PDA

View Full Version : Craig Hunter CCW Policy


hawk84
12-15-2009, 10:53 PM
So, I have seen the policy Bill Hunt has on his website, essentially "shall issue" and "personal protection=good cause"

so i asked Mr Hunter what his policy would be

here is the reply I received

I hope this helps answer your question.

My stance on CCW is that I would fully support a shall issue amendment. I don't think that is going to happen in the near future, but current cases in the courts will probably make it so way before CA politicians do.

I don't think it is totally accurate to say that DOJ would not step in if they saw an abuse. My posture would be that if they did, we would want to have a good case to go with. Reform on the leading edge, not the bleeding edge. We don't want to take one step forward and two back.

It is very difficult to try and summarize what is good cause for every individual (obviously the whole problem with a "may issue" state). It isn't fair to all citizens. However, I think you will find in even the most lenient of Counties, Kern comes to mind, they still request some description other than "personal protection."

I think until the courts decide that we don't need to state a reason, then it will be required and a Sheriff or candidate cannot honestly say they are "shall issue" until the courts come around.

I am aware that one candidate is saying that he will be "shall issue." I don't believe it is possible yet. And remember that candidiate also said he didn't want INS in the jail when he ran against Carona and now he has Joe Arpaio stumping for him. So be careful. I do think in the end he would have a better policy than Hutchens.

Until the courts incorporate the 2A, (which could be soon) citizens seeking a CCW will have to say something more than "personal protection." ...i.e. . I jog where there are mountain lions, I go camping in the wilderness...etc. . I don't agree with this requirement, but I do believe that is the current state of the law and my promise to voters is that it will be interpreted in the least restrictive way possible and to be supportive of "shall Issue reform"

As an aside, I also do not favor restrictions. Once you have it, its best to have it all the time. Get used to it and carry it!

I hope this helps.

In closing, I want you to know that I appreciate how important this issue is for many Americans and Orange County citizens. When it comes time to vote, however, please look at all of the issues facing the county and look at all of the candidates and what they bring to the job both professionally and politically. I think when you make that full comparison, you will find that I am the best candidate for Sheriff in Orange County.



Pleaes let me know if I can help you in any way.



Craig

CCWFacts
12-15-2009, 10:58 PM
I don't know anything about this candidate, but that type of statement is reasonable. I don't think the DoJ would do something about someone issuing for "personal protection", but come on, how hard is it to articulate a need that is unique to the individual and gives some more explanation?

bigcalidave
12-15-2009, 11:00 PM
FAIL! That is NOT acceptable. He is just saying enough to try and get people to believe he is pro ccw. If he really was, he would accept personal protection as good cause. He is saying right here that he does NOT. He will want a better reason, he does not support the constitution.

JeepsRcool
12-15-2009, 11:53 PM
Bill Hunt supports ALL of our goals, Hunter does NOT. My mind is made up, no change of policy on hunters side could pull me from supporting Bill Hunt.

ontargetrange
12-16-2009, 12:16 AM
OK just to be clear - Hunt has NOT said he will be a shall issue Sheriff - he can not under current Kalifornia law. It requires that a person seeking to obtain a CCW MUST have a "Just Cause" Statement as part of their application. He has said multiple times that his requirement will be two words - "Personal Protection" -- what more can a person say???

Remember that less than 2% of the population actually spends the time, money and effort to get a CCW (read Dr. John Lotts book - More Guns Less Crime). Those that do get a background check, spend hundreds of dollars for training and the fingerprinting. This is NOT just a quick thing to run down to the corner and pick up. Hunt knows those that do all of this are worthy of his support as Sheriff in their desire to be part of the solution.

I don't like to get a political answer to a simple straight question - I won't support someone that can't quit dancing around it.

I have stated who I support - I have looked at this candidate and found issues that can not be resolved by dancing and other issues -- be wise and investigate for yourself - do not take ANYONES word for it about how you should vote next JUNE

CSDGuy
12-16-2009, 1:05 AM
FAIL! That is NOT acceptable. He is just saying enough to try and get people to believe he is pro ccw. If he really was, he would accept personal protection as good cause. He is saying right here that he does NOT. He will want a better reason, he does not support the constitution.
The way I read that statement is quite the opposite. He's essentially saying that he HAS to require some articulation of good cause beyond "personal protection" because the "state of the law" says he has to, not that he wants to.

To me, it sounds like he thinks the 2A means what it says, will most likely be incorporated, and until then, he has to follow the existing law, and will do so in a manner that is as close to "Shall Issue" as he can legally go.

I'm just reading what he wrote. I don't get the same "feel" from Hunt.

Then again, I'm only 300+ miles north, and I don't know much about Hunt or Hunter. I don't think Hutchens will win re-election though.

bigcalidave
12-16-2009, 3:20 AM
I read it as "personal protection isn't good enough" even though it is in at least a few counties in CA right now, without the counties getting sued. As a next logical step, if you have two candidates and one says "personal protection is good cause", where the other says "Until the courts incorporate the 2A, (which could be soon) citizens seeking a CCW will have to say something more than "personal protection." ...i.e. . I jog where there are mountain lions, I go camping in the wilderness...etc. . I don't agree with this requirement, but I do believe that is the current state of the law and my promise to voters is that it will be interpreted in the least restrictive way possible and to be supportive of "shall Issue reform"
I'd be going with the guy who says personal protection.

jont92619
12-16-2009, 10:18 AM
Way to go site admin, let's not quash the first amendment in our zeal to protect the second...

Foghlai
12-16-2009, 11:57 AM
Way to go site admin, let's not quash the first amendment in our zeal to protect the second...

To be fair, this is a private website. Sure you have a reasonable expectation that your posts will be allowed. But in the end, if the owner of the website doesnt want it up, you dont have a first amendment right here that outweighs his property rights.

On the other hand. After reading that statement by Mr. Hunter. I will 100% NOT be voting for Hunter. Rather, I will be voting for BILL HUNT. That statement basically looks like someone with the exact same position has our current sheriff. No thank you. Here is what I disagree with:

1) He does not believe 'personal protection' is currently good enough for CCW issue. Maybe that will change with incorporation, but I'm not going to use my vote to find out.

2) If he becomes sheriff he could use his discretion to allow CCW for personal protection. He apparently does not have the same view of discretion that I have because it is equally apparent that he will NOT allow CCW for personal protection until someone in the DoJ says its ok.

And, well, those two reasons are good enough to convince me that I will not vote for Hunter.

BILL HUNT 2010

Dan M.
12-16-2009, 12:17 PM
California Penal Code 12050. (a) (1) (A) The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance...may issue to
that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person...

All the CA sheriffs have to dance around this in one way or another, because based the code, Hunter is correct--no sheriff or county can be "shall issue" in this state. Some form of interpretation and judgement from the sheriff is required by law, whether it be "personal protection" as stated by Hunt, or "that it will be interpreted in the least restrictive way possible and to be supportive of 'shall issue reform'" as stated by Hunter.

Suppose somebody applies for a permit using personal protection as a good cause, but does not supply proof of good character. What should Hunt do in this case? What should Hunter do? The law requires proof and a judgement must be made. It's the law, the same law that Hutchens uses to deny us--judgement.

IMO, Hunter is not being slippery and evasive in his statement, he is being upfront by admitting that there ARE requirements that must be followed but that his interpretation--his judgement--of those requirements will be the least restrictive way possible. That sounds pretty damn good to me.

JeepsRcool
12-16-2009, 12:24 PM
Is personal protection specifically excluded as a qualification for CCW?
Didnt think so, So who ever says they will accept that as good cause, is gonna get my vote. And Hunter does NOT say he will accept it.

jont92619
12-16-2009, 12:30 PM
Dan I understand what you are saying but I think it's still a poor argument for Hunters defense. It's a heck of a lot easier to determine someone's good moral character than to play the what cause is good cause / creative writing game we have now.

Dan M.
12-16-2009, 12:59 PM
Dan I understand what you are saying but I think it's still a poor argument for Hunters defense. It's a heck of a lot easier to determine someone's good moral character than to play the what cause is good cause / creative writing game we have now.

It's easy to find two or three people who say you have a good moral character, true. I don't know why the DOJ accepts that. Who checks the moral character of the people you list as character references? As far as the good cause/creative writing game, all it requires is to do a minimum amount of homework to understand what the sheriff is asking of you. Either you qualify or you don't. Both Hunt and Hunter are saying that those qualifications will be minimal if they are elected. As far as CCW goes, I will be very satisified if either is elected. I'd rather have Hunter because I'm think he has more experience in a bigger arena. I won't cry if Hunt gets it. I will cry if Hutchens is elected though. Might even say some bad words.

Kestryll
12-16-2009, 1:30 PM
Way to go site admin, let's not quash the first amendment in our zeal to protect the second...

Quit your whining.

If you want to come here and endorse your candidate of choice do so.
If you want to try to trash the threads of others trying to endorse THEIR candidate of choice I'll boot you to the curb, just as I'll boot them if they try to trash your thread.

If you want to debate points without the digs and snide comments that's fine, if you can not leave those out you won't be posting here.

And let make this clear, you DO NOT HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT ON A PRIVATE FORUM.

Old Timer
12-16-2009, 1:32 PM
And Hunter does NOT say he will accept it.I am not certain that is entirely accurate. What Mr. Hunter seems to be saying is that "personal protection" is good but, just to be on the safe side he wants a "because" statement.

"I desire a CCW for personal protection BECAUSE I live in a terrible neighborhood, walk at night in secluded areas, and often am in possession of items of value."

tango-52
12-16-2009, 1:55 PM
I am not certain that is entirely accurate. What Mr. Hunter seems to be saying is that "personal protection" is good but, just to be on the safe side he wants a "because" statement.

"I desire a CCW for personal protection BECAUSE I live in a terrible neighborhood, walk at night in secluded areas, and often am in possession of items of value."

Seems easy enough to me. I just hope we can get it that easy in San Diego County.

ontargetrange
12-16-2009, 2:37 PM
One only needs to read the Appointed ones current website for her current rules. The very last portion is the killer part and under Kalifornia law it gives the Sheriff TOTAL control on what a cause statement needs to be.
CCW Requirements -


California law requires concealed weapon license applicants to satisfy specific criteria before being issued a license. The requirements are as follows:


Residency:

Training:

Good Character:

Good Cause:


"No resident has the right to a license, nor is the Sheriff required to issue a license. By law, the Sheriff has the discretion to approve or deny CCW license applications as well as revoke licenses that have already been issued."


It is and will remain a tragedy that we have in place a person who is so against us, her employers, that she or anyone would deny us the ability, if we choose to, to defend ourselves and our families. All the while proclaiming that the OCSD will provide us with protection - yeah and just how long was it before the police showed up for the last shooting??

ALL Sheriffs have the right under state law to define "good cause", because they write as department policy. For Hunter to dance around the 2A or anything else is pure political garbage and not someone to be trusted.

Look back at what Corona said -- the same people were behind him then and the same are behind this one -- while we may get more CCW's -we won't get honesty

SteveH
12-16-2009, 3:42 PM
I'd rather have Hunter because I'm think he has more experience in a bigger arena.

You have that backwards. Hunter has less experiance in a smaller department. In fact no experiance in the department he hopes to run.

Dan M.
12-16-2009, 4:12 PM
You have that backwards. Hunter has less experiance in a smaller department. In fact no experiance in the department he hopes to run.

I said "arena" not department. Anaheim is bigger than San Clemente, no? And Hunter has been APD longer than Hunt was with OCSD.

justaguy
12-16-2009, 5:06 PM
My take:
Hunt has tried before.... and lost. I'm not sure the voters have changed.

Hunter sounds perfectly reasonable.

I prefer Hunter of Hunt.

And let me be perfectly clear about one thing: discussing Hunter vs. Hunt is a great discussion to have, as long as we all realize that HUTCHENS HAS TO GO!

hawk84
12-16-2009, 5:29 PM
Quit your whining.

If you want to come here and endorse your candidate of choice do so.
If you want to try to trash the threads of others trying to endorse THEIR candidate of choice I'll boot you to the curb, just as I'll boot them if they try to trash your thread.

If you want to debate points without the digs and snide comments that's fine, if you can not leave those out you won't be posting here.

And let make this clear, you DO NOT HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT ON A PRIVATE FORUM.
I just want to make one thing clear

I am NOT ENDORSING ANYONE, I asked a canidate a question, a question i thought people here might be interested in his response to

because i thought this forum would be interested i made it public

I am not sure who i will vote for yet, i still have time to figure it out


but as the guy above me says, Hutchens has to go

U2BassAce
12-16-2009, 5:47 PM
Hutchens has to go!!!!!!!:taz:

guntrust
12-16-2009, 7:23 PM
Look back at what Corona said -- the same people were behind him then and the same are behind this one -- while we may get more CCW's -we won't get honesty

Amen to what Gregg said--very important to shoot for honesty here.

And don't forget that this whole may-issue muddiness resulted from NRA compromise back in the 20's. We need to set our sights higher while we still have momentum from great RTC experience of last several decades. California CCW law is basically same as that under Ukrainian SSR and i am not willing to settle for that.

GuyW
12-16-2009, 8:12 PM
And don't forget that this whole may-issue muddiness resulted from NRA compromise back in the 20's.

Got a cite for that??
.

guntrust
12-16-2009, 8:23 PM
no cite, but i recall reading quite awhile ago that the NRA supported may-issue under sheriff as compromise under threat of worse alternatives proposed at the time.

guntrust
12-16-2009, 9:03 PM
here is an excerpt from an article by Clayton E. Cramer & David B. Kopel:

http://www.worldexaminer.com/worldexaminer/2009/12/nra-compromise-of-1920s-led-to-californias-racially-discriminatory-may-issue-ccw-regime.html

GuyW
12-16-2009, 9:57 PM
here is an excerpt from an article by Clayton E. Cramer & David B. Kopel:

http://www.worldexaminer.com/worldexaminer/2009/12/nra-compromise-of-1920s-led-to-californias-racially-discriminatory-may-issue-ccw-regime.html

Good job, you win this hand....

.

bigcalidave
12-16-2009, 10:01 PM
burn

Turo
12-16-2009, 10:18 PM
All the CA sheriffs have to dance around this in one way or another, because based the code, Hunter is correct--no sheriff or county can be "shall issue" in this state. Some form of interpretation and judgement from the sheriff is required by law, whether it be "personal protection" as stated by Hunt, or "that it will be interpreted in the least restrictive way possible and to be supportive of 'shall issue reform'" as stated by Hunter.

Suppose somebody applies for a permit using personal protection as a good cause, but does not supply proof of good character. What should Hunt do in this case? What should Hunter do? The law requires proof and a judgement must be made. It's the law, the same law that Hutchens uses to deny us--judgement.

IMO, Hunter is not being slippery and evasive in his statement, he is being upfront by admitting that there ARE requirements that must be followed but that his interpretation--his judgement--of those requirements will be the least restrictive way possible. That sounds pretty damn good to me.

Nobody is saying that these candidates completely disregard the rules and regulations for obtaining a CCW. Good moral character, a clean record, and some of the other stuff necessary for a CCW are good things.
By claiming to be a "shall issue" sheriff, Hunt is not saying that any shmoe from off the street can walk into the office and write "personal protection" on a piece of paper gets a CCW. He is saying that If a person qualifies for all the other conditions for obtaining a CCW and explains their "good cause" to be their personal protection, they will be given a CCW.

You talk about proof of good character and the explanation of good cause like they are the same thing. They are not.

The requirements for getting a CCW are not up for interpretation. Only the applicant's "good cause" is judged by the sheriff to determine whether the person gets the permit or not. The other requirements are pretty straightforward.

Dan M.
12-16-2009, 11:52 PM
Only the applicant's "good cause" is judged by the sheriff to determine whether the person gets the permit or not.

Uh...lemme see...

Some form of interpretation and judgement from the sheriff is required...

Yeah, that's what I said.

SteveH
12-17-2009, 10:47 AM
I said "arena" not department. Anaheim is bigger than San Clemente, no? And Hunter has been APD longer than Hunt was with OCSD.

Hunt's experiance is not limited to San Clemente. That was only his last couple years. Hunter is a big fish in a little pond. Hunt was a big fish in the biggest pond. Hunt can walk into any job in the OCSD, including Sheriff, tomorrow and do it expertly. Hunter would need training to work the chow hall in the jail let alone run the department.

Hutchens has already showed us how OCSD outsiders work out.

Why dont you post Hunters resume if you are convinced he is more exsperianced?

People are pretty familiar with Hunts resume already

US Army MP
Jail Deputy
Patrol Deputy
FTO
SWAT
Academy Staff
Narcotics Investigator
Jail Sgt
Patrol Sgt
Jail Lt
Contract City Chief of Police
Private Investigator/Small business owner

Lets see Hunters police experiance...

Huzar
12-17-2009, 11:17 AM
Hunt's experiance is not limited to San Clemente. That was only his last couple years. Hunter is a big fish in a little pond. Hunt was a big fish in the biggest pond. Hunt can walk into any job in the OCSD, including Sheriff, tomorrow and do it expertly. Hunter would need training to work the chow hall in the jail let alone run the department.

Hutchens has already showed us how OCSD outsiders work out.

Why dont you post Hunters resume if you are convinced he is more exsperianced?

People are pretty familiar with Hunts resume already

US Army MP
Jail Deputy
Patrol Deputy
FTO
SWAT
Academy Staff
Narcotics Investigator
Jail Sgt
Patrol Sgt
Jail Lt
Contract City Chief of Police
Private Investigator/Small business owner

Lets see Hunters police experiance...

How many people did Hunt have reporting to him? How many people does Hunter report to him? You're saying that Hunt is a big in the biggest pond? I think that Hunt's pond is smaller then Hunter's. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing but lets keep things fairly clear: Hunt's pond was small.....

SteveH
12-17-2009, 11:24 AM
How many people did Hunt have reporting to him? How many people does Hunter report to him? You're saying that Hunt is a big in the biggest pond? I think that Hunt's pond is smaller then Hunter's. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing but lets keep things fairly clear: Hunt's pond was small.....

Hunt's pond is 4,800 Hunters is 573.

As a Jail Lt he directly managed over 1,000 employees. Certanly more than the 573 total employees of APD, and Hunter never ran APD. He only managed or supervized a percentage of that total.

The Sheriff's mission includes running the county jails. Its 50% or more of the job. Hunters never worked a county jail. I do know he was APD's Gang Sgt, so he does have one feather in his cap.



I notice that again people want to attack Hunt rather than post Hunters resume. Is it that thin that it cant stand on it own?

U2BassAce
12-17-2009, 11:36 AM
Hunter very good.

Hutchens very bad.

;)

Dan M.
12-17-2009, 12:22 PM
Why dont you post Hunters resume if you are convinced he is more exsperianced?

I guess you missed it the first time I responded to your request. This will be my last time responding.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3476813&postcount=39

Hunter's Resume

Jail operations
Personnel
Budget
Internal affairs
Narcotics
Gangs
Career criminal apprehension
SWAT
Robbery
Labor relations
Aviation
Special events (Anaheim Stadium, Honda Center/Pond, Disneyland Resort, etc.)

As far as experience & small pond/big pond stuff, we can throw around number to spin things to look good for both guys:

Orange County: 3,000,000 and rising
Anaheim: population 342,000
San Clemente: population 68,000

OCSD: 4800 staff and volunteers
Anaheim PD: 800 staff and volunteers
San Clemente: 57 staff

Hunter joins APD: 1982
Hunt joins OCSD: 1985

Hunt: out of law enforcement for 3 years and counting
Hunter: still working as 2nd in command of the police department in the 10th biggest city in CA.

Both guys have solid experience. All's I'm trying to do is show experience and numbers in the same light. Both are qualified. I've said as much in other posts. You like Hunt. That's fine. I like Hunter. That's fine. We both use our first names and last name initial. That's fine. Point is, we--you, me, all of us here--want to get Hutchens out. It's worthless to pit Hunt against Hunter or Hunter against Hunt. It's US angainst HUTCHENS. When we have a primary in June and she doesn't make the cut, then we can have this conversation again.

SteveH
12-17-2009, 1:33 PM
Hunter's Resume

Jail operations
Personnel
Budget
Internal affairs
Narcotics
Gangs
Career criminal apprehension
SWAT
Robbery
Labor relations
Aviation
Special events (Anaheim Stadium, Honda Center/Pond, Disneyland Resort, etc.)



So Hunter never worked Patrol? Was never an FTO? I know he was the Gang Sgt, did he work gangs as a patroman to or was he just there as a supervisor? What does Jail operations mean? did he work in the jail, supervise the jail, manage the jail or all of the above?

A lot of the questions would be answered if you listed his assignments in order and the rank he held at the time of those assignments, if you have that information available to you.

Glock22Fan
12-17-2009, 1:53 PM
It's been said before, your efforts at this time should be put towards a temporary tactical alliance to ensure that Hutchens scores less than 50% in the primary. If she scores 51% because one side or the other (Hunter and Hunt) has succeeded in knocking a 2% hole in the other "friendly" candidate, it is a loss for both of you. Leave the "Your candidate is inexperienced" or "He hasn't done that" or "But he's friends with Joe" until they are the only two candidates left. Don't assume that Hutchens supporters aren't listening in looking for dirt - or at least negative points they can use.

Consider: Hutchens, by being the incumbent, has a massive initial advantage. Your two preferred candidates together are going to have a job to better her vote. It probably doesn't help that they are both, to a considerable degree, pro-CCW and that this will split their vote. It also doesn't help that their names are so similar that many voters will confuse them, and may even assume that they are the same person.

Anything else is tactically unsound.

tango-52
12-17-2009, 1:58 PM
It's been said before, your efforts at this time should be put towards a temporary tactical alliance to ensure that Hutchens scores less than 50% in the primary. If she scores 51% because one side or the other (Hunter and Hunt) has succeeded in knocking a 2% hole in the other "friendly" candidate, it is a loss for both of you. Leave the "Your candidate is inexperienced" or "He hasn't done that" or "But he's friends with Joe" until they are the only two candidates left. Don't assume that Hutchens supporters aren't listening in looking for dirt - or at least negative points they can use.

Anything else is tactically unsound.

Exactly! The enemy of your enemy is your friend. We have the same situation in San Diego County to ensure that the Appointed ANTI-RKBA Sheriff doesn't make it past the Primary in June. Once he (Gore in San Diego) or she (Hutchens in Orange County) is out of the picture, then you can focus on the merits of your preferred candidate without giving up the RKBA.

U2BassAce
12-17-2009, 2:46 PM
It's been said before, your efforts at this time should be put towards a temporary tactical alliance to ensure that Hutchens scores less than 50% in the primary. If she scores 51% because one side or the other (Hunter and Hunt) has succeeded in knocking a 2% hole in the other "friendly" candidate, it is a loss for both of you. Leave the "Your candidate is inexperienced" or "He hasn't done that" or "But he's friends with Joe" until they are the only two candidates left. Don't assume that Hutchens supporters aren't listening in looking for dirt - or at least negative points they can use.

Consider: Hutchens, by being the incumbent, has a massive initial advantage. Your two preferred candidates together are going to have a job to better her vote. It probably doesn't help that they are both, to a considerable degree, pro-CCW and that this will split their vote. It also doesn't help that their names are so similar that many voters will confuse them, and may even assume that they are the same person.

Anything else is tactically unsound.

;) Well said.

nicki
12-18-2009, 3:24 AM
No one will get 51 percent in the June primary unless Hunt and Hunter attack each other.

I would suggest that Hunt and Hunter agree to focus their respective campaigns on what they have to offer the voters and if they are going to attack, they both attack Hutchens.

After the primary is over, they can endorse each other.

The issue is to kept Hutchens under 50 percent.

There is the possibility that Hunt and Hunter could survive the primary and Hutchens is out in June.

Nicki

tgun
12-22-2009, 8:47 AM
All candidates must be vetted. Voting for a candidate based on a single issue is a recipe for disaster. Corona got as far as he did because too many people kept their heads in the sand. Why? Because they were getting what they wanted.

Pay attention to character. It won't show up on a resume.

Glock22Fan
12-22-2009, 9:09 AM
All candidates must be vetted. Voting for a candidate based on a single issue is a recipe for disaster. Corona got as far as he did because too many people kept their heads in the sand. Why? Because they were getting what they wanted.

Pay attention to character. It won't show up on a resume.


And getting your knickers in a twist at this stage of the game and allowing Hutchens to get in by default is also a recipe for disaster - for anyone who cares the way we do.

Get rid of Hutchens, and then decide which is the better of the two remaining candidates.

SteveH
12-22-2009, 3:03 PM
All candidates must be vetted. Voting for a candidate based on a single issue is a recipe for disaster. Corona got as far as he did because too many people kept their heads in the sand. Why? Because they were getting what they wanted.

Pay attention to character. It won't show up on a resume.

I agree.

CCW is just one issue. There are other important issues for those of us who live in areas patrolled by OCSD.