Good Moral Character in California

[DolphinFan]

Here are the Good Moral Character Guidelines by the State Bar for the Licensing of Lawyers/Attorneys.

Might be a good Sticky

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/...guidelines.pdf

[M1NM]

IMHO those should be stricter than for a CCW.

[lastinline]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

Here are the Good Moral Character Guidelines by the State Bar for the Licensing of Lawyers/Attorneys.

Might be a good Sticky

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/...guidelines.pdf

Totally useless as relating to CCW’s, as the GMC definition is completely 100% subjective to the IA. It is the new tool for universal denial, if the IA so wishes.
Justice Thomas missed the opportunity of a lifetime for all of us, by leaving the permit system in place. He could have thrown it all out, and reverted to the constitution for the whole issue. It is what it is, and we may never in our lifetimes have another bite of the apple for this one.

[L84CABO]

Originally Posted by lastinline

Justice Thomas missed the opportunity of a lifetime for all of us, by leaving the permit system in place. He could have thrown it all out, and reverted to the constitution for the whole issue. It is what it is, and we may never in our lifetimes have another bite of the apple for this one.

+1. I love Thomas and he got a lot right in this decision. But it astounds me how, out of one side of the court's mouth they cite the standard as being "text, history, and tradition, at the time of ratification," but out of the other side of the court's mouth they say permitting is ok. It's a very clear inconsistency.

And I also wonder if it will cause future problems. Because if the court made an exception to the rule for permitting, then what else can be done under an exception to the rule?

[Tankerman777]

I totally agree with L84CABO, a thousand percent!!!. The SC left that part out because as we all know it's all about power and money. THE ANSWERS ARE NOT IN THE COURTS OR THE VOTING BOOTHS THE ANSWERS ARE RIGHT THERE IN OUR MIRRORS. 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

[lastinline]

Originally Posted by L84CABO

And I also wonder if it will cause future problems. Because if the court made an exception to the rule for permitting, then what else can be done under an exception to the rule?

I’m 100% sure it will, in spades. The legislature can easily extrapolate “permission” acceptance into anything; they have been given a very clear message by the SCOTUS that the exercise of any constitutional right can be subject to requiring a permission slip. Permission (a license) to purchase, possess, use, sell, dispose of, transport, etc., anything you can think of.

[Munny$hot]

I agree with SCOTUS decisions, but at the same time if people have a tendency to keep breaking laws, having a short fuse, fighting, aggressive behavior, etc, but may have barely escaped a Felony conviction may not be a good candidate for a CCW holder. Being denied may be a benefit to them from being prosecuted for a bad wrongful defensive shot. On the other hand a non violent Felony that happened years ago should not be a factor.

[XDJYo]

Originally Posted by lastinline

Totally useless as relating to CCW’s, as the GMC definition is completely 100% subjective to the IA. It is the new tool for universal denial, if the IA so wishes.
Justice Thomas missed the opportunity of a lifetime for all of us, by leaving the permit system in place. He could have thrown it all out, and reverted to the constitution for the whole issue. It is what it is, and we may never in our lifetimes have another bite of the apple for this one.

It opened up this 'loophole' for the counties to abuse this. Some counties (Contra Costa being one) have not issued a single CCW since the SCOTUS decision. I think even uber liberal Marin county is issuing now. CoCoCo is hiding behind a stack of applications (over 1k) saying they don't have enough staff to handle the volume. Well, idiots, it doesn't take ANY effort to let paperwork stack up and not move anywhere. They're just stalling. They hoped the proposed CA CCW law would've passed so they had cover to NOT issue.

And that didn't stop them from issuing denials???

Freaking useless.

[lastinline]

Originally Posted by Munny$hot

I agree with SCOTUS decisions, but at the same time if people have a tendency to keep breaking laws, having a short fuse, fighting, aggressive behavior, etc, but may have barely escaped a Felony conviction may not be a good candidate for a CCW holder. Being denied may be a benefit to them from being prosecuted for a bad wrongful defensive shot. On the other hand a non violent Felony that happened years ago should not be a factor.

Those who already violate laws will continue to do so, and never followed to begin with. The people who you describe as having a short fuse, aggressive behavior, etc., won’t be deterred because they “couldn’t qualify” for some permit. They will do what they will, permission or not.
The people who are not as above, but remain subjected to the permit process, and as a result are denied the ability to enjoy constitutional rights will always suffer under the permit system that many on this forum support.

[Milsurp1]

Thomas may not have gotten the necessary votes if he didn’t include permission for some type of permitting.

[lastinline]

Originally Posted by Milsurp1

Thomas may not have gotten the necessary votes if he didn’t include permission for some type of permitting.

And that effectively puts California back on track as far as denials go, with regards to what latitude IA’s have. Until SCOTUS gets another case like Bruen, that addresses the fallacy of GMC, it’s just like old times. Some will issue, some won’t. It is truly “may” issue, just like before.

[OldGeek]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

Here are the Good Moral Character Guidelines by the State Bar for the Licensing of Lawyers/Attorneys.

Might be a good Sticky

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/...guidelines.pdf

Yeah. The FAA requires "good moral character" of airline pilots as well. As near as I can remember, that means no felonies, never cheating on exams, medicals, logbooks or check flights and never doing anything outragiously stupid or foolish in an aircraft.

[SharedShots]

Originally Posted by OldGeek

Yeah. The FAA requires "good moral character" of airline pilots as well. As near as I can remember, that means no felonies, never cheating on exams, medicals, logbooks or check flights and never doing anything outragiously stupid or foolish in an aircraft.

There is no right to be an airline pilot either.






.