PDA

View Full Version : EBTP Hosts Sheriff Livingston Feb 6, 6:30-8:30 PM, Danville


bluenoise
02-04-2012, 8:26 AM
The East Bay Tea Party will be hosting Contra Costa County Sheriff Livingston at its monthly meeting in Danville next Monday evening. The meeting will be held at the Sycamore Valley Clubhouse, 635 Old Orchard Drive, Danville. All are invited to attend.

The topic of his visit is All About Sheriffs: The Role of the Sheriff in our Community. A video of the Sheriff Panel from Siskiyou County will also be shown at the meeting.

We hope to talk to the sheriff about 2A issues in the county. Of course, such discussion would be conducted professionally and respectfully and we ask that attendees act accordingly.

Gray Peterson
02-04-2012, 11:33 AM
What is the rules & format of the QA session. It's very important that I know....

bluenoise
02-04-2012, 1:35 PM
I do not know exactly how it will go, but the typical guest speaker does a presentation, followed by a Q & A period after their presentation.

safewaysecurity
02-04-2012, 1:56 PM
Holy crap. This is perfect. It's the right environment ( Tea Party ) , so we need to get a bunch of CGers out there and hopefully we can get someone who is articulate and intelligent to ask him a question relating to his policy on issuance of LTCs. As has been witnessed he is issuing more than the previous Sheriff. It would be good to get his answer in front of a public forum of people that are most likely supporters of right to carry.

Librarian
02-04-2012, 2:33 PM
As has been witnessed he is issuing more than the previous Sheriff.

Huh?

This is the Contra Costa Sheriff - continuing the policies of the last two Sheriffs, with 26 permits out to civilians as of last September's data, for a county with 788,000 adult residents.

safewaysecurity
02-04-2012, 2:39 PM
Huh?

This is the Contra Costa Sheriff - continuing the policies of the last two Sheriffs, with 26 permits out to civilians as of last September's data, for a county with 788,000 adult residents.

I know. But I saw somewhere that he was issuing more than the previous Sheriff. It's not much but it's still more than the previous one. The county having 788,000 adults residents doesn't tell me how many people have applied for LTCs during the new Sheriff's time. But I have heard more have been approved and I believe at least 2 CGers have been approved under the new Sheriff. I still have yet to apply.

I open carry
02-04-2012, 2:59 PM
DO NOT believe that he is issuing more. That is false. HE is as ANTI as the last 40 yrs

Gray Peterson
02-04-2012, 3:04 PM
DO NOT believe that he is issuing more. That is false. HE is as ANTI as the last 40 yrs

according to the CGF 2011 LTC stats, he currently has 26 active licenses out. Versus 11 licenses in the last year of the previous sheriff....

vincewarde
02-04-2012, 3:15 PM
I wish those in my former county the best of luck. If I were there this is the question I would ask: "Given that some very well respected legal scholars believe that the 2nd Amendment right may result in a court ordered transition to a "shall issue" CCW system - how would you respond to such a mandate?"

The only way CCC will ever issue permits to people for simple self defense is if they are ordered to do so by the courts. It would be good to know what he plans to do when it happens. For instance would he be prepared to process a large number of applications?

berto
02-04-2012, 6:29 PM
An interesting opportunity to question the sheriff though I'd wager BS answers re: LTC. Actions over words. It seems like he's going to be one of the last holdouts.

mag360
02-04-2012, 7:04 PM
just ask him "what are your reasons to not follow a 'shall issue' carry license policy leaving law abiding citizens with no means of protection outside their home"

Gray Peterson
02-04-2012, 7:24 PM
just ask him "what are your reasons to not follow a 'shall issue' carry license policy leaving law abiding citizens with no means of protection outside their home"

There are more important questions that need to be asked before asking this question, and even then, this question needs to be added with more language in regards to current legal challenges. There really needs to be a three-part question. What good is "personal protection" if he is intentionally continuing Sheriff Rupf's policy of refusing to accept apps from city resident despite a statutory duty to do so?

Questions need to be carefully coordinated and asked step by step by step. Asking him the question like this at the beginning will cause him to get defensive and clam up, because you're asking him a political questions rather than a legal one.

Sheriff Livingston is an admitted member of the California Bar. That's right, folks, he's a lawyer.

CalBar Entry (http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/170960)

Sheriff's Biography (http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=63)

Notice the business address being the same?

That being said, he's not a lawyer with the knowledge of 2nd amendment issues like Alan Gura. But we need to get a question asked of the subject to be mostly legal questions, not political. He's the sheriff of a large agency. The chances of him even receiving letters from lawyers over his policy is very slim to none, especially if underlings or county counsel are insulting him from it. He's too "busy" typically. He should understand words like "statutory duty" and "statutory prohibition". Maybe you could hand him CGF's model policy, and despite letters being sent to his agency with the model policy, this meeting might be the first time that he himself has will see it on paper...

Watch this thread, folks.

safewaysecurity
02-04-2012, 7:29 PM
according to the CGF 2011 LTC stats, he currently has 26 active licenses out. Versus 11 licenses in the last year of the previous sheriff....

Lol thanks, didn't want people thinking I was crazy for saying that.


Watch this thread, folks.

Why, is CGF sending someone to the event?

jdberger
02-04-2012, 8:09 PM
Lol thanks, didn't want people thinking I was crazy for saying that.



Why, is CGF sending someone to the event?

Yes. Please contact me if you're planning on attending.

Rossi357
02-04-2012, 8:47 PM
Ask him which of the other individual rights stops at your front door.

Gray Peterson
02-04-2012, 10:58 PM
Ask him which of the other individual rights stops at your front door.

That's nice, but as of right now, it's a political question, not a legal one. Nothing is served by asking confrontational questions as the first question out of the gate. Gun owners, from a public relations perspective, need to be articulate and not engage in debating with the guest. Ask questions that require simple yes or no answers.

See my previous statements on what kinds of questions to ask. Since I'm 900 miles away, JD is working on the issue. Coordinate with him.

BusBoy
02-04-2012, 11:27 PM
Yes. Please contact me if you're planning on attending.

JD I will plan on being there...

jdberger
02-05-2012, 1:27 AM
JD I will plan on being there...

Excellent. I'll send you a PM in the morning.

zvardan
02-05-2012, 11:34 AM
Is it open for all? I want to attend.

jdberger
02-05-2012, 12:02 PM
Is it open for all? I want to attend.

It's an East Bay Tea Party event, and yes, I think it's open to everyone.

NewGuy1911
02-05-2012, 12:31 PM
Can one or more of Calguns main players please contact (PM) me regarding the Danville Tea Party meet. Good meet to show support?

nicki
02-05-2012, 1:25 PM
Being respectful could save litigation.

The words you use could make a difference, backing him into a corner versus giving him a way to save face could if you are lucky, get you virtual shall issue.

Instead of talking shall issue, how about equal issue.

Sheriff Rupf's issaunce policies on their face conflict with equal rights protections of both the CA state constitution art 1 sec 7 b and the 14th amendment, will he change policies so that all applicants for ccw permits are treated equally under the law?

Follow up wit that there are indications that CCW permits are being issued on a crony basis, since ccw permits, especially the good cause statements are public records, will him end this practice and bring full transparency to the ccw permit system?

State law Ab 2022 sets standard policies with regards to ccw permit issuance policies, will he bring the department into compliance with state law?

2 federal 9th circuit courts have ruled we have a right to bear arms in public for self defense. In both the Peruta and Richards cases the federal judges upheld the current may issue CCW permit process since individuals could openly bear arms, thus they could exercise their second amendment rights to bear arms.

Since it is now illegal to openly bear arms openly in California with passage of AB144,the only way a person can exercise their fundamental right to bear arms for self defense is with a ccw permit.

Since it is illegal to use deadly force except for protecting one's life or protection from serious bodily harm, will "self defense" which is the core of the second amendmend be acceptable for good cause?

The 9th circuit of appeals (Nordyke) ruled that the second amendment's core purpose is self defense and that any challenges to gun laws must show that they burden the right of self defense.

Sheriff Rupf's CCW policies didn't just burden second amendment right to bear arms, it effectively eliminated it for the general population. Are you going to continue these policies and leave the residents of Contra Costa county exposed for civilrights lawsuits when we don't have money for government services or are you gonna do the right thing and change ccw policies to make them compliant with both the 2nd and 14 amendment?

I am sure there are other questions many could ask, since I can't make it, here are the questions I would ask.

Nicki

Gray Peterson
02-05-2012, 2:51 PM
Being respectful could save litigation.

The words you use could make a difference, backing him into a corner versus giving him a way to save face could if you are lucky, get you virtual shall issue.

This is exactly what we're talking about here. Asking the right questions, in the right form, in the right time.

You would be surprised how much the guy up top is insulated from the issue of carry licensing, especially in a large urban county. Sheriff Livingston isn't stupid, but he's a high level manager first and foremost and doesn't get to the nitty gritty of the issue. But if it's presented to him by constituents directly at a meeting, then he's aware.

-Gray

safewaysecurity
02-05-2012, 3:06 PM
Yes. Please contact me if you're planning on attending.

Actually I might attend depending on how my day goes tomorrow. I might be able to make it maybe not. But I will prepare a question so I cover all bases so he can't weasel out of the answering the question.

Gray Peterson
02-05-2012, 5:43 PM
Actually I might attend depending on how my day goes tomorrow. I might be able to make it maybe not. But I will prepare a question so I cover all bases so he can't weasel out of the answering the question.

Please contact JD for the pertinent questions to ask. No wildcatting.

Librarian
02-05-2012, 9:08 PM
The Calguns contingent will have a little pre-meeting co-ordination session, starting about 6 PM. I haven't been to the site, so can't say exactly where.

Maybe I'll have a sign...

PM me or jdberger if you can make it.

As already noted, nice and easy does it.

Given the time of the meeting (6 pm) I would expect a lot of people will be coming nearly straight from work; ordinary work clothes would be appropriate - "We're just folks!".

Remember to eat something beforehand; hungry people sometimes can be grumpy.

And mostly remember, this is not a Calguns created event. We have been welcomed to attend, but many of us will be just visiting, and we need to be welcome guests for our hosts.

wildhawker
02-05-2012, 9:33 PM
I'm amused by the notion that Contra Costa (Livingston) is [or will be] motivated by "saving face" or anything other than court orders.

Rupf: 133840
Livingston: 133841

Sorry, Nicki, but these are really not the questions to be asking.

-Brandon

Being respectful could save litigation.

The words you use could make a difference, backing him into a corner versus giving him a way to save face could if you are lucky, get you virtual shall issue.

Instead of talking shall issue, how about equal issue.

Sheriff Rupf's issaunce policies on their face conflict with equal rights protections of both the CA state constitution art 1 sec 7 b and the 14th amendment, will he change policies so that all applicants for ccw permits are treated equally under the law?

Follow up wit that there are indications that CCW permits are being issued on a crony basis, since ccw permits, especially the good cause statements are public records, will him end this practice and bring full transparency to the ccw permit system?

State law Ab 2022 sets standard policies with regards to ccw permit issuance policies, will he bring the department into compliance with state law?

2 federal 9th circuit courts have ruled we have a right to bear arms in public for self defense. In both the Peruta and Richards cases the federal judges upheld the current may issue CCW permit process since individuals could openly bear arms, thus they could exercise their second amendment rights to bear arms.

Since it is now illegal to openly bear arms openly in California with passage of AB144,the only way a person can exercise their fundamental right to bear arms for self defense is with a ccw permit.

Since it is illegal to use deadly force except for protecting one's life or protection from serious bodily harm, will "self defense" which is the core of the second amendmend be acceptable for good cause?

The 9th circuit of appeals (Nordyke) ruled that the second amendment's core purpose is self defense and that any challenges to gun laws must show that they burden the right of self defense.

Sheriff Rupf's CCW policies didn't just burden second amendment right to bear arms, it effectively eliminated it for the general population. Are you going to continue these policies and leave the residents of Contra Costa county exposed for civilrights lawsuits when we don't have money for government services or are you gonna do the right thing and change ccw policies to make them compliant with both the 2nd and 14 amendment?

I am sure there are other questions many could ask, since I can't make it, here are the questions I would ask.

Nicki

safewaysecurity
02-05-2012, 9:46 PM
I'm amused by the notion that Contra Costa (Livingston) is [or will be] motivated by "saving face" or anything other than court orders.

Rupf: 133840
Livingston: 133841

Sorry, Nicki, but these are really not the questions to be asking.

-Brandon

It seems like Livingston hasn't updated his policy then? Does SB 610 make his requirement that 20% of fees be paid upfront with the application illegal?

jdberger
02-05-2012, 10:01 PM
Actually I might attend depending on how my day goes tomorrow. I might be able to make it maybe not. But I will prepare a question so I cover all bases so he can't weasel out of the answering the question.

PM sent

wildhawker
02-05-2012, 10:08 PM
It seems like Livingston hasn't updated his policy then? Does SB 610 make his requirement that 20% of fees be paid upfront with the application illegal?

Read these and educate yourself, especially before engaging the Sheriff on policy and law: http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/category/9-carry.html.

(We really need a link to these docs stickied or in the menu here like the flowcharts. There's a lot of manhours in there so we don't have to parrot responses every day here.)

-Brandon

safewaysecurity
02-05-2012, 10:43 PM
Read these and educate yourself, especially before engaging the Sheriff on policy and law: http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/category/9-carry.html.

(We really need a link to these docs stickied or in the menu here like the flowcharts. There's a lot of manhours in there so we don't have to parrot responses every day here.)

-Brandon

I just want to make sure the Sheriff hasn't updated his policy since the 1st of January. Because the 20% down requirement is obviously unlawful.

Librarian
02-05-2012, 11:50 PM
26190 ( (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/26190.html)b)(2) (2) The first 20 percent of this additional local fee may be
collected upon filing of the initial application. The balance of the
fee shall be collected only upon issuance of the license.

It isn't the 20% that's wrong, it's the amount that it's 20% of.

ivanimal
02-06-2012, 2:26 AM
Looks like my plans for Monday night just changed.

jdberger
02-06-2012, 8:27 AM
Yay! Go Ivan!

DiscoBayJoe
02-06-2012, 5:05 PM
Someone should stream this (and future simmilar) meeting out via UStream or QIK so those who can't attend in body can attend in spirit. It's much nicer to watch what's said (including tone/expression) and making your own opinion vs just reading a synopsys.

Gray Peterson
02-06-2012, 5:13 PM
Someone should stream this (and future simmilar) meeting out via UStream or QIK so those who can't attend in body can attend in spirit. It's much nicer to watch what's said (including tone/expression) and making your own opinion vs just reading a synopsys.

There will be numerous recordings of the event from numerous people. We will do our best to get it out there, or find a youtube link of the exchanges....

berto
02-06-2012, 6:19 PM
Good luck folks.

safewaysecurity
02-06-2012, 9:50 PM
Well.... I just got back. We couldn't really stick to the questions. After Librarin asked his answer a whole host of other people asked LTC related questions. I would say 60% of the questions asked were LTC related. It's pretty easy to say that he's extremely anti-gun. A woman sitting in front of me told the Sheriff about her situation and she's 5'3 about 100 pounds and lived in Pittsburg and wanted to know that if her being a woman in a high crime neighborhood was good enough cause for him. He didn't even hesitate and just said flat out in front of everyone in the room "NO". I wasn't surprised but she was pretty shocked that he would answer that so straightforward. He even came to a point where he said that guns in the home are dangerous and that because we haven't seen the scenes of kids shooting themselves accidentally with their parents guns that we wouldn't understand. I asked my own LTC related question which went something like this. "Sheriff Livingston, we all just saw a video with your Sheriff colleagues who all said they swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution just as you have told us here in this room you have also done. You have also told us that the majority of California Sheriff's issue based on a reasonable Good Cause like you do. All the SHeriff'sin that video as far as I know WILL issue for Self Defense as the applicant's "good cause" and it's not only rural sheriff's like those ones but Ventura and Sacramento County as well will issue for Self Defense. If "self defense" satisfies "good cause" for them why isn't it good enough for you, given that you swore an oath just like those other Sheriff's to uphold the Constitution which includes the Second Amendment do you believe that we have the right to keep and bear arms? Or does that right to bear arms end at our doorstep?" I don't think anyone recorded the event, I could be wrong. I saw some familiar faces and met some new people. The Tea Party people were very nice but a bit on the old side.

Librarian
02-06-2012, 10:12 PM
The Sheriff is an experienced public speaker, and has nice control over his reactions.

Only stress showed was that he asked for some fairness - LTC is about 1% of his job.

safewaysecurity
02-06-2012, 10:20 PM
The Sheriff is an experienced public speaker, and has nice control over his reactions.

Only stress showed was that he asked for some fairness - LTC is about 1% of his job.

Yup. He knows what the applause lines are. He knows how to pander. He liked to mention the occupy protesters, and dumb regulations he has to deal which he obviously knows will play well to Tea Party types. I know if I apply I will be swiftly denied. However I know a family member who has an extremely unique experience which would probably get them approved in Contra Costa based on what I heard tonight but he's definitely an anti. He tried to say that Concealed Carry is not 2nd Amendment Protected activity and that we should blame the legislature for banning open carry and not him for not issuing LTCs...:rolleyes:

Gray Peterson
02-06-2012, 10:27 PM
Yup. He knows what the applause lines are. He knows how to pander. He liked to mention the occupy protesters, and dumb regulations he has to deal which he obviously knows will play well to Tea Party types. I know if I apply I will be swiftly denied. However I know a family member who has an extremely unique experience which would probably get them approved in Contra Costa based on what I heard tonight but he's definitely an anti. He tried to say that Concealed Carry is not 2nd Amendment Protected activity and that we should blame the legislature for banning open carry and not him for not issuing LTCs...:rolleyes:

I'm still listening to the meeting. He may have misunderstood state law requirements for good cause. I'll keep listening...

jdberger
02-06-2012, 10:51 PM
Post up a link to the audio when you get a moment.

Gray Peterson
02-06-2012, 10:56 PM
Post up a link to the audio when you get a moment.

I'll see if I can get authorization from the file hoster. It's usually considered rude to post up direct links without permission. File transfer limitations and whatnot....

It's 26MB and audio. If anyone got video I'd greatly appreciate a link.

bluenoise
02-06-2012, 11:14 PM
I didn't see anyone shooting video. Who recorded the audio? I was going to, but forgot. :o

The sheriff answered more questions than I expected and I was glad he stuck around after to have further discussions. I am disappointed with his stance on the LTC issue, but I appreciated his hearing us out.

Thank you to my fellow CGers who came to the meeting. It was nice to meet you.

Gray Peterson
02-06-2012, 11:25 PM
I didn't see anyone shooting video. Who recorded the audio? I was going to, but forgot. :o

The sheriff answered more questions than I expected and I was glad he stuck around after to have further discussions. I am disappointed with his stance on the LTC issue, but I appreciated his hearing us out.

Thank you to my fellow CGers who came to the meeting. It was nice to meet you.

Everything is a bridge for future victory. Some folks would rather be disgusted and give up. I'll take him at his word that he wants to fix it unless he becomes unresponsive to me. Likely, someone tipped him off about the "good cause" questions, so he brushed up on the policy, but he had zero idea about the rest of the issues with the policies at all. He literally had no idea about the city denial requirement in there.

Urban sheriff's simply do not know any of this crap. This is exactly what happened in San Mateo County. Both the sheriff and the guy doing the LTC application for the sheriff had no idea what they inherited from the previous sheriff (who is now on the county board of supervisors). They rely on subordinates, sheriff's counsel, and county counsel for everything and they may have their own opinion which may not match up with the actual statute. The advantage here is that this sheriff is actually an attorney and has a bar card, so his understanding of the issues, once brought to his attention, SHOULD be better than most other sheriffs...

safewaysecurity
02-06-2012, 11:45 PM
Everything is a bridge for future victory. Some folks would rather be disgusted and give up. I'll take him at his word that he wants to fix it unless he becomes unresponsive to me. Likely, someone tipped him off about the "good cause" questions, so he brushed up on the policy, but he had zero idea about the rest of the issues with the policies at all. He literally had no idea about the city denial requirement in there.

Take him at his word? He said out right that he thinks more guns "on the streets" is bad. He has said this in his denials. Also like a mentioned he talked about gun possession in the home as a bad thing. If he doesn't like people having guns in the home what makes you think he wants people with guns out in public? You should have seen how he looked when someone in the audience asked him about what he though about more guns being carried by law abiding citizens. He almost froze for a second because he was probably thinking ( crap if I say the wrong thing here I am screwed because I said more guns on the streets is bad in my denials for applicants good cause statements ). Also I think it should be mentioned ( although you probably heard it in the audio) that Sheriff Livingston will be meeting with Sheriff Jones and many of the other Sheriff's in California tomorrow for some reason. Just thought you would like to know that.

Gray Peterson
02-06-2012, 11:51 PM
Take him at his word? He said out right that he thinks more guns "on the streets" is bad. He has said this in his denials. Also like a mentioned he talked about gun possession in the home as a bad thing. If he doesn't like people having guns in the home what makes you think he wants people with guns out in public? .

The bolded above is not what Sheriff Livingston said. I have the audio, you only have your memory. Also, you're focusing entirely too much on the "good cause" issues and not on the city denials or the other violations of state law. He also probably doesn't know that California has safe access laws which criminalize allowing minors unsupervised access to guns, either. This is not surprising. He isn't a lawyer focused on firearms law like Gura, Kilmer, and Davis are.

You also stated that "He won't issue LTC's without a court order" in another thread. I have confirmations from two other people that is not what he stated, either. The statements he made has taken him out of the "5-6 counties which will resist a directly applicable court of appeals/SCOTUS ruling" column.

I'm also not counting him out on convincing him on good cause, either. He's obviously parroting the 1977 letter. He may not be aware of the amount of his discretion he has on the matter, either.

wildhawker
02-06-2012, 11:54 PM
He literally had no idea about the city denial requirement in there.

I find that hard to believe considering that he revised (and adopted) his policy in June, 2011, which states:

If you live within an incorporated city of Contra Costa County other than Orinda, Lafayette, Danville, or Oakley, you must first apply for a CCW with that police agency. If denied by your local police agency, you must attach that denial letter to your application. (Emphasis in original.)

-Brandon

wildhawker
02-06-2012, 11:58 PM
Here's the .mp3 of the recording: http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/category/22-contra-costa.html

-Brandon

Gray Peterson
02-07-2012, 12:06 AM
I find that hard to believe considering that he revised (and adopted) his policy in June, 2011, which states:

(Emphasis in original.)

-Brandon

So did Sheriff Munks of San Mateo when he updated policy after he took office in 2006. It wasn't until I started talking with his underling responsible for taking the LTC apps that they realized that the policy was wrong as a matter of state law and started the process of changing it. Took a few months to resolve mostly in our favor, and it took two tries, but it got done.

I'm not making particular excuses for Sheriff Livingston here.

What I'm saying is that the urban elected sheriffs are not involved in the day to day operations of LTC management in my experience, and they are insulted from letters from organizations threatening lawsuit if they don't change their policy. "Oh, it's a lawsuit threat, here county counsel handle this". We'll see if he's serious about fixing the issue, soonish I'm willing to bet.

Gray Peterson
02-07-2012, 12:16 AM
Here's the .mp3 of the recording: http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/category/22-contra-costa.html

-Brandon

Thanks. Remember also there was discussion after this recording...

safewaysecurity
02-07-2012, 12:28 AM
Here's the .mp3 of the recording: http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/category/22-contra-costa.html

-Brandon

That's me asking the question at 1:02:55 btw XD. Librarian was fiddling with the mic while I was askin the question. CURSES!:D

Librarian
02-07-2012, 1:07 AM
That's me asking the question at 1:02:55 btw XD. Librarian was fiddling with the mic while I was askin the question. CURSES!:D

I am falsely accused - I wasn't making that recording.

Bluenoise's question is right at the 58 minute mark.

SanPedroShooter
02-07-2012, 6:20 AM
Thanks for the audio. What is everyone laughing at in the begining?

BusBoy
02-07-2012, 6:48 AM
Just got finished listening to the good Sheriff... gotta say Im not left with any warm fuzzy feelings about his take on LTC.

Someone in the recording offered "help" in getting him in compliance with state laws and the Sheriff stated that if he could leave the documentation with him he'd look it over?? By any chance was a this a CGF member with our LTC policy version that we've been supplying to Sheriffs willing to listen?

Gray Peterson
02-07-2012, 6:54 AM
Just got finished listening to the good Sheriff... gotta say Im not left with any warm fuzzy feelings about his take on LTC.

Someone in the recording offered "help" in getting him in compliance with state laws and the Sheriff stated that if he could leave the documentation with him he'd look it over?? By any chance was a this a CGF member with our LTC policy version that we've been supplying to Sheriffs willing to listen?

Yes, plus red lines of the current policy & how it's violative of state law.

bluenoise
02-07-2012, 7:09 AM
I took his comments about guns in the home to be a red herring in whole debate. He's not wrong that a gun in the house increases the chances it could be used against the owner, but that ignores the fact that a gun in the house greatly increases the chances you have a fighting chance against a violent intruder. Either way, it's a meaningless comment meant to appeal to the emotions of those on the fence, much like his somewhat-heated response to someone when he asked if they've been to the scene of an accidental shooting, "because I have."

SanPedroShooter
02-07-2012, 7:16 AM
I feel like California is in some twilight zone that doesnt relate to the rest of the US. The tone, the tenor, the opinions... I just doesnt match up.

BusBoy
02-07-2012, 7:28 AM
Yes, plus red lines of the current policy & how it's violative of state law.

Awesome thanks Gray!

SanPedroShooter
02-07-2012, 7:29 AM
Thank you for going after this guy.

Librarian
02-07-2012, 12:34 PM
Thanks for the audio. What is everyone laughing at in the begining?

Sheriff opened his presentation with some dash-cam footage from one of his deputies.

Traffic stop, car pulls into a parking lot, patrol car pulls up behind.

Deputy is seen going to the driver side of the stopped car.

As we watch, Deputy and car are getting smaller and smaller...

Deputy looks up, says, into his mike "Oh sh*t" and runs after his rolling-away car.

Livingston commented "And this is the kind of thing I have to look at every day."

Paladin
02-07-2012, 11:45 PM
The advantage here is that this sheriff is actually an attorney and has a bar card, so his understanding of the issues, once brought to his attention, SHOULD be better than most other sheriffs...

+

Yes, plus red lines of the current policy & how it's violative of state law.

thus, knowingly: (1) violating state law in an official capacity as "an officer of the court", (2) violating an "oath of office", or (3) both

=

sanction (disbarred?) by state bar of California for ethics violation(s)??? :43:

ETA: It would be best to time this for maximum impact when (it's never "if"...), he runs for re-election. :43: :43: ;)

Paladin
02-08-2012, 12:05 AM
The Tea Party people were very nice but a bit on the old side.That's because younger Tea Party people are being responsible citizens and at home raising their families! ;) :thumbsup:

chiselchst
02-08-2012, 12:51 AM
Thanks for posting the audio link! Listening to it now...

Would have liked to have attended, but had a previous commitment.