Criminals do not obey. Why should good citizens obey? How many career criminals [or aspiring career criminals] have been dumb enough to walk into any police headquarters in this state [or any state] and tell the desk sergeant this: "Hello, my name is . . . . I am a career criminal [I aspire to be a career criminal.] Here is the gun I have used [I plan to use] in my life of crime. Please record its make, model, serial number, and please photograph me and finger print me. I live at . . . . My justification for a CCW permit is I am a career criminal [I aspire to be a career criminal,] I need to use this gun to have an advantage in my line of work, and it is my understanding that I cannot legally carry this gun without your CCW permit. I am here to apply for, and get a CCW permit. I waive my 5^th Amendment Privilege against incrimination."]?

If the answer is "None" or "Darn few," what is the point? Is the purpose of CCW permit law to control criminals or to control law-abiding citizens?

Illegal prior restraint. The CCW permit law is seriously flawed. It is an unconstitutional prior restraint, contrary to "shall not be infringed."

Permit process converts a right into a privilege. One either has a categorical right to carry a firearm for lawful self-defense or one does not. The mere act of requesting a CCW permit is tantamount to a waiver of the right and foolishly accepting the government’s bold claim that it can make you beg for its permission to carry a gun for lawful self-defense.

Citizens do not have to beg. The idea that a citizen has to beg any government official for that official’s permission to defend his life with a gun is a gross perversion of the real law. Criminals do not beg. They just do. Good citizens should not have to beg for such a fundamental concept as self-defense.

Law enforcement lacks the ability to defend. The "blue line" is extremely thin. Typically, police officer to citizen rations are approximately 1 to 1,000.

Example: Sebastopol, CA has a population of about 8,000 and a police department with this type of a force level: one chief, one lieutenant, one or two sergeants and about eight patrol officers. Excluding the chief and the lieutenant [admin types,] that leaves approximately only ten bodies for patrol and requests for help. When three eight hour shifts are divided into ten, and time is deducted for sick leave, vacation time and time off for training, etc., the Sebastopol PD can put into the field approximately only 2-3 officers per any given shift. That is only 2-3 officers for a community of 8,000! To exacerbate matters, these officers will reinforce each other on many calls, which leaves he rest of the community bare of protection.

Law enforcement has no duty to respond nor to protect and will be held legally immune for failing to respond or to protect. Read Dial 911 and Die: The Shocking Truth About the Police Protection Myth by Richard W. Stevens, (1999) Mazel Freedom Press, Inc.; ISBN 0-9642304-4-5. California Government Code Section 845 has been backed my multiple high court decisions:

"845.  Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."

Dial 911 has too many links in the chain. A life line chain is only as good as its weakest link. Unfortunately, there are approximately 20 or more major links in the Dial 911 life line chain. If any one of those links fails, the calvary will not come to the rescue, or it will show up too late. Cops who draw chalk lines around a body are useless to the recently expired victim.

Unconstitutional charge for the exercise of a Constitutional right. Government cannot constitutionally charge citizens money for their exercise of a constitutional right; but most law enforcement departments charge a fee for the exercise of this right.

Lack of knowledge. The idea that police chiefs know local residents well enough to decide who can, and who cannot, be entrusted with a CCW permit defies logic. Example: There are 8,000 residents in this community. If you had been our chief for 20-years, you still would not be sufficiently well acquainted with this community’s residents to decide who is "worthy" of a CCW permit.

Play God. [Nothing personal,] but are not well qualified to "play God," as to who lives and who dies.

Elitist. Typically, only the politically well connected or the wealthy or both can get a CCW permit. One’s right, and ability, to engage in lawful self-defense with a firearm, should be 100% independent of their political connections, what they do for a living and/or how wealthy they are. While a jeweler might routinely need a gun for self-defense because he daily makes bank deposits of $20,000 or more, a soccer mom who works at night has an equal right to life, is more vulnerable than a bigger man and for many punks, the $20 in a small frame lady’s purse is a tempting target.

Dangerous discriminatory classification of citizens. Many judges are CCW permit holders. This creates serious problems. First, the mere fact that a judge submitted to the CCW permit process telegraphs that that judge does not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to arms that is not subject to a prior restraint or the judge compromised his or her beliefs. Second, it is difficult to believe that such a judge could be impartial in a case involving a violation of the CCW permit law. And third, something is seriously wrong when well connected judges can get CCW permits and ordinary citizens cannot. To make matters worse, judges with CCW permits routinely find ordinary citizens "guilty" for violating the CCW permit law. There is only one class of citizens, not a special class for judges and a lower class of ordinary folk.

Severe alienation. Law enforcement has driven a serious wedge between itself and a large percentage of the population. Law enforcement cannot afford to alienate itself from so many citizens.

Makes citizens unable or unwilling to help. When an unarmed citizen sees a peace officer [or an ordinary citizen] in trouble with the criminal element, there is little the citizen can do to help the officer [or citizen.] An armed citizen, however, could intervene to try to help or save the officer’s or citizen’s life. If, however, the armed citizen is armed without a CCW permit, many will be unwilling to intervene for fear of being prosecuted. This is a trade-off that law enforcement apparently has failed to consider. Law enforcement is losing the positive benefits of an armed citizenry that can openly be armed, without having to have a CCW permit.

Armed citizens contribute priceless benefits to society. Read More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws by John R. Lott, Jr., The University of Chicago Press, (1998); ISBN 0-226-49363-6. See especially Chapter 8, "Final Thoughts," for an excellent, persuasive summary.

Racist origins. This law was intended originally to disarm minorities, to help make the streets safe for law enforcement. But discrimination based on race is constitutionally suspect; therefore, to overcome that problem, the law was extended to apply to all, regardless of race.

Nazi inspired. California’s CCW laws are written with a heavy Hitler imprint. Why? Because those forms leave nothing unasked that Hitler would need to implement the Holocaust.

Invasion of privacy. California’s CCW permit laws are a major invasion of a law-abiding citizen’s right to privacy. The questions asked on the permit application form require citizen’s to waive their privacy to exercise a constitutional right.

De facto form of registration. The very process of applying for a CCW permit is a form of registering the hand-gun and its owner. Such registration puts one on a list to be, in the future, disarmed and/or eliminated

Reversal of the burden of proof. Government should have the burden to prove that a citizen cannot be trusted with a gun. Citizens should not have to prove "good cause" for a permit.

"Good cause" requirement for a CCW gives criminals one or more "freebies." This CCW law requires the citizen applicant to prove "good cause" for a CCW permit. A generalized fear of attack is allegedly insufficient. Reformulated: until attacked, a citizen does not have good cause, but, if the first attack is successful, the citizen is harmed or dead. Hence, the criminal gets to attack at least once without having to worry about an armed response, if the citizen is compliant with this absurd law.

The Constitution is not designed to make the streets safe for cops. Individual liberty and rights shall not be compromised to make it easier for beat cops to do their job. All beat cops are volunteers. They have a tough job to do, but their are compensating factors [e.g., an excellent retirement plan.] If they do not want to do the job, do not apply or quit.

Government’s absurd guarantee to criminals. These laws are government’s guarantee to the criminals that to the extent that citizens are stupid enough to obey this absurd law, the criminals have law enforcement’s guarantee that citizens are unarmed, easy prey, vulnerable to criminal attack.

Unreasonable, life-threatening delay. The application process requires prolonged background checks. In the interim, the citizen remains unarmed and vulnerable.

Shooting requirement. The CCW permit process requires that the applicant pass a shooting test. That is a prior restraint, an infringement, contrary to the Second Amendment. What is a pass/fail is too arbitrary. One’s right to self-defense with a gun is not a function of how well they can shoot.

Interview requirement. The CCW permit process requires that one pass an interview with the chief or a subordinate. That is a prior restraint, an infringement, contrary to the Second Amendment. What is a pass/fail is too arbitrary and too subjective. One’s right to self-defense with a gun is not a function of how well they do in such an interview.

Mental screening requirement. The CCW permit process requires that one pay for, take and pass a mental health screening test with a professional mental health care provider. That is another substantial cost and another prior restraint, an infringement, contrary to the Second Amendment. What is a pass/fail is too arbitrary and too subjective. One’s right to self-defense with a gun is not a function of how some mental health care provider sizes you up. Many mental health care providers think everyone who wants a CCW permit is mentally ill.

The Founding Fathers, and The Framers, are probably puking in their graves when they reflect upon what we have allowed to happen to the Second Amendment. The vets planted in their graves throughout Europe, the Pacific and the United States are also probably puking and asking themselves, "What in the hell is wrong with you damn people? Have you no spine? How much longer are you going to take it? What are you going to get Government’s damn boot off your neck? Get up off your damn knees! Claim your rights. Do not beg for them! Do not grovel!"

The current Sonoma County (California) Sheriff, Jim Piccinini, told the author that if The Founding Fathers returned from the dead, asked him for a CCW permit, and if he recognized them, and was convinced that George Washington and Tom Jefferson and Patrick Henry and James Madison, etc., were standing alive, in the flesh, before him, he would not issue them a CCW permit if they did not satisfy his criteria! Think about that. This sheriff would tell the Father of the Nation, the author of the Declaration of Independence, the Father of the Constitution and the man who proclaimed, "Give me liberty or give me death!," none of them could have a permit until they satisfied his criteria! How bold and absurd and silly of this Sheriff. First of all, none of The Founding Fathers would ever entertain the idea of the necessity to have to ask this Sheriff for his permission. Second, Washington and Henry would probably pistol whip the Sheriff. And third, the group of them would get together and within a few weeks they would have the Sheriff fired.

Individually, and in the aggregate, these objections to California’s CCW permit laws are meritorious. But The Anointed insists that citizens have to beg for government’s permission to defend their lives with a gun, and, unfortunately, there are senior law enforcement personnel like Sonoma County’s Sheriff Jim Piccinini and Sebastopol PD Chief Gordon Pitter who support California’s absurd CCW permit law.

BACK to Peter's letter to Sebastopol authorities...