She had one because the anarcho hippie terrorist groups of SF targeted her and shot up her home several times. When the group was arrested/disbanded, she let her permit lapse.
While I agree it sucks that some rich and powerful people seem to live by a different set of rules, it's not like she had a permit just for kicks.
My childhood home was burgled several times and death threats written on it. I was assaulted several times.
But I’m not rich and powerful, so.
I recall Sherif telling my dad if he shot someone, to make sure the body was in the house pointing toward the inside. That way he wouldn’t be arrested.
So we were under constant assault, and if we tried to defend ourselves we had to make sure everything was “perfect” so as not to get arrested.
But that’s the whole point of a CCW permit. If you’re at risk you should be allowed to have one, and yet she works to make that impossible for all but the powerful and connected. It’s fine that she has one but it’s not fine that she doesn’t let regular Californians go through the same application process without money or connections.
My point was to show that she had a legitimate need, then let the permit lapse when she no longer had a need. She didn't have one for an abuse of power.
I wasn't debating the merits of the CA shall issue policy.
In other words, don't pick a fight where there isn't one.
However, a person living in a dangerous neighborhood has just as much right to protection as an elected official. And the 2nd Amendment doesn’t have a qualifier “if you can prove you need it.”
While I agree it sucks that some rich and powerful people seem to live by a different set of rules, it's not like she had a permit just for kicks.