Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

De facto ban....Tens of thousands of permit holders.

OK guy.

Out of millions of people. How many denials are there every year? "Good cause" is about as subjective as it gets. It's no different than where I live. I can't get a concealed carry permit, unless I've already been victimized. Or if I handle money.

So, in other words, I can't get one. A de facto ban.

[Stormdash]

In the most populous state in the union, "tens of thousands" is pretty paltry. Found one study that says there were 12.8 million concealed permits in issue in the US as of July '15. Now, take from that that your under 18 population in US which is about 75 million. We'll assume -- to be generous to the anti-gun position, really -- that everyone else in the US is legally able to obtain one, and you're at 12.8 million out of 250 million, or about 5%. Yes, 1 in 20 at the low end

So about 28 million of Cali residents are over 18; let's assume generously that they are all legally eligible to get a permit. As of June 2015, there were about 70k active CCPs in issue in CA.

That's .25%. One quarter of one percent. Against a national average using the same rough but consistent terms of about 5%.

So... yeah, de facto ban.

[TZucchini]

Out of millions of people. How many denials are there every year?

Wait. You don't even know how many denials there are? And yet you're somehow able to claim that it's a de facto ban?

Talk about put the cart before the horse. Pretty typical.

"Good cause" is about as subjective as it gets. It's no different than where I live. I can't get a concealed carry permit, unless I've already been victimized. Or if I handle money.

So, in other words, I can't get one. A de facto ban.

Just because you can't one, does not in fact make it a de facto ban. Especially when tens of thousands of people have already obtained one.

- - - Updated - - -

So... yeah, de facto ban.

I really don't see how we can claim some de facto ban when we don't know the number of denials.

It's one of the most liberal state in the nation. Maybe the residents don't like firearms. Their gun laws would certainly suggest so.

[Ghostpanther]

Not the point -- it's settled binding precedent that the 2nd Amendment protects, as a liberty interest, carrying about of a firearm. That's why 'shall issue' is the majority rule in the Constitution-abiding country. To uphold 'may issue' (a construct that means concealed carry is no liberty interest, just a blessing laid upon one's head by their masters in the bureaucracy), the 9th in effect said that whatever Heller laid down doesn't applied to concealed carry.

If it does apply to "carry" but doesn't apply to "concealed carry", what is left?

So the CA is either constitutional open carry or shall-issue open carry, or just openly defying the Supreme Court.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, spoilers, many of the problems ending up in court in CA are because the de facto rule is for the most part "won't issue", not "may issue". Which is part of why DC's "may issue" got struck down for violating the 2nd Amendment.

Doesn't New York have a similar type of procedure for obtaining a conceal carry permit? I think you have to show just cause why you want one and simple self defense is not a good enough reason? Whatever New York has seems to not be a conflict of the 2nd Amendment from the Supreme Court's point of view.

Not saying I agree with it however. As I think the term " to keep and bare " applies to carry also. I think it was Justice Thomas who made a comment lately on a case asking the question, " What other constitutional right has licenses required before one can exercise them?".

[Tinykong]

Wait. You don't even know how many denials there are? And yet you're somehow able to claim that it's a de facto ban?

Talk about put the cart before the horse. Pretty typical.

It's a de facto ban simply on the merits of the case you linked. A normal, mentally stable person cannot always get a permit. You have to show "good cause", which means proof of necessity. That's a de facto ban.

[Ghostpanther]

It's a de facto ban simply on the merits of the case you linked. A normal, mentally stable person cannot always get a permit. You have to show "good cause", which means proof of necessity. That's a de facto ban.

I agree. The only reason you should need to provide in my opinion is, " it is my constitutional right ". Of course the courts disagree.

[TZucchini]

It's a de facto ban simply on the merits of the case you linked. A normal, mentally stable person cannot always get a permit. You have to show "good cause", which means proof of necessity. That's a de facto ban.

That's not a de facto ban. It's a restriction.

Restrictions are not de facto bans. We know this, because tens of thousands of people successfully received a permit.

You can keep trying to force the word "ban" into this discussion, but we have empirical evidence that no such ban exists.

[TwoNineMarine]

There's no evidence for this. The fact that there are tens of thousands of permits issues is actually a direct contradiction of your claim.



Really? Where's the evidence for this claim?



But they do have a process. Tens of thousands of people have successfully gone through it. The only thing disingenuous is your ridiculous "1 bullet per gun" comparison.

- - - Updated - - -



De facto ban....Tens of thousands of permit holders.

OK guy.

In a state with MILLIONS of people. I'd love to see how many people apply and get turned down because they don't have "good cause".

[TZucchini]

Doesn't New York have a similar type of procedure for obtaining a conceal carry permit? I think you have to show just cause why you want one and simple self defense is not a good enough reason? Whatever New York has seems to not be a conflict of the 2nd Amendment from the Supreme Court's point of view.

Not saying I agree with it however. As I think the term " to keep and bare " applies to carry also. I think it was Justice Thomas who made a comment lately on a case asking the question, " What other constitutional right has licenses required before one can exercise them?".

Yes. New York is may issue in terms of CCW.

[Tinykong]

That's not a de facto ban. It's a restriction.

Restrictions are not de facto bans. We know this, because tens of thousands of people successfully received a permit.

You can keep trying to force the word "ban" into this discussion, but we have empirical evidence that no such ban exists.

If a normal, mentally stable person can't get a permit, it's a de facto ban.

"Good cause" is wildly subjective. Seems like the prevailing opinion is that means your life is routinely in jeopardy (handling money) or you can show proof that you have already been victimized.

In other words: most people will never get a permit. Clearly you don't know what the term "de facto" means.

[TZucchini]

In a state with MILLIONS of people. I'd love to see how many people apply and get turned down because they don't have "good cause".

As would I.

I believe May-Issue is a great law, but I don't believe it should translate into "Never-Issue". If there's a problem with CA's permitting system, then they should fix it. But no one has presented evidence of such.

[TwoNineMarine]

That's not a de facto ban. It's a restriction.

Restrictions are not de facto bans. We know this, because tens of thousands of people successfully received a permit.

You can keep trying to force the word "ban" into this discussion, but we have empirical evidence that no such ban exists.

Hell if the government doesn't post the number they turn down then how are we supposed to know?

The sad thing is this de facto ban essentially turns normal every day people into criminals if they simply want to use their 2nd Amendment right to carry a weapon.

- - - Updated - - -

As would I.

I believe May-Issue is a great law, but I don't believe it should translate into "Never-Issue". If there's a problem with CA's permitting system, then they should fix it. But no one has presented evidence of such.

No one can present the evidence because my guess is that the state doesn't post it.

And trust me I've looked.

All that proves to me is that the state is hiding those numbers so people can argue that it's not a de facto ban when it actually is.

But if you can find those numbers please share.

[TITAN308]

As would I.

I believe May-Issue is a great law, but I don't believe it should translate into "Never-Issue".

Of course not, politicians and the rich elite still need a way to carry a gun.

aka it is why Donad Trump can get a carry permit in NYC, but Bob the Builder can't.

[TITAN308]

Just wanted to point out that the South made the "you can't judge it without any experience with it" argument about slavery, and it's equally facile when applied to guns. The impact of loose gun laws is obviously a lot more violence. You don't need to hold a gun to know that.

Oh.. yea... about that... most of the most violent places have the most draconian gun laws.

California took top champ as #1 in homicides.... again.

[TZucchini]

Of course not, politicians and the rich elite still need a way to carry a gun.

aka it is why Donad Trump can get a carry permit in NYC, but Bob the Builder can't.

Are you planning on backing up your claim of: "The majority of issued permits are to government employees (like judges) and the rich elite."

Probably not. I'll just let that one slide.

[Daelak]

Oh.. yea... about that... most of the most violent places have the most draconian gun laws.

California took top champ as #1 in homicides.... again.

Louisiana?

[TZucchini]

Oh.. yea... about that... most of the most violent places have the most draconian gun laws.

Citation required****

California took top champ as #1 in homicides.... again.

Per capita required****

[Stormdash]

I really don't see how we can claim some de facto ban when we don't know the number of denials.

When the national average is 2000% of the state's number, res ipsa loquitur.

[TITAN308]

Are you planning on backing up your claim of: "The majority of issued permits are to government employees (like judges) and the rich elite."

Probably not. I'll just let that one slide.

No I have no plans of centralizing all the data on places like calguns.net just to satisfy you.

As someone else pointed out, the state refuses to post any number on denials for a good reason (for them).

[Daelak]

No I have no plans of centralizing all the data on places like calguns.net just to satisfy you.

As someone else pointed out, the state refuses to post any number on denials for a good reason (for them).

*Queue dark music for the curtain up on a multi-level governmental conspiracy*