A SOLDIER'S PERSPECTIVE
THE WEB'S LEADING MILITARY BLOG SINCE 2004
I got an email from a buddy who is serving in the Marine Corps in the San Diego area. We spoke before he went to California about his reservations not being able to have his weapons. Not many people know it, but California is actually an open carry state! No license is needed either. Of course, that doesn’t stop the Cali Fuzz from violating the law or citizens’ rights:
I understand that there are ignorant people all over and that California has a really concentration of them (perhaps manufacturing ignorance there?) and that open carry would cause the lemmings of society to do what the media and liberal governments want them to do: fear the mere presence of a gun! So, California also has a law that allows for concealed carry.
To carry a concealed gun in California requires a permit from the county Sheriff. The policies and approval vary widely by county. Since California is a “may issue” state for concealed carry, some Sheriffs abuse their authority in making these decisions and just make it too difficult to obtain a permit.
Back to my Marine friend who is a Commissioned Officer. He recently applied for a concealed carry license in San Diego County. Part of the application process involves two one on one interviews with Sheriff’s Office lackeys. In his own words, here’s how THAT went down:
Obtaining a CHL or a Carry Concealed Weapon License (CCW) as they call it here is a two part process. The first step is your initial interview. You set up an appointment with the county Sheriff of your residence. For me this was San Diego which is pretty stringent on issuing CCWs. You sit down with some county employee who has probably never even held a gun their life. They ask for your ID which they make a copy of and begin asking questions.. The legal background questions go through pretty quickly assuming you have a clean record and are not on any type of probation status.
The part that gets tricky is convincing the state that you have a “good cause” to carry. This is where you make your money in obtaining a California CCW. California is a “May Issue” state which means that it is up to Big Brother to decide if you get to carry a concealed weapon. Stating self defense, 2nd Amendment rights, or increased violence in your neighborhood, are insufficient. You have to provide documentation that your life is in fact in danger. Examples would include police reports that you are a victim or restraining orders. I continued to ask question trying to find a possible reason that I could carry, and I was eventually told that “The state of California does not allow you to be proactive in defending yourself.” They then notified me that I have the option of carrying tazers or pepper spray.
The process took about two minutes for me to be rejected based off their opinion of not having a “good cause” to carry. As far as the 2nd interview goes, I can’t tell you what all it consists of as I did not make it that far. I would imagine your application is further reviewed by a ranking police officer.
My opinion of the whole situation is confused and disappointed. How in the land of the free can a Constitutional right be denied like this in California? How did things get this way? What’s even more disturbing is the fact that there are people who are willing to enforce this Constitutional infringement.
I am an officer in the Marine Corps with no criminal record. I have grown up around firearms my whole life and I recently shot Sharpshooter on pistol in the Marine Corps. I have an active Texas CHL since 2009 and have had no issues. I have also undergone numerous security clearances so I do not understand what the issue is. As far as the alternatives they offered to concealed carry, I laugh at the idea that while a criminal is putting rounds in my head, I will be viciously spraying him with pepper. The fact that I have been trusted with a machine gun, but not trusted to carry my own private weapon is ridiculous.
It makes no sense to me. The Constitution is clear, and the Supreme Court has upheld that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
SHALL: must or obliged to
NOT: denial, refusal or prohibition
BE: an act, to do something
INFRINGED: violated, encroached, transgressed
UPDATE: The liberal idiots think that by editing out the beginning of the 2nd Amendment, it somehow changes the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. So, here is the entire thing since it’s supposed to somehow change something: “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.” For the liberals that just don’t get it, let me put the 2nd Amendment in terms that even idiots can understand:
“A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed.” I would ask you to try to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes, and only well-crafted ones at that. This is basically what the liberals and gun control whackos argue with respect to the well-regulated militia, vs. the right to keep and bear arms. Feel better, Steve?
In other words, our Constitution obliges government against denying through any means the right to carry arms. It is an inviolable admonition. It cannot be violated, encroached, or transgressed. And yet, that is what is happening in the Socialist State of California (SSC). It’s no wonder that 36 states are safer than California.
(46) Readers Comments
Leave a Reply
![[UPDATE] The “Face” of Military Dating Scams – The Wall of Shame](http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/themes/LondonLive/thumb.php?src=http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2.jpg&w=53&h=41&zc=1&q=100)
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
to Anonn, thank you. i thought so. i just want a clear picture of his
Military Dating Scams (More Nigerian Scammers)
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
[UPDATE] The "Face" of Military Dating Scams - The Wall of Shame
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
Steve
Why don’t you put the whole 2nd amendment in there? You are cherry picking to support the outcome you want.
CJ
I’m not afraid of the whole thing, but this post was about the individual right to bear arms, not the right of the people to form an militia. Your assumption that including the whole second amendment would prove this post wrong is ignorant.
“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.”
There. Does that make your liberal blood boil that it doesn’t change this post the least bit?
Steve
Who said anything about you being afraid? Very Freudian.
CJ
Nothing Freudian about it Steve. I fear no one! I’m armed everywhere I go and the security that gives me is beyond your comprehension, I’m sure.
Steve
It is a fearful man who arms himself-Lao Tzu
CJ
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.” –Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787
Steve
Yea, that worked out real well for the Confederate States of America didn’t it? Maybe Jefferson Davis should have sent that quote to Abraham Lincoln.
joe
sounds like a hippie to me
Ray
Steve, so just what is your point besides being a dipstick?
Steve
I don’t know Ray, it takes one to know one!!!
joe
he doesnt know ray just another hippie that is about growing weed and letting the rights go out the window, and as far as the south i wish they would have won shit would not be where we are now, broke ass country with a spook as a prez.
Jerome
Your right to bear arms in the state of California are not infringed.
There are many many people who live in California and happily own and bear arms. This is not affected by the requirement of a CCW permit
CJ
How so, Jerome? The ability to carry a firearm under your shirt is illegal in California without a permit. That IS an infringement. The words are keep and BEAR arms. To bear arms is to carry arms. Citizens that don’t want to be treated like criminals and openly carry can’t do so under their jacket, strapped to their ankle, or hidden in the wasteband. And when they exercise that right to carry openly and are constantly stopped and harassed by police, THAT is an infringement. So, I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. They ARE infringed in California.
Steve
The right to keep and bear arms as part of a militia organization is how I reads it.
JR
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you, see Heller v DC. And their originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is the only one that is worth anything at all.
Sheep Dog
Steve, We the people comprise the militia. Our founding fathers intended the body of the citizenry armed for not only personal, but national defense. Here are just a few quotes from the Federalist papers and other documents that prove this assertion:
“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)
“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” (George Washington)
John
OK…. let’s look at the ammendment in context…
The founding fathers lived in a world where if you needed help, you called on your neighbors. The militia was composed solely of armed civilians protecting themselves and their neighbors. Someone breaks into Steve’s house, Steve shouts, “Help”! John and CJ grab their muskets from over the fireplace and rush to Steve’s house in their pajamas to help Steve protect his family.
At the time the amendment was written and ratified, all adult males were required by law to maintain a musket, powder and shot to assist in the defense of their home, villiage and state. While the law (which is still on the books in many states) is no longer enforced; the intent and the letter of the constitutional amendment HAS NOT BEEN AMENDED.
It stands since its ratification that each citizen has a right to keep and bear arms. If the states want to change that basic right, the constitution has to be ammended. Don’t quote “Militia” if you don’t know what it is.
Steve
Sheep dog, by that definition the militia can only be comprised of males, women need not apply. So now you’re a Federalist, I thought all you guys were libertarians.
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty” Well then militias have failed miserably we have a huge standing army.
John the founding fathers lived in a world where your neighbor may have been a loyalist and would have burned your house down at the first opportunity. Times have changed. But John if you want to keep a flintlock musket over your fireplace be my guest.
The Marine mentioned in this story is not having his rights infringed, he has been allowed to join the military and bear arms in defense of his country.
Steve
“At the time the amendment was written and ratified, all adult males were required by law to maintain a musket, powder and shot to assist in the defense of their home, villiage and state”
Are you referring to the Militia Act of 1792? The one that established FEDERAL requirements for the militia? If you accept the federal government can tell people what type of gun to own then you should also accept the government can tell people the types of guns they can’t own.
CJ
And are those “happy people” able to carry their weapons in public without police harassment or with a CCW? No. Sure, if they keep their guns in their homes and don’t worry about their personal protection on the streets of a dangerous state, they’ll never have a problem. This is about home ownership of a gun. This is about bearing arms for self protection.
Steve
What “happy people” are you talking about?
Area Man
Militia: A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
Jim Asbill
Someone should research was a “militia” was considered to be in the 1700′s at the time of the framing of the Second Amendment. That renders the whole militia distraction moot.
John
Our current National Gaurd has its roots in the original millitias… as constituted in the orginal colonies and then states militia service was obligatory. Citizen soldiers defending their homes, villages and states. The intent of the 2nd amendment was to secure the citizens right to defend himself and the states rights to defend themselves. The 2nd amendment has not been repealed or amended. It stands and should be honored in its original context or, if the needs of the people and the state have changed; the constitution should be amended.
John
I would like to add that I am comfortable with my local police force and do not have a concealed carry permit, I don’t plan on getting one, I don’t feel I need one.
I simply feel that the consitution secures a basic right and that right should not be infringed upon. To change the 2nd amendment; you need to amend the constitution. The founding fathers made this a hard thing to do (on purpose).
Steve
Why do you feel the 2nd amendment has anything to do with states rights to defend themselves? None of the other amendments have anything to say about states rights. Why didn’t the founding fathers just say a person has the right to self defense? It pretty much says that a militia has the right to keeps arms and the individual has the right to bear them.
Some states have both a National Guard and a state militia. NY for one,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/the-21st-century-militia-state-defense-forces-and-homeland-security
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Force
SteveInSD
@Steve – Why didn’t the founding fathers just say a person has the right to self defense?
It wasn’t necessary. That was a given. Do you believe you have no right to defend yourself unless someone allows you to? That would make it a priviledge, not a right.
@Steve – It pretty much says that a militia has the right to keeps (sic) arms and the individual has the right to bear them.
Individuals have rights, not groups (militias).
The Bill of Rights recognizes pre-existing rights of individuals, and basically tells the government “hands off.”
Every amendment in the BoR is a limit imposed on the government, not a right “granted” to the individual.
Put another way, government has no power beyond that of the citizens that create it, therefore it cannot grant to citizens a right they do not already posses. Rights come from God. Not from other citizens, or governments created by citizens.
Steve
The War of 1812 proved once and for all the fallacy of using militia forces to defend the country. They showed up when they wanted, left when they wanted, squabbled over rank, broke from battle plans to loot, pillage and plunder from friendlies as well as un-friendlies.
SteveInSD
Steve – Look beyond quotes in the movie Patriot for an understanding of militias. Some have been more competent than others, just as can be said of any type of group, including armies.
Our armed forces are extremely competent. Now consider how quickly we subdued the Iraqi army, vs the militias afterwards.
In Afghanistan we didn’t have an army to defeat first, it’s been militias the entire time.
In our War of Independence, I would argue that it was the militias that eventually caused the British to surrender to our army.
JohnS@texas
What we need is better instruction and training in the CHL states AND Texas needs to revoke the unilateral recognition of the states who have had ample opportunity to make it reciprocal and have failed to do so. I find it interesting that some bases will not allow you to carry your personal weapon on the the base in your car. These Marines and soldiers have recieved ample training in the various weapons they might carry. Better training for civilians wolud make me feel more comfortable. The basic CHL does not teach combat shooting and the confidence and ability are far apart for “most” non military non law enforcement people. As a former law enforcement officer, citizen safety and officer safety is rule number 1. I do not like open carry for a variety of reasons number one is I want to keep the scum bags guessing and wondering and not making me the first target because he sees I have a gun. When I travel I always have 2-3 weapons in the car. When asked what I am afraid of, for the most part the answer is nothing or the fear of being unprepared to assist a person who needs armed help. We need people properly trained in knowing when to use the weapon and shooting into a crowd is almost never a good idea. As for the video that is attached, I have no problem with the way the officers handled it except the guy with the rifle probably needs to go back to work. Give me a Remington 870 with an extended tube all day.
@mrhaw
Thanks for standing up for the constitution!!
RustyShackleford
Well, the Supreme Court is probably going to take up this very issue soon. Of course, there’s no guarantee that they’ll rule in favor of your preferred outcome. Still, if nothing else, it should clarify the situation: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2011/08/22/amendment-protect-carry-guns-home/
Mark
since a picture is worth a thousand words:
I hope this posted. And by-the-way Steve, I’m ex-military and was trained and tasked with the protection of Senior Officers throughout my enlistment. Always armed and sometime concealed. After Military, I was a licensed CA Process Server for several years and the SD Sheriff denied me a CCW. They said “I was in no danger” Even though I have several death threats on my life while in the process of serving.
Mark Marino
http://s272.photobucket.com/albums/jj164/markfm/Gun%20Photo/?action=view¤t=ScreenShot2011-09-28at55855AM.png
Mark
Steve, info on your belt double magazine. I like it
StrykerSoldier
At the time of this writing a sad thing has occurred in my home state of California, governor brown has signed into law a bill making the open carry of firearms illegal. When will the liberal establishment realize that taking away law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves by over regulating firearms does nothing but put them in more danger from the criminals who ignore gun laws and wilfully commit heinous crimes with illegal firearms. This is a true infringement, as citizens of California may no longer bear arms in any fashion
CJ
But, there’s a silver lining to this decision. The California Supreme Court has consistently ruled that banning concealed carry permits was legal because California had an open carry law. Now the state will be FORCED to allow concealed carry permits!!
BrianB
@Steve I have a brother with views like yours. I call him my Lib Brother. Always wanting to deconstruct the 2nd amendment. He served a couple of years in the Navy, then became a grade school teacher just recently, I imagine to warp young minds. The other 8 members of my family still can’t figure him out. For the rest of you wanting a CCW in Cali, I have good news. It is getting better. Tomorrow I go to the Stanislaus County Sheriffs office to pick up my CCW. The Sheriff her, Christianson, Has made a public statement that will accept self protection as just cause. In 1980 almost no state issued CCW permits, Now almost all do. It is getting better and if you persist it will happen.
larry
Why would anyone care if a good citizen carried a concealed weapon, I would really like to know. larry
chuck
Hybrids kill people in parking lots because they are to quiet. Christmas trees burn houses down killing families in their sleep during the happiest time of the year. A rollercoaster will come un-hinged and kill 20 people in an amusement park. So how is it anyone’s place to tell me I can’t defend my home, my family, and my property by any means I see necessary. That includes in public open or cancelled, pistol or baton, pepper or a tazer. Unless you are the social filth trying to infringe on any of the above why do you care?
Jim
I have a couple of problems with this article.
The first one I see repeatedly everywhere. That is the assumption that because someone is or was a service member they are fit to carry in civilian life. As of late I have seem some very, very broken young men (and women) come home from combat service and the last thing they need is a CC license. What they DO need is drug and alcohol counseling and some therapy to deal with their PTSD. Of the five that I know who have returned over the last year maybe one of them is psychologically stable enough to carry. The rest need help they are not getting and a handgun permit is exactly a step in the wrong direction.
The second is the Liberal, left wing law you hate. Guess what? You voted for it! States rights are also spelled out in the constitution and it plainly says anything not clearly defined is up to the state to decide. You clearly can’t decide what it means, not even on this forum, so the State of California did. You are free to openly carry and you are free to carry at home. No one took anything away, you VOTED it away. Move to another state if you don’t like it.
Lastly is using hot button phrases like “Liberal” and “Left Wing” make good copy on Fox news but they are ignorant and inaccurate and worse DO NOT HELP YOUR CAUSE. I am a Liberal to moderate Democrat who carries and there are a zillion others just like me. If you don’t like the laws, work to change them but do yourself a favor and lose the name calling. You will get MUCH further with the vast majority of people by just swallowing hard and playing the system effectively and trying to stay in the middle.
CJ
Jim, you are wrong. I didn’t vote for any such thing. I don’t even live in California for this very reason. And, for the record, the state no longer allows open carry. I don’t like it, so I DID move to another state. Lastly, terms like “liberal” and “leftwing” have NOTHING to do with Fox News. It has to do with being “liberal” and “leftwing.” Congratulations on being in the minority of supporting gun rights.
Sam
Minority? I doubt it. While the majority of urban residents, Democrat and Republican, might be squeemish about gun ownership, the majority of people like me — rural liberals — are soundly in favor of gun ownership. I live in an ope- carry state that is also a shall-issue state for CCW. I carry concealed at some point every day, often simply because it is easier to leave my gun on rather than take it off when I put on a coat. Admittedly, I am a law enforcement officer, but I carried before I was in law enforcement, and I will carry when I am no longer in law enforcement. I have shot recreationally since I was a kid, and I still do whenever I get the chance. I am, by the way, what you refer to so narrow-mindedly as a left winger, a liberal, or I’m sure, “a libtard.” I voted for Barack Obama and will again in 2012. I dropped my membership in the NRA years ago because it became a front for bashing Democrats, not an organization that was truly interested in gun-owner rights. Here’s a clue, CJ: You and the rest of the conservatives out there don’t own the Second Amendment anymore than you own the American flag. Stop pretending you do.
CJ
“You and the rest of the conservatives out there don’t own the Second Amendment anymore than you own the American flag.”
Interesting you don’t see conservatives ever proposing gun control measures and you don’t see liberals proposing open carry or concealed carry or constitutional carry measures. We don’t own it, but we sure corner the market on understanding and respecting it.
You say you’re a liberal “soundly in favor of gun ownership” yet you voted for and said you will vote again for an anti-gun president.
jack riddler
The way I read it, the Constitution is equating the People with a “well regulated (equipped) militia”. Therefore the Constitution is fundamentally saying the People have a right to keep and bear arms. I think the creators of the constitution deliberately left this dubious passage in place to effect an elusive policy. It is arguable that the verbiage can mean either side of the interpretation, but by being imprecise the Constitution achieves the precision needed, which is the questionability of any army (government or a People’s militia) at all times for all time. But make no mistake, the Constitution does grant a right to keep and bear arms to the People, whom it seeks to protect first and foremost.
joe
I moved to shit hole cali 9 years ago and am moving back out, this place is not glamours it is filled with dirty ass illegals and a fucking parking ticket is 100 no matter what. Move to another state where we can atleast have some freedom, let the hippies and mexicans have this shit and turn it into a island. All i can tell everyone who has never been here you have no rights at all, you cant tape a officer nor ask question, 90% of enforcement are power trips or on a payroll,and i can go on and on about this shit hole i mean fuck you people put in a steroid actor as your gov.?????? Shows how smart you really are. I have around 74 firearms and only 2 here in cali bc of the damn laws that break our rights.