PDA

View Full Version : 2010 Sheriffs' Elections vs. Nordyke


Paladin
02-11-2009, 10:46 PM
With all the fuss over Nordyke and the OC sheriff, I think many of us have forgotten that ALL of CA's sheriffs offices will be up for grabs in '10. IIRC, in 1 year is the cutoff for sheriff candidates to turn in their applications, and the primary, where the elections are often decided, are in June '10. IOW, if CGN/CalNRA/someone else plans on fighting for CCWs in the next sheriffs elections, there is no time to waste. Thus, this poll.

yellowfin
02-11-2009, 11:13 PM
Can we get candidates in the major counties? I know we have San Diego covered well, but is there anyone eligible in LA, Santa Clara, and the other particularly nasty and influential counties?

7x57
02-11-2009, 11:15 PM
I suppose "all Calgunners move to the same small city and declare a Free Republic" isn't really an option, is it?

7x57

Meplat
02-11-2009, 11:18 PM
I want a toke of whatever your smokin!:p


I suppose "all Calgunners move to the same small city and declare a Free Republic" isn't really an option, is it?

7x57

D53
02-11-2009, 11:21 PM
Lets get something going for Sac County :rolleyes:

yellowfin
02-11-2009, 11:24 PM
I guess the big question I have is whether the aptly nicknamed incumbent sheriff protection act can be repealed or voided in court. It seems like that's a major problem.

PatriotnMore
02-12-2009, 8:05 AM
Are there? Who is running that we know is 2A and CCW friendly running in the various cities?

Perhaps having a list which becomes a sticky, would help their chances. For instance, in S.D. I think its safe to place Jay LaSuer on the list.

7x57
02-12-2009, 8:57 AM
Hmm. There could be a voter's guide--but I imagine it would have to be clearly separate from CGF or it would lose its tax status (before even attained?).

7x57

PowderBurn1
02-12-2009, 9:05 AM
I would like to involved with something in Stanislaus Co.

Casual Observer
02-12-2009, 9:24 AM
I guess the big question I have is whether the aptly nicknamed incumbent sheriff protection act can be repealed or voided in court. It seems like that's a major problem.

It is.

It basically prevents any serving LEO in that county from going up against the Sheriff. As a challenger, you're automatically at a disadvantage and if you lose, you're now serving under a Sheriff who you challenged and lost.

Case in point- Bill Hunt. Challenged Corona in 2006, lost the election and was quickly shown the door for challenging 'Hi Majesty'.

sfpcservice
02-12-2009, 11:59 AM
Would it be possible for Calguns to get involved with the election process in every county that doesn't have a shall issue policy? I'm sure there would be a calguns volunteer located in each of those counties to help out. I'm not sure exactly how it would work, but if the right people can figure that out, I'd be happy to help!

bulgron
02-12-2009, 12:17 PM
Would it be possible for Calguns to get involved with the election process in every county that doesn't have a shall issue policy? I'm sure there would be a calguns volunteer located in each of those counties to help out. I'm not sure exactly how it would work, but if the right people can figure that out, I'd be happy to help!

What's the point if we don't have challengers that are pro-shall issue?

I keep asking around, and I keep not hearing about a potential challenger for Sheriff Smith here in Santa Clara County.

That's why I picked "Option 1, plus organizing to tip the balance to our side in close sheriffs races" for the survey. I don't see any point in expending resources in a race that can't possibly go our way simply because there aren't any candidates that see things our way in the race.

sfpcservice
02-12-2009, 12:21 PM
I chose that option also. I'm thinking for startes a "calguns questionnaire" to the current Sheriff and any challengers which they can fill out and send back to calguns for evaluation and posting. I think that might be enough to get the ball rolling and maybe draw some candidates out of the woodwork....

sfpcservice
02-12-2009, 12:23 PM
It might also wake up the sheriffs of some of these counties that the calguns group is growing stronger everyday, and they need to be very careful about their CCW position because every vote counts.

7x57
02-12-2009, 12:33 PM
Guys, you need to be very careful about this. In the rural counties this isn't such a big deal--many of them are already effectively shall-issue. And in the urban counties that you are really concerned about, a sheriff can probably boost his campaign by pointing out a calguns endorsement of his opponent and saying that he's "tough on crime" while his opponent is "in the pocket of the gun lobby."

Part of the reason so many california gunnies think the NRA has abandoned them is because sometimes the NRA works in the background precisely to avoid allowing someone to run against them. You don't want to create a situation where they can run against Calguns.

7x57

yellowfin
02-12-2009, 12:38 PM
And in the urban counties that you are really concerned about, a sheriff can probably boost his campaign by pointing out a calguns endorsement of his opponent and saying that he's "tough on crime" while his opponent is "in the pocket of the gun lobby."
Then we bring that arguement out into the open and torpedo it. Seriously, why don't we just attack that fallacy and destroy it? "Tough on crime" is being pro CCW. I've heard it said time and time again we're up against emotional arguements, so here's one: if you're anti CCW you're pro rapist. We should stick that on the non issuing sheriffs.

sfpcservice
02-12-2009, 12:41 PM
All I know is right now there are CCW haves and have-nots. I am in a have-not county so that is my motivation. I wouldn't want to disrupt anything for our calguns brothers in good counties, but so far the rest of us are getting the shaft. Hopefully something is changing soon that will work for everyone.

7x57
02-12-2009, 12:47 PM
Then we bring that arguement out into the open and torpedo it. Seriously, why don't we just attack that fallacy and destroy it? "Tough on crime" is being pro CCW. I've heard it said time and time again we're up against emotional arguements, so here's one: if you're anti CCW you're pro rapist.

Long term, it must be destroyed as you say. Short term, though, we should not make it easy for the enemy. We have to play the hand as dealt, even while planning to change the game in the future.

One way we are destroying it is the ever increasing database on shall-issue. It doesn't lead to people drawing down without reason, it doesn't lead to blood in the streets, and seems to reduce actual crime. Even a lot of mild antis or very conservative analysts will at least admit we've proven gun control doesn't *help* anything. So every relaxation provides more evidence in our favor. We don't want to lose some of that evidence by giving someone the opportunity to run against us.

Given that we are fighting a monolithic media, the timescale may be a generation. Many antis are probably permanently unreachable, but they'll die off.

7x57

bulgron
02-12-2009, 12:48 PM
All I know is right now there are CCW haves and have-nots. I am in a have-not county so that is my motivation. I wouldn't want to disrupt anything for our calguns brothers in good counties, but so far the rest of us are getting the shaft. Hopefully something is changing soon that will work for everyone.

Which is why I'm pinning my hopes on court cases, which we need in any case just because the way the laws are written are blatantly unconstitutional. Get 'em off the books.

All but maybe two or three sheriffs in California will change their tune on CCW if told to do so by either the legislature or the courts. Get the courts on our side, and then we can see about the two or three die-hards who truly need to be driven from office.

And once we have legal binding precendent, the (misinformed) opinion of the majority in the densely populated counties isn't going to matter worth a hill of beans. After all, that's what constitutions are for: to remove the tyranny of the majority when it comes to fundamental rights.

JDoe
02-12-2009, 3:56 PM
Didn't read the other responses.

Rather than spreading our resources thinly why not pick one, two or three pro-shall issue candidates that have a good chance of being elected and then throw ALL of our weight behind those women and/or men?

Pick off the counties one by one. :thumbsup:

If we go for everything we lose everything.

grammaton76
02-12-2009, 4:12 PM
At a bare minimum, we need a voter's guide for all 58 counties. This, for reasons previously stated, should not be done by CGF.

It may perhaps be helpful to make it an "anti-vote guide" which merely lists anti-issuance sheriffs. That might be a little less usable as ammunition against a pro-CCW challenger.

leitung
02-12-2009, 4:16 PM
Lets get something going for Sac County :rolleyes:

Seriously.. Sac county needs a new sheriff. this is retarted..

sfpcservice
02-12-2009, 4:27 PM
If calguns did a questionnaire and simply posted the information without a recommendation on who to vote for, would that jeopardize the tax exempt status?

yellowfin
02-12-2009, 4:32 PM
I've asked it before with no answer: since the Bradys and Joyce do all manner of things that violate their tax exempt status, why are we not getting theirs yanked?