Dave, true that amongst the law abiding are criminals who would carry...but here's the thing....if they are found out to be unlawfully carrying, such as felonies, DV, "judged" mentally incompetent (not just your run o' the mill idiots, but a legal one), then they shouldn't be carrying. That makes them crooks. Take 'em to jail. If they are "Bank robber wanna-be's" "pre-rapists" who haven't robbed a bank yet or stalked a chick in the alley, but are thinking about it, then no crime has been committed, stay holstered and fit in with the rest of us who haven't committed a crime "yet." I say "yet" because at any given moment the opportunity and the desperation to commit a crime may arise with any one of us all, but the decision to commit makes the difference in being a citizen or a convict. No? So as long as you decide not to draw to OFFEND, then you should be allowed to carry to DEFEND. As the great flow artist, Rap Legend Jay Z stated: "I would do anything necessary for her, so don't let the necessary occur, YUP." LOL In other words don't "ack" like a crook, and you won't get dealt with accordingly. And what's a fair way of controlling it? California seems to think that it's way is fair. Cops only, judges, legislators? Who gets to decide who it's fair for? What type of criteria is used to determine that your wife or my daughter, or you or I for that matter can protect ourselves when needed? True, defective unfittness should be a determination based on societal norms, but all God fearing, taxpaying, employed sentient beings should be able to protect themselves until justification is produced otherwise.
