If you thought you had it bad...

[Stone]

Watched this video yesterday and was blown away at how bad firearm owners in CA. have it.
Its about 20 minutes long but well worth the watch.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wRgjsSHaGE

[Former11B]

I would like to hear an attorney’s take on the audio/video recording of the interview process as well as the firearms course he said he didn’t need to pay for prior to the interview that the police said he needed. I don’t know enough about CA law to know who’s right.

I can say however, playing F*ck F*ck games with the cops, no matter WHERE you are, generally always has consequences. And I’m sure he doesn’t care, since the longer they make him wait, the more they make his point for him. Which is pretty stupid on their part. He wouldn’t have two years worth of footage by this point if they’d just done it.

[Stone]

He shows the statute at 1:06 that he is not required to pay for training before the determination. Which makes sense because why should someone have to pay for training only to be denied. It looks like its required after the approval or determination but before they issue the permit. When the guy at the window first says he doesn't know who he is but then goes on to say he had a conversation with the detective earlier about him clearly shows the are fracking with him. I don't think he is screwing with them, he needed to video tape it or how else would he prove his case? It would be his word against theirs and we all know how that goes...

[Joelski]

The video has nothing to do with restrictive laws. That video is all about bullshit run-around by a liberal-infested LE organization. State party line for sure, but politics and public safety should never mix. Otherwise, how can justice be blind?

I know... outdated concept.

[Former11B]

I understand he showed that. But I know nothing about CA laws. Obviously there’s the statute but it’s something they’re enforcing at the PD. Perhaps there’s a clause guaranteeing a refund if the permit is rejected. What I’m saying is I don’t know enough about CA law to take everything he says at face value. He’s got a chip on his shoulder and he’s got bias. IF what he says is all accurate and checks out, yes it’s BS. That’s why a third party opinion from like a CA lawyer would help, that’s all


He shows the statute at 1:06 that he is not required to pay for training before the determination. Which makes sense because why should someone have to pay for training only to be denied. It looks like its required after the approval or determination but before they issue the permit. When the guy at the window first says he doesn't know who he is but then goes on to say he had a conversation with the detective earlier about him clearly shows the are fracking with him. I don't think he is screwing with them, he needed to video tape it or how else would he prove his case? It would be his word against theirs and we all know how that goes...