CatLover comment-16627 2009-10-29T04:19:06Z 2009-10-29T04:19:06Z iadam, just because you disagree with gun ownership does not make gun owners patent idiots...or voters, for that matter. CatLover 2009-10-29T04:19:06Z outspoken2 comment-14904 2009-10-03T15:11:44Z 2009-10-03T15:11:44Z CCW's are great for 99.99% of the people, but when people act like JOSH FERNANDEZ and wave their weapon and bring attention to themselves THAT is an I-D-I-O-T's way of thinking. It's called "Concealed" for a reason. So, Josh re-think your position and be responsible. outspoken2 2009-10-03T15:11:44Z The Parrhesiac comment-13129 2009-09-03T00:49:36Z 2009-09-03T00:49:36Z Well written...thanks. The Parrhesiac 2009-09-03T00:49:36Z GunInstructordotcom comment-12941 2009-08-31T22:46:37Z 2009-08-31T22:46:37Z Most north state county sheriffs freely issue concealed carry licenses. El Dorado County should not be any different. Here at BullsEye Tactical Firearms Training in Shasta County, we have trained thousands of students and have not experienced any misuse of concealed carry by anyone. GunInstructordotcom 2009-08-31T22:46:37Z iadam comment-12929 2009-08-31T09:00:43Z 2009-08-31T09:00:43Z i wonder how many small caskets El Dorado county will be ordering to compensate for the surge of new gun owners children who shoot themselves in the face? while im at it, a women has a higher chance of being murdered by her husband than she does being protected by him protecting her with a gun. ( adding on to officers michelle's last QandA) iadam 2009-08-31T09:00:43Z mbuck comment-12912 2009-08-30T17:49:39Z 2009-08-30T17:49:39Z Shazbat1 I agree with much of this, except that I don't agree that unloaded open carry with ammo at the ready is a disadvantage to total disarmament. mbuck 2009-08-30T17:49:39Z mbuck comment-12910 2009-08-30T17:45:37Z 2009-08-30T17:45:37Z Shazbat1 I agree with much of this, except that I don't agree that unloaded open carry with ammo at the ready is a disadvantage to total disarmament. mbuck 2009-08-30T17:45:37Z shazbat1 comment-12855 2009-08-29T20:30:58Z 2009-08-29T20:30:58Z Yo Gondola, Not much thought there? 38 states have a Shall Issue system that empowers people to protect themselves. All states bordering Cal. have such laws. Are Cal. residents somehow unworthy of being able to protect their loved ones? As for open carry. Cal will probably never change that. It's unsafe to walk around with an empty gun, If challenged by some idiot who covets your gun, and has his own, you lose. Whereas, the crooks are on the run. It is quite likely in other states that they might encounter a permit holder with a gun to stop a crime, before it starts. The only place for open carry, is to prevent being cited for exposing your gun accidentally. Massachusetts is a place where a cop can give you a ticket ,and maybe pull your license, because your coat blows open. shazbat1 2009-08-29T20:30:58Z Davi Rodrigues comment-12841 2009-08-29T15:13:07Z 2009-08-29T15:13:07Z I'm a open carry proponent, but not because I'm afraid of everyone. I do it because I believe that it's important to keep every aspect of our bill of rights at the forefront of our existence these days. That said, I can't help but wonder if all of this concealed carry hubris in the news these days is just aimed at stirring up fears among taxpayers so they will approve more funding for law enforcement, so that it can be diverted back to misuse to other areas later. Davi Rodrigues 2009-08-29T15:13:07Z neilevan comment-12819 2009-08-29T14:00:57Z 2009-08-29T14:00:57Z Paperwork, fingerprints, photographs, fees, and background checks to allow people to carry a side-arm? What kind of nonsense is this? The right of self-defense is a corollary to the right to life; to deny one is to deny the other. The purpose of government is to insure our rights, not to infringe on them. The fact is that governments should not be involved in permitting the carriage of weapons, either openly or concealed, by anyone. Our constitution states that the right of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed. Marbury v. Madison (1803) decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void. "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void." (16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178) In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of those protected natural rights. In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that “If the state does convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” (That means they can't punish you, folks!) To paraphrase an oft-quoted movie line, "Permits? We don' need no steenking permits!" neilevan 2009-08-29T14:00:57Z iadam comment-12818 2009-08-29T13:51:39Z 2009-08-29T13:51:39Z shoot em up cowboys iadam 2009-08-29T13:51:39Z whatthefuckdoyawant comment-12811 2009-08-29T00:59:49Z 2009-08-29T00:59:49Z The candidate that supports a "Shall issue " policy will not only get my vote, but my wholehearted support. whatthefuckdoyawant 2009-08-29T00:59:49Z Kay comment-12682 2009-08-26T19:09:17Z 2009-08-26T19:09:17Z IThis is way over due. We need to be in a position to protect ourselves. The law has been in favor of the criminals, and has not been protecting it citizens. Great news at long last!! Kay 2009-08-26T19:09:17Z Vince Ward comment-12642 2009-08-26T05:33:47Z 2009-08-26T05:33:47Z What a terrible comment. Add an idea, or make an argument, or you are just meaningless static, using up bandwidth. About the issue - most states now have "shall issue" laws, and the results are that crime decreases when law-abiding citizens can carry guns - see stats from the FBI and others @ www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html. So, why would any sane person say it's a terrible idea? Vince Ward 2009-08-26T05:33:47Z beerzie comment-12599 2009-08-25T13:11:14Z 2009-08-25T13:11:14Z What a terrible idea. beerzie 2009-08-25T13:11:14Z Davi Rodrigues comment-12445 2009-08-22T02:10:27Z 2009-08-22T02:10:27Z I'm not sure he means it, He's probably trying to scare the supes into giving him more money. I think he might be planning a run at the legislature soon, and he's already announced he's not running for sheriff again, so any permits issued may be short lived. Davi Rodrigues 2009-08-22T02:10:27Z JoshFernandez comment-12427 2009-08-21T18:12:19Z 2009-08-21T18:12:19Z This is great news! I will not use my gun responsibly at all, though. In fact, I will probably conceal it and then pull it out just to scare immigrants . I'm going to wave that thing at everybody like it was an American flag. Where do I sign up? JoshFernandez 2009-08-21T18:12:19Z Kassandra Perlongo comment-12426 2009-08-21T18:05:21Z 2009-08-21T18:05:21Z The key phrase in this article is "issuance of permits upon request by qualified, responsible persons." The bottom line is that people are not taking the law into their own hands, they are carrying a weapon which is their constitutional right and they are recognized by our own law enforcement as qualified and responsible citizens. I would much rather have someone like that be able to purchase and carry a weapon than someone just wanting to have a gun just to have one. Kassandra Perlongo 2009-08-21T18:05:21Z The Parrhesiac comment-12418 2009-08-21T16:42:30Z 2009-08-21T16:42:30Z In Texas, concealed carry is the state law. They have proven that it reduces crime and those that carry guns do so responsibly. The Parrhesiac 2009-08-21T16:42:30Z William Burg comment-12416 2009-08-21T15:17:45Z 2009-08-21T15:17:45Z I am curious as to what the standard they will use shall be. In most of the country, a "shall-issue" standard is used: if the individual is not prohibited from owning a firearm and has a clean record, they shall be issued a concealed weapons permit based simply on the wish to have one--although many states that give shall-issue permits also require some sort of training class or certification. The fear of becoming a victim is based on very real concerns if police are being cut in grim economic times like these. An important thing to remember is that having a concealed weapons permit does not change the basic laws regarding the use of deadly force in self-defense. It's a license to carry, not a license to kill. The experiences of states that went to shall-issue is positive, though: more guns equal less crime. William Burg 2009-08-21T15:17:45Z The Parrhesiac comment-12410 2009-08-21T05:32:03Z 2009-08-21T05:32:03Z God bless the Pink Pistols! The Parrhesiac 2009-08-21T05:32:03Z trapper comment-12403 2009-08-21T04:40:04Z 2009-08-21T04:40:04Z This is nice to hear, thanks for posting Vince. This weekend I'll be doing some target pratice :-) trapper 2009-08-21T04:40:04Z