It is no surprise that the LAPD Police Chief Charlie Beck and the LA City Attorney are against concealed carry permits for law abiding citizens, but are also willing to protect criminal illegal aliens in their jurisdiction …
LA Times Op-Ed: Arizona gun laws in L.A.? It could happen
Californians have a lot on the line in the next congressional debate about America’s gun laws. Two bills stacked with legislative sponsors — HB 38 in the House, SB 446 in the Senate — would override our state’s longstanding rules governing who is allowed to carry a concealed, loaded firearm in public. These bills, both called the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, would dictate that if a person can carry a concealed weapon in any state, that person could carry it everywhere in America. This should be a call to action for all Californians concerned about keeping their families safe.
Twelve states do not require any permit to carry hidden, loaded guns within their borders. Some states’ rules have been so ineffective as to allow felons to carry concealed weapons. Not so in California. Our laws require good cause for the issuance of a concealed weapon permit. Applicants must undergo a comprehensive background check. No one with a serious criminal conviction may receive a permit, nor may subjects of temporary or permanent domestic violence restraining orders.
But if concealed carry reciprocity were the law of the land, all this would change. Unbelievably, the House version would allow an individual denied a permit in California to cross the border to a more permissive state, obtain a permit there, then return to California — with a new right to carry here.
More concealed weapons on California streets would make police work here much more hazardous.
In addition to jeopardizing public safety, concealed carry reciprocity would endanger the lives of law enforcement. The mere presence of more concealed weapons on California streets would make police work here much more hazardous. What’s more, if LAPD officers stopped someone with a loaded, concealed handgun, that person could claim to live in a state where permits weren’t necessary, and the officers would be unable to confirm whether it was true. Indeed, law enforcement leaders have warned that concealed carry reciprocity could turn otherwise routine encounters with non-residents into dangerous ones. Given our intensifying focus on the potential for homegrown terrorism, the last thing we need is to make it easier to carry concealed, loaded firearms across state lines.
Because concealed carry reciprocity poses grave risks, the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, including the Major Cities Chiefs Assn. and the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, along with the Assn. of Prosecuting Attorneys, the leaders of Prosecutors Against Gun Violence and many other partners in law enforcement, have strongly opposed it.
While the practical implications of this proposal are deeply troubling, the politics surrounding the debate are surreal. Members of Congress who have invoked states’ rights for years have supported these bills, even though concealed carry reciprocity destroys the notion that states should decide for themselves which rules best keep their residents safe.
Why lawmakers in D.C. are acting this way would be something of a mystery but for the fact that concealed carry reciprocity has been a top priority of gun rights organizations such as the National Rifle Assn. Invigorated by the recent election, gun rights advocates deride what they see as an inconsistent “patchwork” of concealed carry laws across the nation.
If that were the real concern, though, Congress could take entirely different steps. Robust, national concealed carry standards similar to California’s would address the patchwork issue while protecting law enforcement officers and the public. Instead, concealed carry reciprocity defaults to the least stringent standards, with states like Arizona — where there are no universal background checks and residents can carry concealed weapons with no permit at all — dictating policy nationwide.
Finally, concealed carry reciprocity could damage our business community. Were great numbers of out-of-state visitors authorized to carry concealed guns in California, all sorts of venues — sports arenas, theme parks, commercial buildings — could be choked with metal detectors or other barriers installed by business owners legitimately concerned about their patrons’ safety.
Forcing concealed carry reciprocity is dangerous and undermines California’s gun laws. Lawmakers should find the courage to say no.
Mike Feuer is the city attorney of Los Angeles. Charlie Beck is the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department. <Source: Arizona gun laws in L.A.? It could happen - LA Times>
Picking and choosing your sources and statistics …
The 28th Annual National Survey of Police Chiefs shows that “76 percent” of respondents believe armed citizens reduce violent crime.
An even higher percentage–nearly 88–stated their conviction that “any vetted citizen” should be able to purchase a gun “for sport or self-defense.” According to the survey, nearly “87 percent” of police chiefs support national reciprocity of concealed carry permits. National reciprocity would treat concealed carry permits like a driver’s license, making the concealed carry permit of any state valid in every state. This would do away the headaches law-abiding citizens get by trying to remember which states recognize their permit and which do not. It would also make life easier for patrol officers during a traffic stop by giving them a more unified set of permit rules to remember. <Source>
Feuer is just another Harvard-trained professional politician/lawyer …
Attempts to reduce easy access to guns in Los Angeles have been mainly the work of City Atty. Mike Feuer, for whom the issue has been a lifelong concern. As a member of the City Council in the 1990s, Feuer pressed for some of the city's most creative gun control measures — he successfully championed limiting gun owners to one purchase per month and restricting the sale of high-capacity magazines. As a state legislator, he continued that work, and now he has returned to office as the city's top lawyer, a post from which he is pioneering new ways to remove guns from criminals and protect innocent people from harm.
Since taking office last year, Feuer has charged one parent with neglect for failing to lock up guns in her home — a crime that came to light when the woman's 17-year-old son allegedly brought a gun and ammunition to school. That's the first case of its kind, and will be prosecuted by Greg Dorfman, who heads the city attorney's Gun Violence Prevention Unit. In addition, the city attorney's office is attempting to draw attention to the issue of safe and legal gun storage by working with Women Against Gun Violence to host a series of educational forums.
Other cities are taking notice. Working with Manhattan District Atty. Cyrus R. Vance Jr., Feuer helped found Prosecutors Against Gun Violence. The group held its first meeting last month and is attempting to advance non-partisan proposals for reducing gun violence. <Source>
It appears that when the elites encounter theories that do not work in reality, the believe that the reality must be wrong. How else could explain that the inner cities governed by progressive socialist democrats simultaneous support the strictest gun control measures in the nation and have the highest minority crime rates?
Bottom line …
As long as the City of Los Angeles and its leadership refuses to abide by the Constitution of the United States and promotes the self-destructive and nonsensical policies and procedures of the radical progressive socialist democrats, we should dismiss their self-serving statements and op-eds as ideological claptrap and drivel.
Perhaps if Chief Beck paid more attention to ridding his city of illegal alien gangs, the city would be a safer place for all to live.
As for Mike Feuer, let us not forget that as an open borders advocate, he was denied the necessary security clearances to enter secure areas maintained by the authorities at U.S. Customs and Border Protection. <Source> Not to mention the alleged deception of using a contract that paid nothing to his political if Feuer did not win office – a way to stay under the legal spending limit and grab matching funds. <Source>
Both Beck and Feuer are deniers – they would deny law-abiding citizens the right to defend themselves against lawless individuals. These are the people who would rather see dead victims rather than live survivors if it advanced their progressive agenda.
We are so screwed.
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius