PDA

View Full Version : Is Craig Hunter the best OC Sheriff candidate?


WeThePeople
03-17-2010, 1:14 PM
I recently attended a fundraiser for Craig Hunter, a candidate for Orange County Sheriff. This is a brief summary of what he said.

He thinks that just "self-defense" is not a good idea for a good cause statement, because the DOJ might invalidate them at some point. However, he will accept "I walk in the park and am afraid of 4 and 2 legged coyotes". He said ANYONE can use this good cause statement, not just businessmen. He expects that at least 5 thousand people a year in OC will apply for and get CCWs.

Craig believes that the 2A protects all of our other rights, especially the 1A.

By his own admission, he's not really a "gun guy". However, he's happy for all of us to indulge in our interests.

He claims a good track record in Anaheim of managing dollars wisely. He gave several examples of how he would cut millions from the OC budget and get better service in the process.


I think most politicians are worse than pond scum. The more I listened to Craig; the more I liked, respected, and trusted him. My BS meter is pretty sensitive. He responded to all questions honestly and completely, without the usual politician shuffle.

Many of the 2A people that I know have similar opinions about Craig.

Your mileage may vary.

wildhawker
03-17-2010, 1:53 PM
Hunter does seem to be the most attractive candidate (in terms of RKBA) in that race.

The Director
03-17-2010, 2:15 PM
Hunter does seem to be the most attractive candidate (in terms of RKBA) in that race.

Naw, Hunt is one step above him when it comes to RKBA.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-17-2010, 2:15 PM
I could not make his recent meet and greet in Yorba Linda, but a very good friend of mine who also had 15 years in his former career as a LAC Sheriff's Deputy did make it.

As he is a family man and has a busy career to boot, he met with Craig and asked him three direct questions; CCW issuance, Jails, and Budget. Craig, according to him, answered all three questions in short response, and in accordance with the expected answer of an Orange County resident. He did not beat around the bush about CCW issuance, wanted to balance the budget in the short and long term, and believed early release to save room or monies was a very bad idea. (I'm leaving out some of the details as I was not part of the actual conversation so I wold not want to mis-quote Mr. Hunter.)

With that, my friend thanked him for his time and immediately handed over a sizable contribution.

The OP of the thread echoes my friend's experience recently.

You see, my friend came from LASD, and he knows the culture and misgivings of their staff. So, for him to hear a clear explanation, and one that fits with OC culture, it made a connection.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-17-2010, 2:17 PM
Naw, Hunt is one step above him when it comes to RKBA.

At this time, in print and quote, yes. In deeds, we shall see. Hunt also has to address other issues that loom in the OCSD. Beyond what is on his political website.

Granted, I did miss the recent debate between the three candidates and this may have been covered well there.

Doheny
03-17-2010, 2:19 PM
Naw, Hunt is one step above him when it comes to RKBA.

I agree. And the idea that DOJ may invalidate "personal protection" good cause CCWs is bunk. There are other CLEOs who allow that as a CG and they're fine.

More FUD, thanks to the CALCCW crowd. You would think that a website that is about CCWs would promote the most 2A friendly candidate, Bill Hunt.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-17-2010, 2:26 PM
I agree. And the idea that DOJ may invalidate "personal protection" good cause CCWs is bunk. There are other CLEOs who allow that as a CG and they're fine.

More FUD, thanks to the CALCCW crowd. You would think that a website that is about CCWs would promote the most 2A friendly candidate, Bill Hunt.

Reading comprehension is everything.

He said "may invalidate them". If current CLEO's are issuing for "personal protection", that is fine. Should the DOJ (this is the "may" part, so pay attention) create a rule on this that defines PP as not a valid reason in a non-shall issue state, those holding PP CCW's are SOL. Hunter sees beyond that and says give me one more thing over PP to issue and I will. No creative writing needed based upon his statement of a fear of 4 and 2 legged coyotes. Simple enough.

WeThePeople
03-17-2010, 2:44 PM
For what it's worth...

A few years ago, I heard from numerous people that Hunt was actually anti-gun and that he was a say-anything-to-get-elected person. I've never met the gentleman.

Craig seems to be a conservative guy and has his reasons for his CCW policy. If he finds out that the DOJ threat is bunk, he'd probably change.

However, I don't see the difference in saying "self defense" versus "coyotes might get me". Maybe I'm not smart enough.

I don't drink the CALCCW Kool-Aid.

Craig seems capable of doing a great job of managing the county, not just handing out CCWs.

CCW is an important topic for me. A fiscally-sound manager for a large taxpayer budget is equally important to me.

The OC Young Republicans has an event on March 29 in NB that offers a chance to hear all 3 candidates speak. It could be interesting. ocyrevents@gmail.com No, I don't drink their Kool-Aid either.




I agree. And the idea that DOJ may invalidate "personal protection" good cause CCWs is bunk. There are other CLEOs who allow that as a CG and they're fine.

More FUD, thanks to the CALCCW crowd. You would think that a website that is about CCWs would promote the most 2A friendly candidate, Bill Hunt.

CWM4A1
03-17-2010, 2:55 PM
Yes, YMMV. My vote goes to Bill Hunt. Some interesting read regarding Bill Hunt:

http://www.fullertonsfuture.org/tag/bill-hunt/

Pro-RKBA, Pro-State Right and no BS political talk.

As far as personal protection is or is not a good cause, until DOJ intervene, it's bunk. Advertising that DOJ will intervene is spreading FUD. If DOJ rule Personal Protection is not a good cause, then they will have to define what good cause is. That would be a lot of fun to watch them get through the political fire storm.

Flip the coin, I can also say that Hunter is being cautious just in case he have to tighten the CCW issuance per influence he received, he got his base covered. I think Carona said he will lax up the CCW issuance same as Hunter, but Carona's CCW policy and issuance track record was far from ideal.

Yes, there is another debate held by OCYR. Anyone interested should go there to find out what your candidate is made of.

On the other hand, getting rid of Hutchens will be the top priority for now.

Sam Adams
03-17-2010, 3:07 PM
Bill Hunt is also an "oathkeeper" and that fact is very important to me. He is a quality individual and would make a great OC sheriff.

WeThePeople
03-17-2010, 3:10 PM
Yes, YMMV. My vote goes to Bill Hunt. Some interesting read regarding Bill Hunt:

http://www.fullertonsfuture.org/tag/bill-hunt/

Pro-RKBA, Pro-State Right and no BS political talk.

As far as personal protection is or is not a good cause, until DOJ intervene, it's bunk. Advertising that DOJ will intervene is spreading FUD. If DOJ rule Personal Protection is not a good cause, then they will have to define what good cause is. That would be a lot of fun to watch them get through the political fire storm.

Flip the coin, I can also say that Hunter is being cautious just in case he have to tighten the CCW issuance per influence he received, he got his base covered. I think Carona said he will lax up the CCW issuance same as Hunter, but Carona's CCW policy and issuance track record was far from ideal.

Yes, there is another debate held by OCYR. Anyone interested should go there to find out what your candidate is made of.

On the other hand, getting rid of Hutchens will be the top priority for now.

It will be an interesting race, especially with names like Hunter & Hunt. If we're unlucky, Hutchens will win because the CCW crowd splits between H & H.

Also, except for a few thousand CCW enthusiasts, why will anyone pay attention to this race?

IGOTDIRT4U
03-17-2010, 3:14 PM
A cookie-cutter approach is the wrong way to handle it. There is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to CCWs, crime victims, and high propensity targets.

This is Hunt's statement in regard to CCW's. This seems to contradict those that say he will issue freely based upon no greater need than self-protection.

Cookie cutter approach; Apply on GC of PP, interview, background and fingerprints, take class, get CCW permit.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-17-2010, 3:16 PM
It will be an interesting race, especially with names like Hunter & Hunt. If we're unlucky, Hutchens will win because the CCW crowd splits between H & H.

Also, except for a few thousand CCW enthusiasts, why will anyone pay attention to this race?

Depends. How many people a day do you spread the "word" to? I spent an hour this morning telling no less than two Judges and a room full of semi-known to me people about the upcoming June Primary. And this happens at least 2-3 times per week.

Glock22Fan
03-17-2010, 3:33 PM
I have always said (and this isn't knocking either candidate) that there wasn't anything in it between Hunter and Hunt on "shall Issue," except that Hunter was being a little more careful about how he said it.

I cannot see any shade of grey whatsoever between the words "self-protection" and "I'm afraid of coyotes when I walk in the park." If you cannot think of a phrase like that, or better, then you lack considerable imagination.

And for those who say "Self protection hasn't been challenged by the DoJ" I have two comments.

1) "So far." and
2) Most of the sheriffs acknowledged as being "Shall Issue" do actually expect you to be a little more imaginative, just as Hunter is asking.

If he is prepared to consider issuing 5,000 CCW's a year (which I'll wager is more than he gets applicants) then that's as close to "Shall Issue" as it gets in my book.

But, the important thing is still to make sure that it is ABS (Anyone but Sandra).

IGOTDIRT4U
03-17-2010, 3:37 PM
I have always said (and this isn't knocking either candidate) that there wasn't anything in it between Hunter and Hunt on "shall Issue," except that Hunter was being a little more careful about how he said it.

I cannot see any shade of grey whatsoever between the words "self-protection" and "I'm afraid of coyotes when I walk in the park." If you cannot think of a phrase like that, or better, then you lack considerable imagination.

And for those who say "Self protection hasn't been challenged by the DoJ" I have two comments.

1) "So far." and
2) Most of the sheriffs acknowledged as being "Shall Issue" do actually expect you to be a little more imaginative, just as Hunter is asking.

If he is prepared to consider issuing 5,000 CCW's a year (which I'll wager is more than he gets applicants) then that's as close to "Shall Issue" as it gets in my book.

But, the important thing is still to make sure that it is ABS (Anyone but Sandra).

Well said, G22FAN.

CWM4A1
03-17-2010, 3:40 PM
This is Hunt's statement in regard to CCW's. This seems to contradict those that say he will issue freely based upon no greater need than self-protection.

Cookie cutter approach; Apply on GC of PP, interview, background and fingerprints, take class, get CCW permit.

From one who said "reading comprehension is everything", perhaps you should read the whole transcript first before you draw that conclusion. Here is part that's being refer to as no "one size fits all" coming directly from the transcript:

"Another thing I want to do is waive or substantially reduce fees for those who qualify as low income law abiding citizens. A person who lives in the poorer high-crime neighborhoods who is more likely to be a victim of crime than you or I in our nice neighborhoods cannot afford the expensive fees typically associated with a CCW. I want to partner up with ranges to provide free or substantially reduced training for these people that really do need it.

The program has to be a flexible program and it should not be a one size fits all program. I think it would be more cost effective that way and it would be more of an actual public service which is what we are supposed to be doing anyways. We just need to make sure they have clean a background, are trained properly, and are not prohibited by law from having the CCW."

Consider the cost right now to apply for CCW: You will spend about $500 for initial process, and about $250 each time to renew, it is a heavy burden for some that needs CCW for protection but lack of funding due to various reasons. Consider many non-resident CCW has much longer expiration date and cost less, CA CCW cost is indeed very expensive.

WeThePeople
03-17-2010, 4:00 PM
From one who said "reading comprehension is everything", perhaps you should read the whole transcript first before you draw that conclusion. Here is part that's being refer to as no "one size fits all" coming directly from the transcript:

"Another thing I want to do is waive or substantially reduce fees for those who qualify as low income law abiding citizens. A person who lives in the poorer high-crime neighborhoods who is more likely to be a victim of crime than you or I in our nice neighborhoods cannot afford the expensive fees typically associated with a CCW. I want to partner up with ranges to provide free or substantially reduced training for these people that really do need it.

The program has to be a flexible program and it should not be a one size fits all program. I think it would be more cost effective that way and it would be more of an actual public service which is what we are supposed to be doing anyways. We just need to make sure they have clean a background, are trained properly, and are not prohibited by law from having the CCW."

Consider the cost right now to apply for CCW: You will spend about $500 for initial process, and about $250 each time to renew, it is a heavy burden for some that needs CCW for protection but lack of funding due to various reasons. Consider many non-resident CCW has much longer expiration date and cost less, CA CCW cost is indeed very expensive.

Don't you find this to be part of his "say-anything-to-get-elected" strategy? Why should anyone's CCW be subsidized? Lower the cost for everyone if the cost is too high.

Vote for Hunt, the Socialist's best friend!

IGOTDIRT4U
03-17-2010, 4:00 PM
Ah, you fell for my trap. Yep, right back at you; reading comprehension is everything.

I did read the entire posting on the blog. Note the "whole thing" in regard to Hunt's response to his process that a permit applicant can expect. I should note he shows that there are to be preferences in treatment, already much a no-no in the handling of the CCW permit process.

We also asked Hunt to lay out the process that a permit applicant can expect if he is elected Sheriff. Hunt said, “(1)If we have someone come in and they are a range owner and maybe they have one of these reciprocal CCW’s that’s good in thirteen states, and they’re in good standing in those states, then I think we need to shorten up that process. We need to verify that the permit is legitimate and have had backgrounds on them, and then do an updated background to make sure there have been no problems in the interim. Then we check their training. If they’re proficient, we have our range master check them out. If they’re proficient, sign them off. (2) If it’s a new person with no current CCW then we need to do the full background check, send them through the full NRA familiarization course, and get them through the process!”

Hunt also wants to waive or at least reduce fees for low-income applicants. The logic is simple: (3)low-income areas have higher crime rates thus more victims. Lowering fees would put the odds back in the hands of citizens rather than the criminals. **my additions noted in bold, underline and brackets**


So, based upon the word "also" , it's not only about an adaptive process that can aid low income, but it is at least three or more seperate criteria depending upon what/which class you fall into.

If he is such as strong proponent of "shall issue" in a "may issue" state, then the only answer for him is a "cookie cutter approach" with GC being no more than a slightly higher standard than simple "I want one"

Once again, if he really means what you think he says, the proper process is:

apply, interview, background/prints, train/qualify, receive permit. Simple, ain't it?! Anything more is just as bad as the current system.

RomanDad
03-17-2010, 4:14 PM
I agree. And the idea that DOJ may invalidate "personal protection" good cause CCWs is bunk. There are other CLEOs who allow that as a CG and they're fine. The "other cleos" youre referring to, actually use the Good cause formula the Hunter campaign is promoting. His policy is almost a mirror image of Kern.

CWM4A1
03-17-2010, 4:33 PM
Don't you find this to be part of his "say-anything-to-get-elected" strategy? Why should anyone's CCW be subsidized? Lower the cost for everyone if the cost is too high.

Vote for Hunt, the Socialist's best friend!

Interesting. So what you are saying is if one can't afford to pay, one should not be entitle to protect themselves. Sound like elitist thinking to me. It's also interesting that things like this can be taking out of context so easily and spin a good deed into ammunition to attack. Yup, no good deed goes un-punished.

CWM4A1
03-17-2010, 4:55 PM
Hmm, trap, that's lovely. So you like to trap people into your twisted word games in support for your candidate? How does that help further your cause is beyond me.

You can twist this anyway you want. I already learn that some of the Hunter supporters will take everything out of context when it comes to Hunt vs Hunter, yet it's interesting they always claim the "ABS" after all the bashing they can do. Heck, it's your 1A right and you are entitle to it. For what it's worth, The way I read Hunt's statement is:

1. If you already have an out of state CCW, provided that you prove to have sufficient training and background check came back clean, you will receive a CCW.

2. Anyone who is freshly looking for a CCW, provided this person has clean back ground and go through necessary training, will receive one.

3. Anyone who has clean background but unfortunately cannot afford to pay for the entire CCW process, Hunt will look for ways to help these people lighten their financial burden.

Again, feel free to go into any knitty-gritty little detail and claim what you want to claim. We are all in the ABS camp, just I choose one different from yours.

Carry on.


Ah, you fell for my trap. Yep, right back at you; reading comprehension is everything...

RomanDad
03-17-2010, 5:46 PM
FWIW, I dont think the different fees for different people thing is AT ALL a good idea... Or a good campaign platform.

It just seems like another obvious magnet for abuse, or at the very least the appearance of abuse.... Friend of the sheriff: cheap CCW... Not a campaign contributor: full price. Its just one more avenue for the crap we've ALL been fighting so long to get away from.

Ive been hammering on this issue for a LONG time and my dream ccw system is much simpler. A big, emotionless, friendless computer that runs your record, and judges you on that OBJECTIVE criteria, and treats EVERYBODY the same. Not a felon or 5150? Dont have disqualifying misdemeanors? You get approved, you take your class, you pay your fee, and a CCW pops out and you go on your way and they leave you the hell alone.

EVERYBODY gets treated the same, regardless of who you know, what you do, or how much money you have or dont have.

Glock22Fan
03-17-2010, 8:12 PM
FWIW, I dont think the different fees for different people thing is AT ALL a good idea... Or a good campaign platform.

It just seems like another obvious magnet for abuse, or at the very least the appearance of abuse.... Friend of the sheriff: cheap CCW... Not a campaign contributor: full price. Its just one more avenue for the crap we've ALL been fighting so long to get away from.

Ive been hammering on this issue for a LONG time and my dream ccw system is much simpler. A big, emotionless, friendless computer that runs your record, and judges you on that OBJECTIVE criteria, and treats EVERYBODY the same. Not a felon or 5150? Dont have disqualifying misdemeanors? You get approved, you take your class, you pay your fee, and a CCW pops out and you go on your way and they leave you the hell alone.

EVERYBODY gets treated the same, regardless of who you know, what you do, or how much money you have or dont have.

I agree that this is the ideal. And there's no need to spend $500 for a two year license when Utah and Florida can do a five year one for something around $100 - $120. If we've gotten away from Good Cause, then our Good Cause isn't going to expire and need reviewing every two years. There will still be coyotes in the park. Neither are we going to forget our training in two years. The absolute most is should cost, IMHO, is around $200, including training, for five years and about half that for renewals.

RomanDad
03-17-2010, 9:36 PM
I agree that this is the ideal. And there's no need to spend $500 for a two year license when Utah and Florida can do a five year one for something around $100 - $120. If we've gotten away from Good Cause, then our Good Cause isn't going to expire and need reviewing every two years. There will still be coyotes in the park. Neither are we going to forget our training in two years. The absolute most is should cost, IMHO, is around $200, including training, for five years and about half that for renewals.

Unfortunately, the license term is set in the Penal Code and the Sheriff can't change it (except when the sheriff decides she can... And that she can cause your permit to "expire early" without cause-:rolleyes: I digress...)....

Best case scenario, we could go after an EP case way down the road (after we've won EVERYTHING ELSE) because it makes NO SENSE that Judges should be allowed three years and the rest of us two.

One could make an argument that RESERVES having a four year term makes SOME SENSE (I assume they have to shoot to stay reserves?) But are Judges really 50% better shots than the rest of us? Who knew?

Renewals arent too expensive.... At least in Orange County. Its a much cheaper fee, no new livescans, and a shorter (cheaper) course of training. But that two year thing does become a PITA.

CSDGuy
03-17-2010, 11:04 PM
My comments inline.
Hmm, trap, that's lovely. So you like to trap people into your twisted word games in support for your candidate? How does that help further your cause is beyond me.

You can twist this anyway you want. I already learn that some of the Hunter supporters will take everything out of context when it comes to Hunt vs Hunter, yet it's interesting they always claim the "ABS" after all the bashing they can do. Heck, it's your 1A right and you are entitle to it. For what it's worth, The way I read Hunt's statement is:

1. If you already have an out of state CCW, provided that you prove to have sufficient training and background check came back clean, you will receive a CCW.
Out of State CCW's don't train for California Law. Some (like Utah) don't even require that you shoot or own a firearm.
2. Anyone who is freshly looking for a CCW, provided this person has clean back ground and go through necessary training, will receive one.
The problem is that in initial training, if you have two sets of rules, you set up a potential for abuse. That and by having two separate training systems, fees, and such, you automatically create different classes of people based on prior training that the State of California doesn't recognize in the Penal Code. You have either had a California CCW and are an applicant or a re-applicant, with different standards for those... but you won't find different standards for initial applicants.
3. Anyone who has clean background but unfortunately cannot afford to pay for the entire CCW process, Hunt will look for ways to help these people lighten their financial burden.
The Sheriff doesn't set CCW training cost. The instructor and the market for the training does. If the market shows potential for sliding scale payment for ccw training, they'll do it as a business choice, not because the Sheriff says so.
Again, feel free to go into any knitty-gritty little detail and claim what you want to claim. We are all in the ABS camp, just I choose one different from yours.

Carry on.
Now then, I guarantee you that I won't be casting a ballot for ANY of these candidates... I live about 400 miles away, but I definitely agree that Sheriff Hutchens has to be removed from office by the power of the ballot box. I'd prefer to see a Hunter/Hunt race rather than a Hutchens/anyone else race... simply because she's been a completely terrible Sheriff. She may appear to be good "on paper" but she's botched things from the get-go. IMHO, Hunter's a better candidate. Sheriff is basically a political gig. From the way he's said things, it's apparent that he knows how to play that game well. If PP isn't kosher for the DOJ, well... Have applicants phrase their good cause in a way that is PP, but more creative. If things change and GC is gone... so much the better. If GC becomes PP... well, at renewal, the renewal applicant puts PP as GC.

Simple.

glbtrottr
03-17-2010, 11:36 PM
1. If you already have an out of state CCW, provided that you prove to have sufficient training and background check came back clean, you will receive a CCW.

I read this as: "if you don't have sufficient training, no gun for you ....get sufficient training". Since OnTarget backs Hunt as it drives an increase in Business at OnTarget, it's great that OnTarget becomes the preferred range to get your CCW training done. You being your employer's mouthpiece underscores that.

To remind, the founding fathers never thought of training being required for that 2nd amendment to exist - it was a fundamental right, and legislating it into a licensing system where a Sheriff decides who's in and who's out, collects a fee, and a range gets to make some coin was not in their thought process, I think. It's pretty unconscionable.


2. Anyone who is freshly looking for a CCW, provided this person has clean back ground and go through necessary training, will receive one.

Again, I read this as: those fresh people looking for a fresh CCW can freshly go get some fresh training at Ontarget and pay for that fresh training with some fresh dollar bills. Ontarget scratches Bill's back by forming a PAC to elect him, Bill scratches Ontarget's back by requiring the CCW training.



3. Anyone who has clean background but unfortunately cannot afford to pay for the entire CCW process, Hunt will look for ways to help these people lighten their financial burden.

Sure! Bring me your minorities, your underprivileged and poor, and all those lower income people that "my friend Joe Arpaio" despises so much who can't pay for CCW - I'll subsidize them. I'll ignore the fact that my friend Joe and the minutemen want aliens out of this country, only long enough so I can get their vote. I'll even figure out a system to subsidize those poor to be able to get a gun....just so I can get elected. Then I'll go back to hang out with my friend Joe who's still a racist.

What gets me is the hypocrisy of it all.

SteveH
03-18-2010, 1:51 AM
Hunter currently runs the day to day operations of APD, Poorly. I don't know what makes him think he can run a much larger more diverse agency well?

glbtrottr
03-18-2010, 6:44 AM
Hunter currently runs the day to day operations of APD, Poorly.

Interesting.

I speak regularly with people who think that APD has a great crime analytics department. One of my employees is a Tustin cop who works their fugitive detail, and gets tons of help from Anaheim and thinks those guys are top notch. Among the rank and file at APD, the people I know have been nothing but complimentary of Hunter. Their canine detail of 6 think Hunter's a good guy. You don't see APD all over the news with problems such as what you see going on with Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs such as Inglewood and the like. Anaheim is not a small department.

Can you please provide details on what you mean, or are you just "winging" it? Or do you mean to imply that Hunt (who ran a detail of people running in the 50's) or Hutchens has better management experience?

How many OCSD deputies have you spoken to that have given Hunt their support? Or Hutchens for that matter?

IGOTDIRT4U
03-18-2010, 6:45 AM
Hmm, trap, that's lovely. So you like to trap people into your twisted word games in support for your candidate? How does that help further your cause is beyond me.

You can twist this anyway you want. I already learn that some of the Hunter supporters will take everything out of context when it comes to Hunt vs Hunter, yet it's interesting they always claim the "ABS" after all the bashing they can do. Heck, it's your 1A right and you are entitle to it. For what it's worth, The way I read Hunt's statement is:

1. If you already have an out of state CCW, provided that you prove to have sufficient training and background check came back clean, you will receive a CCW.

2. Anyone who is freshly looking for a CCW, provided this person has clean back ground and go through necessary training, will receive one.

3. Anyone who has clean background but unfortunately cannot afford to pay for the entire CCW process, Hunt will look for ways to help these people lighten their financial burden.

Again, feel free to go into any knitty-gritty little detail and claim what you want to claim. We are all in the ABS camp, just I choose one different from yours.

Carry on.

Smaller thoughts and minds aside, the "trap" was you wanted to focus on a personal attack on me based upon my use of the words "reading comprehension..." and ASSUMED I did not read the whole blog article. then, based upon a false assumption, you failed to recognize that just because I did not post the entire article, I must have only selectively posted the protion that suited my position. So, in essence, you created the "trap" for me by your false ASSUMPTIONS.



We are all in the ABS camp, just I choose one different from yours.


Then go start your own thread on Hunt and blow your horn loudly over there. This thread is about Hunter, in case you forgot to read all of the title. (or did you assume it was about Hunt?) Hunt supporters seem like they will get into any nitty-gritty little detail argument just to post something negative about others.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-18-2010, 6:51 AM
Hunter currently runs the day to day operations of APD, Poorly. I don't know what makes him think he can run a much larger more diverse agency well?

You're going to have expand on that with some facts, otherwise what's posted is not even worthy of bar stool rumors.

tgun
03-18-2010, 6:59 AM
You don't see APD all over the news with problems such as what you see going on with Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs such as Inglewood and the like.

Are you kidding? Anaheim has a terrible reputation here in Orange County. Of course you're not going to hear that if you only talk to Anaheim PD.

http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2010/03/12/anaheim-cop-notches-three-duis-in-a-year-while-on-payroll/53067/

http://www.whiteroseanaheim.com/claim_against.html

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20081029-1701-ca-frontyardfatality.html

IGOTDIRT4U
03-18-2010, 7:30 AM
Are you kidding? Anaheim has a terrible reputation here in Orange County. Of course you're not going to hear that if you only talk to Anaheim PD.

http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2010/03/12/anaheim-cop-notches-three-duis-in-a-year-while-on-payroll/53067/

http://www.whiteroseanaheim.com/claim_against.html

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20081029-1701-ca-frontyardfatality.html

Wait, wait, wait, are you telling me Anaheim is so bad it stands out amongst other OC agencies?

C'mon, be real. In the first link, it even mentions that OCSD has simialr problems. Not to mention sparkling clean Irvine has equal or worse (On duty LEO harassing and exposing himself to pulled over strippers). I quote, from your link; Anaheim cop notches three DUI arrests in a year – and is still on payroll
March 12th, 2010, 3:00 am 305 Comments posted by Kimberly Edds, Staff Writer
UPDATED March 12 with an additional statement from Anaheim P.D.

It’s no secret that some cops have a problem with alcohol. It’s a stressful occupation, the hours are long, and the job wreaks havoc with home life. As well, it’s easy for cops to get hurt on the job — making addiction to prescription painkillers another problem.

All that said, we were taken aback by the tales of officers’ DUI that came flooding in after we wrote last week about an Orange County Sheriff’s deputy who was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence after crashing twice in less than 35 minutes. (Cops from his own department had let him drive away after the first accident.)


The second link, be serious, the ink hasn't even dried on the complaint yet (It's dated 3/9/2010) so we really don't know everything or really anything other than what is in the complaint and on the PR. The two stories are so far apart someone is lying, and you have already concluded that the guilty are the Anaheim PD, such as is your proof of that department having a terrible reputation? That's a bit of a leap, at least at this time. Let's revisit link #2 when all is said and done.

Link 3, we've already covered that. Such an incident could and has happened within any city, any agency and is not entirely unexpected. Would you be using that situation if OCSD was the agency that patrolled Anaheim instead of APD?

Glock22Fan
03-18-2010, 8:02 AM
Unfortunately, the license term is set in the Penal Code and the Sheriff can't change it (except when the sheriff decides she can... And that she can cause your permit to "expire early" without cause-:rolleyes: I digress...)....

Best case scenario, we could go after an EP case way down the road (after we've won EVERYTHING ELSE) because it makes NO SENSE that Judges should be allowed three years and the rest of us two.

One could make an argument that RESERVES having a four year term makes SOME SENSE (I assume they have to shoot to stay reserves?) But are Judges really 50% better shots than the rest of us? Who knew?

Renewals arent too expensive.... At least in Orange County. Its a much cheaper fee, no new livescans, and a shorter (cheaper) course of training. But that two year thing does become a PITA.

I'm sorry, I did not mean that the new sheriff of Orange County should change it, it was a more general observation for overall CCW reform in California. In other words, a rewrite of p.c. 12050 (that should, of course, also abolish "Good Cause")

IGOTDIRT4U
03-18-2010, 8:06 AM
ETA: Since when is calling 'off topic' your bailiwick?!

Kestryll
03-18-2010, 8:36 AM
ETA: Since when is calling 'off topic' your bailiwick?!

Well it definitely is MY 'bailiwick' and the side comments, off topic jibes and trolling are NOT going to end well...

CWM4A1
03-18-2010, 10:47 AM
I read this as: "if you don't have sufficient training, no gun for you ....get sufficient training". Since OnTarget backs Hunt as it drives an increase in Business at OnTarget...

:eek: Alright, I am not even going to quote the whole thing. Again, way to take things out of context. When and where does this has anything to do with On-Target?

Anyway, I will tell you straight up and I think I can speak for Gregg too on this one, as well as for SAFEOC that we will never be pushing for a candidate, i.e. Hunt, for special favor. May be there are other group supporting different candidate because they believe they can get special favor after their candidate got elected, not us. I will be happily go back to my normal life, play with firearm, knowing any of OC resident will now have access to CCW as long as they are up-standing citizen, not just privileged few.

CWM4A1
03-18-2010, 11:14 AM
Smaller thoughts and minds aside, the "trap" was you wanted to focus on a personal attack on me based upon my use of the words "reading comprehension..." and ASSUMED I did not read the whole blog article...

Simple. You are the one who start to suggest others that have issue with "reading comprehension" in the first place. Perhaps I should've took a higher road on this one. By the way, not so much of a trap. Your "trap" is just interpretation difference. You like to read it in the negative way, I like to read in the positive way, that all.

As far as the title goes, "Is Craig Hunter the best OC Sheriff candidate?" OP's title is a question, and my first post was to respond that I believe Bill Hunt is a better candidate. How is that off topic?

nso1
03-18-2010, 11:24 AM
does anyone know if there are any numbers out on who is favored in this race? The only thing Ive been able to find is that Hutchens has a huge lead in financing. Also, Will she get to use "incumbant" on the ballot?

CWM4A1
03-18-2010, 11:34 AM
http://www.ocvote.com/election/pri2010/Contests.pdf

See above directly from OC registrar voter website. Ballot is not out yet. While Hutches will be list in incumbent, she will have a side note "Appointed" next to her name.

bubbapug1
03-18-2010, 1:02 PM
She's gotta go, shes an Orwellian non-thinking zombie right out of the Boxer/Feinstein mold...a true embracer of the "We (the state) are smarter at running your life than you can ever be so just shut up and let us take control of your rights" group.

Its that simple mentality which is pushing business out of California and strapping down our freedoms in the steady slippery slope to totalitarianism...with the mechanisms being erected the election of the wrong man (or women, thank you Hillary) could use the state apparatus to really do some major damage to us.

RomanDad
03-18-2010, 1:09 PM
It will be an interesting race, especially with names like Hunter & Hunt. If we're unlucky, Hutchens will win because the CCW crowd splits between H & H.

Also, except for a few thousand CCW enthusiasts, why will anyone pay attention to this race?

Its totally irrelevant how many candidates, pro gun or otherwise, run against her.

She has to get 50%+1 to avoid a run-off. It doesnt matter if the other 49.999999% vote for 1 candidate, or twenty candidates. If she gets over 50% she would have won regardless.

If all candidates get LESS than 50% of the vote, it goes to a run-off election in November, where the top two vote getters square off..... Which is why all this Hunt Versus Hunter stuff right now is so god damned stupid. (sorry to the mods in advance).

The two PRO GUN CANDIDATES SHOULD NOT BE BEATING EACH OTHER UP.... THEY SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON BEATING HER DOWN. Because if she gets over 50% then its all been a waste of time. (and Mark my words, if she gets elected, there will be NO CCWs issued in Orange County except to Judges, Reserves and D.A.s)

IF we get her down under 50% In the June Primary, then the PRO GUN CANDIDATE with the BEST CHANCE OF BEATING HER, can take her on in November. And I'll support that candidate whoever it is. Thats what primaries are all about.... You pick the candidate with the best chance to win (I think based on the numbers Ive seen, that person is Craig Hunter).

SteveH
03-18-2010, 1:19 PM
Interesting.


Can you please provide details on what you mean, or are you just "winging" it?

I havent been keeping track. But there has been so much alleged corruption in APD just off the top of my head...

The motor unit that killed his wifes lover/drinking buddy.
The allegations that as a gang Sgt Hunter allowed his subordanates to beat juvinile suspects.
The former APD captain that sued his own agency and now teaches the FTO class.
The chief losing his sidearm, at least twice.
The recent killing of an honest man trying to protect his family.
The recent questionable walmart parking lot shooting.
The APD officer thats been arrested 3 times in the last year for DUI, but still collects a pay check.

Thats just off the top of my head. A google search or check checking the OCR in the morning will likely reveal more. APD unter Hunter is a troubled agency. Every APD cop i have spoke to supports Hunter for sheriff not because he will make a good Sheriff. But because it will get him out of APD.

SteveH
03-18-2010, 1:26 PM
Deputy Chief Hunter. You out rank everyone in your IA department. Why have you not kicked them in the rear so to speak and got them to fire this guy? Why is he still collecting a paycheck from the taxpayers?

http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2010/03/12/anaheim-cop-notches-three-duis-in-a-year-while-on-payroll/53067/



Under the peace officers bill of rights you only have 1-year to hand down discipline after you learn of the offense. So you may have already let him slide on the first DUI. Dont let the clock run out on the other two. How can we believe you will fix OCSD when you havent fixed APD?

SteveH
03-18-2010, 1:36 PM
Its totally irrelevant how many candidates, pro gun or otherwise, run against her.

She has to get 50%+1 to avoid a run-off. It doesnt matter if the other 49.999999% vote for 1 candidate, or twenty candidates. If she gets over 50% she would have won regardless.

If all candidates get LESS than 50% of the vote, it goes to a run-off election in November, where the top two vote getters square off..... Which is why all this Hunt Versus Hunter stuff right now is so god damned stupid. (sorry to the mods in advance).

The two PRO GUN CANDIDATES SHOULD NOT BE BEATING EACH OTHER UP.... THEY SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON BEATING HER DOWN.

The race is about more than guns. The race is also about who will set the tone for the largest LE agency in the county.

Glock22Fan
03-18-2010, 1:52 PM
I havent been keeping track. But there has been so much

snip, snip, snip

And other posts that favor only one candidate (and it is not your favorite).
.

Read RomanDad's post (especially the words in capitals) and please STFU (if I'm allowed to say that here) until after the primaries.

That may not be very polite, but I've tried polite and it doesn't seem to work with some people.

Its totally irrelevant how many candidates, pro gun or otherwise, run against her.

She has to get 50%+1 to avoid a run-off. It doesnt matter if the other 49.999999% vote for 1 candidate, or twenty candidates. If she gets over 50% she would have won regardless.

If all candidates get LESS than 50% of the vote, it goes to a run-off election in November, where the top two vote getters square off..... Which is why all this Hunt Versus Hunter stuff right now is so god damned stupid. (sorry to the mods in advance).

The two PRO GUN CANDIDATES SHOULD NOT BE BEATING EACH OTHER UP.... THEY SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON BEATING HER DOWN. Because if she gets over 50% then its all been a waste of time. (and Mark my words, if she gets elected, there will be NO CCWs issued in Orange County except to Judges, Reserves and D.A.s)

IF we get her down under 50% In the June Primary, then the PRO GUN CANDIDATE with the BEST CHANCE OF BEATING HER, can take her on in November. And I'll support that candidate whoever it is. Thats what primaries are all about.... You pick the candidate with the best chance to win (I think based on the numbers Ive seen, that person is Craig Hunter).

IGOTDIRT4U
03-18-2010, 2:34 PM
Steve H, there is an equally long (or longer) list of troubles of equal or greater nature associated with the OCSD, both now and from pre-Sandy days. At the time or pre-Sandy days, Hunt was in a much higher position than he is now within the organization. I have to pass to you, what has changed, from Hunt to Sandy? Not much, if one wants to look into all this further.

RomanDad
03-18-2010, 2:41 PM
Deputy Chief Hunter. You out rank everyone in your IA department. Why have you not kicked them in the rear so to speak and got them to fire this guy? Why is he still collecting a paycheck from the taxpayers?

http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2010/03/12/anaheim-cop-notches-three-duis-in-a-year-while-on-payroll/53067/



Under the peace officers bill of rights you only have 1-year to hand down discipline after you learn of the offense. So you may have already let him slide on the first DUI. Dont let the clock run out on the other two. How can we believe you will fix OCSD when you havent fixed APD?
There is nothing Anaheim PD can do to this officer at this point because of the Union rules. I also think its safe to say, his days as a police officer are numbered.

As far as Anaheim PD having problems.... ALL big police departments have had problems with officers, and have had allegations against them.... Its the nature of the job. So yes.... Hunter is near the top of a large Police Department and has the experience that goes with that....

Evidently, the Hunt Supporters answer to that is to pick a candidate with no real departmental leadership experience (or at least, that is what Hunt said about himself in his federal deposition).

SteveH
03-18-2010, 2:47 PM
Steve H, there is an equally long (or longer) list of troubles of equal or greater nature associated with the OCSD, both now and from pre-Sandy days. At the time or pre-Sandy days, Hunt was in a much higher position than he is now within the organization. I have to pass to you, what has changed, from Hunt to Sandy? Not much, if one wants to look into all this further.

Yes, OCSD appears to have some serious issues. I just do not understand why Huntyer believes he could fix those issues when APD has so many issues under Hunters leadership? At least OCSD doesnt have a rash of recent questionable shootings like APD. As a homeowner in an area patrolled by OCSD i worry that Hunter would bring an APD like mentality (shoot first and ask questions later) to south OC.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-18-2010, 3:07 PM
Yes, OCSD appears to have some serious issues. I just do not understand why Huntyer believes he could fix those issues when APD has so many issues under Hunters leadership? At least OCSD doesnt have a rash of recent questionable shootings like APD. As a homeowner in an area patrolled by OCSD i worry that Hunter would bring an APD like mentality (shoot first and ask questions later) to south OC.

Steve, let me propose this possible reason:

Most of the areas OCSD patrols are upscale neighborhoods. Aliso Viejo, San Clemente, San Juan Capo, Mission Viejo, Porter Ranch, etc. The ones that are not good areas, Midway City, etc, have had officer shootings.

Take Anaheim. Outside of Anaheim Hills, the majority of the Anaheim area is filled with mid to low income areas, lot's of industry, and is a mecca of sorts for oddjobs and misfits who live transient lives due to the nature of having Disneyland right smack in the middle, right next to one of the world's busiest freeways.

Demographics and logistics seem to fit that the city of Anaheim in general has more crime. More crime, more chances of things going wrong.

And Hunter is not the Chief. The buck stops above him, although I would agree he should also be a part of the solution, not just maintain the status quo. What he has done to assist the Chief in resolving the department's problems, does any person outside of the APD know the real truth?

Anyhow, food for thought.

Sleepy McGee
03-18-2010, 4:34 PM
APD under Hunter is a troubled agency. Every APD cop i have spoke to supports Hunter for sheriff not because he will make a good Sheriff. But because it will get him out of APD.

Now THATS funny! Sad, but funny.

tgun
03-18-2010, 8:55 PM
If all candidates get LESS than 50% of the vote, it goes to a run-off election in November, where the top two vote getters square off..... Which is why all this Hunt Versus Hunter stuff right now is so god damned stupid.

Unless one believes that Hunt and Hunter are fighting for the second spot in the runoff.

Or maybe there are a few people out there who just want to hear the truth about all three candidates before they vote.

Glock22Fan
03-18-2010, 9:45 PM
Unless one believes that Hunt and Hunter are fighting for the second spot in the runoff.

Or maybe there are a few people out there who just want to hear the truth about all three candidates before they vote.

You start taking voters away from either Hunt or Hunter, and whomsoever is in second spot won't matter - Sandra will be home and clear on the first round.

Don't assume that everyone you disuade will then vote for your candidate - you might get many candidates, not that bothered about CCW's, who hear bad things and vote for Sandra instead. The way some of you are using negative campaigning (and, BTW, that very rarely works unless you have a real killer factoid), if both sides tried it you would get mutually assured destruction. Ever heard the phrase "A plague on both their houses?"

The key to this one is to get as many Hunt and Hunter supporters voting as possible so there will be a runoff. Ideally, the run off will be between Hunt and Hunter. But trying not to come third by using negative campaigning about one or other of these does the cause a big disservice. Do you really want Sandra in preference?

Yes, there is a risk that your candidate might be third, but that might happen anyway.

Plug your candidate as much as you like at present. Get as many votes as you can for your candidate. Hope that the "other" CCW candidate is also getting as many votes as they can. That's your best chance of unseating Sandra. You should be working to get Sandra in third place, not whichever of Hunt or Hunter that you least prefer.

If your candidate comes almost second, then that will be sad for you, but surely you don't want Sandra winning because you've knocked votes away from the "other" CCW candidate? Aren't either of them better than Sandra?

Have you ever played the board game "Risk?" I believe that it is also true for many other games, but the only way to stand any chance of winning at Risk is to team up with other players and form strategic alliances. Knock out the players who have not formed such alliances, until there's only two of you left. Then take each other head on. That's what you need to be doing here. Do you really want an alliance with Sandra?

tgun
03-18-2010, 9:53 PM
Aren't either of them better than Sandra?

My conscience precludes me from ignoring the faults of ANY candidate. If you don't want to talk about them, I suppose you can put your fingers in your ears.

Glock22Fan
03-18-2010, 10:15 PM
My conscience precludes me from ignoring the faults of ANY candidate. If you don't want to talk about them, I suppose you can put your fingers in your ears.

If you really believe that one or the other would make a worse sheriff than Sandra, that's your right and priviledge and you should say so. Otherwise, stirring the brown stuff at this time is counterproductive. Neither Hunt nor Hunter is likely to win on the first round, as Sandra has incumbent's benefits. The time to discuss their failings is later.

If you can't see this, then I despair for the future of Orange County CCW's.

As it is, your attitude reminds me of the joke about the computer support tech, condemned to death, who has just seen two previous condemned convicts released because the electric chair didn't work and the guards decided that this was God telling them that the convicts were innocent.

The tech says, just as it is his turn, "That thing will never work unless you plug it in!"

As far as sticking fingers in ears, it seems there's no need as you have already done that.

tgun
03-18-2010, 10:23 PM
If you really believe that one or the other would make a worse sheriff than Sandra

You can never answer this question if you refuse to talk about a candidate's dark side.

Glock22Fan
03-18-2010, 10:43 PM
You can never answer this question if you refuse to talk about a candidate's dark side.

So, you prefer, or might prefer, Sandra to one of the other two.

And you would prefer Sandra to win, even at the expense of your guy, as long as the other guy doesn't stand a chance.

Interesting.

tgun
03-18-2010, 10:45 PM
So, you prefer, or might prefer, Sandra to one of the other two.

Interesting.

Nope. But you conveniently avoided responding to my statement.

Glock22Fan
03-18-2010, 11:03 PM
Nope. But you conveniently avoided responding to my statement.

I don't think I conveniently avoided anything; that wasn't my intent, I saw nothing that merited a reasoned response.

You seem determined to attack whichever of the candidates you don't like (and I can't even remember which one that was), even though many people here (not just me) have said that this will almost certainly result in Sandra winning, and even though there's no need for fighting between the two guys unless and until they both beat Sandra in the primary. Neither of the men are likely to win outright in the primary, so there will be plenty of time for muck-raking then.

I think that says it all. No response necessary. You have your own agenda and I doubt that many here share it.

On that note, I'm going to bed.

lobonegro
03-19-2010, 8:32 AM
You can never answer this question if you refuse to talk about a candidate's dark side.

If you truly believed that you would also be speaking about Hunt's darkside just as loudly. I am not here to disparage any candidate other than Sandy.

I am interested in receiving a CCW and know I have no shot in hell with Sandy as sheriff. I will support either Hunt or Hunter, whichever is in the run off with her.

tgun
03-19-2010, 8:37 AM
If you truly believed that you would also be speaking about Hunt's darkside just as loudly.

I personally interviewed Bill Hunt regarding the most serious allegation against him - his mishandling of the Gregory Haidl marijuana incident back in 2003. I recorded the interview and had someone post the entire transcript online. I'm not sure what else you would like me to explore.

RomanDad
03-19-2010, 9:03 AM
I personally interviewed Bill Hunt regarding the most serious allegation against him - his mishandling of the Gregory Haidl marijuana incident back in 2003. I recorded the interview and had someone post the entire transcript online. I'm not sure what else you would like me to explore.

Why dont you pull his sworn deposition in his recent Federal Lawsuit....

He paints a VERY different picture of himself in that deposition than he does on the campaign trail.

"Oath Keeper" my ***....

IGOTDIRT4U
03-19-2010, 10:00 AM
Why dont you pull his sworn deposition in his recent Federal Lawsuit....

He paints a VERY different picture of himself in that deposition than he does on the campaign trail.

"Oath Keeper" my ***....

lol.

(got a link?)

tgun
03-19-2010, 11:22 AM
Now we're getting somewhere. Thank you for getting real. Care to elaborate on the deposition?

glbtrottr
03-19-2010, 11:25 AM
I personally interviewed Bill Hunt regarding the most serious allegation against him - his mishandling of the Gregory Haidl marijuana incident back in 2003. I recorded the interview and had someone post the entire transcript online. I'm not sure what else you would like me to explore.

Puff piece?

You're right. Letting his buddy and contributor Stevenson go free on a DUI as a favor, or being demoted for his actions against OCSD (and now holding his hand out for a job in the same place with the same people working for him) and retiring before said demotion went into effect were unimportant.

Since he had so much contempt for the organization that employed him, it seems disingenuous that he would now come back and ask the voters for a job in it.

Reloaderx2
03-19-2010, 11:34 AM
That Stevenson guy was arrested,charged and convicted. Because Hunt called Carona a crook he was busted to Deputy II in Stanton. If I was Lt and had a family to support I'd bail too.

WeThePeople
03-19-2010, 11:41 AM
I missed this previous bit of wisdom. Maybe you can see my sentence in bold that negates your reply. Maybe you missed it the first time you read my post.


Don't you find this to be part of his "say-anything-to-get-elected" strategy? Why should anyone's CCW be subsidized? Lower the cost for everyone if the cost is too high.

Vote for Hunt, the Socialist's best friend!



Interesting. So what you are saying is if one can't afford to pay, one should not be entitle to protect themselves. Sound like elitist thinking to me. It's also interesting that things like this can be taking out of context so easily and spin a good deed into ammunition to attack. Yup, no good deed goes un-punished.

Reloaderx2
03-19-2010, 11:50 AM
Only wealthy people should have the right to a CCW? Sounds somewhat elitist don't you think?

IGOTDIRT4U
03-19-2010, 11:57 AM
Only wealthy people should have the right to a CCW? Sounds somewhat elitist don't you think?

That's not what WeThePeople said. Read his post just above, again.

WeThePeople
03-19-2010, 11:59 AM
I assume you're joking and forgot to include a smiley face, because no one is that dense.

Only wealthy people should have the right to a CCW? Sounds somewhat elitist don't you think?

ocspeedracer
03-19-2010, 12:52 PM
Heck NO!!!! lacks real experience and not as clear on the CCW as Bill Hunt

Reloaderx2
03-19-2010, 1:04 PM
I assume you're joking and forgot to include a smiley face, because no one is that dense.

Apparently there is. Lowering the cost to everyone is a nonstarter. It's called overhead. If someone cannot afford a CCW they should be qualified for a lesser rate. Just like getting a public defender. Otherwise you will be denied an important constitutional right because you don't have the dough. This is not to be confused with a license or privilage. It's a constitutional right. Maybe you should change your screen name.

WeThePeople
03-19-2010, 1:12 PM
Apparently there is. Lowering the cost to everyone is a nonstarter. It's called overhead. If someone cannot afford a CCW they should be qualified for a lesser rate. Just like getting a public defender. Otherwise you will be denied an important constitutional right because you don't have the dough. This is not to be confused with a license or privilage. It's a constitutional right. Maybe you should change your screen name.

Thanks. I'll have to see if the screen name ELITIST or WeTheRichPeople is available.

RomanDad
03-19-2010, 1:16 PM
Heck NO!!!! lacks real experience and not as clear on the CCW as Bill Hunt

Actually Bill Hunt disagrees with you.... In his Federal Deposition he says that he was just a lowly paper-pusher and had no real responsibility....

And it shows.....


Hes running to be the top law enforcement officer in Orange County and he tried to raise money by operating an ILLEGAL POKER TOURNAMENT???


Penal Code Sec. 337j

(a) It is unlawful for any person, as owner, lessee, or employee, whether for hire or not, either solely or in conjunction with others, to do any of the following without having first procured and thereafter maintained in effect all federal, state, and local licenses required by law:

(1) To deal, operate, carry on, conduct, maintain, or expose for play in this state any controlled game.
(2) To receive, directly or indirectly, any compensation or reward or any percentage or share of the revenue, for keeping, running, or carrying on any controlled game.



(b) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly permit any controlled game to be conducted, operated, dealt, or carried on in any house or building or other premises that he or she owns or leases, in whole or in part, if that activity is undertaken by a person who is not licensed as required by state law, or by an employee of that person.

(d) Any person who violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate this section shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both imprisonment and fine. A second offense of this section is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than one year or in the state prison or by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both imprisonment and fine.

(e) (1) As used in this section, "controlled game " means any poker or Pai Gow game, and any other game played with cards or tiles, or both, and approved by the Division of Gambling Control, and any game of chance, including any gambling device, played for currency, check, credit, or any other thing of value that is not prohibited and made unlawful by statute or local ordinance.



http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/MovieLawyer/HuntIllegaltournement.jpg


Think this might turn out to be a problem down the road fellas? I do.

Things like THIS are the reaon the Hunter Supporters WAITED for a VIABLE candidate, and didnt just jump on board with the Pat Paulsen of OCSD.

WeThePeople
03-19-2010, 1:26 PM
Actually Bill Hunt disagrees with you.... In his Federal Deposition he says that he was just a lowly paper-pusher and had no real responsibility....

And it shows.....


Hes running to be the top law enforcement officer in Orange County and he tried to raise money by operating an ILLEGAL POKER TOURNAMENT???


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/MovieLawyer/HuntIllegaltournement.jpg


Think this might turn out to be a problem down the road fellas? I do.

Things like THIS are the reaon the Hunter Supporters WAITED for a VIABLE candidate, and didnt just jump on board with the Pat Paulson of OCSD.

Be careful. Don't confuse the Hunt supporters with facts.

tgun
03-19-2010, 1:50 PM
Which is why all this Hunt Versus Hunter stuff right now is so god damned stupid

So did you change your mind or are you just being hypocritical? Either way, thanks for getting off of your high horse.

RomanDad
03-19-2010, 2:03 PM
So did you change your mind or are you just being hypocritical? Either way, thanks for getting off of your high horse.

No... This is very simple.... I would LOVE to not throw mud against Hunt.... And I've said that til I'm Blue in the face.....

But the Hunt Guys don't seem to be listening.... They take every offer of an olive branch as a signal to get some free punches in... Its not going to work that way. This isnt going to be the Bill Hunt Echo Chamber.... This thread was started DAYS ago.... How long do you think I've been sitting on that poker thing???

So if the Hunt guys want to get in the mud and throw dirt, we can do that too...




Or, we can call it a day?

IGOTDIRT4U
03-19-2010, 2:36 PM
How long do you think I've been sitting on that poker thing???


:eek:

We really need to get together and have that glass of grapefruit juice...

Reloaderx2
03-19-2010, 2:47 PM
Congrats Roman Dad. You just put all the casino nights up down the state out of business. What are all those old lady gamers going to to with the monopoly money and chips they won?

IGOTDIRT4U
03-19-2010, 2:51 PM
Congrats Roman Dad. You just put all the casino nights up down the state out of business. What are all those old lady gamers going to to with the monopoly money and chips they won?

Do you advocate the breaking of the law? Yes, or no? (anything more of an answer is a dodge)

Reloaderx2
03-19-2010, 3:05 PM
Guess I better cancel all invites to charity casino nights too. That might put a dent on some fine organizations.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-19-2010, 3:10 PM
Figures, more sarcasm, instead of answering the question.

BTW, you are misreading the law. As it applied to the Hunt event, it applied. Charities would be exempt as long as no one person received a cut of the total winnings above operating expenses.

Reloaderx2
03-19-2010, 3:24 PM
Boy. You guys are something else. I will say it real slow. There is no revenue from the actual gaming at a casino night. You win monopoly money. Clear enough?

-hanko
03-19-2010, 3:44 PM
Craig believes that the 2A protects all of our other rights, especially the 1A.

He claims a good track record in Anaheim of managing dollars wisely.
Was he in a position in Anaheim to approve ccw applications?? If so, how many did he approve v. reject??

-hanko

IGOTDIRT4U
03-19-2010, 3:45 PM
No, go even slower. Did the cost to be admitted to the tourney equal the cost to put it on?

(before you answer, note the flyer said "fundraiser")

WeThePeople
03-19-2010, 3:54 PM
Was he in a position in Anaheim to approve ccw applications?? If so, how many did he approve v. reject??

-hanko

As far as I know, all CCW applications in OC are handled by the OC Sheriff's office, not the local city.

Reloaderx2
03-19-2010, 4:13 PM
Presumably when you walk in the door to donate to the campaign with name rank serial numer. You then play to win monopoly money. Revenue from gambling is key. It doesn't happen in any type of casino night. You would know that had you have ever been to one. Most are charity events. Can't play with you guys anymore. Ta ta.

WeThePeople
03-19-2010, 4:24 PM
Apparently there is. Lowering the cost to everyone is a nonstarter. It's called overhead. If someone cannot afford a CCW they should be qualified for a lesser rate. Just like getting a public defender. Otherwise you will be denied an important constitutional right because you don't have the dough. This is not to be confused with a license or privilage. It's a constitutional right. Maybe you should change your screen name.

The link http://www.ocsd.org/information/sheriff_services/ccw_permit/application_process/ shows the cost of a CCW.

$73 - $124 goes to the DOJ for fingerprinting. Should there be 2 tiers for this state fee? One for the poor and one for the evil rich?

OC charges $100. What should the poor pay here? Oh, I forgot. You call this overhead and a nonstarter. Maybe the poor should pay nothing and the rich pay $200?

How about the training fee? A new CCW applicant has to attend a 16 hour class from a PRIVATE trainer. Should the state/county force the trainer to accept less for a poor student? Should the trainer be forced to wait for an IOU from the state/county for the difference between a poor fee and a rich fee? If you were the trainer, what would you say?

How about the cost of the gun, holster, ammo, etc.? Should the poor be able to go to a gun store and say "If I'm poor do I pay less for my stuff?" If you were this owner, what would you say?

Who defines poor?

How do you prove you're poor? What documents do you have to show? Will there be a new state/county department for determining the poor standard? Who enforces this?

Why would you want government at any level involved in this?

Your attitude represents what is wrong with this country. You don't have the right to force others to pay for what you want. Get a third job. Ask the trainer for a discount if you sweep up the brass or score the targets or...


Why would you back anyone who dreams up this ill-thought-out scheme?


BTW, the real solution to all of this is to not require a CCW in the first place. Once again, less government is the solution.

WeTheRichElitistPeople

RomanDad
03-19-2010, 4:34 PM
Presumably when you walk in the door to donate to the campaign with name rank serial numer. You then play to win monopoly money. Revenue from gambling is key. It doesn't happen in any type of casino night. You would know that had you have ever been to one. Most are charity events. Can't play with you guys anymore. Ta ta.

OK counselor, could you please show me the "Bill Hunt exception" to the penal code???

REGISTERED 501(C)(3)s (Non Profit charitable organizations- Churches, the Salvation Army, Boys & Girls Club, veteran organizations, etc.) can register under CPC 320.5 and 326.5 with the Attorney General to hold "Casino Nights" and bingo and the other games you're talking about....

POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS ARE NOT AND CANNOT BE 501Cs. They are not CHARITIES. THEY ARE NOT TREATED BY THE LAW AS CHARITIES... IF you don't believe me, try to write off your political contributions on your taxes.... The IRS will be happy to explain the difference between a NON PROFIT CHARITY and a political campaign, in a manner you will never forget again.

BARRING the registration with the attorney general by a non-profit charitable organization, registered under section 501C of the Internal Revenue Code, conducting a poker tournament, lottery or any other game of chance in the state of California is ILLEGAL. A FEE was taken to play. THATS ILLEGAL. THE HOUSE got to keep a portion of that FEE (A "Rake") THATS ILLEGAL. PRIZES were awarded that were much more valuable than the entry fee.... THAT'S ILLEGAL... ADVERTISING IT IS ILLEGAL. SETTING IT UP IS ILLEGAL.... ATTENDING IS ILLEGAL.... The Hunt Campaign committed about 50 misdemeanors in two hours (And am I right that they did it twice?)

So EITHER Bill Hunt is too damned STUPID to be Sheriff, or hes arrogant and doesnt feel the laws applies to him..... Which is it?

Reloaderx2
03-19-2010, 6:40 PM
OK counselor, could you please show me the "Bill Hunt exception" to the penal code???

REGISTERED 501(C)(3)s (Non Profit charitable organizations- Churches, the Salvation Army, Boys & Girls Club, veteran organizations, etc.) can register under CPC 320.5 and 326.5 with the Attorney General to hold "Casino Nights" and bingo and the other games you're talking about....

POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS ARE NOT AND CANNOT BE 501Cs. They are not CHARITIES. THEY ARE NOT TREATED BY THE LAW AS CHARITIES... IF you don't believe me, try to write off your political contributions on your taxes.... The IRS will be happy to explain the difference between a NON PROFIT CHARITY and a political campaign, in a manner you will never forget again.

BARRING the registration with the attorney general by a non-profit charitable organization, registered under section 501C of the Internal Revenue Code, conducting a poker tournament, lottery or any other game of chance in the state of California is ILLEGAL. A FEE was taken to play. THATS ILLEGAL. THE HOUSE got to keep a portion of that FEE (A "Rake") THATS ILLEGAL. PRIZES were awarded that were much more valuable than the entry fee.... THAT'S ILLEGAL... ADVERTISING IT IS ILLEGAL. SETTING IT UP IS ILLEGAL.... ATTENDING IS ILLEGAL.... The Hunt Campaign committed about 50 misdemeanors in two hours (And am I right that they did it twice?)

So EITHER Bill Hunt is too damned STUPID to be Sheriff, or hes arrogant and doesnt feel the laws applies to him....
. Which is it?

For crise sakes get ahold of yourself man! Well I give up. If you don't get it by now you never will. Stay away from google law. It's just enough to get you in a fix. The local casino vendors probably wouldn't like being accused of a crime. Google tell me that is Libel per se. Google that.

jont92619
03-19-2010, 8:19 PM
Yawn... Romansdad is a mudslinger who is backing Craig Hunter who is pretty much backed by former Carona Cronies. (See www.whoiscraighunter.com) There was nothing illegal about the Hunt casino night. People made a donation and got some funny money to play casino games with. They had some donated prizes for those who had the most chips at the end of the night.

RomanDad
03-19-2010, 8:27 PM
For crise sakes get ahold of yourself man! Well I give up. If you don't get it by now you never will. Stay away from google law. It's just enough to get you in a fix. The local casino vendors probably wouldn't like being accused of a crime. Google tell me that is Libel per se. Google that.

You seem to be confused again.... You're the one relying on "Google law".....

I on the other hand have cited the CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE.... Now, if you would simply answer the question, since you obviously have such a better command of the law than I do, WHERE in the penal code is the exemption for POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS to run a card room?

RomanDad
03-19-2010, 8:28 PM
Yawn... Romansdad is a mudslinger who is backing Craig Hunter who is pretty much backed by former Carona Cronies. (See www.whoiscraighunter.com) There was nothing illegal about the Hunt casino night. People made a donation and got some funny money to play casino games with. They had some donated prizes for those who had the most chips at the end of the night.


Another Law degree from the bottom of the cracker jack box, I see?


The poker game was ILLEGAL... There is NO EXCEPTION FOR "Monopoly Money" games, any more than theres an exception for using POKER CHIPS.... And the fact that YOUR CANDIDATE Didn't realize that (or just didn't care) proves he's not qualified to be the CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE COUNTY. How about we just ask the FPPC (http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=498)?



As far as Carona Cronies.... Dont forget, the biggest "Carona Cronie" is backing HUNT....

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/MovieLawyer/CedillosHuntDonation2.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/MovieLawyer/CedillosCaronacopy.jpg

tgun
03-20-2010, 9:01 AM
You're going to have a hard time sticking Bill Hunt with the "Caronie" tag given all he personally sacrificed to challenge Carona.

Consider, on the other hand, a few of the men who orchestrated Craig Hunter's candidacy last fall. Michael Schroeder and OCCCWS honchos Greg Block and Bill Prentice. All three wrote sappy letters in support of the corrupt ex-sheriff after he became a convicted felon.

You can read the whole sorry list here:

http://www.thecapistranodispatch.com/uploads/pdfs/2009/News%20Documents/Carona%20Letters.pdf

GuyW
03-20-2010, 9:07 AM
As far as I know, all CCW applications in OC are handled by the OC Sheriff's office, not the local city.

....only becasue the OC Chiefs of Police are too gutless (or anti-gun) to issue...
.

GuyW
03-20-2010, 9:11 AM
Should there be 2 tiers for this state fee? One for the poor and one for the evil rich?


No, the end game is the rich/poor disparity should be used to cut shall-issue red-tape for everyone to a bare-bones, Constitutional minimum...
.

RomanDad
03-20-2010, 9:43 AM
You're going to have a hard time sticking Bill Hunt with the "Caronie" tag given all he personally sacrificed to challenge Carona.

Consider, on the other hand, a few of the men who orchestrated Craig Hunter's candidacy last fall. Michael Schroeder and OCCCWS honchos Greg Block and Bill Prentice. All three wrote sappy letters in support of the corrupt ex-sheriff after he became a convicted felon.

You can read the whole sorry list here:

http://www.thecapistranodispatch.com/uploads/pdfs/2009/News%20Documents/Carona%20Letters.pdf

Hunt was PROMOTED to LT. by CARONA (convicted).... According to the ATTORNEY GENERAL he covered up for Haidl (convicted) He is a LOT CLOSER to Carona than Craig Hunter by any objective criteria.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/MovieLawyer/HuntAGreport.jpg


As far as OCCCWS, I named that organization. I did not write a sappy letter for Mike Carona.... I don't know him.

I know Greg, and I know Bill, and each had personal reasons for writing "sappy" letters on behalf of Mike Carona, none of which implicates THEM in any of the Sheriff's wrong-doing. As I recall Samantha Runion's mother ALSO wrote a "sappy" letter for Mike Carona. The fact is, Carona was the Sheriff of Orange County for a long time, and despite his flaws, did quite a lot of good on a great many occasions. On CCW he was a GREAT improvement over his predecessor. Orange County is not that large, and there is going to be overlap between people who supported a previous administration, and those supporting a potential future one... Especially when we can all agree that the CURRENT administration is UNSUPPORTABLE. Painting with your broad brush would disqualify EVERY candidate for office through guilt by association.

I personally feel betrayed by Mike Carona, even though I didnt know him.... I voted for him, and I supported him, namely because of the image I had of him as "America's Sheriff" and his CCW policy.... I certainly had no idea of what he was like behind closed doors... In the end, we would not have been in this situation had it not been for his personal character failures, and to me, that outweighs the good he may have done...

But saying "such in such candidate is supported by some of the same people who supported that guy and therefore must be corrupt as well" in a county this small is foolish and silly and betrays a real lack of political acumen.

Kestryll
03-20-2010, 9:49 AM
There's a LOT of snide comments,digs and smartassed attitude in this thread.

Any more after this post and whoever it is won't be posting for a while or in 2A ever again.

Is this clear?

tgun
03-21-2010, 7:54 PM
Now I remember why I stopped posting here. The politics forum with no "attitude".

IGOTDIRT4U
03-22-2010, 8:17 AM
The link http://www.ocsd.org/information/sheriff_services/ccw_permit/application_process/ shows the cost of a CCW.

$73 - $124 goes to the DOJ for fingerprinting. Should there be 2 tiers for this state fee? One for the poor and one for the evil rich?

OC charges $100. What should the poor pay here? Oh, I forgot. You call this overhead and a nonstarter. Maybe the poor should pay nothing and the rich pay $200?

How about the training fee? A new CCW applicant has to attend a 16 hour class from a PRIVATE trainer. Should the state/county force the trainer to accept less for a poor student? Should the trainer be forced to wait for an IOU from the state/county for the difference between a poor fee and a rich fee? If you were the trainer, what would you say?

How about the cost of the gun, holster, ammo, etc.? Should the poor be able to go to a gun store and say "If I'm poor do I pay less for my stuff?" If you were this owner, what would you say?

Who defines poor?

How do you prove you're poor? What documents do you have to show? Will there be a new state/county department for determining the poor standard? Who enforces this?

Why would you want government at any level involved in this?

Your attitude represents what is wrong with this country. You don't have the right to force others to pay for what you want. Get a third job. Ask the trainer for a discount if you sweep up the brass or score the targets or...


Why would you back anyone who dreams up this ill-thought-out scheme?


BTW, the real solution to all of this is to not require a CCW in the first place. Once again, less government is the solution.

WeTheRichElitistPeople

Absolutely fabulous.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-22-2010, 8:22 AM
Another Law degree from the bottom of the cracker jack box, I see?


Nah, upper crust...this one's from the inside of a matchbook cover.

And WTF is "google law"? Here I thought I was outdated using Matthew Bender and Lexis Nexis.

WeThePeople
03-22-2010, 11:37 AM
Absolutely fabulous.

Thanks. It's funny that talking about the details suddenly ends the conversation.