PDA

View Full Version : Shall Issue: CA State Sheriffs Association -- Another Target for Political Pressure?


Paladin
10-17-2009, 11:21 AM
In another thread I looked at what a few other states were doing to promote Shall Issue and discovered that IL residents put enough pressure on their local sheriffs that the Illinois Sheriffs Association passed a resolution supporting Shall Issue, but that "[a]pplications should be processed by the Sheriff’s office including the ability of the Sheriff to articulate specific reasons why the permit should be denied and those objections should be considered by the state before issuing a permit." http://www.occcws.com/?p=614

Now that is something interesting. It takes the burden off of the applicant for explaining why they should get a CCW and puts a burden on the sheriff for asking the state to not issue. That is "Shall Issue" that may fly even in CA.

If enough IL sheriffs and their association could be pressured to support Shall Issue, we should be able to do that here. After all, as seen in the map at bottom, most CA sheriffs readily issue CCWs. Maybe we need to find out the process for getting the California State Sheriffs Association (CSSA) to support Shall Issue. This may require us to help change their leadership, so we should look into that as well.

Perhaps we should start organizing to pressure our local sheriffs and to ultimately have the CSSA (http://www.calsheriffs.org/ ; Telephone 916-375-8000) to come out for Shall Issue too. But first, CGF may want to take a written survey of all 58 of our CA sheriffs to get their official positions on Shall Issue as part of "basic 2nd A RKBA in CA research." ;)

Currently, the CSSA opposes Shall Issue as proposed in AB357. Scroll down about 1/5th the way at:
http://ct2k2.capitoltrack.com/report.asp?rptid=U33332

Clicking on the link for detailed info re its legislative history takes you to:
http://ct2k2.capitoltrack.com/BillInfo.asp?measure=AB%20357&ss=235cssa1billinfo.xsl

Sure, we've got McDonald and then Sykes coming. But I truly believe the Brady bunch when they say that they believe Heller only took off the extreme of an outright ban. Sure, a full reading of the opinion implies more. But, if Obama is re-elected (or another anti wins), and he replaces Ginsberg, Stevens, and one or more of the "Heller Five", a Court packed with antis will "clarify" Heller to only prohibit an outright ban. It may shoot down a Sykes win on appeal. All it takes is for one of the "Heller Five" to have a stroke, heart attack, or serious auto accident and go into a coma or die and we're . . . ahem, outta luck for at least half-a-century. :(

I am NOT suggesting we act on this now, just that the Right People not dismiss some political action while we wait for the ever-so-slow wheels of justice to turn.

Plus, Shall Issue is too important to me to put all my eggs in any one basket.

ETA: I should note that this is different than pressuring individual sheriffs to readily issue.

Thoughts?

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/clownburner/OCCCWS/ca_ccw_map-big.png

locosway
10-17-2009, 12:05 PM
I'd rather wait and vote for a candidate that doesn't feel s/he should infringe upon the rights of the people, and will support a SI policy for their county.

For example, lets use OC. Hutchens is anti SI, so she obviously views citizens as lesser people than her and her deputies. I'm not in favor of this mentality, so instead of having her modify her policy, I'd rather her be replaced with someone who's willing to support the rights of the citizens.

Surefire
10-17-2009, 12:12 PM
Not good enough, we need a real shall issue where everyone gets a permit unless they are felons, declared insane, etc.

Any law abiding citizen should be given a permit without any infringement.

Paladin
10-17-2009, 12:17 PM
Not good enough, we need a real shall issue where everyone gets a permit unless they are felons, declared insane, etc.

Any law abiding citizen should be given a permit without any infringement.
That is a side issue. The point of this thread is that we should not necessarily just wait and hope that McDonald and Sykes will take care of Shall Issue and that we should look into the CSSA and find out what it will take to get them to support Shall Issue of one stripe or another. We need to find out the procedures for getting them to submit and then pass a resolution.

Paladin
10-17-2009, 12:22 PM
I should add this quote from http://www.occcws.com/?p=614

“There are still individual sheriffs who have reservations and concerns about concealed carry in Illinois and do not support the legislation,” according to Greg Sullivan, Executive Director.

Sheriff Gib Cady, 2009 President, stated, “We are constitutional officers who take an oath to uphold the constitution and we have decided to take a leadership role on this issue. This is the number one issue that our constituents talk to us about.”

There are two states, Illinois and Wisconsin, which do not allow some sort of concealed or open carry.

“The ISA has been neutral on this issue for years but the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and the feedback and the experience from the other states has turned that tide. Out of 79 sheriffs responding to our survey, 90% of those sheriffs support concealed carry with the right type of restrictions, training and scrutiny. They also believe that local law enforcement should have the right to object to a permit application with justifiable cause,” said Sullivan.

So, at least for the IL gunnies, contacting their county sheriff and asking them about supporting Shall Issue legislation got the sheriffs association to support it.

For us, in addition to naturally asking our own sheriffs to go to reasonable issue, asking them to support Shall Issue may be something that we can take while awaiting McDonald and Sykes.

locosway
10-17-2009, 12:24 PM
That is a side issue. The point of this thread is that we should not necessarily just wait and hope that McDonald and Sykes will take care of Shall Issue and that we should look into the CSSA and find out what it will take to get them to support Shall Issue of one stripe or another. We need to find out the procedures for getting them to submit and then pass a resolution.

I don't see any sheriff in CA passing any resolution to give a county SI.

I'm going to stand by my first post, we need to vote out these people. We need new people who respect our rights. SI is a big deal in new elections. It may very well be the deciding factor for many counties, especially with budget cut backs and official news releases from the departments stating they can't effectively protect the people.

Paladin
10-17-2009, 12:33 PM
I don't see any sheriff in CA passing any resolution to give a county SI.This is about the California State Sheriffs Association passing a resolution, not about an individual sheriff passing one. This is about taking CA to Shall Issue, not changing an individual county sheriff's policy.

This is not instead of whatever local action you support. This would be in addition to it.

locosway
10-17-2009, 12:35 PM
This is about the California State Sheriffs Association passing a resolution, not about an individual sheriff passing one. This is about taking CA to Shall Issue, not changing an individual county sheriff's policy.

This is not instead of whatever local action you support. This would be in addition to it.

Without McDonald, Nordyke, or Sykes, I really don't see anything happening. Politics, which is what this is, doesn't happen unless there is a good reason. Without a precedence being set, there is no need for change. Money is what talks, if we can sue them for infringement then we'll get somewhere. Outside of that, don't count on anything changing.

Purple K
10-17-2009, 12:37 PM
Bottom line is that we all need to be writing and calling our Sheriffs and Police Chiefs repeatedly. Keep the pressure on them as much as possible.

yellowfin
10-17-2009, 12:42 PM
There are two states, Illinois and Wisconsin, which do not allow some sort of concealed or open carry.Wisconsin does have unlicensed open carry. They're perfectly fine.For us, in addition to naturally asking our own sheriffs to go to reasonable issue, asking them to support Shall Issue may be something that we can take while awaiting McDonald and Sykes.This has been covered extensively. The problem that exists in CA with the populated counties is that they quite frankly don't care what the people think, they outrightly refuse to support carry rights for ordinary citizens in total. They don't like the individual at all and thanks to the self insulating system which almost guarantees them reelection for life, they don't have to care at all. This is no exaggeration: they would rather you be killed than issue you a CCW. Your life means less to them than them being able to deny you your right to bear arms. They value being the all mighty god of life and death more than you being alive and unharmed. That is the disgusting reality of it, they are outrightly sociopathic monsters. You can sugar coat it any way you want, but I don't. Sheriffs and police chiefs who are against CCW issuance are nothing different than the Jigsaw killer--they don't rob, rape, or kill people themselves in a hands on fashion but by taking away people's means to defend themselves they're basically feeding them to those who do. They have no problem with that and that makes them monsters, quite frankly worse than the criminals that actually do the deed.

Paladin
10-17-2009, 12:58 PM
Wisconsin does have unlicensed open carry. They're perfectly fine.Could you change your post to reflect that I was quoting from that linked article and that I did NOT say, "There are two states, Illinois and Wisconsin, which do not allow some sort of concealed or open carry." Thank you.

This has been covered extensively.Trying to get the CSSA to change their position and support Shall Issue has been covered extensively"? Where? I've been active on CGN and the Shall Issue fight since arriving on this forum and haven't seen trying to figure out how to get CSSA to pass a resolution to support Shall Issue discussed much, if at all.

The problem that exists in CA with the populated counties is that they quite frankly don't care what the people think, they outrightly refuse to support carry rights for ordinary citizens in total. They don't like the individual at all and thanks to the self insulating system which almost guarantees them reelection for life, they don't have to care at all. About 38 out of 58 CA counties are reasonable issue. If all it takes is a majority of sheriffs to pass a CSSA resolution supporting Shall Issue, this could be a very easy win. If it takes something else/more, we need to find out what that is.

sholling
10-17-2009, 1:08 PM
The problem with trying to pressure sheriffs is that they know that short of getting indited for corruption or molesting a goat on the courthouse steps at high noon that there is no way to defeat them at the polls. The incumbent sheriff protection law makes it illegal for anyone but an insider to run for the job and nobody has defeated an elected incumbent sheriff in 100 years. Mere citizens are not allowed to run for that office. Second the limited issue sheriffs have the sale of CCWs as a nearly unlimited source of campaign funds.

Bottom line: At best they will laugh at any attempt to bring political pressure. At worst you will be the subject of agency harassment.

Paladin
10-17-2009, 1:08 PM
Just revised the title of this thread to more accurately reflect the topic.

Two steps involved: (1) pressuring local sheriffs to (2) pressure the California State Sheriffs Association to support Shall Issue.

demnogis
10-17-2009, 1:10 PM
... and that we should look into the CSSA and find out what it will take to get them to support Shall Issue of one stripe or another. We need to find out the procedures for getting them to submit and then pass a resolution.
*cringe*

A lot of money. Anyone got a cruise-liner we can invite all the leading members of CSSA to for a "training seminar"?

Paladin
10-17-2009, 1:12 PM
The problem with trying to pressure sheriffs is that they know that short of getting indited for corruption or molesting a goat on the courthouse steps at high noon that there is no way to defeat them at the polls. The incumbent sheriff protection law makes it illegal for anyone but an insider to run for the job and nobody has defeated an elected incumbent sheriff in 100 years. Mere citizens are not allowed to run for that office. Second the limited issue sheriffs have the sale of CCWs as a nearly unlimited source of campaign funds.

Bottom line: At best they will laugh at any attempt to bring political pressure. At worst you will be the subject of agency harassment.
To repeat myself: this is NOT to get anti Shall Issue sheriffs to change their local policies, but rather to get enough sheriffs to support statewide Shall Issue that they can get the California State Sheriffs Association to pass a resolution (or similar) to take a stand in support of Shall Issue. As I posted immediately just above, 38 out of 58 CA sheriffs already readily issue. If all we need is a majority of CA sheriffs to support Shall Issue to get the CSSA to pass a resolution in support of it, we already have that!

Have to leave now.

Uriah02
10-17-2009, 1:26 PM
I am so glad I moved to Placer county

yellowfin
10-17-2009, 1:27 PM
It seems like some of the lesser populated county sheriffs are bullied by the larger counties to keep silent on the matter.

BigDogatPlay
10-17-2009, 1:50 PM
The incumbent sheriff protection law makes it illegal for anyone but an insider to run for the job and nobody has defeated an elected incumbent sheriff in 100 years.

The "incumbent sheriff protection law" you mention only keeps non peace officers from holding the office, it does not necessarily protect an incumbent. The law keeps the average citizen from running for the office, limiting it only to holders of a POST basic certificate or better. But that still leaves hundreds of potential candidates in each county, thousands in some counties.

The real issue is the political cronyism that runs most counties. Only the "chosen ones" usually win executive offices. And there is very little way of stopping that as it's as old as time.

FWIW, speaking solely for Sonoma County an incumbent sheriff was unseated by a sergeant from a local PD in the late 80's. That victor was himself later unseated by a sheriff's lieutenant. Of course, that latter victory also took the sheriff's office from "usually issue" to "fuhgeddabowditt" where it remains to this day, three sheriff's later. We'll get a new one this next year as the incumbent is retiring, so we'll see what happens.

Incumbents do indeed lose once in a while.

MindBuilder
10-17-2009, 2:13 PM
yellowfin wrote:
They value being the all mighty god of life and death more than you being alive and unharmed. That is the disgusting reality of it, they are outrightly sociopathic monsters.
I'm certain that many people and sheriffs honestly believe that guns in the hands of the general population leads to more innocent deaths rather than fewer. They really believe that a lot of people who want to CCW are trigger happy nuts who will do more harm than all the good the responsible carriers will do. Or they think that even responsible carriers will make too many mistakes. Even if they know that concealed carry isn't a problem, they think that private gun ownership in general does more harm than good, and they are against CCW just because it might add political support lost to the dwindling number of hunters, especially in the cities, which gun controllers have formerly dominated. A lot of people just don't trust the average person with a gun (and some don't even trust themselves with a gun). And remember, law enforcement officers spend a lot more time every day dealing with people who really shouldn't have a gun, than most of us do. So opposition to CCW by itself is no reason to think they're monsters rather than well meaning but misguided.

yellowfin
10-17-2009, 9:21 PM
If that were the case, they'd be open to trying what really works; if they were proven wrong, and they are, they'd give up their current course and try our approach. That is IF AND ONLY IF their real concern was in fact getting the best result for the common people and the overall good of society. It is clearly not. Their priority is their anti gun "beliefs", consequences and actual results be damned. Nobody who does that knowingly does so out of altruism. If they honestly don't know any better they're criminally negligent. I for one am convinced they do in fact know better and they are being blatantly dishonest about it, and in so are horrendously morally wrong. So far morally wrong and without the slightest impediment of conscience in doing so that it drives the conclusion that they have neither morals nor conscience, which is the functional definition of a sociopath. Separation from reality to the extent and result of harmful treatment of others without regard whatsoever to consequences and moral constructs: according to psychology that is the definition of a psychotic.

Either way it is beyond excuse on their part and it is irreconcilable. They are beyond question unfit for any office of any kind.

GuyW
10-17-2009, 9:51 PM
Mere citizens are not allowed to run for that office.

We used to be able to - back when CA was closer to "free"....
.

ZRX61
10-17-2009, 10:12 PM
Just a quick question regarding CCW...

If you are issued a permit in (for instance) Kern county, does that make it ok to CCW in the entire State?

locosway
10-17-2009, 10:15 PM
Just a quick question regarding CCW...

If you are issued a permit in (for instance) Kern county, does that make it ok to CCW in the entire State?

Yes, except for sterile areas.

ke6guj
10-17-2009, 10:16 PM
Just a quick question regarding CCW...

If you are issued a permit in (for instance) Kern county, does that make it ok to CCW in the entire State?Yes, as long as the issuing authority doesn't put any limitations on the permit.

sholling
10-18-2009, 12:00 AM
The "incumbent sheriff protection law" you mention only keeps non peace officers from holding the office, it does not necessarily protect an incumbent. The law keeps the average citizen from running for the office, limiting it only to holders of a POST basic certificate or better. But that still leaves hundreds of potential candidates in each county, thousands in some counties.
A POST basic wont get you far. There is a complex formula and most would-be candidates would have to possess an advanced POST to get into the running. Since no elected sheriff has been ousted in 100 years your argument that we can just scrape up one of the few legally qualified candidates and win is incorrect. If it were possible it would be done in at least one county every 4 years. You should also know that the law was written to protect an incumbent sheriff from being defeated by a popular judge. Thus the reason I call it the Incumbent Sheriff Protection Act - that was the actual reason it was written. The name fits.

Second the whole idea is as unamerican as requiring the president to be a general or a candidate for congress to be a civil service employee.

Hopefully the folks in Orange County will be able to replace their appointed sheriff, but they best choose well. Whoever wins the election will for all intents and purposes be elected Sheriff For Life.

Getting back to the OP - I think trying to get the sheriffs behind us is a great idea. I'm just not sure that 51% would sign up.

press1280
10-18-2009, 6:42 AM
Does CA have a law in place that allows retired officers to basically get permits(in any county) on a "shall-issue" basis? The sheriffs' associations may feel differently if, upon retirement, they are treated like the rest of the peasants and are told (by certain counties), sorry, we don't issue to citizens unless you're dead.

You'll have this scenario, from an Indiana case right before they went shall-issue:"Any ordinary citizen applying
for license could be "factually" denied a permit because no one had
actually threatened him. Thus, he would have no "need" to defend
himself. Similarly, if threatened, the permit could be denied on
the basis that the official police agencies were capable of
handling the matter so that he had no "need" to defend himself."

sholling
10-18-2009, 9:42 AM
Does CA have a law in place that allows retired officers to basically get permits(in any county) on a "shall-issue" basis? The sheriffs' associations may feel differently if, upon retirement, they are treated like the rest of the peasants and are told (by certain counties), sorry, we don't issue to citizens unless you're dead.
The agency that the officer retires from issues what is in effect a lifetime CCW that per federal law must be recognized by every state.

BigDogatPlay
10-18-2009, 12:03 PM
A POST basic wont get you far. There is a complex formula and most would-be candidates would have to possess an advanced POST to get into the running.

I'm not familiar with any "complex formula". I am familiar with 24004.3 Government Code... which is the "incumbent sheriff protection act" you mention. Emphasis added is mine.

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.

Not that complex, really. A basic certificate and four years of experience meets the requirement.

Now in practice the higher certificates and higher degree requirements would make a candidate more attractive.

Since no elected sheriff has been ousted in 100 years your argument that we can just scrape up one of the few legally qualified candidates and win is incorrect.

So you chose to ignore the examples of incumbents being unseated in my earlier post? Perhaps you have source material that proves this statement on your part?

If it were possible it would be done in at least one county every 4 years.

It was, in the examples I cited. That means that it is possible. It's just not high on the order of probability given the politicking that is needed.

You should also know that the law was written to protect an incumbent sheriff from being defeated by a popular judge. Thus the reason I call it the Incumbent Sheriff Protection Act - that was the actual reason it was written. The name fits.

Yep... it was written to protect Brad Gates, then Sheriff or Orange County.

Second the whole idea is as unamerican as requiring the president to be a general or a candidate for congress to be a civil service employee.

On this, I do not disagree. Bearing in mind that the pre-requisites in 24004.3 GC require the sheriff to have been a civil service employee.

Getting back to the OP - I think trying to get the sheriffs behind us is a great idea. I'm just not sure that 51% would sign up.

Based on the actions of 30 some odd of 58, I'd say that's possible too. Again, perhaps not probable... but certainly possible.

BigDogatPlay
10-18-2009, 12:08 PM
The agency that the officer retires from issues what is in effect a lifetime CCW that per federal law must be recognized by every state.

It's not lifetime at all anymore. The Penal Code specifies that it is the responsibility of the retired officer to petition for renewal every five years. Issuance is at the discretion of the agency.

Many agencies still renew pretty much by rote, but there are some that eventually stop giving renewals.

What will be interesting to see is how the shooting by a retiree in La Habra the other day works out, and how it effects renewals.

Gray Peterson
10-18-2009, 1:04 PM
The situation in Illinois is completely different than California. In Illinois, there is a majority of Legislature's that want to pass LTC, but the Governor of that state has stated he would veto.

In California, however, the Legislature is overwhelmingly anti-gun and would not listen to the CSSA on this particular issue or involving anything "pro-gun". It's like asking the Alabama Legislature circa 1954 to desegregate buses in the state. It's not going to happen, and even if they did, it would be to screw over the bus boycott in Montgomery that would be occurring later.

Folks, with the exception of three provisions of law (good cause, good character, and may issue), a California LTC is extraordinarily powerful. More powerful than even Oregon's CHL law. If there's a federal court order to make the licenses shall-issue for self defense (per Sykes) why mess with it? Why invite the Legislature to "tweak it"?

hvengel
10-18-2009, 2:46 PM
Folks, with the exception of three provisions of law (good cause, good character, and may issue), a California LTC is extraordinarily powerful. More powerful than even Oregon's CHL law. If there's a federal court order to make the licenses shall-issue for self defense (per Sykes) why mess with it? Why invite the Legislature to "tweak it"?

This is correct. If you have an unrestricted CCW what it allows is in fact very "liberal" compared to many other states. I suspect that if the suites that are underway go our direction that the legislature will feel compelled to at least try to make things more restrictive.

wash
10-18-2009, 6:18 PM
If we give sheriffs the ability to reject for "good cause" (for example, the town drunk), that just means that in places where they don't want CCW, the sheriffs will try and find anything to s-can our applications.

I can imagine some pretty severe invasions of privacy.

I agree with the idea of not issuing a permit to the town drunk but that town drunk will probably be prohibited any way and that's the risk we have to take to insure a fair issue policy.

We don't want a deal with the sheriffs.

Paladin
10-18-2009, 8:13 PM
The situation in Illinois is completely different than California. In Illinois, there is a majority of Legislature's that want to pass LTC, but the Governor of that state has stated he would veto.

Are you sure you don't mean Wisconsin? I haven't kept up w/IL, but in WI there have been, IIRC, 3 attempts to pass Shall Issue that passed the legislature but each was shot down w/Gov. Doyle's veto pen.

Folks, with the exception of three provisions of law (good cause, good character, and may issue), a California LTC is extraordinarily powerful. More powerful than even Oregon's CHL law. If there's a federal court order to make the licenses shall-issue for self defense (per Sykes) why mess with it? Why invite the Legislature to "tweak it"?I certainly hope that "the Right People" behind CGN/CGF and the NRA/CalNRA aren't counting on the antis to just roll over and die after McDonald and Sykes wins. They won't. I predict the antis will make their stand in CA. They will fight us here harder than any previous fight in any other state. They will use EVERYTHING they can to stop us. They will fight us in the media, the courts, in schools (teachers indoctrinating children), in the capitol -- everywhere. They'll quickly pass as many "reasonable restrictions" as compatible w/a narrow reading of the Heller-McDonald-Sykes opinions and CA's CCW laws will be tied up in fed cts for quite a few years. They'll pass a restriction, we'll challenge it. Repeat. (Hopefully, wins on our side will replenish our war chest.) Remember: as long as they control Sacto, they're using our tax dollars to fight against us. Thus my thread on increasing our membership to 1/3rd of a million ASAP (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=231016).

Heller is one of many reasons why Obama, w/full Dem support in the US Senate, is trying to get as many judges he likes on fed cts as possible. Just as we were surprised by the good fortune of Roberts and Alieto being appointed to the Court AFTER Parker/Heller were in play (otherwise we would have LOST Heller 5 to 4), so the statists/antis/Leftists/totalitarians were caught by surprise by Heller and are now frantically playing catch up. Right now they are as anxious about us getting our 2nd A RKBA as they are about getting socialized medicine passed (and thru that, the authority to dictate all aspects of our lives since all aspects of life affect your physical, mental, and/or emotional health. Once the gov't pays for health care, they will dictate what you can and cannot do/eat/etc. "Who pays the piper calls the tune.")

Acc to the map below, RIGHT NOW, there are 35 sheriffs who support "reasonable issuance" of CCWs in CA by their words and deeds vs 23 who don't. This should be a landslide win for our side. It is there for our taking, right now, if we want it.

Surely, one of us lives in one of their counties and knows one of them and can find out the process for getting the CSSA to change its policy position and support AB357 in particular and "Shall Issue" RTC in general. That alone won't get us "Shall Issue," but it will move the CSSA from the antis/Sacto's side over to our side and that WILL be important in the legislative fights I foresee ahead.

Even if, for some reason, those 35 sheriffs alone cannot change CSSA's policy position, perhaps they/we can form a CA sheriffs coalition/group that they can join to support "Shall Issue." Why would they? Some out of principle, others will require political pressure.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/clownburner/OCCCWS/ca_ccw_map-big.png

Paladin
10-18-2009, 8:18 PM
When you substitute the colors of the CA counties map above for the yellow of CA in the map below, you will see how "out of the mainstream," "extremist," "fringe" and "behind the times" are May Issue and No Issue policies. My #1 RKBA policy goal is Shall Issue because that is the one goal that has been proven in every state it passes to decrease violent crime (details at: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18). The fear of violent crime is what motivates support for "gun control." Lower violent crime rates disarm the antis and will make it easier for us to roll back, judicially, legislatively and, in general, politically, the restrictions on our 2nd A RKBA.

http://www.nraila.org/images/rtcmaplg.jpg

hoffmang
10-23-2009, 10:53 PM
I certainly hope that "the Right People" behind CGN/CGF and the NRA/CalNRA aren't counting on the antis to just roll over and die after McDonald and Sykes wins. They won't. I predict the antis will make their stand in CA.

California can fight a loss in Sykes/Palmer no better than DC has fought the loss in Heller. When states lose widely covered and important SCOTUS cases, they generally back off. DC is crazy enough and so single minded on the issue (in a way that the CA legislature is not) that they've tried to do what you're saying and all they've gotten is kicked in the teeth.

On carry licensing in California you have to remember that there is a favored political class that would oppose the usual BS restrictions. Sheriffs, once neutered by Sykes, will go nuts if carry permits get even less valuable as political tools.

Finally, it's not clear that the antis will get a crack at Sykes. Though some of the defendants in that case are not "on our side" they are certainly not going to turn the work over to LCAV due to the politics. Sadly Gorski's case gives the antis an opening.

People vastly underestimate the impact of binding appeals court/Supreme Court decisions. Palmer is the key to understanding why this issue will come far further off the table than you're predicting.

-Gene

Paladin
10-23-2009, 11:15 PM
California can fight a loss in Sykes/Palmer no better than DC has fought the loss in Heller. When states lose widely covered and important SCOTUS cases, they generally back off. DC is crazy enough and so single minded on the issue (in a way that the CA legislature is not) that they've tried to do what you're saying and all they've gotten is kicked in the teeth.

On carry licensing in California you have to remember that there is a favored political class that would oppose the usual BS restrictions. Sheriffs, once neutered by Sykes, will go nuts if carry permits get even less valuable as political tools.

Finally, it's not clear that the antis will get a crack at Sykes. Though some of the defendants in that case are not "on our side" they are certainly not going to turn the work over to LCAV due to the politics. Sadly Gorski's case gives the antis an opening.

People vastly underestimate the impact of binding appeals court/Supreme Court decisions. Palmer is the key to understanding why this issue will come far further off the table than you're predicting.

-GeneThanks, Gene, for your reply.

I'll have to get around to reading about Palmer.

I sure hope you're right re. Sacto backing off. As you can see from my threads today (and the vast majority of all of my posts over the past four years), "Shall Issue" CCW is what I care about most because it saves lives right now, in the America of today (vs some who put AWs higher because of their ability use in defending our liberty/freedom against tyranny possibly in the future). ETA: FWIW, I'm all against the AWB too and look forward to its repeal.

Every time I read about some CCW'er saving their own or someone else's skin I know that similar crimes are going on in CA where the victim is unarmed and suffers rape, severe bodily injury (crippled, paralyzed, or coma), or death because of the &*$%:censored: policies of our anti-reasonable issuance major urban CLEOs and it ticks me off to no end! ! ! ! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Roadrunner
10-23-2009, 11:19 PM
Bottom line is that we all need to be writing and calling our Sheriffs and Police Chiefs repeatedly. Keep the pressure on them as much as possible.

Not a bad idea to put pressure on city councils about shall issue versus police chiefs. After all they take their lead from their political handlers.

Gray Peterson
10-24-2009, 2:56 AM
Thanks, Gene, for your reply.

I'll have to get around to reading about Palmer.

I sure hope you're right re. Sacto backing off. As you can see from my threads today (and the vast majority of all of my posts over the past four years), "Shall Issue" CCW is what I care about most because it saves lives right now, in the America of today (vs some who put AWs higher because of their ability use in defending our liberty/freedom against tyranny possibly in the future). ETA: FWIW, I'm all against the AWB too and look forward to its repeal.

Every time I read about some CCW'er saving their own or someone else's skin I know that similar crimes are going on in CA where the victim is unarmed and suffers rape, severe bodily injury (crippled, paralyzed, or coma), or death because of the &*$%:censored: policies of our anti-reasonable issuance major urban CLEOs and it ticks me off to no end! ! ! ! :mad: :mad: :mad:

I made a post on the CCW in San Francisco thread, I'll repeat it here for good measure:

6) As a gay man, who is part of a larger GLBT community, I'm sick and tired of stuff like this (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/01/01/state/n091840S52.DTL) happening in California. I have very serious doubts that something like that could happen in Washington or Oregon, and I am very angry that my brothers and sisters in said community are being gang raped, butchered, and beaten by thugs who think that beating up a gay man or raping a lesbian is some sort of badge of courage. The only badges they should have is having to hold one for a booking photo, or a toe tag in the county morgue.

hoffmang
10-24-2009, 8:54 AM
As you can see from my threads today (and the vast majority of all of my posts over the past four years), "Shall Issue" CCW is what I care about most because it saves lives right now, in the America of today (vs some who put AWs higher because of their ability use in defending our liberty/freedom against tyranny possibly in the future). ETA: FWIW, I'm all against the AWB too and look forward to its repeal.


You'll note that the only case filed faster than Carry was the Roster (and that was only because the Roster case was a minor edit of the DC litigation.)

-Gene

Paladin
10-24-2009, 9:48 AM
You'll note that the only case filed faster than Carry was the Roster (and that was only because the Roster case was a minor edit of the DC litigation.)And here I thought you only did that so that we would have a wider range of handguns to put on our CCW permits. :D ;)

hoffmang
10-24-2009, 10:26 AM
And here I thought you only did that so that we would have a wider range of handguns to put on our CCW permits. :D ;)

That too. There are quite a few nice ultra compacts that will not be rosterable due to LCI or Mag Discos...

-Gene

rp55
10-24-2009, 11:01 AM
Is that county map still accurate? I cannot recall his name but I heard a State Assembly candidate speak on how he lived in Salinas and could not get a CCW in Monterey County so he moved to Hollister and got one in San Benito County. He said San Benito County gave out 2600 CCW last year alone. Has something changed there that is not reflected in the map and if so, how did they do it?

elknt
10-24-2009, 11:04 AM
The original post has an excellent proposition. Getting CSSA to support shall issue legislation would be a definite plus for our side. That won't fix the problem all by itself but it will help turn things around. Electing individual pro-CCW Sheriffs will also help. And last, but certainly not least, contributing money time and effort to vote out anti-gun politicians is the best way to change California's anti-gun laws. Having enough votes is what it takes to pass pro-CCW legislation.

Voting incumbents out of office is the one single thing that they truly understand because they are then out of a job. Running a pro-CCW campaign that unseats an anti-gun incumbent would send a huge message to anti-gun incumbents and make it an issue they simply cannot afford to ignore. If we could elect just another 10-20 legislators in CA, we would change everything. Elect 40-50 and this state would not be the same again.