In Self-Defense Podcast 138: Defensive Display Done Right
Firearms trainer Erick Gelhaus joins the podcast to talk about the tactical and legal benefits of a low-ready defensive display when a threat justifies the potential use of deadly force.
Learn more about our company and how we can protect you and your family by visiting: www.ccwsafe.com
Follow Us on Social Media:
FACEBOOK: http://Facebook.com/CCWSAFE
INSTAGRAM: http://instagram.com/ccwsafe
YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/ccwsafe
Keep up with our weekly blogs, podcasts, and interviews published weekly in the News section of our site: https://ccwsafe.com/blog
CONTACT US
Please direct any inquires to a member of the CCW Safe Support team at (405) 724-8501 or via email at [email protected].
Be safe!
🚨 RIGHTS AREN’T FOR SALE: End California’s Profit-Driven CCW Gatekeeping
I’m David Vallejos, plaintiff in VALLEJOS v. ROB BONTA & CHAD BIANCO. California replaced “good cause” with subjective screens and a paywall—turning a right into a revenue stream. We’re fighting this in federal court. If you believe rights aren’t for sale, help by amplifying, signing petitions, filing public records requests, and demanding your reps end the permit-profit racket.
—
Why this matters
A constitutional right is inherent, not a subscription with annual fees and gatekeepers.
After Bruen, California issued OAG-2022-02 guidance that, in my view, tries to relabel the old “may-issue” barriers into new subjective screens. When a policy contradicts the Constitution, the remedy is lawful challenge—courts, legislation, public records, and public pressure—not paying forever for permission slips.
> Our lawful call to action: • Back court challenges and share the case. • Demand legislative repeal of subjective “character” screens and pay-to-play mandates. • Use CPRA (California Public Records Act) to expose fee flows, instructor approvals, denial rates, and timelines. • Show up at city/county meetings; submit on-record comments. • Vote accordingly and contact your Assembly/Senate reps with specific asks (end subjective criteria; cap/strip profiteering fees; fast, objective timelines).
—
The money picture (how the “right” became a revenue model)
Instructor economics (example math using $275 per seat, 25 seats per class)
Revenue per class: $275 × 25 = $6,875
If an instructor runs…
1 class/week (full): ≈ $6,875/week, ≈ $29,800/month, ≈ $357,500/year, ≈ $3.575M in 10 years
2 classes/week (full): ≈ $715,000/year
3 classes/week (full): ≈ $1.07M/year
5 classes/week (full): ≈ $1.79M/year
To keep it honest, here’s the same math at lower fill rates:
80% capacity (20 seats/class):
1 class/week: ≈ $286,000/year; 10 years ≈ $2.86M
2 classes/week: ≈ $572,000/year
60% capacity (15 seats/class):
1 class/week: ≈ $214,500/year; 10 years ≈ $2.145M
> Note: These are gross revenues (before expenses). Still, it shows how quickly mandated training transforms a right into a lucrative pipeline.
—
“State take” illustration (swap in real fees when you have them)
Because statutory and local fee splits vary, here’s a scenario grid you can tailor. If a state portion averaged $25–$150 per permit and there were 50k–400k permits/year, annual state intake would look like:
50,000 permits × $25 = $1.25M … × $150 = $7.5M
100,000 permits × $25 = $2.5M … × $150 = $15M
200,000 permits × $25 = $5M … × $150 = $30M
400,000 permits × $25 = $10M … × $150 = $60M
I included a State CCW Revenue Scenarios grid you can download and adjust to your county/state’s published fee schedules: see the CSV above. Pair that with CPRA responses to show the exact, verifiable numbers for your locality.
—
What OAG-2022-02 means in practice (why we’re challenging)
It attempts to preserve subjective veto points post-Bruen by rebranding.
Subjective criteria + compulsory training + recurring fees = a paywall on a constitutional right.
Our federal suit—VALLEJOS v. ROB BONTA & CHAD BIANCO—argues the scheme is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, especially when denials occur despite clean records, out-of-state permits, and DOJ letters confirming eligibility.
—
Concrete, lawful things you can do right now
1. Amplify the case: Share updates, invite me on podcasts, ask channels to cover Vallejos v. Bonta & Bianco.
2. Petitions & comments: Sign and circulate; add formal comments to local agendas.
3. CPRA blitz: Request instructor rosters, denial stats, fee ledgers, class approvals, processing timelines. Publish the docs.
4. Contact reps (email + phone): Demand bill language banning subjective screens and fee-gating of rights.
5. Support litigation: Expert declarations, amicus briefs, and lawful funding of cases like mine change policy.
6. Local media: Submit op-eds with your county’s actual numbers pulled via CPRA + the calculators above.
—
Rights aren’t a product. We don’t swipe a card to speak, worship, or vote—and we shouldn’t have to bankroll a cottage industry to carry. If you agree, stand with us in lawful action: demand repeal of subjective screens, expose the money trail with records, and help push this fight over the finish line in court.
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
Very good discussion.
🚨 RIGHTS AREN’T FOR SALE: End California’s Profit-Driven CCW Gatekeeping
I’m David Vallejos, plaintiff in VALLEJOS v. ROB BONTA & CHAD BIANCO. California replaced “good cause” with subjective screens and a paywall—turning a right into a revenue stream. We’re fighting this in federal court. If you believe rights aren’t for sale, help by amplifying, signing petitions, filing public records requests, and demanding your reps end the permit-profit racket.
—
Why this matters
A constitutional right is inherent, not a subscription with annual fees and gatekeepers.
After Bruen, California issued OAG-2022-02 guidance that, in my view, tries to relabel the old “may-issue” barriers into new subjective screens. When a policy contradicts the Constitution, the remedy is lawful challenge—courts, legislation, public records, and public pressure—not paying forever for permission slips.
> Our lawful call to action:
• Back court challenges and share the case.
• Demand legislative repeal of subjective “character” screens and pay-to-play mandates.
• Use CPRA (California Public Records Act) to expose fee flows, instructor approvals, denial rates, and timelines.
• Show up at city/county meetings; submit on-record comments.
• Vote accordingly and contact your Assembly/Senate reps with specific asks (end subjective criteria; cap/strip profiteering fees; fast, objective timelines).
—
The money picture (how the “right” became a revenue model)
Instructor economics (example math using $275 per seat, 25 seats per class)
Revenue per class: $275 × 25 = $6,875
If an instructor runs…
1 class/week (full): ≈ $6,875/week, ≈ $29,800/month, ≈ $357,500/year, ≈ $3.575M in 10 years
2 classes/week (full): ≈ $715,000/year
3 classes/week (full): ≈ $1.07M/year
5 classes/week (full): ≈ $1.79M/year
To keep it honest, here’s the same math at lower fill rates:
80% capacity (20 seats/class):
1 class/week: ≈ $286,000/year; 10 years ≈ $2.86M
2 classes/week: ≈ $572,000/year
60% capacity (15 seats/class):
1 class/week: ≈ $214,500/year; 10 years ≈ $2.145M
> Note: These are gross revenues (before expenses). Still, it shows how quickly mandated training transforms a right into a lucrative pipeline.
—
“State take” illustration (swap in real fees when you have them)
Because statutory and local fee splits vary, here’s a scenario grid you can tailor. If a state portion averaged $25–$150 per permit and there were 50k–400k permits/year, annual state intake would look like:
50,000 permits × $25 = $1.25M … × $150 = $7.5M
100,000 permits × $25 = $2.5M … × $150 = $15M
200,000 permits × $25 = $5M … × $150 = $30M
400,000 permits × $25 = $10M … × $150 = $60M
I included a State CCW Revenue Scenarios grid you can download and adjust to your county/state’s published fee schedules: see the CSV above. Pair that with CPRA responses to show the exact, verifiable numbers for your locality.
—
What OAG-2022-02 means in practice (why we’re challenging)
It attempts to preserve subjective veto points post-Bruen by rebranding.
Subjective criteria + compulsory training + recurring fees = a paywall on a constitutional right.
Our federal suit—VALLEJOS v. ROB BONTA & CHAD BIANCO—argues the scheme is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, especially when denials occur despite clean records, out-of-state permits, and DOJ letters confirming eligibility.
—
Concrete, lawful things you can do right now
1. Amplify the case: Share updates, invite me on podcasts, ask channels to cover Vallejos v. Bonta & Bianco.
2. Petitions & comments: Sign and circulate; add formal comments to local agendas.
3. CPRA blitz: Request instructor rosters, denial stats, fee ledgers, class approvals, processing timelines. Publish the docs.
4. Contact reps (email + phone): Demand bill language banning subjective screens and fee-gating of rights.
5. Support litigation: Expert declarations, amicus briefs, and lawful funding of cases like mine change policy.
6. Local media: Submit op-eds with your county’s actual numbers pulled via CPRA + the calculators above.
—
Rights aren’t a product. We don’t swipe a card to speak, worship, or vote—and we shouldn’t have to bankroll a cottage industry to carry. If you agree, stand with us in lawful action: demand repeal of subjective screens, expose the money trail with records, and help push this fight over the finish line in court.
Case: VALLEJOS v. ROB BONTA & CHAD BIANCO