PDA

View Full Version : Hunt vs. Hunter on CCW Policies. Who wins?


Constituent
11-20-2009, 2:32 PM
Here is some information I found online from each candidate running for the office of the Sheriff in OC 2010. Information on Hunter is quoted from Red County 02/09. Click here (http://redcounty.com/orange-county/2009/02/what-would-sheriff-craig-hunte)to see article

Deputy Chief Hunter's CCW policy:

I believe the key, at least for now in California, is to have a solid policy in place that is as "citizen friendly" as possible and then have the Sheriff stay away from any situation that would cast the issuance of a CCW in a negative light. Which is not to say that friends of the Sheriff might or might not get a CCW. After all, who better to know if an applicant meets the criteria than a friend? Or call it a character reference, which is a requirement.

As far as the current status in OC, I believe that reasonable minds can differ. Its up to the voters to make the final determination.

Lt Bill Hunt's CCW policy:

I will issue concealed weapons permits (CCW) to any applicant who is a law abiding resident of the county, meets state mandated requirements and is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. I will depoliticize the process and establish an annual audit to review each application to ensure the process is unbiased, non-political and equitable.

I consider personal protection sufficient to meet the standard of good cause.

locosway
11-20-2009, 2:36 PM
Bill Hunt will issue to anyone who qualifies with a "good cause" of self defense. You can't get any more Shall Issue than that.

I have yet to see or hear Hunter speak on CCW issuance, and while he supposedly has a track record of not repealing issued CCW's, I'm not sure he's as open with issuance as Hunt.

U2BassAce
11-20-2009, 3:18 PM
Nice poll for first post ever on CalGuns.

I guess welcome to CalGuns.

Why don't we let Deputy Chief Hunter state his intended policy before we throw a poll up like this? I think waiting a few days for some solid facts and/or statements is not to much to ask when the election is more than 7 months away. Just saying.....

locosway
11-20-2009, 3:23 PM
Nice poll for first post ever on CalGuns.

I guess welcome to CalGuns.

Why don't we let Deputy Chief Hunter state his intended policy before we throw a poll up like this? I think waiting a few days for some solid facts and/or statements is not to much to ask when the election is more than 7 months away. Just saying.....

While the election is still 7 months away, a lot of us are getting behind a candidate now to help see the election through. I've already signed up to volunteer time for Hunt because he's the only candidate which I support at this time.

If Hunter is as open with CCW issuance as Hunt, and he seems to have a better chance of winning, then I'll switch crowds. I have no personal ties to any candidate, I'm more interested in having a Sheriff who will support my rights.

Rover
11-20-2009, 3:29 PM
Based on those quotes, Hunt gets my vote (yeah I live in TO, but I'm still an OC resident and voter) but, I'd like to hear a clear statement from Hunter a to what his intent is before I make the decision.

SteveH
11-20-2009, 3:29 PM
No idea what Hunters CCW policy will be. I would like to know his intentions for CCW permits. As well as more important issues like how he intends to do the job he wants to be elected to? Is his direction for OCSD simply a much larger version of APD? I have never considered APD as an agency a great defender of civil rights.

ETA: 7 months is nothing in politics. The election is comming fast. Time to pick your race horse was months ago IMO.

GaryPowersLives
11-20-2009, 3:41 PM
No idea what Hunters CCW policy will be. I would like to know his intentions for CCW permits. As well as more important issues like how he intends to do the job he wants to be elected to? Is his direction for OCSD simply a much larger version of APD? I have never considered APD as an agency a great defender of civil rights.

ETA: 7 months is nothing in politics. The election is comming fast. Time to pick your race horse was months ago IMO.

Hunter needs to make a current statement about his CCW views. The statement on this thread looks a lot like a quote, rather than an official statement.

And why do you feel APD is not a great defender of civil rights? Can you point to APD specific examples?

U2BassAce
11-20-2009, 3:43 PM
ETA: 7 months is nothing in politics. The election is comming fast. Time to pick your race horse was months ago IMO.

Just curious, why do you say that? Are you saying Hunter can't win the election or force a run off?

SteveH
11-20-2009, 3:46 PM
...why do you feel APD is not a great defender of civil rights? Can you point to APD specific examples?

I am very bothered by the Anaheim Police killing of the homeowner who did no more than arm himself with a broom stick to investigate criminals in his yard.

The Anaheim chief cares so little about guns that he lost his, twice.

but on the issue of civil rights
http://www.anaheiminjustice.com/steve_nolan.html

SteveH
11-20-2009, 3:48 PM
Just curious, why do you say that?

Fund Raising.

U2BassAce
11-20-2009, 3:52 PM
Fund Raising.

Valid point. However, I really don't think there is going to be a problem in that area. ;)

IGOTDIRT4U
11-20-2009, 3:52 PM
I am very bothered by the Anaheim Police killing of the homeowner who did no more than arm himself with a broom stick to investigate criminals in his yard.

How is that APD specific? Just because it just happen to occurred in Anaheim? Like it could not happen in any of the OCSD contract cities? Weak. You got something better than that? Have you ever lived or worked there long term? What is your real life reference point for APD "civil rights atrocities" outside of an isolated incident?

Hunter is having a meet and greet very soon. I suggest you consider attending and maybe get the story from Chief himself?

RomanDad
11-20-2009, 3:53 PM
I am very bothered by the Anaheim Police killing of the homeowner who did no more than arm himself with a broom stick to investigate criminals in his yard.

What exactly does that have to do with Hunter? He didnt PERSONALLY shoot anybody (like the current sheriff has).

Can you name me a large police department ANYWHERE in the United States that HASN'T had a tragedy like this occur (including Bill Hunts OCSD)?

And if not, then what's your point?

IGOTDIRT4U
11-20-2009, 3:55 PM
Valid point. However, I really don't think there is going to be a problem in that area. ;)

Nope. Not if what I know is still the situation.

OHOD
11-20-2009, 3:56 PM
Leaving the decision up to the voters is a disaster. Look what voters have done to California. Clearly, they (voters) cannot be trusted to make good and rational decisions, but that's our system and we should stick with it.

IGOTDIRT4U
11-20-2009, 3:57 PM
A few others posted that they wished Hunter had a more complete statement on his CCW position. Anything in the works?

(And get that silly hat off your dog, RD. Dogs have dignity rights, too!)

IGOTDIRT4U
11-20-2009, 4:00 PM
I am very bothered by the Anaheim Police killing of the homeowner who did no more than arm himself with a broom stick to investigate criminals in his yard.

The Anaheim chief cares so little about guns that he lost his, twice.

but on the issue of civil rights
http://www.anaheiminjustice.com/steve_nolan.html

The FBI found no wrongdoing and closed their file? Where is the civil rights violation under the Federal standard?

hnoppenberger
11-20-2009, 4:01 PM
Deputy Chief Hunter's response was a convoluted joke. its obvious who supports it more.

SteveH
11-20-2009, 4:03 PM
I would like to ask him about officer Nolans allegations. Did he really tell a wistleblower to STFU?

"Five years before revelations of widespread corruption in the Los Angeles Police Depart-ment’s anti-gang unit, Officer Steve Nolan publicly revealed that his colleagues in Anaheim’s anti-gang unit routinely beat Latino juvenile suspects.

The similarities end there. The scandal in LA’s Rampart division of police violence against suspects, perjury, theft and drug use has led to banner headlines, jail sentences, indictments, a crisis in the district attorney’s office, and the overturning of 99 criminal cases so far. In Anaheim, there was no scandal other than this irony: while the men Nolan accused have been promoted through the ranks of the Anaheim Police Department, Nolan hasn’t worked as a police officer in seven years.

Nolan was a nine-year veteran of the Anaheim PD two of those years spent with the elite gang unit when he broke the code of silence in 1995. On several occasions, Nolan alleged, he witnessed officers brutalizing teenage suspects in police custody.

The first time this happened was on Dec. 28, 1991, when Nolan arrested a 16-year-old robbery suspect named Jorge Alvarado. He turned Alvarado over to gang unit officers John Kelley and Mike Bustamante for the ride downtown. Later that evening, Nolan found Alvarado still handcuffed, sitting on a bench in the station house. Alvarado’s eye was purple and swollen half-shut. According to a lawsuit Nolan filed against the city in 1995, Bustamante had beaten Alvarado on the ride to the station. Bustamante was never disciplined, and when Nolan complained about that to the gang-unit commander, Sergeant Craig Hunter, he was told to back off."

steadyrock
11-20-2009, 4:11 PM
I liked Hunt early on, but his original written stance was this:

"I will issue concealed weapons permits (CCW) to any applicant who is a law abiding resident of the county, meets state mandated requirements and is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. There have been less than 1200 issued CCW’s in a county of 3 million. The majority have been given to reserve police officers, judges, prosecutors and to reward political supporters. I will depoliticize the process and establish an annual audit to review each application to ensure the process is unbiased, non-political and equitable."

The part in bold was a flat-out lie and Bill knew it at the time he wrote it. Once he was called out on that and hounded about what defined "good cause", he edited the statement to what it is today. Maybe that means he listens to his potential constituents, or maybe he's just hiding his true feelings. Also:


A big part of his current statement revolves around "meeting state mandated requirements". Don't forget that Sheriff Hutchens' policy also requires that applicants "meet state mandated requirements".
An annual audit to review every application? Sounds to me like a lot of expensive bureaucracy and a real chance that he will shorten the renewal period for each permit to just one year.


I don't really like Hunter's political jabble either, and yes - Anaheim doesn't exactly have a great record for crime prevention or defending civil rights. I'm not sure who I will ultimately support.

SteveH
11-20-2009, 4:13 PM
The FBI found no wrongdoing and closed their file? Where is the civil rights violation under the Federal standard?

I did not say there was a civil rights violation. I said APD is not a great defender of civil rights.

What affirmative actions have APD taken to defend civil rights? Do they have a policy preventing pretext stops, consent searches and other fishing expeditions? Have they published briefing items training officers about the legality of UOC and OLL's? Hunter is a policy maker at APD. Show how he has used that authority to champion civil rights? Has he pressured the Chief to exit the CCW pact with the Sheriff and start issuing their own? Has he forbid his officers from conducting DUI and drivers license check points?

As i stated earlier. I just dont see APD as a great defender of civil rights. Hunt on the other hand claims that is his most important job if elected. Hows the hunt quote go. The job of the sheriff is defending peoples rights, not restricting them? Hell even Hutchens had the ACLU involved in policy revision. I havent heard anything like that from Hunter or APD.

U2BassAce
11-20-2009, 4:19 PM
I did not say there was a civil rights violation. I said APD is not a great defender of civil rights. What affirmative actions have APD taken to defend civil rights? Do they have a policy preventing pretext stops, consent searches and other fishing expeditions? Have they published briefing items training officers about the legality of UOC and OLL's? Hunter is a policy maker at APD. So how has he used that authority to champion civil rights? Has he pressured to Chief to exit the CCW pact with the Sheriff and start issuing their own? Has he forbid his officers from conducting DUI and drivers license check points?

As i stated earlier. I just dont see APD as a greart defender of civil rights. Yet Hunt claims that is his most important job if elected. Hows the hunt quote go. The job of the sheriff is defending peoples rights, not restricting them? I havent heard anything like that from hunter or APD.

I need to go look at Hunt's campaign website again. Does it advocate the above bolded items? Is the OCSD really going to stop setting up DUI and DL check points under Hunt?

IGOTDIRT4U
11-20-2009, 4:20 PM
I did not say there was a civil rights violation. I said APD is not a great defender of civil rights. What affirmative actions has APD taken to defend civil rights? Do they have a policy preventing pretext stops or consent searches and other fishing expeditions? Have they published briefing items training officers about the legality ot UOC and OLL's? Hunter is policy maker at APD. So how has he used that authority to champion civil rights? Has he pressured to Chief to exit the CCW pact with the Sheriff and start issuing their own? Has he forbit his officers from conducting DUI and drivers license check points?

As i stated earlier. I just dont see APD as a greart defender of civil rights. Yet Hunt claims that is his most important job if elected.

The same could be said about most other cities and police chiefs. It appears you are only asking for this extraordinary disclosure now that he is running for office. Have you visited the APD website to see what their FAQ and official policy statements may be?

Let's go further. Show me where Hunt has used his "authority to champion civil rights"? Show me where Hunt has "Forbit (sic) his officers from conducting DIU and drivers license check points"? Show me where Hunt has done any of the following?:

What affirmative actions has APD taken to defend civil rights? Do they have a policy preventing pretext stops or consent searches and other fishing expeditions? Have they published briefing items training officers about the legality ot UOC and OLL's?

I get it that you are a supporter of Hunt. But so far, I see nothing about Hunt that distinguishes himself as a better or superior candidate over Hunter.

CSDGuy
11-20-2009, 4:20 PM
I clearly have no dog in this race... I'm from the Sacramento region. Here's how I see each statement:

Here is some information I found online from each candidate running for the office of the Sheriff in OC 2010. Information on Hunter is quoted from Red County 02/09. Click here (http://redcounty.com/orange-county/2009/02/what-would-sheriff-craig-hunte)to see article

Deputy Chief Hunter's CCW policy:

I believe the key, at least for now in California, is to have a solid policy in place that is as "citizen friendly" as possible and then have the Sheriff stay away from any situation that would cast the issuance of a CCW in a negative light. Which is not to say that friends of the Sheriff might or might not get a CCW. After all, who better to know if an applicant meets the criteria than a friend? Or call it a character reference, which is a requirement.

As far as the current status in OC, I believe that reasonable minds can differ. Its up to the voters to make the final determination.

While he's not saying his personal friends may or may not get a CCW, it's more difficult to spin his "citizen friendly" statement into being restrictive with CCW issuance. Given that the CLEO (Sheriff or PD Chief) is the issuing authority, anytime one of their friends gets a CCW, the "fairness" of the process could be questioned.
Lt Bill Hunt's CCW policy:

I will issue concealed weapons permits (CCW) to any applicant who is a law abiding resident of the county, meets state mandated requirements and is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. I will depoliticize the process and establish an annual audit to review each application to ensure the process is unbiased, non-political and equitable.

I consider personal protection sufficient to meet the standard of good cause.

This is basically what Sheriff Hutchens said too. The "state mandated requirements" includes meeting good cause and we know that the Sheriff decides what that happens to be. It has only been fairly recently (that I've seen) that Hunt has started mentioning "personal protection" as good cause. Hunt's statement above can much more easily go either way... restrictive or less restrictive. Spoken like a politician.I'd rather discretion be taken away from the CLEO, like Oregon as does and have the process be completely Shall-Issue, and uniform statewide.

Since I'm in Sacramento and not Orange County, the choice is completely in the hands of the OC voters in just 7 months.

RomanDad
11-20-2009, 4:26 PM
(And get that silly hat off your dog, RD. Dogs have dignity rights, too!)

Its thanksgiving..... The Late great Roman gets to wear a Pilgrim hat.


Its odd to me that the Hunt guys seem so fixated with HUNTER.... To me the only enemy is HUTCHENS, and I would think their time would be better spent focused on HER.

SteveH
11-20-2009, 4:28 PM
I need to go look at Hunt's campaign website again. Does it advocate the above bolded items? Is the OCSD really going to stop setting up DUI and DL check points under Hunt?

I have no idea if Hunt intends to do such things. They were listed as examples of how a police administrator could defend civil rights.

Can you show me any affirmative action taken by Hunter to defend civil rights?

I can give you one for Hutchens. according to her blog and the OCR, she turned a one paragraph use of force policy into a new four page version with ACLU input. Has Hunter invited the NRA, ACLU or CGF (any civil rights group) to help rewrite any policy?

IGOTDIRT4U
11-20-2009, 4:34 PM
I have no idea if Hunt intends to do such things. They were listed as examples of how a police administrator could defend civil rights.

Can you show me any affirmative action taken by Hunter to defend civil rights?



Since you appear to be an ardent supporter for Hunt, same right back at you.

Where is Hunt's?

And I commend Hutchens if what you say is true, and that is why we have to focus efforts against the likely incumbent. Let's not swallow an elephant and gag on a gnat.

RomanDad
11-20-2009, 4:35 PM
I have no idea if Hunt intends to do such things. They were listed as examples of how a police administrator could defend civil rights.

Can you show me any affirmative action taken by Hunter to defend civil rights?

I can give you one for Hutchens. according to her blog and the OCR, she turned a one paragraph use of force policy into a new four page version with ACLU input. Has Hunter invited the NRA, ACLU or CGF (any civil rights group) to help rewrite any policy?

How would it be proper for a CLEO to delegate his duty to non-elected third party entities?

The people of Orange County didnt elect the ACLU to write departmental policy (to be fair, we didn't elect anybody currently involved with the process), and the City Council of Anaheim appointed Hunter's BOSS (Chief Welters) to write departmental policy, not the ACLU.


And while we're on the subject of Chief Welters, why do you keep trying to associate Hunter with his boss's personal mistakes?

SteveH
11-20-2009, 4:37 PM
The same could be said about most other cities and police chiefs. It appears you are only asking for this extraordinary disclosure now that he is running for office.

Of course.


Now that he is running for Sheriff and will, if elected, be responsible for those patrolling my south county neighborhood i have a vested interest.

SteveH
11-20-2009, 4:39 PM
How would it be proper for a CLEO to delegate his duty to non-elected third party entities?

I forget the name of the company. But many large agencies contract with a private company for policy revisions. Do you believe CLEO's write every word of policy themselves?

locosway
11-20-2009, 4:45 PM
Since you appear to be an ardent supporter for Hunt, same right back at you.

Where is Hunt's?

And I commend Hutchens if what you say is true, and that is why we have to focus efforts against the likely incumbent. Let's not swallow an elephant and gag on a gnat.

Hunt has attended Oath Keepers several times and they endorse him as well. Hunt is also endorsed by a conservative Republican group down here in OC somewhere, but I'm not sure of their name off hand. Hunt has said many times that he will not take away peoples rights, he will uphold the constitution and let people do their business if it's legal. He's also very adamant about his CCW issuance which is anyone who is legal will be issued a CCW without a 'good cause' statement.

So far, Hunt is straight forward in all manners and if you ask him a question he answers truthfully as far as I can tell. Watch some of his meetings or send him a question and he'll get back to you.

With Hunter, he's still an unknown. No one knows what issues he supports or doesn't. His CCW policy that I've seen here is still at his discretion. This is not what I want, and it's not what a lot of people in OC want. Transparency is key, and this is a good thing.

Hunt has also said he'll remove the deputies from the jails so they can patrol and they can bring in private guards who cost less to the county. This is great at reducing overhead and will give us more patrolling officers.

SteveH
11-20-2009, 4:46 PM
Since you appear to be an ardent supporter for Hunt, same right back at you.

Where is Hunt's?

http://www.billhuntforsheriff2010.com/sites/billhunt.netboots.net/files/images/netboots/Billhunt_graphic_0729.jpg

That quote sums up what a Sheriff should be. Maybe I am naive, but I believe him when he says it. I met when he was new Narcotics Investigator, we used to attend the same church, and I believe him to be a man of his word.

RomanDad
11-20-2009, 4:47 PM
I forget the name of the company. But many large agencies contract with a private company for policy revisions. Do you believe CLEO's write every word of policy themselves?


Lexipol? Im familiar with Lexipol. And they are one of the greatest reasons CCW is so screwed up in California. Lexipol is a LAW FIRM. The CLEOS contract out with them for legally sound policies that protect their departments from lawsuit (which are ironically brought predominately by the ACLU).... Thats wholly different from inviting the ACLU (A politically motivated advocacy group) in to help write policy.

RomanDad
11-20-2009, 4:49 PM
http://www.billhuntforsheriff2010.com/sites/billhunt.netboots.net/files/images/netboots/Billhunt_graphic_0729.jpg

That quote sums up what a Sheriff should be.

That and a quarter will buy you a cup of coffee.

I have no idea what that means.... Its a bunch of happy talk.... Happy talk that most of us have heard enough times to know it means BUPPKISS when the election is over.

RomanDad
11-20-2009, 4:57 PM
With Hunter, he's still an unknown. No one knows what issues he supports or doesn't. His CCW policy that I've seen here is still at his discretion. This is not what I want, and it's not what a lot of people in OC want. Transparency is key, and this is a good thing.


Not "no one".

I think it should speak volumes that people like me, WHO HAVE BEEN ON THIS ISSUE SINCE THE BEGINNING.... Who have been fighting for CCW reform in California for nearly 20 years... Who MET with the OC BOS WAY BACK before the first revocation letters went out, have read Hunter's policy, and are EXTREMELY comfortable with it. Yes. A very thorough CCW policy statement is pending.

Hunt has been out for months now and has done.... Not much. Guys, I wish you no ill will... Im rooting against Sandra Hutchens, and after that, I dont care who wins....

But so far the Hunt campaign, from the total lack of respect for CCW holder's privacy, to the Sheriff Joe thing has been totally tone deaf.

locosway
11-20-2009, 5:01 PM
Not "no one".

I think it should speak volumes that people like me, WHO HAVE BEEN ON THIS ISSUE SINCE THE BEGINNING.... Who have been fighting for CCW reform in California for nearly 20 years... Who MET with the OC BOS WAY BACK before the first revocation letters went out, have read Hunter's policy, and are EXTREMELY comfortable with it. Yes. A very thorough CCW policy statement is pending.

Hunt has been out for months now and has done.... Not much. Guys, I wish you no ill will... Im rooting against Sandra Hutchens, and after that, I dont care who wins....

But so far the Hunt campaign, from the total lack of respect for CCW holder's privacy, to the Sheriff Joe thing has been totally tone deaf.

Does Hunter have an official website with his policies and what he supports? If there are no official statements about his CCW support then it's really an unknown.

Also, what's this about Hunt doing nothing? He seems to have strong support here in OC.

SteveH
11-20-2009, 5:12 PM
Not "no one".

I think it should speak volumes that people like me, WHO HAVE BEEN ON THIS ISSUE SINCE THE BEGINNING.... Who have been fighting for CCW reform in California for nearly 20 years... Who MET with the OC BOS WAY BACK before the first revocation letters went out, have read Hunter's policy, and are EXTREMELY comfortable with it. Yes. A very thorough CCW policy statement is pending.



I look forward to seeing it. But as a south county resident there are other issues equally important to me. I've met and trust Bill Hunt. I don't know Hunter and am not sure I want a Sheriff with a Anaheim mindset anymore than I want a Sheriff with an LA mindset. My personal bias is that urban city cops don't make great county sheriffs. If Hunter gets the chance hopefully he can prove me wrong.

IGOTDIRT4U
11-20-2009, 5:13 PM
Of course.


Now that he is running for Sheriff and will, if elected, be responsible for those patrolling my south county neighborhood i have a vested interest.

Then be fair and post Hunt's, if one exists. You are attcking one and purposely overlooking another. There exists a credibility gap in your approach.

IGOTDIRT4U
11-20-2009, 5:15 PM
http://www.billhuntforsheriff2010.com/sites/billhunt.netboots.net/files/images/netboots/Billhunt_graphic_0729.jpg

That quote sums up what a Sheriff should be. Maybe I am naive, but I believe him when he says it. I met when he was new Narcotics Investigator, we used to attend the same church, and I believe him to be a man of his word.

That doesn't answer any part of the question you posed and I tossed back to you. But it does answer other questions. :rolleyes:

IGOTDIRT4U
11-20-2009, 5:17 PM
Does Hunter have an official website with his policies and what he supports? If there are no official statements about his CCW support then it's really an unknown.



That's part of the problem; the poll/thread is a bit pre-mature.

locosway
11-20-2009, 5:18 PM
Then be fair and post Hunt's, if one exists. You are attcking one and purposely overlooking another. There exists a credibility gap in your approach.

What do you want to know?

steadyrock
11-20-2009, 5:19 PM
Also, what's this about Hunt doing nothing? He seems to have strong support here in OC.

To be fair, Hunt has been the only dog in the fight for some time. Hunter only announced a few days ago, and just doesn't have the name recognition yet. That Hunt has so much support in OC may well be a bad sign for Hutchens, but doesn't necessarily speak to how competitive he will be with Hunter.

Why Hunter doesn't have a website up (or at least, not one that Google knows of) is a mystery to me. Surely he plans to put up something soon.

U2BassAce
11-20-2009, 5:20 PM
That's part of the problem; the poll/thread is a bit pre-mature.

Ding ding ding we have a winner!:party:

SteveH
11-20-2009, 5:21 PM
Its thanksgiving..... The Late great Roman gets to wear a Pilgrim hat.


Its odd to me that the Hunt guys seem so fixated with HUNTER.... To me the only enemy is HUTCHENS, and I would think their time would be better spent focused on HER.

It's not odd from a political standpoint. Hunters entry makes this like an election with one Democrat running against two republicans. Hunter has greatly reduced the chance that a pro CCW candidate gets 51% of the vote because he is going for the same votes as Hunt.

Anderson, Hunters, Waters..any of them entering the race was the worst possible thing that could happen if the goal is to get rid of Hurtchens. We had our best shot with a two candidate race. Now its two pro ccw guys fighting over votes while hillman and hutchens sit back and smile.

locosway
11-20-2009, 5:21 PM
That's part of the problem; the poll/thread is a bit pre-mature.

No, we're coming into the election year very soon and there's no information about Hunter. Hunt did get out there early, and some say it could hurt him as it gives people more of a chance to discredit him. But, I think that Hunt is genuine and this shouldn't be much of a problem. His dirty laundry is already out for everyone to see from the Carona incident.

Until Hunter, or anyone else comes out and supports CCW and other issues better than Hunt, there's no chance a lot of us will swing to anyone else. Like I said, I'm already signed up with Hunt for volunteering. However, I WILL change my stance if someone better comes along. I'm in this for me, not everyone else.

DVSmith
11-20-2009, 5:24 PM
It's not odd from a political standpoint. Hunters entry makes this like an election with one Democrat running against two republicans. Hunter has greatly reduced the chance that a pro CCW candidate gets 51% of the vote because he is going for the same votes as Hunt.

Anderson, Hunters, Waters..any of them entering the race was the worst possible thing that could happen if the goal is to get rid of Hurtchens. We had our best shot with a two candidate race. Now its two pro ccw guys fighting over votes while hillman and hutchens sit back and smile.

Hunt could always back out. Candidate filing hasn't even started yet. I can't tell you the number of times a candidates has announced their intention to run and then backs away before the close of filing.

RomanDad
11-20-2009, 5:24 PM
To be fair, Hunt has been the only dog in the fight for some time. Hunter only announced a few days ago, and just doesn't have the name recognition yet. That Hunt has so much support in OC may well be a bad sign for Hutchens, but doesn't necessarily speak to how competitive he will be with Hunter.

Why Hunter doesn't have a website up (or at least, not one that Google knows of) is a mystery to me. Surely he plans to put up something soon.
Hes only (Officially) been a candidate for three days.


http://www.hunterforsheriff.com

IGOTDIRT4U
11-20-2009, 5:27 PM
Hes only (Officially) been a candidate for three days.


http://www.hunterforsheriff.com

Sweet!

Let the games begin.

RomanDad
11-20-2009, 5:28 PM
It's not odd from a political standpoint. Hunters entry makes this like an election with one Democrat running against two republicans. Hunter has greatly reduced the chance that a pro CCW candidate gets 51% of the vote because he is going for the same votes as Hunt.

Anderson, Hunters, Waters..any of them entering the race was the worst possible thing that could happen if the goal is to get rid of Hurtchens. We had our best shot with a two candidate race. Now its two pro ccw guys fighting over votes while hillman and hutchens sit back and smile.
Once again.... Tone Deaf.



Newsflash- Hutchens is a REPUBLICAN. If you knew as much about whats going on as you seem to think you do, you'd already know that.

The CCW issue is NOT even in the TOP FIVE of the issues that will decide who the next sheriff will be....

And you dont seem to understand how a runoff election works. Either Hutchens is going to get 50%+1 of the vote.... OR SHE WONT...... The number of candidates splitting the minority of the vote is really irrelevant...

IGOTDIRT4U
11-20-2009, 5:29 PM
What do you want to know?

As much as I would like to hear your version, I am only directing my inquiry to SteveH, as it is his strong belief that Hunter lacks, but he can't demonstrate (yet) that his preference of candidate is any different. (Other than a gut feeling due to church associations?)

locosway
11-20-2009, 5:30 PM
Hunt could always back out. Candidate filing hasn't even started yet. I can't tell you the number of times a candidates has announced their intention to run and then backs away before the close of filing.

Why Hunt and not Hunter?

DVSmith
11-20-2009, 5:33 PM
Why Hunt and not Hunter?

Why indeed?

locosway
11-20-2009, 5:34 PM
Hes only (Officially) been a candidate for three days.


http://www.hunterforsheriff.com

I just emailed Hunter, so lets see if he responds in a timely manner and what he has to say.

I've spoken to Hunt several times electronically and each time he's forthcoming with information and very responsive to my emails.

SteveH
11-20-2009, 5:34 PM
Once again.... Tone Deaf.


Newsflash- Hutchens is a REPUBLICAN. If you knew as much about whats going on as you seem to think you do, you'd already know that.

You dont seem to understand the run-off system for Sheriff either....

Yes Hutchen registered as a republican. You are very literal, I'll try to keep that in mind.

I was trying to point out that you have two sides of the issue (CCW). One candidate on one side, two candidates on the other side. You can substitute Yin and Yang for Democrat and Republican if it makes you feel better. The point still stands. The more progun candidates the less chance a progun candidate gets 51% of the vote because they are splitting that voter pool. You of course understand this and are just being..whats that word, obstanant? (sp?)

Yes I understand there is a run off if no candidate gets 51% of the vote. Can you remember the last run off for OC Sheriff? I cant.

RomanDad
11-20-2009, 5:38 PM
Yes Hutchen registered as a republican. You are very literal, I'll try to keep that in mind.

I was trying to point out that you hve two sides of the issue (CCW). One candidate on one side, two candidates on the other side. You can substitute Yin and Yang for Democrat and Republican if it makes you feel better. The point still stands. The more progun candidates the less chance a progun candidate gets 51% of the vote because they are splitting that voter pool. You of course understand this and are just being..whats that word, obstanant? (sp?)

Yes I understand there is a run off if no candidate gets 51% of the vote. Can you remember the last run off for OC Sheriff? I cant.

And by that logic, Neither Hunt nor Hunter should run.... NO INCUMBANT SHERIFF in the history of the state has lost reelection.

BUT...
Can you remember the last time a sheriff was appointed, and then spent the next 2 years having every bonehead decision she made make front page news? I cant.


Again.... Your math is faulty.... EITHER the "ANTI-GUN candidate" gets 50%+1, or SHE DOESN'T. If she gets 51% she would have won without a runoff whether there were two other candidates or 200. The number of opposition candidates makes ZERO EFFECT on that number. Unless youre saying the pro-gun voters are just going to throw up their hands and vote for HUTCHENS? That's the only way the "Pro gun" vote effects that 50% number.

IGOTDIRT4U
11-20-2009, 5:39 PM
I just emailed Hunter, so lets see if he responds in a timely manner and what he has to say.

I've spoken to Hunt several times electronically and each time he's forthcoming with information and very responsive to my emails.

Me too.

Chief Hunter:

As an OC resident (non-county served) I would like to see on your campaign website and to my ears (ok, e-mail) what your final statement on CCW issuance is, for the purposes of your upcoming campaign for OC Sheriff.

Thanks for your time and attention to this request.

XXXXXXX XXXXX
Tustin Ranch

SteveH
11-20-2009, 5:45 PM
And by that logic, Neither Hunt nor Hunter should run.... NO INUMBANT SHERIFF in the history of the state has lost reelection.

BUT...
Can you remember the last time a sheriff was appointed, and then spent the next 2 years having every bonehead decision she made make front page news? I cant.


Again.... Your math is faulty.... EITHER the "ANTI-GUN candidate get 50%+1, or SHE DOESNT. The number of opposition candidates makes ZERO EFFECT on that number. Unless youre saying the pro-gun voters are just going to throw up their hands and vote for HUTCHENS?

The dynamic i have seen in other elections is when the differences become less clear the voters are more likely to vote for the known (incumbant). A voter given too many options choses the safe bet.

DVSmith
11-20-2009, 5:46 PM
My favorite thing about asking anyone what their CCW policy will be is that we all want to hear "shall issue." That is of course impossible in California right now. Anything short of that can be nuanced over a broad landscape. For instance, Hutchens has a large number of CCW's that she will happily tell you she has issued. Her attempt to diffuse the question that way works for most people until you learn that most of her permits are restricted.

RomanDad
11-20-2009, 5:52 PM
The dynamic i have seen in other elections is when the differences become less clear the voters are more likely to vote for the known (incumbant). A voter given too many options choses the safe bet.

People vote FOR or AGAINST the incumbent.... And in a run-off once they've decided to vote AGAINST the incumbant, who they vote for instead is pretty irrelevant.

Your mathematics are correct with regard to PARTISAN elections with POLITICAL PARTIES.... Where a third party candidate like a libertarian Candidate steals off the a percentage of the Republican vote effectively lowering the winning threshold of victory for the Democrat to 40 some Percent. (You can toss in green party stealing victories from Democrat just as easily). But in those elections, THE HIGHEST VOTE GETTER WINS, REGARDLESS IF THEY ONLY GAIN A PLURALITY (less than 50%) of the vote.

e.g. Bill Clinton 43%, GHW Bush 37%, Ross Perot 18%. Clinton wins with 43%.

Thats not a factor in a non partisan- run off type election that requires 50%+1 to WIN.

The fact is, HUNTER is in the race now. Nothing Steve H says on Calguns is going to alter that fact.


So please.... STOP worrying so much about Hunter, and start working on HUTCHENS..... We can beat the crap out of each other in JULY after we get her out of the race completely.


Personally, I'd MUCH rather see the election for the Sheriff to come down to a November 2010 contest.... As that will be the Congressional election which SHOULD be a HUGE turnout for Republicans and Conservatives.... Hutchens best chance to win 51% is in JUNE when most voters stay home. If it goes to November, she can rent the U-haul for Temecula because it will be over.

Reloaderx2
11-20-2009, 9:19 PM
Hunt has been on record since 2005 that he is pro-ccw/pro-Second Amendment. In other words, you pass the qualification and background, you get a ccw. That way there are no restrictions to twist donations or political favors from applicants. He says as much loud and clear here: http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Blogs/79.php

I have no plans to wait around for Craig Hunter's ccw platform because anybody who is a self-professed constitionalist would never say this: "As far as the current status in OC, I believe that reasonable minds can differ. Its up to the voters to make the final determination." Reasonable minds determine what a Second Amendment right against tyranny is? No thanks. You can't put square plugs in a round hole and no amout of rehabilitation will change that. Craig Hunter is crystal clear that his feigned concept of constitutional rights is tenuous at best.

nicki
11-21-2009, 5:00 AM
Hutchen's needs 50 percent plus one, so it may actually be advantageous to have two candidates in the race and both candidates just attack Hutchens.

If Hunt and Hunter can come to an agreement to focus most of their attacks on Hutchens, it could force a run off.

Hunt and Hunter can't be buddy, buddy on everything and they should respectfully highlight their differences for the voters.

After the June election, one of them will probably be running against the Sheriff in November. If Orange county residents are lucky, both will be in the November election and Hutchens will have been knocked out.

After the June election, gun rights activists should unite behind the pro gun candidate regardless of wheter it is Hunt or Hunter.

Nicki

SteveH
11-21-2009, 6:46 AM
Hutchen's needs 50 percent plus one, so it may actually be advantageous to have two candidates in the race and both candidates just attack Hutchens.

If Hunt and Hunter can come to an agreement to focus most of their attacks on Hutchens, it could force a run off.

Hunt and Hunter can't be buddy, buddy on everything and they should respectfully highlight their differences for the voters.

After the June election, one of them will probably be running against the Sheriff in November. If Orange county residents are lucky, both will be in the November election and Hutchens will have been knocked out.

After the June election, gun rights activists should unite behind the pro gun candidate regardless of wheter it is Hunt or Hunter.

Nicki

Assuming of course that Hunter is actually pro-gun.

Constituent
11-21-2009, 7:52 AM
Out of all fairness to Hunter he has not released his official policy as mentioned by many people. I think what we want is someone who does what he says and means what he says. We have had issues in the past in the OCSD with leaders telling us one thing and doing other.

We will have to see who has the best chance to get us there. I do think time is of the essence if we sideline our self we will lose all together.

As of now Hunt has a stronger policy and if Hunter revises his stance it is fair but we should also hold our leaders accountable for what they say. If we don't what is going to change if he gets the job will he truly support his word? My personal belief is that gun rights should not be voted on. This is a granted right through the constitution and not political.

Med marijuana and stuff like that in my opinion is stuff people should vote upon. Great forum and thanks for letting a new comer get involved.

OCCCWS
11-21-2009, 9:05 AM
Deputy Chief Craig Hunter released his policy statement on CCW. It is posted over at OCCCWS.

http://www.occcws.com/


Current California law requires that good cause be established by those desiring a CCW. Courts have ruled that Sheriffs in California have almost unfettered latitude in determining what good cause is. Our current Sheriff has adopted a restrictive interpretation of good cause. I will not.

Everyone’s circumstances are different. Some travel through areas with little cell coverage and extended law enforcement response time. Many exercise at night away from home in locations which make them vulnerable. Some transport valuable property which makes them targets for criminals. The reality is that individuals have different reasons for desiring a CCW for purposes of self-defense, and when I am Sheriff of Orange County, reasonable expressions of good cause will be sufficient.

Police Chiefs and Sheriffs from throughout the United States agree that their initial reluctance in issuing CCW permits was unnecessary, and they have been pleasantly surprised by the absence of problems. Anyone who believes a self-protection firearm is not a deterrent to crime is simply being unrealistic.

I believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves if assaulted, and as your Sheriff I will not enact policies which put criminals at an advantage over the law abiding residents of Orange County.

Seriously, after all the hard work that we've done, do you think OCCCWS would get behind someone who is not good on this, and other issues?

RomanDad
11-21-2009, 9:23 AM
Deputy Chief Craig Hunter released his policy statement on CCW. It is posted over at OCCCWS.

http://www.occcws.com/


Current California law requires that good cause be established by those desiring a CCW. Courts have ruled that Sheriffs in California have almost unfettered latitude in determining what good cause is. Our current Sheriff has adopted a restrictive interpretation of good cause. I will not.

Everyone’s circumstances are different. Some travel through areas with little cell coverage and extended law enforcement response time. Many exercise at night away from home in locations which make them vulnerable. Some transport valuable property which makes them targets for criminals. The reality is that individuals have different reasons for desiring a CCW for purposes of self-defense, and when I am Sheriff of Orange County, reasonable expressions of good cause will be sufficient.

Police Chiefs and Sheriffs from throughout the United States agree that their initial reluctance in issuing CCW permits was unnecessary, and they have been pleasantly surprised by the absence of problems. Anyone who believes a self-protection firearm is not a deterrent to crime is simply being unrealistic.

I believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves if assaulted, and as your Sheriff I will not enact policies which put criminals at an advantage over the law abiding residents of Orange County.

Seriously, after all the hard work that we've done, do you think OCCCWS would get behind someone who is not good on this, and other issues?

I think that says it all....


Its a policy that complies with Penal Code $12050 AND will stand up to DOJ scrutiny, while not employing an arbitrary or capricious standard in favor of one that ANY law abiding citizen can meet.... And IT ACKNOWLEDGES that OTHER CLEOS throughout the state who are still standing by their antiquated CCWs policies even though their initial fears for public safety have been proven unjustified, need to change as well.

Reloaderx2
11-21-2009, 9:30 AM
Deputy Chief Craig Hunter released his policy statement on CCW. It is posted over at OCCCWS.

http://www.occcws.com/


Current California law requires that good cause be established by those desiring a CCW. Courts have ruled that Sheriffs in California have almost unfettered latitude in determining what good cause is. Our current Sheriff has adopted a restrictive interpretation of good cause. I will not.

Everyone’s circumstances are different. Some travel through areas with little cell coverage and extended law enforcement response time. Many exercise at night away from home in locations which make them vulnerable. Some transport valuable property which makes them targets for criminals. The reality is that individuals have different reasons for desiring a CCW for purposes of self-defense, and when I am Sheriff of Orange County, reasonable expressions of good cause will be sufficient.

Police Chiefs and Sheriffs from throughout the United States agree that their initial reluctance in issuing CCW permits was unnecessary, and they have been pleasantly surprised by the absence of problems. Anyone who believes a self-protection firearm is not a deterrent to crime is simply being unrealistic.

I believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves if assaulted, and as your Sheriff I will not enact policies which put criminals at an advantage over the law abiding residents of Orange County.

Seriously, after all the hard work that we've done, do you think OCCCWS would get behind someone who is not good on this, and other issues?

With all due respect, The only thing that is really on point as to what we want to hear is this statement:" reasonable expressions of good cause will be sufficient." which really doesn't tell us anything. Hunt says "personal protection" is sufficient good cause. So in other words Craig Hunter's good cause is what he says is "reasonable" down the line. Hunt's good cause is if you pass background and qualify, you get one. Could you clarify that for us?

RomanDad
11-21-2009, 9:42 AM
With all due respect, The only thing that is really on point as to what we want to hear is this statement:" reasonable expressions of good cause will be sufficient." which really doesn't tell us anything. Hunt says "personal protection" is sufficient good cause. So in other words Craig Hunter's good cause is what he says is "reasonable" down the line. Hunt's good cause is if you pass background and qualify, you get one. Could you clarify that for us?

How is that any different that Hunter's? EITHER will require "Good Cause" to be stated do be in compliance with 12050. Thats the California Penal Code. NEITHER can ignore the "Good Cause" requirement. BOTH will accept self defense as Good Cause.

One does so with NO chance of Department of Justice rejection.

OCCCWS
11-21-2009, 9:52 AM
With all due respect, The only thing that is really on point as to what we want to hear is this statement:" reasonable expressions of good cause will be sufficient." which really doesn't tell us anything. Hunt says "personal protection" is sufficient good cause. So in other words Craig Hunter's good cause is what he says is "reasonable" down the line. Hunt's good cause is if you pass background and qualify, you get one. Could you clarify that for us?

Let's put it this way...California law REQUIRES that good cause be established. This is the framework for a policy, and more importantly a philosophy, which is light years ahead of anything OC has had, and the term 'reasonable' gives the Sheriff the ability to exercise his legally required discretion.

To simply say that 'Personal Protection' is good cause, though we all would love that even that not be necessary, invites scrutiny from DOJ. Remember, courts have ruled that in addition to Sheriffs having unfettered discretion in defining good cause, they must also EXERCISE discretion. A policy without discretion, as in a de facto shall issue policy, does not comply with this.

Again I say, seriously, why would OCCCWS waste its time on a candidate who we don't believe would be a VAST improvement over what exists now in OC. We've spent tens of thousands of dollars, tens of thousand of man hours, on this issue in exposing Sheriff Hutchens' erratic policies (and we're still doing it). And what I was most impressed with was when we were ready to post Deputy Chief Hunter's statement yesterday, he said hold off---I want to add something. The following is what he added at the last minute, without prompting:

Police Chiefs and Sheriffs from throughout the United States agree that their initial reluctance in issuing CCW permits was unnecessary, and they have been pleasantly surprised by the absence of problems. Anyone who believes a self-protection firearm is not a deterrent to crime is simply being unrealistic.

That tells me he gets it---this isn't about guns. It's about self-defense.

Everyone will have to make up their mind who to support, but we all have to agree that the focus of our energies should be on Sandra Hutchens. SHE'S the one who has to go.

Shotgun Man
11-21-2009, 9:53 AM
I think that says it all....


Its a policy that complies with Penal Code $12050 AND will stand up to DOJ scrutiny, while not employing an arbitrary or capricious standard in favor of one that ANY law abiding citizen can meet.... And IT ACKNOWLEDGES that OTHER CLEOS throughout the state who are still standing by their antiquated CCWs policies even though their initial fears for public safety have been proven unjustified, need to change as well.

Is the dollar sign a joke? Pretty funny-- as in you have to contribute to the campaign to get a CCW? Never saw that one before.

OCCCWS
11-21-2009, 9:57 AM
Is the dollar sign a joke? Pretty funny-- as in you have to contribute to the campaign to get a CCW? Never saw that one before.

In LA County, you ain't far off. ;)

Reloaderx2
11-21-2009, 10:02 AM
Is the dollar sign a joke? Pretty funny-- as in you have to contribute to the campaign to get a CCW? Never saw that one before.

Freudian slip :)

RomanDad
11-21-2009, 10:11 AM
Is the dollar sign a joke? Pretty funny-- as in you have to contribute to the campaign to get a CCW? Never saw that one before.



No... Thats legal shorthand for "Section" as the actual § symbol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_sign) requires typing "Alt 21" or some other mystical combination of numbers and not all computer programs support it....

RomanDad
11-21-2009, 10:12 AM
Freudian slip :)
:rolleyes:
Lame

glbtrottr
11-21-2009, 10:42 AM
:rolleyes:
Lame

Craig Hunter doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who'd take $ for contributions in exchange for CCW...

though Roman, if you want to sell your Lamborghini and donate the proceeds to his campaign, no one would be opposed...:) In fact, here's the LINK:

https://www.completecampaigns.com/FR/contribute.asp?campaignid=HunterCraig


I think they were going to add paypal and gunpal...

Wait - you had offered me the keys to that Lambo to take it around the block once...that is, before you sell it and contribute to Hunter's campaign...

....then again, I had offered you some ammo cans ...

Rats! I guess I missed out.

HUNTER FOR SHERIFF 2010.

RomanDad
11-21-2009, 10:55 AM
Craig Hunter doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who'd take $ for contributions in exchange for CCW...

though Roman, if you want to sell your Lamborghini and donate the proceeds to his campaign, no one would be opposed...:)

.

:rolleyes:


Im not going to be selling the Millennium Falcon.

I will however be contributing to Hunter's Campaign.

And Hunt's as well.

And any other pro CCW candidate who jumps into the race.

As well as pro CCW candidates in OTHER counties where the issue is in play.


And I will encourage everybody else who cares about this issue, who is in the financial position to do so in these difficult times, to do the same.

Reloaderx2
11-21-2009, 11:04 AM
Craig Hunter doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who'd take $ for contributions in exchange for CCW...

though Roman, if you want to sell your Lamborghini and donate the proceeds to his campaign, no one would be opposed...:) In fact, here's the LINK:

https://www.completecampaigns.com/FR/contribute.asp?campaignid=HunterCraig


I think they were going to add paypal and gunpal...

Wait - you had offered me the keys to that Lambo to take it around the block once...that is, before you sell it and contribute to Hunter's campaign...

....then again, I had offered you some ammo cans ...

Rats! I guess I missed out.

HUNTER FOR SHERIFF 2010.

That's was a joke guys. I will try and be more sensitive. In any event, anytime someone has a subjective "reasonable" cause, I tie that to a "reasonable" campaign contribution (MHO). I am prepared to listen to Hunter's definition of reasonable cause once he becomes more specific. That's all.

SteveH
11-21-2009, 11:04 AM
Deputy Chief Craig Hunter released his policy statement on CCW. It is posted over at OCCCWS.

Seriously, after all the hard work that we've done, do you think OCCCWS would get behind someone who is not good on this, and other issues?

No idea. I dont know who you are. Always a problem on gun boards where people are allowed to register under aka's instead of their real names.

Hunt will issue CCW permits for personal protection. Hunters policy sounds more like Hutchens, in that only certain people such as business owners get to defend themselves. A good cause statement should only have to be two words. "Self defense."

OCCCWS
11-21-2009, 11:52 AM
No idea. I dont know who you are. Always a problem on gun boards where people are allowed to register under aka's instead of their real names.

Hunt will issue CCW permits for personal protection. Hunters policy sounds more like Hutchens, in that only certain people such as business owners get to defend themselves. A good cause statement should only have to be two words. "Self defense."

We all want it to be that. And hopefully the litigation moving through SCOTUS and the 9th Circuit will make this all a moot issue. But right now California law requires a good cause statement, and a simple statement of 'self defense' will invite scrutiny. Remember, DOJ was all too happy to help Hutchens 'expire' CCWs early. They changed the software at the state level FOR HER. Do you want to give them the opportunity to step into this? This is simply a policy framework which allows the law to be followed while also allowing law abiding residents to express any one of a myriad of reasons why they desire a CCW for self-defense. It says it right there. There are 'many' reasons. There is no list.

And, broken record time, would OCCCWS have expended the time and money we did over the past year and a half (and are continuing to expend) only to get behind someone who would be bad for this issue?

lobonegro
11-21-2009, 12:27 PM
I may be a little naive here but hasn't hunter just given you guys the elusive and mysterious "good cause" that he is willing to accept? i.e. poor cell coverage, running at night (exercise), transport of valuable property and a variety of self defense examples.

I know that for the majority of voters, ccw most likely will not be an issue that they consider, unless negatively. What I am most concerned is what talking points can I use to persuade voters (non-ccw) to vote for either Hunt or Hunter over Sandy. Use those points and then if during our conversation I find that he or she is a gunny throw in the cherry (ccw) on top.

OCCCWS
11-21-2009, 12:35 PM
I may be a little naive here but hasn't hunter just given you guys the elusive and mysterious "good cause" that he is willing to accept? i.e. poor cell coverage, running at night (exercise), transport of valuable property and a variety of self defense examples.

I know that for the majority of voters, ccw most likely will not be an issue that they consider, unless negatively. What I am most concerned is what talking points can I use to persuade voters (non-ccw) to vote for either Hunt or Hunter over Sandy. Use those points and then if during our conversation I find that he or she is a gunny throw in the cherry (ccw) on top.

What he is saying is that, like these examples, there are MANY reasons. One of the most infuriating things about Hutchens was her statement that she feels safe in Dana Point so she often doesn't carry there.

Earth to Sandy...many people do not stay in their 'safe' warm happy places where, magically, they are protected from evil bad people everywhere else.

Craig realizes that ONE example is that we, as bipedal human type persons, are mobile, and not always in that 'safe happy place'.

locosway
11-21-2009, 12:49 PM
So, with Hunter we have to list a reason for 'good cause' and he will have to approve that reason.

With Hunt, he says that self defense is enough 'good cause', and will issue to anyone who meets the requirements no matter their need for a CCW.

Honestly, the law says it's up to the Sheriff to determine what the 'good cause' is. No where does it say it must be able to stand up in court if the DOJ comes poking around.

So, we have Hunt who's up front on the issue and says he'll issue to everyone and anyone if they pass their background and do the classwork. On the other hand we have Hunter who says people still need 'good cause', but he's more lax on that issue.

So my question to everyone is this. Why support Hunter over Hunt if Hunt is a shoe-in for SI CCW in Orange County?

OCCCWS
11-21-2009, 12:59 PM
So, with Hunter we have to list a reason for 'good cause' and he will have to approve that reason.

With Hunt, he says that self defense is enough 'good cause', and will issue to anyone who meets the requirements no matter their need for a CCW.

Honestly, the law says it's up to the Sheriff to determine what the 'good cause' is. No where does it say it must be able to stand up in court if the DOJ comes poking around.

So, we have Hunt who's up front on the issue and says he'll issue to everyone and anyone if they pass their background and do the classwork. On the other hand we have Hunter who says people still need 'good cause', but he's more lax on that issue.

So my question to everyone is this. Why support Hunter over Hunt if Hunt is a shoe-in for SI CCW in Orange County?

The reality is that the DOJ does stick their nose into CCW. California is not shall issue as much as we want it to be. A sheriff can't change that single handedly. I wish that was not the case.

But everyone will have to decide on the issues. CCW is a big issue for us, but not for the rest of the county. What we have in Craig Hunter is an experienced, respected, currently serving high ranking local law enforcement official, who is very good on our issue and is electable. Bill Hunt might have been electable several weeks ago, but the Arpaio visit lowered those odds pretty significantly, unfortunately. That's just a political fact that most outside of our issue already realize. That's politics. It may not be right, but it's reality. Hopefully I'm wrong. I'd love to see a Hunter/Hunt runoff after Sandy comes in third.

locosway
11-21-2009, 1:46 PM
The reality is that the DOJ does stick their nose into CCW. California is not shall issue as much as we want it to be. A sheriff can't change that single handedly. I wish that was not the case.

But everyone will have to decide on the issues. CCW is a big issue for us, but not for the rest of the county. What we have in Craig Hunter is an experienced, respected, currently serving high ranking local law enforcement official, who is very good on our issue and is electable. Bill Hunt might have been electable several weeks ago, but the Arpaio visit lowered those odds pretty significantly, unfortunately. That's just a political fact that most outside of our issue already realize. That's politics. It may not be right, but it's reality. Hopefully I'm wrong. I'd love to see a Hunter/Hunt runoff after Sandy comes in third.

I've yet to see or hear anything about the courts or the DOJ interjecting their opinions into CCW issuance outside of the obvious corruption issues we've seen. Maybe you have something that you can link us to show that the Sheriff must show that the person actually has 'good cause' that is defined by the DOJ?

Oh wait... That's right... Good cause is NOT defined anywhere, and this is why it's left to the Sheriff to determine. Many counties already issue for self defense. If Orange County did it the DOJ would NOT be looking into it.

U2BassAce
11-21-2009, 1:48 PM
So, with Hunter we have to list a reason for 'good cause' and he will have to approve that reason.

With Hunt, he says that self defense is enough 'good cause', and will issue to anyone who meets the requirements no matter their need for a CCW.

Honestly, the law says it's up to the Sheriff to determine what the 'good cause' is. No where does it say it must be able to stand up in court if the DOJ comes poking around.

So, we have Hunt who's up front on the issue and says he'll issue to everyone and anyone if they pass their background and do the classwork. On the other hand we have Hunter who says people still need 'good cause', but he's more lax on that issue.

So my question to everyone is this. Why support Hunter over Hunt if Hunt is a shoe-in for SI CCW in Orange County?


The largest URBAN county (our next door neighbor that's policy we all hold in high esteem) that is considered "shall issue" will not issue for personal protection. Just try to write personal protection on your CCW application section 7. NO GO!

You need (THEY NEED YOU) to go a step further than that. What is listed (you might say suggested) on Deputy Chief Hunters proposed policy will get you there under his leadership of the OCSD. There is a reason for that. OCCCWS knows what they are talking about. I have never seen a group that has more talent and/or experience, or has done more research into the issuance of CCWs in California and OC (an urban county) in particular.

From my talks with the folks over there I can comfortable saying they have left NO stone unturned. There was a reason 250 people showed up at the BOS meeting LAST YEAR wearing green OCCCWS buttons.......

OCCCWS
11-21-2009, 1:59 PM
I've yet to see or hear anything about the courts or the DOJ interjecting their opinions into CCW issuance outside of the obvious corruption issues we've seen. Maybe you have something that you can link us to show that the Sheriff must show that the person actually has 'good cause' that is defined by the DOJ?

Oh wait... That's right... Good cause is NOT defined anywhere, and this is why it's left to the Sheriff to determine. Many counties already issue for self defense. If Orange County did it the DOJ would NOT be looking into it.

Do you recall Sheriff Hutchens getting the DOJ to change their software to allow the early 'expiration' (revocation) of permits? That happened.

Remember, 'self defense' and 'personal protection' are 'desires'. I desire means of personal protection and I desire a manner of self defense. They are not reasons. That is what good cause is.

And yes, we know a lot about what DOJ has done regarding CCW. Much more than we've ever wanted to know. We don't reveal those things--we use them in what we do behind the scenes.

If you choose to vote for Bill Hunt based upon his CCW stance, that's a decision I'll respect. But be aware that it is not smart to invite scrutiny when doing so in not necessary.

locosway
11-21-2009, 2:07 PM
Do you recall Sheriff Hutchens getting the DOJ to change their software to allow the early 'expiration' (revocation) of permits? That happened.

Remember, 'self defense' and 'personal protection' are 'desires'. I desire means of personal protection and I desire a manner of self defense. They are not reasons. That is what good cause is.

And yes, we know a lot about what DOJ has done regarding CCW. Much more than we've ever wanted to know. We don't reveal those things--we use them in what we do behind the scenes.

If you choose to vote for Bill Hunt based upon his CCW stance, that's a decision I'll respect. But be aware that it is not smart to invite scrutiny when doing so in not necessary.

Withholding information from voters will not get you far. If you know for a fact that the DOJ will cause Hunt problems for listing "self defense" as a 'good cause' reason then why not show us?

This isn't some secret smoke and mirrors show, and so far, Hunt is up front about what he's going to do with CCW's. Hunter says you must list something as good cause and he'll make a determination based on what you list. So, Hunt is for SI CCW, and Hunter is not. Hunter would rather play the games that everyone else is already playing.

Per what Hunter says "Courts have ruled that Sheriffs in California have almost unfettered latitude in determining what good cause is." If this is true, then how could self defense not be listed? If the Sheriff feels that's a good reason, then I see it working. Also, no matter your reason, the end result is self defense anyway. Carrying large amounts of money, driving at night in rural areas, and so on. You aren't protecting the material items, you're protecting your life.

Reloaderx2
11-21-2009, 2:26 PM
Loco seems to have a compelling argument. The problem I forsee is the inability to nail Hunter down as to what constitutes good cause. I find this statement made by Hunter somewhat worrisome:

"As you can well imagine, the second amendment can be a slippery slope for law enforcement. It is not only about CCW. It is about where CCW is allowed, private property, public property, schools and universities, etc., for example" said Chief Hunter.

This sounds exactly like what Hutchens has been doing. e.g. the restrictions as to where and when your CCW is valid.

OCCCWS
11-21-2009, 2:29 PM
Withholding information from voters will not get you far. If you know for a fact that the DOJ will cause Hunt problems for listing "self defense" as a 'good cause' reason then why not show us?

This isn't some secret smoke and mirrors show, and so far, Hunt is up front about what he's going to do with CCW's. Hunter says you must list something as good cause and he'll make a determination based on what you list. So, Hunt is for SI CCW, and Hunter is not. Hunter would rather play the games that everyone else is already playing.

Per what Hunter says "Courts have ruled that Sheriffs in California have almost unfettered latitude in determining what good cause is." If this is true, then how could self defense not be listed? If the Sheriff feels that's a good reason, then I see it working. Also, no matter your reason, the end result is self defense anyway. Carrying large amounts of money, driving at night in rural areas, and so on. You aren't protecting the material items, you're protecting your life.

Not smoke and mirrors--it's called tactics. Much of this has to do with legal issues, so that's what it is.

If Bill Hunt is your guy based on claiming that shall issue will work in OC, more power to you. And as I said, the DOJ stepped in to help Hutchens revoke CCWs based on...guess what...lack of good cause. They will step into it. If you're willing to risk unnecessary scrutiny just to hear the words shall issue, be my guest.

OCCCWS
11-21-2009, 2:36 PM
Loco seems to have a compelling argument. The problem I forsee is the inability to nail Hunter down as to what constitutes good cause. I find this statement made by Hunter somewhat worrisome:

"As you can well imagine, the second amendment can be a slippery slope for law enforcement. It is not only about CCW. It is about where CCW is allowed, private property, public property, schools and universities, etc., for example" said Chief Hunter.

This sounds exactly like what Hutchens has been doing. e.g. the restrictions as to where and when your CCW is valid.

That's an interesting take on that. Not how I see what he's saying. But, hey, if you want to question his current policy statement, that's fair. I wish that what Bill wanted to do would mean smooth sailing. But it won't, and his political position now is untenable because of his recent associations.

locosway
11-21-2009, 2:42 PM
Not smoke and mirrors--it's called tactics. Much of this has to do with legal issues, so that's what it is.

Tactics for who? Hunter and your support for him, or for the citizens whom you both claim to be in favor of?

I see no legal issues at all from a Sheriff using "self defense" as their "good cause". Of course, if you have information that shows otherwise, I'm more than willing to look it over.


If Bill Hunt is your guy based on claiming that shall issue will work in OC, more power to you. And as I said, the DOJ stepped in to help Hutchens revoke CCWs based on...guess what...lack of good cause. They will step into it. If you're willing to risk unnecessary scrutiny just to hear the words shall issue, be my guest.

I don't only support Hunt because of his CCW issuance policy. There are numerous reasons why I still choose him over Hunter, one of which is he is supported by several organizations which I respect dearly.

Hutchens had the DOJ change the expiration date because she deemed the 'good cause' given to not be to her standards. And, we all know that Carona was shady with his CCW issuance. Claiming that since the DOJ allows Hutchens to revoke CCW's, means that Hunt's policy is fallible is silly. Show me some proof and we'll talk. Otherwise, your claims are completely unfounded.

U2BassAce
11-21-2009, 2:44 PM
Withholding information from voters will not get you far. If you know for a fact that the DOJ will cause Hunt problems for listing "self defense" as a 'good cause' reason then why not show us?

This isn't some secret smoke and mirrors show, and so far, Hunt is up front about what he's going to do with CCW's. Hunter says you must list something as good cause and he'll make a determination based on what you list. So, Hunt is for SI CCW, and Hunter is not. Hunter would rather play the games that everyone else is already playing.

Per what Hunter says "Courts have ruled that Sheriffs in California have almost unfettered latitude in determining what good cause is." If this is true, then how could self defense not be listed? If the Sheriff feels that's a good reason, then I see it working. Also, no matter your reason, the end result is self defense anyway. Carrying large amounts of money, driving at night in rural areas, and so on. You aren't protecting the material items, you're protecting your life.

There was a candidate that promised to close Guantanamo Bay, basically the day he took office if not before.:p Then there was a newly elected President who once he took office and looked behind the "curtain" has well.....not been able to keep his promise.

Maybe you as a voter in OC need to do a little research for yourself? :whistling: I have. I know a group that has. Bottom line you won't believe what I have to say, or they have to say. So have at it. Nobody is stopping you.

Let's change the name of this thread.......close Guantanamo Bay quicker..who wins????? Obama (I will close it tomorrow if I could and will immediately once I am President) Hmmmm something tells me a year after he was inaugurated as President, Gitmo will still be open for business. Funny how I heard many many experts in the area say he was living in a dream if he thought he could close it so quickly.

locosway
11-21-2009, 2:47 PM
There was a candidate that promised to close Guantanamo Bay, basically the day he took office if not before.:p Then there was a newly elected President who once he took office and looked behind the "curtain" has well.....not been able to keep his promise.

Maybe you as a voter in OC need to do a little research for yourself? :whistling: I have. I know a group that has. Bottom line you won't believe what I have to say, or they have to say. So have at it. Nobody is stopping you.

Let's change the name of this thread.......close Guantanamo Bay quicker..who wins????? Obama (I will close it tomorrow if I could and will immediately once I am President) Hmmmm something tells me a year after he was inaugurated as President, Gitmo will still be open for business. Funny how I heard many many experts in the area say he was living in a dream if he thought he could close it so quickly.

So, lets compare Hunt to Obama...

CCW issuance is something that's tangible. It happens all over the state and even here in Orange County. It's not some controversial and questionable prison on a small piece of land in a hostile country.

You can compare these two all you like, but your analogy is full of fail for various reasons.

U2BassAce
11-21-2009, 2:48 PM
So, lets compare Hunt to Obama...

CCW issuance is something that's tangible. It happens all over the state and even here in Orange County. It's not some controversial and questionable prison on a small piece of land in a hostile country.

You can compare these two all you like, but your analogy is full of fail for various reasons.


Thanks for making my point!;) Then he should have no problem shuttting it down right? :rolleyes:

locosway
11-21-2009, 2:54 PM
Thanks for making my point!;) Then he should have no problem shuttting it down right? :rolleyes:

You can't compare the two, they aren't even in the same ballpark here. I didn't vote for Obama, he has done NOTHING since he's been in office except push for health care reform that the majority of the people do not want. What he said before being elected is on him, not me, and I need not prove anything at this time.

Hunt is being endorsed by Oath Keepers, and a Republican Conservative group (who's name escapes me). Hunt has been doing meet & shoots where you can meet him and shoot next to him. He's been a Tea Party rallies, and has spoken to anyone who asks him to speak. He's also available, if you email him he gets back to you.

I have no idea what any candidate will do once elected, but from what I've seen, Hunt is spot on for what I'd like to see.

locosway
11-21-2009, 2:59 PM
Reading some of the forums you guys frequent in the CCW land, it seems you are already anti-hunt from the start. I guess that makes sense then. Let's support Hunter then because you guys have some 'secret' information that says Hunt can't do what he says.

I'm done.

U2BassAce
11-21-2009, 3:04 PM
You can't compare the two, they aren't even in the same ballpark here. I didn't vote for Obama, he has done NOTHING since he's been in office except push for health care reform that the majority of the people do not want. What he said before being elected is on him, not me, and I need not prove anything at this time.

Hunt is being endorsed by Oath Keepers, and a Republican Conservative group (who's name escapes me). Hunt has been doing meet & shoots where you can meet him and shoot next to him. He's been a Tea Party rallies, and has spoken to anyone who asks him to speak. He's also available, if you email him he gets back to you.

I have no idea what any candidate will do once elected, but from what I've seen, Hunt is spot on for what I'd like to see.

locosway,

I only ask you to keep your mind open. (maybe keep digging in with your research) We still have 7 months plus until election day. Hunter is at the starting gate along Hunt and the appointed one. I respect your current position. ;)

SteveH
11-21-2009, 3:27 PM
Can someone explain something to me?

It was pointed out, correctly, that Hutchens asks the DOJ to change the way a CCW permit was "revoked" in DOJ records. DOJ did so at Hutchen request. But how does that lead some to belive DOJ would get involved against a sitting sheriffs will? Where in the Penal code is the DOJ given the authority to get involved in this type of local issue against the sheriff's will?

Reloaderx2
11-21-2009, 3:28 PM
I'm not buying into the DOJ hocus pocus argument. Factually what I see is Hunter providing somewhat inconsistant statements and a CCW platform that he can wiggle anywhere he wants according to what he subjectively believes is "reasonable." Hunt has been in the race for at least the last 5 months and Johnny-come-lately Hunter just threw his hat in the ring. County wide most probably don't know who Hunter is. So I cannot back a guy simply because an organization, who I believe hasn't been around any longer than Hutchens, says so.

SteveH
11-21-2009, 3:29 PM
Reading some of the forums you guys frequent in the CCW land, it seems you are already anti-hunt from the start. I guess that makes sense then.

Ive received email chatter to the same effect from a current CCW permit holder.

Reloaderx2
11-21-2009, 3:36 PM
Reading some of the forums you guys frequent in the CCW land, it seems you are already anti-hunt from the start. I guess that makes sense then.

That raises some interesting questions.

locosway
11-21-2009, 4:34 PM
That raises some interesting questions.

It does, and I'm very open to supporting someone other than Hunt, but that person has to be more inline with my views than Hunt currently is. So far, Hunt is a top notch candidate and has a lot of support throughout Orange County. Many groups and organizations are endorsing Hunt. Hunt recently was asked to speak on behalf of the Oath Keepers. That alone is a huge deal in my opinion as the Oath Keepers are what every LEO and Agency should be all about.

Now, perhaps Hunter will give us more specifics, but I'm just not seeing it happening. Anaheim is a great city, but after growing up here and living in it for 26 years I can attest that APD is anything but "for the rights of the citizens". The few run in's I've had with APD were militant at best. Not to mention that controversial shooting a year ago with the "broom stick".

Sure, the election is still 7 months away. However over the past few months Hunt has been going to Tea Parties, speaking events, and meet 'n shoots. If Hunter starts allowing people to shoot in competitions against him, then I'll be more receptive to his ideas. Hunt has also talked on how he plans to help bring the debt down in Orange County. So far I like his ideas.

OCCCWS
11-21-2009, 4:45 PM
Gentlemen, everyone can support who they wish, and they will. Craig Hunter provided this statement in writing for any and all to chew on. Some will make up their mind based on this, but most will not. CCW is an issue important to us, but it is not to most voters in OC.

Let's keep in mind that the real focus, no matter who ends up running, is defeating Sandra Hutchens.

locosway
11-21-2009, 5:00 PM
Gentlemen, everyone can support who they wish, and they will. Craig Hunter provided this statement in writing for any and all to chew on. Some will make up their mind based on this, but most will not. CCW is an issue important to us, but it is not to most voters in OC.

Let's keep in mind that the real focus, no matter who ends up running, is defeating Sandra Hutchens.

Exactly, and we all agree with this statement.

However, visiting the forums you frequent it seems that Hunt was the "loser" as was put many times. It's hard to imagine that any pro-gun, pro-ccw, pro-rights candidate could be labeled as a "loser" so easily. Everything I've seen shows Hunt as being a stand-up guy. Hunter, for most people, is an unknown so far. OCCCWS is endorsing Hunter, but until today I've never heard of them either.

If Hunter wins, I hope he'll be more straight up with his CCW issuance. His statement leaves it open to interpretation by him and his agency at this time.

OCCCWS
11-21-2009, 5:23 PM
Exactly, and we all agree with this statement.

However, visiting the forums you frequent it seems that Hunt was the "loser" as was put many times. It's hard to imagine that any pro-gun, pro-ccw, pro-rights candidate could be labeled as a "loser" so easily. Everything I've seen shows Hunt as being a stand-up guy. Hunter, for most people, is an unknown so far. OCCCWS is endorsing Hunter, but until today I've never heard of them either.

If Hunter wins, I hope he'll be more straight up with his CCW issuance. His statement leaves it open to interpretation by him and his agency at this time.

Fair enough. And let me put it this way--if somehow it ends up that it's Hunt vs Hutchens, I'm personally all in with Hunt. She has to lose.

As for OCCCWS, we do some stuff very publically, such as organizing turnout at the 11-18-08 Board of Supervisors meeting, lobbying every supervisor (except Moorlach, who's a lost cause), and more. We also do much, much more quietly that is not done to support Craig, but to weaken her. Even without Craig we'd still be going full bore at her.

locosway
11-21-2009, 5:26 PM
Fair enough. And let me put it this way--if somehow it ends up that it's Hunt vs Hutchens, I'm personally all in with Hunt. She has to lose.

As for OCCCWS, we do some stuff very publically, such as organizing turnout at the 11-18-08 Board of Supervisors meeting, lobbying every supervisor (except Moorlach, who's a lost cause), and more. We also do much, much more quietly that is not done to support Craig, but to weaken her. Even without Craig we'd still be going full bore at her.

That's good to know, and just so you know, I've signed up for your email list. I currently don't have a CCW, and the only thing keeping me from spending the money to obtain one is the uncertainty in it actually being issued.

Curious though... Why did you, the organization, not support Hunt right from the start? It seems odd to wait and see who else might run when there's a perfect candidate already running.

locosway
11-21-2009, 5:40 PM
I emailed Hunter yesterday, and I still have heard nothing from him personally.

I emailed Hunt today on what you said as the DOJ might look into a questionable good cause listing on the CCW application and here is his response.

The Sheriff of a County has the sole descretion to deternine what constitutes "good cause" for the issuance of a license to carry a concealed firearm. The Department of Justice is not vested with this authority nor would they be expected to determine what does, or does not, constitute good cause. If an individual were to state on their application that their good cause was "self-protection" or "self-defense" then it is up to the Sheriff of their County to determine if that statement of cause constitutes "good cause." In my estimation these statements would satisfy good cause subject to the other requirements as set forth in 12050 et. seq. The only instance, in example, where the Department of Justice might have a concern is where there was not strict compliance with the provisions of 12050-12054 which clearly would never be an issue.

As I've been saying, Hunt is straight forward and very responsive to questions.

OCCCWS
11-21-2009, 5:42 PM
That's good to know, and just so you know, I've signed up for your email list. I currently don't have a CCW, and the only thing keeping me from spending the money to obtain one is the uncertainty in it actually being issued.

Curious though... Why did you, the organization, not support Hunt right from the start? It seems odd to wait and see who else might run when there's a perfect candidate already running.

To be honest, we haven't thought he was the perfect candidate. Particularly his latest associations with Arpaio have been very troubling, and to the broader OC electorate things like that are going to be an anchor on his candidacy. That may not be fair to lay all that on him, but Bill does speak about being the one who stood up to Carona's corruption, and then to embrace Joe Arpaio...it takes some of the shine off that argument. When you add in Arpaio's comments at the fundraiser, it's bad. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe all the political people are wrong, but the chatter is not good right now for him, which is too bad.

Part of what we've had to learn over the last 18 months is how to step outside of our issue in order to be effective, and a lot of what we've discovered about political machines is not rosy. But it is reality, unfortunately, and we had to ask ourselves if we could get behind someone who we really, honestly did not believe could win. We decided we had to wait for any endorsement, but we've never stopped working to defeat Hutchens. And we won't.

OCCCWS
11-21-2009, 5:44 PM
I emailed Hunter yesterday, and I still have heard nothing from him personally.

I emailed Hunt today on what you said as the DOJ might look into a questionable good cause listing on the CCW application and here is his response.



As I've been saying, Hunt is straight forward and very responsive to questions.

Again, we're going to differ on this, and that's okay. What we've learned about DOJ's willingness to help a Sheriff axe lawfully issued CCWs was a wake up call.

OCCCWS
11-21-2009, 5:58 PM
Maybe I can add something here to show what I mean.

Most people who know about Kern County issuance would agree that's it's pretty close to shall issue, if not fully, in practice. I'm going to quote from page one of their CCW application under the section of 'Clarification of the good cause statement'.

"Good cause to obtain the CCW license is viewed in part, but not limited to, self defense, defending the life of a citizen, preventing a crime in which human life is in serious jeopardy. The applicant does not need to fear that their life is being threatened, but rather the potential for a life threatening situation exists. Specific facts must accompany the reason the CCW is desired, such as, explaining an incident, dates, times, locations, and names of law enforcement agencies to which these incidents were reported."

Kern is the highest issuing county in the state with that good cause standard. If you read it carefully, it is no different that what Craig Hunter has proposed. And it has been legally in force without trouble from DOJ for many years. That is all I'm saying--Craig's approach is to craft a policy which respects the rights of residents while still following the law and mirrors existing policy which has already passed scrutiny.

locosway
11-21-2009, 6:03 PM
Maybe I can add something here to show what I mean.

Most people who know about Kern County issuance would agree that's it's pretty close to shall issue, if not fully, in practice. I'm going to quote from page one of their CCW application under the section of 'Clarification of the good cause statement'.

"Good cause to obtain the CCW license is viewed in part, but not limited to, self defense, defending the life of a citizen, preventing a crime in which human life is in serious jeopardy. The applicant does not need to fear that their life is being threatened, but rather the potential for a life threatening situation exists. Specific facts must accompany the reason the CCW is desired, such as, explaining an incident, dates, times, locations, and names of law enforcement agencies to which these incidents were reported."

Kern is the highest issuing county in the state with that good cause standard. If you read it carefully, it is no different that what Craig Hunter has proposed. And it has been legally in force without trouble from DOJ for many years. That is all I'm saying--Craig's approach is to craft a policy which respects the rights of residents while still following the law and mirrors existing policy which has already passed scrutiny.

At this point, who knows without someone like Hunt shaking stuff up. In all honesty, I'd love to see the DOJ try and stop a Sheriff from their issuing of CCW's because of their 'good cause'. If anything, it might force the courts to rule what 'good cause' means.

GuyW
11-21-2009, 6:08 PM
The reality is that the DOJ does stick their nose into CCW.

Got a cite to back that assertion?

.

locosway
11-21-2009, 6:16 PM
Got a cite to back that assertion?

.

I've asked for something in writing to backup that claim, and there is nothing.

Mike Dicta
11-21-2009, 6:18 PM
Got a cite to back that assertion?

.

What cite?

Mike Dicta
11-21-2009, 6:21 PM
At this point, who knows without someone like Hunt shaking stuff up. In all honesty, I'd love to see the DOJ try and stop a Sheriff from their issuing of CCW's because of their 'good cause'. If anything, it might force the courts to rule what 'good cause' means.

Isn't that what we're all waiting for with Nordyke after McDonald post Heller? :)

Reloaderx2
11-21-2009, 6:22 PM
Well I would of never thought that I would have made up my mind as to which candidate to support on a particular issue based on a thread! Hunt is crystal clear and Hunter would seem to be all over the board. In the meantime I looked up the Oathkeepers and looked at Hunt's media. Apparenty Sheriff Richard Mack endorsed Hunt. Richard Mack is the guy that took the Brady Bill all the way up to the US Supreme Court and won. So I'm sure if the DOJ has a problem with Hunt's CCW position, Hunt's response will simply be: "Sue me" :D

locosway
11-21-2009, 6:24 PM
Isn't that what we're all waiting for with Nordyke after McDonald post Heller? :)

Yes, we are, and with incorporation being almost guaranteed, I don't see the fear in what the DOJ may be able to do to Hunt.

Hutchens IS the Sheriff, and Carona issues CCW's to people for corrupt reasons. From the standpoint of the DOJ, it made sense to let the current Sheriff revoke the issued CCW's, as that is her position to do so, and not he DOJ's.

Same goes for Hunt, if he wants to issue a CCW to someone when they list "self defense" then that's on him, and there's nothing the DOJ can currently do to stop it.

Of course, as always, if you have something to counter this argument such as case law, or an incident other than the Hutchens one, I'm all ears.

Mike Dicta
11-21-2009, 6:26 PM
Yes, we are, and with incorporation being almost guaranteed, I don't see the fear in what the DOJ may be able to do to Hunt.

Hutchens IS the Sheriff, and Carona issues CCW's to people for corrupt reasons. From the standpoint of the DOJ, it made sense to let the current Sheriff revoke the issued CCW's, as that is her position to do so, and not he DOJ's.

Same goes for Hunt, if he wants to issue a CCW to someone when they list "self defense" then that's on him, and there's nothing the DOJ can currently do to stop it.

Of course, as always, if you have something to counter this argument such as case law, or an incident other than the Hutchens one, I'm all ears.

Wow. So my CCW iissued by Carona was corrupt?

locosway
11-21-2009, 6:29 PM
Well I would of never thought that I would have made up my mind as to which candidate to support on a particular issue based on a thread! Hunt is crystal clear and Hunter would seem to be all over the board. In the meantime I looked up the Oathkeepers and looked at Hunt's media. Apparenty Sheriff Richard Mack endorsed Hunt. Richard Mack is the guy that took the Brady Bill all the way up to the US Supreme Court and won. So I'm sure if the DOJ has a problem with Hunt's CCW position, Hunt's response will simply be: "Sue me" :D

This is where I agree. Even if what Hunt may do is questionable in the eyes of what's typical in CA. It's still legal per the letter of the law, and it's more in line with our rights than anyone else. I want someone to stand up for my rights, not conform to standards that aren't legal for discriminatory reasons.

If Hunter says he'll be shall issue, then that will give him a lot more credit in my book. However, he won't do this, and OCCCWS doesn't seem to want him to do this either.

In the end, Hunt is very pro-rights of the citizens. All rights, not just some rights. This is a quality that I look for more so than any other. Hunter, so far, seems to be on the fence on CCW issuance. He wants to be shall issue, but he's afraid. I'm not sure if this is to win more votes from fence sitters or what.

Also, Hunters campaign page has absolutely no information on him other than his personal life. While Hunt has run a department as the Chief. I guess we'll just have to see how this washes out, but with the Oath Keepers supporting Hunt, my vote is with him for now.

locosway
11-21-2009, 6:30 PM
Wow. So my CCW iissued by Carona was corrupt?

I don't know, was it?

A lot of what Carona did was corrupt, and he was caught issuing CCW's to people for contributing money to him. This doesn't mean all CCW's were corrupt, but I can see how the DOJ would support Hutchens decision to revoke them in light of his indictment.

Mike Dicta
11-21-2009, 6:35 PM
I don't know, was it?

A lot of what Carona did was corrupt, and he was caught issuing CCW's to people for contributing money to him. This doesn't mean all CCW's were corrupt, but I can see how the DOJ would support Hutchens decision to revoke them in light of his indictment.

If you had ANY knowledge as to why Hutchens revoked permits you would know it had nothing to do with contributions. Nearly four hundred people have lost their permits under her and none have been shown to have received them corruptly. Are you seriously defending her actions?

Reloaderx2
11-21-2009, 6:38 PM
I don't know, was it?

A lot of what Carona did was corrupt, and he was caught issuing CCW's to people for contributing money to him. This doesn't mean all CCW's were corrupt, but I can see how the DOJ would support Hutchens decision to revoke them in light of his indictment.

If I read Hunt's statement correctly the Sheriff has the sole descretion to issue CCWs so if the unelected Sheriff asks for early revocation as she had then there is not much the DOJ can do about it.

Mike Dicta
11-21-2009, 6:38 PM
I've just gotta say how freakin hilarious this is that Hunt supporters are supporting Hutchens and her stripping permits from hundreds of people.

locosway
11-21-2009, 6:42 PM
If you had ANY knowledge as to why Hutchens revoked permits you would know it had nothing to do with contributions. Nearly four hundred people have lost their permits under her and none have been shown to have received them corruptly. Are you seriously defending her actions?

You have no idea what I'm saying, do you?

I'm defending the DOJ, not her. I can see HOW and WHY the DOJ would comply with her requests based on what Carona did. That doesn't mean all CCW's were corrupt, or that they should have been revoked in the first place.

I see you're new here, but seriously, read into the posts a little more. I don't support Hutchens or anything she is about. I'm supporting Hunt, and I'm pro-gun, pro-ccw, pro-rights, and pro-loc.

Reloaderx2
11-21-2009, 6:43 PM
I've just gotta say how freakin hilarious this is that Hunt supporters are supporting Hutchens and her stripping permits from hundreds of people.

Where did you get that? Have you read the whole thread? Nobody is saying that except you.

locosway
11-21-2009, 6:43 PM
I've just gotta say how freakin hilarious this is that Hunt supporters are supporting Hutchens and her stripping permits from hundreds of people.

Now you're out of line. I know that I don't support Hunter, and from reading your forums this is a no go for you guys. But seriously, I don't support Hutchens or anything about her. The Sheriff can sole discretion over issuance and revocation. The DOJ MUST comply with the Sheriff, end of story.

Mike Dicta
11-21-2009, 6:47 PM
Now you're out of line. I know that I don't support Hunter, and from reading your forums this is a no go for you guys. But seriously, I don't support Hutchens or anything about her. The Sheriff can sole discretion over issuance and revocation. The DOJ MUST comply with the Sheriff, end of story.

You guys are funny. Is this Bill Hunt's official position that the DOJ had to do what the sheriff said, so it was okay? Is that the way it works?

locosway
11-21-2009, 6:49 PM
You guys are funny. Is this Bill Hunt's official position that the DOJ had to do what the sheriff said, so it was okay? Is that the way it works?

Do you see Bill Hunt here giving his official position?

If you had any intelligence you'd know that the Sheriff issues and revokes CCW's. The DOJ simply keeps the paperwork in order for them. So, what is the DOJ to do when the Sheriff says they want to revoke CCW's? They do the paperwork like they're supposed to do.

Go read the penal code about CCW issuance, it's all there.

Mike Dicta
11-21-2009, 6:55 PM
Do you see Bill Hunt here giving his official position?

If you had any intelligence you'd know that the Sheriff issues and revokes CCW's. The DOJ simply keeps the paperwork in order for them. So, what is the DOJ to do when the Sheriff says they want to revoke CCW's? They do the paperwork like they're supposed to do.

Go read the penal code about CCW issuance, it's all there.

So I have this straight, DOJ always follows penal code, the sheriff is always right, Bill is okay with his keynote speaker making jokes about Mexicans, and oathkeepers are the weather vane for how Orange County residents will vote.

Man, you guys are so far out on the fringe that your guy will be lucky to break single digits. Have a good night. I'm going to go polish my tinfoil hat and check what minuteman shift I have on the border just so I can decipher your logic.

locosway
11-21-2009, 7:00 PM
So I have this straight, DOJ always follows penal code, the sheriff is always right, Bill is okay with his keynote speaker making jokes about Mexicans, and oathkeepers are the weather vane for how Orange County residents will vote.

Man, you guys are so far out on the fringe that your guy will be lucky to break single digits. Have a good night. I'm going to go polish my tinfoil hat and check what minuteman shift I have on the border just so I can decipher your logic.

The DOJ is supposed to follow the penal code, that's how it works. The Sheriff is to follow the penal code, that's their job. When the Sheriff follows the code by revoking CCW's, which is solely their decision, the DOJ must follow suit and amend their paperwork on their end.

I'm not sure about Joe and the comments he made. Most of what he said was true in Arizona, and Bill is not the one who said those comments. It's true that Bill has not spoken out against those statements, but that's not an issue for me at this time. More importantly is the stance he has on my rights as a citizen in his county.

If you think that Hunt supporters are fringe and will only break single digits then you should think again. Hunt has a lot of support, especially in South County where he's well known.

Anyway, good luck on that polishing. Maybe while you're at it you can do some reading into the laws surrounding CCW issuance in CA as well.

locosway
11-21-2009, 11:14 PM
Well, just had my email to Hunter bounce. I guess they aren't serious about taking questions.

Mike Dicta
11-21-2009, 11:22 PM
Well, just had my email to Hunter bounce. I guess they aren't serious about taking questions.

You do realize that's a basic placeholder website, correct? I remember when Bill announced his site was all from his 2006 run. I mean, c'mon, if you want to criticize, okay. But I'm pretty sure in the coming months if you have questions you can get answers from him.

locosway
11-21-2009, 11:25 PM
Well, it takes two seconds to setup the email. I've worked in web hosting for 6 years. If there was any seriousness involved in setting up the website the email would work too.

Now, given that he's probably not the person responsible for the website, I'll give him some slack and wait until it's all up and running.

U2BassAce
11-21-2009, 11:33 PM
Well I would of never thought that I would have made up my mind as to which candidate to support on a particular issue based on a thread! Hunt is crystal clear and Hunter would seem to be all over the board. In the meantime I looked up the Oathkeepers and looked at Hunt's media. Apparenty Sheriff Richard Mack endorsed Hunt. Richard Mack is the guy that took the Brady Bill all the way up to the US Supreme Court and won. So I'm sure if the DOJ has a problem with Hunt's CCW position, Hunt's response will simply be: "Sue me" :D

Yeah Hunt has such a good batting average in court these days.:rolleyes:

Just what we need in our county that is in a fiscal crisis.....MORE yes MORE county resources WASTED on something that does not need to be! :p Sorry this just rubs me wrong!

I don't know about most people. But I would rather hang my hat with the CalGuns Foundation to take the shall issue cause to the courts. (post incorporation) Not a Sheriff who I elect to be a fr@@kin Sheriff!!

SteveH
11-21-2009, 11:37 PM
To be honest, we haven't thought he was the perfect candidate. Particularly his latest associations with Arpaio have been very troubling...

In what way. We all know Joe is a self promoting blowhard. But the claims of civil rights violations and such appear they are just the sour grapes of the pro-illegal crowd. I'm not concerned that my candidate for sheriff has a friend that pisses off illegals.

U2BassAce
11-21-2009, 11:42 PM
In what way. We all know Joe is a self promoting blowhard. But the claims of civil rights violations and such appear they are just the sour grapes of the pro-illegal crowd. I'm not concerned that my candidate for sheriff has a friend that pisses off illegals.

Yeah really? Maybe you should check out this post.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3320694&postcount=17

locosway
11-22-2009, 1:20 AM
Yeah really? Maybe you should check out this post.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3320694&postcount=17

I haven't asked Hunt about Joe, but I don't lump them together. Yes, Joe came out and they held an event together. Was it the best thing for Hunt to do? Nope, I don't think so. However, Joe is not Hunt, and Hunt doesn't seem to subscribe to the same ideals that joe does.

I guess you could call it guilty by association, but do we want to do that?

Mike Dicta
11-22-2009, 8:18 AM
I haven't asked Hunt about Joe, but I don't lump them together. Yes, Joe came out and they held an event together. Was it the best thing for Hunt to do? Nope, I don't think so. However, Joe is not Hunt, and Hunt doesn't seem to subscribe to the same ideals that joe does.

I guess you could call it guilty by association, but do we want to do that?

It's not fair to say that Hunt is Joe, but perception counts in elections, and Bill made a huge deal about being ahead of everyone else on calling Carona out on corruption. To embrace Joe Arpaio doesn't fit with that anti-corruption banner he's been waving.

Look, I've heard Bill speak. He's dynamic. He doesn't need to associate himself with the likes of Joe, but he has. I wish he hadn't.

locosway
11-22-2009, 8:26 AM
Agreed, he doesn't need to associate with Joe. However, there is a fundamental difference from seeing corruption from the inside and assuming someone is corrupt by looking in from the outside.

Hunt had first hand knowledge of the Carona corruption. I'm sure Hunt has no knowledge of any corruption that's associated with Joe. There's been no indictments yet. Yes, there's been a lot of pay outs, but nothing has come of it as of yet.

Mike Dicta
11-22-2009, 8:42 AM
Agreed, he doesn't need to associate with Joe. However, there is a fundamental difference from seeing corruption from the inside and assuming someone is corrupt by looking in from the outside.

Hunt had first hand knowledge of the Carona corruption. I'm sure Hunt has no knowledge of any corruption that's associated with Joe. There's been no indictments yet. Yes, there's been a lot of pay outs, but nothing has come of it as of yet.

True. But I wish he hadn't gone down the Joe road. He didn't need to.

locosway
11-22-2009, 8:44 AM
True. But I wish he hadn't gone down the Joe road. He didn't need to.

Yep, but he did...

I'm not going to abandon Hunt because of it, it might not have even been his idea. I've also never heard him say anything remotely close to what Joe would say. So, unless things change drastically, I'm not going to worry about it.

SteveH
11-22-2009, 9:03 AM
Yeah really? Maybe you should check out this post.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3320694&postcount=17

You will find simular claims in any large county jail. Hunter has been the target of some pretty serious allegations himself.

Mike Dicta
11-22-2009, 9:16 AM
You will find simular claims in any large county jail. Hunter has been the target of some pretty serious allegations himself.

Really? Which ones?

SteveH
11-22-2009, 9:20 AM
Really? Which ones?

Havent read the whole thread, have you.

This has already been posted
http://www.anaheiminjustice.com/steve_nolan.html

Mike Dicta
11-22-2009, 9:38 AM
Havent read the whole thread, have you.

This has already been posted
http://www.anaheiminjustice.com/steve_nolan.html

Uh, that's what you got? To compare to Joe Arpaio? A disgruntled employee lawsuit that the FBI closed without indictments?

Seriously, Hunt could have been sailing pretty smooth here without Arpaio. He could have even handled it after Joe's visit by stepping up and saying that he was wrong and Joe has no place as a 'mentor' to him. But he didn't. It could have been a major moment for him to show that he's still the Bill Hunt who took on Carona, but it's been almost total silence from him.

I know you guys want Hunt. Fine. But you have to realize the damage he's done to himself, and continues to do, by siding with Arpaio. What's it going to look like in a few months if Joe is wearing the shiny bracelets courtesy of Club Fed? That is a distinct possibility, not a certainty, but a possibility. At that point what can Bill say? There were no warning signs? This is the reason a lot of people who may like his stance on CCW still have a huge problem with him. His acceptance of Arpaio makes it seem like the anti-Carona stuff was just posing. And that didn't need to happen! He didn't need Joe!

Jamsie567
11-22-2009, 10:11 AM
Uh, that's what you got? To compare to Joe Arpaio? A disgruntled employee lawsuit that the FBI closed without indictments?

Seriously, Hunt could have been sailing pretty smooth here without Arpaio. He could have even handled it after Joe's visit by stepping up and saying that he was wrong and Joe has no place as a 'mentor' to him. But he didn't. It could have been a major moment for him to show that he's still the Bill Hunt who took on Carona, but it's been almost total silence from him.

I know you guys want Hunt. Fine. But you have to realize the damage he's done to himself, and continues to do, by siding with Arpaio. What's it going to look like in a few months if Joe is wearing the shiny bracelets courtesy of Club Fed? That is a distinct possibility, not a certainty, but a possibility. At that point what can Bill say? There were no warning signs? This is the reason a lot of people who may like his stance on CCW still have a huge problem with him. His acceptance of Arpaio makes it seem like the anti-Carona stuff was just posing. And that didn't need to happen! He didn't need Joe!

hehe you are living in a fantasy land if you think Hunt did any damage to himself. Hunt got 3 weeks of media publicity from the register and the majority was good press. You can't buy that kind of support and for the record this is OC not Maricopa. I see the poll results and and the arguments and Hunt is clearly the victor. It is always the same people who attack Hunt and now people are starting to get it.

This is about something much bigger...

The only people who don't like Hunt are the old Carona supporters, local gop and the BOS. They don't like him because they can't control him. If Hunt wins it proves they were all wrong and their egos are more important than their very own party or the movement they claim to support.

I won't say much more than that but if you seek the truth it's easy to find.

Mike Dicta
11-22-2009, 10:16 AM
hehe you are living in a fantasy land if you think Hunt did any damage to himself. Hunt got 3 weeks of media publicity from the register and the majority was good press. You can't buy that kind of support and for the record this is OC not Maricopa. I see the poll results and and the arguments and Hunt is clearly the victor. It is always the same people who attack Hunt and now people are starting to get it.

This is about something much bigger...

The only people who don't like Hunt are the old Carona supporters, local gop and the BOS. They don't like him because they can't control him. If Hunt wins it proves they were all wrong and their egos are more important than their very own party or the movement they claim to support.

I won't say much more than that but if you seek the truth it's easy to find.

Okay. Good luck with that.

JOHANNE
11-22-2009, 10:55 AM
;)Mr. Bill Hunt has stated perfectly well what his policy will be, in person, and on his web-site. There are no ands, ifs and butts about it, like what Mr. Craig Hunter has said...at least so far. I smell another "deek-out" with Mr. Hunter, although he is a fine man. I smell an air of truth and oath keeping with Mr. Hunt. BillHuntForSheriff2010.com seems to keep up with his thoughts and feelings on the subject, and there have been no waivers, etc.
What do you all think, in addition to the fact that we have not had anyone else just say?...I will issue, like Bill Hunt said. I think he is true to his word.

SteveH
11-22-2009, 12:01 PM
Uh, that's what you got? To compare to Joe Arpaio? A disgruntled employee lawsuit that the FBI closed without indictments?

Seriously, Hunt could have been sailing pretty smooth here without Arpaio. He could have even handled it after Joe's visit by stepping up and saying that he was wrong and Joe has no place as a 'mentor' to him. But he didn't. It could have been a major moment for him to show that he's still the Bill Hunt who took on Carona, but it's been almost total silence from him.

I know you guys want Hunt. Fine. But you have to realize the damage he's done to himself, and continues to do, by siding with Arpaio. What's it going to look like in a few months if Joe is wearing the shiny bracelets courtesy of Club Fed? That is a distinct possibility, not a certainty, but a possibility. At that point what can Bill say?

If that were to happen I would say Joe is a political prisoner of a corrupt federal system that sold out to mexico and forgot who they serve. But I'm no politician.

SteveH
11-22-2009, 12:04 PM
hehe you are living in a fantasy land if you think Hunt did any damage to himself. Hunt got 3 weeks of media publicity from the register and the majority was good press. You can't buy that kind of support and for the record this is OC not Maricopa. I see the poll results and and the arguments and Hunt is clearly the victor. It is always the same people who attack Hunt and now people are starting to get it.

This is about something much bigger...

The only people who don't like Hunt are the old Carona supporters, local gop and the BOS. They don't like him because they can't control him. If Hunt wins it proves they were all wrong and their egos are more important than their very own party or the movement they claim to support.

I won't say much more than that but if you seek the truth it's easy to find.

How much did prop 187 pass by in OC? IMO Hunt isnt losing votes in OC by aligning himself with someone who is tough on illegals.

Mike Dicta
11-22-2009, 12:09 PM
How much did prop 187 pass by in OC? IMO Hunt isnt losing votes in OC by aligning himself with someone who is tough on illegals.

Joe's major problem is his attacking opponents of his office using his deputies. THAT is what the FBI is investigating.

Dan M.
11-22-2009, 5:50 PM
When the Sheriff follows the code by revoking CCW's, which is solely their decision, the DOJ must follow suit and amend their paperwork on their end.

You're saying the Penal Code required her to revoke CCWs? What about the non-renewals? Were they also required? So the CCWs revoked or non-renewed were originally approved against the code?

SteveH
11-22-2009, 6:32 PM
Joe's major problem is his attacking opponents of his office using his deputies. THAT is what the FBI is investigating.

Are you referring to the newpaper that broke the law by publishing the Sheriffs home address? I'm not aware of any other claims like those you allege. Though I would be interested in looking into them if you have any links.

Mike Dicta
11-22-2009, 6:42 PM
Are you referring to the newpaper that broke the law by publishing the Sheriffs home address? I'm not aware of any other claims like those you allege. Though I would be interested in looking into them if you have any links.

Enjoy: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c61_1258854050

locosway
11-22-2009, 8:08 PM
You're saying the Penal Code required her to revoke CCWs? What about the non-renewals? Were they also required? So the CCWs revoked or non-renewed were originally approved against the code?

The penal code says the Sheriff has sole discretion over issuance and revocation. The DOJ just does the paperwork. I don't see why this is so hard to understand for people. The DOJ will NOT be interjecting their ideas or "rules" on a shall issue Sheriff.

Mike Dicta
11-22-2009, 8:20 PM
The penal code says the Sheriff has sole discretion over issuance and revocation. The DOJ just does the paperwork. I don't see why this is so hard to understand for people. The DOJ will NOT be interjecting their ideas or "rules" on a shall issue Sheriff.

It's pointless to go back and forth on that point. We can hope you are right if Bill wins. But having faith in the DOJ is an interesting position to take after the history with firearms in California.

locosway
11-22-2009, 8:24 PM
It's pointless to go back and forth on that point. We can hope you are right if Bill wins. But having faith in the DOJ is an interesting position to take after the history with firearms in California.

I don't see what there is or isn't to have faith in. The DOJ does NOT make the rules.

Mike Dicta
11-22-2009, 8:53 PM
I don't see what there is or isn't to have faith in. The DOJ does NOT make the rules.

Okay. You win. I believe in unicorns.

locosway
11-22-2009, 8:55 PM
Okay. You win. I believe in unicorns.

Show me where they've made their own rules? Or acted on their own without outside influence?

Mike Dicta
11-22-2009, 9:09 PM
Show me where they've made their own rules? Or acted on their own without outside influence?

They won't. Never have. I'm drinking the kool aid now.

Dan M.
11-22-2009, 9:57 PM
The penal code says the Sheriff has sole discretion over issuance and revocation. The DOJ just does the paperwork. I don't see why this is so hard to understand for people. The DOJ will NOT be interjecting their ideas or "rules" on a shall issue Sheriff.

The code is not hard to understand on this matter at all. Your statement is what was unclear. You stated that she revoked CCWs by following the penal code, implying that the penal code required her to revoke those CCWs, further implying that those CCWs were against the penal code. You didn't say she decided to revoke and followed DOJ regulations in the process. There's a difference, and you implied that the CCWs revoked shouldn't have been approved in the first place, which is wrong. You didn't qualify your statement by saying the great majority shouldn't have been revoked. You made a blanket implication regarding the whole lot of the revoked CCWs.

locosway
11-22-2009, 10:00 PM
The code is not hard to understand on this matter at all. Your statement is what was unclear. You stated that she revoked CCWs by following the penal code, implying that the penal code required her to revoke those CCWs, further implying that those CCWs were against the penal code. You didn't say she decided to revoke and followed DOJ regulations in the process. There's a difference, and you implied that the CCWs revoked shouldn't have been approved in the first place, which is wrong. You didn't qualify your statement by saying the great majority shouldn't have been revoked. You made a blanket implication regarding the whole lot of the revoked CCWs.

Ok, that was my fault. Some how I thought we were all on the same page that what she did was wrong, but, she did it legally, and the DOJ was just following the code.

However, you're correct. I meant to say it the way you just did, perhaps I'll try and articulate what I'm saying better in future posts.

Dan M.
11-23-2009, 9:03 AM
Ok, that was my fault. Some how I thought we were all on the same page that what she did was wrong, but, she did it legally, and the DOJ was just following the code.

However, you're correct. I meant to say it the way you just did, perhaps I'll try and articulate what I'm saying better in future posts.

No worries. I apologize if I seemed bristly. I'm a little sensitive over the issue because I know plenty of people who'd never met Mike Carona, never donated to his campaign, had no connection with him whatsover, yet were approved for a CCW under his administration, and denied renewal or revoked or restricted under Hutchens. I've seen a lot of talk about the Carona CCWs being bought or given as political favors to friends and while there were some questionable holders, the great majority were legit.

We're all here to see Hutchens voted out. That's what's important. Hopefully these issues of opposing candidates will work themselves out in time to give us a good shot at beating her.

locosway
11-23-2009, 9:09 AM
So, here's something interesting...

Is Craig Hunter currently in a position to issue CCW's from his department?

Since the Sheriff change in OC, and with Hutchens revoking so many permits that are legit, wouldn't it make sense to have cities such as Anaheim issue the permits to it's citizens to keep them safe?

RomanDad
11-23-2009, 9:33 AM
So, here's something interesting...

Is Craig Hunter currently in a position to issue CCW's from his department?


No.

He's not the Chief of Police.

Dan M.
11-23-2009, 9:34 AM
So, here's something interesting...

Is Craig Hunter currently in a position to issue CCW's from his department?

Since the Sheriff change in OC, and with Hutchens revoking so many permits that are legit, wouldn't it make sense to have cities such as Anaheim issue the permits to it's citizens to keep them safe?

That's a fair question to which I don't know the answer. He's deputy chief and not CHIEF chief, so maybe he's not in a position, but again, I don't know.

I don't know what kind of red tape is involved to change their status on issuance (undeclaring "G") and take it over for the city from the OCSD. I imagine there is money involved in the form of fees and that might be reason enough right there with the economy the way it's been.

SteveH
11-23-2009, 9:49 AM
Enjoy: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c61_1258854050

Interesting. Cant really tell if its Joe against a corrupt system or an honest system against a corrupt Joe.

ripcurlksm
11-23-2009, 10:03 AM
Bill Hunt will issue to anyone who qualifies with a "good cause" of self defense. You can't get any more Shall Issue than that.

Really? How is that considered shall issue when you have to have a good reason to arm yourself?

Is this just a language issue because that doesn't read any different that the current meaning? I can see a statement like "an upstanding citizen who wishes to defend themselves shall be issued a permit".

RomanDad
11-23-2009, 10:10 AM
Really? How is that considered shall issue when you have to have a good reason to arm yourself?

Is this just a language issue because that doesn't read any different that the current meaning? I can see a statement like "an upstanding citizen who wishes to defend themselves shall be issued a permit".

Yes.... It is a language issue. The CURRENT LAW of 12050 REQUIRES a "Good Cause" statement. We are NOT a Shall Issue state, and no CLEO can alter that. So what the real argument is, is what language is best way to word a policy to set the CCW folks minds at ease while keeping ones policy within the bounds of the law.

Both candidates are saying the same thing two different ways.

locosway
11-23-2009, 10:15 AM
Yes.... It is a language issue. The CURRENT LAW of 12050 REQUIRES a "Good Cause" statement. We are NOT a Shall Issue state, and no CLEO can alter that. So what the real argument is, is what language is best way to word a policy to set the CCW folks minds at ease while keeping ones policy within the bounds of the law.

Both candidates are saying the same thing two different ways.

Agreed, but without hearing Hunter speak on the issue or asking him questions personally, I can't stand behind his statement he released. There's too much wiggle room in it for me at this time. I understand from this thread and your PM that the DOJ seems to interject their views into the CCW policy of agencies, but I haven't seen it yet so I can't comment on that.

Hunt was the Chief of Police Services for San Clemente, and while he was unable to issue CCW's because of Carona and his semi-faux title as being the chief of police for San Clemente, he seems to understand what it takes to issue them. He seems to have the issue well researched, and I've posted his statement which came directly from him on how he sees the DOJ handling a CCW policy.

ripcurlksm
11-23-2009, 10:17 AM
Thanks Roman and locos

IGOTDIRT4U
11-23-2009, 11:07 AM
So, we all agree, we're all voting for "Anybody But Hutchens". right!!!???!!! :D

RomanDad
11-23-2009, 11:51 AM
So, we all agree, we're all voting for "Anybody But Hutchens". right!!!???!!! :D

My car has "ABS" Brakes.....



http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/MovieLawyer/signphp-2.gif

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/MovieLawyer/signphp22.gif

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/MovieLawyer/signphp9.gif

RomanDad
11-23-2009, 11:59 AM
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/MovieLawyer/signphp5.gif

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/MovieLawyer/signphp-1.gif

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/MovieLawyer/signphp.gif

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/MovieLawyer/signphp3.gif

steadyrock
11-23-2009, 1:03 PM
http://i49.tinypic.com/9qfqfc.gif

locosway
11-23-2009, 3:11 PM
So, we all agree, we're all voting for "Anybody But Hutchens". right!!!???!!! :D

That was never a question in anyones mind. :D

Jamsie567
11-23-2009, 5:03 PM
It looks like Hunt just scored a pretty sweet endorsement from Lott. I just pulled this off his website.


"Bill Hunt will be a great Sheriff for Orange County. Mr. Hunt understands crime and has demonstrated his strong advocacy of victims being able to defend themselves. He can be counted upon to protect and further advance those rights."

-John Lott Jr. PH.d