This is my letter to the Assembly Committee on Public Safety as they prepare to hear Assembly Bill 357, the Right to Carry bill.

 

CCWDear Assembly Member *******,

The purpose of this correspondence is to encourage you to support Assembly Bill AB 357 – Firearms: License to carry concealed firearm. As you may know, current state law (PC § 12050) requires a concealed carry applicant to satisfy four qualifications: Good Moral Character, Good Cause, Residence Verification and Firearms Safety Training.

The second item above, Good Cause, is interpreted by the Attorney General’s office, to mean that “a fear for one’s own safety” is not a good cause. This is a bad interpretation for many reasons, not the least of which is the high violent crime rate in California and the tendency of criminals to victimize those weaker than them. Coupling the crime rate to the dismal response times to 911 calls by law enforcement agencies, and you have a pretty reasonable “good cause” to arm yourself. But, the absolute best cause is the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

I think that the Founder’s original intentions in writing the Second Amendment to the Constitution are as valid today as they were in the time the Amendment was written. Many contemporary politicians do not understand the amendment, so I offer the following:

The Second Amendment text is as follows:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That’s good - the Founders boiled it down to specific, unambiguous language. In it, there are five key nouns - ‘militia,’ ‘state,’ ‘right,’ ‘people‘ and ‘arms.’ There are two key verbs - ‘keep‘ and ‘bear.’ Keep these keywords in mind as you continue to read.

The phrase “the right of the people” also appears in the First Amendment – “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Fourth Amendment guarantees: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .”

Opponents of Second Amendment rights want you to think that this identical wording means something different in the First and Fourth Amendments. You can’t have it one way with freedom of dissent and freedom from search and seizure, and a completely different meaning when it comes to the ‘right of the people‘ to keep and bear arms.

The constitutional text distinguishes between “the people,” “the militia,” and the “States.” The Second Amendment refers to “a well regulated militia,” but the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed to “the people.”

That’s quite clear: militia does not equal people. The ability of the militia to provide security on behalf of the state depends on the right of the people to own and bear arms. The ability of individuals to provide for their own security, likewise, depends on this right.

The Second Amendment refers to the right to “keep” arms (such as at home) as well as to “bear” arms (meaning to carry them). Protected arms include commonly-kept firearms that one can keep and carry for lawful purposes, such as ordinary rifles, handguns, and shotguns, and not crew-served or heavy weapons.

Despite laws to the contrary, every law-abiding citizen who has reached majority should have the right to own and carry his/her gun at all times.

And now, the meaning of “state” . . .

The Amendment declares a well regulated militia to be necessary to the security of a “free state,” which means a free country, and is not restricted to a State government.

All fifty states in the Union are part of the Founders “free state.” Clearly, the State of California is a part of the Union.

Of course, the scope of the above argument is beyond the scope of AB357. All we, the people of California, ask, is that you change the key phrase “may issue” to “shall issue.”

Very Respectfully,