Alameda CO Sheriff up for election in 2010?

[Window_Seat]

This question was posted on a CCW site with no replies or info. If true, would there be any worth while candidates, or do we wait for Nordyke/357, etc?

Erik.

[CCWFacts]

All sheriffs are up for re-election in 2010. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to defeat an incumbent sheriff, and in Alameda, it would be difficult / impossible to even find a viable candidate who is a) pro-CCW and b) would keep to his word after winning the election.

That said, make sure you vote and make sure you vote for someone other than Sheriff Ahern.

[nicki]

The only way we will get CCW in Alameda county is with a class action lawsuit, probably best post Nordyke.

It would be poetic to hit Alameda county since if we clobber them in Nordyke, they may not be too willing to take on another lawsuit, especially if it is class action.

A Class action lawsuit would hit Alameda especially hard because courts are not going to be very sympathetic to a defendant who is dragged back into court again for basically violating the same constitutional amendment only in a different way.

Right now CCW is a 14th amendment issue and in the Nordyke case when it comes to guns, Alameda's defense is Crunshiak.

Now, for a county with a sky high Afro American population to use Crunshiak as a defense to claim that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply is insane.

Hopefully by 2010, a favorable Nordyke ruling will rule "OPEN CARRY" as a constitutional right. After that happens, I think sheriffs will seriously reconsider their opposition to us carrying discreetly.

Nicki

[CCWFacts]

Now, for a county with a sky high Afro American population to use Crunshiak as a defense to claim that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply is insane.

Once again, Nicki makes some beautiful observations. The irony of Alameda County (Raiders!) relying on such an evil and openly racist ruling as Cruikshank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank) is more than ironic.

Adding even more to the irony, Alameda County's black leadership strongly support Jim Crow laws like California's gun laws, which at this point all rely on Cruikshank for their continuing existence. Oakland's black leaders are dedicated to supporting a Supreme Court ruling that found it acceptable that whites massacred hundreds of blacks who wanted a fair election.

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/06/19/ba-johnson20_ph_ed_0421625902.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EHM8qRbOlic/R7MMBUJxmLI/AAAAAAAAADg/FuQ9U-JkucE/s320/dellums.jpg

[yellowfin]

It doesn't take Nordyke to challenge CCW issuance if the plaintiffs point out that Hickman v Block was entirely dependent on the collective rights interpretation, which Heller directly dismissed. If Hickman is void, 12050 is stone dead.

[CCWFacts]

It doesn't take Nordyke to challenge CCW issuance if the plaintiffs point out that Hickman v Block was entirely dependent on the collective rights interpretation, which Heller directly dismissed. If Hickman is void, 12050 is stone dead.

I thought about it. From my understanding, it seems like Hickman assumes that the 2A is incorporated. I am not a lawyer so I'm probably not understanding something though.

[sholling]

This question was posted on a CCW site with no replies or info. If true, would there be any worth while candidates, or do we wait for Nordyke/357, etc?

Erik.
It really doesn't matter. California has an incumbent sheriff protection law that disqualifies 99.99% of the population from getting their name on the ballot. If nobody can run against them they win.

[BigDogatPlay]

It really doesn't matter. California has an incumbent sheriff protection law that disqualifies 99.99% of the population from getting their name on the ballot. If nobody can run against them they win.

You mean that pesky provision that to run for sheriff one must possess at least a POST basic certificate?

If not, what incumbent sheriff protection law are you referring to?

[sholling]

You mean that pesky provision that to run for sheriff one must possess at least a POST basic certificate?

If not, what incumbent sheriff protection law are you referring to?
Brad Gates' Law (Government Code Section 24004.3) was created to shield then incumbent Orange County Sheriff Brad Gates from the distinct possibility of being defeated by Judge Bobby Youngblood after a series of dirty tricks and surveillance and harassment of the judge's campaign staff by deputies failed to derail Youngblood's campaign. It should also be noted that nothing bars the sheriff from punishing and even demoting any deputy that choses to run against her - just like Corona did with his challenger - effectively eliminating the possibility of a sitting sheriff being defeated at the polls. It should also be noted that in California no elected sheriff has been defeated at the polls in the last 100 years or so. Why do you think she is so arrogant? She knows full well that she has been appointed 'Sheriff For Life' and for all intents and purposes cannot be removed from office until she chooses to retire. In my opinion you can also count on her follow the lead of some of her predecessors and build and maintain extensive dossiers on her political enemies as well as the politically powerful that might have things they don't want made public. That should cut off the flow of support to any challenger.

Bottom line - this law, as intended, effectively disqualifies 99.9% of Californians from what is an administrative "elected" office and not a law enforcement job. LAPD has no such requirements and in fact has had chiefs that did not for a time even possess a basic POST. This is as unAmerican as any law could possibly be because it bans civilian control of what is basically a heavily armed government agency. This banana republic style law is the functional equivalent of saying that only an active duty general may serve as President of the United States.

Government Code Section 24004.3
(a) No person is eligible to become a candidate for the
office of sheriff in any county unless, at the time of the final
filing date for election, he or she meets one of the following
criteria:
(1) An active or inactive advanced certificate issued by the
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(2) One year of full-time, salaried law enforcement experience
within the provisions of Section 830.1 or 830.2 of the Penal Code at
least a portion of which shall have been accomplished within five
years prior to the date of filing, and possesses a master's degree
from an accredited college or university.
(3) Two years of full-time, salaried law enforcement experience
within the provisions of Section 830.1 or 830.2 of the Penal Code at
least a portion of which shall have been accomplished within five
years prior to the date of filing, and possesses a bachelor's degree
from an accredited college or university.
(4) Three years of full-time, salaried law enforcement experience
within the provisions of Section 830.1 or 830.2 of the Penal Code at
least a portion of which shall have been accomplished within five
years prior to the date of filing, and possesses an associate in arts
or associate in science degree, or the equivalent, from an
accredited college.
(5) Four years of full-time, salaried law enforcement experience
within the provisions of Section 830.1 or 830.2 of the Penal Code at
least a portion of which shall have been accomplished within five
years prior to the date of filing, and possesses a high school
diploma or the equivalent.
(b) All persons holding the office of sheriff on January 1, 1989
shall be deemed to have met all qualifications required for
candidates seeking election or appointment to the office of sheriff.

[yellowfin]

Has this law been effectively challenged?

[sholling]

No and it's a great example why no one should ever challenge a law without a competent attorney. In this case a carpenter chose to represent himself in a challenge to the law. He predictably lost (laughed out of court?) and thus established case law upholding the law.

http://www.metnews.com/articles/rawl041603.htm

[BigDogatPlay]

And remember that one sheriff, the virulently ant-gun Mike Hennessy of San Francisco County continues to serve grandfathered. He the last and only one.

ETA: For what it's worth, in this day and age, demanding that the candidate possess actual peace officer experience is not necessarily a bad thing.

[CCWFacts]

No and it's a great example why no one should ever challenge a law without a competent attorney. In this case a carpenter chose to represent himself in a challenge to the law. He predictably lost (laughed out of court?) and thus established case law upholding the law.

"Pro-gun" pro se litigants are our worst enemy it seems like. New York just lost incorporation due to one of them.

For what it's worth, in this day and age, demanding that the candidate possess actual peace officer experience is not necessarily a bad thing.

I think it's very bad, especially in this day and age. There's a good reason why the commander-in-chief of the military is a civilian. Career military people certainly do have a good understanding of the military but in gaining that understanding, they lose their understanding of where the military fits within a civilian-dominated society. The same may be true for career law enforcement officers. It would be better to at least have the option of electing an outsider to provide oversight. Remember, sheriff is a political position, not an operational position.

[Meplat]

You mean that pesky provision that to run for sheriff one must possess at least a POST basic certificate?

If not, what incumbent sheriff protection law are you referring to?

Isn't that enough? It seems unconstitutional to me to put a law enforcement qualification on an elected office. The potus is c in c of the armed forces but there is no requirement for any military experience or training to run. Imagen if you were disqualified from running for president if you never held a commission as military officer or never had been through basic training.:nuts:

[Meplat]

Does anyone know how difficult and expensive it would be for a civilian to obtain a POST.



Brad Gates' Law (Government Code Section 24004.3) was created to shield then incumbent Orange County Sheriff Brad Gates from the distinct possibility of being defeated by Judge Bobby Youngblood after a series of dirty tricks and surveillance and harassment of the judge's campaign staff by deputies failed to derail Youngblood's campaign. It should also be noted that nothing bars the sheriff from punishing and even demoting any deputy that choses to run against her - just like Corona did with his challenger - effectively eliminating the possibility of a sitting sheriff being defeated at the polls. It should also be noted that in California no elected sheriff has been defeated at the polls in the last 100 years or so. Why do you think she is so arrogant? She knows full well that she has been appointed 'Sheriff For Life' and for all intents and purposes cannot be removed from office until she chooses to retire. In my opinion you can also count on her follow the lead of some of her predecessors and build and maintain extensive dossiers on her political enemies as well as the politically powerful that might have things they don't want made public. That should cut off the flow of support to any challenger.

Bottom line - this law, as intended, effectively disqualifies 99.9% of Californians from what is an administrative "elected" office and not a law enforcement job. LAPD has no such requirements and in fact has had chiefs that did not for a time even possess a basic POST. This is as unAmerican as any law could possibly be because it bans civilian control of what is basically a heavily armed government agency. This banana republic style law is the functional equivalent of saying that only an active duty general may serve as President of the United States.

Government Code Section 24004.3
(a) No person is eligible to become a candidate for the
office of sheriff in any county unless, at the time of the final
filing date for election, he or she meets one of the following
criteria:
(1) An active or inactive advanced certificate issued by the
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(2) One year of full-time, salaried law enforcement experience
within the provisions of Section 830.1 or 830.2 of the Penal Code at
least a portion of which shall have been accomplished within five
years prior to the date of filing, and possesses a master's degree
from an accredited college or university.
(3) Two years of full-time, salaried law enforcement experience
within the provisions of Section 830.1 or 830.2 of the Penal Code at
least a portion of which shall have been accomplished within five
years prior to the date of filing, and possesses a bachelor's degree
from an accredited college or university.
(4) Three years of full-time, salaried law enforcement experience
within the provisions of Section 830.1 or 830.2 of the Penal Code at
least a portion of which shall have been accomplished within five
years prior to the date of filing, and possesses an associate in arts
or associate in science degree, or the equivalent, from an
accredited college.
(5) Four years of full-time, salaried law enforcement experience
within the provisions of Section 830.1 or 830.2 of the Penal Code at
least a portion of which shall have been accomplished within five
years prior to the date of filing, and possesses a high school
diploma or the equivalent.
(b) All persons holding the office of sheriff on January 1, 1989
shall be deemed to have met all qualifications required for
candidates seeking election or appointment to the office of sheriff.

[Meplat]

And remember that one sheriff, the virulently ant-gun Mike Hennessy of San Francisco County continues to serve grandfathered. He the last and only one.

ETA: For what it's worth, in this day and age, demanding that the candidate possess actual peace officer experience is not necessarily a bad thing.

That is for the voters to evaluate. The present pouts arguably has demonstrated no real experience in anything, except scamming Govt. money and rabble rousing.

[depmac983ret]

I was raised and lived in Oakland 1951-2005, got my basic P.O.S.T. in 97' and worked for ACSO when Plummer was Sheriff. It doesn't matter WHO the candidate is if they are Pro gun they can't win.
Remember, Berkeley is in Alameda County, and THEY VOTE. The majority of Black folks don't vote, the ones that do vote straight demo party line. SpongeBob could win as long as he was a Dem liberal
Yes I am Black (not africkin' american please)

[bulgron]

Does anyone know how difficult and expensive it would be for a civilian to obtain a POST.

That's what I'm wondering. What does POST involve, exactly?

It can't be THAT hard to do.

If we found good people with decent administrative abilities who are willing to obtain POST, we can challenge these crappy Sheriffs.

[depmac983ret]

You can take an Academy course at a J.C. or go through a Dept hiring process, be fit, no criminal record. You can earn a P.O.S.T cert without being hired, but to get Elected as the top dog without L.E. experience (20+ years) I don't think so.
To be elected one would have to be a Cop first to gain support of the troops and a Politician second to win public support.

[sholling]

That's what I'm wondering. What does POST involve, exactly?

It can't be THAT hard to do.

If we found good people with decent administrative abilities who are willing to obtain POST, we can challenge these crappy Sheriffs.
If your candidate does not have experience in law enforcement (see earlier posting) they are covered under section 1.

(a) No person is eligible to become a candidate for the
office of sheriff in any county unless, at the time of the final
filing date for election, he or she meets one of the following
criteria:
(1) An active or inactive advanced certificate issued by the
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

What's involved in getting an advanced POST...
http://www.post.ca.gov/Certificates/Peace_Officers.asp#advanced
Basic Certificate

The Basic Certificate is awarded, as defined in Commission Procedure F-1-5 (doc) to currently full-time peace officers of a POST-participating agency who have satisfactorily completed the prerequisite Basic Course requirement and the employing agency’s probationary period.

Intermediate Certificate

The Intermediate Certificate is awarded, as defined in Commission Procedure F-1-6 (doc) to currently employed full-time peace officers of a POST-participating agency who possess a Basic Certificate and who have acquired the specified training and education points and/or college degree and the prescribed years of law enforcement experience.

Advanced Certificate

The Advanced Certificate is awarded, as defined in Commission Procedure F-1-7 (doc) to currently employed full-time peace officers of a POST-participating agency who possess an Intermediate Certificate and who have acquired the specified training and education points and/or college degree and the prescribed years of law enforcement experience.

As you can see it's all very incestuous with requirements put in place specifically to keep out mere citizens.

[bulgron]

As you can see it's all very incestuous with requirements put in place specifically to keep out mere citizens.

Well, then clearly the office of Sheriff is no longer a truly elected position. Certainly the Sheriff need no longer be responsive to citizens concerns. Has anyone ever challenged these requirements in court? Does this law really pass constitutional scrutiny?

[sholling]

Well, then clearly the office of Sheriff is no longer a truly elected position. Certainly the Sheriff need no longer be responsive to citizens concerns. Has anyone ever challenged these requirements in court? Does this law really pass constitutional scrutiny?
I explained that a couple of posts back. You'd have to ask a lawyer about overturning the precedent. I'm no lawyer, just somebody old enough to remember the history behind the law. Judge Youngblood would have made a great sheriff.