PDA

View Full Version : Sheriff Candidate Hunter: Rights with Restrictions (CCW)


Reloaderx2
03-25-2010, 2:31 PM
Just got this via email. Craig Hunter at the Orange County Board of Supervisors meeting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plptTLmeG48

demnogis
03-25-2010, 2:36 PM
All I had to hear is "California is a may issue state. I'm comfortable with that".

Set up policy and walk away? Isn't the policy "sound and objective" enough now, because every person may be equally denied? "Sound and objective" would be if you met the requirements and without discrimination were issued a permit to conceal carry.

ocspeedracer
03-25-2010, 2:37 PM
Well if he means not to issue to illigals, felons, crazies etc. I'll get behind those restrictions. I agree with demnogis, May Issue/comfortable, no me like

jont92619
03-25-2010, 2:51 PM
No bueno, epic fail....... As I have said before, his recent stance on CCW is too wishy washy and this older statement sounds exactly like Hutchen's current policy. If he is not willing to lay it on the line and say personal protection is good cause, I am not going to trust he will follow through and Issue CCW any differently than the Appointed Sheriff.

Reloaderx2
03-25-2010, 3:23 PM
All I had to hear is "California is a may issue state. I'm comfortable with that".

Set up policy and walk away? Isn't the policy "sound and objective" enough now, because every person may be equally denied? "Sound and objective" would be if you met the requirements and without discrimination were issued a permit to conceal carry.

Actually he said he was VERY comfortable with that. Even after he said 37 states were "shall" issue states.

SteveH
03-25-2010, 3:37 PM
He hasnt exactly set a tone in Anaheim of common sense enforcement of gun laws.

You get pulled over in Anaheim with a concealed handgun and no permit you are going to jail. Even if you are a "good guy" with no priors.

OrangeCountyCCW
03-25-2010, 3:51 PM
Set up policy and walk away? Isn't the policy "sound and objective" enough now, because every person may be equally denied? "Sound and objective" would be if you met the requirements and without discrimination were issued a permit to conceal carry.

Demno, I don't know if you've had a chance to see Hutchens' campaign statement at www.ocvote.gov but in it, she claims "I support the Second Amendment" and "the CCW application process is now applied fairly to all" (or similar words). My immediate thought was exactly what you say here -- namely that it may be fairly applied to all but it is EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE. That is not the kind of "sound and objective" policy we want, especially when CCW issuance increases public safety.

Gray Peterson
03-25-2010, 3:52 PM
All right folks, it's simple:

You want Hunt versus Hunter in the general election, not Hunter versus Hutchens or Hunt versus Hutchens.

OrangeCountyCCW
03-25-2010, 3:59 PM
Deputy Chief Hunter is missing a key point. While there are some restrictions (if you can call it that) on the First Amendment, the STARTING POINT is that the amendment is to be liberally construed. Most restrictions on First Amendment rights, unless they are nominal "time, place and manner" restrictions (such as that you can't have a parade in a residential area in the middle of the night) must pass what lawyers call "strict scrutiny" -- they must be "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling interest."

Yes, the Second Amendment may have some restrictions too, but to make a fair analogy, they must be similar to the restrictions on the First Amendment. I don't think any of us would argue that violent felons should not lose the right to possess firearms just as they lose the right to vote, or that a municipality cannot prohibit the use of firearms in residential areas at night. But what compelling governmental interest is served by denying law abiding citizens a CCW when:

1. All scholarly studies show CCW does not increase crime, and in many cases decreases it; and

2. Current California law allows Sheriffs to define good cause however they see fit, effectively allowing any Sheriff to make his or her county effectively "shall issue"??

We need to CONTINUALLY point out that the burden of justifying restrictions on CCW should fall on the government officials seeking to limit it. We should not have to "show" why we "need" a CCW - to be a law abiding and trained citizen should be enough.

Respectfully, to Deputy Chief Hunter, I would say, "Since California law allows you, if elected Sheriff, to effectively make Orange County 'shall issue' by accepting 'personal protection' as 'good cause' without further elaboration, what would be your reason for NOT doing so?"

bwiese
03-25-2010, 4:01 PM
All right folks, it's simple:

You want Hunt versus Hunter in the general election, not Hunter versus Hutchens or Hunt versus Hutchens.

The crux of the issue.

Glock22Fan
03-25-2010, 4:14 PM
Once you get Hunt v. Hunter, you can go on to work out which of them is best. The prime question at present is how to topple Sandra.

Please don't start getting into another hen fight between people who should be forming a strategic alliance now, even if they want to get dirty later.

Reloaderx2
03-25-2010, 5:33 PM
With all due respect to the Hunter supporters and after seeing that video, I don't know how he can be promoted as a staunch supporter of our second amendment rights.

Brian617
03-25-2010, 10:20 PM
With all due respect to the Hunter supporters and after seeing that video, I don't know how he can be promoted as a staunch supporter of our second amendment rights.

From his web site:

"I fully support the Second Amendment. When it is applied to Conceal Carry (CCW) permits, the courts have given local Sheriffs wide latitude in determining who should and shouldn’t receive a CCW permit. I disagree with our current Sheriff who has adopted an extremely restrictive policy on issuing CCW permits. Instead, I believe law abiding residents have a right to defend themselves. As Sheriff, I will enact policies which put law abiding citizens first, rather than allowing criminals to have an advantage."

Keep in mind, Hunter made that comment to the Board of Supervisors who were deciding whom to appoint.

I have not met Hunter yet, but I do frequently train at FTA where firearms instructors (some who are well respected LEOs) know personally and have worked with Hunter and they strongly support him and his pro CCW stance. I trust their judgement and Hunter enough to feel he will not go back on his word.

Like others have stated, we should wait until after the primaries to dig into these issues between Hunt and Hunter. While I am leaning toward Hunter, I would be happy to support both against Hutchens.

tgun
03-25-2010, 10:45 PM
I would like to see some evidence that Hunter cared about the 2nd amendment before Schroeder and Block talked him into running.

Jamsie567
03-26-2010, 12:40 AM
From his web site:

"I fully support the Second Amendment. When it is applied to Conceal Carry (CCW) permits, the courts have given local Sheriffs wide latitude in determining who should and shouldn’t receive a CCW permit. I disagree with our current Sheriff who has adopted an extremely restrictive policy on issuing CCW permits. Instead, I believe law abiding residents have a right to defend themselves. As Sheriff, I will enact policies which put law abiding citizens first, rather than allowing criminals to have an advantage."

Keep in mind, Hunter made that comment to the Board of Supervisors who were deciding whom to appoint.

I have not met Hunter yet, but I do frequently train at FTA where firearms instructors (some who are well respected LEOs) know personally and have worked with Hunter and they strongly support him and his pro CCW stance. I trust their judgement and Hunter enough to feel he will not go back on his word.

Like others have stated, we should wait until after the primaries to dig into these issues between Hunt and Hunter. While I am leaning toward Hunter, I would be happy to support both against Hutchens.

I hope they pull your CCW first... You can be dictated to I will vote Hunt!

Brian617
03-26-2010, 2:18 AM
I hope they pull your CCW first... You can be dictated to I will vote Hunt!

Sorry, I don't follow what you are saying.

sarj
03-26-2010, 5:48 AM
I met & talked with Bill Hunt. I went to a golf tournament fund-raiser in Fountain Valley. I skipped the golf, and went to the dinner afterward. I never met or talked with him before. I don't know anyone associated with him either. Now mind you, I'm not a very chatty guy, so I didn't say too much, I just asked a couple of questions and listened.

Given what I've seen & heard so far, Bill Hunt is the one we want for Sheriff in Orange County, and if the 2nd A is your biggest issue, it's not even a contest between the others. I gave him $250 and wished him well. It didn't hurt that I walked away with a Bowtech bow that I picked up through the silent auction. I wasn't going there for that. I'll probably give him another $250 when the time is right. This is the guy we want.

The young Republicans are also conducting a moderated forum near me on March 29. I'll listen to all of them there too, but I agree... the chick has got to go.

96hmco
03-26-2010, 7:51 AM
I too trained with the Firearms Training Associates. I enjoy their training. They are great guys. Bill Murphy is a top notch instructor.

Please understand that FTA also supported MIKE CARONA - even in the third election.

Ladies and gentlemen please understand that the training outfits are NOT who you should be getting your voting information from. Think about it, they have a vested interest in maintaining a certain amount of decorum to the CCW process which then makes some of them valuable. Why would I take voting information from someone guaranteed to profit as a direct result of my vote?

Again, let me be plain as day: I enjoy FTA and Bill Murphy is a fantastic instructor. However I refuse to take voting advice from ANY training facility that will profit from the election of one individual.

The ONLY way to eliminate this is to support the absolution of the "decorum" and elect someone who is plainly "Shall Issue" under the stupid laws of California.

Once this is achieved then the training facilities will be required to train in a superior manner, (The likes of which other outfits do not compare to FTA's training) I am confident that Firearms Training Associates will end up even larger due to the elimination of the "decorum" of CCW issuance. Add to this the fact that their training programs are far superior to others and they should be just fine! (Love you Murphy just don't agree with Hunter!)

Again, THINK FOR YOURSELVES, don't take someone else's word for it!

jont92619
03-26-2010, 9:56 AM
Good point 96hmco.... If Hunter is elected will it be the same old story with the vendors ruling the roost?

Bugei
03-26-2010, 10:25 AM
All right folks, it's simple:

You want Hunt versus Hunter in the general election, not Hunter versus Hutchens or Hunt versus Hutchens.

That's simple? I couldn't say that five times quickly if my life depended on it.
:eek:

Brian617
03-26-2010, 11:41 AM
I hope they pull your CCW first... You can be dictated to I will vote Hunt!

After reading some of your other irrational posts on the subject, please disregard my previous response and don't bother with a reply. I don't have a CCW, by the way.

I too trained with the Firearms Training Associates. I enjoy their training. They are great guys. Bill Murphy is a top notch instructor.

Please understand that FTA also supported MIKE CARONA - even in the third election.

Ladies and gentlemen please understand that the training outfits are NOT who you should be getting your voting information from. Think about it, they have a vested interest in maintaining a certain amount of decorum to the CCW process which then makes some of them valuable. Why would I take voting information from someone guaranteed to profit as a direct result of my vote?

Again, let me be plain as day: I enjoy FTA and Bill Murphy is a fantastic instructor. However I refuse to take voting advice from ANY training facility that will profit from the election of one individual.

The ONLY way to eliminate this is to support the absolution of the "decorum" and elect someone who is plainly "Shall Issue" under the stupid laws of California.

Once this is achieved then the training facilities will be required to train in a superior manner, (The likes of which other outfits do not compare to FTA's training) I am confident that Firearms Training Associates will end up even larger due to the elimination of the "decorum" of CCW issuance. Add to this the fact that their training programs are far superior to others and they should be just fine! (Love you Murphy just don't agree with Hunter!)

Again, THINK FOR YOURSELVES, don't take someone else's word for it!

I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying a company like FTA has a vested interest in having a Sheriff in Orange County that is stricter on CCW issuance? And they will make more money with a Sheriff like that?

I do agree with you that it is important to decide for yourself. Back in August 2009, I asked Bill about the Sheriff 2010 election. Before he was for sure running, Bill mentioned the possibility of Craig Hunter running and that he is pro 2A/CCW. I did some research and decided he would likely get my support before FTA (not just Bill) publicly endorsed Hunter. The decision I made has almost nothing to do with FTA. I simply mentioned FTA because some of those guys personally know Hunter and knew how he felt about CCW issuance before his campaign was even launched. The relevance it holds in this thread is because Hunter's stance on the Second Amendment is in question, that's all.

I will be attending the Sheriff's Candidate Forum on Monday evening where Hunt, Hunter, and Hutchens are all supposed to attend and answer questions. I am definitely deciding for myself and not taking someone's word for it.

As far as questioning Hunter's CCW policy, I think glbtrottr and RomanDad hit the nail on the head below. A lot of people seem bent out of shape because Hunter might not simply accept "Personal Defense" as good cause. I feel his reasons for doing so are explained below, but in all honesty, doesn't something like "I run in the hills with my dog and fear a possible coyote or mountain lion attack" mean the same thing as "I would like a CCW to protect myself"? The only difference is explaining why or what you want to protect yourself from. It's not that he doesn't think personal protection is a good reason, he just wants you to be a little more detailed.

Running a county as effectively "shall issue" is radically against the California state DOJ's views under specific threat of litigation. Ask around those Sheriffs in California who have written policy under their watch.

Had Mr. Hunt been privy of a few conversations with previous Sheriffs in OC and others alike, he would know this. While Hunt's views are comfortably pro-2A, which we applaud, his implementation or intent would not lead to a positive outcome.

Hunter knows this.

Hunter is ideologically and functionally Shall Issue, sans convicted felons and the mentally unstable.

Ask him.

That said, his answer is functionally the best we can get from any Sheriff in any county for the time being.

Hutchens is the target, not Hunter. Focus your efforts on the wicked witch of LASD, not on Hunter.

...As far as the DOJ is concerned, issuing for flat out unspecific "personal defense" is effectively the same as shall issue - and on this issue, an urban county will be treated in an entirely different light than rural counties.

I'm no TBJ fanboy, but he knows what he's talking about here and glbtrotter's post was actually profound if you've ever had a conversation on the issue with an insider. This is not just conjecture - this has been tested.


The penal code has nothing to do with it..... Its Politics... Plain and simple.... For all the discretion sheriff's have on the subject, the DOJ has even MORE, and like ALL CALIFORNIA LAWS, the buck ULTIMATELY Stops with THEM. They can (and have in the past) interfere with the policy if they decide to.

Look at how fast the DOJ CHANGED THEIR OWN RULES regarding revocation at Sheriff Hutchen's request, because they were both on the same (anti-ccw) side... Despite the fact the Penal Code SEEMS to prohibit it, The DOJ, at Hutchen's request, issued an opinion that Sheriff's CAN revoke WITHOUT CAUSE, AND went so far as to change their software to add the Orwellian term "expired early" to their database.

As far as Hunter's policy.... I've done a little research on the subject, and from what I see, its almost an exact copy of Kern County's, the highest issuing county in California....Their WRITTEN POLICY REQUIRES an ARTICULATED cause, apparently for the SOLE REASON of keeping the DOJ off their case. I wouldn't doubt if thats why he crafted his policy the way he has.... Picking a FIGHT with the DOJ is a LOSER.... Especially in a time of EXTREME budget shortfalls and when its easy to avoid just by dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

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

Is it UNFORTUNATE that we have to play these semantic games? Of Course, but we have to realize, we LIVE IN CALIFORNIA, and a LARGE MAJORITY of the STATE GOVERNMENT is VIRULENTLY anti-gun.... I can't imagine ANY OF US wouldn't LOVE to be under Kern's policy (I dont know of anybody who isnt otherwise prohibited for cause who was denied in Kern) despite the fact that the process does involve jumping through the "Make Sacramento Happy" clause.

Both Hunter and Hunt have gone on the record in support of AB357, which would make all of this moot.... Only Hutchens has refused to do that.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3807274#post3807274

GuyW
03-26-2010, 1:07 PM
Keep in mind, Hunter made that comment to the Board of Supervisors who were deciding whom to appoint.


So, you support candidates who say what they think their audience wants to hear?
.

Glock22Fan
03-26-2010, 1:20 PM
So, you support candidates who say what they think their audience wants to hear?
.

Do you know any candidates that don't?

96hmco
03-26-2010, 1:22 PM
Brian,

Hopefully my post was read in an informative way and in NO way an attack on either you or FTA! I love the trainers at FTA and I think they do a fantastic job in equipping the citizens of this great nation to be vigilant in protecting their rights.

I am NOT implying that this is the reason that FTA endorsed Hunter but please follow me here: Many training companies that have the ability to inform the state that "students" have finished a qualifying course have MUCH to gain with respect to HOW CCW's are issued.

For example:

It was KNOWN in the CCW community that if someone were to write the "correct" good cause statement, then you would be issued a CCW. Many in the "training" field claimed to be "experts" in assisting with this process.

That ladies and gentlemen is why certain "training" companies are Schilling for Hunter. You see without clearly stating the facts on HOW the policy will work, this knowledge of good cause experts can be leveraged for business purposes.

Now let me be even clearer. I have never experienced this with FTA. I am publicly stating that Bill Murphy and his instructors NEVER played this game. Others have! I truly don't understand their endorsement of Hunter, especially given the implications brought up over here:

http://www.fullertonsfuture.org/2010/craig-hunter-the-beatings-a-whistleblower-and-the-cover-up/

Followed by this interesting site: http://whoiscraighunter.com/

These should both cause one to pause a moment and wonder why endorse this person?

Therefore I struggle with the thought that Hunter has clearly removed the possibility to "game" and profit from an undefined system.

Truly this is all I care about. Some on here want people to have a good cause, I don't agree with them anymore than others that would limit any freedom afforded in the Constitution. It seems obvious to me, that any person in power who has the ability to leverage the undefined aspects by which they will administer their power is not a person suited to be in power.

I will restate this again. I enjoy training with Bill Murphy and FTA, I have never seen or experienced them use their training for negative purposes only fantastic instruction with the need to arm every citizen.

Reloaderx2
03-26-2010, 2:13 PM
Brian. I can appreciate you putting words into Hunt's mouth but I am not buying it. We do now, however, have a in living color position statement from Craig Hunter coming right out of his own mouth in a public forum. Then you cite statements of Globtrottr and RomanDad (inhabitants of the other board) where they talk about the DOJ. That's irrelevant. What is relevant is Hunter being "Very Comfortable" with being in a "may issue" jurisdiction. Another way to put it is he would be very uncomfortable in a "shall issue" juridiction even though in his words they are in the vast majority of jurisdictions.

U2BassAce
03-26-2010, 2:25 PM
I too trained with the Firearms Training Associates. I enjoy their training. They are great guys. Bill Murphy is a top notch instructor.

Please understand that FTA also supported MIKE CARONA - even in the third election.

Ladies and gentlemen please understand that the training outfits are NOT who you should be getting your voting information from. Think about it, they have a vested interest in maintaining a certain amount of decorum to the CCW process which then makes some of them valuable. Why would I take voting information from someone guaranteed to profit as a direct result of my vote?

Again, let me be plain as day: I enjoy FTA and Bill Murphy is a fantastic instructor. However I refuse to take voting advice from ANY training facility that will profit from the election of one individual.

The ONLY way to eliminate this is to support the absolution of the "decorum" and elect someone who is plainly "Shall Issue" under the stupid laws of California.

Once this is achieved then the training facilities will be required to train in a superior manner, (The likes of which other outfits do not compare to FTA's training) I am confident that Firearms Training Associates will end up even larger due to the elimination of the "decorum" of CCW issuance. Add to this the fact that their training programs are far superior to others and they should be just fine! (Love you Murphy just don't agree with Hunter!)

Again, THINK FOR YOURSELVES, don't take someone else's word for it!

Well then vote for Hutchens. There are CCW training groups backing both Hunter and Hunt.

96hmco
03-26-2010, 2:40 PM
Really? Please go reread the post.



Ok so you read it, and now are remarking with vote for Hutchens. Either I failed to make my point that only a "Shall Issue" perspective will take the gaming out of the system or I failed to communicate in some form.

I am willing to admit if my writing skills need to improve in order to convey again the crux of my point:

It seems obvious to me, that any person in power who has the ability to leverage the undefined aspects by which they will administer their power is not a person suited to be in power.

Removing the need for a good cause statement solves this problem. Therefore it seems logical to me which way to vote.

SteveH
03-26-2010, 2:45 PM
I would like to see some evidence that Hunter cared about the 2nd amendment before Schroeder and Block talked him into running.

Hit the nail on the head with that one.

SteveH
03-26-2010, 2:47 PM
I too trained with the Firearms Training Associates. I enjoy their training. They are great guys. Bill Murphy is a top notch instructor.

Please understand that FTA also supported MIKE CARONA - even in the third election.

Ladies and gentlemen please understand that the training outfits are NOT who you should be getting your voting information from. Think about it, they have a vested interest in maintaining a certain amount of decorum to the CCW process which then makes some of them valuable. Why would I take voting information from someone guaranteed to profit as a direct result of my vote?

Again, let me be plain as day: I enjoy FTA and Bill Murphy is a fantastic instructor. However I refuse to take voting advice from ANY training facility that will profit from the election of one individual.

The ONLY way to eliminate this is to support the absolution of the "decorum" and elect someone who is plainly "Shall Issue" under the stupid laws of California.

Once this is achieved then the training facilities will be required to train in a superior manner, (The likes of which other outfits do not compare to FTA's training) I am confident that Firearms Training Associates will end up even larger due to the elimination of the "decorum" of CCW issuance. Add to this the fact that their training programs are far superior to others and they should be just fine! (Love you Murphy just don't agree with Hunter!)

Again, THINK FOR YOURSELVES, don't take someone else's word for it!

Clearly some have a vested financial interest in maintaining the staus quo in OC CCW issuance. No matter who wins they need to reform the process so there are more trainers to chose from.

U2BassAce
03-26-2010, 2:53 PM
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b46/U2BassAce/CCWCRAIG.jpg

Glock22Fan
03-26-2010, 2:57 PM
snip
What is relevant is Hunter being "Very Comfortable" with being in a "may issue" jurisdiction. Another way to put it is he would be very uncomfortable in a "shall issue" juridiction even though in his words they are in the vast majority of jurisdictions.

Being very comfortable in a "May Issue" jurisdiction does not mean that he would be uncomfortable in a Shall Issue, even though that might indeed be the case.

I'm comfortable in a Marriot, but it doesn't stop me being comfortable in the Parker Meridian, which tends to be much more luxurious.

As he would have virtually unlimited discretion, he would be able to make the May Issue jurisdiction as Shall Issue as he wishes, while still retaining the right to refuse.

Whether this is a problem for the would-be CCW holders is how he intends to exercise that discretion. I have seen words of his that lead me to believe that that right would be exercised much in the same way as it is in places like Kern County. I could live with that if he were my sheriff, however much I would prefer Shall Issue to be the state law (it isn't in case you've forgotten.)

Glock22Fan
03-26-2010, 3:00 PM
Really? Please go reread the post.



Ok so you read it, and now are remarking with vote for Hutchens. Either I failed to make my point that only a "Shall Issue" perspective will take the gaming out of the system or I failed to communicate in some form.

I am willing to admit if my writing skills need to improve in order to convey again the crux of my point:

It seems obvious to me, that any person in power who has the ability to leverage the undefined aspects by which they will administer their power is not a person suited to be in power.

Removing the need for a good cause statement solves this problem. Therefore it seems logical to me which way to vote.

You are totally ignoring California law and assuming that the sheriff may also so do.

96hmco
03-26-2010, 3:14 PM
No I am not ignoring any California law:

It seems obvious to me, that any person in power who has the ability to leverage the undefined aspects by which they will administer their power is not a person suited to be in power.

Which is to say, "The wolf is in charge of the hens nest" Or some refer to a "dictator"

What could be more obvious? We have A California law that mandates the openness of the process. (For those of you holding a CCW it is open record why you have one!) A policy is just that. Guidelines to follow in order to obtain the CCW permit. This isn't that hard. I really don't know why it continues to be an albatross.

California Law and a POLICY on how you will issue CCW permits will in fact be mutually in accord. This also eliminates the wolf watching the sheep, or the dictator.

Hopefully I am communicating this with respect to all parties.

Honestly I could care less who's name is attached to the person running the department. It really does not matter to me, they simply must follow the Constitution. :)

Happy times today. :)

Glock22Fan
03-26-2010, 3:31 PM
My comments in bold.


No I am not ignoring any California law:

See below

It seems obvious to me, that any person in power who has the ability to leverage the undefined aspects by which they will administer their power is not a person suited to be in power.

I don't understand this paragraph. Having the ability is not the same as using it, which is not the same as abusing it. What do you mean?

Which is to say, "The wolf is in charge of the hens nest" Or some refer to a "dictator"

No comment.

What could be more obvious? We have A California law that mandates the openness of the process. (For those of you holding a CCW it is open record why you have one!) A policy is just that. Guidelines to follow in order to obtain the CCW permit. This isn't that hard. I really don't know why it continues to be an albatross.

California Law and a POLICY on how you will issue CCW permits will in fact be mutually in accord. This also eliminates the wolf watching the sheep, or the dictator.

Will? or should? THere's lots of policies that flout Californian law.

Hopefully I am communicating this with respect to all parties.

What?

Honestly I could care less who's name is attached to the person running the department. It really does not matter to me, they simply must follow the Constitution. :)

Should, not must, and they should also follow Californian Law.

Happy times today. :)

Really? Please go reread the post.

Yes, I did

Ok so you read it, and now are remarking with vote for Hutchens. Either I failed to make my point that only a "Shall Issue" perspective will take the gaming out of the system or I failed to communicate in some form.

And my point it that Californian law is not, and is not intended to be, "Shall Issue" and therefore a sheriff who wishes to appear to be following Californian law cannot come straight out and say that he or she is Shall Issue. It does not mean, as so many of you seem to think, that such a sheriff would not operate a policy so near to Shall Issue as to be virtually indistinguishable.

I am willing to admit if my writing skills need to improve in order to convey again the crux of my point:

Maybe

It seems obvious to me, that any person in power who has the ability to leverage the undefined aspects by which they will administer their power is not a person suited to be in power.

And this would be a good sentence to improve.

Removing the need for a good cause statement solves this problem. Therefore it seems logical to me which way to vote.

You cannot remove a Good Case statement under the current law. This is exactly the point that of my post. However, as far as we can tell, the Good Cause can be a simple as "I am afraid for my life when I walk in the park because of the coyotes." Hunter has said that this is the sort of thing he would accept. What is so difficult in phrasing such a Good Cause?

U2BassAce
03-26-2010, 3:34 PM
Craig Hunter has publicly supported AB357.... How do you translate that to him being "uncomfortable" about Shall Issue?:confused:

GaryPowersLives
03-26-2010, 3:46 PM
Originally Posted by 96hmco
Really? Please go reread the post.

Yes, I did

Ok so you read it, and now are remarking with vote for Hutchens. Either I failed to make my point that only a "Shall Issue" perspective will take the gaming out of the system or I failed to communicate in some form.

And my point it that Californian law is not, and is not intended to be, "Shall Issue" and therefore a sheriff who wishes to appear to be following Californian law cannot come straight out and say that he or she is Shall Issue. It does not mean, as so many of you seem to think, that such a sheriff would not operate a policy so near to Shall Issue as to be virtually indistinguishable.

I am willing to admit if my writing skills need to improve in order to convey again the crux of my point:

Maybe

It seems obvious to me, that any person in power who has the ability to leverage the undefined aspects by which they will administer their power is not a person suited to be in power.

And this would be a good sentence to improve.
Removing the need for a good cause statement solves this problem. Therefore it seems logical to me which way to vote.

You cannot remove a Good Case statement under the current law. This is exactly the point that of my post. However, as far as we can tell, the Good Cause can be a simple as "I am afraid for my life when I walk in the park because of the coyotes." Hunter has said that this is the sort of thing he would accept. What is so difficult in phrasing such a Good Cause?


thank you! I was getting a headache trying to read that other gibberish. And now the issue is clear.

Reloaderx2
03-26-2010, 3:47 PM
Craig Hunter has publicly supported AB357.... How do you translate that to him being "uncomfortable" about Shall Issue?:confused:

If you are asking me, the blog linked below answers the question. Hunter is a political opportunist. I believe that he will say one thing and do another if elected. Like one comment said. You can't change your spots. Why should anyone have to deal with inconsistant positions on something as important as CCWs?

http://www.fullertonsfuture.org/2010/craig-hunter-ccws-and-political-opportunism/

RomanDad
03-26-2010, 3:57 PM
Guys, the fact is the Hunt campaign is all but broke. They have $3,000 cash as of the last financing report. It's on life support. So they're relegated to smearing their opponents on the internet because that's free. What I find odd is that they don't seem interested in smearing Hutchens... Just Hunter... Why is that? Why do they seem to be afraid to go after the real enemy? It almost seems like they want to curry favor with her for some other reason?

IGOTDIRT4U
03-26-2010, 4:22 PM
Guys, the fact is the Hunt campaign is all but broke. They have $3,000 cash as of the last financing report. It's on life support. So they're relegated to smearing their opponents on the internet because that's free. What I find odd is that they don't seem interested in smearing Hutchens... Just Hunter... Why is that? Why do they seem to be afraid to go after the real enemy? It almost seems like they want to curry favor with her for some other reason?

Oh goody! It's getting close to bed time. I need a good story later. ;)

IGOTDIRT4U
03-26-2010, 4:25 PM
BTW, $3000? What happened to all that So County money he raised? The campaign is hardly started and he already blew through those early big checks?

(and as I called it, the 'real' money, old money, never count out NB, LB, HH and the like will go to Hunter)

OrangeCountyCCW
03-26-2010, 4:31 PM
Guys, the fact is the Hunt campaign is all but broke. They have $3,000 cash as of the last financing report. It's on life support. So they're relegated to smearing their opponents on the internet because that's free. What I find odd is that they don't seem interested in smearing Hutchens... Just Hunter... Why is that? Why do they seem to be afraid to go after the real enemy? It almost seems like they want to curry favor with her for some other reason?

That's not quite accurate. The attached are the public filings of both the Hunt and Hunter campaigns. It looks like Hunter has more cash on hand as of this month (approximately $24,000) but his campaign owes over $40,000 in debt. Hunt has $3,600 on hand but no debt. It looks like the filing fee of $22,100 hit both campaigns' coffers hard.

Hunt is attacking Hutchens, repeatedly, both on his website and at least at the functions I've attended. I don't know who dug up the YouTube of Deputy Chief Hunter's statements to the Board of Supervisors but no matter who one is supporting, you can't call it irrelevant or useless information. Hunter posted his explanation, and now it's up to the voters to weigh what they think of both pieces of information.

Reloaderx2
03-26-2010, 5:20 PM
That's not quite accurate. The attached are the public filings of both the Hunt and Hunter campaigns. It looks like Hunter has more cash on hand as of this month (approximately $24,000) but his campaign owes over $40,000 in debt. Hunt has $3,600 on hand but no debt. It looks like the filing fee of $22,100 hit both campaigns' coffers hard.

Hunt is attacking Hutchens, repeatedly, both on his website and at least at the functions I've attended. I don't know who dug up the YouTube of Deputy Chief Hunter's statements to the Board of Supervisors but no matter who one is supporting, you can't call it irrelevant or useless information. Hunter posted his explanation, and now it's up to the voters to weigh what they think of both pieces of information.

True. Hunter also loaned his campaign money. $17,500 I think which skews the numbers. I believe we will soon see some big money getting behind Hunt. Stay tuned.

Reloaderx2
03-26-2010, 9:58 PM
Bump. Whatever you think, the second amenders need to know about this guy. Not only the sure deal of his supporters from the other board getting CCWs but all of us who don't know the guy or are not on that board and cannot afford to pay to play. It's that simple.

Doheny
03-28-2010, 3:06 PM
Re: Hunt and his war chest, I suspect that it will start to see a large increase now that the deputies union has thrown their support behind him. And re: Hunt's people trying to smear Hunter, since when is posting a video of someone's own words (Hunter) considered a smear?

BadIndianSwamp
03-28-2010, 3:12 PM
That video proves that my main concern (Shall Issue CCW in Orange County) is not his concern at all.

Bill Hunt has my vote.

OrangeCountyCCW
03-30-2010, 11:21 AM
True. Hunter also loaned his campaign money. $17,500 I think which skews the numbers. I believe we will soon see some big money getting behind Hunt. Stay tuned.

Hunt raised $10,700 just since Monday. www.billhuntforsheriff.com