• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Discriminatory Concealed Carry Bill To Be Heard In Assembly

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
this is a terrible bill, that discriminates against people on the basis of race, sexual orientation, minority status, religious affiliation, and soon, country of origin. It also places victims of previous crimes ahead of future ones in getting concealed weapons permits. All a certain class of people would have to do is have a police report on file claiming they were a victim of a hate crime. If you are white, but not gay, jewish, or transgender, you aren't going to get a hate crime victim classification. this bill needs to die a quick publicly aired death

AB 2376, as introduced, Halderman. Concealed weapons: good cause:
hate crime victim.
Existing law authorizes the sheriff of a county or the chief or
other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and
county to issue a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person to an applicant
upon proof that the applicant is of good moral character, that good
cause exists for issuance of the license, that the applicant is a
resident of the respective jurisdiction, and the applicant has
completed a specified course of training, including firearm safety.
This bill would provide, for purposes of those provisions, that
good cause shall be conclusively established if the applicant has a
report on file with a law enforcement agency evidencing that he or
she is a victim of a hate crime.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 26150 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
26150. (a) When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person, the sheriff of a county may issue a license to that person
upon proof of all of the following:
(1) The applicant is of good moral character.
(2) (A) Good cause exists for issuance of
the license.
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, "good cause" shall be
conclusively established if the applicant has a report on file with a
law enforcement agency evidencing that he or she is a victim of a
hate crime.
(3) The applicant is a resident of the county or a city within the
county, or the applicant's principal place of employment or business
is in the county or a city within the county and the applicant
spends a substantial period of time in that place of employment or
business.
(4) The applicant has completed a course of training as described
in Section 26165.
(b) The sheriff may issue a license under subdivision (a) in
either of the following formats:
(1) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(2) Where If the
population of the county is less than 200,000 persons according to
the most recent federal decennial census, a license to carry loaded
and exposed in only that county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person.
SEC. 2. Section 26155 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
26155. (a) When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person, the chief or other head of a municipal police department of
any city or city and county may issue a license to that person upon
proof of all of the following:
(1) The applicant is of good moral character.
(2) (A) Good cause exists for issuance of
the license.
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, "good cause" shall be
conclusively established if the applicant has a report on file with a
law enforcement agency evidencing that he or she is a victim of a
hate crime.
(3) The applicant is a resident of that city.
(4) The applicant has completed a course of training as described
in Section 26165.
(b) The chief or other head of a municipal police department may
issue a license under subdivision (a) in either of the following
formats:
(1) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(2) Where If the
population of the county in which the city is located is less than
200,000 persons according to the most recent federal decennial
census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in only that county a
pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
the person.
(c) Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the chief or other head
of a municipal police department of any city from entering an
agreement with the sheriff of the county in which the city is located
for the sheriff to process all applications for licenses, renewals
of licenses, and amendments to licenses, pursuant to this chapter.
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
I don't know... it doesn't limit concealed carry, right? It only provides that if that circumstance is met then it must be considered a good reason, right?

Can't you be a victim of a hate crime even if you are a member of the most common race, religion etc? No matter who you are, I bet someone hates you for your race or beliefs.
 
Last edited:

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
I don't know... it doesn't limit concealed carry, right? It only provides that if that circumstance is met then it must be considered a good reason, right?

Can't you be a victim of a hate crime even if you are a member of the most common race, religion etc? No matter who you are, I bet someone hates you for your race or beliefs.

No; Hate crime is specific. You have to fall into a category. But more importantly, this bill is meant to reduce opposition to specific rulemaking in issuing permits. As soon as the gunowners that are gay, black, jewish, transgender, etc are assured a permit, they will not be interested in open carry or right to carry or shall issue anymore. It's a divide and conquer bill
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
Might consider supporting this bill and then filing an equal protection lawsuit against the state the moment it passes.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,227
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
No; Hate crime is specific. You have to fall into a category. But more importantly, this bill is meant to reduce opposition to specific rulemaking in issuing permits. As soon as the gunowners that are gay, black, jewish, transgender, etc are assured a permit, they will not be interested in open carry or right to carry or shall issue anymore. It's a divide and conquer bill


I disagree. This is a pill that anti-gunners wouldnt swallow without it being embedded in a candy bar. While no self-righteous anti-gun legislator would ever support the expansion of good cause for issuance of a license to carry concealed, the sugar coating of protecting the rights of women and minorities is a temptation that may appeal to less commited law makers. SB610 was advanced in a similar way, first giving public officials good cause for the nature of their position... what we got out of it was minimally, just enough reform to remind issuing agencies how licensing works under the statute. Where this bill goes from here is debatable- I would wager that if it is seriously considered by the end of the legislative session, that it wont look much like it does today- having been gutted by amendments. The concern that this would influence other aspects of carry I believe is unfounded, since legislative interest in open carry, carry rights and shall issue licensing is limited to the prohibition, not the expansion of the practice.

Might consider supporting this bill and then filing an equal protection lawsuit against the state the moment it passes.

On another note, this is why nearly all legislation promoting the expansion of keep and bear is good. What is good for a pistol packing black lesbian is equally good for the hetro white guy because the law is blind to distinctions between two classes of otherwise equal persons. The hate crime language could be compelled to apply to anyone.
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
I disagree. This is a pill that anti-gunners wouldnt swallow without it being embedded in a candy bar. While no self-righteous anti-gun legislator would ever support the expansion of good cause for issuance of a license to carry concealed, the sugar coating of protecting the rights of women and minorities is a temptation that may appeal to less commited law makers. SB610 was advanced in a similar way, first giving public officials good cause for the nature of their position... what we got out of it was minimally, just enough reform to remind issuing agencies how licensing works under the statute. Where this bill goes from here is debatable- I would wager that if it is seriously considered by the end of the legislative session, that it wont look much like it does today- having been gutted by amendments. The concern that this would influence other aspects of carry I believe is unfounded, since legislative interest in open carry, carry rights and shall issue licensing is limited to the prohibition, not the expansion of the practice.



On another note, this is why nearly all legislation promoting the expansion of keep and bear is good. What is good for a pistol packing black lesbian is equally good for the hetro white guy because the law is blind to distinctions between two classes of otherwise equal persons. The hate crime language could be compelled to apply to anyone.

Maybe you could show me where hate crime language applies to everyone.

Law is supposed to be blind and applied universally and equally. Here we (you) are encouraging the opposite
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,227
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
Equal protection is our friend...

Maybe you could show me where hate crime language applies to everyone.

Law is supposed to be blind and applied universally and equally. Here we (you) are encouraging the opposite

For the sake of arguement let's imagine the bill is passed into law as it reads at present. (It wont.)

14th Amendment - Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, If a black lesbian has been a victim of a hate crime- she has good cause. Under the Constitution, I, as a middle-aged hetero white guy have as much good cause as she and must be afforded the same privileges as those unartfully segregated by the legislature as a 'protected' minority for special treatment. I support the expansion of good cause to any definition beyond the discretion of the issuing agency- because even singling a particular group out will ensure a 14A challenge. But this is also why I believe it will fail... (Or be amended into something unrecognizable.)
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
For the sake of arguement let's imagine the bill is passed into law as it reads at present. (It wont.)



So, If a black lesbian has been a victim of a hate crime- she has good cause. Under the Constitution, I, as a middle-aged hetero white guy have as much good cause as she and must be afforded the same privileges as those unartfully segregated by the legislature as a 'protected' minority for special treatment. I support the expansion of good cause to any definition beyond the discretion of the issuing agency- because even singling a particular group out will ensure a 14A challenge. But this is also why I believe it will fail... (Or be amended into something unrecognizable.)

OK, so you haven't shown me where hate crime legislation applies to everyone. I was looking for a court decision; not a raindance. Yes, I'm aware what the constitution says, but it also says your right to a civil jury trial is inviolate, and that you have a right to fish. The US constitution also describes what a dollar is.

So....the plan is to support new discriminatory laws so that we can challenge them as unconstitutional and have them voided? How does this reclaim our 2nd amendment rights? Seems to me this is just more job security for Cal Bar members
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,227
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
OK, so you haven't shown me where hate crime legislation applies to everyone. I was looking for a court decision; not a raindance. Yes, I'm aware what the constitution says, but it also says your right to a civil jury trial is inviolate, and that you have a right to fish. The US constitution also describes what a dollar is.

So....the plan is to support new discriminatory laws so that we can challenge them as unconstitutional and have them voided? How does this reclaim our 2nd amendment rights? Seems to me this is just more job security for Cal Bar members

Okay. Here's the the statute;

422.55.

For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:

(a)"Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim:

(1)Disability.

(2)Gender.

(3)Nationality.

(4)Race or ethnicity.

(5)Religion.

(6)Sexual orientation.

(7)Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.

(b)"Hate crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation of Section 422.6.

2-7 are characteristics that apply to anyone.

422.6 (a)No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.

(b)No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.

(c)Any person convicted of violating subdivision (a) or (b) shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both the above imprisonment and fine, and the court shall order the defendant to perform a minimum of community service, not to exceed 400 hours, to be performed over a period not to exceed 350 days, during a time other than his or her hours of employment or school attendance. However, no person may be convicted of violating subdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing that the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or group of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to carry out the threat.

So this brings us to the scenarios that make this law an incremental expansion of carry rights.

Scenario 1; Openly lesbian woman is targeted by neighborhood youth- her car is vandalized and spraypainted with the epithet 'D*ke'. A police report is filed and this is sufficient to constitute good cause for her to carry a concealed weapon.

Scenario 2; A heterosexual man who owns cats is targeted by his militantly homophobic neighbor, his front door is vandalized with the epithet 'f*ggot'. A police report is filed and this is sufficient to constitute good cause for him to carry a concealed weapon.

Scenario 3; An pro-legal immigration activist observing and videotaping a group of day workers is threatened in Spanish, which is clearly audible in the recording. A police report is filed and this is sufficient to constitute good cause for them to carry a concealed weapon.

In none of these cases, is there a conviction of a crime-(there is also no mention of race) merely the report of a crime is sufficient to justify good cause. The threat only need to be percieved and reported to the police. If one of these people is not issued a license to carry concealed on the basis that they do not have good cause, it would be a violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,552
Location
SW Idaho
2-7 are characteristics that apply to anyone.

In theory; never in fact.

Can you point out a case in which a straight, white, American, Christian male who associates with other straight, white, American, Christian males was attacked, and the attacker was charged with a hate crime?
 
Last edited:

DoomGoober

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
63
Eric Holder pretty much admitted that Hate Crime Laws only apply to groups that have been "historically targeted."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOABBn5Tnm0

However, while the bill is discriminatory, I can't actively fight against any bill that will allow more citizens to carry firearms. It may be a divide and conquer approach but true 2nd Amendment believers will keep on fighting until everyone of fit mind has the right to carry.
 
Last edited:

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,552
Location
SW Idaho
However, while the bill is discriminatory, I can't actively fight against any bill that will allow more citizens to carry firearms. It may be a divide and conquer approach but true 2nd Amendment believers will keep on fighting until everyone of fit mind has the right to carry.

What if it was a bill to allow employees of state government to carry, but not others? Would you support that?
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
Okay. Here's the the statute;



2-7 are characteristics that apply to anyone.



So this brings us to the scenarios that make this law an incremental expansion of carry rights.

Scenario 1; Openly lesbian woman is targeted by neighborhood youth- her car is vandalized and spraypainted with the epithet 'D*ke'. A police report is filed and this is sufficient to constitute good cause for her to carry a concealed weapon.

Scenario 2; A heterosexual man who owns cats is targeted by his militantly homophobic neighbor, his front door is vandalized with the epithet 'f*ggot'. A police report is filed and this is sufficient to constitute good cause for him to carry a concealed weapon.

Scenario 3; An pro-legal immigration activist observing and videotaping a group of day workers is threatened in Spanish, which is clearly audible in the recording. A police report is filed and this is sufficient to constitute good cause for them to carry a concealed weapon.

In none of these cases, is there a conviction of a crime-(there is also no mention of race) merely the report of a crime is sufficient to justify good cause. The threat only need to be percieved and reported to the police. If one of these people is not issued a license to carry concealed on the basis that they do not have good cause, it would be a violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause.

C'mon C3...a court decision...
otherwise this is hope and change.

My claim is that this is just more of what we've got already. Selective application of gun rights and laws.
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
Eric Holder pretty much admitted that Hate Crime Laws only apply to groups that have been "historically targeted."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOABBn5Tnm0

However, while the bill is discriminatory, I can't actively fight against any bill that will allow more citizens to carry firearms. It may be a divide and conquer approach but true 2nd Amendment believers will keep on fighting until everyone of fit mind has the right to carry.

The people that get concealed carry permits are usually the same ones that protect that form over open carry. I'll go even farther and say that they more often than not are the ones that denigrate and discourage the OC movement. I don't believe that after obtianing their permits that they will lobby with the same force for everyones rights as when they were permitless. That's a cherished tactic of the legislature. appease, include, and then later...retract and deny.
 

DoomGoober

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
63
The people that get concealed carry permits are usually the same ones that protect that form over open carry. I'll go even farther and say that they more often than not are the ones that denigrate and discourage the OC movement. I don't believe that after obtianing their permits that they will lobby with the same force for everyones rights as when they were permitless. That's a cherished tactic of the legislature. appease, include, and then later...retract and deny.
In my old state of Washington, almost everyone I knew were both CC permit holders and OC advocates. So, while not all CC holders are pro-OC you also can't say that all CC holders are anti-OC. But to the point, I don't believe that hate crime victims were ever really advocating for OC -- I wonder if they're even advocating for CC (I'm speculating now.)

Anyway, my point was the only and true advocates for 2nd Amendment Rights, as we see it, are people like us. Whatever hate crime victims advocate for is a special case. We're not arguing for special cases: We're arguing for gun rights in general. Who cares if we lose the special case minority, which was never supporting our point of view in the first place (gun rights for all versus gun rights for victims)?
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
State of Wisconsin v. Mitchell. 1990. Supreme court decision 9-0. Black attackers, white victim.

I don't know if this is going to apply to the situation though. The problem will be getting your crime classified as a hate crime; not whether the prosecutor has the authority to seek that enhancement or not. This is California, that was wisconsin. The proposed law, thus far as C3 points out, is a person having a report on file of a hate crime.
One of the issues I don't care for is having to give up my dislikes and disdain for "hate crime" statutes to further my pursuits of an actual right which seems already denied.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,227
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
I think many posters here have unnecessarily focused on what constitutes a hate crime in the context of the existing law, while at the same time not recognized that under the proposed law, whether the report of a hate crime could ever produce a suspect or a conviction of the crime is completely irrelevant- further, that the reported alleged crime was against someone who was only percieved to be one of those protected under the hate crime statute. All that is required is an alleged victim to have a report of a hate crime on file with the police- there is no requirement to prove the threat beyond the report of a crime.
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
I think many posters here have unnecessarily focused on what constitutes a hate crime in the context of the existing law, while at the same time not recognized that under the proposed law, whether the report of a hate crime could ever produce a suspect or a conviction of the crime is completely irrelevant- further, that the reported alleged crime was against someone who was only percieved to be one of those protected under the hate crime statute. All that is required is an alleged victim to have a report of a hate crime on file with the police- there is no requirement to prove the threat beyond the report of a crime.

Evidencing a hate crime. Very ambiguous in its' present stage.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,227
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
Evidencing a hate crime. Very ambiguous in its' present stage.

As I have pointed out above, all that is necessary to obtain good cause under the proposed law is to report a hate crime you have been a victim of. There is no statutory threshold to prove the allegation or produce any sort of evidence.

Filed police report of hate crime = good cause. The concept of what constitutes a hate crime is so overbroad that it absolutely applies to anyone who has ever been offended or threatened.
 
Top