PDA

View Full Version : My take on today's OC CCW meeting with Hutchens


eflatminor
02-10-2009, 4:28 PM
That's eight hours of my life I won't get back. Hutchens basically will continue to revoke CCWs in OC or, if the permit holder doesn't want a black mark forever on his record, he can opt to change the effective date of the CCW and loose the privilege to carry immediately. Nice choice.

The BOS proved to have no real backbone. They screwed up in appointing this fascist gun grabber but they refused to seek her removal or even to admonish her. "We'll have to agree to disagree" was about as tough as they got. The board was more concerned about the deputies that spied on them and sent inappropriate text messages at previous meetings than the real issue of revoking CCWs. Even Norby showed no real intent to DO anything. Janet N is supposed to be the CCW holder's friend but she too did nothing but whine.

Hutchens defense was that she is following the law. She told me one on one that the law requires a person to demonstrate a need to carry well beyond the average person. This is a lie. We know the law gives her the latitude to grant more CCWs. She’s simply choosing the opposite path. No board member had the balls to call her out on this.

41 people got up to speak, most very eloquently. We might as well have been whistling Dixie. No further public comments will be allowed and the board appears unwilling to do anything about it. Sorry OC residents with CCWs, it looks like you're screwed.

1923mack
02-10-2009, 4:47 PM
I agree. The speakers were excellent. They brought up varoius matters and hit hard.

M. D. Van Norman
02-10-2009, 4:51 PM
The supervisors are politicians, and their authority in this matter is very limited. However, I think they’ve made it clear to the sheriff that her diversion into concealed-carry policy is not appreciated. How much support do you think they will give her when the next election arrives?

JSH
02-10-2009, 4:58 PM
I heard several times the Madam Chair call Hutchens' policy "overly restrictive", that is what BOS can do, I think.

tube_ee
02-10-2009, 5:05 PM
can pass an ordinance that defines "good cause" in Orange County as "for personal protection against criminals" or some such verbiage.

Using the example of Measure G up in Mendo, it's pretty clear that local governments and/or the voters directly, can direct law enforcement to use (or not use) their discretion.

If the BOS won't act, maybe a ballot initiative is in order?

The County may not be able to fire her, as she's an elected official, but it is clearly within their power to tell her how to do her job.

--Shannon

yellowfin
02-10-2009, 5:18 PM
They are empowered to reduce her salary to $1.

GMONEY
02-10-2009, 5:23 PM
Yep I was expecting more... Looks like the people doing the hardwork behind the scenes need to just have her indicted because you know that is probably what will be in store for her. We tried to put out the olive branch now it's time to get NASTY!

Also we need to start looking for someone to rally behind for the next election...

N6ATF
02-10-2009, 5:23 PM
Why did you post a separate thread about this?

:dupe:

http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=152902

Python2
02-10-2009, 5:24 PM
They are empowered to reduce her salary to $1.

Thats a hell of a good idea! I'd bet she'd quit right then.:D

Table Rock Arms
02-10-2009, 5:28 PM
Looked to me like the BOS did there best to sound like they were on our side, but didn't do anything to prove to me that they were.

Black Majik
02-10-2009, 5:30 PM
Thats a hell of a good idea! I'd bet she'd quit right then.:D

Then take away her CCW.

grammaton76
02-10-2009, 5:33 PM
Why did you post a separate thread about this?

:dupe:

http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=152902

As quick as I am to pull the "thread merge" trigger most of the time, I'll let this one stand. This is the OP's personal perspective of the meeting now that it's happened, from someone who was there.

As for reducing her salary, I suspect that minimum wage would come into the equation somewhere and give Hutchens grounds to sue. Don't want that happening.

yellowfin
02-10-2009, 5:36 PM
OK, then minimum wage it is if they can't do $1. Whatever the lowest possible amount is. If they can't fire her, which I personally doubt, they should make her quit. And if she wants to sue, let her try! I doubt very seriously a judge would sympathize with an appointed employee hated by her bosses and the people she's beholden to, who stiffed a bunch of people on their Constitutional rights and stuck the county with a huge bill for the time and trouble. Let her pick up garbage for a living.

N6ATF
02-10-2009, 5:37 PM
As quick as I am to pull the "thread merge" trigger most of the time, I'll let this one stand. This is the OP's personal perspective of the meeting now that it's happened, from someone who was there.

Other people who were there didn't start their own threads (that I've seen so far) - they posted within 152902. Bad precedent for everyone to start their own thread.

motorhead
02-10-2009, 5:39 PM
i watched this online today. i think your board means well, sounds like you've even got one "shall issue" member but all they can do is fire her.
i don't have a dog in this fight but if i did i'd be organizing a recall drive. elected (or appointed) officials need to have the fact driven home that they serve ONLY at the will of the people.

vrand
02-10-2009, 5:47 PM
They are empowered to reduce her salary to $1.

:thumbsup:

Glock22Fan
02-10-2009, 5:48 PM
i watched this online today. i think your board means well, sounds like you've even got one "shall issue" member but all they can do is fire her. i don't have a dog in this fight but if i did i'd be organizing a recall drive. elected (or appointed) officials need to have the fact driven home that they serve ONLY at the will of the people.

No they can't, that's part of the problem.

eflatminor
02-10-2009, 5:59 PM
mh, where did you see that? Got a link?

CCWFacts
02-10-2009, 6:11 PM
As for reducing her salary,

She probably has an employment contract with the County that specifies her salary. I doubt they can chop it. They can chop her budget but her salary is an obligation of the County that they can't change as long as they are not in bankruptcy, I would assume. The contract itself is probably private but there must be one.

yellowfin
02-10-2009, 6:16 PM
She probably has an employment contract with the County that specifies her salary. I doubt they can chop it. They can chop her budget but her salary is an obligation of the County that they can't change as long as they are not in bankruptcy, I would assume. The contract itself is probably private but there must be one.
She just made it public she believes contracts can be modified on a whim, so the county can change hers just fine. She wants to get creative then they can get creative. She started this so she should feel some serious bite for it.

N6ATF
02-10-2009, 6:17 PM
I'm sure Hutchens has cronies that would love if the BOS cut the budget. Then they'd have something to put on their campaign literature even though the OCSD might as well be only looking out for the best interests of criminals by infringing on the 2A.

Kid Stanislaus
02-10-2009, 6:18 PM
However, I think they’ve made it clear to the sheriff that her diversion into concealed-carry policy is not appreciated.


And that will change WHAT?

CCWFacts
02-10-2009, 6:20 PM
She just made it public she believes contracts can be modified on a whim, so the county can change hers just fine. She wants to get creative then they can get creative.

No, a CCW is not a contract. Her revocations may well violate statute but it's not a breach of any contract.

7x57
02-10-2009, 6:26 PM
No, a CCW is not a contract. Her revocations may well violate statute but it's not a breach of any contract.

I'm sure it isn't too. IANAL, but I seem to recall that contracts have to have consideration given to both parties and a meeting of the minds on the terms?

In any event, the sheriff is implementing statute law. I'd be very surprised if that is ever a contractual situation. If there were a contract involved it would probably be between the sheriff and the DOJ or the county to issue based on the sheriff's judgement, not between the sheriff and the issuees.

7x57

yellowfin
02-10-2009, 6:29 PM
I'm sure it isn't too. IANAL, but I seem to recall that contracts have to have consideration given to both parties and a meeting of the minds on the terms?A CCW fits those criteria. Paid fee for a specified activity under specified terms for an understood time. It's just like buying and selling a service. Licensee agrees or declines at will as to what those terms are.

M. D. Van Norman
02-10-2009, 8:04 PM
And that will change WHAT?

You didn’t quote my last sentence. Sheriff Hutchens will not win election in 2010.

Theseus
02-10-2009, 8:09 PM
She probably has an employment contract with the County that specifies her salary. I doubt they can chop it. They can chop her budget but her salary is an obligation of the County that they can't change as long as they are not in bankruptcy, I would assume. The contract itself is probably private but there must be one.

I agree. . . she was CONTRACTED to do a job. . . I feel that if she is not performing her job she can be removed. I do ask however how it is that a Governor is an elected official and can be impeached, but a Sheriff can not?

A CCW fits those criteria. Paid fee for a specified activity under specified terms for an understood time. It's just like buying and selling a service. Licensee agrees or declines at will as to what those terms are.

I also agree with this sentiment.

Consideration?

Party 1:Citizen pays money, time and energy to the issuing agency. Money is consideration.
Party 2: Government, in exchange of that money permits the citizen to be excused from other sections of the law. Consideration.

Melding of the minds?

What is a melding of the minds? It is merely a mutual understanding of the terms of contract. It is such things as maybe how much consideration is exchange, what consideration is being exchanged for (sometimes referred to subject matter), details about how the contract can be completed (also called executed) and terms under which the contract can be terminated.

This means to me that a CCW is a contract. The real question is the issuing officer able to cancel the contract for such arbitrary reasons, and the answer in PC seems to be yes. HOWEVER, it would seem to me that if this were a business that held the contract and one party withdrew for some simple clause saying that they reserve the right under any condition to withdraw and make the contract unenforceable that they would be liable for damages. Why should this be any different? I think it isn't.

IANAL and I might just be talking out my butt. Never assume anything I say to be legal advise, fact, true or even importaint.

7x57
02-10-2009, 8:12 PM
A CCW fits those criteria. Paid fee for a specified activity under specified terms for an understood time. It's just like buying and selling a service. Licensee agrees or declines at will as to what those terms are.

Do I have a contractual relationship with the check-out clerk at the grocery store?

7x57

CCWFacts
02-10-2009, 8:17 PM
I agree. . . she was CONTRACTED to do a job. . . I feel that if she is not performing her job she can be removed.

You may feel that way, but your feeling doesn't make it so. It's an elected position. Yes she has an employment contract that defines her benefits there, probably spelled out in the county's bylaws. (It's in the bylaws, which the supes can modify, but it still is a legally binding contract.) A police chief can be removed as an employee (within the terms of his contract). A sheriff is an elected position, even if this one was an appointment, and can't be removed. The only way that a sheriff is booted out of office is either a recall, or he / she become ineligible (convicted of a felony).

I do ask however how it is that a Governor is an elected official and can be impeached, but a Sheriff can not?

I assume there is a recall process that could be used, in theory. I doubt it ever happens in real life. It's hard enough to defeat an incumbent sheriff in an ordinary election.

I also agree with this sentiment. (that CCWs are contracts)

I'm sorry, a CCW is not in any way a contract, even if a fee was paid for it.

CCWFacts
02-10-2009, 8:18 PM
Do I have a contractual relationship with the check-out clerk at the grocery store?

Yes.

bulgron
02-10-2009, 8:18 PM
Do I have a contractual relationship with the check-out clerk at the grocery store?

7x57

Do both you and the check-out clerk ever sign a paper outlining an agreement between the two of you?

My take on this is that people can and should sue Hutchins for breach of contract if she revokes permits before their expiration time without good cause.

CCWFacts
02-10-2009, 8:24 PM
Do both you and the check-out clerk ever sign a paper outlining an agreement between the two of you?

It's not necessary. Contracts don't need to be written. The checkout clerk is acting as an authorized agent of the store. He accepts money in exchange for a promise to deliver the groceries that were paid for. It's a contract.

yellowfin
02-10-2009, 8:35 PM
Do I have a contractual relationship with the check-out clerk at the grocery store? You have the right to return something if it is not as advertised or not satisfactory quality i.e. spoiled or damaged.

bulgron
02-10-2009, 8:43 PM
You have the right to return something if it is not as advertised or not satisfactory quality i.e. spoiled or damaged.

Sadly, Sheriff Hutchens is not a piece of fruit. :p:D

N6ATF
02-10-2009, 8:46 PM
Rotten to the core!

vrand
02-10-2009, 8:57 PM
Rotten to the core!

And smelling up the place. Garbage time :cool:

RomanDad
02-10-2009, 9:27 PM
Do both you and the check-out clerk ever sign a paper outlining an agreement between the two of you?

My take on this is that people can and should sue Hutchins for breach of contract if she revokes permits before their expiration time without good cause.

Yes... You do actually.... Its called a RECEIPT.... It acknowledges that you have tendered consideration to the grocery store in exchange for their goods... There is then an entire body (two, bodies actually) of common law explaining what the minimum terms of such an agreement are.

And I agree by the way.... I dont need to argue second amendment to show the flaw in her policy. Simple BREACH OF CONTRACT will suffice.

Listen.... This is not a SPRINT. Its a MARATHON.... Too many in the gun rights movement have this "If I cant win today, I dont want to bother" attitude that's neither productive nor realistic. So long as we continue to keep the pressure up we continue to win. I'm not willing to concede that we're done with the battlefield called the BOS. Without a DOUBT there are going to be other battlefields on this issue as well... We always PLANNED TO TAKE THIS FIGHT TO NEW VENUES... But that does NOTHING to devalue the work we've done so far.

EVERY SKIRMISH, EVERY BATTLE, SOFTENS THE OPPONENT AND PREPARES THE WAY FOR THE ULTIMATE GOAL.
FINAL VICTORY.

nhanson
02-10-2009, 9:40 PM
No, a CCW is not a contract. Her revocations may well violate statute but it's not a breach of any contract.

Seems if she is violating law....
1) get the "right people" to thump her with the appropriate legal action
or
2) Start filing complaints with the Grand Jury for corruption (breaking the law)
or
3) Get a recall petition moving quickly and get her voted out.
or
4) any other suggestions?????

She appears to be operating with gestapo tactics, has surrounded herself with SS mentalities and needs to be strongly reminded she is not a dictator.

RomanDad
02-10-2009, 9:47 PM
I'm sorry, a CCW is not in any way a contract, even if a fee was paid for it.

Yes it is. Its in every way a contract.

762cavalier
02-10-2009, 9:47 PM
Sadly, Sheriff Hutchens is not a piece of fruit. :p:D

No, it sounds more like she is a nut though.:D

eflatminor
02-10-2009, 9:56 PM
Seems if she is violating law....
1) get the "right people" to thump her with the appropriate legal action
or
2) Start filing complaints with the Grand Jury for corruption (breaking the law)
or
3) Get a recall petition moving quickly and get her voted out.
or
4) any other suggestions?????

She appears to be operating with gestapo tactics, has surrounded herself with SS mentalities and needs to be strongly reminded she is not a dictator.

It's been suggested elsewhere that the board could pass something that serves to define 'good cause' in OC. Anyone know if that's possible, however politically unlikely?

Doheny
02-10-2009, 10:06 PM
It's been suggested elsewhere that the board could pass something that serves to define 'good cause' in OC. Anyone know if that's possible, however politically unlikely?

They could give their opinion, but it would not be binding and she would not need to follow it. They pretty much already did that.

Corbin Dallas
02-10-2009, 10:07 PM
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a California CCW is a "Permit" not a contract.

As a permit, the right to use the permit can be revoked at any time for any reason.

Those of you who have an OC CCW permit would you mind scanning the fine print so the rest of us could read it?

Liberty1
02-10-2009, 10:25 PM
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a California CCW is a "Permit" not a contract.

As a permit, the right to use the permit can be revoked at any time for any reason.

Those of you who have an OC CCW permit would you mind scanning the fine print so the rest of us could read it?


Well, really it is a "License to Carry" a firearm as created by PC 12050-54. And it is the main way a non leo/security guard gets to be exempted from PC 12031 which directly violates your yet (but soon) to be found court protected constitutional right to possess a loaded and operable firearm for self defense in public.

Whether the License Holder carries any possessory property right protected under 14th A. issues I don't know but I suspect it does in some ways.

7x57
02-10-2009, 10:31 PM
You have the right to return something if it is not as advertised or not satisfactory quality i.e. spoiled or damaged.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the check-out clerk. I cannot return it to her, I can return it to the store.

7x57

vrand
02-10-2009, 10:34 PM
Well, really it is a "License to Carry" a firearm as created by PC 12050-54. And it is the main way a non leo/security guard gets to be exempted from PC 12031 which directly violates your yet (but soon) to be found court protected constitutional right to possess a loaded and operable firearm for self defense in public.

Whether the License Holder carries any possessory property right protected under 14th A. issues I don't know but I suspect it does in some ways.

:thumbsup:

Theseus
02-10-2009, 10:43 PM
Statute of Fraud. . . Learn it.

Although contracts do not have to be written, there are general guidelines that dictate what kinds of contracts are advised to be in writing to have better legal standing.

You do not have a contract with the cashier (I am betting is as a replacement for sheriff), but she does represent the business you are actually entering the contract with.

Following this line of thought I would argue that Sheriff is merely a representative or agent of the contractor and thus ultimately you would sue the County or perhaps the State and it would be on them to straighten out their rogue agent.

This, I think would be disastrous because then the legislature would simply make a horrible and incredibly restrictive "good cause" instruction...similar to the end of the world scenarios given if we continue to UOC.

But again, IANAL, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express at least once in my life.

yellowfin
02-10-2009, 10:51 PM
Difference between a cashier and a sheriff is that the sheriff under the bastardized laws of this state actually has some hand in manufacturing the product as they have input on the parameters, cost, and if the *insert unflattering term here* has her nefarious way with it, the time length.

7x57
02-10-2009, 11:05 PM
I do not for a second believe these "I have a contract" legal theories will buy anything, but I don't see any point in belaboring the point. Brainstorm away, guys.

7x57

Theseus
02-10-2009, 11:15 PM
I admit it might be a long shot, but we can still play war games in our heads or in this case out loud.

I do not for a second believe these "I have a contract" legal theories will buy anything, but I don't see any point in belaboring the point. Brainstorm away, guys.

7x57

7x57
02-10-2009, 11:19 PM
I admit it might be a long shot, but we can still play war games in our heads or in this case out loud.

Yah, that's why I decided to quit arguing. I don't see the percentage there, but those that do might come up with something.

7x57

RomanDad
02-11-2009, 6:42 AM
Listen guys.... A ccw permit enters the realm of contractual law when the county charges a FEE for it. Which they of course do.

There is nothing mystical or special because the party on the other end is a governmental entity. I agree to pay them $X.XX and in exchange they agree to give me the right to carry a concealed weapon for two years.

THATS A CONTRACT.

Just as if you rented a car for a week. You pay $500 up front to have the car all week. On the third day of your vacation, the rental car company TAKES THE CAR BACK. WHY? BECAUSE THEY CHANGED THEIR MINDS... THEY HAVE NOT LIVED UP TO THEIR END OF THE BARGAIN. THEY BREACHED THE CONTRACT. THEY OWE THE DIFFERENCE, PLUS YOUR REASONABLE DAMAGES ARISING FROM THE BREACH.

The fact that the sheriff can revoke the permit FOR CAUSE, is irrelevant to the status of the contract. Its no different than if you use the rental car to use as a backstop for your target shooting practice. In that instance, YOU MISUSED THE CAR and they CAN take the car back early (and keep the money plus get their damages) because YOU are now the breaching party.

A LICENSE IS A CONTRACT. UNLESS YOU IN SOME WAY ABUSE THE LICENSE, IT CANNOT BE ARBITRARILY REVOKED WITHOUT RESTITUTION.

bulgron
02-11-2009, 7:30 AM
A LICENSE IS A CONTRACT. UNLESS YOU IN SOME WAY ABUSE THE LICENSE, IT CANNOT BE ARBITRARILY REVOKED WITHOUT RESTITUTION.

I am not a lawyer. That said, what you say has the ring of truth to it.

But I suppose that's what the courts are for ... to sort these kind of things out.

I'm looking forward to the coming lawsuits with a lot of anticipation and a big ol' bowl of popcorn. :D

Cypren
02-11-2009, 11:32 AM
Speaking of wargames...

What's the chance we could lobby some of the police chiefs in Orange County to take back their power of CCW issuance from the sheriff? By law, they have the authority to issue -- but most (maybe all? I'm not sure) decline to do so and allow the sheriff's department to make that decision.

I'm sure some of the police chiefs are anti-2A like the sheriff, and I know that none of them would normally lock horns with the OCSD because they need a functional working relationship. But I wonder if one or more of them might be willing to go to battle against an unpopular sheriff who's made an enemy out of the Board -- possibly because he'd consider running against her in the election.

I'm sure someone has already brought this up, but I couldn't find anything about it. What's the reason this isn't/can't be pursued?

vrand
02-11-2009, 11:43 AM
I am not a lawyer. That said, what you say has the ring of truth to it.

But I suppose that's what the courts are for ... to sort these kind of things out.

I'm looking forward to the coming lawsuits with a lot of anticipation and a big ol' bowl of popcorn. :D

yep :thumbsup:

Rob_G
02-11-2009, 1:03 PM
I'm not a lawyer either, but I was there yesterday and I did speak.

Nobody, not even the sheriff is arguing that it is not a contract. There are no restrictions placed in 12050 on the sheriffs right to revoke.

Campbell hit it right on the nose. You complained about the stain on your record from revoking and the Sheriff has solved that problem. I think that has taught me to always focus on the bigger picture.

In my not lawyer opinion the only court case would be in the Sheriffs right to revoke without breach of contract conditions, the right to change the good cause requirement mid contract, or forcing acceptance to early expiration under duress. Non of them is a clear winner IMO.

In my opinion we are best focusing on the next election.

Casual Observer
02-11-2009, 1:33 PM
Then take away her CCW.

She is a certified LEO. Federal law says she doesnt need a CCW. She can carry anywhere in the country.

M. D. Van Norman
02-11-2009, 2:00 PM
Campbell hit it right on the nose. You complained about the stain on your record from revoking and the Sheriff has solved that problem. I think that teaches us to always focus on the bigger picture.

We were focused on the bigger picture. The ramifications of a revocation on someone’s record came up only as a side issue at the Nov. 18th meeting. Of course, none of this would have come up if it weren’t for licensees losing their licenses.

Rob_G
02-11-2009, 2:12 PM
We were focused on the bigger picture. The ramifications of a revocation on someone’s record came up only as a side issue at the Nov. 18th meeting. Of course, none of this would have come up if it weren’t for licensees losing their licenses.

That wasn't meant to be offensive, my apologies if it was. I edited my original post to correct what I really meant. I am relatively new to this so I have no right speaking for the group.

M. D. Van Norman
02-11-2009, 2:17 PM
Supervisor Campbell did imply exactly that, but he was exagerating a side matter that came up during the Nov. 18th meeting. The public comment was done at that point, or I would have called him on it myself.

Theseus
02-11-2009, 2:39 PM
From my understanding, the City can, at any time simply send a letter to the Sheriff stating they will be accepting applications. My city has issued, so I am sure that I can apply here in Alhambra and then the Sheriff if need be.

RomanDad
02-11-2009, 9:20 PM
From my understanding, the City can, at any time simply send a letter to the Sheriff stating they will be accepting applications. My city has issued, so I am sure that I can apply here in Alhambra and then the Sheriff if need be.

Unfortunately, most of the cities with Independent PDs arent pro CCW either... The easier way is to go after the Sheriff since hers is a political position unlike those Chiefs.

Ultimately guys, in Orange County, its a POLITICAL issue, and soon to be a LEGAL one as well.... Its never been a single front war... And it never will be.

When we go after the Orange County CCW policy in court, it wont be one of these "Give me my CCW and Ill go away cases." It will be challenging 12031/12050 statewide in light of Heller and hopefully Nordyke.

OCCCWS
02-12-2009, 11:31 AM
Unfortunately, most of the cities with Independent PDs arent pro CCW either... The easier way is to go after the Sheriff since hers is a political position unlike those Chiefs.

Ultimately guys, in Orange County, its a POLITICAL issue, and soon to be a LEGAL one as well.... Its never been a single front war... And it never will be.

When we go after the Orange County CCW policy in court, it wont be one of these "Give me my CCW and Ill go away cases." It will be challenging 12031/12050 statewide in light of Heller and hopefully Nordyke.

As RomanDad says, there is a legal front on this as well. Fortunately for us, Sheriff Hutchens has made some very big boo boos in that realm. And continues to. Every single week. Sometimes daily. How do we know?

:)

GunSlut
02-13-2009, 12:24 AM
The BOS can not define good cause. That is covered by penal code. Chris Norby contacted the AG's office for the answer.

yellowfin
02-13-2009, 12:25 AM
The BOS can not define good cause. That is covered by penal code. Chris Norby contacted the AG's office for the answer.Umm...and did the AG say anything else??? We've been itching to get something more than the silence from them about this matter. One individual can do one simple thing to win this for our side and nuke the opposition into oblivion by jotting a few simple words on a piece of paper.

bulgron
02-13-2009, 1:36 AM
Umm...and did the AG say anything else??? We've been itching to get something more than the silence from them about this matter. One individual can do one simple thing to win this for our side and nuke the opposition into oblivion by jotting a few simple words on a piece of paper.

Yeah, and nuke his own chances in a governors race. Anyway, that's what I'm guessing is his problem.

TheBundo
02-13-2009, 4:41 AM
AS to whoever says they don't need a reason to revoke, I disagree. Part of Section 12050 says:

(B) If the license is one to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, then it may not be revoked solely because the licensee changes his or her place of residence to another county if the licensee has not breached any conditions or restrictions set forth in the license or has not fallen into a prohibited class described in Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. However, any license issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall expire 90 days after the licensee moves from the county of issuance if the licensee's place of residence was the basis for issuance of the license.

This clearly indicates, to me, that in this instance, it merely move the expiration date up to 90 days after the move. And the other language mentioned the fact that they haven't "breached" any of the applicaple sections. I see the spirit of the state law would prohibit what she is doing.

bwiese
02-13-2009, 7:09 AM
Yeah, and nuke his own chances in a governors race. Anyway, that's what I'm guessing is his problem.

I'm not sure it went that far up. Probably just went to Problem Child.

Glock22Fan
02-13-2009, 8:05 AM
AS to whoever says they don't need a reason to revoke, I disagree. Part of Section 12050 says:

(B) If the license is one to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, then it may not be revoked solely because the licensee changes his or her place of residence to another county if the licensee has not breached any conditions or restrictions set forth in the license or has not fallen into a prohibited class described in Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. However, any license issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall expire 90 days after the licensee moves from the county of issuance if the licensee's place of residence was the basis for issuance of the license.

This clearly indicates, to me, that in this instance, it merely move the expiration date up to 90 days after the move. And the other language mentioned the fact that they haven't "breached" any of the applicaple sections. I see the spirit of the state law would prohibit what she is doing.

it would be a lot stronger if the phrase I've underlined wasn't there. With that phrase, it becomes irrelevant to those who have not moved out of county. You might logically extrapolate that to think that the pols meant the same logic to apply to those who haven't moved, but, sadly, that's not what the law actually says.

GuyW
02-13-2009, 2:08 PM
Using the example of Measure G up in Mendo, it's pretty clear that local governments and/or the voters directly, can direct law enforcement to use (or not use) their discretion.

I'd like to believe that, but I don't think its a fair statement of the law...
.

tube_ee
02-13-2009, 4:09 PM
I'd like to believe that, but I don't think its a fair statement of the law...
.

Granted, we're talking about pot, and we're talking about Mendocino, but still...

Mendo county LE cannot spend any resources, to include personnel hours, to investigate, arrest, or prosecute individuals for possession, use, or growing of less than 25 plants, or the equivalent amount of dried marijuana. They're also not allowed to provide any resources or cooperation to any other LE agency for such cases.

So far as I can find out, the Feds never even tried to challenge it.

--Shannon

vrand
02-13-2009, 4:27 PM
Unfortunately, most of the cities with Independent PDs arent pro CCW either... The easier way is to go after the Sheriff since hers is a political position unlike those Chiefs.

Ultimately guys, in Orange County, its a POLITICAL issue, and soon to be a LEGAL one as well.... Its never been a single front war... And it never will be.

When we go after the Orange County CCW policy in court, it wont be one of these "Give me my CCW and Ill go away cases." It will be challenging 12031/12050 statewide in light of Heller and hopefully Nordyke.

yep