Category: Carry

Today, the impossible happened.

First off, yes, I’m still alive, still actively reading a variety of gun and other blogs, and generally living life. Married life, two kids, a dog, etc. takes virtually all of my free time, but I’m still here.

Anyway, today was an interesting day, and involved something I never thought would occur in my lifetime: I was issued a California concealed weapons permit by the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

Few jurisdictions are as anti-gun as Alameda County which, to those not familiar with California counties, is in the Bay Area across the bay to the east of San Francisco. It is a heavily blue county, even though my particular city is a bit more politically balanced (albeit still leaning blue). Historically, Alameda County has only ever issued a few dozen CCW permits, and those typically to connected politicians, judges and prominent attorneys, and — based on several individuals in my shooting qualification session — ranchers in exceptionally remote areas of the county with documented issues with criminals. Issuance to ordinary, working people like myself was simply not a thing.

Then Bruen happened and everything changed. Within a few hours of the decision, the California attorney general gritted his teeth and issued a legal letter to permit-issuing authorities in the state saying they can no longer use the arbitrary “good reason” test to deny people, and they had to use objective criteria, thus making California a “shall issue” state.

I sent in an application the night of the Bruen decision, and there were already more than a hundred people ahead of me in the queue. In the days and months since, thousands of applicants have applied when previously there was maybe a dozen a year who did.

Needless to say, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office and the one person who handled permit applications were instantly and completely overwhelmed. They needed to reassign staff to process the torrent of applicants, update procedures, and generally get things moving.

Of course, the sheriff at the time wasn’t a big fan of CCW and basically did nothing (except stop using the application-management service Permitium, which was designed specifically for this purpose, and go back to the “send stuff by email to one point of contact”) until he lost the election a few months later, after which time some letters from the CRPA and FPC lit some fires under the new sheriff (also not evidently a big fan of CCW, but also not wanting to get sued) and things started moving.

The process was needlessly tedious, lengthy, and expensive. The procedure seemed intentionally difficult and bureaucratic or, as one commenter on Reddit said, “The process is the prohibition.”: all in all, it’s taken over 10 months and cost nearly $800 (excluding the pistol and ammo, which I already had) for the permit and its various requirements, with renewals costing about $200 or so going forward (no psych exam required, and a much simpler process). But it’s done, and I find myself pleased to know that I now have a permit that was essentially impossible to get even a single year ago and that the number of permit holders in blue county has increased.

 

 

Of course, the state is really mad about Bruen, and is doing it’s best to declare the essentially the entire state as a “sensitive area”. The legislature’s attempt last year met with failure by only a single vote, and then only because they attempted to pass it as an “emergency” measure that’d take effect immediately and such measures need a 2/3rds supermajority. They have the >50% majority needed to pass it as a normal law in this session, though I’m hopefully that it’d be the subject of numerous lawsuits if it were ever to pass. Weirdly enough, the legislature seemed to have no issues whatsoever with California having relatively lax carry laws so long as only the red counties were the ones doing the issuing. Now that all counties are required to issue, restricting carry as much as possible is suddenly a major issue of the utmost importance. Go figure.

Even if they do pass their crazy law I’ll still keep renewing, if only out of spite. I’ve waited this long to carry, and I’ll be damned if I give up on my rights now.

Letter to the editor

The following is a letter to the editor of my local paper:

I am a parent of two young children, ages 5 and 7, and I was horrified to see the news out of Texas as yet another deranged killer gunned down innocent children.

In looking over the depressingly large number of school shootings that have taken place over the last few decades, it strikes me that these tragedies have occurred both in states with strict gun laws (like California and Connecticut) and those with liberal laws (like Texas), with none of those laws having any sort of preventative or protective effect. The killers plan meticulously for weeks or more, and have been able to adapt to or ignore or bypass any law or regulation in place.

However, one thing stands out to me: in all cases the killers targeted “soft targets” where they could carry out their heinous crimes unopposed. They know that schools forbid ordinary, law-abiding people like teachers, staff, parents, etc. from possessing any sort of means of protection (including, but not limited to, lawfully-carried firearms, pepper spray, tasers, etc.) while on school grounds. State law and school policy leaves such people helpless and defenseless, even if they are vetted, trained, and licensed to carry elsewhere in their community and state.

Our police are outstanding and do their best, but even they cannot be everywhere at once, or arrive instantly when needed. By the time they are called, travel to the scene, arrive, assess the situation, find the bad guy and engage him, a madman is able to kill dozens even with the most ordinary pistol or revolver.

Clearly, guns in the right hands serve a protective benefit: the President, the Governor, banks, money in transit, jewels, etc. are all protected by trained, armed people. But, for some reason, our defenseless children are left in the care of similarly-defenseless adults to whom we legally denied the choice to protect themselves and the children they’re responsible for.

We’ve kept kids and adults defenseless for decades, and still this keeps happening: this policy clearly doesn’t work. How many more need to die before we as a society conclude that merely putting up “no guns allowed” signs doesn’t stop those with murder in their hearts, and allow responsible, trained, and vetted people the choice (not the mandate or requirement, just the choice for those willing to do so) to protect themselves when faced with deadly danger? Hopefully none.

Newsom: “What the hell is wrong with us?”

Speaking today in the wake of the mass shooting in San Jose, California governor Newsom said, in part, “What the hell is wrong with us?” and “Wake up to this reality and take a little damn responsibility, all of us.”

I agree, but not in the way he hopes.

Rather, I wonder when the citizenry and politicians will recognize that gun control isn’t a viable solution, that it isn’t working, and so will actually start thinking about things that might work to reduce violent crime.

California regularly boasts about having some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, but seems to completely neglect the fact that criminals do not follow the law and that enforcing the law is, by nature, reactive in nature. The fact that they’re barely enforcing the laws they have on the books already doesn’t help with more run-of-the-mill crime either. Forcing ordinary, law-abiding citizens to be defenseless, surprise surprise, hasn’t stopped criminals from committing crimes (according to http://www.baggss.us/, in 2014 Santa Clara county had issued 104 CCW permits out of 1,781,642 people listed as being in the county in the 2010 census, with 1,396,807 being over 18, so CCW permits are as rare as hen’s teeth. Not to mention the VTA yard being a gun-free zone.).

For decades, California and several other states have been operating under the assumption that if they pass just one more law and make an already illegal action just a little bit more illegal then that action will stop. It hasn’t worked in California, and it hasn’t worked anywhere else in the country.

I wonder when those in positions of authority will — to use Newsom’s words — wake up to that reality, realize their approach doesn’t work and has resulted in a huge number of needless deaths, take a little damn responsibility responsibility, and try something different?

No surprise: NY Times calls for more useless gun control

In their editorial today that should surprise nobody, the New York Times calls for more gun control. Additionally, they call out Congress for not doing anything by saying,

Still, Republicans leaders in Congress do nothing. Or, really, so far they’ve done the same thing they have always done: offered thoughts and prayers. Tomorrow, then, will surely bring warnings not to “politicize” a tragedy by debating gun controls that might prevent such mass killings from happening again.

[…]

When Republican leaders have responded to past killings, their response was to block sensible, useful gun control. They should not be allowed to delay effective legislation any longer.

They fail to mention what “sensible, useful” measures “might prevent” similar mass shootings in the future. They also fail to point out how such measures would work. Instead of being making productive suggestions, they show a bunch of live-updating clocks that display the time since several previous mass shootings, arguing that “now is the time” to have such debates. They fail to grasp that the country has already had such debates and the ideas proposed by their side have been found wanting.

I suspect their suggestions, if stated, would be similar to the standard gun-controller wishlist: banning popular guns and magazines, restrictions on ammo, banning private sales, restricting carry, licensing, registration, and insurance.

In short, useless measures that would only affect lawful gun owners and have absolutely no effect on criminals who already violate a host of laws to commit their heinous crimes. Unlike many criminal acts, these types of mass killings are usually meticulously planned, with the attackers willing to go to great lengths over long periods of time to acquire what they need.

Making an already illegal action (i.e. murder, attempted murder, assault, not to mention a host of other crimes the perpetrator no doubt committed in the course of his spree) slightly more illegal isn’t going to deter such people.

The correct course of action is not to seek to restrict tools used by bad guys (and a vast number of ordinary people), as the number of tools that can be used for bad purposes is limited only by the imagination, but rather to ensure that a rapid, armed response can be made against the bad guy. This role typically falls to the police, though the police cannot be everywhere, nor can they respond instantly to the scene of a crime, individuals should be prepared to defend themselves. Laws that restrict the lawful carriage of arms for self-defense are monstrous and should be called out as such.

In the case of Sutherland Springs, the heroic actions of an armed bystander and a passing motorist (well done, you two!) served to disrupt the attacker’s escape. It’s too bad that such a response was not available a few minutes earlier before the killer racked up such a body count.

In response to the New York Times’ call for more gun control, not to mention similar calls from various legislators, public figures, media, etc., I think I’ll complete one of the 80% AR-15 lower receivers I’ve been meaning to work on. Another AR is always fun, and it’s nice to make something that points out the folly of gun control.

Shooting at gun-free, campus-carry-free UCLA

What appears to have been a tragic murder-suicide took place yesterday at UCLA.  Terrible. I can particularly relate, as I myself am involved in academia, am a father, and am only a few years younger than the victim.

As you likely know, California has some of the strictest gun control in the nation, concealed carry permits are rarely issued in Los Angeles, campus carry is strictly forbidden, and UCLA is a gun-free zone. Once again, it turns out that declaring a place to be “gun-free” doesn’t accomplish anything, since bad people doing bad things will simply ignore those policies. Big surprise.

Instead, the whole campus goes into lockdown only to discover that many of the doors don’t actually lock from the inside. Worse, many of the doors open outwards, making it difficult for the students to barricade them: several news reports show students using electrical cords to tie doors to chairs and tables that are bolted to the floor, using belts to secure hydraulic door closers, etc.

While I applaud the ingenuity of the students solving a problem under pressure, the fact that the doors can’t be locked from the inside is absurd.

Next, some minor criticism of the cops and their response. I don’t mean to armchair quarterback, but, to use a biology reference, the response of the cops seems more along the lines of an allergic reaction rather than a beneficial immune system response. Tons of local and federal (federal agents as first responders at a state university? That seems a bit odd to me.) SWATed-up cops swarmed the campus. They did door-to-door checks of rooms on campus to ensure they were secure, but it seems that they failed to announce themselves as police first, to the terror of students and staff in the rooms who only saw unknown heavily-armed men jiggling door handles trying to get into room. When you have overwhelming force, it can’t hurt to be polite and at least announce yourself as police.

When the police make students line up on their knees with their hands on their heads before being searched and allowed to leave may be practical from a safety standpoint, but it presents a chilling, disturbing image that sits very poorly with me.

Anti-gun folks are already using this incident as an example of the risks of campus carry. On the contrary, this is an example of the folly of gun-free zones and the benefits of campus carry.

One of the commonly-expressed concerns about campus carry is that a student upset about a particular topic or grade will threaten or shoot a professor: it’s clear that this can happen regardless of state, local, or campus rules prohibiting guns on campus or in certain areas, let alone laws against assault, threats, murder, etc. It should be evident that such policies serve only to leave ordinary, non-criminal people defenseless in the face of violent criminals.

Still, carrying is not a panacea: it’s certainly possible for a bad guy with the element of surprise to get the drop on someone, but after that things become much harder for the bad guy if they are intent on causing mass casualties  — instead of potential victims hiding helplessly in rooms, they can arm themselves and present a much more effective defense in the event they’re attacked. Why anyone would be opposed to this is beyond me.

Lastly, anti-gun folks often say that “guns don’t belong on campus”, that somehow the presence of concealed firearms carried by “good guys with guns” will upset some campus-specific qi and make the campus more hostile, and that guns won’t solve anything. If guns in the hands of good guys aren’t a good thing or if guns don’t solve anything, why call for armed police in such a situation? Guns are already present on campus — whether lawfully carried by campus police officers for purposes of good, illegally carried by criminals for nefarious purposes, or by honest-but-technically-law-breaking people unwilling to risk their safety by going unarmed — and barring the occasional act of criminal violence, the academic environment seems to handle it just fine.

This incident should be a call for action in support of campus carry and the removal of useless, dangerous gun-free zones. Call your legislator today.

How many more?

Yesterday, 9 people died in South Carolina at the hands of a killer.
His victims were disarmed by the state and left with no effective means of self-defense.
Although I can’t say if anyone there?would have carried at the church, they were denied even the freedom to choose by the South Carolina legislature who, in their <sarcasm>superior wisdom</sarcasm>, thought there was no need for anyone to carry in a church, and so made it illegal.
How many more need to die before the concept of a “gun-free zone” is universally realized as the?dangerous and illogical absurdity that it is?

CNN: Bill Clinton: America has ‘bought the NRA’s theory’

Former president Bill Clinton talked with CNN on Wednesday and had a few choice things to say about the NRA. Those familiar with the former president should not be surprised that he looks disparagingly upon the NRA and gun owners:

The former president, in a conversation with CNN’s Erin Burnett at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in New York, lumped together the NRA, stand your ground laws, and people surrounding themselves only with those who agree with them as problems that lead to a more violent climate in the United States.

He does have a point with the last part — diversity is the spice of life, after all — but he’s way off base on the other points.

“I think we have enhanced the risks by changing the environment, basically, because it seems we bought the NRA’s theory that we would all be safer if everybody in this audience had a gun that was a concealed weapon,” Clinton said. “Then if one of them felt threatened by another, they could stand up right here and stand their ground. And we could watch the whole saga unfold. That is what happens.”

I fail to see how someone being lawfully able to defend themselves when genuinely threatened,?regardless of where they happen to be at the time, is a bad thing.
Stand Your Ground laws are not a blanket license to kill anyone for any reason, but rather simply say that a person has no duty to retreat from a place they have a lawful right to be and can use force (including lethal force) if they?reasonably believe they face an imminent and immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury (emphasis mine). They’d still need to explain themselves to the authorities after the fact, and it’s not uncommon for people invoking “stand your ground” provisions to be found guilty.
Of course, it’s worth pointing out that even with the liberalization of concealed carry, the spread of Stand Your Ground, and other pro-gun-rights policies being enacted, gun-related violent crime is?way down since Clinton was in office.
It looks like America has indeed “bought the NRA’s theory” and that theory is?actually working.

Open Carry Rally this Saturday in Texas [corrected]

Updated: Whoops. Turns out I didn’t check the date on the DMN article — the event was this last Saturday and has already occurred. Mea culpa. Additionally, it looks like the group didn’t have permission from Home Depot and may have violated Home Depot’s “no solicitation” policy, which might end up getting open carry banned at Home Depot. Way to go, guys.
In the army we had a name for people who screwed over their buddies: “blue falcon“. It’s fair to say that applies to these guys.
Original post continues below:
Heads up to any readers in Texas: according to the Dallas Morning News, there’ll be an open carry rally in North Richland Hills this Saturday:

Starting at 11:30 a.m. supporters will fill the back of the parking lot at the Home Depot on Precinct Line Road to listen to speakers, have an open-carry education session and hold a raffle. Prizes include revolvers, an AR 15 rifle, over 1,500 rounds of ammunition and Rangers tickets, according to the group?s Facebook page.
Rally organizer Kory Watkins, 30, wants to make it clear that Saturday?s event is not a protest.
?Protesters are angry; and we are not angry people. If you come up to us, you will see we are smiling and friendly,? he said. ?We are demonstrating, demonstrating our rights and demonstrating how the law lets you carry a long gun, but you can?t open carry a pistol.?

While I personally find the open carry of rifles in built-up areas a bit off-putting, so long as things are cool with Home Depot that sounds like a fun event and a good use of a large, otherwise-unused section of parking lot.
When you’re having a big event, it makes sense to coordinate with the property owner rather than just showing up. Doubly so when people are openly armed.
However, it’s not quite clear if that’s the case:

Watkins said his group has been meeting at the Home Depot for almost a year, and unlike other businesses and cities like Arlington who have clashed with the group, the home improvement giant has ?stayed neutral.?
?They respect the rights of the people and we realize that,? Watkins said. ?Their parking lost are always huge so we can park in the back and not bother nobody.?
A representative for the North Richland Hills Home Depot said he had no information about the rally.
?That?s not something Home Depot sponsors,? said the man, who declined to give his name. ?They are not going to on the Home Depot property.?
Stephen Holmes, Home Depot?s corporate communications director, told Forbes, ?Our feeling is that, ultimately, the voters direct the laws on gun carry issues, so we defer to the prevailing ordinances in states and communities.?

Emphasis mine.
Good for Home Depot to stay neutral, but it sounds like the group — even though they’ve met there regularly — hasn’t really coordinated with the store itself. That’d probably be a good idea.
Fortunately, they’ve let the police know ahead of time so there shouldn’t be trouble from the cops:

[A]ccording to Watkins, the North Richland Hills police have been helpful with the planned rally.
?The police department has been notified and is coordinating with us,? he said. ?Everything is legal, as always.?

Naturally, the Demanding Mommies and a few others have posted to the Home Depot Facebook page saying they’re unhappy about the situation and will not shop at the store until they change their rules.
Honestly, Texas really should just allow open carry of handguns like Arizona and other states: with few exceptions, very few people notice or care a handgun holstered on a belt but they sure as hell will notice a slung rifle. It’d benefit gun owners in Texas and take the steam out of MDA by removing a point around which they can rally support and get media time.

Great news from California!

As the Washington Post reports,

A divided federal appeals court on Thursday struck down California?s concealed-weapons rules, saying they violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
By a vote of 2 to 1, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said California was wrong to require applicants to show good cause to receive a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Outstanding. I was born and raised in California and the restrictive gun laws there always chafed a bit (though I later moved to Arizona, where things were better). Although the gun laws in CA have ratcheted ever-more-restrictive over the years (“assault weapons” ban, .50 BMG ban, etc.) it’s nice to see a combo-breaker in the form of this case.
Honestly, this decision (and the recent one out of Illinois that struck down the prohibition on carry) is something I did not expect: I’ve been so used to states like California having increasingly restrictive gun laws, even in the wake of Heller and McDonald, that I more or less gave up hope for those states. I am pleasantly surprised and, to paraphrase Sebastian, I hope this is a step in bringing certain states back to America.
I will also join in with everyone else congratulating Clayton Cramer for having two of his law review articles cited by the court.
Although court decisions like this one are baby steps, they’re steps in the right direction and lay down a good legal precedent for the future.
Update 1: Bob Owens has some choice quotes from the decision here.
Naturally, the Brady Campaign is not happy. They statement claims that, “Neither history or precedent supports this aberrant, split decision that concocts a dangerous right of people to carry hidden handguns in public places to people whom law enforcement has determined that they have no good cause or qualifications to do so.”, which is somewhat strange since the court has, in support of its decision, cited numerous historical and legal precedents. Do the Brady’s offer any sort of citations to legal precedent, court decisions, or historical claims in support of their position? No, they go straight to emotional arguments: “The parents of Jordan Davis and Trayvon Martin, whose children were killed by licensed concealed-carry holders, could educate the Court about the real dangers posed by this legal error.” That’s pretty weaksauce, even for the Brady’s.

Detroit police chief reiterates pro-CCW stance

From The Detroit News:

Police Chief James Craig responded Thursday to a citizen who criticized his pro-gun stance by reiterating his opinion that ?good citizens? who legally carry firearms could help deter violent crime.
[…]

Craig stressed that he doesn?t support vigilantism.

?This is not often talked about: responsibility,? he said. ?I do not condone vigilantism. I don?t support individuals arming themselves and doing the work of police officers. Police officers are trained to enforce the law. I think you put people at risk when you have people that are out playing police. I do see that a concealed weapon is an opportunity for self-protection only; not to go out and enforce the law.?

After Thursday?s meeting, Police Commissioner Lisa Carter and her husband, Tyrone Carter ? both former police officers ? said they agreed with Craig.

?There are a lot of seniors in Detroit who are victims,? Tyrone Carter said. ?It?s not vigilantism for people to protect themselves.?

Added Lisa Carter: ?That?s all we?re talking about: The right for people to be able to protect themselves.?

Excellent.