PDA

View Full Version : Why dont we try and get a LTC friendly sheriff elected?


Tacobandit
08-28-2011, 8:45 AM
Wouldnt that be easier then suing constantly? Devote some of the funds used to fight these lawsuits and sponsor someone who will be more friendly towards 2A rights?

sirsloth
08-28-2011, 8:54 AM
Who is we? I voted for a LTC friendly sheriff.

Paladin
08-28-2011, 8:54 AM
Wouldnt that be easier then suing constantly? Devote some of the funds used to fight these lawsuits and sponsor someone who will be more friendly towards 2A rights?

Wow! Why didn't we think of that???

You should really go over to www.calccw.com and see what they say.... :smilielol5:

But seriously, that's MUCH easier said than done.

ETA: It will work ONLY where there isn't an incumbent running (unless he's under some sort of corruption investigation or said something not PC), or an "anointed" successor of a long-term incumbent AND there's a close race AND there's organized LTC activists AND being pro-LTC isn't a political killer, esp w/local media (IOW won't work in the major urban counties that are the anti holdouts), AND . . . by the time of the next sheriffs races, we should have won Shall Issue for the entire country via the federal courts, so why are you suggesting we switch back to a losing strategy???

Sheriffs come and go (your investment $$$ would have short-term impact), but SCOTUS declared "fundamental rights" last a looooong time.

epcii
08-28-2011, 9:04 AM
Because there aren't too many of them out there.

hoffmang
08-28-2011, 9:14 AM
It is a viable strategy but in a very limited number of counties. Also, you'll usually find that the counties where this is a viable strategy - the current sheriff is usually pretty friendly.

-Gene

Tacobandit
08-28-2011, 9:36 AM
Guys I am aware of the difficulty of this, I am just wondering why a portion of the strategy is not dedicated to trying to find a suitable candidate to run against someone like Baca and make a big issue out of the ccw permits and how he can justify that there have hired 1 new deputy in 18 months when they have a huge attrition rate and a response time of 10+ to try and yet state that we do not get the capacity to defend ourselves. It would make for an interesting election.

Paladin
08-28-2011, 9:44 AM
Guys I am aware of the difficulty of this, I am just wondering why a portion of the strategy is not dedicated to trying to find a suitable candidate to run against someone like Baca and make a big issue out of the ccw permits and how he can justify that there have hired 1 new deputy in 18 months when they have a huge attrition rate and a response time of 10+ to try and yet state that we do not get the capacity to defend ourselves. It would make for an interesting election.
Yeah, I and another CNGer did just that about, oh, 5.5 years ago when we started the late www.californiaccw.org
ETA: that link now redirects to calccw.com, a different org (business) started by different folks (most of whom had been at the .org). I was NOT involved w/the founding of the .com

Go to my profile, look back for a thread I started titled something like "The LA CCW Challenge" (started one for OC too) back in early spring 2006, and you'll see what wasted about 2 yrs of my RKBA activism efforts. (But all was not wasted, TBJ folks got together there before breaking off as did calccw.com folks... :confused: Oh, never mind! ;) LOL)

In a thread I started here about 3.5 years ago, I think it's title suggested passing *local* (i.e., county level) term-limits for specific anti counties' sheriffs, I laid out why incumbent sheriffs are sooo hard to replace -- basically set for life unless they really mess up. See what I ETA'ed in my 1st post above.

Outta here for the rest of today....

M. D. Van Norman
08-28-2011, 9:50 AM
In fact, this was the strategy for many years, and it had significant success in the rural counties. See the recent debacle in Orange County to learn how the strategy came up short in urban areas.

CitaDeL
08-28-2011, 9:50 AM
It is a viable strategy but in a very limited number of counties. Also, you'll usually find that the counties where this is a viable strategy - the current sheriff is usually pretty friendly.

-Gene

I disagree. Even where it is presumed that the sheriff is 'friendly' there is absolutely no way to ensure that they will follow the law in every circumstance.

Election can help position those who are 'open' to issuance, however even once elected, the only way sheriffs will be compelled to follow the law is to litigate.

I am not so concerned with those sheriffs who openly defy the law and prove it with their policies as I am with those who claim to follow the law, claim to love the 2nd amendment while surrepititiously undermining it.

OleCuss
08-28-2011, 9:57 AM
Paladin's post is key.

Concentrate on the courts. The process is cheaper, has a higher probability of success (on average), and favorable outcomes are more durable.

RomanDad
08-28-2011, 11:00 AM
Wouldnt that be easier then suing constantly? Devote some of the funds used to fight these lawsuits and sponsor someone who will be more friendly towards 2A rights?

No incumbent Sheriff has EVER failed to be reelected in the entire history of the state.

Crom
08-28-2011, 11:08 AM
I'll take binding litigation over politics every day of the week.

Tarn_Helm
08-28-2011, 11:21 AM
Wouldnt that be easier then suing constantly? Devote some of the funds used to fight these lawsuits and sponsor someone who will be more friendly towards 2A rights?

Read this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=32688

Read this article about Sheriff Moonbeam (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-baca7may07,1,7259449.story).

Also, within a day or two of defeating Ken Masse, Moonbeam's underlings stripped him of his LTC (CCW).

:chris:

Gray Peterson
08-28-2011, 12:07 PM
Folks,

This is not an appropriate strategy in this era. In 2010, for example, individual members assisted in Lake and El Dorado counties, helping get current sheriff's Rivero and D'Agostini elected.

Sheriff Mitchell of Lake county, who was an incumbent, was brought down by numerous factors, such as a frame up of an innocent civilian with a boating accident and so on. However, Mitchell attempted to smear Sheriff Rivero as a "San Francisco Liberal" who would revoke people's carry licenses and clamp down.

Myself and others spread the word that Rivero was not like that, and that Mitchell flat out told me he would not eliminate the illegal requirements that his LTC unit has for carry license applicants unless ordered by a court. At that point, I declared Sheriff Mitchell to be anti-gun and told people on this forum to vote for Rivero. Sheriff Rivero eliminated nearly all of the illegal requirements, including reference letters and so on.

D'Agostini was the underdog candidate against the other candidate, Therkeldsen. Lots and lots of smearing there. Originally, the sheriff candidate thought he couldn't just issue for self defense. After having a long phone conversation with the candidate, he agreed and publicly announced he would issue for "self defense" as good cause. After that situation was published, numerous members from CalGuns started helping D'Agostini.

Compare and contrast Lake and El Dorado counties with Orange and you'll see why it's ineffective. No sheriff will be up for re-election until 2014. By that time, we will have a carry ruling and none of this will matter. 2010 is the last year sheriff electoral politics mean ANYTHING in the state of California....

dantodd
08-28-2011, 12:58 PM
Wouldnt that be easier then suing constantly? Devote some of the funds used to fight these lawsuits and sponsor someone who will be more friendly towards 2A rights?

First andmforemost it is essentially a futile effort. My sheriff was literally caught in a whorehousecafter being appointed but before he ever stood for election. He ran unopposed the next round. It really is that bad.

Second. Focusing the fund raising efforts etc. toward litigation any success is good statewide, pouring that money into local elections would be getting less leverage. It also accepts the notion that the sheriff should have the auority to deny a law abiding Californian the right to bear arms.

This doesn't mean that one shouldn't support the sheriff candidate who is the most friendly to the RKBA when a seat is legitimately contested. Just don't expect a statewide group to pour money and out of area effort into the race.

Fjold
08-28-2011, 1:10 PM
No incumbent Sheriff has EVER failed to be reelected in the entire history of the state.

Donny Youngblood beat the incumbent Mack Wimbish in Kern County in 2006.

morrcarr67
08-28-2011, 1:11 PM
@ Gray Peterson. Thank you for that info.

Also, thank you and all the others; like Gene, Brandon and those who I can't think of right now, for all that you do for all of the rest of us.

Andy Taylor
08-28-2011, 2:00 PM
That strategey has been tried here in Sacramento county since at least 1994. There has always been at least one pro 2A/LTC candidate on the ballet. It didn't work. Sueing Sheriff McGuiness worked.

Kid Stanislaus
08-28-2011, 2:16 PM
No sheriff will be up for re-election until 2014. By that time, we will have a carry ruling and none of this will matter. 2010 is the last year sheriff electoral politics mean ANYTHING in the state of California....

This is music to my ears even though I've already got my LTC due to living in Stanislaus Co. Great work by our CGF folk. ;)

paul0660
08-28-2011, 2:19 PM
Wouldnt that be easier then suing constantly? Devote some of the funds used to fight these lawsuits and sponsor someone who will be more friendly towards 2A rights?

I am not paying attention to someone who, evidently, has managed to sell something here but who, evidently, cannot figure out how to tell us where he lives.

"More friendly", btw, means nothing. We aren't supposed to call out trolls anymore, so WHATEVER.

sholling
08-28-2011, 4:06 PM
As long as it's illegal for the peasantry to run for sheriff it's a lost cause to bother trying to toss out an incumbent sheriff. And that's been illegal since the legislature banned peasants from that office back in the 1980s to protect the unpopular incumbent Orange County sheriff from being defeated at the polls by a popular judge running for the seat. It is quite literally The Incumbent Sheriff Protection Act even if they don't call it that. But even if it were possible to run for sheriff the amount of money that a sitting sheriff can raise from well connected and well heeled donors seeking a LTC or hoping to keep theirs is pretty hard to beat. Finally the California RINO party would back Buford T. Justice for reelection just because they see backing incumbent sheriff as supporting law enforcement no matter how bad the choice.

Cokebottle
08-28-2011, 4:12 PM
In fact, this was the strategy for many years, and it had significant success in the rural counties. See the recent debacle in Orange County to learn how the strategy came up short in urban areas.
+1

Unless something is codified in law at the state level, we are never more than one election or appointment away from losing our rights.

And even in counties with a permissive CLEO, we still have illegal requirements and fees added on. It's not that the CLEO imposed them... they've always been in place. Such is the case in the IE, where Rod Hoops will issue for personal protection, virtually nobody is denied, but you need multiple character references, they do an employer and a neighborhood check, and the total investment is around $250.

Neighborhood check? My neighbors are one of the reasons I want an LTC.

Cokebottle
08-28-2011, 4:15 PM
We aren't supposed to call out trolls anymore, so WHATEVER.
I didn't get that memo.

But I agree.... there have been a lot of legitimate posters being called "troll" simply because someone disagreed with them.