California Legislators Seek to Limit Free Parking
This will be brief. Quite honestly, the entire proposal that I am going to discuss is so ridiculous that I don’t need to go into much detail to prove my point.
Some California legislators are trying to reduce the amount of free parking available in the state. They say that there is too much free parking, and they claim that this encourages people to drive instead of taking the bus, walking, or riding a bike. According to State Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), the increased driving caused by all the free parking contributes to traffic jams and pollution. “Free parking has significant social, economic, and environmental costs,” Lowenthal said. “It increases congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.”
Last Thursday (January 28), the State Senate approved Lowenthal’s proposal, which he hopes will cause cities and businesses to reduce the availability of free parking. The bill, which is supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club, provides financial incentives for cities and counties to stop providing free parking on the street and at government offices and to reduce the amount of parking they require businesses to provide.
Republicans opposed the measure, saying the Legislature should not be sticking its nose in how much people pay to park.
This is yet another example of the Democrats in the Legislature having completely lost their minds. It seems like they have so much free time on their hands that they simply sit around and try to think of new ways that the government can meddle in the lives of citizens. Not only is this an example of government intrusion into things that they should not be involved with whatsoever, but there is a financial impact as well. Reducing the amount of free parking in an area will reduce the amount of customers that come to that area, thus making it more difficult for businesses to continue making the same level of profits. This will have an overall effect of slowing down economic activity, possibly causing some businesses to either fail or have to lay off workers. Additionally, Democrats continually try to portray themselves as looking out for the “little guy”. Increased parking rates will have the most dramatic effect on the poorest car owners in California. Rich people will hardly notice having to pay for parking, and any parking costs are probably simply going to be a bearable annoyance to the middle class. But it is the poor, the ones who are barely scraping by in life and counting every penny, who will be hurt the most.
We need to throw all of the Legislators who keep coming up with such moronic new proposals out of office as soon as possible. And we need to replace them with lawmakers who understand that their proper role is to pass important legislation, not to bother citizens with absurd new laws.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
California’s Plan to Reduce Prison Crowding
Under a state law that takes effect tomorrow, California will begin to reduce it prison population. In the next year, the goal is to cut the number of inmates in prison by 6,500. The bill was signed as part of last year’s state budget package.
The bill to reduce prison crowding expands the early release credits for inmates who complete educational and vocational programs, allowing more inmates to leave prison earlier. At the same time, the state will stop the monitoring of low-level offenders after their release. The idea behind this is that it will reduce the number of parolees who have to return to prison because the state will not know if they are violating the terms of their parole.
Ex-convicts who are considered to be less dangerous or less likely to commit new crimes will not be monitored at all, although they can still be searched without a warrant. Supposedly, the reduced caseload for agents responsible for supervising parolees will let the state more concentrate more closely on watching gang members, sex offenders, and felons.
You have got to be kidding me. I am firmly against letting more criminals out of prisons early, and I am against reduced supervision of parolees. Why should criminals get out of prison early simply because they complete an educational or vocational program? Does anybody actually believe that these criminals will completely change their ways and become positive members of society? And even if they do somehow miraculously reform themselves, that doesn’t eliminate the fact that they are supposed to serve their prison sentence as a punishment for crimes they have already committed. To allow prisoners to be released early is a slap in the face of the victims of crimes.
I firmly believe that parolees must be thoroughly monitored by the state. These people have already proven in the past that they are menaces to society. Just because the state does not dedicate sufficient resources to catch them violating the terms of their parole does not mean that these people are not, in fact, doing things that should result in them losing their freedom once again. If they cannot keep their noses clean when they are released, they should be swiftly returned to prison.
California and the United States offer their citizens many opportunities to display their talents, become positive members of society, make some money by legal means, and enjoy a fulfilling life. I have no tolerance for criminals who violate the rights of others and the rules of society. I feel those who cannot follow the law and live by the rules of society should be severely punished for their actions. And even after they serve their time, these people, who have already displayed a disregard for our laws, should be closely monitored to make sure they don’t break any more laws. And if they do break the law again, we should make sure they go back to prison for a very long time.
The fact that the Legislature passed such a bill to reduce prison crowding shows that our elected officials have absolutely no clue as to how to run the state. The Legislature should enact laws that call for the harsh punishment of criminals and should ensure that the prison system has the funding to keep criminals away from the rest of society for as long as possible.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
Single-Payer Health Care in California
A few days ago, the people of Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to represent them in the United States Senate. Brown campaigned heavily as being the 41st vote in the Senate against government health care. The people in the heavily liberal-leaning Commonwealth of Massachusetts, realizing that the federal government stepping into health care is not only a very bad idea, but also unconstitutional, spoke up loudly that they believe the Democrats in Congress are heading in the wrong direction.
Today, the fight over health care came to the State of California. The Senate Appropriation Committee revived a bill to create a government-run health care system. The legislation, which had been held over from last year because of the state’s ongoing budget crisis, will go up for a vote by the full Senate next week. State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francsico) introduced the bill after Governor Schwarzenegger twice vetoed similar legislation. Leno’s bill would create a commission to decide how to pay for the system. He claims the system could be funded with a payroll tax, as well as with existing state and federal money and increased efficiencies from a state-managed system that eliminates the insurance middleman. Voters would then have to approve the commission's funding plan.
Creating a single-payer system would cost California an estimated $210 billion in its first year. That's roughly double the size of the total state budget. But Leno says that number is about what the state and federal government and residents cumulatively spend currently on California health care.
I do not like the idea of the government stepping further into the health care system at any level. At the federal level, one of my main arguments against government health care revolved around the fact that there is no place in the United States Constitution that grants the federal government the right to stick its nose into health care. Any notions based on “general welfare” or the Interstate Commerce Clause are ridiculous. But at the state level, because of the Tenth Amendment, this argument no longer applies.
But even at the state level, I believe in limited government. I believe that far too much tax money is being taken away from hard-working individuals and being put toward a bloated government. California is already facing a substantial budget deficit. The state has already proven that it cannot run anything efficiently. What causes people to believe that state-run single-payer health care would be any different?
Beyond basic notions of freedom, safety, equality, and property rights that everyone can agree on, I believe the government needs to be very careful when it extends into other aspects of society. To the core of my being, I do not believe that the government has any sort of business telling doctors how to run their practices and how much they should be paid for their services. Too much government regulation is a bad thing. If an individual cannot afford to get health care, that is tough luck for them. We live in a society where you have to work hard in order to enjoy the luxuries in life. And I truly believe that the level of health care that individuals enjoy in America is a luxury.
It’s amazing what people can accomplish when their backs are against the wall. They are capable of accomplishing things that they would never have thought possible. If you cannot currently afford health care, go out and figure out a way to make more money. And just as importantly, stop relying on the government to hand you things.
If I were in the State Legislature, I would vote against any sort of further encroachment of the government into the realm of health care. I just hope that nothing horrible gets enacted before I get there.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
Speed Enforcement Cameras
A little over a week ago, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his budget proposal for the 2010-11 fiscal year. Among the many revenue-generating and cost-cutting measures that he called for was a proposal to retool red-light cameras to catch drivers speeding through intersections. Schwarzenegger hopes that the installation of such cameras to catch speeders would raise $338 million a year for the State of California.
Under the proposal, a driver speeding through an intersection would have their picture taken by the camera. A few weeks later, the driver would receive the picture in the mail, along with a ticket that could run hundreds of dollars. If someone else were driving your car, you would not be responsible for the ticket. But since no police officer would be involved in the process, the driver would never even have an opportunity to try to explain why he or she was exceeding the speed limit.
Red light cameras to catch speeders have already been installed in Arizona, Washington, and Oregon. Schwarzenegger’s plan for California would adapt 500 red-light cameras in 77 cities statewide. It is estimated that the cameras would catch 2.4 million violators a year. Fines would be $225 if the driver is caught going up to 15 miles per hour over the speed limit and $325 if caught going more than 15 miles per hour over the posted limit. State and county governments would get 85 percent of the money to help pay for courts and court security. Cities would get 15 percent of the money, but there are concerns that this might not even be enough money to cover the cost of retooling the cameras for speed enforcement.
Before Schwarzenegger’s plan for speed enforcement cameras could be put into place, a crucial problem would have to be fixed: under current law, it is not allowed. A Santa Clara County judge ruled in 2004 that, under existing law, only a police officer could issue a speeding ticket. New legislation would have to be passed to allow the speed enforcement cameras. The current thinking is that such legislation would not be able to pass in Sacramento. Twice before, bills have been proposed in the Legislature to allow cameras to catch speeders, but both failed to even get out of committee.
But beyond the legality of the proposal, there is also the issue that it might not accomplish the sorts of improvements to public safety that many expect would result. I live in the City of Fremont. It did not take very long for me to figure out which intersections within Fremont have red-light cameras. While I am very careful not to ever run red lights, I am especially careful at the particular intersections that I know have red-light cameras. It is not difficult to imagine that speeders would quickly figure out which intersections had the speed enforcement cameras and adjust their driving behavior only at those intersections. And speeding is often more of a safety concern near schools and parks, in residential areas with speed limits of 25 mph, and where there are a lot of pedestrians. These areas do not necessarily correlate to intersections that will have the speed cameras.
Before going further on speed enforcement cameras, I want to clarify my position on red-light cameras. I have long been torn on the issue of red-light cameras. I realize that there is a safety issue with people running red lights. But at the same time, I feel that having an actual police officer witness the violation is essential. The ability to explain what happened seems important to me. Many times, the explanation will not be good enough for the officer, and the driver will be cited for running the red light. But there could be other times when an understanding law enforcement officer could cut a person a break for accidentally running a red light. I like that human factor when it comes to traffic violations.
An interesting thing to note is that most police agencies have long opposed the use of speed enforcement cameras, including the California Highway Patrol and the San Jose Police Department, because they think direct police contact is a more effective deterrent than a transaction in the mail.
For me, the issue of speeding is not even close to being as serious as running a red light. I don’t believe that simply speeding makes one an unsafe driver. Speeding in a straight line with little or no other traffic around on a dry surface with clear visibility isn’t a significant problem. Unsafe driving behavior is the main problem. People who drive under the influence are unsafe drivers. People who weave in and out of lanes are unsafe drivers. People who don’t properly check their mirrors and blind spots before changing lanes are unsafe drivers. People who drive too fast for the prevailing weather and road conditions are unsafe drivers. And people who are driving a lot slower than the flow of traffic are unsafe drivers. Honestly, I believe the standards for getting a driver’s license are too low right now. If we actually required people to know how to properly operate a motor vehicle before granting them a license, then the roads would be much safer for everyone.
I have heard reports that, in areas where speed limits are not set by law (such as school zones, maximum speed limits within the state, etc.), the posted limits are usually set at about the 85th percentile of the speed of drivers along that piece of roadway. If this is true, then, at any given moment, law enforcement has the opportunity to cite about 15 percent of the motorists who are driving down a road for violating the posted speed limit. Basically, this means that about one in every seven drivers can be cited for speeding. To me, that means that speed limits are set far too low. It is not only the person who is significantly above the speed limit (who might actually be endangering lives with excessive speed) who is getting cited; many people who are simply keeping up with the flow of traffic are susceptible to being cited. Because of this, it is easy for me to believe that the government is using speed limits as a means of revenue generation, not as a means of increasing public safety. And I do not believe that the government should be enacting laws simply to generate revenue. Laws should be created for the greater good of society, not because of money.
As I understand it, under the current vehicle code, law enforcement officers are allowed to cite motorists for what they believe to be unsafe driving behavior. Perhaps, instead of arbitrary speed numbers determining whether a person is driving safely or not, we should allow law enforcement officers to look at the totality of the situation when deciding whether a person is driving unsafely or not. As long as the officer can clearly articulate what the motorist was doing to cause them to be an unsafe driver in their eyes, the issue could then be brought to court, where a fair and impartial judge (or perhaps a jury of one’s peers) could decide whether the officer was correct or whether that officer had exceeded his or her authority. That is how I would like to see traffic enforcement handled in the State of California. After all, if the goal is to promote public safety (and not to simply raise money for the government), shouldn’t we look at the totality of a situation before declaring that someone has endangered others and mandating that they should have to pay for their actions?
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
California Unloaded Open Carry – January 14, 2010
It has finally happened. My research into issues dealing with unloaded open carry (UOC) has finally reached a point where the incompetence built into the system is preventing me from getting the information that I am looking for.
Growing up, I was always told that the police and law enforcement is there to help the people. Many times, in television and in movies, I was told that the police is there to “protect and serve” (thanks, LAPD) the people. I have always touted the virtues of law enforcement, and I have been an outspoken supporter of police departments around the country.
A few days ago, a person who I had recently met posted information that he had obtained from the Sunnyvale Police Department (SPD) regarding UOC via a Public Records Act request. Amongst the voluminous pages of documents that he had procured, I became aware of the fact that the SPD had created a map indicating where all the school zones are located within that city and clearly indicating the 1,000 foot perimeters surrounding each school. The map is basically a comprehensive school zone map, in which it is illegal to carry a firearm (California Penal Code 626.9), created by the SPD.
A couple weeks ago, before I found out about the SPD map, I had contacted the Fremont Police Department inquiring as to whether they such a map existed for the school zones in Fremont. Fremont Police Department’s Chief Craig Steckler wrote me back, stating that Fremont did not have such a map. He suggested that I check with a couple other agencies within the city to see if they had the kind of map that I was looking for. I contacted those agencies, and I was told that no such map exists.
After learning that the SPD had created such a map, I once again e-mailed Chief Steckler with the FPD. I also sent copies of the same message to the police chiefs of the cities of Newark, Union City, and Milpitas. Basically, I informed them that I am a law-abiding citizen, and I do not want to accidentally violate PC 626.9. I informed them that I have made an effort to find a map that clearly indicates all gun free school zones, and I was not able to do so. All of the maps that I have found are either incomplete and/or inaccurate with regards to the locations of each and every K-12 school in Fremont, and I have been unable to locate any maps that indicate the 1,000 foot perimeters surrounding each school. As an individual, I do not have the ability to survey every inch of Fremont (or Newark, Union City, and Milpitas) to create a school zone map on my own. I informed them that, therefore, it is virtually impossible for me to “know” or “reasonably” know (referencing the language of PC 626.9) where every school zone is. I also informed the police chiefs that the SPD has the technology to create a map that shows the school zones. I then asked whether these police chiefs would be willing, with all the resources that are at their disposal due to taxpayer money, to create a gun free school zone map for each of their cities and make those maps available to the public so that law-abiding citizens can avoid accidentally violating PC 626.9. This e-mail was sent out on January 6, 2010.
On January 7, I received a message from Chief Greg Stewart of the Union City Police Department. He included a map of Union City that appears to have been created back in 2007. This “sensitive uses” map includes schools, churches, day cares, etc. around which there is concern about selling tobacco products. The map is pretty much useless to me because it does not indicate which areas on the map are K-12 school, and thus relevant to gun free school zones, and which areas are totally irrelevant with regards to PC 626.9. (On a side note, the map is hilarious because, if you lay the 1,000 foot radius around all of the “sensitive uses” areas on the map, the entire map basically becomes covered. So, apparently, it is very difficult to sell tobacco products in Union City.) Chief Stewart then went on to say that UCPD does not have a map specifically dealing with school zones only, is under no obligation to create such a map (which I agree with), and that they do not intend to use “sparse staff resources” to create such a map because they feel it is up to the individual to figure out the school zones on their own. (I wonder what all of their “sparse staff resources” are being wasted on.) So much for UCPD attempting to help the citizens out in any way whatsoever. Apparently, they seem to be highly resistant to the notion of helping people get information and educate themselves so that they can avoid violating the law in the first place.
I responded to Chief Stewart’s message by asking him whether Union City simply abides by California state law with regards to UOC or whether there are additional municipal ordinances piled on top of state law. I still have not received any response to that inquiry.
Then on January 11, I received an e-mail from Sheila Harrington, the City Clerk of the City of Newark. Apparently, my message to Newark’s police chief had been forwarded to her. She informed me that Newark had no school zone map. The really interesting thing is that she informed me that the Public Records Act does not require the Police Department to create new records. The reason that this is interesting is because she decided to bring up this fact completely on her own. At no point in my original message did I insinuate that I believed the Public Records Act required to creation of a map. In fact, I wasn’t even making an official Public Records Act request. I had simply asked whether they had any plans to create a school zone map. This leads me to believe that Ms. Harrington either decided to inform me about something I did not ask about or she had a problem reading my original message. In either case, I am not impressed with Ms. Harrington’s ability to answer an inquiry directly and remain on-message. Ms. Harrington then concluded her response by suggesting that I contact the Newark Unified School District and the Newark Chamber of Commerce to see if they have a map such as the one I am looking for. Assuming they have the same sorts of information as groups in Fremont have, I’m not holding my breath on that. In any case, I guess the Newark Police Department doesn’t want to have to even bother with answering my questions. I have now sent an inquiry to Ms. Harrington as to whether Newark has any municipal ordinance with regards to UOC. Watch Commander Milner already informed me that they do not, but I figure it won’t hurt for me to double check with the City Clerk.
Following the UOC meetup that I attended in Livermore On January 2, the Contra Costa Times wrote an article about the event (http://www.contracostatimes.com/top-stories/ci_14121268). In the article, Livermore police Lt. Lance Bye said that “it is not the police department’s job to make opinions, but to enforce the law.” Bye is then quoted as saying, “We do understand and view it as a legal act... The fact people may disagree with it is inconsequential.” It is interesting that Lt. Bye would say something like that with regards to Livermore. It appears that, in the area where I live, I seem to be getting a lot of attitude and evasiveness from law enforcement with regards to UOC. That is not the spirit of helpfulness that I was brought up to believe that I could expect to receive from the police. And quite honestly, it is very disappointing to see how far reality has strayed from the idealistic image I once had of law enforcement.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
Governor Schwarzenegger’s Budget Plan
The State of California is facing the prospects of a $20-plus billion deficit in the coming fiscal year. Yesterday, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled his plan to deal with the budget shortfall. The plan optimistically counts heavily on money that nobody can rely on actually materializing. Among other things, it counts on receiving close to $7 billion from the federal government that the governor says the state is owed. Clearly, there is no guarantee that California will ever see a cent of that money.
Considering the current composition of the California Legislature, there is a significant likelihood that the budget that ultimately gets approved (assuming the Legislature can get its act together and pass a budget on time this year) will likely depart from Schwarzenegger’s plan in many ways. We will have to wait and see how the Legislature eventually winds up handling the budget deficit. But, just for the fun of it, I have decided to take a broad look at some of the components of Schwarzenegger’s plan and comment on certain aspects that I either agree or disagree with.
Schwarzenegger’s plan calls for a $2.9 billion reduction in health and human services. This includes $950 million in cuts to the state’s in-home supportive services program for the disabled, which would be achieved through reductions in wages and services. It also includes $130 million reduction in payments through CalWORKS, the state’s primary welfare-to-work program, by reducing individual grants. Additionally, if the money from the federal government does not materialize, Schwarzenegger has promised to completely scrap CalWORKS, the in-home supportive services program, and Healthy Families (which provides health insurance for needy children). I support these cuts. I believe the state is far too generous with its spending on health and human services. Individuals should not rely on the government to pay their way through life for them. It is a family’s duty to care for its own. If the family support system fails, one should turn to friends and charitable organizations for help. The notion of the government taking from certain people and giving to others, however, is particularly distasteful.
Under the governor’s proposal, the three-day-a-month furloughs that are currently in place would end June 30, 2010. In its place, Schwarzenegger would seek payroll reductions of 5 percent across all state departments (except for constitutional offices, which have already achieved 5 percent reductions). Most of these payroll reductions would be achieved by departments not filling current vacancies. Schwarzenegger would also seek a 5 percent pay cut for all state workers and a 5 percent increase in their pension contribution. I agree with all of these proposals. The economy in the state has taken a severe hit over the last year-plus. Private businesses have reacted to the economic situation by cutting costs, including reducing compensation for employees. State employees should be willing to make similar concessions.
Schwarzenegger would like to cut the money spent on prisons by $1.2 billion. He would like to cut $811 million in prison health care expenses by making the system more efficient and reducing funding to a level comparable to the State of New York. In theory, I am all for making a system more efficient. If more efficient methods can be implemented, it should be done. But at the same time, the stark reality is that there are a whole lot of criminals in California. I am reluctant to cut prison spending when there are already concerns about prison overcrowding. Schwarzenegger also wants to save $360 million by shifting nonviolent offenders out of state prisons and into county jails and by reducing the juvenile prison population and closing the facilities that house them. I do not like these ideas either. Moving nonviolent offenders from state prison to county jails simply shifts the financial burdens away from the state and onto the counties. I believe the better course of action is to increase funding for the state prison system so that it can deal with the overcrowding. As for reducing the juvenile prison population, it sounds good in theory, but it won’t work in reality. As a society, we need to come to grips with the fact that many criminals are starting their deviant behavior at a younger age. If released, these juvenile offenders will continue to commit more crimes. No matter what their age, for the greater good to society, we need to lock criminals up and keep them away from law-abiding citizens.
With regards to education, Schwarzenegger proposes to hold spending at $48 billion for K-12, community colleges, and the four-year university systems. Savings would be found in some places, but bumps in spending would include a $225 million increase for the University of California and California State University systems in the hopes of avoiding further student fee increases. I like the idea of freezing overall spending on education, but my refusal to accept cuts to prison spending would mean that additional money would have to be found somewhere else. Quite honestly, I see absolutely no reasons to increase spending on the UC and CSU systems. If people want to get a higher education, they should be willing to pay for it.
Schwarzenegger’s budget proposes to eliminate the sales tax on fuel (about 16 cents per gallon) and increase the excise tax on gasoline by 10.8 cents. The administration says this approach would maintain funding for transportation programs while reducing net taxes paid by consumers by $976 million. I like the idea of eliminating the tax on fuel, but I do not like the increase in the gasoline tax at all. Overall, this is essentially a wash. When the state gets in a better financial position, I would like to see the gasoline tax slashed.
The governor proposes to fund state parks by allowing more oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coast, which Schwarzenegger’s office estimates would generate $100 million in the current fiscal year and $119 million in 2010-11. In total, it is estimated that the drilling would generate $1.8 billion in royalties for California over the next 14 years. I don’t like the idea of spending the additional money on state parks, but I do support allowing for more oil drilling off Santa Barbara. I thought it was a good idea last summer (when it was ultimately voted down), and I still think it’s a good idea. It will provide additional money for the state and help contribute (granted, in a very tiny way) to ending our dependence on foreign oil.
There are definitely portions that I disagree with, but, all in all, it’s not a bad budget proposal. But, once again, I would like to emphasize that there is absolutely no guarantee that we will be able to get the nearly $7 billion from the federal government that Schwarzenegger is asking for. Without that money, we will need to find additional places in the budget to cut. Notice that I specifically said that we need to cut. I do not believe that tax increases, in general, are a good idea. And especially when the economy is in such a bad state, tax increases will only serve to retard economic growth. Down the road, it is a resurgence of the economy, leading to higher tax revenue for the state, which will save California’s financial woes. And when that finally happens, we much remember to remain disciplined in our spending.
Now that Governor Schwarzenegger has unveiled his budget plan, it up to the Legislature to tinker with it and come up with something that works and can be approved. I will eagerly be following what the Legislature does in next few months.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
What You See Is What You Get
A few days ago, I posted a blog entry detailing an unloaded open carry (UOC) meetup that I attended in Livermore. Over the last month, I have heard from a number of gun rights advocates regarding my candidacy for California State Assembly and my position that there is nothing wrong with exercising my right to UOC. Many people readily supported my position. At the same time, I have heard from a number of people who suggested that I do not UOC until my campaign is over.
A few of the people who advised against me UOCing were more interested in the overall fight for gun rights throughout the state and the nation than in my individual campaign. They wanted me to hold off on stirring the pot until the guns rights movement got some favorable court rulings in some notable pending court cases. Their fear is that legislators, reacting to public reaction to me UOCing, may decide to try to enact even harsher gun laws in the near future. To those who hold that opinion, I feel you give me far too much credit. There are many people already UOCing throughout California and in the Bay Area. I am not doing anything that legislators do not already know about. We have seen in the past that bad legislators have a tendency to enact bad laws whenever they feel like doing so. I highly doubt that me UOCing will be that final straw that causes them to act. And even if they did, I would be sure to bring as much public attention and media scrutiny to that legislative action as possible so that the people in California could see what jokes their current elected officials are.
Then there were those who advised against me UOCing because they were afraid that doing so in the liberal Bay Area will hurt my chances of winning my election. They understand that, if I manage to win my election, they will have an ally in Sacramento who is looking out for the same interests that are important to them. They want me to win the election at all costs, even if it means holding my tongue for the moment. They feel that I will scare off many potential voters who might see my actions as being far too radical. Well, I am all about shedding light on how our current system of law enforcement treats law-abiding citizens as if we are the criminals. I am all about educating the public about what is legal and what is not legal, and UOCing is legal in California. I am also all about communicating with voters who have misconceptions about what it means to be a conservative. If me exercising my right to UOC is seen as being a provocative action that sheds light on my campaign, that is fine with me. If that happens, I will use that opportunity to open up a dialogue with the voters and show them who I really am. I will work to clearly explain to them what I stand for, why I am superior to other candidates running for Assembly District 20, and why they should vote for me.
In response to my blog entry from a few days ago, somebody posted a comment expressing his concerns (and the concerns of others) about me UOCing in the liberal Bay Area hurting my election chances. I typed up a very rough and quick response to him. Now, looking back at my response, it seems to be a shame to have it buried in the comments section of my blog, where not many people will see it. I want to end this blog entry by reposting the response that I made the other day:
The comment section of my blog is not really the proper place for me to give a full explanation regarding my thinking on this. A very rough synopsis would go something like this:
For years, the people in the Bay Area have been blindly electing officials into office simply because they have “Democrat” printed next to their name on the ballot. Many registered voters probably wouldn’t be able to tell you who their elected officials are, much less the positions that those officials take on the issues. There are also many Bay Area voters who will not vote for a candidate simply because he or she has “Republican” printed next to their name on the ballot. But if you were to sit down and question many of those voters about what a certain Republican candidate stands for (or Republicans in general), you will hear a lot of misconceptions. This is a sad state of affairs.
The only way that we are going to be able to break out of this cycle of ignorance among voters and ineptitude in Bay Area politics is to have a candidate who is willing to cut thorough the bull and speak up loud and proud about what he or she stands for. In a perfect world, voters would choose their candidates based on their individual stances on the issues and the content of their character, not because of party affiliation. Hell, in a perfect world, we wouldn’t even need political parties at all because the electorate would simply choose the best candidate, period.
So far, my campaign doesn’t have a lot of money, which makes it difficult for me to get my message out to the voters. But I am willing to put in the hard work to try to communicate with as many people as possible. People who have an opportunity to meet me in person understand that I am not your average person. I cannot be stereotyped or pigeonholed. There is nothing inherently special about me that makes me better than any other person, but I am unique in ways that make me superior to other candidates in the region.
I believe in being forthright with the voters on who I am and what I stand for. I am not trying to play any sort of games by telling people what they want to hear. That is part of the beauty of this blog. It gives people the opportunity to take a more in-depth look at the way that my mind works. I am telling people what I truly believe in and giving them the opportunity to judge me on my position on the issues and on the content of my character. When people vote for me, they will know exactly who they are going to get representing them in Sacramento. I will not be one person on the campaign trail and a quite different person once I am in office.
I challenge the voters to look at the other candidates for Assembly District 20. They will find politicians who are trying to say as little as possible because they don’t want to ruffle any feathers. They want to be able to solicit campaign contributions from as many people as they possibly can. They want to be able to tailor their positions on the issues to do what is politically expedient for them at any given moment. Basically, they are people who are not willing to take a stand on the tough issues. Whether this is because of a lack of a comprehensive vision on exactly what role government should have in society and how it should interact with citizens or whether it is due to a lack of backbone and personal fortitude on the part of those candidates is up for debate. Either way, it doesn’t speak well for those candidates. Is that really the kind of person who voters want representing them in government? It hasn’t worked for the last few decades.
I have heard insanity defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Well, the people of the Bay Area have continued to elect the same type of people into office year after year. These voters have to ask themselves whether their past actions have gotten them a government that resembles the government that they would like in any shape or form whatsoever. If not, it’s time to try something new.
Many people complain about corruption in government and dishonest politicians. Well, that is not something that people will have to worry about with me. I am going to flat out tell people who I am. I will give them insight into my vision of government and society. If people like what I stand for, they should vote for me. If people want an honest person representing them in government, they should vote for me. If people are unhappy about the status quo, they should vote for me.
But if the majority of the electorate does not vote for me and I wind up losing the election, those who voted for my opponent will have lost the moral authority to complain about what is going on in government. I am not a person who gets lost in a crowd. I am the candidate who can transcend politics as usual and make a difference. And at the end of the day, even if I lose, I will still be able to look at myself in the mirror, with a clear conscience, knowing that I tried my very best to make the State of California and the United States of America a better place to live for all honest, hard-working, law-abiding citizens.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
UOC Meetup in Livermore
I had been looking forward to today for over a week. A couple of people who I had met briefly at various points over the last few months had decided to organize an unloaded open carry (UOC) meetup in Livermore. It was to be an informal UOC meetup at the Panama Red Coffee Co. from 11AM to 1PM. As I have taken a keen interest in UOC over the last month or so, I made it a point to attend the meetup. This would be my very first UOC.
A few days before the meetup, I was informed that the organizers had been in contact with the Livermore Police Department (LPD). In order to ensure that everything went smoothly, it was suggested that people who were UOCing could meet with officers from the LPD (prior to the actual Panama Red meetup) at a nearby parking lot in order for officers to conduct a 12031(e) check (to make sure that there was no ammunition actually in the firearm, only in magazines outside of the firearm). This was a voluntary meeting, not a mandatory one. It was scheduled to take place between 10:30AM and 10:45AM. I was informed that it was agreed that no serial numbers would be run by the officers and that they would not check the ID’s of those who showed up. Of course, those who did not show up for this inspection by the LPD would still be subject to a 12031(e) check by any officer who happened to see them approaching, entering, or exiting Panama Red.
I understand that there are those out there who would be incensed to willingly meet with the Police at a separate location in order to submit to a 12031(e) check. While I understand their concerns (UOC is not illegal, the 12031(e) checks are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the checks should be done in front of as many people as possible so that society will see that the Police have no reason to prevent us from UOCing, etc.), I personally had no problem with the agreed upon terms. While I firmly believe that my right to carry a firearm is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, I also understand that many people in California, including law enforcement officers (LEO), are not accustomed to citizens openly carrying firearms. As long LEOs do not go too far in violating my rights, I am willing to make an effort to meet them halfway for the sake of making the whole process go smoothly during these early encounters. I believe that this ambassador-type behavior on my part will help to show law enforcement officers that people who UOC are not dangerous criminals and are, instead, law-abiding citizens who are simply trying to exercise their right to carry a firearm.
Amongst my many options, I decided to UOC my Walther PPK/S for this meetup. I felt that some of my other firearms were much too bulky to carry for this meetup (e.g. my Desert Eagles). My matching black Walther PPKs are my favorite handguns, and I was tempted to carry one of them. But, in the end, I decided to go with my PPK/S because it is stainless steel. (All of my other handguns are matte black or “blue”.) I felt that, especially at a meetup with the express intention of displaying one’s rights and educating people, the fact that the PPK/S would be most visible to LEOs and everyday citizens made it the best choice. And if people wanted to ask me questions about UOC, I was more than willing to tell them what I know about the issue.
I arrived at the parking lot in Livermore a little after 10:30AM. Four LPD officers and four cruisers were already waiting in the parking lot. I met up with three other guys who were carrying, as well as some of their family/loved ones. A little before 10:45AM, we all walked over to the officers, introduced ourselves, and went through the 12031(e) checks. We brought a ton of cameras and video recorders with us, so the whole process was well-documented. As soon as the first guy started getting (e)checked, I noticed that the officer decided to read the serial number off the guy’s gun out loud into some sort of recording device. While they weren’t actually running the serial number of the firearm at that moment, they were recording it and could easily run the serial number at a later time. It seemed a little shady on their part, but I knew that none of us had anything to hide. I was the third person to get checked, and I made sure that lots of pictures were taken of my very first (e)check. What a special moment that I will always remember. LOL. After all four of us were checked, the officers thanked us for meeting with them and wished us well for the rest of the day.
Our group of seven (six adults and one precious 9-month-old girl) then walked the half block or so to the coffee shop. When we got inside, we all ordered and sat down at a group of tables by the large picture windows at the front of the shop. A couple customers seemed to notice that we were carrying, but nobody seemed panicked at all. We sat down and started taking about UOC. People talked about the law as they understood it, our attempts (often in vain) to get clarification on the issue from law enforcement agencies, and people’s past experiences while UOCing.
As we sat there other people began trickling in for the UOC meetup. At our peak, there were ten of us there who were UOCing, and, including friends and family, there were probably close to 20 people total. I was extremely pleased with the turnout. We wound up occupying most of the front of the coffee shop. A photographer from the Bay Area Newspaper Group (who had been contacted by organizers of the meetup) even showed up and took some pictures of our meetup group. We made sure to explain to the photographer that I am a candidate for California State Assembly.
It was really interesting to talk with the more experienced UOCers. I was warned that if I continue to UOC, there is a very good chance that I might wind up on some sort of terrorist watch list. I find that to be both sad and amusing. If true, it’s sad that the government would look at a person who is engaging in legal conduct as being some sort of possible terrorist. A government that is functioning properly should be on the lookout for the bad guys, not the good guys. It’s amusing because I am probably one of the least likely people in the country to engage in terrorist activities. I love California, and I love America. It is that love which prompted me to run for California State Assembly. I would never engage in terrorist activities.
While we were there, more than a few customers of the coffee shop would stop by and ask us questions about UOC. Many of the people in the meetup group had brought information pamphlets about UOC, and we were all more than happy to answer people’s questions. It was also nice to be able to meet face-to-face with people from around the Bay Area who share my concerns about gun rights. It was eventually decided that we would try to meetup at a different location around the Bay Area each month, hopefully increasing the number of people who turn out for each meetup.
Around 1PM, everyone decided that they were going to go eat at a nearby restaurant. Even though I had to leave to take care of some other business, I walked over to the restaurant with them. It was really interesting to see the reactions of people as we walked down the street. A lot of people didn’t even realize that ten of us were carrying. And for those who did notice, it didn’t appear that anyone became panicked. People seemed more interested to figure out who we were more than anything else. The answer to that is simple: We are law-abiding citizens who are exercising our rights to carry firearms. I really am looking forward to the next UOC meetup.
I just wanted to end this blog entry with some random thoughts. While I was getting ready to leave my house, it occurred to me that a whole lot of people who see me with a gun on my hip would probably think that I am some sort of LEO. I mean, between the way I dress for work and the way I look while out on the campaign trail speaking to groups of people from the community, it really wouldn’t be a stretch for people to think that I am an FBI of Secret Service agent or something like that. It is not my intention to emulate the look of an LEO; that is simply the way that I dress. I just wish that I were allowed to wear a suit jacket while I UOC. Obviously, the jacket would cover the handgun, making it an illegal unloaded concealed carry. But I am most comfortable when I am fully suited up.
I also know that there are people out there who think that I am occupying law enforcement resources by UOCing. After all, the LPD had to dedicate four officers to meet with us prior to the meetup, and there were an inordinate number of police cruisers that drove by the coffee shop during the two hours that we were there. To these people I say this: I will not apologize for exercising my right to carry. A right that is not exercised is a right that is easily lost. If a law-abiding citizen peacefully carrying a firearm is a drain on police resources, then perhaps the police need to adjust their response. Honestly, I do not know what the LPD expected to happen at the coffee shop for them to feel the need to dedicate so many cruisers to the area. If anything, I felt safer there in that coffee shop with all of my UOC brethren than I would feel in my hometown of Fremont while not UOCing. And, ultimately, I maintain that, if the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office (and, more broadly, the State of California) were to grant me a concealed weapons permit, I would be able to exercise my right to carry a firearm without most people in society ever even knowing it, thus reducing the chance that law enforcement resources would have to be wasted responding to a law-abiding citizen doing absolutely nothing wrong.
Lastly, I want to thank Panama Red Coffee Co. in Livermore for allowing us to UOC in their wonderful establishment.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
California’s New Laws on January 1, 2010
The California Legislature has a nasty habit of passing laws. Now, I know what you are thinking. Isn’t it the job of the legislature to pass laws? Well, yes. But the goal of the legislature should be to pass meaningful laws that positively benefit society.
Unfortunately, the California Legislature seems to act as if its job is to pass as many laws as possible, not to pass meaningful laws. Our elected officials in Sacramento seem to take pleasure in passing a large number of laws every year. And many times, those laws are either misguided or a complete waste of time.
Many of the new laws that are passed each year go into effect on January 1 of the following year. (July1 is also a popular date for new laws to go into effect.) I decided to take a look at some of the laws that went into effect today and see how I would have voted on them if I were in the State Assembly representing District 20. (I will try to avoid commenting on new regulations that were put into place by regulatory agencies. I will say, however, that the new regulations imposed by the California Air Resources Board on truckers who operate at California's ports are unnecessary and unfair.)
I would have voted against recognizing out of state same-sex marriages. While I believe in domestic partnerships and that certain rights between same-sex couples should be respected through contract rights, I believe that “marriage” is defined as being between one man and one woman.
I would have voted against a law taking effect this year recognizing May 22 as Harvey Milk Day (introduced by State Senator Mark Leno, D-San Francisco). I do not believe that Harvey Milk, in his short term in office (less than one year) on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, did anything significant enough to warrant a day of recognition by the State of California. Simply being a gay elected official is not enough to deserve such a day.
I would have voted for a law preventing tax scam artists from sending solicitations that look like official government letters that attempt to collect an advance or late fee (Assemblymember Ted Lieu-D-Los Angeles). I am against fraud, plain and simple.
I would have voted for a law that would have no longer made it illegal for fishermen who accidentally get a few rock crab in their traps while fishing for Dungeness crab, assuming both crab are actually in season (Assemblymember Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo). I am against excessive regulation on businesses.
I would have voted for the pilot law that forces convicted DUI drivers in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare counties to affix to their vehicles an interlocking device that measures their sobriety before they can drive (Assemblymember Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles). I believe drunk drivers are a danger to society, and I support measures that will help reduce drivers from getting behind the wheel while intoxicated.
I would have voted for a law that would allow cities and counties that pay for graffiti removal to seek monetary restitution from the perpetrating graffiti artists. I have no tolerance for people who damage and destroy the property of others.
I would have voted for a law that increases the penalties for those involved in human trafficking. Human trafficking is a despicable crime, and offenders deserve to be punished severely.
State law already makes photographers (paparazzi) liable for breach of privacy if they trespass or engage in violence to record someone’s personal activities. But I would have voted against a law that would have extended that burden to anyone who knowingly purchases and then transmits ill-gotten photos or recordings (Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles). It would be one thing if the purchaser instructed the photographer to commit a crime in the first place. But I have a real problem extending the blame for the breach of privacy to the purchaser. As far as I’m concerned, the photographer is the one who should be held accountable for the breach of privacy.
I would have voted for a new law that will allow major California airports to kill off birds seen as potential hazards to aircraft. Public safety is significantly more important than the lives of birds that could cause a plane to potentially have a fatal accident.
I would have voted against the new law that limits the amount of oils, margarine, or shortening that restaurants can use to no more than half a gram of trans fats per serving. This is yet another example of the government over-regulating businesses. Customers already have the right to choose not eat someplace if they do not feel that a certain restaurant’s food is healthy enough.
I would have voted against the defining of honey as a “natural sweet substance produced by honeybees” in order to protect the public from “deceptively labeled, adulterated, and potentially less healthy products” (Assemblymember Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa). I would have also voted against lawmakers creating a special blueberry commission to “carry out programs of education, promotion, marketing, and research relating to blueberries”, which will be paid for by California’s blueberry growers. These are trivial things that the government should not waste its time getting involved with in the first place.
Of course, far more laws than these went into effect today, but there are far too many of them to comment on each and every one. Overall, I agreed with some of the laws that went into effect today, and I disagreed with others. The fact that the legislature had to spend so much time dealing with California’s budget crisis probably significantly cut into the amount of time that legislators would have spent passing bad laws. This is not to say that the legislature did not pass some bad laws in 2009. For example, AB 962, which affects the purchasing and storage of ammunition, is a very bad law. AB 962, however, will not go into effect until February 1, 2011. (And if I have it my way, it will never go into effect. There also appears to be confusion whether certain portions of AB 962 went into effect on January 1, 2010 while other portions wouldn't go into effect until February 1, 2011.) But this was simply an exercise looking at laws that went into effect on January 1, 2010.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com