PDA

View Full Version : "Billy Jack" Gives New OC Sheriff's CCW Policy Two Thumbs-Up!


Paladin
08-13-2008, 8:47 AM
From Billy Jack's 12 Aug 2007 public blog (emphasis added below), (http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/):

I was contacted by several people in Orange County that think they have a suit against Sheriff Hutchins if their CCW's are not renewed. It would seem that 'avid shooter' and 'I transport valuable firearms to the range' are no longer adequate. For the record, Billy Jack and TBJ are not interested in assisting any residents of Orange County with either their renewals or new applications.

In my humble opinion, supported by over 20 years experience reviewing CCW policies and applicant files, as well as 12 years as a Federal litigant, Sheriff Hutchins and her Command Staff have done an excellent job of crafting a new, fair and legal CCW policy. I am sure she does not need my affirmation as she seems to be doing a stellar job. The 'one trick ponys' out there need to be reminded that issuing CCW's are a small part of her responsibilities as Sheriff.

IGOTDIRT4U
08-13-2008, 8:50 AM
Except for the fact that part of her policy is illegal, rendering thus as a whole illegal, we shall see if it is also fair under the existing law. I have yet to see a sheriff not abuse the power of determining "good cause" in counties where the policy is heavily restrictive.

She may have crafted a "new" policy, but "fair and legal" is yet to be seen.

Crazed_SS
08-13-2008, 8:57 AM
Which part is illegal?

IGOTDIRT4U
08-13-2008, 9:21 AM
Which part is illegal?

Read PC 12050 and then read her policy. There is a difference between "may require" and "require".

Ironchef
08-13-2008, 9:24 AM
She's new too. GIve her a year and she'll be granting them to her own posse and friends.

M. D. Van Norman
08-13-2008, 10:52 AM
And thus “Billy Jack” threw out what remained of his credibility.

Crazed_SS
08-13-2008, 10:56 AM
And thus “Billy Jack” threw out what remained of his credibility.

Remember, TBJ is working towards making Cheifs and Sherriffs issue permits uniformly. If Hutchens has a policy and applies it uniformly accross the board, then she's doing exactly what TBJ is suing other depts for not doing. As it stands, he has no reason to have beef with OC now.

steadyrock
08-13-2008, 11:04 AM
Remember, TBJ is working towards making Cheifs and Sherriffs issue permits uniformly. If Hutchens has a policy and applies it uniformly accross the board, then she's doing exactly what TBJ is suing other depts for not doing. As it stands, he has no reason to have beef with OC now.

Zero issuance is pretty uniform. That may or may not be what Hutchens is after (remember she's only been here a month and of all the problems with the OCSD she chose to attack CCW first). Regardless, I can't support the "less is more" theory. I also can't support TBJ's apparent sucking up to the new girl in town. He can call it "fair" if he chooses to, but I would think it more "fair" (and reasonable) to bring the level of issuance for the common man UP to what it was for Carona's buddies, not to bring it DOWN from what it previously was.

I've got a dollar that this gets cited in her 2010 campaign as "strong support from the CCW community". Thanks for nothing.

Glock22Fan
08-13-2008, 11:15 AM
Remember, TBJ is working towards making Cheifs and Sherriffs issue permits uniformly. If Hutchens has a policy and applies it uniformly accross the board, then she's doing exactly what TBJ is suing other depts for not doing. As it stands, he has no reason to have beef with OC now.


Exactly. Some members of TBJ would like the law to change to "Shall Issue." Until then, a fair and legal policy, fairly applied, is what we are working for.

Might the new sheriff apply the law unfairly and then come to the attention of TBJ? Definitely. Until then, we're giving her the benefit of the doubt.

Sheriff Hutchens is going to have to establish a record of unfair discrimination before she can be touched under the current law. We have nothing to suggest that this is her intent. Therefore there's nothing TBJ can do in O.C. until events prove the discrimination.

Sorry, but that's the law, whether you like it or not.

steadyrock
08-13-2008, 11:19 AM
Sheriff Hutchens is going to have to establish a record of unfair discrimination before she can be touched under the current law. We have nothing to suggest that this is her intent. Therefore there's nothing TBJ can do in O.C. until events prove the discrimination.


You don't have to go after her, but you don't have to suck up to her either. You would have done a lot better for all of us if you'd kept your mouths shut on this one.

Glock22Fan
08-13-2008, 11:19 AM
And thus “Billy Jack” threw out what remained of his credibility.


I didn't know he had any down in O.C., where the mighty "I know a man" reigns (no, make that reigned) supreme.

M. D. Van Norman
08-13-2008, 11:28 AM
Remember, TBJ is working towards making Cheifs and Sherriffs issue permits uniformly.…

I know, but that doesn’t mean he should endorse the policy.

Knauga
08-13-2008, 11:42 AM
What TBJ is looking for is the lawful and uniform application of the law. Wanting a CCW is not the same thing as needing a CCW in California unfortunately. It is a shame that Sheriff Carona was not only a whore, but a cheap whore. He is the one who threw you guys under the bus, not TBJ, not Hutchens, not your board of supervisors.

Uniformly not issuing CCW's is not lawful either, so that argument doesn't fly. Just because she won't issue based on the reason you think she should does not make her policy illegal in this state. Welcome to the pre-Carona days of THE OC.

steadyrock
08-13-2008, 11:49 AM
Just because she won't issue based on the reason you think she should does not make her policy illegal in this state. Welcome to the pre-Carona days of THE OC.

And just because her policy may technically be "legal" doesn't make it "excellent", "fair", or (the best of all) "stellar"

I can understand TBJ making a statement saying they believe the current policy to be within the boundaries of the law and as such, they are not currently open to reviewing cases in OC. It's the hardcore brown-nosing of Hutchens that sends this one over the top. It is not only out of place, it's indicative that there may be something else going on. I suspect ulterior motives on TBJ's part.

Glock22Fan
08-13-2008, 12:06 PM
I suspect ulterior motives on TBJ's part.

:TFH::TFH::TFH:

Just to show that things do not stand still, Chief Macagni will be deposed (in the Santa Maria case) on August 28th. Defense Attorney Bruce Praet tried to push this to next year, as "the finest defense lawyer in the U.S." is apparently fully booked until then. The judge wasn't having any of it and ordered it done as soon as possible (he actually said within 7 days, but the chief is legitimately busy)

bwiese
08-13-2008, 12:12 PM
TBJ's issues with representing clients dealing with multiple depts across the state has been lack of uniformity and "friends with the chief" clubbiness that creating all sorts of legal exposure for those depts.

TBJ is working for individuals that hire them. If there are generic happy outcomes from there, great.
And some of the above posts kinda remind me how everyone wanted Alan Gura to do this or that in Heller, when in actuality Gura had a single client, Dick Anthony Heller.

Why would TBJ countervene their statewide stance and long trail of case histories, when this one dept actually starts following lawful procedure (at least for now)?

Now, if OCSD starts having drama post-Heller/post-incorporation with UOC folks (unloaded open carry), and those UOC folks were denied CCWs, then things will get very interesting. But that's a whoooole separate issue not relating to the due process matters TBJ is exploiting.

One fight at a time, and don't mix the fights.

steadyrock
08-13-2008, 12:22 PM
Throw me some tinfoil if you need to Glock22Fan, but for the life of me I can't see why else TBJ would go to such efforts to specifically praise the policy and the sheriff by using the words I mentioned. I have read the policy, and I don't see much about it that deserves such high remarks. It's legal and you can't sue under it, but that's all. If you can help me understand why all the brown-nosing, maybe I could come around. But right now, I just can't figure it out.

WRT Santa Maria and your other fights across the state, thanks for carrying that torch and Godspeed. But this thread is about OCSD, and my specific beef (to repeat it one more time) is not with the statement that you're not open to cases here but the high praises being sung for what is essentially a step backward from our common goal of shall-issue.

Glock22Fan
08-13-2008, 12:28 PM
Billy Jack follows his own chosen road.

He doesn't pay a lot of attention to what people think he should say, do or wear, unless they too have "been there, done that."

So, do you have a significant court case named after you?

Bill sums it up admirably.

M. D. Van Norman
08-13-2008, 12:33 PM
Almost every DROS I’ve been through was handled fairly, but I don’t go out of my way to endorse the process.

Lee F. Smith
08-13-2008, 12:42 PM
Billy Jack follows his own chosen road.

He doesn't pay a lot of attention to what people think he should say, do or wear, unless they too have "been there, done that."

So, do you have a significant court case named after you?

Bill sums it up admirably.

This is true, he does follow his own road and it is paved with cash. It was not named after him. All cases are plaintiff vs respondent. And I have an urge to post his picture so all can see that he truly does't care what he wears.

But then again who cares about this post or TBJ's opinion.

steadyrock
08-13-2008, 12:43 PM
Ad-hominem attacks are childish, G22F. Let's try to stay above that, hm?

TBJ is the one mixing the arguments by crossing out of the "uniform application" fight and into the "hey, that's a great policy!" one. If you'd stuck to your own battle we would be better off.

Glock22Fan
08-13-2008, 1:10 PM
Ad-hominem attacks are childish, G22F. Let's try to stay above that, hm?

Totally agree. Maybe the cult following in OC would also like to start staying above it?

Kestryll
08-13-2008, 1:15 PM
Maybe EVERYONE would like to start?

BMG4ALL
08-13-2008, 1:15 PM
Maybe the cult following in OC would also like to start staying above it?

Wow, there is a cult in OC that believes in fairness for all and not just one person at a time (for the benefit of TBJ's wallet)? :eek:

steadyrock
08-13-2008, 1:19 PM
Yet you continue doing it. :yawn:

TBJ got called out here for giving high praise to a backwards and restrictive policy, and you've proven that you're either unwilling or unable to respond appropriately. Either way, I think we're pretty much done here. Anything more and this thread turns into :beatdeadhorse5:

PTL
08-13-2008, 1:36 PM
Totally agree. Maybe the cult following in OC would also like to start staying above it?

:rolleyes: a "cult" following? how dare you say that, I am a female CCW holder and by no means a "cult follower". what a low blow to my female privates.

And i thought no personal attacks :rolleyes:

tgun
08-13-2008, 1:39 PM
It's pretty obvious from his writings that Billy Jack himself is not "shall-issue". Am I right?

That could explain why he can endorse Hutchens' new gun grab.

Glock22Fan
08-13-2008, 1:40 PM
:rolleyes: a "cult" following? how dare you say that, I am a female CCW holder and by no means a "cult follower". what a low blow to my female privates.

And i thought no personal attacks :rolleyes:

I've never noticed your posts before, so certainly didn't mean to include you specifically in any kind of cult.

However, if you want to include yourself, be my guest.

And what personal attacks? I don't think I've really made any in this thread.

Glock22Fan
08-13-2008, 1:40 PM
Wow, there is a cult in OC that believes in fairness for all and not just one person at a time (for the benefit of TBJ's wallet)? :eek:


Is there?

bulgron
08-13-2008, 1:45 PM
It's pretty obvious from his writings that Billy Jack himself is not "shall-issue". Am I right?

That could explain why he can endorse Hutchens' new gun grab.

Yes, from everything I've seen and read about Billy Jack, shall-issue is not a goal of his, or a priority. I believe he's gone on the record as saying that he doesn't believe shall-issue is achievable in California. And, reading between the lines, it is my interpretation that he likes it that way.

TBJ's statements relative to the new policies in OC are fully understandable once you realize that he really isn't supportive of what people on this board are trying to achieve.

GuyW
08-13-2008, 1:47 PM
It was not named after him. All cases are plaintiff vs respondent.

It was named after him: Guillory vs Gates, 731 F.2d 1379

Got some fresh FUD for us??

Glock22Fan
08-13-2008, 1:52 PM
Yes, from everything I've seen and read about Billy Jack, shall-issue is not a goal of his, or a priority. I believe he's gone on the record as saying that he doesn't believe shall-issue is achievable in California. And, reading between the lines, it is my interpretation that he likes it that way.

TBJ's statements relative to the new policies in OC are fully understandable once you realize that he really isn't supportive of what people on this board are trying to achieve.

To which I'll go on record and say that personally I AM in favor of "Shall Issue." There may then be occasional people carrying who shouldn't be but, IMHO, that is outweighed by the benefits of simplifying the process and letting anyone of good character carry if they wish. However, we are working with the current law, and that is not Shall Issue.

pnkssbtz
08-13-2008, 1:57 PM
Billy Jack follows his own chosen road.

He doesn't pay a lot of attention to what people think he should say, do or wear, unless they too have "been there, done that."

So, do you have a significant court case named after you?

Bill sums it up admirably.
While I am not going to harp on Billy Jack, because I think he is being very consistent and fair with the way he is trying to enact change, the last line you have stated I do have issue with.


One thing that can never be said about Billy Jack is that he is inconsistent. He has set a realistic goal and he is doing one heck of a job achieving the goal he has set. I may disagree with the scope of the goal, but no one can say that he is not doing a effective job of achieving his goal.


However, to say that you can't have an opinion, or be critical of something unless you have a successful court case in the venue is 100% flat out right disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Also, making blanket statements that call into question the sensibilities of people who simply disagree with you is an ad hominem attack.

Glock22Fan
08-13-2008, 2:08 PM
While I am not going to harp on Billy Jack, because I think he is being very consistent and fair with the way he is trying to enact change, the last line you have stated I do have issue with

By Bill, in the last line, I meant Bill Weise, post above.

However, to say that you can't have an opinion, or be critical of something unless you have a successful court case in the venue is 100% flat out right disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

I didn't say that you couldn't have an opinion, I said that B.J. isn't going to take much notice of it.

pnkssbtz
08-13-2008, 2:20 PM
I didn't say that you couldn't have an opinion, I said that B.J. isn't going to take much notice of it.

Then why did you even mention it? You were making an appeal to authority (Billy Jack) because he has a successfully case (that by the way wasn't "named" after him because of how awesome he was, but because he was merely the plaintiff) and then demanding to know what cases other people had "named" after them.

That is a clear case of disregarding their opinion due to them not being credentialed in your eyes. i.e. If they don't have a successful case with their name on it, they should keep quiet.

Glock22Fan
08-13-2008, 2:29 PM
Then why did you even mention it? You were making an appeal to authority (Billy Jack) because he has a successfully case (that by the way wasn't "named" after him because of how awesome he was, but because he was merely the plaintiff) and then demanding to know what cases other people had "named" after them.

That is a clear case of disregarding their opinion due to them not being credentialed in your eyes. i.e. If they don't have a successful case with their name on it, they should keep quiet.


If you can't separate what I think from what I say Billy Jack thinks, then it isn't me who lacks something.

And, Billy Jack isn't awesome(your word) merely because he is named in a case, he is awesome because he lived through and learned from that case. Have you?

pnkssbtz
08-13-2008, 2:29 PM
I didn't say that you couldn't have an opinion, I said that B.J. isn't going to take much notice of it.

Then why did you even mention it? You were making an appeal to authority (Billy Jack) because he has a successfully case (that by the way wasn't "named" after him because of how awesome he was, but because he was merely the plaintiff) and then demanding to know what cases other people had "named" after them.

That is a clear case of disregarding their opinion due to them not being credentialed in your eyes. i.e. If they don't have a successful case with their name on it, they should keep quiet.

bwiese
08-13-2008, 2:32 PM
OK enough dancing around the issues. Some folks want the wrong problem solved by the wrong party.

This is a matter of realism and 'solving the problem at hand':

we don't have 'shall issue' in CA; at this moment it's politically improbable;
'shall issue' is not the matter at hand;
some fraction of depts are really abusing the law: 100% denials/sheriff's posses/contributors
quite a few SOs/PDs have been so inconsistent it has net effect of actually widening the CCW field in those areas if people sue;
TBJ logically needs statewide consistency to help their clients;
TBJ represents their clients; any general help beyond = bonus side effect;



TBJ is a legal, not political, entity. Fighting for shall issue is a cause best left for others at the right time. Pushing for shall issue now is a loser, and may well screw up areas where it's not-quite-shall-issue but reasonable if you can read between the lines and don't drool over the form, beat your wife or look like a survivalist loon.

Post-incorporation a lot of things change and near-shall-issue may be the happy outcome ("what folks don't see won't make 'em nervous").

tgun
08-13-2008, 2:39 PM
So the question still remains: How can someone who claims to be fighting for for consistency in CCW issuance support a new policy that "may" require applicants to submit to psychological or polygraph testing?

Paladin
08-13-2008, 2:40 PM
Now, if OCSD starts having drama post-Heller/post-incorporation with UOC folks (unloaded open carry), and those UOC folks were denied CCWs, then things will get very interesting.Since several CA UOC'ers have written that many people just assume they're LEOs when they see them UOCing, if they UOC while wearing bright yellow T-shirts with "I'm not a Cop" in bold black lettering on the front and back, that may help expedite matters. ;)

The bright yellow Ts will catch sheeple's eyes and provide a good contrast to help the UOC handgun stand out. The bold black text will help dispel the assumption that the UOC'er is a knight (LEO) of the realm. The sheeple who long for a police state (where only the military-police have weapons), will be upset that a fellow serf is carrying a weapon and use their cellphones to call 9-1-1.

Glock22Fan
08-13-2008, 2:40 PM
OK, I'm willing to let it rest with Bill (Weise, not y Jack).

M. D. Van Norman
08-13-2008, 2:45 PM
I guess that there is just no difference between not challenging a questionably legal policy and praising its formulation as “excellent” and its author as “stellar.” Sorry for my confusion.

CWM4A1
08-13-2008, 2:50 PM
So the question still remains: How can someone who claims to be fighting for for consistency in CCW issuance support a new policy that "may" require applicants to submit to psychological or polygraph testing?

Because the psych evaluation is in the Penal Code 12054. Polygraph on the other hand is not mention in PC so it could be illegal.

Bishop
08-13-2008, 3:58 PM
This is true, he does follow his own road and it is paved with cash.

I think Lee summed up this entire thread quite nicely with the above quote.

No misunderstanding that.

tango-52
08-13-2008, 9:31 PM
Billy Jack follows his own chosen road.

He doesn't pay a lot of attention to what people think he should say, do or wear, unless they too have "been there, done that."

So, do you have a significant court case named after you?


For many moons, Preston Guillory (aka Billy Jack), you and his other accolites have regaled us with stories of his great fight against the corrupt sheriffs, and admonished others for not having the gumption to fight the fight all the way through for a great victory like Guillory v. Gates. And now, when an appointed sheriff is setting up what will undoubtedly turn out to be a restrictive L.A. style standard for what had been a county that was moving toward a shall-issue policy, Team Billy Jack is supporting the sheriff's moves. Disappointing, to say the least.

But regarding that great legal victory we have heard so much about, I have some questions. Don't worry, this is not a quiz. I will provide the answers as well.

QUESTION: After the 9th Circuit case was remanded to the lower court, please provide the case number where Preston actually won. Note: having a case remanded is not the same as winning the case.

ANSWER: The case never went to trial. Mr. Guillory settled with Orange County. He got $375,000.00, his lawyers got $200,000.00, for a total of $575,000.00. He also waved his rights to apply for a CCW permit in the state for 3 years and in Orange County for five years.

QUESTION: If this 9th circuit case was such a win, why did Mr. Guillory settle and not take it to trial?

ANSWER: In another Federal case in 1989, the lead attorney for the Orange County Sheriffs Department, Eric Dobberteen, revealed to the jury that Mr. Guillory had been refused a CCW in the late 70's because of a misdemeanor arrest. This is separate of People V. Preston Guillory, 1985.

QUESTION: What happens when you sue a Chief Law Enforcement Officer (and why doesn't he mention that in his posts)?

ANSWER: 1985, Mr. Guillory was arrested for nine misdemeanor charges. P.C. 146 (A), 538 (B), 12025 (B), B&P 7539 (G), B&P 7539 (D). (People V Preston Guillory). In December 26, 1985 Mr. Guillory was acquitted. This court case bankrupted Mr. Guillory.

QUESTION: What did Mr. Guillory do about that?

ANSWER: April 23, 1986 Mr. Guillory filed in Federal court. The jury awards $189,894.00, with NO PUNITIVE DAMAGES!

QUESTION: Where does the often-mentioned million dollar ($1,391,000.00) settlement come from?

ANSWER: After Mr. Guillory settled and dropped out of the suit, Frank and Ty Ritter continued their court case. On September 28, 1990, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Ritter brothers. They were awarded $246,000.00, plus legal expenses of $200,000.00. The county offered an additional $370,000.00 if the Ritters dropped the punitive action. They agreed.
So the totals are:
Mr. Guillory - $375,000.00, plus 200,000.00 legal fees = $575,000.00
Ritter brothers - $616,000.00, plus 200,000.00 legal fee's = $616,000.00

This equals $1,391,000.00

All this information and more can be found in:

"The Twisted Badge" 2nd Edition. March 1991
George P. Wright, As Told To Mike Madigan.
ISBN: 0-924309-00-8

People V. Preston Guillory, Pages 173 - 192
Federal Trial for false arrest, Pages 245 - 262
Guillory V. Gates, Pages 267 - 275


So Mr. Guillory didn't win, he settled out of court. The same action he said he wouldn't ALLOW his new clients to do. And now he is happy that people who have had CCWs in a county that wouldn't issue him one, are looking at possibly losing their opportunity for self defense. Maybe he just sees it as his opportunity for more clients.

U2BassAce
08-13-2008, 9:54 PM
You have got to be kidding me!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes::eek:

The above post is full of actual verifiable facts??? :confused: I am totally blown away stunned!!!! :eek:

RomanDad
08-13-2008, 10:08 PM
ANSWER: 1985, Mr. Guillory was arrested for nine misdemeanor charges. P.C. 538 (B),
Are you kidding me???

Impersonating a priest????

I knew he was into costumes.... But thats ridiculous.


Its like a bad episode of the Rockford Files....

PTL
08-13-2008, 10:08 PM
Oh my oh my!!! I guess that is why Mr. Guillory won't be visiting Orange County in his unique get-up anytime soon.:detective:

Liberty1
08-13-2008, 10:38 PM
:lurk5: Waiting for the "defense walks" (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/796) to begin :cowboy: :party:

hill billy
08-14-2008, 7:56 AM
I'm not sure I can understand all the hate for TBJ when the new Sheriff has issued a policy that SEEMS to be within the law. Everyone seems to want her head when no demonstration has been made yet that this is even going to be a bad policy. I'm inclined to believe she's going to head down the wrong road based on her work experience but why hang her yet? I have an idea, how about you give her an inch and see if she's going to take a mile before hanging her from the yardarm? It's not like you can sue before that happens anyhow. Geez.

RomanDad
08-14-2008, 8:23 AM
I'm not sure I can understand all the hate for TBJ when the new Sheriff has issued a policy that SEEMS to be within the law. Everyone seems to want her head when no demonstration has been made yet that this is even going to be a bad policy. I'm inclined to believe she's going to head down the wrong road based on her work experience but why hang her yet? I have an idea, how about you give her an inch and see if she's going to take a mile before hanging her from the yardarm? It's not like you can sue before that happens anyhow. Geez.

Hold on a second.... This is Calguns... Its not about what "SEEMS TO BE WITHIN THE LAW". If we're going to just shut up and take it so long as something "Seems to be within the law" and give praise to those who "seem to be enforcing the law" with regard to otherwise law abiding gun ownership, there would be no such thing as a bullet button, there would be no calguns foundation seeking to overturn SB23, and about 50 threads about Ignatious Chin should be pulled right now....

If the law is WRONG, it doesn't matter HOW FAIRLY IT IS ADMINISTERED, ITS STILL WRONG!

Cal Penal Code $ 12050 gives Sheriffs a WIDE leeway with regard to "Good Cause". Clearly, San Bernardino and Kern counties are "Within the law." and yet they have issued for "personal protection" for years, with nobody claiming they are doing so "illegally". Mike Carona didn't go that far, much to the lament of many of us, but he was better than MANY of the other Sheriffs in the State, including LASD, SDSD, San Meteo and San Francisco. And lots of people got permits.

Hutchen's was APPOINTED by the board of supervisors, because we were told "She was better on CCW issuance than her rivals" (we didnt get to vote on the issue, even though it appears we were legally entitled to do so). Well, so far what she has done with her policy has made it sound like she will NOT be issuing as much as Mike Carona. We know of several candidates who promised to accept the same Good Causes that Carona did, or go even further to "Personal Protection." So somebody lied about her CCW policy.

As far as Preston Guillory, HE IS NOT in favor of "Shall Issue." Which to me speaks volumes as to what he's all about.

Preston has a hard-on for Orange County because after he sued Brad Gates, and agreed to not apply for a CCW and left the County, Orange County elected Mike Carona who promised to fix the system. And he DID... And A couple of people here NOT named Preston Guillory have been getting people CCWs, and it seems like he is really bitter about it. And so he accuses all of Orange County CCW holders as getting their permits through corruption and nepotism, and calls us "Frat boys" because a few years ago, when he was trying to throw his weight around, we laughed at him. We saw through the shtick, and ignored him. And Preston doesn't like to be ignored.

I NEVER MET MIKE CARONA. I DONT KNOW HIM. I WAS IN THE SAME ROOM WITH HIM ONCE IN MY LIFE. I was waiting for my fingerprints to be taken for my CCW and he walked in the building...

So what is Preston's stance on CCW? I think it boils down to be a flavor of the same elitism that he claims to fight... Except that HE GETS INCLUDED IN THE ELITE.

hill billy
08-14-2008, 8:29 AM
So romandad, point out to me with chapter and verse exactly how her policy is outside the law in any fashion, please. I'm asking sincerely.

RomanDad
08-14-2008, 8:48 AM
So romandad, point out to me with chapter and verse exactly how her policy is outside the law in any fashion, please. I'm asking sincerely.

CAN YOU READ?????

One more time since you didnt seem to get it the first time.

ITS NOT ABOUT BEING WITHIN THE LAW, OR BEING OUTSIDE THE LAW!!!

The LAW gives a WIDE BIRTH to the Sheriff as to what Constitutes good cause. (Some might say TOO wide a birth given recent events, but thats beside the point.)

CARONAS POLICY WAS WITHIN THE LAW!

SAN BERNARDINOS POLICY IS WITHIN THE LAW!

NEITHER ARE AS RESTRICTIVE AS HUTCHENS POLICY!

hill billy
08-14-2008, 8:51 AM
CAN YOU READ?????

One more time since you didnt seem to get it the first time.

ITS NOT ABOUT BEING WITHIN THE LAW, OR BEING OUTSIDE THE LAW!!!

The LAW gives a WIDE BIRTH to the Sheriff as to what Constitutes good cause. (Some might say TOO wide a birth given recent events, but thats beside the point.)

CARONAS POLICY WAS WITHIN THE LAW!

SAN BERNARDINOS POLICY IS WITHIN THE LAW!

NEITHER ARE AS RESTRICTIVE AS HUTCHENS POLICY!I'm not sure why you're yelling. So what you're saying is that her policy is more restrictive than the previous policy while still being within the bounds of the law but you want it changed even though no demonstration has been made that it is illegal or discriminatory in any fashion. Is that right, or am I still having reading problems?

ETA: You're a lawyer, right? So the term "actionable" is well within your vocabulary. Why are you harping on someone who simply feels that there is no actionable cause at this moment? YEs, Hutchens has said that self defense is no longer good cause, yes, that stinks, yes, it's not right, no, it's no actionable.

CavTrooper
08-14-2008, 8:58 AM
It appears to me that shall issue is not on very many folks agenda? Why is that? Do these folks feel that only "special" people should be allowed to carry firearms? Shall issue or no permit required is the National standard, why should California be allowed to stay behind the times by maintaining laws with racist/elitist roots?

RomanDad
08-14-2008, 9:02 AM
I'm not sure why you're yelling. So what you're saying is that her policy is more restrictive than the previous policy while still being within the bounds of the law but you want it changed even though no demonstration has been made that it is illegal or discriminatory in any fashion. Is that right, or am I still having reading problems?

Yes, apparently youre still experiencing reading comprehension problems.

I did not say her policy is within the bounds of the Law. I said no such thing. I said that the bounds of the law are BESIDES THE POINT. The POLICY of ISSUANCE has gotten WORSE than it was before.

AND THEREFORE, ABSOLUTELY I WANT IT CHANGED!

IF a CCW policy doesn't result in the MOST POSSIBLE PERMITS BEING ISSUED, I WANT IT CHANGED, and I will continue to work towards that end.

I wanted CARONA'S policy changed to be LESS restrictive.

Maybe because, unlike TBJ, I DONT HAVE a financial interest in low CCW issuance. Maybe because for me this ISNT an academic or self aggrandizing exercise. I CARE ABOUT PEOPLE GETTING PERMITS... Not the relative "fairness" of a BAD LAW. That the policy was administered "FAIRLY" (whatever that means) is of NO CONSOLATION to the victim of a crime.

- Your edit. Had Preston said that the policy is not YET actionable, I would agree with that. As far as I know, nobody has been denied a permit. YET. And until that happens there is no harm, and thus no case.


But thats not what he said.... He did everything but give her a high five for screwing all of us "corrupt OCERS." And that is where he shows he either doenst know the facts (there has never been a single allegation of CORRUPT OR UNLAWFUL CCW issuance... RESERVES- YES- BUT THAT was dealt with YEARS AGO. NOT CCWs) or he is showing his true feelings that he DOENST want Californians to get CCWs WITHOUT HIM!


Before Heller came out, Preston and I had agreed in a thread that Heller would do nothing for CCW. You can find it on here if you want....

Let me say something now... Load and clear.

I WAS WRONG!


Heller changed EVERYTHING.

hill billy
08-14-2008, 9:10 AM
I did not say her policy is within the bounds of the Law. I said no such thing. I said that the bounds of the law are BESIDES THE POINT. The POLICY of ISSUANCE has gotten WORSE than it was before.
So then you are not making a legal argument only an emotional one. I agree that the policy is wrong. I also think attacking someone (on the same side)for not doing something about it is equally wrong, then further stating they stand to gain financially by upholding laws they don't believe in is just retarded.

Glock22Fan
08-14-2008, 9:10 AM
I'm not sure why you're yelling. So what you're saying is that her policy is more restrictive than the previous policy while still being within the bounds of the law but you want it changed even though no demonstration has been made that it is illegal or discriminatory in any fashion. Is that right, or am I still having reading problems?

Naw, he's pissed off because they are assuming, on the basis of little or no experience or evidence, that Sheriff Hutchens is not going to be the soft touch that Carona was, and therefore a lot of OC CCW holders are scared that they are going to lose their permits, as prophecied by Billy Jack two years ago.

They were in a euphoric state with Carona and didn't think that the sky could ever fall on them.

And as far as Tango-52's observations above, may I summarize and comment:

Yes, Preston has an old misdemeanor conviction. Doesn't stop him having a CCW today.

Yes, the appeal court, in Preston v. Guillory, did remand the case back down. The importance isn't whether Preston won or not, the importance is in the wording laid down by the appeal court judges that Preston was within his rights to have certain evidence, suppressed by the lower court, entered into evidence. This is the kernel of Guillory v. Gates.

Yes, Preston settled, for a lot of money. This is hardly a defeat.

Yes, Preston was arrested on trumped up charges for daring to challenge the sheriff. He was acquitted. Not a defeat, an honorable battle scar.

Yes, Preston sued for wrongful arrest (you left that bit out). The jury agreed and awarded him a bunch of money. Hardly a defeat, whether punitive damages were awarded or not.

Yes, the Ritters carried on, using the judgement in Guillory v. Gates, and won a bunch of money. How does this diminish Preston?

Just as a hypothetical aside, not concerning any particular case, nobody entering a lawsuit with a strong case turns around and says "We'll consider a settlement." That sends totally the wrong signals to the other side. No, you always go in saying "We're fighting this to the end." If you don't understand the reason for this, you had better leave the arena.


So, Preston has been through all this. The principles he fought under in the 80's were vindicated by the appeal judges. Bankrupted at one point or not, he has not been defeated and won quite a bunch of money. He learned a lot in the process. He's been there and done that.

If I wanted someone on my side on one of these cases, it would be Preston.

RomanDad
08-14-2008, 9:19 AM
So then you are not making a legal argument only an emotional one. I agree that the policy is wrong. I also think attacking someone (on the same side)for not doing something about it is equally wrong, then further stating they stand to gain financially but upholding laws they don't believe in is just retarded.

I'm not saying Preston should do anything about it.... Preston's free to do what he wants. Trust me... The last thing any of us in Orange County want is the Hat circus coming to town....

What Im taking issue with is Preston's gleeful statements (and this isnt the first time he's done it) that he likes the new policy. He likes it because he thinks it hurts US. And that's the bottom line. And because he has the maturity of my 5 year old, he revels in saying "neener neener".

We didnt kiss his rear, so hes pulling for us to "get what we deserve". Or some weird twisted logic like that.

AND THAT'S retarded, in the TRUE sense of the word.

I wish Preston no harm. I hope one of his cases tosses out the whole apple cart.... I hope people in EVERY county GET BETTER CCW policies, or that the whole Sheriff controlled system gets tossed out.... I put the good of the issue FAR above personal differences, and thats where Preston and I are very different.

Hes holding a grudge, and happy that 1100 people may suffer to make his fragile ego feel better. I couldn't care less what he does as long as it helps the issue... And praise for BAD POLICIES doesnt help anybody.

firecaptdave
08-14-2008, 10:12 AM
The LAW gives a WIDE BIRTH to the Sheriff as to what Constitutes good cause. (Some might say TOO wide a birth given recent events, but thats beside the point.)

I think you mean wide "berth". A wide "birth" is what a fat lady has when she delivers a baby.

berth

–noun 1. a shelflike sleeping space, as on a ship, airplane, or railroad car.
2. Nautical. a. the space allotted to a vessel at anchor or at a wharf.
b. the distance maintained between a vessel and the shore, another vessel, or any object.

RomanDad
08-14-2008, 10:17 AM
I think you mean wide "berth". A wide "birth" is what a fat lady has when she delivers a baby.

berth

–noun 1. a shelflike sleeping space, as on a ship, airplane, or railroad car.
2. Nautical. a. the space allotted to a vessel at anchor or at a wharf.
b. the distance maintained between a vessel and the shore, another vessel, or any object.


Ah yes... We've now heard from the spelling police.... A sure sign the thread is headed in the right direction. :D

ar15barrels
08-14-2008, 10:37 AM
Anything more and this thread turns into :beatdeadhorse5:

There's always time for that... ;)

Glock22Fan
08-14-2008, 11:40 AM
Certain individuals from Orange County (not all of them CCW holders and not all of the CCW holders I'm sure) have made a point for the last two years or so of viciously attacking Preston Guillory whenever and whatever he does or says.

And you are surprised he doesn't like you?

IGOTDIRT4U
08-14-2008, 6:07 PM
So the question still remains: How can someone who claims to be fighting for for consistency in CCW issuance support a new policy that "may" require applicants to submit to psychological or polygraph testing?


And therein is the illegal part. Either all the applicants submit to a psyche eval, or none. And polygraph is out per PC.

IGOTDIRT4U
08-14-2008, 6:09 PM
Because the psych evaluation is in the Penal Code 12054. Polygraph on the other hand is not mention in PC so it could be illegal.


But, it can't be "may". It must be uniformly applied or not at all. That is not at her discretion.

RomanDad
08-14-2008, 6:11 PM
Certain individuals from Orange County (not all of them CCW holders and not all of the CCW holders I'm sure) have made a point for the last two years or so of viciously attacking Preston Guillory whenever and whatever he does or says.

And you are surprised he doesn't like you?


Listen John... I really dont know what youre talking about.... Lets face it, I was under a rock for the majority of the last two years and only came out from under it when Heller started to get on deck...

But I haven't seen anybody "viciously attacking" Preston, except when he said or did something worth taking issue with, and if you are honest with yourself, you have to admit he does that A LOT.

In fact, I have a problem with the entire allegation of "vicious attacks", and point to it as yet another example of the fundamental problem of dealing with Preston Guillory. Its been my experience that ANY disagreement no matter how constructive its intended, is seen by Preston as a "vicious attack" and in fact, sometimes he takes offense even when you agree with him, if your agreement doesn't come with what he perceives as a proper level of deference to his ego....

I come from a school of thought where disagreement is encouraged. You don't have to agree with ANYTHING I SAY OR DO. I wont like you any less, or try to muzzle those who disagree with me. Disagreement is your right, and I feel that through rigorous debate we prepare ourselves for our true adversaries.

But Preston doesn't play by those rules... In a word, he's a bully. He throws his weight around, badgers and harangues anybody who has the audacity to point out when hes making a fool of himself (and by implication, making a fool out of the rest of us). And when he doesn't feel hes being properly appreciated, and his paper-thin ego gets bruised, he picks up his marbles in a noisy, drama-filled, "you wont have Preston Guillory to kick around any more" monologue and storms off.

Preston's is free to do whatever he wants. He can be a little weird, eccentric, theatrical, dramatic, boisterous and even obnoxious, but if he advances a common cause, I'll give him a pass on all of it (perhaps with just a little bit of pointing out when he's getting a little full of himself...) But if hes going to openly make himself an ADVERSARY to the CCW reform so many of us want to see, he no longer serves any purpose, and then I don't need to tiptoe around his personality flaws. I'm not in this to advance my career, have a metal fashion accessory, get rich, get famous, or have a bunch of people stroke my ego... I COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT ANY OF THAT... I'm in this because I've been face down in a gutter getting ready for a bunch of thugs to Murder me... I know what it means to NEED a gun, and NOT have one thanks to the terrible laws of this State. And that a policy is "fair" and "within the letter of the law" doesn't mean squat to me. If it means more people will find themselves outnumbered and unarmed facing the terror of knowing they're about to die, THEN THE POLICY SUCKS IN MY BOOK!

Which brings us to his stance on Orange County. This is just the latest in a long string of Preston spouting off without thinking... And yes... When he makes a public comment as patently weird as condemning the safety of an entire county because he has a personal difference with a couple of its residents, I think a lot of people are going to have something to say about that. I had a disagreement with a guy from Chicago once... Should I hope that the Chicago gun suit goes down in flames (hurting gun owners everywhere in the process) because "That'll really show that jerk!" Theres a phrase for that. Its called "Cutting off your nose to spite your face."

Its been pretty apparent for a while now, to anybody paying even a little bit of attention, that Preston is NOT in favor of Shall Issue CCW in California. He has his own reasons for that. And thats fine. Everybody is entitled to his own political beliefs, but when one has set himself up as the pied-piper of a cause, I think its fair that everybody know if his vision for CCW laws are inconsistent with the majority of his would-be followers.

IGOTDIRT4U
08-14-2008, 6:18 PM
Listen John... I really dont know what youre talking about.... Lets face it, I was under a rock for the majority of the last two years and only came out from under it when Heller started to get on deck...

But I haven't seen anybody "viciously attacking" Preston, except when he said or did something worth taking issue with, and if you are honest with yourself, you have to admit he does that A LOT.

In fact, I have a problem with the entire allegation of "vicious attacks", and point to it as yet another example of the fundamental problem of dealing with Preston Guillory. Its been my experience that ANY disagreement no matter how constructive its intended, is seen by Preston as a "vicious attack" and in fact, sometimes he takes offense even when you agree with him, if your agreement doesn't come with what he perceives as a proper level of deference to his ego....

I come from a school of thought where disagreement is encouraged. You don't have to agree with ANYTHING I SAY OR DO. I wont like you any less, or try to muzzle those who disagree with me. Disagreement is your right, and I feel that through rigorous debate we prepare ourselves for our true adversaries.

But Preston doesn't play by those rules... In a word, he's a bully. He throws his weight around, badgers and harangues anybody who has the audacity to point out when hes making a fool of himself (and by implication, making a fool out of the rest of us). And when he doesn't feel hes being properly appreciated, and his paper-thin ego gets bruised, he picks up his marbles in a noisy, drama-filled, "you wont have Preston Guillory to kick around any more" monologue and storms off.

Preston's is free to do whatever he wants. He can be a little weird, eccentric, theatrical, dramatic, boisterous and even obnoxious, but if he advances a common cause, I'll give him a pass on all of it (perhaps with just a little bit of pointing out when he's getting a little full of himself...) But if hes going to openly make himself an ADVERSARY to the CCW reform so many of us want to see, he no longer serves any purpose, and then I don't need to tiptoe around his personality flaws. I'm not in this to advance my career, have a metal fashion accessory, get rich, get famous, or have a bunch of people stroke my ego... I COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT ANY OF THAT... I'm in this because I've been face down in a gutter getting ready for a bunch of thugs to Murder me... I know what it means to NEED a gun, and NOT have one thanks to the terrible laws of this State. And that a policy is "fair" and "within the letter of the law" doesn't mean squat to me. If it means more people will find themselves outnumbered and unarmed facing the terror of knowing they're about to die, THEN THE POLICY SUCKS IN MY BOOK!

Which brings us to his stance on Orange County. This is just the latest in a long string of Preston spouting off without thinking... And yes... When he makes a public comment as patently weird as condemning the safety of an entire county because he has a personal difference with a couple of its residents, I think a lot of people are going to have something to say about that. I had a disagreement with a guy from Chicago once... Should I hope that the Chicago gun suit goes down in flames (hurting gun owners everywhere in the process) because "That'll really show that jerk!" Theres a phrase for that. Its called "Cutting off your nose to spite your face."

Its been pretty apparent for a while now, to anybody paying even a little bit of attention, that Preston is NOT in favor of Shall Issue CCW in California. He has his own reasons for that. And thats fine. Everybody is entitled to his own political beliefs, but when one has set himself up as the pied-piper of a cause, I think its fair that everybody know if his vision for CCW laws are inconsistent with the majority of his would-be followers.

Considering the OP contained basically a school yard taunt, I have to agree with the above. Character reflects itself in many ways; putting it words makes it easier to see.

CWM4A1
08-14-2008, 7:20 PM
... Its been pretty apparent for a while now, to anybody paying even a little bit of attention, that Preston is NOT in favor of Shall Issue CCW in California. He has his own reasons for that. And thats fine. Everybody is entitled to his own political beliefs, but when one has set himself up as the pied-piper of a cause, I think its fair that everybody know if his vision for CCW laws are inconsistent with the majority of his would-be followers.

Agree with all of the above, and I can only assume the reason that he does not want shall issue CCW in California is because that will de-rail his gravy train. In my book, Preston and his cult (right back at you, Glock22Fan) is just the same as guys who put up the "Call me if you are in an accident" Ad that you find on side of a bus or on a bus stop bench. Yes, TBJ will help you draft your good cause, but that's just about what any good CCW instructor will help you do; on the other hand TBJ has openly stated that if your case stands a snowball's chance, then he no longer have any interest in you. Why? Because TBJ can't get $$ out of you! If I am going in for a law-suit, I don't want the money, I am in to get myself the CCW because I believe I have a good reason for needing it.

We (as OC gun owner) got Gates out, we can sure do it again, and we will do this without any help from TBJ, thanks for nothing.

bwiese
08-14-2008, 7:59 PM
It's immaterial to current work on whether TBJ supports shall-issue CCW.

Since that's a current political impossibility, he doesn't waste time voicing opinions about it since the problem at hand is getting CCWs for folks in cities that have "custom" application procedures.

You can support shall-issue CCW all you want. Your support is irrelevant thoguh.

Right now, it politically won't happen until (1) incorporation happens, further clarification happens on 'bear', and (2) some drama happens (you can guess what might force this) to the point where CCW issuance becomes a desirable outcome for the powers that be.

Bad Horse
08-14-2008, 9:00 PM
Does TBJ support San Francisco's legal, equally administered non-issue policy?

pizzatorte
08-14-2008, 10:33 PM
Calguns has a great cross-section of the gun community. I've learned from reading here that there are two distinct camps, and threads like these break down when the two camps collide.

On one side there are the law & order folks, of whom a non-trivial number are current or former police/military/other government. On the other side are the individual liberty folks. Both see private firearms ownership as an important component of their respective agendas.

Unfortunately the two agendas are philosophically incompatible. There is a good deal of overlap, and we can often work towards the same goals. But at the end of the day it comes down to the inescable question of whether the state or the individual is sacrosanct.

In this particular case, the law & order folks see the new OC policy complies with the letter of the law, and they are satisfied. The individual liberty folks see an onerous policy that infringes on a civil and natural right, and they are incensed.

The two groups are never going to see eye to eye. The best we can do is realize that the other group is evaluating any given situation by a very different set of criteria. Within their own realm they are both rational and internally consistent. Across realms, evaluations of any particular set of facts will generally result in thinking the other guy is off his rocker.

Glock22Fan
08-14-2008, 10:40 PM
Does TBJ support San Francisco's legal, equally administered non-issue policy?


In a nutshell, no, definitely not. Billy Jack looks forward to working with someone with the ability to stand up to that policy. No issue is not acceptable and not legal (see Salute v. Pitchess). That is why we are fighting Torrance at the moment.

Paladin
08-14-2008, 11:57 PM
Right now, it politically won't happen until (1) incorporation happens, further clarification happens on 'bear', and (2) some drama happens (you can guess what might force this) to the point where CCW issuance becomes a desirable outcome for the powers that be.(1) Check out everything, incl *** zones, on a map; (2) buy bright yellow T-shirts w/"I'm not a Cop" in bold black text; (3) knock the dust off my old IPSC rig; (4) buy a digital voice recorder; (5) bring unarmed friends for both overt and covert videotaping; (6) bring unarmed 2nd A/criminal defense and 1st A attorneys (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. -- ACLU?) to advise and to monitor; (7) notify the local media; (8) notify the local city and county CLEO; (9) bring a gun; (10) bring two guns; (11) bring all my friends with guns :D; and last, (12) "March on, Baby! March on."

I can hardly wait.

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning . . . ."

Paladin
08-15-2008, 12:03 AM
Calguns has a great cross-section of the gun community. I've learned from reading here that there are two distinct camps, and threads like these break down when the two camps collide.

On one side there are the law & order folks, of whom a non-trivial number are current or former police/military/other government. On the other side are the individual liberty folks. Both see private firearms ownership as an important component of their respective agendas.

Unfortunately the two agendas are philosophically incompatible. There is a good deal of overlap, and we can often work towards the same goals. But at the end of the day it comes down to the inescable question of whether the state or the individual is the sacrosanct.

In this particular case, the law & order folks see the new OC policy complies with the letter of the law, and they are satisfied. The individual liberty folks see an onerous policy that infringes on a civil and natural right, and they are incensed.

The two groups are never going to see eye to eye. The best we can do is realize that the other group is evaluating any given situation by a very different set of criteria. Within their own realm they are both rational and internally consistent. Across realms, evaluations of any particular set of facts will generally result in thinking the other guy is off his rocker.Excellent observation and analysis. You can tell from the last sentence in my sig line in which camp I fall. CLEOs can stick their psycho exams, med exams and polygraph machines up their behinds -- they work for US. As soon as they forget that, WE need to give them the boot before they put their boots on our necks.

We need to start organizing for the 2010 sheriffs elections, folks. If nothing else, to support the good, "reasonable issuance" sheriffs throughout the state. Hopefully, we'll be able to have an actual positive impact in tipping a few races to our side as well. Intelligence, money, organization -- these are critical resources.

OCResident
08-15-2008, 1:06 AM
You can support shall-issue CCW all you want. Your support is irrelevant thoguh.

Right now, it politically won't happen until (1) incorporation happens, further clarification happens on 'bear', and (2) some drama happens (you can guess what might force this) to the point where CCW issuance becomes a desirable outcome for the powers that be.

WRONG. Shall Issue is not only achievable in California, it's happening RIGHT NOW.

Shall Issue can happen - county by county, sheriff by sheriff. Just ask the guys in Kern, Maricopa, hell, just about anything north or east of the bay area. Orange County was as close to shall issue as it comes within any urban county in California. Now there's a new appointed sheriff on her way to turning Orange County into Los Angeles County South - picture Lee Baca (LA Sheriff) with long hair. Everyone, including OCSD command staff & the Sheriff herself have publicly indicated that she intends to make her policy "more restrictive".

How going out of his way to praise her new policy - which by the way is going to REVOKE many of the existing permits - is good for any of our causes is beyond me. And the mighty emporer of CCW policy "fairness" and legality doesn't even notice the part that she "may" require "some" applicants to submit to polygraph and/or phych evals???

If he doesn't support Shall Issue (at a statewide level), then fine. But if part of the basis of TBJ's lawsuits aren't to ultimately try to increase CCW issuance - then WTH is the point as far as we are concerned? If they don't ultimately support increased CCW issuance (yes, of course through fair policies) then how does this help any gun related cause? Lump them in with everyone else that is suing to make money under minor technicality laws.

tgun
08-15-2008, 11:37 AM
Calguns has a great cross-section of the gun community. I've learned from reading here that there are two distinct camps, and threads like these break down when the two camps collide.

On one side there are the law & order folks, of whom a non-trivial number are current or former police/military/other government. On the other side are the individual liberty folks. Both see private firearms ownership as an important component of their respective agendas.

Unfortunately the two agendas are philosophically incompatible. There is a good deal of overlap, and we can often work towards the same goals. But at the end of the day it comes down to the inescable question of whether the state or the individual is sacrosanct.

The two groups are never going to see eye to eye. The best we can do is realize that the other group is evaluating any given situation by a very different set of criteria. Within their own realm they are both rational and internally consistent. Across realms, evaluations of any particular set of facts will generally result in thinking the other guy is off his rocker.

This should go into the Calguns FAQ. Then we should come up with a term for each camp and identify ourselves in our signatures. It would have saved me a lot of head-scratching.

Glock22Fan
08-15-2008, 11:45 AM
On one side there are the law & order folks, of whom a non-trivial number are current or former police/military/other government. On the other side are the individual liberty folks. Both see private firearms ownership as an important component of their respective agendas.

And then there's the side that thinks that these two sides should not necessarily be incompatible. You should be able to have considerable liberty within an environment provided by law and order. Otherwise you have chaos and anarchy on the one hand, or draconian dictatorship on the other.

hill billy
08-15-2008, 11:47 AM
On one side there are the law & order folks, of whom a non-trivial number are current or former police/military/other government. On the other side are the individual liberty folks. Both see private firearms ownership as an important component of their respective agendas.

And then there's the side that thinks that these two sides should not necessarily be incompatible. You should be able to have considerable liberty within an environment provided by law and order. Otherwise you have chaos and anarchy on the one hand, or draconian dictatorship on the other.
I like to think I fall in the third group.

tgun
08-15-2008, 11:57 AM
And then there's the side that thinks that these two sides should not necessarily be incompatible.

We'd all like to put ourselves in the third category, but you won't always be able to maintain a perfect balance. Eventually you will have to decide which is more important.

Glock22Fan
08-15-2008, 12:00 PM
We'd all like to put ourselves in the third category, but you won't always be able to maintain a perfect balance. Eventually you will have to decide which is more important.

That is the time when you have to consider an armed rebellion (note, I'm not advcating revolution at this time.)

bwiese
08-15-2008, 12:08 PM
WRONG. Shall Issue is not only achievable in California, it's happening RIGHT NOW.

Shall Issue can happen - county by county, sheriff by sheriff. Just ask the guys in Kern, Maricopa, hell, just about anything north or east of the bay area.

No, it's not. You're unclear on phrase's meaning, that's not "shall issue", that's just *the sheriff's policy* - it's not mandated by law. It just happens to be politically popular. When an area's voter demographics change or particular sheriff gets run outta town (like Carona) a new sheriff can reverse that.

Sure we can work to elect favorable sheriffs, but I don't think we'll get statewide shall issue with current legislative partition and near-irrelevant CA Republican party. With Heller, and after incorporation, and a few events that may make folks in power think *concealed* weapons are better, things may change.


Orange County was as close to shall issue as it comes within any urban county in California. See what happens when you tie your fortunes to a guy dumb enough to be photographed with Mafiosi?

And Orange County demographics are shifting leftwards as population goes younger.



How going out of his way to praise her new policy - which by the way is going to REVOKE many of the existing permits - is good for any of our causes is beyond me. It's not good for "the shall-issue cause", because there is simply no winnable shall-issue cause in CA today. It IS good for statewide forcing of consistent application of law and allows suits where sheriffs that don't issue, except to cronies. That is one way of at least somewhat opening up CCW - "sue & issue".

Glock22Fan
08-15-2008, 12:28 PM
Bill (Weise).

Once more you put it better than I could.

Thank you.

CoinStar
08-15-2008, 1:02 PM
When an area's voter demographics change or particular sheriff gets run outta town (like Carona) a new sheriff can reverse that.

...which is all the more reason that making California shall-issue in the real sense should be a bigger priority than the piecemeal, roll the dice process it is now. Sure that works and all, as long as the applicant is willing to fight a gigantic legal battle. But it isn't ideal for the masses.

Having statewide shall-issue would render the fleeting nature of this county by county, "good" and "bad" sheriffs approach, null and void.

but I don't think we'll get statewide shall issue with current legislative partition and near-irrelevant CA Republican party.

I agree it's not probable now, but not solely for the reasons you've cited. Gun nuts are not (and likely never will be) a significant political entity in California. When I look at those groups who do meet the definition of success, they don't resemble us at all.

That's where the blame should lie; us.

Paladin
08-15-2008, 1:19 PM
And then there's the side that thinks that these two sides should not necessarily be incompatible. You should be able to have considerable liberty within an environment provided by law and order. Otherwise you have chaos and anarchy on the one hand, or draconian dictatorship on the other.Unfortunately, by his recent postings below, BJ seems to disagree w/you and falls into the "other" camp than I.

The entitlement crowd has to understand [Hutchins] must strike a balance between the applicants perceived need and protecting the public.

And his comments like the ones below, should be beneath him and aren't even worth addressing by anyone familiar w/the history of our 2nd A RKBA. The ironic thing is that he holds himself up as a defender of the Constitution. :rolleyes: Whatever. He, and by implication TBJ, can be effective in helping our cause in a limited degree in the legal arena. In the political arena he wouldn't last 5 minutes.

The childish attacks I am seeing are raising some flags about why some of you are afraid of a psych test and a polygraph. Are we afraid deep seated problems may emerge? Feelings of inadequacy that carrying a firearm may compensate for? Other things so scary that you dare not talk with a professional or be subjected to a polygraph examination?

***

On the other hands those that simply want to have a CCW because it makes them feel safer, will have to find another means of expression. Perhaps they can buy another really big firearm or a really big SUV or truck. I am sure you will be able to find some way to express yourselves.

M. Sage
08-15-2008, 1:33 PM
Unfortunately, by his recent postings below, BJ seems to disagree w/you and falls into the "other" camp than I.

The entitlement crowd has to understand [Hutchins] must strike a balance between the applicants perceived need and protecting the public.

And his comments like the ones below, should be beneath him and aren't even worth addressing by anyone familiar w/the history of our 2nd A RKBA. The ironic thing is that he holds himself up as a defender of the Constitution. :rolleyes: Whatever. He, and by implication TBJ, can be effective in helping our cause in a limited degree in the legal arena. In the political arena he wouldn't last 5 minutes.

The childish attacks I am seeing are raising some flags about why some of you are afraid of a psych test and a polygraph. Are we afraid deep seated problems may emerge? Feelings of inadequacy that carrying a firearm may compensate for? Other things so scary that you dare not talk with a professional or be subjected to a polygraph examination?

***

On the other hands those that simply want to have a CCW because it makes them feel safer, will have to find another means of expression. Perhaps they can buy another really big firearm or a really big SUV or truck. I am sure you will be able to find some way to express yourselves.

Wow! Got a source for those?

I'll reserve judgment on BJ for the moment, but anybody who would say that is a jerk in my book...

Why would I oppose a psych test? Because I can't freaking afford one in addition to all the other expenses to get to carry concealed! So whoever said that last one, BJ or not, needs to grow up a bit.

Glock22Fan
08-15-2008, 1:56 PM
In the political arena he wouldn't last 5 minutes

No argument here.

M. D. Van Norman
08-15-2008, 1:56 PM
I’ve always thought that the best “Billy Jack” could ever do would be to make no-issue jurisdictions into may-issue jurisdictions. While a small step in the right direction, that would help only the tiny segment of the population that transports large sums of cash or that suffers under documented threats. It would still do nothing for the vast majority of law-abiding citizens who just want to be able to protect their families.

I am a Libertarian. I despise permits and licenses, but legalized concealed carry through a shall-issue permitting process should be the most important goal for the RKBA in California today—after incorporation, of course, since our elected “leaders” are apparently incompetent or spineless or both. All the other silly, pointless gun-control laws under which we suffer would be so much easier to push aside once shall-issue concealed carry proved to be as unremarkable in California as it has been in every other shall-issue state.

When rivers of blood fail to flow through the streets of the most populous and diverse state in the union, what would that say about the utility of gun control everywhere? What better example could we have to demonstrate that firearms end violence rather than cause it?

There. I said it. Now, I’ll shut up about this for another couple months.

GuyW
08-15-2008, 2:01 PM
I’ve always thought that the best “Billy Jack” could ever do would be to make no-issue jurisdictions into may-issue jurisdictions.

IMHFO, its much more likely that small-issue (to good ol boys) agencies will change to fair issue and thus more CCWS. That's because a) the settlement isn't going to let them quit issuing; b) the good ol' boys "good cause" isn't going to get any better, and c) the g-o-b'll still want permits. Under fair-issue, others will then get papered under the same-or-better good cause.

RomanDad
08-15-2008, 2:02 PM
Wow! Got a source for those?

I'll reserve judgment on BJ for the moment, but anybody who would say that is a jerk in my book...

Why would I oppose a psych test? Because I can't freaking afford one in addition to all the other expenses to get to carry concealed! So whoever said that last one, BJ or not, needs to grow up a bit.

http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/


I really do feel sorry for John after Preston does this stuff....

Paladin
08-15-2008, 2:35 PM
Back again.

Thanks RD for posting the link to BJ's blog. M.S., those comments are from BJ's most recent blog.

The thing that gets me about BJ's statement that,

The entitlement crowd has to understand [Hutchins] must strike a balance between the applicants perceived need and protecting the public.

is that BJ appears to set issuing CCWs against public safety. Hello? Where have CCW'ers been shown to be a threat to public safety? Isn't that one of our core arguments, that public safety has been enhanced EVERYWHERE "Shall Issue" has passed in the US over the past 20+ years? And "Shall Issue" RTC means that everyone who is not disqualified is part of the "entitlement crowd."

And the "perceived need" stuff is bunk -- I don't need a CCW. As my sig line states, having the right to use deadly force to defend my and others' innocent lives away from home is virtually useless without the right to carry deadly force. Some guy(s) pulls a gun on me, what am I supposed to do? Look for a rock or a bottle to hit him with? Take him on unarmed? Yeah, right. If I knew I was going to be attacked when I went somewhere (i.e., knew when I'd actually need a CCW), I would either not go there or tell the police all about it first if I really had to go there. My "perceived need" is being stripped bare (forced by the state to go unarmed), as I go about my daily business, yet w/the state claiming immunity from legal liability if anything should happen to me because I was unarmed. :mad:

If the state doesn't want me to do loaded OC, they'd better let me do loaded CC. Am I willing to force this whole issue w/UOC and then loaded OC? You're ****ed right I am.

mblat
08-15-2008, 4:15 PM
I don't know why this comes as such surprise. BJ makes his living on the fact that there is no shall-issue CCW. He stated that multiple times and he is very proud that he makes taxpayers to pay for his high life.
Of cause he is going to oppose "shall-issue" or even "easy-issue" (old Orange country like) it. It reduces his market.

zok
08-15-2008, 4:43 PM
I don't know why this comes as such surprise. BJ makes his living on the fact that there is no shall-issue CCW. He stated that multiple times and he is very proud that he makes taxpayers to pay for his high life.
Of cause he is going to oppose "shall-issue" or even "easy-issue" (old Orange country like) it. It reduces his market.

How does he make his living on this when he has 2 cases and they have not even payed out or won in court? In the 30 plus years he has been doing this, I know of only 3 cases. His own, Santa Maria, and Torrance. How is he living high on that? Is there cases that I have not heard about?

Glock22Fan
08-15-2008, 4:50 PM
How does he make his living on this when he has 2 cases and they have not even payed out or won in court? In the 30 plus years he has been doing this, I know of only 3 cases. His own, Santa Maria, and Torrance. How is he living high on that? Is there cases that I have not heard about?

You are correct, except that although he has been involved with all this for that long, it is only recently that he has gone out looking for clients. I'm not going to discuss finances, but Billy Jack isn't making a fortune out of this, at least, not until we win some cases.

M. Sage
08-15-2008, 4:56 PM
http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/


I really do feel sorry for John after Preston does this stuff....

.... Lucy! You got some 'splaining to do!

Feelings of inadequacy that carrying a firearm may compensate for?

I'm sorry, but this is the kind of crap I hear from antis.

The entitlement crowd has to understand she must strike a balance between the applicants perceived need and protecting the public.

Entitlement? So now I'm part of the "entitlement crowd" (AFAIK, that's a term usually reserved for career welfare recipients) for wanting to exercise a basic rights? Wow.

And again with the buzz-phrases used by antis - "protecting the public" (not to mention "striking a balance"). Since when have CCW licensees been a public hazard? Florida, Texas, Michigan, all the rest... When has "everybody who can, can" been a hazard to the public??

I was on the fence about Billy Jack before. Not so much now...

mblat
08-15-2008, 5:06 PM
How does he make his living on this when he has 2 cases and they have not even payed out or won in court? In the 30 plus years he has been doing this, I know of only 3 cases. His own, Santa Maria, and Torrance. How is he living high on that? Is there cases that I have not heard about?

Buh.... that is even worse than I thought. Go back and read his posts ( or posts on other forums, or his own blog) - you will see how he rants on and on and on on how he eats well, sleeps well and doing it all using taxpayer money from this endeavor.

I naturally assumed we are talking about some substantial amounts of money. I should have known better - from such poser. Now I findout he isn't only poser - he bull-****ter also.

RomanDad
08-15-2008, 5:09 PM
I'm sorry, but this is the kind of crap I hear from antis.






I knew Id heard that line somewhere before... That was it.... Thanks!

Paladin
08-15-2008, 6:59 PM
For the record, I did not start this thread to trash BJ or the work of TBJ. Dittos w/my postings on the previous page of this thread. There are, obviously, some differences between his positions and mine. Does that make him my enemy? No. Does that mean I will not support his/their work? No. I still think they are doing some vital work. I still refer people to them, just as I do w/www.calccw.com even though they banned me from their forum before I even posted or sent anyone a PM.

As RomansDad mentioned in another thread, we have divided ourselves when we need to be united. Even when we disagree, we should be mature enough to work together on the things where we agree. And if we make a mistake, we should be able to say so and to move on and not hold grudges against those who pointed it out. Similarly, if we point out someone's mistake, we should be wise enough to realize that we're as human as they and be gracious in our correction. Naturally, I, and I'm sure others, fall short of this standard. Nonetheless I still believe it should be the standard.

M. Sage
08-15-2008, 7:02 PM
You know, you're right. I'm not gong to say anything else, except that I'll have a hard time trusting BJ after this...

IGOTDIRT4U
08-15-2008, 7:48 PM
Paladin, thanks for posting that. I don't think I will ever agree nor like BJ and his tactics, but his role is important to the effect that he does what he does, and we do what we do.

zok
08-16-2008, 7:18 AM
For the record, I did not start this thread to trash BJ or the work of TBJ. Dittos w/my postings on the previous page of this thread. There are, obviously, some differences between his positions and mine. Does that make him my enemy? No. Does that mean I will not support his/their work? No. I still think they are doing some vital work. I still refer people to them, just as I do w/www.calccw.com even though they banned me from their forum before I even posted or sent anyone a PM.

As RomansDad mentioned in another thread, we have divided ourselves when we need to be united. Even when we disagree, we should be mature enough to work together on the things where we agree. And if we make a mistake, we should be able to say so and to move on and not hold grudges against those who pointed it out. Similarly, if we point out someone's mistake, we should be wise enough to realize that we're as human as they and be gracious in our correction. Naturally, I, and I'm sure others, fall short of this standard. Nonetheless I still believe it should be the standard.

Very good point... No matter what anyone's personal feeling on BJ methods. He is helping people get there CCW's, and helping them with there cause letters. A lot of his work is free. I know first hand. I have friends he has helped free of charge and long with the Attorneys he is working with. His methods may be up in your face, but they work. Yes, He has been there done that, and yes he lets you know. We can't afford to fight one another. It is hard enough fighting the system for change. We will not alway agree, but lets move on.

N6ATF
08-16-2008, 11:15 PM
If you can't separate what I think from what I say Billy Jack thinks, then it isn't me who lacks something.

One of the first things I learned as a cub reporter was to never, EVER write what someone thinks, for example... John Doe thinks/feels that black cats are evil. It's a good rule for regular life as well.

How can you know that they think this or that? Have you strapped them to a table and properly interrogated them with sodium thiopental? Or are you God?

You must always attribute someone's thoughts as being a statement or quote of what they said they think.

Otherwise you blur the line between what you think the other person thinks, and what they actually said they think (or would say, if asked to confirm).

Glock22Fan
08-17-2008, 10:43 AM
You must always attribute someone's thoughts as being a statement or quote of what they said they think.

So, if I said that I think that Diane Feinstein thinks the average American should not own a gun, I'd be wrong so to do?

Paladin
08-17-2008, 4:01 PM
One of the first things I learned as a cub reporter was to never, EVER write what someone thinks, for example... John Doe thinks/feels that black cats are evil. It's a good rule for regular life as well.

How can you know that they think this or that? Have you strapped them to a table and properly interrogated them with sodium thiopental? Or are you God?

You must always attribute someone's thoughts as being a statement or quote of what they said they think.

Otherwise you blur the line between what you think the other person thinks, and what they actually said they think (or would say, if asked to confirm).If I'm not mistaken, Glock22Fan is TBJ's official spokesman on this forum. Just as the president's press secretary can say the administration or the president "believes" or "thinks" this or that about some issue, so can Glock22Fan with respect to TBJ. Similarly, one should be able to clearly distinguish when the press secretary is speaking in his official capacity on behalf of the administration and when he is speaking only about what he himself thinks/believes.

Bad Horse
08-18-2008, 12:11 AM
If I'm not mistaken, Glock22Fan is TBJ's official spokesman on this forum. Just as the president's press secretary can say the administration or the president "believes" or "thinks" this or that about some issue, so can Glock22Fan with respect to TBJ. Similarly, one should be able to clearly distinguish when the press secretary is speaking in his official capacity on behalf of the administration and when he is speaking only about what he himself thinks/believes.

Thank you, I agree, that's perfectly reasonable.

We've got to keep track of Glock22fan, John, Team Billy Jack, Billy Jack, and Preston.

I think it's fair to attribute to TBJ whatever any of them publish.

N6ATF
08-18-2008, 2:03 AM
So, if I said that I think that Diane Feinstein thinks the average American should not own a gun, I'd be wrong so to do?

No, because in that example you'd be excluding yourself from the problem; it's clear that it is your opinion that Feinstein thinks that. You are not presenting it as a fact that she thinks that.

If I'm not mistaken, Glock22Fan is TBJ's official spokesman on this forum.

I did not know. Even after revealing signatures, I could not determine this with absolute certainty - merely putting that you are the webmaster and what appear to be official statements in the sig aren't explicit as "TBJ's official spokesman on CalGuns.net forum" would be.

Just as the president's press secretary can say the administration or the president "believes" or "thinks" this or that about some issue, so can Glock22Fan with respect to TBJ. Similarly, one should be able to clearly distinguish when the press secretary is speaking in his official capacity on behalf of the administration and when he is speaking only about what he himself thinks/believes.

Unless TBJ is a political organization, how is that a fair comparison? When a press secretary, or more appropriately, spokeshole says that his/her employer believes or thinks this or that...

1) They might be told via intermediaries that this is the thought or belief when it is not.
2) They might be told directly that this is the thought or belief, when it is not.
3) There are almost never consequences to them propagating another's fake or misstated thought or belief, whether it is exposed in public, or not.
4) Nobody should take what they say as anything approaching the truth, even if they were to quote what they were told directly that was the thought or belief.

Glock22Fan
08-18-2008, 7:56 AM
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan
If you can't separate what I think from what I say Billy Jack thinks, then it isn't me who lacks something.

No, because in that example you'd be excluding yourself from the problem; it's clear that it is your opinion that Feinstein thinks that. You are not presenting it as a fact that she thinks that.

The difference seems to be nitpicking to me. Of course what I say B.J. thinks is what I think B.J. thinks.

And yes, effectively, as far as these boards are concerned, I am the official face of TBJ. Does this mean I agree with everything B.J. thinks and says? No, but I try to make any difference (between my personal thoughts and B.J.'s thoughts), if any, clear.

hawk1
08-18-2008, 8:13 AM
The difference seems to be nitpicking to me. Of course what I say B.J. thinks is what I think B.J. thinks.

And yes, effectively, as far as these boards are concerned, I am the official face of TBJ. Does this mean I agree with everything B.J. thinks and says? No, but I try to make any difference (between my personal thoughts and B.J.'s thoughts), if any, clear.

Do you know how stupid you sound with this?
BJ wants a forum to spout his forthcomings and whatnot, yet he has no respect for us to do so in his own voice or his 3rd person antics. You, the "Official Face" will do it?....
How can anyone take him or you seriously? :confused:

Glock22Fan
08-18-2008, 8:53 AM
How can anyone take him or you seriously?

Suit yourself.

Paladin
08-18-2008, 9:02 AM
And yes, effectively, as far as these boards are concerned, I am the official face of TBJ.John, you may want to put this as part of your signature line or add it to the end of every post where you are acting as the public rep. of TBJ.

I'm not even going to reply to those other two posts which are merely trying to pick fights and offer nothing constructive. Life is too short. Their reputation, like everyone's on this forum, either goes up or goes down w/each posting.

Glock22Fan
08-18-2008, 9:15 AM
John, you may want to put this as part of your signature line or add it to the end of every post where you are acting as the public rep. of TBJ.

Done, thanks, Paladin.

We've got to keep track of Glock22fan, John, Team Billy Jack, Billy Jack, and Preston.

I think it's fair to attribute to TBJ whatever any of them publish.

Not difficult. There's me and . . . well, that's it, since Billy Jack (Preston) stopped posting.

nicki
08-18-2008, 11:34 AM
Personally, I would like Alaska or Vermont CCW laws, but hell will freeze over first before that will happen in California.

When I first read TBJ post on the new sheriff's policy in Orange county, I was floored to say the least. But then I stepped back and took a more objective look.

Although I would like TBJ to push a full attack on "Good Cause", he has his reasons and he is moving forward.

TBJ's efforts show that we have massive law breaking by law enforcement, so much for respect for the law.

This is very serious, because LEO's ccw practices undermine respect for the law and while ccw may not be an issue for most Californians, police corruption is.

If people believe the police are corrupt, they lose faith that the police can and will protect them and that opens them up to our proposals.

The Gun Control movement said the Rodney King riots set gun control back 10 years. It did so because people lost faith in the ablity of the police to protect them and in the integrity of the police force itself.

When TBJ is successful in forcing LEO's to have written clear policies on ccw issuance, it will be alot easier to go the next step to "shall issue".

TBJ is going to find alot of garbage statewide on ccw abuses, having access to that info will make it alot easier to win in both the court of law and the court of public opinion in the upcoming ccw battles that we will have to wage statewide to get back our rights.

Nicki

N6ATF
08-19-2008, 12:18 AM
I'm not even going to reply to those other two posts which are merely trying to pick fights and offer nothing constructive. Life is too short. Their reputation, like everyone's on this forum, either goes up or goes down w/each posting.

Except by doing this, you just did. Offering advice on clarity from a professional reporter's point of view is not "merely trying to pick fights", unless the advice receiver is in a position where the advice is counter to their job. As much as I hate to reuse the press secretary analogy, that would be it. Adversarial.

CoinStar
08-19-2008, 2:41 PM
Except by doing this, you just did.

And they rolled it in a classic, passive agressive batter too.

I really don't see why anyone would have such an aversion to constructive criticism other than to maybe protect their own ego. What you said was succinct enough; As a general rule, don't attempt to speak for others if you can't at least attribute something to them that asserts your claim.

Am I right?

If so, I see no harm in that advice.

Paladin
08-19-2008, 11:02 PM
Offering advice on clarity from a professional reporter's point of view is not "merely trying to pick fights"

1) To me, a "professional reporter" -- who should be a professional wordsmith -- will understand that the below are "fighting words":

When a press secretary, or more appropriately, spokeshole

2) I referred to Glock22Fan/John as TBJ's spokesman and you refer to spokesmen as above. John later posted, essentially, that he is their spokesman. To me, leaving that quote as it is implies that you think of John as a "spokeshole." That is what I took exception to.

I've known John (online) for > 1 1/2 yrs. He's a good guy, definitely on our side, and volunteering his time and effort to further TBJ's work (like many others behind the scenes). TBJ, as I've stated previously in this thread, is our allie, even if we disagree w/BJ on some things.

If you want me to address the points you made in your posting, just edit out the insult (and I will edit it out of this post).

RomanDad
08-19-2008, 11:14 PM
1) To me, a "professional reporter" -- who should be a professional wordsmith -- will understand that the below are "fighting words":



2) I referred to Glock22Fan/John as TBJ's spokesman and you refer to spokesmen as above. John later posted, essentially, that he is their spokesman. To me, leaving that quote as it is implies that you think of John as a "spokeshole." That is what I took exception to.

I've known John (online) for > 1 1/2 yrs. He's a good guy, definitely on our side, and volunteering his time and effort to further TBJ's work (like many others behind the scenes). TBJ, as I've stated previously in this thread, is our allie, even if we disagree w/BJ on some things.

If you want me to address the points you made in your posting, just edit out the insult (and I will edit it out of this post).


I agree... I think I've known John online even longer than that, and although we've never met, I have no doubt he's a good and decent guy. Hell... He comes from the same country that gave us Johnny Marr and Ian Curtis.... How bad can he be? :D

What a lot of people have to understand is the time some of us have put into this particular arena... And that we all know each other to one degree or another... We ought to do a little roll call in this thread alone.... Paladin, Lonnie, Nicki, John, Lee, Tony, Jim, Dirt-rancher, CCWFacts/admin... Im probably missing a few???... How long have we all known each other now? ;) God... I think Ive known GuyW on these boards for about 10 years now??? Sometimes I think we predate the internet...

And sometimes we agree... And sometimes we disagree... But in the end, I HOPE we all have the same goals in mind. I have no doubt John shares those goals.

Whats sad for me, is I began to REALLY get involved in California CCW law in the EARLY 90's... And increased that involvement when I graduated law school in the mid 90s. And in my research of the subject, Preston Guillory became an obvious hero to me. He fought the system and to a degree prevailed...

"Meeting" him online was at first thrilling and later disillusioning. And although he and I now rarely see eye to eye, I wish him no ill will.

I hesitate to use superlatives, but suffice it to say, if Preston succeeds in overturning 12050, even accidentally as it appears it would have to be, that would be a really good day in my book.

N6ATF
08-20-2008, 12:22 AM
1) To me, a "professional reporter" -- who should be a professional wordsmith -- will understand that the below are "fighting words"...

Why are you so intent on drawing comparisons which imply TBJ is on par with a political organization? Look ma, I can quote too...

Just as the president's press secretary can say the administration or the president "believes" or "thinks" this or that about some issue, so can Glock22Fan with respect to TBJ. Similarly, one should be able to clearly distinguish when the press secretary is speaking in his official capacity on behalf of the administration and when he is speaking only about what he himself thinks/believes.

I thought I made it clear that I didn't believe that was a fair comparison you were making.

So I will do it now. I DO NOT BELIEVE TBJ IS IN ANY WAY COMPARABLE TO A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION.

As such, they cannot have a politically motivated or controlled press secretary/spokeshole. No insult could have been taken, unless you have a pathological need to disregard my belief that TBJ IS NOT IN ANY WAY COMPARABLE TO A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION.

So please stop being insulted on behalf of others for no good reason.