Categories
A Victory! All About Guns California

San Francisco Residents Seeking Concealed-Carry Permits Endure Long Waits, Fear Scorn Applications have risen since Supreme Court ruling on gun rights

Private investigator Andrew Solow is waiting on a permit for which he applied seven months ago. AMY OSBORNE FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

SAN FRANCISCO—A San Francisco electrician hides his gun case in a backpack and his ammunition in a toolbox when he loads up his van for a day at the shooting range some 20 miles outside the city.

Though he shares many of the liberal values of his neighbors—“I am an equality-loving pronoun-checking, hippie, San Francisco guy”—he conceals his status as a gun owner, worried that they would ostracize him if they knew.

The 42-year-old is one of 285 residents seeking a permit to carry concealed weapons in public in a city that has long had some of the tightest firearm restrictions in the country.

The San Franciscans who want to carry guns include software engineers, accountants, middle managers and firearms instructors. They fall along the entire political spectrum, but many have at least one thing in common: They don’t want to be identified because they are worried about judgment from their neighbors or employers.

Private investigator Andrew Solow displays his guns.PHOTO: AMY OSBORNE FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Their names are discoverable under public records law with some exceptions, according to legal experts.

Cities such as San Francisco that routinely denied such permits have received a flood of applications since the Supreme Court ruled for the first time last summer that the Second Amendment protects Americans’ right to carry guns outside the home for self-defense. In the past, authorities here said they received fewer than 20 applications a year.

Democratic leaders in states such as New York and California have sought to pass measures to blunt the effects of the ruling by imposing more thorough background investigations or training requirements for those seeking to carry concealed weapons in public. But a judge put most of the New York law on hold in October, and California’s failed to pass the state legislature.

That has left municipalities unaccustomed to issuing permits scrambling to come up with their own rules. In San Francisco, applicants must take a firearms training course and undergo a psychological exam, an extremely high bar for a U.S. city.

Most cities in California have begun issuing permits, but so far, the sheriff’s office and the police department in San Francisco have collectively approved just one permit since the Supreme Court ruling last June.

The slow pace has led to complaints from gun owners.

Andrew Solow, a 68-year-old private investigator, applied for a permit seven months ago to protect himself when he ventures into dangerous neighborhoods. He is still waiting for approval.

“That’s an obscenely long amount of time—it’s ludicrous,” he said. “I’m a licensed investigator.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Solow said he walks with a 66-inch wooden staff for self-defense.

A San Francisco police spokeswoman said the department “has been carefully undertaking great and reasonable efforts to expeditiously administrate a legal procedure” to grant applications.

Andrew Solow carries a stick for protection until he can carry a concealed gun.PHOTO: AMY OSBORNE FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

“We have to be very thorough in our vetting process,” said Tara Moriarty, a spokeswoman for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office.

San Francisco has a long history of strict firearms laws. The city’s last gun store and gun club both closed in 2015. As most states—and even many cities in California—began loosening restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in the past decade, the city remained an island. The police department said that before the Supreme Court ruling it issued just two permits for concealed weapons.

Catherine Stefani, a San Francisco supervisor, said she is drafting legislation to toughen standards for carrying firearms in public and to set out a list of sensitive places where guns will be restricted. Ms. Stefani criticized the Supreme Court decision as misguided and said it would “unleash more guns on our streets.”

Several permit seekers say they want to carry a firearm with them for self-defense.

The city has long had a high property crime rate, but while homicides spiked during the pandemic, the murder rate here is lower than many other large cities. The city’s homicide rate in 2021 climbed to 6.4 per 100,000 residents from 5.4 a year earlier; the national homicide rate in 2021 was 6.9 per 100,000, according to city and federal crime data.

Supervisor Catherine Stefani said she is drafting legislation to toughen standards for carrying firearms in public.PHOTO: GABRIELLE LURIE/SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE/GETTY IMAGES

A 30-year-old manager at a distribution company said he sought a permit because of crime in his southeast San Francisco neighborhood and because of the highly publicized attacks against Asian residents during the pandemic.

“A lot of my friends who never had an interest in firearms before started stockpiling for the same reasons: lack of police response and the rise of Asian hate,” said the man who is Asian-American.

The 42-year-old electrician, a San Francisco native, said he wanted to carry a gun because he felt the city had become more dangerous since he was a child, when he says he would skateboard in the middle of the night.

“I’m not looking to help the cops. I’m not looking to be a tactical guru,” he said. “My sole position at this point is to be able to, as best as I can, protect myself and my family from someone that would have the wherewithal to do us harm.”

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California Cops

California: Committee Considering Banning Body Armor & Increasing Firearm Marking Violation Penalties

Assembly Bill 92 and Assembly Bill 301 ban citizens from delivering or taking possession of body armor, with exceptions for those in “eligible professions.” Existing federal and California state laws already prohibit violent felons from possessing body armor, with limited exceptions for employment. Law-abiding citizens own body armor for the same legitimate purposes as professional users: to protect themselves from violent criminals and for increased safety during various forms of firearm training.

Access to body armor, which is freely available from all over the world due to advances in materials science, is essential for Americans to exercise their Second Amendment right to self-defense. Bans only leave law-abiding citizens defenseless to criminals, who by definition, ignore the law.

Assembly Bill 97 increases penalties for violating California’s law on serializing home-built firearms and buying, disposing, possessing, etc., any firearm with the manufacturer name, model designation, or serial number altered or obliterated, from misdemeanors to felonies. The existing California law already goes above and beyond federal law in regulating markings on firearms. These penalties are for mere possession, which could cause otherwise law-abiding citizens, without any criminal intent, to permanently lose their Second Amendment rights.

Categories
Born again Cynic! California

This Summer in California , you heard it here 1st!

Categories
California Well I thought it was neat!

Wonderful California 40’s in color [60fps,Remastered] w/sound design added

Categories
California

See LA has always been one mighty strange place!!

The Dug Out sandwich bar. 6157 E Whittier Blvd, LA, 1920s

Categories
A Victory! All About Guns California
Handguns for sale at the WEX Gunworks store on Jan. 31, 2023, in Delray Beach, Fla. 
Handguns for sale at the WEX Gunworks store on Jan. 31, 2023, in Delray Beach, Fla.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

In the coming years, it is likely you will encounter people in San Francisco carrying concealed weapons.

A Supreme Court ruling from last year forced localities to soften permitting rules. In short, the court ruled that “may issue” laws — in which officials have broad discretion to deny a person seeking a concealed weapon permit — violate the Second Amendment. Areas with “may issue” laws must now transition to “shall issue” laws, in which the permit-seeker is entitled to a permit unless they are deemed unfit to carry a weapon.

As a result, San Francisco has begun the process of granting new licenses. Previously in the city, an individual had to demonstrate “good cause” for obtaining a permit, such as working in areas with high rates of violent crime. The city seldom found that individuals met the “good cause” standard, which resulted in very few concealed carry permits in San Francisco.

That “good cause” standard has now been replaced by a more lax interim policy with only four requirements. First, the individual — whether a San Francisco resident or a resident of another county who works in San Francisco — must legally own the firearm they seek to carry. From there, if the individual can complete a firearms safety course, as well as pass both a psychological test and a background check, they will be granted a permit.

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office told SFGATE that the psychological exam consists of a multiple choice test and an interview conducted by Law Enforcement Psychological Services (LEPS), a screening service the city uses for police and other law enforcement officers. LEPS did not immediately respond to an SFGATE request for a copy of the multiple choice test.

For the background check, the sheriff’s office will not only conduct the standard California Department of Justice background check used for firearm purchases, but, according to the new policy, will also review “materials such as citations, arrests, convictions, civil lawsuits, employment discharges, military discharges, license denials, license revocations, other actions indicating a possible propensity for violence or moral turpitude, drug and/or alcohol abuse, carelessness with weapons, and/or dishonesty to determine whether the applicant is a law abiding, responsible citizen.”

Unless something comes up in that background check that calls into question “whether the applicant is a law abiding, responsible citizen,” the city must issue the permit. San Francisco Sheriff Paul Miyamoto told KGO that the city is currently reviewing 72 permit applications, and expects between 100 and 200 over the next year.

Lawmakers at both the city and state level are seeking restrictions on where individuals with permits can carry concealed firearms. At the state level, Gov. Gavin Newsom has thrown his support behind legislation that would raise the minimum age for acquiring a permit from 18 to 21 and add new training and storage requirements.

Of course, any of those restrictions could be struck down by the courts as well. On age requirements, the 9th Circuit of Appeals has already invalidated a previous California requirement that individuals be 21 to purchase semiautomatic weapons. It’s not a stretch to believe that reasoning could apply to concealed weapons permits as well.

In addition to softening permitting rules for concealed carry, last year’s Supreme Court ruling prescribed a new test for lower courts in Second Amendment cases: For a gun control measure to be constitutionally permissible, it must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, one of the country’s leading Second Amendment scholars, told SFGATE last summer that in the case last year, New York City had provided historical analogues used to justify its permitting rules.

“The court says they’re looking to history and tradition, but New York presented plenty of history on restrictions on concealed carry that the court dismissed as outliers or not historically relevant,” he said. “The court claimed it was using history, but it looked like politics as usual to me.”

Categories
California Cops

Just another night in LA

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California Cops

Los Angeles County supervisors to consider gun control measures in wake of Monterey Park mass shooting by: Travis Schlepp

Some of about 125 weapons confiscated in a gang takedown are displayed at a press conference on May 21, 2009 in the Los Angeles-area community of Lakewood, California. (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)

Some of about 125 weapons confiscated in a gang takedown are displayed at a press conference on May 21, 2009 in the Los Angeles-area community of Lakewood, California. (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)

In the wake of a devastating mass shooting in Monterey Park last month in which 11 people were killed during a Lunar New Year celebration, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is set to evaluate and discuss new gun control measures in hopes of curbing gun violence in the county.

Several motions are expected to be presented at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, with proposals both ambitious and small in scale.

Countywide gun owner registry

Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Hilda Solis have proposed a motion that would direct the County’s legal counsel to study the feasibility and legality of implementing a countywide gun registry.

The registry would be created in partnership with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and would use existing data and records to create a database that is “easily accessible for law enforcement first responders.”

Horvath and Solis say that the current system for gun tracing is a slow and tedious process and a countywide registry would make it easier for law enforcement officers to track down criminals.

“Having access to a database that lists the firearm(s) registered to a certain address would allow first responders to better assess the situation and adjust their approach accordingly when responding to a call for service at an address with a licensed firearm,” the motion reads.

Even if the Board of Supervisors agrees to move forward with the proposal, a countywide registry would not be immediately implemented and it would likely face many legal challenges. Federal law currently prohibits the Federal Government from having its own nationwide gun owner registry, the motion says.

Liability insurance

Additionally, the motion directs Los Angeles County to look into the possibility of requiring gun owners in the county to carry some form of liability insurance for their firearms.

The hope, according to the motion language, is that the insurance requirement will encourage firearm owners to “take safety classes, use gun safes, install trigger locks, or utilize chamber-load indicators.”

The idea of liability insurance requirement is a popular suggestion among gun control advocates, and the Supervisors’ proposal says there is some data to support its effectiveness.

The County’s Counsel would be required to report the findings of both the registry and insurance items within 90 days of the motion’s passage — if it passes.

Warning signs and secure storage

While those two proposals are quite ambitious and abstract at the current juncture, there are two additional items that appear likely to move forward with some immediacy.

If passed, the County would require new signage that warns of the dangers of firearms to be displayed at businesses where guns are sold.

Additionally, a requirement could be instituted that would require firearms at a gun owner’s home be securely stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock.

Citing a study from the Journal of the American Medical Association, the proposals states that households with locked firearms and ammunition saw a vast decrease in self-inflicted firearms injuries and a much lower risk of unintentional firearms injuries among children.

Currently, California law requires firearm owners to keep guns safely secured and requires trigger locks be sold simultaneously with firearms sales. But, the motion argues, the State does not clearly define what counts as “safe storage” and the requirement only exists for home in which children live or regularly visit.

“The County has the ability to build upon state law with specific requirements for safe gun storage which could prevent the unintentional deaths of children and teen suicides by as much as 85% depending on the type of storage and could also prevent guns from being easily stolen in the case of a home invasion,” the motion reads.

Consumers can buy gun storage devices that are approved by the United States Department of Justice for as little as $40 and trigger locks can often be obtained for free from police and sheriff’s stations.

Assault weapons ban

Another motion authored by Solis and Supervisor Janice Hahn urges the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to publicly support efforts by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein to reinstate the nation’s expired ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons.

.50 caliber ammo ban and County property restrictions

And a third motion, also authored by Solis and Hahn, aims to ban the sale of .50 caliber firearms and ammunition in Los Angeles County and restrict the carrying of firearms on County property.

County property includes beaches, playgrounds, plazas and County department buildings, the motion reads.

Both ordinances have been researched and are ready for immediate introduction, Hahn and Solis say.

That motion also includes language to evaluate L.A. County’s zoning regulations. If passed, the County will begin researching the legality of implementing zoning restrictions on firearms dealers, including establishing a safe “buffer zone” to keep those businesses a yet-to-be determined distance from schools, parks and daycares, among other “sensitive areas.”

It will also call for stricter requirements for ammunition and firearms dealers to become licensed locally.

The L.A. County Department of Regional Planning and Treasurer and Tax Collector would be tasked with finalizing those two ordinances and would be asked to submit the findings to the Board for approval “as soon as possible.”

“Too many people have lost loved ones to gun violence in Los Angeles County. We must be united in our fight against gun violence and enhancing local regulations is an important part of the fight,” Solis and Hahn wrote in that motion.

It’s unclear at this time which, if any, motions will survive past Tuesday’s Supes meeting, but the Board currently carries a 4 to 1 Democrat majority and the lone Republican, Supervisor Kathryn Barger, has at times shown a propensity to support increased gun control measures during her terms as Supervisor.

Categories
All About Guns California Cops You have to be kidding, right!?!

California lawmakers to consider stricter regulations against people prohibited from owning guns

 

California lawmakers held an oversight hearing on Tuesday to figure out how to improve the state’s Armed and Prohibited Persons System, also known as APPS, which is a program that is supposed to keep guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous people.

The program has faced criticism for using antiquated systems and having the workload outweigh the manpower.

“California leads with some of the most stringent gun laws, but gun violence is a daily reality for communities across our state,” Assm. Reggie Jones-Sawyer said. “We know gun violence across California requires stronger action.”

The APPS program, which only exists in California, places legal gun owners on a list of people who are prohibited from having weapons if they are convicted of a felony, violent misdemeanor, have a restraining order against them or for a mental health reason. The program has been in place since 2001 and uses the state’s Automated Firearms System, which tracks in state registration of firearm owners across the state. The California Department of Justice oversees the APPS program.

“The program has been plagued with numerous challenges since its introduction,” said Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris in Tuesday’s hearing, noting there were 24,000 people on the APPS list. “That is just not good enough,” she said.

Tuesday’s oversight hearing included lawmakers from the Assembly Public Safety Committee and Administrative Review Committees.

The CA DOJ was still in the process of putting together its latest data, which is expected to release sometime in the spring, so the agency used numbers from its 2021 report in Tuesday’s hearing.

CA DOJ officials said of the 24,000 people on the APPS list, 10,000 of them were still in the process of being investigated to have weapons taken away. Another 14,000 are considered “pending cases,” meaning the investigations were exhausted because of reasons including agents being unable to clear weapons, unable to locate the person, or those on the list moved out of state. Officials said they expected the 10,000 figure to remain consistent, noting prohibited people land on the list daily.

The CA DOJ has 73 special agents dedicated to taking weapons away from those prohibited from having them every day. Officials said 56 special agents are currently doing the work while the agency tries to fill 17 vacant positions, noting turnover is high when other large law enforcement agencies have better pay.

Former California Highway Patrolman and Republican Assm. Tom Lackey said law enforcement retention and recruitment go beyond pay.

“Morale amongst law enforcement is low right now; all agencies are having trouble because the incentive has been thwarted,” Lackey said. “Everybody hurts when we demonize an entire profession for conduct of a few.”

San Diego’s police department and city attorney’s office have a state-leading gun violence restraining order program. The state has earmarked $1 million for the agency to help train other local agencies across the state.

Sgt. Thomas Dillon and Chief Deputy City Attorney Nicole Crosby suggested lawmakers consider approving resources to create regional APPS/Gun Violence Restraining Order task forces. They noted this will help boost manpower and streamline communication between agencies.

“We have a great relationship with DOJ but the burden of firearms collection falls on local law enforcement,” Crosby told lawmakers.

“The biggest concern we have is to maintain accurate information in a timely manner,” Dillon told lawmakers, who noted the APPS system uses old technology and requires the use of several state databases to gather information on a prohibited person.

Republican Assm. Laurie Davies introduced a bill, Assembly Bill 303, that would create a new database for the APPS system.

Tuesday’s hearing was informational, meaning no votes or action was taken. It’s possible state lawmakers could address the system’s issues through legislation or the state budget process.

Categories
Born again Cynic! California Cops

If only that would happen here in Los Angeles! (Hey I can dream right?)