For a long time, Fresno was one of the better places to get a gun permit in California. While state law requires you to provide a reason why you needed a permit, the authorities in Fresno was fine with “self-defense” as a reason. So while the law was “may issue,” in practice is was pretty much “shall issue.”
That’s a good thing, since more armed citizens translates into less crime overall.
Unfortunately, those days appear to be gone for folks in that county.
The rules are being revised for people who want to get a concealed carry weapons permit in the City of Fresno.
FOX26 reporter Rich Rodriguez explains why Fresno’s new police chief wants more information from CCW applicants.
Many people who apply for a concealed carry weapons permit claim it’s for self-defense or personal safety.
But Fresno Police Chief Paco Balderrama says those reasons aren’t enough for CCW approval.
The chief wants each applicant to show good cause to receive one.
And no, the chief doesn’t believe the Second Amendment is sufficient cause.
He’s more than wrong, of course, but I’m just reporting on what’s there, not what should be.
Yet here’s the kicker to the whole thing from a spokesman:
“The chief supports responsible gun ownership in the City of Fresno.” Said Lt. Beckwith. “His position has not changed on that. We have simply amended our policy so we can better educate our permit holders on what that good cause requirement is.”
No, that’s not what just happened. They changed the policy so that “good cause” translates to some animals being more equal than others. That’s all that just happened.
See, it’s not up to the government to determine who has “good cause” to exercise their civil rights.
Imagine the outrage if someone was required to show good cause before getting a Facebook or Twitter account? Imagine it if they were required to show good cause before attending a church, synagogue, or mosque? What if a permit application to protest required you to show good cause to have a demonstration?
The people of California would be up in arms about that, and rightly so. These are civil liberties, rights we have by virtue of being able to convert oxygen into carbon dioxide. The only one we should need to demonstrate good cause to is ourselves.
The Second Amendment is no different. It, too, is a civil right, one that clearly states that it shall not be infringed. We shouldn’t have to show good cause in order to exercise that right.
Anyone who thinks we should clearly doesn’t support responsible gun ownership. What they support is gun control, plain and simple. They support the infringement on our rights because they unnecessarily agree with limiting the scope of what constitutes good cause.
Worse, though, they’re hypocrites if they don’t support similar regulations on just about any other right.
It just goes to prove that the Second Amendment really is treated as a second-class right. That’s not close to how things should be.