PDA

View Full Version : OC Residents - vote Bill Hunt for Sheriff!!!!


SVTNate
04-17-2006, 12:58 AM
I didn't see this posted here already, but it's very important. Basically, Bill Hunt supports shall-issue CCW in Orange County, and this is why we should be voting for him!

Here's his official stance on CCW in Orange County, taken from an email I sent him asking about his position...

Nathan,

My CCW policy will be as follows:

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

I cut and pasted this directly from my Reform plan which can be viewed at www.billhuntforsheriff.com. If you agree with my policy I hope you will spread the word among your friends, family and associates.

Bill

Josh
04-17-2006, 2:57 AM
Im sorry, I still dont see how this is saying he is going to be almost or basically shall issue.

Yes it does read as pro CCW, but it dosent say anything directly about increasing the numbers given, easing the process or expanding the acceptable reasons to issue.

To me it reads that he dosent think that the CCW process has been overhauled enough (this can go either way and to any degree) and that he will remove the CCW for favors/donation fiasco that Corona seems to have gotten himself into. And he just injects the numbers about permit holders vs county residents which is just a way to get a shock value as a better number would be issued vs overall applied.

This just reads as political speak.

stator
04-17-2006, 7:49 AM
Oh man, it sounds like a "I hope that you fall for it" statement. The give-away is right here:

....meets state mandated requirements....

State mandated requirements include "good cause" as those two words are right next to each other in the Penal Code and the CCRs.

Paladin
04-17-2006, 9:36 AM
I didn't see this posted here already, but it's very important.

Search functions are wonderful. Ck out http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=31645 I was the last poster on that thread a mere 4 days ago.

Im sorry, I still dont see how this is saying he is going to be almost or basically shall issue.

Yes it does read as pro CCW, but it dosent say anything directly about increasing the numbers given, easing the process or expanding the acceptable reasons to issue.

To me it reads that he dosent think that the CCW process has been overhauled enough (this can go either way and to any degree) <snip>

This just reads as political speak.

Josh and stator, I don't know if you also saw that previous thread, but Rumpled and & I were debating the same issue when Bill Hunt posted the following here at CGN at http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=31645&page=3

"I believe that it is the duty of the Sheriff to protect citizen’s constitutional rights not restrict them. The Sheriff swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We in law enforcement face both legal and administrative repercussions if we violate the 1st and 4th Amendments, and rightfully so. For some reason, there are no repercussions for the indiscriminate abuse of our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms."

I (and I think Rumpled) read that to mean that my interpretation of his Reform plan was correct: "good cause" for Hunt will mean any legitimate need, including self-defense w/o the need for a specific threat. Requirements like the need for a specific threat, carrying large amounts of jewels or money on the job, etc are NOT state mandated. What you've got to understand is the distinction between state permitted and state mandated requirements. "Good cause" may be state mandated, but using that to impose additional requirements above exercising your 2nd A rts is not. Remember, the sheriff CANNOT remove that "good cause" requirement, they can only define for the county what they decide is "good cause." I guess the best way for someone to handle this is to get in touch w/Bill's office and ask them: "Assuming a candidate passes all the other state mandated requirements, will 'self-defense w/o a specific threat' suffice for 'good cause'?"

The MSM will lynch any sheriff's candidate in a major urban Kali county who declares, "I'll take the county 'Shall Issue'!" Pro-CCW candidates in major urban counties cannot be blunt and expect to be elected. Like it or not, that is the political reality of Kali in 2006.

Hunt (and esp Masse in LAC) can be either blunt and lose; subtle and win; or not even try. Which one do you want?

SVTNate
04-17-2006, 11:26 AM
Search functions are indeed wonderful, you did post a "mere" 4 days ago, and despite your tone I apologize for not finding the existing thread and appreciate your link to Bill Hunt's post here.

bg
04-17-2006, 11:52 AM
Please forgive my ignorance, but what's happened to
Mike Carona ? Isn't he running for re-election ?

Jeff Rambo
04-17-2006, 12:28 PM
Mike Carona's office has long been full of corruption, questionable ethics, and ineffective leadership.

Josh
04-17-2006, 3:10 PM
"I believe that it is the duty of the Sheriff to protect citizen’s constitutional rights not restrict them. The Sheriff swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We in law enforcement face both legal and administrative repercussions if we violate the 1st and 4th Amendments, and rightfully so. For some reason, there are no repercussions for the indiscriminate abuse of our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms."

Hunt (and esp Masse in LAC) can be either blunt and lose; subtle and win; or not even try. Which one do you want?

I read what was posted in the thread when it came out. And Yes it sounds good, but dont forget that others that believe in the 2nd have a different interpretation. NG only or only applies to sporting purposes. \

I understand he can not out right say "shall issue" but corona did come out and say that he will increase the number of permits given or streamline the process. I cant remember off the top of my head. If Lt. Hunt would say something along the lines of expanding the "good cause" definition or ensure every law abiding citizens right to self defense.

In that quoted statement he dosent directly say he supports the 2nd or that he is pro anything. He just states that LE is not punished for 2nd ammendment violations. Really the only thing he says he believes is in the first sentence. Everything after that is just stating facts.

To me it would be similar to saying, "I think cops do a good job. My name is Josh and I drive a car. Cops wear a uniform, the color of the OCSD uniform is green. The address of OCSD headquarters is 550 N. Flower St....."

If he would have just said, "I will ensure that the 2nd is protected just as equally as the 1st and 4th are" or to that effect I would put my mind more at ease.

I am just very wary of political figures and what they say.

Paladin
04-17-2006, 4:31 PM
SVTNate: I wrote "a mere 4 days ago" to point out that even if you hadn't known about/used the search fxn, you could find them by going back 2 pages into the history of this forum. Tone is often in the eye of the beholder w/postings. I was just tired (not much sleep last nite), not trying to be sarcastic or demeaning. Sorry if it came off as that or anything else negative.

Josh: He did more than just point out facts. By raising and questioning the inconsistent use of the doctrine of incorporation, he's signaling to us that he's on our side -- at least that's how I read it. He said he's for it for the 1st and 4th and questions why it isn't applied to the 2nd. No anti would, IMO, ever raise that issue. This is similar to pointing out that the ACLU never takes up 2nd A cases (unless the NG is a party :rolleyes: ). Because of the lack of application of the 2nd A to the states (Yet! Pray that Bush gets to appoint replacements for Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and/or Kennedy.), and the lack of a RKBA in the Kali Con, we still have the AWB (and probably the .50 ban would be upheld), and more might be coming down the pike.

The reason I'm for Shall Issue is that it is proven to lower rates of violent crime. Violent crime is the #1 justification used by the antis to get the undecideds to go w/them. IOW, Shall Issue will help protect all our gun rts.

Back on topic: Josh, I agree that the 2nd should be as inviolate as the 1st, but I don't think it would be appropriate for Hunt to put that in his platform. Why? Because sheriffs don't have any authority over that, the USSC does. If he takes a stand directly against the Court's holdings, the MSM would shoot him out of the water over it.

Perhaps someone should suggest to Hunt to put on his website that "as Sheriff, I will accept 'self-defense' as satisfying the state's CCW permit 'good cause' requirement."

stator
04-17-2006, 5:15 PM
I will depoliticize the process and establish an annual audit to review each application to ensure the process is unbiased, non-political and equitable.”

So my question is, with a shall-issue policy, why would Bill proprose such an audit? It is not needed for a shall-issue policy. Maybe it is because Bill does not believe in a shall-issue policy?

It is mostlikely because Bill believes in establishing a benchmark for what is acceptable self-defense and what is not. My Sheriff, Laurie Smith, did the same thing for Santa Clara county. She was claiming to reform the CCW process and make it more objective. She is (or was at the time of running) a member of the Republican party which she stated in a letter to me (she needed money). Many of Bill's keywords sound the same as Laurie's... audit, objective, etc. But look where Santa Clara county is with issued CCW's. It is a fraction of what it was before she took office. It was bad then and far worse now in trying to get a CCW (we have one CGN member who explained the hoops he had to go through to get his). She made reference to depoliticize the CCW process as well.

I am not saying whether Bill Hunt will be pro-CCW friendly or not. I do not know. But I do know two things:

1- I have not read anything from Bill regarding shall-issue.
2- What I have read sound remarkedbly similar to Laurie.

I do not have a dog in this hunt, obviously being in SCC. But I do encourage fellow CGN member in OC, to ask Bill point-blank several questions:

1- Will he implement a shall-issue policy for CCW?
2- What is an acceptable self-defense reason, and what is not?

Also, I would call up the OC Brady Center and ask them how do they size of each of the candidates for prosecuting gun crime and CCW.

BTW, shall-issue = self-defense. Same thing since self-defense is an inherited reason for getting a CCW.

Paladin
04-17-2006, 6:21 PM
I got these two emails off of a posting at packing.com's CA forum ( http://www.packing.org/community/laws_politics/listview/12668 ). Since they are cut & pasted from an email, the Qs are in the lower email and the As are in the upper email.

*****

Kimber,

The policy is about as straight forward and simple as I could make it. I will do what it says, nothing more, nothing less. Nothing more should be read into it.

I will not revoke already issued CCW's unless there is a reason to do so.

Already issued CCW's will remain valid until they expire which is typically two years after being issued.

The same policy will apply to renewals.

Nowhere in my policy do I call for an audit on existing CCW's, nor will I. The audit has nothing at all to do with issued CCW's. The purpose of the audit is to evaluate our process to ensure that CCW's are being issued according to the policy and are not being restricted by political interference. The audit is protection for YOU, the citizen to ensure we are not restricting your rights to obtain a CCW!

We will not require any more training than the law requires, which is 16 hours.

I have never even considered empanelling a board for the purpose of issuing CCW's. What would be the point?

Bill

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: Bill Hunt for Sheriff
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: Message from a Visitor to BillHuntForSheriff.com


Bill,
Appreciate the response, just one more follow-up question:
When you say you will audit once a year, does that mean the permit will have to be re-done every year?

Here are some of the rumors that I've heard from fellow shooters that perhaps you could clarify. I would be happy to spread the word on your behalf if some of these turn out to be not true!
If elected Bill Hunt will:

1. Require 40 hours mandatory training (current requirement is 16).
2. Immediately revoke all currently issued permits until review/audit process is completed.
3. Require every applicant to go before a "board" to demonstrate good cause.

I've lived in both Utah and Arizona (both shall issue states), and have had permits from both those states so I've seen the process from a very liberalized point of view and here in California from a very strict point of view and hope that someone can find middle ground. I'm a big Law enforcement supporter but realize at the same time that Law enforcement help usually arrives just after an incident as they can't be everywhere all the time. I believe that it is my responsibility to keep myself and my family safe.
Your name is popping up on many of the gun boards and I would be happy to help set things straight if you could give me a little more specific insight.

96hmco
04-17-2006, 10:48 PM
For those concerned with the symantics...............I find it fascinating that a candidate who has come onto this discussion board to allow us to hear his views would be so concerned with symantics as to ensure he could deliberately screw you for your vote.

Seriously.......isn't that what we have right now?

The rumor mill is in full spin........those currently holding CCW's are frieked out by the thought that the process would be reviewed.......please are you telling me you would rather have the current corruption and hang on to that precious CCW for another year before reupping I mean (cough) donating to the right cause.

As I have stated before and will state again.....even if you currently have a CCW, and are going to support a candidate whose right hand and left hand men have both been mired in legal controversies. The man himself mired in legal controversies. Seriously thanks for nothing.

Of course the rumors are going to abound about what Mr. Hunt will and will not do........read into the fact that Carona has not released any polls lately. The grass roots effort to get this corruption off the street is winning.

Mr. Hunt has put his job on the line to run against the current corruption. He has stated he is for the second ammendment. He has stated we will be eligable under the state guidlines. Hmmmmmmmm for those not willing to do the leg work. Can anyone be "Shall issue" in this state? I think not read up everyone in each county has to have a "reason" depending on the current Sheriff the reason can be "personal protection" and pass.

Symantics is an amazing thing.

I urge you to follow Mr. Hunt. and end the current corrpution. The badge has been weakened enough by the current Sheriff.

Josh
04-17-2006, 11:23 PM
For those concerned with the symantics...............I find it fascinating that a candidate who has come onto this discussion board to allow us to hear his views would be so concerned with symantics as to ensure he could deliberately screw you for your vote.

Seriously.......isn't that what we have right now?

The rumor mill is in full spin........those currently holding CCW's are frieked out by the thought that the process would be reviewed.......please are you telling me you would rather have the current corruption and hang on to that precious CCW for another year before reupping I mean (cough) donating to the right cause.

As I have stated before and will state again.....even if you currently have a CCW, and are going to support a candidate whose right hand and left hand men have both been mired in legal controversies. The man himself mired in legal controversies. Seriously thanks for nothing.

Of course the rumors are going to abound about what Mr. Hunt will and will not do........read into the fact that Carona has not released any polls lately. The grass roots effort to get this corruption off the street is winning.

Mr. Hunt has put his job on the line to run against the current corruption. He has stated he is for the second ammendment. He has stated we will be eligable under the state guidlines. Hmmmmmmmm for those not willing to do the leg work. Can anyone be "Shall issue" in this state? I think not read up everyone in each county has to have a "reason" depending on the current Sheriff the reason can be "personal protection" and pass.

Symantics is an amazing thing.

I urge you to follow Mr. Hunt. and end the current corrpution. The badge has been weakened enough by the current Sheriff.


Im not for or against anyone right now, but to out right say that he is going shall or near shall issue based on what has been typed is just misleading. Im not satisfied with the current leadership and his troubles but I want to make sure that everything is clear on where these candidates stand.

Just as you should not vote based on keeping your CCW you should not vote based on your ability to get one in the future, which is what this is turning into.

Also symantics is a game that politicians play all the time. To make sure you choose the lesser of two evils you need to dig through it all.

Paladin
04-25-2006, 5:31 PM
I came across the below on packing.org's CA state forum ( http://www.packing.org/community/laws_politics/listview/12668 ). Assuming it is true, this might help put to rest some lingering questions re Hunt's CCW issuance position.

*****

Posted Apr 13, 2006 @ 9:30 pm EDT
Update - Future OC Sheriff Bill Hunt is "Shall Issue"
For those of you who live in Orange County (California), I wanted to follow up on my last post for the OC Sheriff's election. I just spoke with Bill Hunt's campaign spokesperson, Tim Michelson (I believe that was his name). I asked him about who Bill would issue to and his response was, "to any jane or john." Well, I needed a little more clarification then that so I asked him if people who did not carry large sums of money, jewelery, or pharmaceuticals would be able to obtain a permit by stating on the application that the firearm would be used for everyday carry, self defense, etc..... Tim said, "yes", it would be issued. This is very encouraging indeed!!!!!!! It would be nice to have a county down here in southern california go shall-issue. This would really start putting pressure on other county Sheriffs to do the same or be voted out. Remember June 6 is election day.