like to point Plug to Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles of Policing. Sir Robert was responsible for the establishment of the first metropolitan police force in London, in 1822. His principles are as follows:

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

(It seems that all police forces everywhere have forgotten that one.)

8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Plug apparently suffers from the disease of power. Police are, to him, somehow "special" and above the rest of us poor peons who must look to them for their safety.

Sorry, Plug, but this citizen has decided that my safety is MY responsibility. I'm quite aware that the government is NOT responsible for my protection.

Leave YOUR gun at home and maybe I'll give your position a bit more respect.

Plug,
Restricting responses to california is a bit dishonest. In Cali it's extremely hard to get a permit (mainly becauses of asses such as yourself)& there aren't a lot of people in Cali who realize they don't need a permit to exercise a Right. So you have a very very small base of people who carry firearms & perhaps a smaller number who carry "legally". That not only reduces the probability of defensive uses of a firearm, but it also reduces the chance that every defensive use will be reported.
Think about itl if you were one of us peasants & carried a firearm sans permit, would you report any incident that you didn't have to? Keep in mind that the majority of defensive gun uses do not involve shots being fired. Would you honestly risk prosecution because you defended yourself w/o having your papers in order?

Texas, Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, Louisiana, Colorado, Arizona & Tennessee all have shall issue permit systems & fairly large cities within each, so looking at examples from those places would perhaps be a bit more accurate than seeking California only example.

But I will offer NYC, Chicago & D.C. as reflective examples of what happens to people who use a firearm defensively when confronted by the police. Even if the use of the firearm is deemed justifiable they are arrested, their firearm(s) confiscated & they face prosecution for not having their papers in order. In gun-unfriendly Cali I would be surprised if the situation is any different.

As to the pizza driver/LEO comparison - use a little common sense. Pizza drivers carry cash, food & are disarmed by company policy (at least at all the national chains). They are a prime target for people low on cash & morals. & many pizza drivers are injured or killed each year during the course of robberies.
Contrast that to cops who do not routinely carry cash as a matter of course, who are armed & usually are not alone.
Now do you see that maybe some jobs carry greater risk than law enforcement?
I know about this because I used to deliver pizza's. It's a great part time job - flexible schedule, your not stuck in the same place all day, the money ain't bad for what it is, & you never go hungry (at least most places offer discounts if not free food to employees). But unlike many people I did not follow company policy & I was always armed. I was robbed once about ten years ago, & that was a snatch & grab thing where a coupe of teen agers stole the pizza I was delivering. & nope, I didn't pull my gun when it happened.
Another thing to bring up is that the Bureau of Labor statistics has a list of the most dangerous occupations. Driver-sales workers (which includes pizza delivery drivers) ranks 5th on the list with 37.9 deaths per 100,000. 25% of those were crime related with the remainder being traffic related. So that'd be 9.5 out of 100,000 attributable to crime. Law enforcement didn't make the top ten. It averages just under 12 deaths per 100,000 with 41% being homocides, compared to roughly 52% of fatalities being homocides in the sales occupation category.
Here's a link so you can see for yourself:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0001.pdf

So perhaps you would learn more by riding with a pizza delivery driver than I would. & go unarmed - that way you get the full peasant experience.

& I believe you have demonstrated that you are anti-gun. As I said there are many degrees of being anti-gun & where you fall is still up in the air, but if you're pro-gun then Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is a Grand Dragon in the KKK.

Luckily you'r eopinion about who should carry & who shouldn't is totally irrelevant. The only way you could impose your opinion is either by someone conceding to you or by force. Neither will work with me or others of like mind.
& as for the sanity of the applicant, it's much easier to argue that your obsession with controlling the actions of others (vis a vis gun control) is a sign of a psychotic disorder that indicates your desire to control others. Hence you stand a greater chance of being disarmed based on insanity than I do.

& if you don't wish to be around me while I'm armed then I suggest youavoid me & any areas where I'm in completely. This probably won't be difficult but lemme just stress that my behavior won't change to make you feel better. So you can (if confronted with a more likely situation than mine)either cower in your bedroom or you can get over your irrational fear of those with firearms whom you cannot control.

& like S3 said, it's people like you who make the Right to Arms perhaps more necessary than we realize. Your emotion strong but logic lacking opinions can only be expressed through force & similarly they can only be repelled by force. So if one day you try to use your badge & your gun to disarm someone who had no harmful intent, don't expect me to feel sympathy for you when/if they resist you with as much or more force as you threaten them with.

To badly paraphrase someone whose name escapes me, if the cops want to act like an army of occupation, then the people should play their respective roles as well. Viva Le Resistance!

i respect that some people--like Barry--are simply not comfortable with guns. they don't like them, don't feel safer, and don't want them around. don't carry one. don't own one. simple.
as far as CCW goes--look. a lot of you are men. big men. trained in combat. able to fight with knives or fists. but look. one of my best friends stands 4 feet eleven inches. weighs maybe 90 pounds soaking wet. her need or desire to carry a weapon on her tiny frame is driven by very real fears that you probably can't even imagine. so would you look at her and tell her that you rather she be carried off by a rapist? would you honestly tell me that you would rather see me a victim than see me armed? i really want an answer. i want to understand how someone charged with protecting others would explain to me that my rightful place is cowering in fear with a knife to my throat.

beca

Michael Williams,
What I would strongly suggest is that you keep copies of any correspondence concerning your application for a permit. If it's an oral conversation write down names & what was said as best you can remember (if you can't record them that is). Jot down the time & date as well as the title (along with the name) of the person you talked to.
Then carry if you feel the need. If you're involved in an incident where you have to use your firearm & have to subsequently report it to the police, the records you keep may help you in court. May not but it's better to have it than not.
Here's a link to a rather long & detailed account of another blogger who has been denied a permit in Md.

Also consult with a lawyer. Find one who's not oppossed to defending the idea that carryig a firearm is a Right & legally protected by the 2nd & 14th amendments from state or federal intrusion & thus requiring a permit, let alone denying you one, is contradictory to that Right. The 9th circuit has screwed y'all on that, however if you look at the 9th circuit's Silveira v. Lockyer decision you'll find 4 dissents, chief among those by Kozinski which eloquently articulates why the 9th's decision was wrong. His reasoning is much more persuasive than Reinhardt's which is full of factual legal & logical errors.

But like I said, it's much better to fight the legal battle than to have you next of kin do it for you, or worse; fight your legal battle while grieving your next of kin.

Publicola...I don't know why, but I kinda knew you were a Pizza delivery driver! Not that I wish to demean your occupation but to say they face more danger than Police officers, especially patrol personnel is somewhat presumptive, if you have never been a Police Officer. I'm not saying they do not face dangers, but so do electricians and plumbers. I strongly suggest you attend a Citizen Police Class, offered by many Police Depts. and take a ride-along yourself, with a busy metropolitan agency. Significant dangers are faced by patrol personnel every single day or night, sometimes two or three times a shift.

Publicola's knowledge (or lack thereof) of law enforcement suggests he does not reside in California, specifically in the Greater Los Angeles area, where Mr. Williams is likely to be carrying his firearm. That being said, he has absolutely no knowledge as to the training, range requirments, experiences of these officers, nor the frequent rigorous role playing scenarios conducted during all day training sessions.

Simply put, carrying a weapon does not make you a good cop, nor hitting the ten ring everytime, but knowing when NOT to use it puts you above the crowd.

I'm going out on a limb here by saying I bet more Police Officers were killed and/or injured, while doing their job - at any time -throughout the U.S. than Piza Delivery drivers. By your own admission, you were, "...robbed once...ten years ago..a snatch and grab...didn't pull my gun..." Does that one isolated incident, throughout your employment, justify your need to carry a concealed weapon? The point I am making is...that it still happened to you, whether you were carrying a gun or not. Carrying a concealed firearm will not make bad guys, intent on causing harm, go away! But yes, for some people they may feel safer.

Mr. Baker, I am extremely familiar with Sir Robert Peel's "Nine Priciple's of Policing", more than you will know or that I care to divulge in this forum. Not that they are, in and of themselves , legally binding in the U.S. They are, certainly guidelines which ALL police officers should follow. They have stood the test of time and I see no reason to rebuke them. Each Department will have a similar mantra, largely based on these pricinciples, and those guidelines obviously take precedent. Suggesting most/all police officers fail to follow #7, is sadly, but oftentimes true. However, #7 is also a two-way street. It does not preclude or remove regular citizens from theeir own responsibilities toward the Police. I wonder if you, in your occupation, have ever been spat on, in the face, simply because you arrived at a location you were directed to, to render assistance? Or urinated on while walking passsed a jailed prisoner? Or had you restaurant food 'tampered with feces' because you were wearing your designated work clothes and the cook had recently gotten a ticket in a different city. Or shot at by a 'citizen' because he just didn't like cops. Or tried to find just one witness to a young girl having been gang-raped and shot, while dozens of people stood around. In a perfect world none of this would happen and Mr Williams could go about his own business without feeling the need to carry a firearm.

Irrespective of that 'need' perceived or otherwise. Many 'gun advocats' have interjected their constitutional right to carry a firearm. I am not arguing nor do I disagree, but these citizens would carry a firearm whether they needed to or not and consequently have a strongly biased opinion. It's "I want to, because I can" Vs. "I need to because I fear" I do, however, have some issue with the interpretation of "...well regulated militia" and the meaning of that term when originally written and how it is interpreted today. Keeping and bearing arms, constitutionally however is everyone's right. It's use, and the circumstances surrounding use, are far different issues.

I am not so presumptuous or stupid to suggest that citizen's should rely on Law Enforcement personnel for sole protection. Nor am I saying that Police Officers don't make mistakes, sometimes with dire consequences. But as someone once opined, "...we would have the perfect police officer, if I didn't have to get him from the public." Certainly there is a great degree of self reliance and the need for fellow citizen involvement. However, I further my point and opinion in saying that 'simply carrying a concealed firearm' is not the be all and end all of self protection. Though, if you enjoy the power and safety a concealed firearm seems to provide, it would be hard to convince otherwise. The points I have previously raised should just give food for thought in coming to a decision.

The issues are whether or not Mr. Williams will (1) Obtain the degree of safety he is looking for by carrying a concealed weapon. (2)Will carrying such a weapon cause him more harm than not, due to the circumstances he might find himself in ?(3)Will he be in a position to safely and legally 'use' his concealed firearm, should the need arise.(4) How to go about legally carrying a concealed weapon should he choose to.

The rest of the rhetoric is irrelevent. I have tried to answer those issues by previous postings. Some people have mis-read my intentions and misinterpreted my personal beliefs and or work ethic. For those people, MR. BAKER in particular, and for the record, I regularly go about my day to day business without carrying a firearm. In fact, I can not remember the last time I carried a concealed firearm. I have several locked securily in my home. I never feel threatened by any person I may encounter, on or off duty, but at the same time I take alternative lifestyle precautions so as not to put myself or my family in harms way. I have PERSONALLY found FOR ME, that, carrying a concealed firearm is cumbersome, unnecessary, and a great responsibility. On off-duty occasions, over the years, I have been without a firearm, and found myself in circumstances where a firearm would have been nice to have handy. But, on reflection and a little sole searching afterward, producing a handgun at that time would seriously have jeopardized my safety and would have provided no benefit. I personally don't have the need or desire to increase my testosterone levels by feeling something hard tucked into my waistband. I accomplish that, tucked into my sock!

Finally, I render California only as my 'test' State because I am familiar with its laws and application therof. Using other States serves no purpose when associated law to California CCW may not exist and consequently no punishment is exacted for any violation therof. Also, using 'liberlized' States, allows for a very different mindset of its citizenery and Law Enforcement toward carrying a concealed firearm. Additionally, I believe California law enforcement, in general, is better trained, more professional, ethical, liability aware, and public minded than many other States. That's not to say there isn't room for improvement. I have witnessed application of law by police personnel in many other states and much of what I have witnessed, just would not happen here.

Plug,

I am not sure you answered Miss Beca's question. I will ask it differently: Do you believe we have no right to self-defense? If so, why?

Miss Beca (and I) want effective self-defense. We know that firearms aren't always effective, but we also know that they are effective approximately two million times a year in this country. Your chosen strategy, which could be called making sure they pick someone else for a victim, is highly effective. But it doesn't work all the time either, and when it fails your compunctions about conceled carry leave us without a backup plan. Should CCW licences be issued to people who are forced to live in crime ridden neighborhoods? Avoiding victimhood is much harder there.

Yours,
Wince

Plug wrote:

I do, however, have some issue with the interpretation of

Somehow, I just knew this was going to come up.

"Well regulated militia" means all of us.

"Keep" means own.

"Bear" means carry.

"shall not be infringed" means that there is no such thing as reasonable regulation. It means shall not be infringed! so get a clue!

Well-regulated means "and make sure they have guns and ammo"...

Yours,
Wince

In response to 'Wince and Nod' and Miss Becca. Of course everyone has the right to defend themselves, it's absurd to think otherwise. My posts have never inferred this, so if anyone has interpereted them that way - read again and read on...

My issues are clear - to me anyway. I simply question whether or not any person living in fear for their own safety will overly rely on a concealed firearm to protect themselves. And, once carrying the weapon, will they then develop a false sense of security and/or act rationally when using the weapon during their time of need. Their 'time of need' is so broad based that it may well be different for everyone. There are some legal guidelines, but for Miss Becca, a small statured female with limited firearms training may well act very differently to myself or any other accomplished firearms carrier, under similar circumstances. Extreme and stressful circumstances, during which firearms may be used by inexperienced carriers, is great, and may well put the public at large in danger. Not to mention themselves or the very persons they are trying to protect. Does that mean they should not try, of course not - it's entirely up to them, weighing the prevailing circumstances. Many people are just unable (or prepared) to make life or death split second decisions. They should seriously question their abilities when choosing to carry a concealed firearm. That should be balanced against their need to, whether real or simply perceived and whether their 'need to' is really a 'want to'.

Because everyone's 'fear factor' is different, the only way to minimise variances is (1) Place everyone - criminals et all, on a level playing field 'liberalizing' if you will (though I doubt the advantages in a civilized society), and (2) Require extensive and adequate on going training. The system in California is flawed, allowing a few people to carry concealed weapons, but that is the system currently in place. Because of this 'flaw' - though I am ambvilalent in changing it, you have to work with what you have - certainly for Mr. Williams immediate purpose. Or perhaps he could wait several years for the law to possible change. If I were forced to live in a crime ridden neighborhood I would probably carry some form of concealed self defensive item, whether permitted or not. Though I question whether a firearm is suitable for everyone.

Further more...I only questioned to interpretaion of the phrase "well regulated militia" ...the rest is fairly clear to me and so "S3" re-read my post, the sarcastic comment was unwarranted. Lowering myself to your standards, perhaps a better understanding or written language is the 'clue' you need.

Nice try, Plug, but the operative clause of the Second Amendment says what it says. It does not depend on the meaning of the justification clause.

Plug- I carry illegally in California when I'm going through bad areas of Los Angeles and elsewhere.

Screw you.

Plug wrote:

Further more...I only questioned to interpretaion of the phrase "well regulated militia" ...the rest is fairly clear to me and so "S3" re-read my post, the sarcastic comment was unwarranted. Lowering myself to your standards, perhaps a better understanding or written language is the 'clue' you need.

On the contrary, I don't think I was sarcastic at all. In your writings you "question the need" and all your solutions start with "require". As I already stated the Second Amendment was put in place to control those that "question the need" and "require". People just like you. Others here have pointed out that you have an elitist attitude and I can find nothing in your statements that would lead me to believe otherwise.

Your other concerns about a citizen's ability to properly decide when to use the force inherent in any arm is misplaced. Our Constitution presupposes that we are capable as individuals in making decisions and that the government has no business telling us what is right, something that you seem to be advocating as the right of a state to decide.

As for the additional meaning of what well regulated means, it is well practiced, i.e. able to hit the target.

The sole purpose of the Second Amendment is to keep our government in check. It is not about deer rifles or deer hunting or any hunting for that matter. But it is illogical for the government to regulate the regulators. The regulators are we, the citizens, and if we need permission from the government to use that which gives us power over the government, then we have no power at all.

Mr.Clam...

I don't know what you have been reading...certainly not my posts. You are obviously on the wrong track, AGAIN! At no time have I EVER advocated NOT carrying a firearm for those who have their own justification for carrying one. I have, however, questioned the real need, whether perceived or actual, versus desire.

I have, by implication and example, suggested that (1) A concealed firearm may not prevent assault (2) A concealed firearm has limited use (3) A concealed firearm may be overly relied on (4) Significant liabilities may occur while carrying [legally or otherwise] and employing the firearm. (5) Alternative modes of self preservation or protection exist. (6) Made a good faith reference to Mr. Williams rejection, offering a possible remedy.

I have, and for which I appologize, also allowed myself to engage in rhetoric which serves no worthwhile purpose, other than to improve my somewhat stale typing skills.

I offer no defense or rationalization against misinterpreted, out of context, mis-applied statements or comments. And I will not offer further argument to those who place a need to carry firearms to their own bathroom, above common sense.

I am still interested in 'first-hand' accounts from Ca.victims, who employed their concealed weapon, to prevent injury etc....

Plug: I certainly agree that some people could look on a carried handgun as some sort of divine bubble of protection, but that's not the approach I'm taking. A gun is a tool, and in certain circumstances it can be very useful. I wouldn't pull a gun out to save the cash in my wallet, but if there were an actual life-threatening emergency I'd be glad to have it.

Most times when a gun is used in self-defense it isn't fired, or even pointed at anyone. Most criminals will flee as soon as they see it.

Plug,

I'm a CCW holder in three states. I've attended Clint Smith's defensive handgun course at Thunder Ranch. I'm an NRA-certified rifle and pistol instructor and a keen shot. Living in VA, I tell those I teach that they would be extremely wise to obtain a CCW if there is any chance that they might a)take a long car trip, or b)have to drive through a certain local city, noted for its criminality, at night.

The reason I advocate this is because every frank and honest police officer I've ever met told me that any citizen depending on them as their protection against violent crime was deluding themselves. As one fellow succinctly put it, "we come along to pick up the garbage after it's all over." The SCOTUS has ruled that police have neither responsibility nor liability where any individual citizen's protection is concerned. For any state, then, to attempt to legally bind any individual's right to protect themselves is simply wrong. Most of the police officers I have met who were willing to discuss the issue privately have acknowledged this, as you apparently did in one of your later posts.

While you may not have intended to, your earlier posts (yes, I did re-read them) gave off a strong odor of police elitism along with the impression that police officers have extraordinary talents with firearms that private citizens do not possess. This is not the case and I'd be happy to go with you to any range or shoot/no shoot course and back up that statement. What you do have that the ordinary citizen doesn't have is the preemptive assumption that, should you use a firearm in the course of duty, the use was justified. Big advantage.

I don't have that. What I do have is the knowledge that if I use a gun, no matter how justified I might be in protecting my life, it's going to cost me big time. Clint Smith said that the first bullet out of the gun had a $150,000 price tag on it, no matter how solid the reason behind the shooting. However, if I ever have to shoot someone to save my life or someone else's, I'll be a heck of a lot happier being alive to pay the legal fees than the alternative. And, without carrying, that alternative might be all that was left if I needed a gun and couldn't carry one.

You, Plug, and your fellow officers know that you neither can nor will protect me from criminals in my daily life except in certain very extraordinary circumstances. You also know, possibly better than anyone else, that the society we live in is getting progressively more callous about violent crime and certainly less concerned about its victims. Given that a)you know the criminals are lurking out there waiting for prey, and b)that you can't offer any realistic guarantee of safety to the average citizen, the FIRST people to applaud a citizen's attempts to defend himself should be the police. In more enlightened states than California (Texas, Utah, and Virginia, to cite my own experience), this has unfailingly been the case.

I suggest, sir, that you might want to reevaluate your opinion on CCW. I realize that you are sworn to protect and uphold the law, no matter how foolish or nonsensical it might be. However, in your private communications such as this blog, the more honorable thing would be to tell the truth, not spout the department line. It would also raise your credibility among those of us who actually understand how few of you there are relative to how much crime occurs.

As for the dangers of pizza delivery: Pizza Deliveryman Dies From Gunshot Wound.

Mr. Williams...

Though I accept Pizza Delivery Drivers unfortunately become victim's of homicide in their line of work - as do many other occupations. It would be remiss of me not to draw your attention to www.camemorial.org, which sadly includes 15 this year and a total of 35 officers killed since 2001. Also, www.officer.com/memorial gives a somewhat broader picture. I also accept that some deaths were attributable to non-gunfire causes, but homicide none-the-less.

Mr. McWiggins, I applaud your commitment to weapons safety, training and expertise. Your post was well reasoned and informative. However, I have spoken my personal truths, and I understand and accept that it may not be endorsed by fellow law enforcement personnel.

Furthermore, your post is exactly the reason for my post...Most persons, in California, who carry concealed weapons, do not commit themselves to the training that you have. Carrying a concealed weapon requires extensive practice and commitment to ongoing training, so has to make the user flawless in it's application. Anything less than that carry's with it significant liability. The same liability - though I accept may be limited, is also borne by fully trained Police Officers. That liability is only limited by adequate training, knowledge and an adherence to department rules, regulation and guidelines (obviously including an observance to State and Federal law). It was to this regard that I made reference to 'officer's talents' Not that they are super human or have extrordinary powers but, certainly in California, they have significantly more training than the average 'legal' CCW permit holder.

Unfortunately many CCW citizens do not commit themselves as described, and once passing a test, receiving background checks etc., put their gun in their waistband and go out into the public arena. The difference between drawing a concealed weapon 'succesfully' and not, may be as simple as what kind of pants the user is wearing that day - assuming the gun is carried in a waistband. (I understand there are many other forms of concealed carry - this is just an example). I do not think you can disagree....

It is simply just not good enough, for overall public and carrier safety, to become complacent about carrying a concealed firearm.

Xlrq, I fully agree with your last posting regarding Mr. Williams FOIA application. It was to this end I wished to draw to Mr. Williams attention.

Plug,

I completely concur with your last statement. Carrying a concealed firearm is a VERY weighty responsibility and no one who understands what they are potentially risking would do so lightly. If my experience is anything to go by, however, I suspect that you would find the CCW-holding populace the kind of people you are most pleased to serve. As one police officer told me, "If you're able to get a CCW (meaning one has a completely clean criminal record) and you're willing to go to all the trouble and expense it takes to get one, you're not the kind of person I need to worry about anyway."

Most of the CCW holders I know are the type of people who don't believe in trusting their most precious possessions--their, and their families' lives--to some less motivated individual's care. I applaud that sentiment. America wasn't founded by people expecting someone else to fight their battles for them.

That said, the CCW community I know is VERY pro-police because anyone with decent training knows that the LAST thing you want is to ever be in a situation where you HAVE to use a gun. Massad Ayoob's book "In The Gravest Extreme" covers that territory very well, incidentally, and I highly recommend it. No, CCW holders generally want nothing more than a strong police presence because we would much rather you folks in blue deal with problems of that nature. We are, however, realistic enough to know that "the thin blue line" is stretched to, and often beyond, the breaking point. That's why most CCW holders, myself included, carry. And with the revolving-door justice system we have combining with the societal woes I mentioned earlier, the pressure for CCW permission will do nothing but increase.

Michael:
When I was in California last, I remember reading about a sheriff in a little town named Isleton who was very liberal about providing CCW permits. Isleton is up in the Sacramento River delta. If you can't get any satisfaction from the Hawthorne P.D., you might give that fellow up there a call. Cal law may have changed in the past decade but IIRC, a CCW issued by any legal entity in the state was valid all over the state. If so, that's probably the quickest and cheapest answer. Good luck!

Unfortunately, for CCW issuance, the recipient usually has to show 'proof of residency' or has a 'significant business relationship' within the issuers jurisdiction. Addionally, A CCW issued within California, may have absolutely no standing in other States.

Even a lawfully sworn Ca. Police Officer, travelling to other States on official business, may not carry weapons into some States, let alone CCW. Personnel making the trip, say to interview of pick-up a prisoner, must verify the visiting State's requirements prior to leaving.

Mr McWiggins...
I unfortunately, because of an often arbitrary nature by which CCW permits are issued, (in Ca anyway, though I have no statistics to provide) the integrity of the holder is called into question. I have personally known several who were businessmen, carrying substantial sums of money or valuables. Having been granted a permit, NEVER practiced or committed themselves to ongoing training and familiarity with their weapon. I once, as a favor, took one of these firearms for cleaning. It was so rusty from sweat and lack of maintenance, the rounds were dangerously stuck inside the chamber, which also would not revolve. (His next 'renewal application' was denied).

My personal experiences with 'lawful' CCW permit holders leaves a lot to be desired and I certainly do not have the same faith in them as you, generally speaking. Incidentally, I believe Robert Blake was 'legally' CCW authorized. If you believe his story - it really didn't do him a lot of good - despite his 'wife' being under an alleged imminent threat.

However, I truly believe you have a 'circle of friends and acquaintances' who fully qualify (CCW)and are reputable, law abiding citizens. Who, due to their conduct, never have negative conduct or contact with law enforcement. I doubt you see the 'other side of the coin'- as police officers do, during traffic stops, street detentions, and response to domestic and other disputes etc.

Plug: The rampant discrimination and favoritism you describe (Sean Penn has a CCW, despite several arrests for assault) is part of the reason I'm pursuing this issue. I don't just want numbers of permit holders, I want names "good cause" details.

I seriously doubt you will get the information you want. The 9th Circuit (I believe) which has upheld lower courts denials, confirmed the denial of information by upholding CCW permit holder's right to privacy, which supercedes [your] 'need to know'.

I think the Chief has ten days in which to respond, (at least to acknowledge your request - but don't quote me). I'm guessing it will be just another denial, forcing service of a subpoena and court appearance, for yet another eventual denial. There must be qualified attorney's reading this blog who can provide information on the procedural steps. But good luck anyway!

The Public Records Act specifically mentions all the pieces of information I've asked about. I don't see how a right to privacy can be involved.

Plug: California's CCW system is FUBAR. The requirements are only "stricter" than those of shall-issue states in the sense that sheriffs and police chiefs have the power to deny them on a whim. The objective criteria are not particularly strict, which is why the likes of Robert Blake and Sean Penn can get them but Michael and I can't.

Xlrq...

You are absolutely correct (certainly in general terms) regarding the seemingly capriciousness by which CCW permits have been doled out.

Due to the nature, lack of expertise, and questionable circumstances by which many permits are issued, many current holders are a danger to themselves and society at large. Not that they, or anyone else, shouldn't enjoy the freedom of self protection.

However, through my posts I have attempted to demonstrate the dangers (and sometimes futility) of carrying a concealed firearm. Circumstances allowing the firearm's use, whether you choose to believe it or not, are extremely rare, (I have considerable years of active service to justify my claim). Consequently the would-be carrier must be fully trained, 'at the ready' and prepared to use the weapon if need be. I might even say that many non-permitee's are perhaps more proficient in weapon familiarity than many 'legal' CCW holders. And yes, you could become a victim anytime, anywhere.

Mr. Williams, I am reluctant to say it but you are naive to think that "...most criminals will flee as soon as they see it." (firearm - not male appendage). Some will perhaps, but those whose actions have 'forced' you to draw your firearm, generally mean business or are so deranged (mental/self induced - drugs/alcohol etc.) that its exposure means nothing or even provokes further aggression. This is clearly exposed by unarmed suspects who still attack officers, even with guns drawnn and pointed at them.

I have both witnessed and been involved in a number of shootings during my career. One thing is for sure... uncertainty. The reaction of the suspect, prior to and after the weapon is discharged into the target, even with well placed, 'fatal' wounds at point blank range, can not be taken for granted, nor immediate.

Generally, women are at a distinct disadvantage, by carrying their weapon in a purse. During an assault, which might only last a few seconds, (initially anyway - absent any kidnap or further serious attack), the assailant can be long gone before the victim has time or opportunity to withdraw the weapon. Furthermore, in a 'snatch and grab' the purse is the very article subject to the theft. The assailant probably having no knowledge of the weapon's existence. The same can be true for a male, who might have his firearm tucked securely in a holster or 'fanny-pack'.

It is for this reason that I, despite others' reluctance and disapproval, advocate something, though unfortunately less lethal, which can be held in the hand at all times. And its issue or approval is not subject to the whim of the prevailing Police Chief of Sheriff. It was for this reason I penned my 2cents (now $1.46C) worth in the first place. In my view, better to carry a self defensive weapon you can use with limited experience, fully accessible and under a variety of circumstances, than something with limited, difficult and perhaps untrained application. But, if you can carry both, go for it. One does not preclude the other.

There are many guns in the 'wrong hands', not all of which are criminals. None of which makes one blind bit of difference to permit issuers, who have the right of granting or denying permits to whosoever they see fit.

> But, I would REALLY like to hear from anyone, who has legally defended themselves
> or another, by using a previously concealed firearm, while being victimized by a
> weapon carrying assailant. AND, if the Police responded to the scene, what course
> of action occurred following the incident.

A reasonable request. Though I have (fortunately) never been in that position,
lots of my fellow-citizens have. There's quite a number of compendia of news
stories about self-defense cases; one of them is at:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

> Restrict responses to California, if you will.

Huh? Ah, now we see the intellectual dishonesty inherent in your system!
Why on earth would California, which makes it hard for ordinary citizens
to get CCW permits, provide good evidence for whether such permits
worked well or not?????

Plug:

If I routinely carry pepper-spray, or better yet, a Taser in my hand, say, when walking to my car, you are telling me I won't be subject to any negative attention from the police in California? Cool!

Can you provide a link to a site which has materials or courses which teach your prefered method?

Did you know that Massachusetts requires a $100 permit to own pepper-spray and stun-guns?

Yours,
Wince

California seems like an absolutely insane State. As much anti-US and anti-U.S. Constitution as that of other "states" such as France.

I recently was looking at setting up a business in California due to the great numbers of potential customers there but after investigating everything from emissions laws to CCW permit laws I decided against going there. There is simply too much baloney there.

Instead I decided to set up my business in Phoenix, Arizona where things appear to be much more reasonable.

It's sad the way California is today but in one sense the people of California are undoubtedly getting the kind of regulations and government that they want. If the people of California would rise up as one and decide that enough is enough they could make California a nice place to live again though my hopes for this to happen are all but non-existant.

As much as the people of California see the need for change they seem all but resigned to do nothing about it.

Carlos

Carlos: Well, we ousted our old governor and hired Arnold, so we're trying! I agree with you though, there's a long way to go.

Sorry to say it Mike but I actually feel sorry for you and others "stuck" in California.

I have been blessed with the freedom to be able to move where I want and to do what I want (within financially reasonable limits mind you) and can pick and choose where to live.

But many are stuck where they are and can do little of anything about it.

I have determined in my life to never let myself get into a situation where I will end up forced to live somewhere that I don't want to live in. At least not in the long run. I leave my options open in terms of having routes of escape so to speak. That's not to say that I will not fight tooth and nail to preserve freedom in a place I choose to live in but it is to say that I do not hold out unquestioning trust in those around me to fight as hard to preserve freedom as I am willing to do. Neccessitating my leaving myself and my family a way out from a place that ends up going the way of California.

The best way I have come to see as allowing one the flexibility to so move and go where one wants is to have a business of one's own. That is easily movable.

I sincerely hope that you Mike are taking into account that California may get worse and worse and not better. And that you and others are keeping your options likewise open.

Hopefully Arnold will make a big difference but I don't hold out much hope for that. The underlying philosophy that government can solve all our problems and protect us from ourselves is so ingrained into the California mentality that I doubt even Arnold can bring about radical and neccessary change. Change that is simply too painful for most Californian's to contemplate much less stomach. They all seem to want change and talk up a storm about it but when it comes down to it Californian's don't seem very willing to implement radical change that will cause them to miss out on something.

The whole notion of self-sacrifice and discipline seems to be non-existant in California. Pulling together for the common good. Saving for a rainy day. Leaving aside instant gratification for the long term good.

Instead Californian's seem to rush around living for today. Doing what feels good. Looking out for themselves mainly. And wanting California government to provide them with what they need as though served to them on a hand platter.

I could be wrong but that's how it seems. Sad really. It's such a beatiful place.

Carlos

Don't feel too bad Michael. Chief Port more than likely never saw your application. He is never there. All that money being paid to him and he's never there.

This is directed at plug,

Sir, you are really of your rocker and I must say that I do not believe you are an officer or at the very least, not as expereinced as you say you are. I understand completely the desire of most peace officers to fear armed citizens, I know I would (as a peace officer). You cannot lump us into a single category as unable to think rationally nor have extensive training. I often go into gun stores and request to view weapons. You know what my first question always is? Could you show me how this weapon works? Whether I have dealt with it in the past or have not at all. I am intelligent enough to respect firearms at all times and fearful enough not to pull my weapon out unless it is the last resort. While you probably pulled your weapon on more people than I can count. You leave yours at home and I will leave mine, was beautifully written. Remember these bad guys you stated you chase down are bad for a reason. They have committed or are about to commit a crime. Now let me think, who could they have commited a crime against? Oh, I know, an honest citizen! Most likely against another criminal, but all to often against innocent folks. And as we all know, bad things, very bad things can happen anywhere!

"what kind of psychological trait does Michael's letter expose? My degree is in molecular bio"

A more important point is that most people would think Michael's "radiation" comment is strange. Also, many people would think surreptitiously mentioning your degree makes you a pseudo intellectual.

Ben: I never made a radiation comment. That was Barry.

Go to www.davidicke.com there you can find out all about why the goverments around the world is trying to disarm its citizens.. when you are in the process of establishing a " World Goverment"
we cant have armed citizens that can think for them selfs can we? and no,,, i dont hate jews neither does David Icke.. the jews are just as much victims as the rest of us.

I'm a LA resident and want a CCW permit, but i know how impossible it is to get one. Has anyone considered the idea of establishing residency in another California county that is CCW friendly, just to get the permit?

You are welcome to come to Madera County and get a CCW. This is a pro gun community. Our Sheriff encourages its law abiding citizens to carry legally. They even conduct their own class through the Sheriff's department. A deputy is the Range Master. Our crime rate is so very low for this reason. Almost no violence at all with guns. It's great! Our small county has 1,300 CCW holders. Criminals don't have a chance here. Very risky on their life for them to do their dastardly deeds here. Have had no problems with any CCW holder either. This is how it is supposed to be in America. We don't have a bunch of pussy people or politics that are scared to allow CCW permits being issues. It would not matter cause the Sheriff is level headed and very "down to earth".

Remember Mike,

An Armed Society is a Polite Society.

Wow! What an explosive subject. The ones against conceal carry have no idea what is at stake if attacked out there in the real world, completely ignorant of the dangers and unwilling to learn before making such stupid and assanine statements. They should be embarrassed of themselves. I have carried for a number of years in California. I have always loved guns and have a high respect for the dangers involved as well as the fun one can have with them when used properly. A God fearing person is the only type of person that I believe has the ability to understand the importance and the dangers of conceal carry and how and when the weapon should be drawn and used. Drawing the weapon does not mean you have to use it but you better be prepared to like the evening when (3)three 18-20 year old (young) men tried to rob my wife and I after we got done shopping with our three children. One had a .45 1911 and the other two had knives with 8" blades. We were in the parking lot going to our vehicle and it was 9:30 PM with low light. These guys were real gutsy cause there were a lot of cars in the mall parking lot. I practice religously almost every weekend but no less than twice a month with a variety of weapons but my favorite carry is my Lightweight 1911 A-1 Bi-Tone with 8 round mag and 1 in the chamber always "cocked and locked" just like it was that evening. The trick is to act quickly once the danger presents itself without hesitation. Once that young man pulled his gun and the other two with their knives next to my wife and children they barely got to say "give me your fuckin wallet dude" and I did the "two tap" into each one of their chests. Two were dead before they hit the ground and the other (fat) one by the time he reached the hospital. This info was given to me along with a citizens award from the PD. I am not proud of this just thankful that I was able to defend my family when called upon to do so. I wonder what Mr. Paranoid up there would have done???