PDA

View Full Version : El Dorado sheriff's race caught up in concealed weapons debate


lead chucker
08-24-2009, 11:25 AM
El Dorado sheriff's race caught up in concealed weapons debate
Cathy Locke
Aug 24, 2009 (The Sacramento Bee - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) --
A debate over who should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon in El Dorado County will get plenty of exposure this week.
At issue is a Sheriff's Office policy requiring license applicants to not only complete a training program and pass a background check confirming that they are of good moral character, but also to show that they have good cause to carry a concealed firearm in public.
But some people say law-abiding citizens shouldn't have to show cause, and they view the issue as a litmus test for the county's next sheriff.
"We're trying to make this a huge issue and a defining issue of this election," said Ken Greenwood, a firearms instructor.
Under state law, police chiefs or sheriffs may issue concealed weapon permits to applicants within their jurisdictions who do not fall into certain categories, such as mental instability or drug addiction.
On Thursday, the seven declared candidates for the 2010 sheriff's race will field questions on the issue during a community forum sponsored by the county Republican Central Committee at the El Dorado County Fairgrounds in Placerville.
On Tuesday, county Supervisor Ray Nutting will ask his board colleagues to adopt a resolution encouraging the sheriff to issue a license to any law-abiding citizen, and eliminate the "good cause" requirement.
Nutting stressed that the board has no jurisdiction over concealed weapons licenses, and the resolution is only advisory.
But, he said, "It reflects what I think are the values of El Dorado County with respect to concealed weapons permits. -- I believe a well-armed citizenry equals less crime."
Nutting and others say budget cuts likely will result in fewer patrol deputies and longer response times, particularly to the county's more remote areas.
Ken Steers, El Dorado County Republican Central Committee chairman, said the committee has taken no position on the Sheriff's Office policy under Sheriff Jeff Neves. But he said it has become a point of contention because the department is not renewing licenses for many people who have had them for as long as 30 years.
Neves has said he won't seek another term in the June general election.
Sheriff's spokesman Lt. Bryan Golmitz said the county has 712 active concealed weapons licenses.
A Bee investigation several years ago found a wide range of concealed weapon permits issued for 2006, from eight in San Francisco County to more than 4,000 in Kern County.
Golmitz defended his department's policy of requiring applicants to show cause, saying it is the sheriff's responsibility to ensure that people who receive the licenses will exercise good judgment.
Using a gun for protection should be a last resort, he said.
A typical license holder is a business owner who carries large amounts of cash, or an employee whose job involves making bank deposits, Golmitz said.
"It's not like there are a hundred different reasons (to grant a weapons permit)," Golmitz said. "It's limited in scope."
The licenses must be renewed every two years, and the "good cause" may cease to exist if, for example, the person no longer owns the business or is no longer handling bank deposits.
But Rob Charny, president of the El Dorado Rod and Gun Club, said law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon in public without having to justify the need to do so.
"These aren't gun nuts," he said. "They're nothing but upstanding citizens."
Charny helped draft the resolution that will go before the Board of Supervisors.
Thursday's community forum, featuring the sheriff's candidates, will be moderated by Assemblyman Ted Gaines, R-Roseville. It will be held in the Marshall Building at the El Dorado County Fairgrounds, 100 Placerville Drive, Placerville. Doors open at 6 p.m.

SgtDinosaur
08-24-2009, 12:17 PM
.
"It's not like there are a hundred different reasons (to grant a weapons permit)," Golmitz said. "It's limited in scope."

How true. There is only one reason. Self defense, period.

Roadrunner
08-24-2009, 12:28 PM
It'll be interesting to see how this washes out.

Fjold
08-24-2009, 12:34 PM
How true. There is only one reason. Self defense, period.


Because the State Law has the "good cause" listed in it, the resolution that was put in front of the County Board of Supervisors should have just said that "self defense" is considered "good cause".

yellowfin
08-24-2009, 12:34 PM
It's really pathetic the entire state of California has fewer CCW's than many counties of shall issue states.

Olav
08-24-2009, 12:36 PM
"These aren't gun nuts," he said. "They're nothing but upstanding citizens."

HondaMasterTech
08-24-2009, 12:42 PM
I'm expecting an overpacked house.

dfletcher
08-24-2009, 1:16 PM
Golmitz defended his department's policy of requiring applicants to show cause, saying it is the sheriff's responsibility to ensure that people who receive the licenses will exercise good judgment.



First, I hope we win at the polls. Having someone come out strong for CCW and lose in El Dorado wouldn't bode well for other pro CCW candidates nor would it encourage anti CCWs to modify their position.

But, since when does need equate to good judgement? Can't a person be not the brightest fellow around but have a genuine need? And can't another fellow be smart as hell, want a CCW and have no need?

Typical double talk, with a touch of misdirection thrown in for good measure.

Hogxtz
08-24-2009, 1:40 PM
This event should be very interesting. El Dorado Co is full of rural ranchers, farmers, wine vinyard owners that are ticked off that their CCW's are getting denied all of a sudden, and they have been complaining to their Supervisors. Now Supervisor Nutting is bringing a CCW resolution to a BOS meeting in support of CCW's, But unfourtunatley the west end of the county is filling up with folks from the bay area that are opposed to any gun ownership. I have a feeling this canidates night to discuss CCW's is going to get heated between pro-gun and anti-gun folks and I wonder if the media will be there to "demonize" the pro-gun folks. I hope all the pro-gun folks that get to speak or be involved in some way display law abiding, calm, and mature dialouge that represents us well, and not as wackos, thugs, or whatever the media would love to pin on us. As for Sheriff's canidates that are truly supportive of gun rights and beleive that " personal protection" is good cause, I know who I will support and vote for.

Pthfndr
08-24-2009, 8:02 PM
From today's Mountain Democrat (the Placerville newspaper).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v47/Pthfndr/scan0001.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v47/Pthfndr/scan0002.jpg

HondaMasterTech
08-24-2009, 8:17 PM
So, according to Neeves, defending money is a better "Good Cause" than defending human life. I don't like that.

curtisfong
08-24-2009, 8:48 PM
I spy the "liability lie" yet again.

Hogxtz
08-24-2009, 9:40 PM
If what he said is true, than how can other Sheriff's like Tehema county say that "personal protection" is enough for good cause? I smell something fishy going on here. As far as liability, I dont buy that excuse. I could be absolutley wrong here but I am pretty sure that If the applicant passed the state requirments per 12050 than the Sheriff could not be held responsible per qaulified imunity, Now if they gave a permit to someone with a mental history or in some way didnt pass the State requirments than yeah, he would be liable.

CenterX
08-24-2009, 10:02 PM
In other counties good cause can not be the defense of money or property. And, as per CA Trial Law - personal protection with equal force is the only defense a California resident can lawfully use. A person can come steal your car but you can not use force to keep them from stealing your car without the possibility that you become the instigator of greater crime. On the otherhand if they come grab your child attempting to take them and they are not of legal authority to do so, you can use reasonable force to protect your child. This may not mean that you can shoot them, like they are not brandishing a knife or firearm. You can interfere with limited force equal to and slightly greater than that used by the offender, and must stop when the threat is gone.

Tort Reform would help a lot in matters of this type. A perp should not be able to sue once they are judged as a perp.

Good luck to all of you - A good constitutional Sheriff is what every person needs.

lead chucker
08-25-2009, 11:45 AM
The resolution mentioned in the artcle...

http://www.eldoradorodandgun.com/pdf/RESOLUTION%20OF%20THE%20BOARD%20OF%20SUPERVISIORS% 20-%20August%2025%202009.pdf

Kid Stanislaus
08-25-2009, 1:30 PM
[QUOTE=CenterX;2968860] On the otherhand if they come grab your child attempting to take them and they are not of legal authority to do so, you can use reasonable force to protect your child. This may not mean that you can shoot them, like they are not brandishing a knife or firearm. You can interfere with limited force equal to and slightly greater than that used by the offender, and must stop when the threat is gone./QUOTE]

MAYBE there's a DA in the PRC who'd be stupid enough to prosecute a parent for using a gun to stop the abduction of his/her child but I doubt it. Even if there WERE such an idiot I'm guess'n the chance of a conviction is somewhere between slim and none.