PDA

View Full Version : Sheriff McGinnie speaks out against AB357


Bizcuits
03-31-2009, 3:27 PM
Not sure if this is a dupe, but the responses on the SacBee article are awesome! Good to see lots of support... Although McGinnie gave the typically response.

http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1720695.html

What issue could unite a Republican lawmaker from Southern California and a 46-year-old lesbian from Natomas?

Guns, of course.

A bill introduced in the state Assembly last month aims to make it easier for Californians to obtain a concealed weapons permit.

Assembly Bill 357 – yes, the number is right – would change a state law that currently gives county sheriffs or chiefs of police final say in who can carry a gun.

By stripping the local law enforcement discretion, the bill would mandate that any Californian who passes a training course and demonstrates "good moral character" can tuck a pistol into his or her waistband.

Even though the bill won't be heard in committee for a few weeks, it has raised ire among law enforcement officials, including Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness. Police chiefs and sheriffs can be more effective at screening out people who shouldn't have concealed weapons, he said.

If the changes proposed by the bill were already in effect, even O.J. Simpson would have been eligible for a concealed weapons permit in California – prior to his recent felony conviction in Nevada, McGinness said.

But the aim of the bill is fairness, said the bill's author, Assemblyman Steven Knight of Palmdale. While some California counties are more liberal when it comes to issuing concealed weapons permits, others are "very strict, and they use that phrase 'good cause' to their benefit," Knight said.

In addition, Knight said, there's an inherent unfairness in deciding that some people's perceptions of danger are more valid than others. "Lots of judges in California get permits," he said. "Does (the state) have the same amount of regard for the safety of a liquor store owner or a jewelry store owner?"

Among supporters of Knight's bill is Deanna Sykes, co-founder of the Sacramento chapter of Pink Pistols, an international group that advocates gun ownership by gays and lesbians. Their slogan: "Armed gays don't get bashed."

"I think it's a benefit to society if the good guys have the ability to protect themselves," Sykes said.

Part of the mission of the Pink Pistols is to promote self-defense in the gay community, Sykes said.

"(Gun ownership) minimizes that idea that gays are defenseless," she said. "When someone thinks about bashing some (gays), they might stop because he might be more prepared to defend himself. … If you can convince them that you're not weaker because you have an equalizer, you might not get picked on."

McGinness said he was sympathetic to people concerned about their safety, but said a uniform approach isn't good for California. "Alpine County and Los Angeles County are vastly different," he said. "A one-size-fits-all is not in the best interest of public safety."

Lt. Mark Reed, who reviews concealed weapons applications in Placer County, said local law enforcement often recommend alternatives to carrying a gun. For example, he said, many people apply because they carry around lots of money as part of their job. "If they could use a courier service, that'd be safer. … If I can offer a safer alternative, it negates the 'good cause.' "

Both McGinness and Reed said that in their counties, simply wanting to carry a concealed weapon isn't good-enough cause.

"Personal protection is insufficient," McGinness said.

Sykes believes a pistol tucked into her purse might be the only thing that keeps her from becoming a victim of an anti-gay hate crime.

But it's not like she's looking for a showdown, she said. Still, in an emergency, she said she'd like to know that her .45 is close at hand.

"I have a fire extinguisher under my sink for the same reason," she said.

DrjonesUSA
03-31-2009, 3:46 PM
McGuinness is a fat, statist turd.

yellowfin
03-31-2009, 4:02 PM
:dupe:

p7m8jg
03-31-2009, 4:07 PM
McGuinness is a fat, statist turd.

Brevity! THe mother of Wit!:clap:

Alan Block
03-31-2009, 4:33 PM
the few that would be granted a CCW in LA county at the discretion of the county sherif.

CalNRA
03-31-2009, 5:12 PM
McGinness said he was sympathetic to people concerned about their safety, but said a uniform approach isn't good for California.

did the sheriff of Sacramento county just say that he doesn't believe in citizens' right to equal protection under the law?:eek:

B Strong
03-31-2009, 5:31 PM
The only thing that McGinness could spout is the party line. If he told the truth, he'd probably be out on his ear. In every state that passes "shall-issue" laws, LE and politicians put out the same exact line.

Lawfully armed, licensed individuals are not a problem for law enforcement or the public at large. They would be any different here in California.

sfpcservice
03-31-2009, 5:48 PM
Every Sheriff in the State is up for re-election in 2010 I think. I know ours is.

pnkssbtz
03-31-2009, 5:50 PM
Lt. Mark Reed, who reviews concealed weapons applications in Placer County, said local law enforcement often recommend alternatives to carrying a gun. For example, he said, many people apply because they carry around lots of money as part of their job. "If they could use a courier service, that'd be safer. … If I can offer a safer alternative, it negates the 'good cause.' "
This guy is a turd.

What a disingenuous @sshat. And how much would it cost a courier to take my deposit to the bank twice a day? It ain't free, and it ain't cheap. Oh but wait, the couriers get to carry guns, and we still don't.

Texas Boy
03-31-2009, 5:58 PM
"A one-size-fits-all is not in the best interest of public safety.".....gosh....where have I heard that before.....something about what works in xxxx doesn't necessarily work in yyyyy and how we have to be able to pass gun laws that keep our streets/children/etc safe.....

Oh yeah.....it was that guy that believes the constitution changes meaning every time he reads it and that the 2A is about duck hunting.

N6ATF
04-01-2009, 12:23 AM
:dupe: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=165690&highlight=sacbee

Decoligny
04-01-2009, 8:22 AM
"A one-size-fits-all is not in the best interest of public safety.".....gosh....where have I heard that before.....something about what works in xxxx doesn't necessarily work in yyyyy and how we have to be able to pass gun laws that keep our streets/children/etc safe.....

Oh yeah.....it was that guy that believes the constitution changes meaning every time he reads it and that the 2A is about duck hunting.

Sounds like something Sheriff Bull Conner would have said about the one-size fits all policy of treating blacks and white equally under the law.

motorhead
04-01-2009, 8:41 AM
i can't imagine any sherriff having the guts to support this. i think we can count on universal l.e. opposition.

CCWFacts
04-01-2009, 9:02 AM
i can't imagine any sherriff having the guts to support this. i think we can count on universal l.e. opposition.

Not at all. I expect half of the sheriffs to support it, most of them quietly. They do lose their good cause discretion but they keep their good character discretion, which is what the rural sheriffs mainly would like to keep, I assume. Remember, we have 58 counties. For every Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento, there's a Modoc, Nevada, and Alpine.

sholling
04-01-2009, 12:12 PM
Not at all. I expect half of the sheriffs to support it, most of them quietly. They do lose their good cause discretion but they keep their good character discretion, which is what the rural sheriffs mainly would like to keep, I assume.
This changes nothing and I'm sure that Baca and Huchens could live with this law without making any major changes to their policy or issuing even one more permit. Only their friends and supporters would be deemed to have sufficiently good moral character. In fact with those two even owning guns may be considered evidence of a moral deficiency. It needs to go back and have good moral character defined in law.

supersonic
04-01-2009, 12:20 PM
IF this actually goes through, I can just imagine the feeling of absolute DREAD that will overcome Det. Steve Cotta (McGinny's "yes-boy") every time he has to do the issuance process. Especially after several years of his "intimidating" tone in the phone interview & subsequent "F**K YOU" letters he's been happily signing away on for so long. WAH!!:(

sholling
04-01-2009, 12:37 PM
IF this actually goes through, I can just imagine the feeling of absolute DREAD that will overcome Det. Steve Cotta (McGinny's "yes-boy") every time he has to do the issuance process. Especially after several years of his "intimidating" tone in the phone interview & subsequent "F**K YOU" letters he's been happily signing away on for so long. WAH!!:(
No change other than rejecting us all for moral deficiencies (owning guns). The screw you letters will still go out.

CCWFacts
04-01-2009, 12:43 PM
This changes nothing and I'm sure that Baca and Huchens could live with this law without making any major changes to their policy or issuing even one more permit. Only their friends and supporters would be deemed to have sufficiently good moral character. In fact with those two even owning guns may be considered evidence of a moral deficiency. It needs to go back and have good moral character defined in law.

Good character is defined by case law. Good character is a requirement for a bunch of government employment positions, and as you can imagine, there have been numerous lawsuits to hash out what is and is not good character.

Sheriffs would still have some discretion over what is good character. Imagine an applicant who has an arrest record, let's say an arrest for brawling five years ago. One sheriff might say, "that's evidence of bad character" and another might say, "looking at the totality of your record, and the circumstances, that is not evidence of bad character". Both would be legally defensible positions probably.

But those are the "marginal" cases, the gray area, where someone does has some blemishes on the record, where a sheriff could use discretion. If it's a truly clean record (as most CCW applicants have), then they can't say no.

There's some discussion, and some case references, on this topic in Evelle Younger's 1977 Informal Letter (http://californiaccw.org/files/ag-1977-ccw-opinion.pdf).

sholling
04-01-2009, 1:04 PM
Good character is defined by case law. Good character is a requirement for a bunch of government employment positions, and as you can imagine, there have been numerous lawsuits to hash out what is and is not good character.
And there will be numerous more. Had a ticket lately? Have you shown up at anti-tax protests? Been to a OC supervisors meeting? Have a Ron Paul bumper sticker? I'm sorry but this needs to be defined in the law so that the Huchens and Bacas don't decide that they will force each and every applicant to sue. No gray areas.

CCWFacts
04-01-2009, 1:18 PM
And there will be numerous more. Had a ticket lately? Have you shown up at anti-tax protests? Been to a OC supervisors meeting? Have a Ron Paul bumper sticker? I'm sorry but this needs to be defined in the law so that the Huchens and Bacas don't decide that they will force each and every applicant to sue. No gray areas.

It is defined in law. Not in statute but in case law. And the case law is well-established on this because there have been many suits over it. The first few applicants in some urban areas will have to sue, of course, but after that it will become fairly easy. You're worried about something that isn't a realistic concern.

The only people who do need to worry about it are people in the gray areas, who have had some problems in their records (and no, a Ron Paul bumper sticker is not part of your record). But you know what, I'm glad that sheriffs will have the possibility of saying, "this guy has been arrested too many times, I don't want him carrying a gun". Other shall-issue states have very similar types of things.

MontClaire
04-01-2009, 1:29 PM
The problem to our hobby is much more than dems vs repubs. It's not as simple. This state is diverse. Marin county is much different than SF county. And of course no comparesement to LA county. Imagine all the bangers who has never been arrested and pass the background check will carry and claim self defense against each other. They will dress nice and present themselfes as law obiding citizens, then when they get home- put on baggy jeans and wear baseball cap tilted to the right. There is much more at stake than simple constitutional right. It was written long time ago when landscape was much different. things have changed, population evolved and we are at war with each other. neighbors vs neighbor. In SF , if you block someones driveway- they'd threaten to beat the crap out of you. If you take someone's parking space- the car get's keyd or you can get shot. People are all angry especially nowadays. I can imagine how things are in LA.
The solution is not simple. Yet we all want to excersise our right to bear but do we really want to cut our productive, tax paying population by 30% or more? That is what's going to happen when we allow most people to carry in this state. CA is not ready for this. we're are not NV or TX people. we're different then the rest of the country. We need to sit down and think hard on this at public forums. We need more people's input.

bulgron
04-01-2009, 1:38 PM
The problem to our hobby is much more than dems vs repubs. It's not as simple. This state is diverse. Marin county is much different than SF county. And of course no comparesement to LA county. Imagine all the bangers who has never been arrested and pass the background check will carry and claim self defense against each other. They will dress nice and present themselfes as law obiding citizens, then when they get home- put on baggy jeans and wear baseball cap tilted to the right. There is much more at stake than simple constitutional right. It was written long time ago when landscape was much different. things have changed, population evolved and we are at war with each other. neighbors vs neighbor. In SF , if you block someones driveway- they'd threaten to beat the crap out of you. If you take someone's parking space- the car get's keyd or you can get shot. People are all angry especially nowadays. I can imagine how things are in LA.
The solution is not simple. Yet we all want to excersise our right to bear but do we really want to cut our productive, tax paying population by 30% or more? That is what's going to happen when we allow most people to carry in this state. CA is not ready for this. we're are not NV or TX people. we're different then the rest of the country. We need to sit down and think hard on this at public forums. We need more people's input.

BS.

This is the same, sad refrain that we've heard in every state that has passed a shall-issue bill. And it never happens.

They have shall-issue in states that have cities like Miami, Houston, Denver, Pittsburgh & Philadelphia, even Detroit. And none of the things you talk about happened in those cities.

Stop spreading FUD. The record on the results of shall-issue is decades long now in this country, and it works. Your fears are completely unfounded in the recent history of this movement. Period.

sholling
04-01-2009, 1:39 PM
But you know what, I'm glad that sheriffs will have the possibility of saying, "this guy has been arrested too many times, I don't want him carrying a gun". Other shall-issue states have very similar types of things.

And I'd rather live in America.

yellowfin
04-01-2009, 2:35 PM
The solution is not simple. Yet we all want to excersise our right to bear but do we really want to cut our productive, tax paying population by 30% or more? That is what's going to happen when we allow most people to carry in this state. CA is not ready for this. we're are not NV or TX people. we're different then the rest of the country. We need to sit down and think hard on this at public forums. We need more people's input.
It's the other way around. A large percentage of the tax paying base vs. those who remain in CA DO want CCW, but that's why they have left and more people who are pro 2A inclined don't come here. The anti 2A laws in this state skew the population towards conforming to it, then those leftover with no stance on the matter take what they're used to. It's the tyranny of the status quo. The limp wristing isn't because Californians are inherently that way because they're in California. We don't exist in a vaccum. Those elected to office may, but that's about it.

ldivinag
04-01-2009, 7:01 PM
i can't imagine any sherriff having the guts to support this. i think we can count on universal l.e. opposition.


read here:

http://tehamaso.org/concealed_weapons_permit.htm

PatriotnMore
04-01-2009, 7:22 PM
BS.

This is the same, sad refrain that we've heard in every state that has passed a shall-issue bill. And it never happens.

They have shall-issue in states that have cities like Miami, Houston, Denver, Pittsburgh & Philadelphia, even Detroit. And none of the things you talk about happened in those cities.

Stop spreading FUD. The record on the results of shall-issue is decades long now in this country, and it works. Your fears are completely unfounded in the recent history of this movement. Period.

Thank you. I can't believe my eyes, its like reading FUD from years past, regarding the post you replied to.

7x57
04-01-2009, 7:34 PM
The problem to our hobby is much more than dems vs repubs. It's not as simple. This state is diverse. Marin county is much different than SF county. And of course no comparesement to LA county. Imagine all the bangers who has never been arrested and pass the background check will carry and claim self defense against each other. They will dress nice and present themselfes as law obiding citizens, then when they get home- put on baggy jeans and wear baseball cap tilted to the right. There is much more at stake than simple constitutional right. It was written long time ago when landscape was much different. things have changed, population evolved and we are at war with each other. neighbors vs neighbor. In SF , if you block someones driveway- they'd threaten to beat the crap out of you. If you take someone's parking space- the car get's keyd or you can get shot. People are all angry especially nowadays. I can imagine how things are in LA.
The solution is not simple. Yet we all want to excersise our right to bear but do we really want to cut our productive, tax paying population by 30% or more? That is what's going to happen when we allow most people to carry in this state. CA is not ready for this. we're are not NV or TX people. we're different then the rest of the country. We need to sit down and think hard on this at public forums. We need more people's input.

:chris:

The most powerful motivation to give up liberty seems to be fear. If you fear your neightbor more than the government, you will not choose to remain free. The above is an example of that fear. What I do like about it is that it admits what the fear argument has been reduced to: we're different than everybody else. We'd have to be, since shall-issue has not been a problem *anywhere*. We would have to be unique exception.

If you listen to that voice, believe it, and internalize it, you will become a slave to fear, then to whoever promises release from that fear.

7x57

7x57
04-01-2009, 7:40 PM
read here:

http://tehamaso.org/concealed_weapons_permit.htm

Ha ha! What really does it for me is the animated cartridge (I'm a bit disturbed by the thought of a firearm that fires an entire cartridge, but I'll get over it)!

7x57

dreamerof1
04-02-2009, 10:24 AM
They will dress nice and present themselfes as law obiding citizens, then when they get home- put on baggy jeans and wear baseball cap tilted to the right.

and...your point is...?

Who cares how someone dresses or who they associate with? If they have not disqualified themselves by being convicted of a significant offense, who are you (or ANYONE else for that matter) to deprive them of a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?

Santa Cruz Armory
04-02-2009, 10:55 AM
"Personal protection is insufficient," McGinness said.

WHAT AN IDIOT!

I can't believe these people are LEOs???????

AaronHorrocks
04-02-2009, 11:04 AM
The bad guys are already packing. This "Sheriff" is simply helping them!

RDinSacto
04-02-2009, 12:03 PM
I sent him an e-mail over a week ago concerning his ridiculous statements (I was civil, which wasn't easy) and haven't gotten a response yet. I guess he's too busy trying to rustle up campaign contributions for his next go 'round or something.

Hopefully he was swamped with similar e-mails. Or he's taking the chickensh*t route. Hate to say anything bad about the hard-working men and women in law-enforcement, but McWitless does not make them look good.

MontClaire
04-02-2009, 12:15 PM
some of you just don't get it. you scream you lungs out for 2A rights, but do not want the criminals to own guns. they do anyway. and some, if not the most who are criminals, have never been caught yet, not in a system, no prints. the closeth wearing is not to matter here. you couldn't read between the lines and that noone can help you with. good luck in your quest, but I rather leave this damn state. My money is not enough to fight the serious vertically integrated people who are "electing" the politicians in this state. You spread the fud that we need a shall issue. You spread fear in to the rest of us is that if we don't- its' the end of the world. You need to stop that.

nat
04-02-2009, 12:38 PM
some of you just don't get it. you scream you lungs out for 2A rights, but do not want the criminals to own guns. they do anyway. and some, if not the most who are criminals, have never been caught yet, not in a system, no prints. the closeth wearing is not to matter here. you couldn't read between the lines and that noone can help you with. good luck in your quest, but I rather leave this damn state. My money is not enough to fight the serious vertically integrated people who are "electing" the politicians in this state. You spread the fud that we need a shall issue. You spread fear in to the rest of us is that if we don't- its' the end of the world. You need to stop that.

I don't see how "may issue" keeps criminals from carrying guns. All it does is harm law abiding citizens. If I want a CCW, then I should be able to have one.....end of story.

sholling
04-02-2009, 1:31 PM
and...your point is...?

Who cares how someone dresses or who they associate with? If they have not disqualified themselves by being convicted of a significant offense, who are you (or ANYONE else for that matter) to deprive them of a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?
I agree completely. What will happen if this bill passes is the usual divide and conquer. We've seen it before with many of those who've managed to get permits through political connections. Those that have copped a "I have mine and to heck with everybody else" attitude. All I see this law doing that is expanding the ranks of those saying "I've got mine and to heck with everyone else" as evidenced in the post that you responded to.

AB357 also allows a sheriff to restrict where, when, how, and why you can carry if you meet the qualifications. Every third February 29th but only at work and only if it falls on a Sunday for example. And you know darn well that Huchens and Baca will both play games like that.

I'll support AB357 or similar once the proposal is corrected to recognize that the right to bear arms is fundamental to our freedoms and not subject to a sheriff's whims about who and where. If the legislature wants to restrict where and when then it must include everyone except on-duty LEOs and not leave it to the whims of a dictator in a green uniform.

dreamerof1
04-02-2009, 2:19 PM
some of you just don't get it. you scream you lungs out for 2A rights, but do not want the criminals to own guns. they do anyway. and some, if not the most who are criminals, have never been caught yet, not in a system, no prints.

Okay, I give. What makes them "Criminals" if they haven't been convicted of a crime?



the closeth wearing is not to matter here. you couldn't read between the lines and that noone can help you with.


Really...I don't need any help, thank you. I do use discretion in life. Yes, I do take a person's physical appearance into consideration. I would NEVER presume to tell someone that my gut feeling about them should have any bearing on their right to excercise a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

good luck in your quest, but I rather leave this damn state. My money is not enough to fight the serious vertically integrated people who are "electing" the politicians in this state. You spread the fud that we need a shall issue. You spread fear in to the rest of us is that if we don't- its' the end of the world. You need to stop that.

I do no such thing. Fear has nothing to do with why I believe we need "shall issue." I believe that any law short of shall issue (or loaded open carry) causes schizophrenia in our governance. On one hand we have an enumerated, fundamental right to KEEP and BEAR arms that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. On the other hand, we have state and local laws denying people who are otherwise not prohibited from KEEPING firearms the right to BEAR them.

I know this may be too radical for some, but I believe the foundation of this country was laid by men of far greater insight than myself. I believe that the principles they laid out in the constitution (and BOR) should never be trumped by your (or my) sense of pragmatism.

bulgron
04-02-2009, 2:27 PM
some of you just don't get it. you scream you lungs out for 2A rights, but do not want the criminals to own guns. they do anyway. and some, if not the most who are criminals, have never been caught yet, not in a system, no prints. the closeth wearing is not to matter here. you couldn't read between the lines and that noone can help you with. good luck in your quest, but I rather leave this damn state. My money is not enough to fight the serious vertically integrated people who are "electing" the politicians in this state. You spread the fud that we need a shall issue. You spread fear in to the rest of us is that if we don't- its' the end of the world. You need to stop that.

So when you leave this state, you're going to be careful to not go to one of the 40 states that have shall-issue or better laws on the books, right?

I mean, from your posts, it's clear that you fear shall-issue laws. So you ARE shopping for states that don't have them, right?

bulgron
04-02-2009, 2:31 PM
I'll support AB357 or similar once the proposal is corrected to recognize that the right to bear arms is fundamental to our freedoms and not subject to a sheriff's whims about who and where. If the legislature wants to restrict where and when then it must include everyone except on-duty LEOs and not leave it to the whims of a dictator in a green uniform.

I support AB357 because I recognize it as being a long step in the right direction. I know it isn't perfect, but you don't get "perfect" the first time out the gate. What you hope for is to get 75% of the way there, and then incrementally fix any problems that crop up once the new law is in place.

We've seen similar issues in every state that ever passed shall-issue legislation. First they get it on the books, then they tweak the law over time to fix the most egregious abuses that exist in the law until they have something they can live with.

Eventually, some states even do away with the permit system altogether and go to Vermont-style carry. Alaska did. Arizona is now talking about it. But the key thing is that these states didn't start out with a perfect law. Instead, they started out with the law they could get passed, and then went from there.

cousinkix1953
04-02-2009, 2:48 PM
the few that would be granted a CCW in LA county at the discretion of the county sherif.
Actor Robert Blake received a CCW permit from the Culver City police chief even though he was a resident of Hidden Hills a wealthy neighborhood in the city of Los Angeles. Getting a license (from any other agency except the one which services your home address) is supposed to be illegal too. This language was written into the law; because the antis hated the idea of Isleton police chief Gene Byrd issuing permits to law abiding citizens, from other communities in the Sacramento Valley.

The current system is just another way, for a corrupt sheriff to reward his campaign contributors. Permits should be issued to any qualified applicant or abolished altogether. Don't these bastards even read the ("equal protection of the law" clause) in the 14th amendment? Is the new generation of cops and politicians too young to rember when our schools weren't 49th on the list of 50 states in education quality?

cheese
04-02-2009, 3:18 PM
The problem to our hobby is much more than dems vs repubs. It's not as simple. This state is diverse. Marin county is much different than SF county. And of course no comparesement to LA county. Imagine all the bangers who has never been arrested and pass the background check will carry and claim self defense against each other. They will dress nice and present themselfes as law obiding citizens, then when they get home- put on baggy jeans and wear baseball cap tilted to the right. There is much more at stake than simple constitutional right. It was written long time ago when landscape was much different. things have changed, population evolved and we are at war with each other. neighbors vs neighbor. In SF , if you block someones driveway- they'd threaten to beat the crap out of you. If you take someone's parking space- the car get's keyd or you can get shot. People are all angry especially nowadays. I can imagine how things are in LA.
The solution is not simple. Yet we all want to excersise our right to bear but do we really want to cut our productive, tax paying population by 30% or more? That is what's going to happen when we allow most people to carry in this state. CA is not ready for this. we're are not NV or TX people. we're different then the rest of the country. We need to sit down and think hard on this at public forums. We need more people's input.

What do you mean by cut down tax paying pop. by 30%?
If anything people in urban areas need ccw's more than any one else.
Texas and Nevada have plenty of bad areas. I dont see what any of this has to do with being anti shall issue. The issue is extremely simple. You just dont see it:confused:

cousinkix1953
04-03-2009, 12:26 AM
What do you mean by cut down tax paying pop. by 30%?
If anything people in urban areas need ccw's more than any one else.
Texas and Nevada have plenty of bad areas. I dont see what any of this has to do with being anti shall issue. The issue is extremely simple. You just dont see it:confused:
Them I'm sure that you are all for revoking the permits of paranoid Hollywood movie stars and hypocritical politicians, who hide behind their handguns and lecture everybody else with the same kind of sermons. They are not LEOs. Most aren't even former LEOs; but have a crazy idea that their hides are more valuable than the rest of us. Reminds of the KKK in the olden days.

CCW permits and medical marijuana cards are both shining examples of "seperate but equal" rights in Kalifornia. If you can't get a license to pack your pistol in a certain county; there is a good chance that you will have an easy time getting your dope in the licensed weed stores instead. And vice-versa in another jurisdiction.

Car insurance used to be the same way, until we outlawed issuing polices based upon where you live and not your driving record...

Mazilla
04-03-2009, 12:48 AM
I'd gladly trade my medical marijuana card for a CCW any day. ;)

rynando
04-03-2009, 1:54 AM
Good character is defined by case law. Good character is a requirement for a bunch of government employment positions, and as you can imagine, there have been numerous lawsuits to hash out what is and is not good character.

That is true. There're quite a few municipal job descriptions which use the term "good character" as part of the enumerated qualifications. A ballsy government employee could apply for a CCW in his home county/city, be denied and then sue based on the fact that his "good character" was scrutinized by his current public-sector employer and found to meet the accepted government definition of the term. Believe me, there’re high paid upper government management types with DUI convictions, drug arrests and overdue library books a plenty out there and their character was deemed good enough to meet the “good character” requirement for their position.

The flip side would be Joe Public applying, getting denied and then suing based on the fact that the (for example) city manager, who’s contract requires that he is of “good character” and “high-moral standard,” has a DUI conviction, a mistress and a few other questionable character-damaging items in his past. Anyone denied a permit could launch a dirty-laundry research project on any government bigwig with a “good character” requirement in their contract and use the findings to demonstrate the strength of their own good character. Something tells me people wouldn’t have go to down that road too many times before the permits started flowing.

R

Untamed1972
04-03-2009, 8:42 AM
This guy is a turd.

What a disingenuous @sshat. And how much would it cost a courier to take my deposit to the bank twice a day? It ain't free, and it ain't cheap. Oh but wait, the couriers get to carry guns, and we still don't.

I was thinking the same thing. I person cant carry a gun to protect their own cash, but they can pay an armed courier service to do it for them? Sounds like maybe the armed courier services were big contributors to the sheriff's campaign aye?

Hmmmm.....one time nominal fee for CCW permit and onetime cost of handgun vs. hundreds of $$$'s a month for a courier service?

CSDGuy
04-03-2009, 9:43 AM
I agree completely. What will happen if this bill passes is the usual divide and conquer. We've seen it before with many of those who've managed to get permits through political connections. Those that have copped a "I have mine and to heck with everybody else" attitude. All I see this law doing that is expanding the ranks of those saying "I've got mine and to heck with everyone else" as evidenced in the post that you responded to.

AB357 also allows a sheriff to restrict where, when, how, and why you can carry if you meet the qualifications. Every third February 29th but only at work and only if it falls on a Sunday for example. And you know darn well that Huchens and Baca will both play games like that.

I'll support AB357 or similar once the proposal is corrected to recognize that the right to bear arms is fundamental to our freedoms and not subject to a sheriff's whims about who and where. If the legislature wants to restrict where and when then it must include everyone except on-duty LEOs and not leave it to the whims of a dictator in a green uniform.
Unless it's been modified from how it was introduced, AB357 keeps intact the "reasonable restrictions" stuff. Once "Good Cause" goes away, they'll still impose restrictions, but they can't point to some good cause related restriction... and they'll have to be able to back up any reasonable restriction. That example above would be considered unreasonable. For example, since California law exempts CCW holders from the 1000' school zone thing, without the Good Cause stuff, why would it be reasonable to restrict CCW within a school zone when the exemption is already part of the law - and another CCW holder from another county can't be held to that 1000' school zone restriction if there's no such restriction on that person's CCW.

This is going to get interesting. Who knows, it might just be parked in a committee until Nordyke becomes "final"... and then it'll be resurrected to prevent a further gutting of the CCW laws... Wishful thinking? I hope not.

sholling
04-03-2009, 9:57 AM
I was thinking the same thing. I person cant carry a gun to protect their own cash, but they can pay an armed courier service to do it for them? Sounds like maybe the armed courier services were big contributors to the sheriff's campaign aye?

Hmmmm.....one time nominal fee for CCW permit and onetime cost of handgun vs. hundreds of $$$'s a month for a courier service?I'm not up on the latest but I don't believe that either your or an armed courier can use deadly force protect your cash. Only to protect your own life while someone tries to steal the cash. But I could be wrong on this.

fresnohunter
04-03-2009, 9:59 AM
"If the changes proposed by the bill were already in effect, even O.J. Simpson would have been eligible for a concealed weapons permit in California – prior to his recent felony conviction in Nevada, McGinness said."


Maybe so, but Nicole brown and Ron Goldman could have as well. Things would have likely turned out differently if that was the case. Typical nonsense from Law Enforcement that are anti 2A. Their logic is easily taken apart with child like reasoning.

Untamed1972
04-03-2009, 10:16 AM
"If the changes proposed by the bill were already in effect, even O.J. Simpson would have been eligible for a concealed weapons permit in California – prior to his recent felony conviction in Nevada, McGinness said."

I think maybe the sheriff needs to go back to school and be reminded that in our country being accused of a crime and then being aquitted by a jury of one's peers is not the same as being convicted of a crime. And he's the top cop in his county watching out for the civil rights of his citizens? Scary....just damn scary.

bohoki
04-03-2009, 10:26 AM
I'm not up on the latest but I don't believe that either your or an armed courier can use deadly force protect your cash. Only to protect your own life while someone tries to steal the cash. But I could be wrong on this.


yea but the only way they will get your cash is over your dead body so there is the "protecting life" requirement



its amazing how if a person living in one area "shouldn't be carrying" can move to another and all of a sudden they are good to go
shouldn't there be the same standard for all californians?

too bad nobody ever asks the right questions at those things

Untamed1972
04-03-2009, 10:38 AM
its amazing how if a person living in one area "shouldn't be carrying" can move to another and all of a sudden they are good to go
shouldn't there be the same standard for all californians?

too bad nobody ever asks the right questions at those things

No...where it really sucks is that businessman A can get a CCW in one county to protect his cash. But businessman B can't get one in a different county. But businessman A can CCW and protect his cash even in the county businessman B lives in because his permit is good statewide. That's where the inequality under the law comes in and needs to be fixed. Either that....or the CCW permit should only be valid in the county it was issued.

bulgron
04-03-2009, 10:39 AM
too bad nobody ever asks the right questions at those things

The reason why no one ever asks the right question at those things is because the reporters go there to get assurances that their neighbor won't be packin'.

They don't care what happens anywhere else.

bohoki
04-03-2009, 10:45 AM
No...where it really sucks is that businessman A can get a CCW in one county to protect his cash. But businessman B can't get one in a different county. But businessman A can CCW and protect his cash even in the county businessman B lives in because his permit is good statewide. That's where the inequality under the law comes in and needs to be fixed. Either that....or the CCW permit should only be valid in the county it was issued.

yes if it is valid state wide it should be issued by the state police

the only authority the locals should be given is over local matters like they could issue someone a local permit to carry