Skip to main content

View Diary: There is nothing more that can be said (191 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  and there's no reason (0+ / 0-)

    they can't be allowed to, under a permitting process.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:24:14 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  They would not award cab drivers these (0+ / 0-)

      This is a county matter, IIRC. No drivers were awarded concealed carry on the grounds that it was "not necessary."

      Our taxis didn't even have partitions between the driver and passenger.

      I would guess about 70% of the drivers carried anyways; no cop ever, ever questioned this when you went through a check point.

      Thus, it was illegal. But the cops ignored it. Shouldn't they have tried to oversee it? See the circular reasoning that created a circular, and worse, problem of less, rather than more, oversight?

      Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

      by mahakali overdrive on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 12:06:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's the specific situation (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        and this is a bit (OT) but definitely should be reformed (even as I strongly feel that other reforms likewise should be put in place; this one would be helpful and is one of the few that I see as truly needed... along with giving guns to the residents of Svalsbard, Norway to protect themselves from polar bears):

        II Statutory Requirements (for Concealed Carry Permit)

        A. Issuance (Penal Code Section 12050)

        1. The chief of police or sheriff may issue a license to carry a concealed weapon, upon proof:

        a. That the person applying is of good moral character; and
        b. That good cause exists for the issuance; and
        c. That the person applying is a resident of the City/County, or is a person who has been deputized or appointed as a peace officer pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 830.6 by that Sheriff or that Chief of Police or other head of a municipal police
        d. That the person applying has completed a course of training in conformance with Penal Code Section 12050(E)

        -- with cab drivers, it is A.1.b  that was denied every time. A.1.a was covered by a background check and bonding by the area police as was A.1.c. A.1d. would have been easy enough. They just said there was no "good cause." Hm... no good cause?

        This perpetuated a lot of people, who felt their lives were at stake, to carry illegally. The cops we saw daily knew we partially worked for them since we were sub-contracted with them: we dealt with checkpoints and post-DUI transportation, mainly. Because of this, they would never cite a non-legal carry. Because of this, it was not well overseen. Problems arose.

        Obviously, part of the problem here is also that cab drivers aren't generally unionized outside of a truly small number of areas. I would imagine this would be a central point raised.

        Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

        by mahakali overdrive on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 12:20:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This demonstrates the problem with may issue (0+ / 0-)

          It comes at the behest of some politician or other little lord tyrant and whether or not they deem you of proper character.  This is the same kind of thinking that was used to justify things like racial segregation laws.

    •  The right of self defense should not be subject (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to the need as approved by some state bureaucrat.  Many states recognize this which is why there has been a mass transition from may or no issue to shall issue permits.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site