PDA

View Full Version : These pro CCW candidates....


ned946
05-06-2010, 11:39 AM
...I dunno, but I sense a scam.

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that the underfunded candidates are throwing out the promise of CCW's for everybody to get election results....then kinda not be so generous about their campaign promises after the fact.

Why should we believe these promises?

I WANT to, from an emotional side but my thinking side says, "yeah, sure...ya idiot"

vantec08
05-06-2010, 1:04 PM
I could gladly go shooting or fishing or shoot some pool with Ted Nugent. To be in politics nowdays requires an investment of ego, parsing words, and obfuscating meanings. The best we are going to get is who parses and obfuscates the least.

unusedusername
05-06-2010, 1:14 PM
I think the take-away from the candidates posting here is that the forum is large enough that politicians are considering calguns as a political movement instead of just a gun owners hang out.

Also, just because the forum is attracting politicians does not mean it is attracting the right kind of them.... ;)

berto
05-06-2010, 1:28 PM
Hope for the best and be prepared to work and vote against tose who lie about CCW (or any other issue you hold dear). Keep in mind that some candidates talk the talk but are running for offices where they might not have the ultimate authority on CCW policy.

Barkoff
05-06-2010, 8:44 PM
...I dunno, but I sense a scam.

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that the underfunded candidates are throwing out the promise of CCW's for everybody to get election results....then kinda not be so generous about their campaign promises after the fact.

Why should we believe these promises?

I WANT to, from an emotional side but my thinking side says, "yeah, sure...ya idiot"

What choice do we have?

RomanDad
05-06-2010, 9:56 PM
...I dunno, but I sense a scam.

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that the underfunded candidates are throwing out the promise of CCW's for everybody to get election results....then kinda not be so generous about their campaign promises after the fact.

Why should we believe these promises?

I WANT to, from an emotional side but my thinking side says, "yeah, sure...ya idiot"

Listen.... Politics comes down to picking the candidate who shares MOST of your positions on issues. NO politician has 100% control over ANYTHING... That's the American system. So yes... Some (most?) candidates will promise a lot, but all they're really promising is that that is their position. They can't promise RESULTS. There are no potentates in our political system... Everybody answers to somebody else, usually MANY somebody elses, and those somebody elses usually have the final say on what happens.

Example. For 40 years Republicans have been running, to one degree or another, on a "Pro Life" platform. And a lot of them have WON THOSE ELECTIONS.... Yet abortion is still legal...

There have been lots of "pro Gun" "Pro CCW" candidates who have run and won elections in this state.... And despite the fact they MEANT what they said, we're still in the position we're in, because thats the political reality... When they get to the office, they find out, they're not NEARLY as powerful as they had hoped..

The best we can do is KEEP electing them and hope our neighbors do the same so they can achieve the change we want to see.

kcbrown
05-06-2010, 10:16 PM
Listen.... Politics comes down to picking the candidate who shares MOST of your positions on issues. NO politician has 100% control over ANYTHING... That's the American system. So yes... Some (most?) candidates will promise a lot, but all they're really promising is that that is their position. They can't promise RESULTS. There are no potentates in our political system... Everybody answers to somebody else, usually MANY somebody elses, and those somebody elses usually have the final say on what happens.


I think his concern is that the candidates in question are lying through their teeth about what they actually support.

You can't necessarily judge a person's position by the results they get, as you say. But you can judge their position by the actions they take. If their actions are consistent with their position then at the very least you can say that the person acts based on their stated beliefs.

The problem is that many politicians will not only make promises about results, but will also say things that indicate a certain position (if not outright state the position in question), and then when elected to office completely ignore or, worse, take actions opposite to the positions they previously stated. In other words, they take actions that prove that their statements were outright lies.

I believe it is that which the OP is concerned about here -- that the candidates in question have no intention of actually following through in any way with respect to their stated positions.


As for the contention that there may not be much they can actually do to generate results, I think that's almost certainly a non-issue here. The candidates in question are running for sheriff positions and that position has direct and final authority on who gets issued CCWs.

So that leaves the concern about them lying through their teeth.

RomanDad
05-06-2010, 11:29 PM
I think his concern is that the candidates in question are lying through their teeth about what they actually support.

You can't necessarily judge a person's position by the results they get, as you say. But you can judge their position by the actions they take. If their actions are consistent with their position then at the very least you can say that the person acts based on their stated beliefs.

The problem is that many politicians will not only make promises about results, but will also say things that indicate a certain position (if not outright state the position in question), and then when elected to office completely ignore or, worse, take actions opposite to the positions they previously stated. In other words, they take actions that prove that their statements were outright lies.

I believe it is that which the OP is concerned about here -- that the candidates in question have no intention of actually following through in any way with respect to their stated positions.


As for the contention that there may not be much they can actually do to generate results, I think that's almost certainly a non-issue here. The candidates in question are running for sheriff positions and that position has direct and final authority on who gets issued CCWs.

So that leaves the concern about them lying through their teeth.
I think the pro ccw Sheriffs candidates are honest about their positions... At least the ones I've met and talked to here in Southern California.

Unfortunately, even they have to answer to others. The Cal DOJ has in the past told various Chiefs and Sheriffs "We wont process your CCW applications" because they didn't approve of their policy.

EVERYBODY answers to somebody.

Texas Boy
05-06-2010, 11:55 PM
I spoke in person with one such candidate tonight - Martin Monica. He was very straight forward about his position - he is for "will issue" and said he would work to move things in that direction. Based on his statements and choice of words, I think he realizes that if elected he won't suddenly become "king" over CCW permits in his area. Yes - Everybody answers to somebody.

As far as people lying through their teeth to get elected - it certainly happens all the time. All you can do is look at your choices and take your pick. In Santa Clara county I have to choose between 1) a sheriff who has been accused of taking bribes and other corrupt acts, 2) a candidate who has not come out in support of CCW, or 3) a candidate who is very vocal about wanting to change the CCW policy and is reaching out to gun owners.

I think in Santa Clara county at least, the choice is rather clear. I can't speak for the other races.

BillChambersforGovernor
05-07-2010, 11:28 AM
RomanDad is absolutely correct in his statement about politicians. We can only give you our point of view or positions on gun laws, pending legislation and CCW Permits, we cannot promise to change anything since in takes the legislature and governor to get things done.

The voters have to decide who will best represent them while in office, if they haven't represented your positions, vote them out.

For more about my campaign got to:

SmartVoter.org: http://smartvoter.org/2010/06/08/ca/state/vote/chambers_b/
Face Book: Bill Chambers (friend) / Bill Chambers for Governor 2010 (Fan)
Website: www.billchambers4governor.com

Contact Information:
E-Mail: chambers4governor@sbcglobal.net
Phone: (530) 823-3262
Address: P.O. Box 6019, Auburn, CA 95604


SPORTSMEN FOR CHAMBERS

BILL CHAMBERS IS RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY ELECTION ON JUNE 8TH, 2010

CHAMBERS IS…

A LIFE MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION.

A LIFE MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE and PISTOL ASSOCIATION.

A LIFE MEMBER OF THE AUBURN TRAP CLUB.


CHAMBERS HAS…

A CALIFORNIA LIFETIME HUNTING LICENSE.

A CALIFORNIA LIFETIME FISHING LICENSE.

Bill Chambers is a hunter, fisherman and conservationist. He believes in laws that are based upon scientific fact, logic and common sense. He does not believe in laws to accomplish political agendas.

ja308
05-07-2010, 2:05 PM
I suggest we write in our own names for every elected position .
As it has the same effect
JA308

Gray Peterson
05-07-2010, 3:47 PM
I think the pro ccw Sheriffs candidates are honest about their positions... At least the ones I've met and talked to here in Southern California.

Unfortunately, even they have to answer to others. The Cal DOJ has in the past told various Chiefs and Sheriffs "We wont process your CCW applications" because they didn't approve of their policy.

EVERYBODY answers to somebody.

This is the first time I've heard of this. Please cite examples of this. I know I know which example you're talking about but I don't know until you confirm.

bwiese
05-07-2010, 3:54 PM
This is the first time I've heard of this. Please cite examples of this. I know I know which example you're talking about but I don't know until you confirm.

CGF would like to hear of this too. Deprivation of governmental action/service based on such considerations can lead to "fun".

RomanDad
05-07-2010, 6:12 PM
This is the first time I've heard of this. Please cite examples of this. I know I know which example you're talking about but I don't know until you confirm.


The most famous was probably Chief Gene Byrd of Isleton CA. Back in the early 90's, he was running the ultimate "Shall issue" policy, whereby people would travel to Iselton (didnt really matter where they lived) they would rent a Hotel room for the weekend, and he would issue them a CCW for a few hundred bucks. I was living in the area back then and to say a firestorm ensued is putting it lightly.... After a few months of hand wringing in Sacramento (by both Republicans and Democrats) Attorney General Dan Lungren stepped in and flat out refused to process Byrd's applications. Keep in mind... EVERYTHING Byrd was doing was legal under the letter of the law as written back then...

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/POLICE+CHIEF+STICKS+TO+HIS+GUNS+IN+PERMIT+FRAY%5CL awman%27s+775+concealed...-a083904413

In the end, Byrd stopped permitting out of towners (which is the same as not issuing since Isleton has a population of a few hundred people), and the Legislature changed the law to require residency in the CLEOs jurisdiction.

It also happened to Mike Carona when he first got into office in '99.... When he first suggested his policy, many of the county's (anti-gun) Chiefs of Police complained to the DOJ... And the DOJ warned Carona that if he did what he was talking about, they wouldn't process the applications.

Wherryj
05-07-2010, 6:37 PM
I suggest we write in our own names for every elected position .
As it has the same effect
JA308

I typically feel that my vote is thrown out in CA, but perhaps someday if I keep trying something will happen.

Boilermaker
05-07-2010, 7:07 PM
I typically feel that my vote is thrown out in CA, but perhaps someday if I keep trying something will happen.
Thats why I keep goin to the polls and voting. Hope for Change.. now where did I hear that before

Regulus
05-07-2010, 8:15 PM
I think the pro ccw Sheriffs candidates are honest about their positions... At least the ones I've met and talked to here in Southern California.

Unfortunately, even they have to answer to others. The Cal DOJ has in the past told various Chiefs and Sheriffs "We wont process your CCW applications" because they didn't approve of their policy.

EVERYBODY answers to somebody.

As far as CCW goes, here are what the OC Sheriff Candidates have to say.

Bill Hunt (from http://www.billhuntforsheriff2010.com/issues):
As your Sheriff, I will issue CCW's to any applicant who is a law abiding resident of the county, meets state mandated requirements and is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. To me, personal protection is good cause!

I believe Bill Hunt is genuine in that if he can do what he says, he will.


Craig Hunter (from http://www.hunterforsheriff.com/issues):
"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."

Craig Hunter seems more centrist in his approach and appears to be looking for some sort of good cause (more than self-defense), and would probably reject me for a lack of good cause even though I'm a former LEO and Army Veteran and have proven myself with concealed carry in the past.


Sandra Hutchens (AKA - ABS. Thanks RD for the reference) (from my OC Sample Ballot):
I support the 2nd Amendment. Law-abiding citizens have the right to own and legally use firearms. Blah, Blah, Blah... I still won't issue CCW's.

Sandra Hutchens (the only one who could/would absolutely deliver on her promise) will continue with her policy of no-issue.


I'm going to stay optimistic and take my chances with Bill Hunt whether he can deliver or not.

RomanDad, you seem to hold some guarded optimism, but I hope some of my excitement about Bill Hunt finds its way across the street to you. ;)

GuyW
05-07-2010, 8:15 PM
... And the DOJ warned Carona that if he did what he was talking about, they wouldn't process the applications.

So, DOJ has copies of applications??

...somehow I've missed the specifics of the red-tape trail...

.

RomanDad
05-08-2010, 6:59 AM
As far as CCW goes, here are what the OC Sheriff Candidates have to say.


I'm going to stay optimistic and take my chances with Bill Hunt whether he can deliver or not.

RomanDad, you seem to hold some guarded optimism, but I hope some of my excitement about Bill Hunt finds its way across the street to you. ;)

Im a firm supporter of Craig Hunter.... 100%... And I have absolutely zero doubt, you would get a ccw from him. Yes, you'll have to actually write down the things you do that put you at harm- Like walking in the evening.... Traveling to areas with limited cell coverage or increased police response times, traveling in or through areas with high crime rates.... Basically anybody who ever leaves their home HAS good cause under the Hunter Policy... But they have to articulate it... Because thats what the DOJ wants.. Which is taken directly from the OTHER high issuing CCW county policies- San Bernadino and Kern.

My problem with Hunt is, that he's trying to do the SAME THING that Carona initially did. And it DIDNT WORK LAST TIME.... So Im not sure why it would work NOW.

However... It appears Hunt may have already realized that approach isnt going to fly... In the AOCDS mailing he said:


"As Sheriff, he will uphold those rights by issuing CCW (Concealed Carry Weapons) permits to ant law abiding resident that can legally possess a firearm and meet county requirements".

"County Requirements" right now are that you show AN INCREASED LIKELIHOOD of BEING THE VICTIM OF CRIME than an ORDINARY PERSON, because of your occupation or previous criminal threats.


I've been on the California CCW roller coaster for over 15 years now... Ive seen Politicians who toss around buzz words like "I support the 2nd Amendment"
(which really means "I support my interpretation of the second amendment which is people can own guns, preferably if they are police officers, but they should never leave their homes with them"). I've seen Politicians say "My policy will be shall issue" (Which really means, "I had no idea the DOJ would get angry with me for that, but now that they are, Ill just go back to the old ways of celebrities and policitcal donors, that the establishment seems to be OK with, because its jut not worth the hassle"). Or my favorite "I see nothing wrong with the policy as it is" (which Sandra Hutchens said just before she completely changed Jack Anderson's policy and gutted the whole program.).

I personally am REFRESHED to see a candidate PUT DOWN IN WRITING a WORKABLE POLICY, that SHOULD PASS DOJ, (because it IS already in place in several other counties) THAT WILL get anybody who wants a CCW a CCW, and doesnt rely on me GUESSING what the policy is or what it will mean.

Are there any guarantees? Nope... The other issue is DOJ has always privately (and sometimes not so privately) supported a two tiered system... One more liberal issue policy for rural counties, and the much more restrictive policy for the Urban counties... But given my history with the issue, I beleive Hunter's policy has the best chance of getting people who want them, CCWs. (And.... Keep in mind... I HAVE MY CCW.... From Sandra Hutchens... It would be much easier for me to just shut up, and do what's in my OWN best interest... But I want OTHER people to have them as well. And for that purpose, my fiorst choice is Hunter.... My second choice is Hunt. My third choice is Henry the Dancing Pony.)

RomanDad
05-08-2010, 7:22 AM
So, DOJ has copies of applications??

...somehow I've missed the specifics of the red-tape trail...

.
I dont know IF DOJ maintains copies of the applications or not. I know the CLEOs are required to.

yellowfin
05-08-2010, 7:32 AM
Listen.... Politics comes down to picking the candidate who shares MOST of your positions on issues. NO politician has 100% control over ANYTHING... That's the American system. So yes... Some (most?) candidates will promise a lot, but all they're really promising is that that is their position. They can't promise RESULTS. There are no potentates in our political system... Everybody answers to somebody else, usually MANY somebody elses, and those somebody elses usually have the final say on what happens.

Example. For 40 years Republicans have been running, to one degree or another, on a "Pro Life" platform. And a lot of them have WON THOSE ELECTIONS.... Yet abortion is still legal...

There have been lots of "pro Gun" "Pro CCW" candidates who have run and won elections in this state.... And despite the fact they MEANT what they said, we're still in the position we're in, because thats the political reality... When they get to the office, they find out, they're not NEARLY as powerful as they had hoped..

The best we can do is KEEP electing them and hope our neighbors do the same so they can achieve the change we want to see.
Which is why I advocate making all campaign contributions as contractual bank loans, conditional upon that they win and that they do what they promise, otherwise they personally or their campaign has to pay the loans instead of the contributor.