Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Editorial: Concealed weapons permits — a compelling case for reform

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:00 am

When it comes to controlling concealed weapon permits, California’s system is badly broken.

That was made distressingly clear in our special report last Saturday by reporter Kris Anderson, who pointed out that while permits are passed out like candy in some counties and cities, they are held tightly in others.

The result is a crazy quilt. For example, someone who obtains a permit in Alpine County can take a concealed weapon into a restaurant in San Francisco, where virtually no permits are issued.

Does this make any sense?

There is no continuity — no logic — to the current setup. And fixing it will be no simple task.

This is a jumble of money and politics, with a trigger attached.

Yet the need for reform is clear.

Consider:

  • A legislative study some years ago showed that many of those with gun permits had made campaign contributions to their local sheriff. So gun permits become, in some cases, a payoff for a financial contribution. That’s legalized corruption.
  • In some counties, such as Sacramento, the sheriff has adopted a very lenient policy of issuing permits, but lacks the budget and resources to process the permits in the timely fashion.
  • In other counties, such as San Francisco, there is, for all practical purposes, a “shall not issue” standard, so permits are simply not handed out.
  • The late police chief of Isleton made headlines by passing out permits to nearly anyone drawing breath, in part to help shore up the town’s finances. Is that a good reason to give someone the right to carry a concealed weapon into Walmart or Denny’s?
  • There are dozens of agencies in California with the power to issue permits, and each has its own standards and criteria.

This isn’t a system. It’s chaos.

Just to be clear, you don’t need a permit to have a weapon in the privacy of your own home. But you do if you are traveling in a car, or walking a public street, or inside a public building. Those who seek permits often handle money or jewelry or other valuables. Or they may carry legal drugs.

In many jurisdictions, a rigorous set of standards is imposed before a permit is issued. A psychological test may be required, along with firearms safety and training.

In other jurisdictions, all that’s required is the standard criminal background check. So if you aren’t a felon, you can pack heat at your favorite movie theater.

There are few issues as polarizing as gun ownership, and that extends to the granting of concealed weapons permits. Some advocates contend the Second Amendment should be construed to mean that anyone who wants to carry a concealed weapon should be allowed to do so, no questions asked. That is currently the case in a few mainly very rural states, such as Alaska.

Then there are anti-gun types who don’t see any need for concealed weapons. That mentality prevails in San Francisco, with a population of 700,000, which has issued exactly two concealed weapons permits.

Is there any middle ground? Can’t we provide some semblance to uniformity here? In Oregon, permits are issued only by counties, and those counties work hard at establishing and abiding by common standards.

Surely there must be a way to grant permits to those who have legitimate reason to carry them, while culling those who don’t.

And surely there is a way to extract some the local politics out of this, so the issuance of a permit doesn’t depend on a chief or a sheriff’s druthers, budget priorities, or willingness to scratch the back of a campaign donor.

Creating a more coherent approach will take some resolve and compromise. It will demand the involvement of many stakeholders, and the careful examination of varied options.

In our recent special report, we highlighted several lawmakers, including Assemblywoman Kristin Olson, who believe the status quo can and should be improved. Perhaps she can reach out to other area lawmakers, such as Dr. Richard Pan, to launch the exploration to higher, better ground.

More about

More about

More about

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

Recent Comments

Posted 6 hours ago by Rick Houdack.

article: Letter: Darwin’s theory has never been …

Facts and truth are not the same thing to you, Kevin Paglia? Your deceptive quote-mining does a disservice to Sagan; the spirituality of wh…

More...

Posted 7 hours ago by M. Doyle.

article: Letter: Darwin’s theory has never been …

Science tries to give you knowledge, Kevin. Nothing more. You have to find meaning for yourself. You don't need science or religion to t…

More...

Posted 8 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

Treacy, my readings about the PRA absolutely confirm what you are saying. I doubt any "picture" will change that.

More...

Posted 8 hours ago by M. Doyle.

article: Letter: Darwin’s theory has never been …

Kevin, we need to clarify definitions and be honest about facts. Science is not a religion or a "belief system." To say that is…

More...

Posted 8 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Darwin’s theory has never been …

While I am more of a humanities gal myself, I do hear what you are saying, even if I'm not as enthusiastic. (I still have nightmares from …

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists