PDA

View Full Version : turn on armstrong and getty the cw discussion


hammerhands32
10-21-2010, 7:25 AM
ShersaidMcginnis was just on armstrong and getty. Mcginnis said he gives out Ccws but nobody applies. He takes his oath to the constitution seriously he said.

hammerhands32
10-21-2010, 7:37 AM
Cooper came on and made some good points. Brought up" good cause", and basically said self defense is good cause. He wouldn't cross Mcginnis but did say the sheriff's department has created a culture that does not apply for fear of rejection.

MP301
10-21-2010, 7:45 AM
I dont have access right now...so keep up with the play by play!

domino
10-21-2010, 7:46 AM
wow McGinness also said "in a few weeks Sykes will be defeated".

Brandon and Gray : what do you guys attribute him to saying this? He also said he issued 90 permits last year, but from what I have heard 50 of those were for the Sheriff department employees, mainly the security guards that work at the dam and places like that, sine they are security guards they cant carry off duty so they applied and recieved ccw's. This is pretty interesting...

Shenaniguns
10-21-2010, 7:49 AM
He said that they offered 215 (228 applied) so far this year, and he says that Sykes and Mcguiness is not the reason that they loosened his policy. He seems pretty ticked off and is arguing with Armstrong lol...

domino
10-21-2010, 7:53 AM
...


last year 90 were issued, 50 were security guards for the Sheriffs department, the year before that only 6 were issued. He says it is not due to Sykes and that Sykes will be tossed out in a few weeks. Arstrong and Getty are saying this is all political right now .

hammerhands32
10-21-2010, 7:56 AM
Mcginnis was hot. Said Jack basically lied about the number of permits. Kind of funny

domino
10-21-2010, 7:59 AM
I think it just goes to show you what kind of administration has been running the show over there, it really does. I dont understand why he thinks Sykes will be tossed in a few weeks.

samonya
10-21-2010, 8:03 AM
Damn, I missed it too. Ill podcast it asap. Why won't McGinness's boy post his ccw stance on his website, like Cooper ?

domino
10-21-2010, 8:08 AM
Damn, I missed it too. Ill podcast it asap. Why won't McGinness's boy post his ccw stance on his website, like Cooper ?

well that way you cant hold his feet to the fire when he changes his mind. McGinness just said that Sykes isnt a factor in CCW's and will be tossed in a few weeks. Jones is his legal advisor right? Arstrong and Getty say this is all political... I agree with them, Cooper has put it in writting , you can print it out and hold him to it. Jones is a wordsmith, Im sure he has carefully worded things that he is saying about CCW's right now, I wouldnt doubt it if he changed policy should he win.

samonya
10-21-2010, 8:10 AM
Sounds right to me. Im glad their talking about these issues on the show more.

Gray Peterson
10-21-2010, 8:11 AM
If anyone can post the audio when it becomes available, please let us know so we can listen.

domino
10-21-2010, 8:16 AM
If anyone can post the audio when it becomes available, please let us know so we can listen.

go to kste.com

domino
10-21-2010, 8:18 AM
i will post the podcast as soon as it is up....

Havoc70
10-21-2010, 8:21 AM
You can download it from my server at:

http://archon.silvertree.org/ang_ccw.mp3

To download, right click the link above and use "Save Target As" or "Save Link As".


It's a pretty fast connection, 5 Mbps upstream.

bruss01
10-21-2010, 8:27 AM
It's up here: http://www.talk650kste.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=armandgettypodcast.xml



Heh, not anymore. Guess the tin star didn't like the way he sounded on tape.

Thanks for hosting it, I was able to download it from your site.

domino
10-21-2010, 8:35 AM
I zipped it but it is still too large to upload...if anyone wants it PM me and I wil email it to you.

bruss01
10-21-2010, 8:48 AM
I just listened to the Sheriff's segment. He was a bit defensive, but in fairness the interview was pretty aggressive. I can't imagine why he thinks Sykes would be going away, maybe they plan to make a settlement offer? I guess if you settle, you didn't technically "lose" the suit.

N6ATF
10-21-2010, 8:49 AM
"Without admitting guilt, I offer to stop doing all the things that make me guilty."

not-fishing
10-21-2010, 9:55 AM
At this stage of the suit - and in order to set real precidence - why would Sykes settle?

jdberger
10-21-2010, 10:04 AM
You can download it from my server at:

http://archon.silvertree.org/ang_ccw.mp3

To download, right click the link above and use "Save Target As" or "Save Link As".


It's a pretty fast connection, 5 Mbps upstream.

Thanks for posting that, Havoc.

Write Winger
10-21-2010, 10:15 AM
http://www.kste.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=armandgettypodcast.xml

jdberger
10-21-2010, 10:28 AM
that guy sounds like the_quark....

Same diction!

Brett? What's your connection to Armstrong & Getty?

TregoMark
10-21-2010, 10:32 AM
McGinness was wrong wrong wrong. He claimed the reason why so few CCWs were issued every year was only because few people applied. The fact is to show good cause in Sac Co, you had to be a business person handling large amounts of money, lawmaker or in someone who's received credible death threats. For years, the average law abiding Joe couldn't get a CCW in Sac Co and everyone knew it. He stated they had a 90% approval rate on apps. Really? Well no s***. The only people who apply are the ones who know they will get it. One of the most outrageous things he said was he denied employees in his own department! Not even due to lack of "good cause', but due to other issues like mental health or physical ability. These are his employees? I used to respect McGinness. Not anymore. I already voted for Cooper and I'm glad I did.

Havoc70
10-21-2010, 10:37 AM
Thanks for posting that, Havoc.

No problem! I'll keep it hosted for as long as needed. My little server is happy to oblige :).

thebronze
10-21-2010, 11:23 AM
Sheriff Turkey-Neck is a liar. Plain and simple.

Scott Jones is a carbon-copy of him. Go ahead, vote for him.

N6ATF
10-21-2010, 11:29 AM
Sheriff Turkey-Neck is a lair.

LMFAO

bruss01
10-21-2010, 12:49 PM
I could see denying someone for a legitimate physical condition reason... let's say someone applied, had no criminal history and no mental illness... but they have epilepsy or narcolepsy or some other incapacitating condition. It's not that they would use the gun carelessly, but while they are incapacitated, if in public, anyone could walk up and take their gun, including children or miscreants. Or let's say Suzie Q applies, and she has a clean record... but she is the known shag-toy of notorious Gangbanger X. Her purse has basically become his CCW pocket, and her permit allows him instant access to a gun within arm's reach 24/7. Now, I still don't buy either of those as a legit denial reason, but McG did not even TRY to cite any legit-sounding reasons to deny the average Joe. In a SHALL ISSUE state, both the cases above, a permit would BY LAW have to be issued. And the "Good Cause" requirement was never mentioned. They did briefly touch on "Good Moral Character" with the DUI issue. To most people, that qualifies as "having a record" even if you are not a felon. Certainly it does point to questions regarding a person's good judgment. If a person will go out and handle a deadly vehicle while soused, you have to wonder about their safety with a deadly weapon while soused.

Anyway, he says they don't issue because we don't apply. Let's take that excuse away from them.

TregoMark
10-21-2010, 1:01 PM
One other thing that struck me was how he characterized carrying a weapon as a "burden". I don't think carrying is a burden. I don't think of protecting my life or the life of my loved ones as a "burden". That right there points to his attitude that law abiding citizens shouldn't carry. Letís discourage the average Joe because it's a "burden" to carry. Yes, it is an awesome responsibility. But properly trained, law abiding people should carry concealed if they wish to. All you need to do is ask that guy one question: Do you think the average law abiding citizen in Sac County should be able to carry concealed if they wish to. He will never answer that question with a "yes". Good by and good riddance.

bruss01
10-21-2010, 2:15 PM
I think maybe he was implying "sure, get the permit if you want, but you may find carrying all the time to be a pain in the keister". And to a certain extent, he has a point. You have to be a lot more aware, all the time. There was an article in Harpers recently about this. There is a certain amount of discomfort, both physical and social, in carrying all the time. Got to watch yourself... don't go forgetting and wander into a post office while packing. Most of us can't take it into our place of work... so are you going to leave it at home, or leave it in the car? If at home, then did you really need the permit, and if in the car, aren't you worried about it being stolen from your parked vehicle? If you get hugged by a relative at Thanksgiving and they feel your gun, are they going to be freaked out? Will they make a scene? If you have kids, making sure it is safe each and every time you take it off and put it on... face it, it's not like your wallet or car keys that you can just leave laying around with small children present.

That's all I think he was saying there... When you pick up the permit, and strap on the gun, there are a lot of downsides that the typical "Yeah! I want's to pack me a heater!" yahoo doesn't think about (present company here excepted, of course). And truth be told, even those who have permits, unless they live some kind of exceptional life (an exception, in that they are a law officer, a jeweler or someone who carries briefcases full of cash regularly) will probably only actually carry on those times when something in the back of their mind says "better safe than sorry" and not 24/7/365.

hoffmang
10-21-2010, 2:42 PM
wow McGinness also said "in a few weeks Sykes will be defeated".

Brandon and Gray : what do you guys attribute him to saying this?

:whistling: Two weeks!

-Gene

Davidwhitewolf
10-21-2010, 8:11 PM
:whistling: Two weeks!

-Gene

You mean election day? :43:

ColdDeadHands1
10-21-2010, 9:07 PM
That was a great interview by Jack Armstrong and he sure held his ground. However, he was starving for more facts. Armed with what we all know is going down with Sykes, more factual data on McGinnis's issuance policies and CCW in general in this state I feel Jack could have devastated him.

A&G are one of the few mainstream radio hosts willing to dedicate this much time to CCW issues (Savage maybe?). Seems like a call in to them by a CGF board member or Gene himself could get us some great airtime with lots of Bay Area / Sac exposure.

So how about it? Can someone from the CGF get on the horn with A&G and schedule some air time?

mbuna
10-21-2010, 9:12 PM
^^^^^^
This.

McGinness' stance on CCW is very similar to Obamas stance on nuclear power. They're both all for it, just not on their watch.

Anti-Hero
10-21-2010, 9:12 PM
McGinness is a slime ball politician.

the_quark
10-21-2010, 10:28 PM
At this stage of the suit - and in order to set real precidence - why would Sykes settle?

When the other side capitulates, you generally can't continue to press the attack.

See, for example, when NRA sued the San Francisco Housing Authority. Everybody was like "Why did those wimps at the NRA settle?" I can tell you I saw Chuck Michel a couple of days before that happened and he was cursing up a blue streak, because there was nothing he could do except settle, once they said they'd give in.

ETA: Oh, and, Brandon, wasn't me, man.

ColdDeadHands1
10-21-2010, 10:55 PM
When the other side capitulates, you generally can't continue to press the attack.

So am I reading between the lines correctly that McGinness is going to settle and issue CCW's to the plaintiffs in this case? Does that mean no verdict will be issued? And if that is the case, then are we without the long awaited legal precedent that will force the rest of the state into virtual shall issue?

Hopefully I'm way off base here.

the_quark
10-21-2010, 11:00 PM
So am I reading between the lines correctly that McGinness is going to settle and issue CCW's to the plaintiffs in this case? Does that mean no verdict will be issued? And if that is the case, then are we without the long awaited legal precedent that will force the rest of the state into virtual shall issue?

Hopefully I'm way off base here.

The original poster was hypothetically asking "why" Sykes would settle at this point, given the precedent on the line. My point was, if (hypothetically) McGinness caved, changed his policy to be "shall issue" and granted Sykes a 12050 license, Sykes wouldn't have much choice about settling.

That said, however, if that happens, you may note that there is another plaintiff in the case, suing another Sheriff, who has made absolutely no noises about folding. In that eventuality, the case would become Richards v. Prieto, and proceed against Yolo county without interruption.

Bret Daniels
10-22-2010, 8:39 AM
The original poster was hypothetically asking "why" Sykes would settle at this point, given the precedent on the line. My point was, if (hypothetically) McGinness caved, changed his policy to be "shall issue" and granted Sykes a 12050 license, Sykes wouldn't have much choice about settling.

That said, however, if that happens, you may note that there is another plaintiff in the case, suing another Sheriff, who has made absolutely no noises about folding. In that eventuality, the case would become Richards v. Prieto, and proceed against Yolo county without interruption.

But does that mean if Sykes settles, which I'm not sure is required simply because McGinness hands her a permit in that the violation of her rights already occurred at the time of denial and she could seek monetary damages for that (or maybe that's part of the settlement offer???), and the case proceeds only against Prieto, does that part of the case resolve the good cause/"Shall Issue" fight or is it than considered moot and the sought relief is mainly the residency requirement??? I'm not a lawyer but I'm starting to feel my panties getting twisted (and yanked if this "settlement/announcement" is timed for immediately before the election which will make it feel orchestrated).

the_quark
10-22-2010, 8:51 AM
But does that mean if Sykes settles, which I'm not sure is required simply because McGinness hands her a permit in that the violation of her rights already occurred at the time of denial and she could seek monetary damages for that (or maybe that's part of the settlement offer???), and the case proceeds only against Prieto, does that part of the case resolve the good cause/"Shall Issue" fight or is it than considered moot and the sought relief is mainly the residency requirement??? I'm not a lawyer but I'm starting to feel my panties getting twisted (and yanked if this "settlement/announcement" is timed for immediately before the election which will make it feel orchestrated).

Again, speaking hypothetically, this would all depend on the details of a settlement offer. The original question was, "[conceivably], why would Sykes settle?" My point is often in a case you can't continue to press when the other side capitulates. I'm not saying there is such offer, I'm just reminding everyone that "continuing to beat on your opponent" often isn't an option in a legal case.

putput
10-22-2010, 8:56 AM
What if every sherif in every county settles on every issue we may have with them and then all of a sudden they are all following the law (shall issue and non discriminatory or burdensome CCW) as intended?

I'll bunch up my panties and throw them on the rock star stage of the CGF if that happens... :D




But does that mean if Sykes settles, which I'm not sure is required simply because McGinness hands her a permit in that the violation of her rights already occurred at the time of denial and she could seek monetary damages for that (or maybe that's part of the settlement offer???), and the case proceeds only against Prieto, does that part of the case resolve the good cause/"Shall Issue" fight or is it than considered moot and the sought relief is mainly the residency requirement??? I'm not a lawyer but I'm starting to feel my panties getting twisted (and yanked if this "settlement/announcement" is timed for immediately before the election which will make it feel orchestrated).

Gray Peterson
10-22-2010, 9:46 AM
But does that mean if Sykes settles, which I'm not sure is required simply because McGinness hands her a permit in that the violation of her rights already occurred at the time of denial and she could seek monetary damages for that (or maybe that's part of the settlement offer???), and the case proceeds only against Prieto, does that part of the case resolve the good cause/"Shall Issue" fight or is it than considered moot and the sought relief is mainly the residency requirement??? I'm not a lawyer but I'm starting to feel my panties getting twisted (and yanked if this "settlement/announcement" is timed for immediately before the election which will make it feel orchestrated).

Bret, why is it that every time a discussion involving Sykes, you try to make it about the election and try to point fingers at Jones and try to make any victory for CGF all about the elections?

I am getting very annoyed that you're attack dogging for Cooper, instead of focusing on how Cooper will improve CCW issuance in other threads. Focusing on the positive and what Cooper will do for gun owners is better than attacking Scott Jones. People prefer catharsis, not conflict.

Bret Daniels
10-24-2010, 9:06 PM
Bret, why is it that every time a discussion involving Sykes, you try to make it about the election and try to point fingers at Jones and try to make any victory for CGF all about the elections?

I am getting very annoyed that you're attack dogging for Cooper, instead of focusing on how Cooper will improve CCW issuance in other threads. Focusing on the positive and what Cooper will do for gun owners is better than attacking Scott Jones. People prefer catharsis, not conflict.

Gray, I think you read too much into what I wrote. I mainly expressed a legal concern which I would defer to your expertise in looking for a response. You chose not to respond to my concern, which I think others might reasonably share, for the legal outcome (settlement?) and instead attack my concern for the timing of the settlement, if in fact it occurs in the next week, and the coincidence to the election. My concerns for the latter are based on my expertise in the political arena having been involved heavily in politics for the past 12 years. I'll accept your expertise and I would ask that you extend the same courtesy.

No where in my comments can you point to anything I said that was disparaging about CGF or Sykes. In fact, it is just the opposite. The "victory" belongs to CGF and Sykes. My comment is simply a reflection that the timing is too much of a coincidence that if it does occur pre-election, it would be obvious that the Sheriff timed it as such and in doing so abused the members here and jeopardized the public safety. Unlike as the Sheriff expressed, I don't believe either universe is exclusive in the CCW arena.

And I certainly haven't placed this on Scott Jones' shoulders. After all, it's not "his name on the door", right?

Oh, and I hardly think that the majority of people on this site prefer catharsis to conflict (especially you counselor..haha), otherwise they wouldn't be here and instead would be sitting at home knitting wool like the majority of "sheep" in our country.

Thank you for your work and I hope that you will take the opportunity to respond to my legal concern for Sykes, if in fact the case settles.