Last week, a candidate for Sheriff in San Diego made some controversial comments about the bathrooms transgender people use. The ensuing media coverage and social media discussion, as well as statements by public officials, all focused on what he said, but one of the more forward-looking LGBT groups identified the real problem . . .
"Hemmerling said, however, in a statement to KPBS that he retired not because of the video, but to concentrate on his campaign.
“I retired so I could focus full time on my race for sheriff,” he wrote."
(Sheriffs in CA are in charge of CCW's folks…)
— Armed Equality (@ArmedEquality) May 31, 2022
Before anyone wants to make this about LGBT people, let’s make sure we are all crystal clear about something: this man absolutely has a right to his opinion, and has a right to be loud about it. This is America. Freedom of speech is beyond sacred. I, and everyone else who writes here, oppose — in no uncertain terms — any attempt to take this guy’s right to his beliefs away.
I’d go even further and say that we shouldn’t select people for office based on their beliefs on this. But to get there and respect everyone’s beliefs fully, one very important thing needs to change: public officials shouldn’t have enough power that it matters what they think about things unrelated to their job. Given that sheriffs aren’t in the business of exercising control over religion or sexuality, it shouldn’t matter what this guy’s opinions are about such things.
But, the law has made what should be a non-problem into a problem. In this case, the problem is that sheriffs in California have the final say over who gets a concealed weapons permit in their county. This is commonly known as “may issue” concealed carry, because the law says they may issue a permit, if an applicant passes some arbitrary test (that varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But they don’t have to give anyone a reason when they choose not to. There’s no recourse and no appeal to a higher authority available.
A California sheriff can refuse to issue a permit because they don’t like you. Because you used to date their sister and had a bad breakup. Because they think you voted for the wrong candidate. Or because you didn’t make the right “contributions.”
This guy might decide to not issue or renew permits for LGBT people because he thinks they’re unstable (or whatever other excuse he can cook up). Next time, it might be a far-left sheriff who thinks anybody who talks about the Bible too much can’t be trusted with a gun, or that all Republicans are dangerous insurrectionists and threats to democracy.
The good news is that the Supreme Court may soon do away with government functionaries setting arbitrary limits on who has the right to bear arms. Watch this space.
In the mean time, there’s a good alternative that’s available in nearly all the other states: “shall issue” concealed carry permitting. The law sets certain objective criteria and don’t discriminate based on who you are, what you look like. Instead it focuses on what you’ve done as a person.
If you’ve got a clean criminal record, no major psychiatric problems, and no other serious risk factors, the issuing agency “shall issue” you a permit, no matter what they think of your sexuality, your politics, your religion, your race, your voting habits or anything else not listed in the law.
Sadly, though, even this better “shall issue” system can be abused, althrough that’s rare. In an article that was suspiciously deleted, but referenced here, the Chicago Tribune described how many African Americans were denied carry permits in Chicago with no reason for the denial given. So, we need to look for an even better answer that removes all ability of government officials to discriminate.
Half the states already have the best option: unrestricted or “constitutional” carry. You can carry a firearm without asking for government permission. You’re good to go unless you’ve got a serious criminal background or other disqualifying problem (this varies by state). Instead of being judged before carrying, the burden of proof that you shouldn’t be carrying falls squarely on law enforcement.
So, instead of bickering over what makes us different, we should instead focus on what’s affecting us all: too much power put in the hands of politicians and other government officials. Take that power away and give it back to the people, and these problems will largely go away.
Permits are just a natural extension of poll taxes and literacy tests before voting.
Tyrants love them.
The literacy test might be a good thing to keep. Heinlein suggested have each voter solv a quadratic equation immediately before voting. Personally I am against voting for people to tell me what I can and can’t do. But as long as that system is in place we should have some way to weed out idiots.
+1 for your username. Robert Downey outdid himself with his character.
“Whatchu mean…‘you people’?”
“What do you mean, ‘you people’?”
Original source of this reference was Julie Andrews.
Robert Preston said she was “A woman playing a man pretending to be a woman.”
Victor Victoria, 1982.
Hilarious movie, even if you are not gay.
Hemmerling should never have apologized. He said nothing wrong
better elected than appointed, usually.
The same people who bark at Constitutional Carry are the same people who force citizens to leave their firearm in a vehicle for a criminal to steal while the citizen walks across a parking lot to shop in a store where a possible criminal could be searching for a soft target. This is the kind of insanity that Gun Control brings to the table…Criminals love it.
I once went to a WalMart with a police officer friend and before we were finished shopping the aisles he had pointed out 4 individuals he had arrested.
Everyone shops at Walmart. I stopped shopping at one location that was on the edge of a part of town where shootings happened rather frequently. The last time I shopped there I noticed a young female who had a large Latin Kings logo tattooed prominently on the front of one of her legs. When I saw that I promptly left the store and haven’t gone back since. No sense in tempting fate.
There for the weekly shoplifting?
Illinois is shall issue, but Chicago P.D. has veto power over issuance. A denial is appealable however.
Not so in California. Unless you are in a “virtual shall issue” county, you pays your money and you takes your chances. That’s about $150 for the application, plus possibly another $110 or so for a psych exam if required, and $160+ for the 8+ hour class, and 100 rounds of your favorite caliber(s) for the shooting portion of the mandatory class. Some counties have a shooting proficiency test for each firearm you want to add to your permit (if issued).
Maybe in your NorCal neighborhood. Here in L.A., the only place within my area that was approved by LASD to offer a CCW course charged $650.
The LiveScan for my Nevada permit was included in the application fee. Here in L.A., it was a completely separate entity that charged me $125. Gnarly.
Oh, and an update on my L.A. CCW application from last July. It’s LASD policy to complete an application with an up or down answer within 90 days of submission. Eight months passed until I ever even got a call to schedule an interview. At the end of that interview, the Deputy told me to contact them if I haven’t heard anything within 90 days. This week marks 90 days. The entire application from start to finish is supposed to be completed within 90 days, and I’m almost at an entire year now without any answer or status. And I’ve spent $1600 specifically on this application so far.
You Haz A Problem, youz been robbed youz ain’tz never seeing noze CCW from LA, notz never (which is fine by me, you ain’t one of “us”, you’re getting just what you voted for, maybe they’ll do you the same in Nevada if your pals, the Dems and unions, steal another election)
That’s pure insanity Haz. I’m interested in hearing how this works, or doesn’t work, out for you.
My CCW class was less than 100 bucks (I think about $65-70 four years ago) and included pizza for lunch. You got the lecture, shot about 30 rounds, and took a test. You turned your test into the state, and waited for a couple of weeks. Then you go to a DMV, get your picture taken, and it’s done.
There was also a $100 fee for the state permit after you took your test.
Well my State’s court case may help you out with permits, your State’s pending court case may help out with magazines, Maryland’s court case may help out with a lot of silly feature restrictions what else do we have pending?
“This guy might decide to not issue or renew permits for LGBT people because he thinks they’re unstable ….. “?
If one has male genitals, stands in front of a mirror nude, and sees a “female” they are in fact “unstable” ie. mentally ill they should be heavily medicated and/or institutionalized.
Right. Transgenderism epitomizes the wise saying “Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.” No matter what appendages one mutilates, chromosomes don’t lie.
The only thing more obnoxious than insisting on an “opinion” in matters of objective fact is acting as though it’s gracious to offer the factually correct person an “equal right to his opinion” – as though we should applaud the open-mindedness of someone who recognizes the right to “believe” that 2 plus 2 equals 4.
Typical Republican: tucks his tail and runs.
Should have stuck to his guns: Men don’t belong in women’s bathrooms.
The “bathroom” issue shouldn’t be an issue at all- there shouldn’t be “Mens” and “Womens” bathrooms… just BATHROOMS. You go in, lock the door, do your business, you leave. It’s just so DAMN simple.
Plus, for disabled people like me- it allows someone of the opposite sex (my wife) to go into the bathroom and assist me (impossible in a “Mens” bathroom). They currently refer to such bathrooms as “Family” bathrooms- but it really makes no sense to not have ALL bathrooms be like this. They completely remove the “issue” of “who’s allowed” in the bathroom.
It’s simply a no-brainer… we just need one-hole HUMAN bathrooms.
The only issue I see with that is what do you do at large events? Think a football game or a race. Very costly. But, a fair and decent point.
Offer a percentage of ‘family’ toilets, instead of all unisex…
That is virtually impossible in stadiums and highly populated places that have events. You can’t have single lockable bathrooms for everyone, did you ever have to wait at a concert for the bathroom? Many times there were 50 people waiting, 30 in the bathroom and that is the men’s room. The women’s bathrooms had such long lines that they would wait in the men’s line and get a stall, if they really had to go.
You can’t move the people through with single lockable bathrooms.
@Peter,
Mens restrooms typically contain both toilet stalls and upright urinals. Womens typically contain only stalls. So if a Mens has 2S+2U, a Womens would have 4S.
It kinda makes a difference.
A “urinal row” at large spectator facilities isn’t really that much of a concern- generally, only those capable of using a urinal are gonna go in there. But sit down toilets should all have universal access and individual locked door privacy. Doing so solves almost all issues people get bent out of shape over regarding “who’s allowed” in bathrooms.
I often stop at gas stations to use the bathroom. I’m not sure what some guys are doing in there, but if they take longer than five minutes, I just go in the women’s. I knock first of course, and lock the door. The women’s restroom is always nicer. It’s like guys just pee on the floor beside the urinal. Why is that so difficult? What do they do at their house?
LGB people are fine, mostly, just like everyone else. T people, which is NOT A SEXUALITY, (why in God’s name do you insist on including that?!) are demonstrably NOT stable. Change my mind.
About 2 to 5 percent of people are born with ambiguous genitalia and no single “gender.” It used to be called hermaphroditism. It’s a real thing. It’s not a mental illness, it’s just how some people are born.
meant to write 0.02 to 0.05
Even then, their chromosomes would define their sex, but I can see why some of them might identify as something else. People always bring that up when speaking about trans, but they’re a tiny minority of the current trans craze. Think about when you were young. No one knew a trans person. Now you can’t go a day without hearing about the latest kindergartner that totally on their own, with zero coaching and influence, decides that they’re trans.
Constitutionally speaking, as soon as the SCOTUS (finally) admitted in the Heller ruling that ‘the right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry, possess on one’s person) Arms’, IS a “fundamental and individual right” that is protected by the U.S. Constitution, the United States, ALL 50 of them, became a constitutional carry nation – and every signatory State is bound thereby. That was the genius of Scalia’s majority opinion and ALL else in it is meaningless. Civil servants (elected officials) of States that “chill” that constitutionally protected right are thereby warring on a binding provision of the Constitution which is SEDITION and TREASON!
So close to logic and rationality yet so far. If anyone hasn’t figured it out yet: government cannot be trusted to respect personal rights and freedoms. That’s not its thing. It doesn’t “do” freedom. Government is all about forcing order on chaos. It does that through application of force and threats of force. That is why the Founders insisted on a Bill of Rights.
You can’t allow government to issue permits for rights at all. If you do, it isn’t a right. It is a privilege which can be taken away. It will be co-opted by the government and used against us. If you need evidence, look at current events.
Comments are closed.