PDA

View Full Version : ...


Piper
08-12-2008, 11:13 AM
...

firecaptdave
08-12-2008, 11:41 AM
Edit

CWM4A1
08-12-2008, 11:44 AM
Actually, different story. This is on LA times regarding OCSD may start pulling/revoking CCW for people who's "good cause" is no longer good enough...

What really ticked me is the fact that they go to LA Times for this kind of story instead of OC Register.

CCWFacts
08-12-2008, 11:59 AM
Unfortunately, shall issue is a fleeting thing if we don't band together and force shall issue.

That's right. Anything can happen, and a new sheriff can change the policy any way.

I hope that the OC people will start pressuring their reps in Sacto to put CCW reform into the legislative agenda. They had a bill introduced in Hawaii a couple years ago. There was a bill in California ten years ago. Why are we moving backwards on this while the rest of the country is moving forwards?

Bishop
08-12-2008, 12:07 PM
Actually, different story. This is on LA times regarding OCSD may start pulling/revoking CCW for people who's "good cause" is no longer good enough...

What really ticked me is the fact that they go to LA Times for this kind of story instead of OC Register.

Nothing really new here; I knew there was going to be a big show of how she'll start revoking permits because Carona handed them out like candy at a parade (the media's perception, not reality), but I wonder if she'll risk reelection (hopefully she cares :pinch:) by revoking more than she has to. I kind of expect things will die down in a while, and there will be a small release saying that CCW under Carona was misused as much as previously thought.

The important part was that she make her part in the Carona scandal as positive as possible before everyone (the media) moves on.

I agree about the LA Times vs the OC register. Guess the OC register was a little too pro CCW...

pnkssbtz
08-12-2008, 3:55 PM
Applicants must prove there is a legitimate threat to their safety and agree to undergo psychological, polygraph or medical testing.

Isn't this a violation of Salute vs. Pritchess?

Librarian
08-12-2008, 4:07 PM
Isn't this a violation of Salute vs. Pritchess?Don't think so. (Hmmm. Looks like Jim March may have let the EQUALCCW site expire; at least, link to the site brings up a place-holder page.) Romandad is hosting S v P here (http://romandad.com/salute.pdf). The major part of the decision is [2] While a court cannot compel a public officer to exercise his discretion in any particular
manner, it may direct him to exercise that discretion. [1b] We regard the case at bench as
involving a refusal of the sheriff to exercise the discretion given him by the statute. Section
12050 imposes only three limits on the grant of an application to carry a concealed weapon: the
applicant must be of good moral character, show good cause and be a resident of the county. To
determine, in advance, as a uniform rule, that only selected public officials can show good cause
is to refuse to consider the existence of good cause on the part of citizens generally and is an
abuse of, and not an exercise of, discretion.

pnkssbtz
08-12-2008, 4:15 PM
Don't think so. (Hmmm. Looks like Jim March may have let the EQUALCCW site expire; at least, link to the site brings up a place-holder page.) Romandad is hosting S v P here (http://romandad.com/salute.pdf). The major part of the decision is
[2] While a court cannot compel a public officer to exercise his discretion in any particular
manner, it may direct him to exercise that discretion. [1b] We regard the case at bench as
involving a refusal of the sheriff to exercise the discretion given him by the statute. Section
12050 imposes only three limits on the grant of an application to carry a concealed weapon: the
applicant must be of good moral character, show good cause and be a resident of the county. To
determine, in advance, as a uniform rule, that only selected public officials can show good cause
is to refuse to consider the existence of good cause on the part of citizens generally and is an
abuse of, and not an exercise of, discretion.
So good "Moral" character now means that you must fit a specific psychological profile?

I thought "Good Moral Character" means you aren't a felon.


The only area open to for a CLEO play with is defining what is "good cause".


Further, I don't see where there is any room for an interview or psych exam given the following:
Section 12051: "Applications for licenses shall be filed in writing, signed by the applicant, and
shall state the name, occupation, residence and business address of the applicant, his age, height,
weight, color of eyes and hair, and reason for desiring a license to carry the weapon. Any license
issued upon such application shall set forth the foregoing data and shall, in addition, contain a
description of the weapon or weapons authorized to be carried, giving the name of the
manufacturer, the serial number and the caliber.

Quiet
08-12-2008, 4:15 PM
Further, I don't see where there is any room for an interview or psych exam given the following

CA Penal Code 12054
(c) If psychological testing on the initial application is required by the licensing authority, the license applicant shall be referred to a licensed psychologist used by the licensing authority for the psychological testing of its own employees. The applicant may be charged for the actual cost of the testing in an amount not to exceed one hundred fifty dollars ($150). Additional psychological testing of an applicant seeking license renewal shall be required only if there is compelling evidence to indicate that a test is necessary. The cost to the applicant for this additional testing shall not exceed one hundred fifty dollars ($150).

pnkssbtz
08-12-2008, 4:19 PM
CA Penal Code 12054
(c) If psychological testing on the initial application is required by the licensing authority, the license applicant shall be referred to a licensed psychologist used by the licensing authority for the psychological testing of its own employees. The applicant may be charged for the actual cost of the testing in an amount not to exceed one hundred fifty dollars ($150). Additional psychological testing of an applicant seeking license renewal shall be required only if there is compelling evidence to indicate that a test is necessary. The cost to the applicant for this additional testing shall not exceed one hundred fifty dollars ($150).

Thanks for the citation, I stand corrected.

Librarian
08-12-2008, 4:28 PM
So good "Moral" character now means that you must fit a specific psychological profile?

I thought "Good Moral Character" means you aren't a felon.

The only area open to for a CLEO play with is defining what is "good cause".


Sadly, neither 'good moral character' nor 'good cause' have statutory definitions. That being so, there's lots of room to wiggle here.

Shotgun Man
08-12-2008, 4:37 PM
Hutchens' new policy states that anyone with a previous felony conviction or a misdemeanor conviction involving violence will be ineligible for a weapons permit. In addition, anyone with a misdemeanor conviction of any kind within the previous five years will be denied a permit.

This part of her policy sounds like she is not exercising her discretion. How's creating a blanket policy exercising creation? Some one with a misdemeanor conviction within five years is automatically ineligible despite whatever good cause he might have?

As far as felony convictions go, the only way a felon can have gun is if he has had his firearms rights restored (by expungement, e.g.). So I think she's saying as a matter of policy anybody who has had a past felony conviction is ineligible, regardless of whether the person is now eligible for gun ownership. Again, this is not exercising discretion.

Paladin
08-12-2008, 4:43 PM
CA Penal Code 12054
(c) If psychological testing on the initial application is required by the licensing authority, the license applicant shall be referred to a licensed psychologist used by the licensing authority for the psychological testing of its own employees. The applicant may be charged for the actual cost of the testing in an amount not to exceed one hundred fifty dollars ($150). Additional psychological testing of an applicant seeking license renewal shall be required only if there is compelling evidence to indicate that a test is necessary. The cost to the applicant for this additional testing shall not exceed one hundred fifty dollars ($150).

That answers it re. psychological testing.

Next, is a polygraph exam considered a routine part of a psychological test? If not, where is the authority for requiring it? Are there any limits on what they can choose to ask you during the polygraph examination? (For example, "Have you ever underreported your income on your state or federal tax returns?" "Have you ever taken deductions for which you were not entitled?" "Have you ever thought that some politician ought to be shot?" "Have you ever had sexual fantasies about Hillary Clinton?" :puke:)

Last, what is the authority for requiring a medical examination? I don't think they can wiggle that under either "good cause" or "good moral character."

Piper
08-12-2008, 4:54 PM
That answers it re. psychological testing.

Next, is a polygraph exam considered a routine part of a psychological test? If not, where is the authority for requiring it? Are there any limits on what they can choose to ask you during the polygraph examination?

Last, what is the authority for requiring a medical examination? I don't think they can wiggle those under "good cause" or "good moral character."

I can just imagine them requiring a psyc and then confiscating your firearms based on the very subjective results.

I still support shall issue, managed by Ca DOJ based on paperwork they already have on hand about every person that has ever gone through a background check. CLEO's are just too untrustworthy and paranoid to allow them to have that kind of authority.

Grippy
08-12-2008, 4:57 PM
Some of you are more optimistic than I find cause to be. I mean, we live in California. The slope is downhill. I hate to be a pessimist, but how can you look at what's going on around us and think that, in the face of overwhelming evidence, this new politician is going to be different somehow?

The infamously nebulous "good cause" is bad enough, but the worst part for me is the retroactivity of her proposition. What else can they decide to take away?

I'll fight it, but I think CCW in OC is effectively over. For now, anyway.

Bishop
08-12-2008, 5:07 PM
Some of you are more optimistic than I find cause to be. I mean, we live in California. The slope is downhill. I hate to be a pessimist, but how can you look at what's going on around us and think that, in the face of overwhelming evidence, this new politician is going to be different somehow?

The infamously nebulous "good cause" is bad enough, but the worst part for me is the retroactivity of her proposition. What else can they decide to take away?

I'll fight it, but I think CCW in OC is effectively over. For now, anyway.

Don't be so down! Things are going better for Ca than they have in a very VERY long time. Heller has opened up very real avenues for challenging a lot of these unconstitutional laws, and many lawsuits are currently in progress. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they just changed direction in our favor, so we need to wait for them to build some momentum. ;)

Even CCW is being challenged under equal protection and state-to-state incorporation.

Buck up, things are moving in our direction. Certainly things could be better, but it's hard not to be optimistic. :D

Riodog
08-12-2008, 6:39 PM
Don't be so down! Things are going better for Ca than they have in a very VERY long time. Heller has opened up very real avenues for challenging a lot of these unconstitutional laws, and many lawsuits are currently in progress. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they just changed direction in our favor, so we need to wait for them to build some momentum. ;)

Even CCW is being challenged under equal protection and state-to-state incorporation.

Buck up, things are moving in our direction. Certainly things could be better, but it's hard not to be optimistic. :D

Bishop, you must be young. I can remember when I could take a gun to school for "show and tell". Things have been going down-hill in Calif since 1968 and don't think just because of Heller that things are A. going to change. B. going to get any better.

Sure, there are "loop-holes" in the law but there always have been. Call them what you want but people have gotten off for "technicalities, loop-holes, etc" since every law was written. The MFin pol's will just rewrite the law to plug those holes and some other smart guy will just find a way to circumvent the patch job. This is CALIFORNIA and nothing will change. It's the ignorance and the mindset of the "liberal want something for nothing ignorance" of the current population that must change before anyone will see the light of laxer gun laws here. Either educate the ignorant one by one (impossible) or have the fortitude, perserverence, AND money to fight it in court as Billy Jack did.

Optimism and California don't go togather. This state is in a downward spiral. To think otherwise is to have your head in the sand.
Rio

Piper
08-12-2008, 6:45 PM
What she's doing is outrageous, but it doesn't surprise me. The day she was appointed I expected her to do what she's doing now. According to Chuck Michel, she even brought some "advisors" from LASO to help her with creating new CCW policy. So she's nothing more than a Baca clone in a bra.

lobonegro
08-12-2008, 9:00 PM
Remember when we in california ousted Gray Davis, is there something we can do to that effect and force an election in november for someone WE want in the elected sheriff's office?

Paladin
08-12-2008, 10:08 PM
Remember when we in california ousted Gray Davis, is there something we can do to that effect and force an election in november for someone WE want in the elected sheriff's office?Umm, how to politely say this -- bad idea.

The OC sheriff's campaign will be a MAJOR undertaking. You had better start RIGHT NOW if you expect to win in 2010. First, research how much it costs to wage campaign that successfully replaced an incumbent sheriff. The cut off for candidates is around Feb of 2010. You should have your county-wide organization in place at least 6 months before that (i.e., Oct 2009). Before that you've got to find a candidate that is qualified for the office, has significant support among the local politicos (because you pro-CCW people in OC are too few to carry a weak candidate on your own), AND has a track record of being pro-CCW -- good luck. You don't have much of a margin for error re. time if you start right now and have never been involved in a political campaign before.

Many moons ago I had a thread re term limits in specific counties for sheriffs. During that discussion I realized why they are so hard to remove/replace. Here's why it is so hard to replace an incumbent sheriff: anyone who would be willing to challenge him must be an outsider (not from w/in the local sheriffs office, otherwise they'll get sacked by the sheriff and lose their retirement/benefits), and outsiders won't have the local connections to build up a political machine to take on the incumbent. The average voter sees a "known quantity" (incumbent) vs some unknown outsider and the incumbent wins every time (barring major screw ups).

I've left a LOT of information re sheriff's campaigns over at www.californiaccw.org I'm "Paladin" there too. Just go to the members' list (I'm the 2nd member) and click on my name to track down those threads. Again, good luck.

Also, your local NRA Members Council should be a great source of information re. potential challengers, their strengths/weaknesses, and their positions re CCWs. Be sure to also ck out www.calccw.com

Glock22Fan
08-13-2008, 8:03 AM
edit

E Pluribus Unum
08-13-2008, 8:58 AM
I think the way to stop this is through open carry. Those that are denied need to open carry and get that established firmly in all law enforcement as legal. Give the Sheriff a choice; issue a CCW for concealed carry, or deal with phone calls of "man with a gun" that go nowhere.

steadyrock
08-13-2008, 9:23 AM
Umm, how to politely say this -- bad idea.

The OC sheriff's campaign will be a MAJOR undertaking. You had better start RIGHT NOW if you expect to win in 2010. First, research how much it costs to wage campaign that successfully replaced an incumbent sheriff. The cut off for candidates is around Feb of 2010. You should have your county-wide organization in place at least 6 months before that (i.e., Oct 2009). Before that you've got to find a candidate that is qualified for the office, has significant support among the local politicos (because you pro-CCW people in OC are too few to carry a weak candidate on your own), AND has a track record of being pro-CCW -- good luck. You don't have much of a margin for error re. time if you start right now and have never been involved in a political campaign before.

Many moons ago I had a thread re term limits in specific counties for sheriffs. During that discussion I realized why they are so hard to remove/replace. Here's why it is so hard to replace an incumbent sheriff: anyone who would be willing to challenge him must be an outsider (not from w/in the local sheriffs office, otherwise they'll get sacked by the sheriff and lose their retirement/benefits), and outsiders won't have the local connections to build up a political machine to take on the incumbent. The average voter sees a "known quantity" (incumbent) vs some unknown outsider and the incumbent wins every time (barring major screw ups).


Lots of good thoughts here, and I tend to agree. Based on what I have seen there is one person who fits these qualifications and more: Bill Hunt. He is an OCSD outsider with inside experience there (former deputy many moons ago), was the Chief of Police for San Clemente and ran a joint department task force on career criminal suppression, youth violence, and gang suppression in the cities of Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano, and San Clemente. He is known to be very Pro-CCW and has the interests of Orange County at heart.

I believe 2010 will be a good year for Hunt, because after two years of Hutchens' policies I predict we will have an increase in crime and many of our freedoms suppressed. I also believe we will have a more functional jail system and many of the Carona insiders will have been routed and purged (good for Hunt, since Carona tried to have him buried after 2006).

Grippy stated that CCW is effectively over here for now, and I tend to agree. However, 2 years is not a long time to wait for a real Sheriff who will restore our rights and open up the landscape to serving and protecting OC. Who else is with me on Bill Hunt??

M. D. Van Norman
08-13-2008, 9:50 AM
I am. Voted for him over Carona.

WeThePeople
08-13-2008, 11:37 AM
Did the OC Board of Supervisors have the legal authority to name a sheriff with tenure until 2010? Shouldn't they have had an election in Nov. 2008? Maybe a lawsuit could force a special election.

bwiese
08-13-2008, 11:47 AM
I think the way to stop this is through open carry. Those that are denied need to open carry and get that established firmly in all law enforcement as legal. Give the Sheriff a choice; issue a CCW for concealed carry, or deal with phone calls of "man with a gun" that go nowhere.

But not now, but a year from now or whenever incorporation hits.

nicki
08-13-2008, 12:04 PM
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/

Link to Jim March site.

Nicki

nicki
08-13-2008, 12:20 PM
Please understand that the original ccw law was passed in 1923.

Back then, America is was very different country.

A person of "Good Moral Character" would be someone who doesn't drink, goes to church regularly, is married and only has sexual relations for procreation, in other words, a good upstanding white citizen.

Today we think of "Good Moral Character" in regard to criminal record, but it was alot more than that.

In fact, "Good Moral Character" may be able to be challenged in that it is subjective and discriminatory. I'll have to look into this more.

Back in 1923 open carry was legal and sociably acceptable, at least for whites. Concealed carry was a social no, no. It was something that sneaky people did.

The only people who generally carried concealed weapons were so called gentlemen, like bankers and such, whom I guess open weapons would clash with their business suits, not stylish.

Our law was modeled after Florida's 1893 law which was designed to disarm blacks. A Black man in the south where the KKK owned the sheriffs would be stupid to open carry, so they carried concealed.

The reason why many of us have issues with so called good moral character and good cause is many of us don't understand the history of why the laws were passed in the first place.

Hope this helps.

Nicki

CCWFacts
08-13-2008, 12:23 PM
Please understand that the original ccw law was passed in 1923.

Back then, America is was very different country.

It sure was different. Here's an article from the Chron in 1923 (http://californiaccw.org/files/sf-chronicle-article.htm) about the law when it was passed, with the urging of our "gun rights" groups at the time.

These were citizens of good character at the time:

http://californiaccw.org/files/Anaheim-ku-klux-klan-1924.jpg

That picture from the same year as our CCW law.

steadyrock
08-13-2008, 12:23 PM
Guess we're all racists now, too. :party: