[JagerTroop]

Originally Posted by Paladin

All of that is IRRELEVANT if he doesn't issue permits to allow law-abiding residents to "bear arms" to defend their own lives. "not anti gun" may simply mean he is not for gun confiscation, which is a personal stance since he, in his capacity as sheriff, does not have the authority to do that even if he wanted to. I was simply relaying what was said. I agree with you. He was pretty clear that he is pro 2A about guns "in the home", but doesn't like the idea of (law abiding)citizens carrying in public.

"NRA member" simply means he chose, for whatever reason (political points?), to send money to the NRA. That's all it takes. Issuing permits, or not, is where the rubber meets the road, is when the pudding is proven, or not.I agree. I thought he was trying a little to hard to prove that he's "reasonable". He made it seem as; if I am denied, it must be MY fault because he is a friend of gun owners


The bolded parts are what I don't get. (1) 40 out of 50 states have gone Shall Issue, and in EVERY STATE, there haven't been any issues w/"everyone carrying." EVERY STATE from the Mississippi River west to the Pacific Ocean is Shall Issue and NONE of them have had any significant problems w/CCWers. People who have yet to be interviewed might want to tell him that and then ask him why he thinks people in his county will be any different. I don't see him being receptive in any way. It's kinda funny... if I lived about 10 miles further north(Sac county), I would have my permit by now. Somehow I'm not worthy enough, responsible enough, and my life is worth less than someone that lives 10 miles away.

(2) In my sig line I've got 35 examples -- can't add any more examples, that one post has reached its character limit -- of people who've saved lives because they CC'ed. IN NOT ONE CASE did the person know ahead of time that they'd need to carry that day. Putting that burden on applicants is BS. People who have yet to be interviewed may want to review my list (I'm sure there's more exhaustive lists somewhere on the web), and maybe even print it out to give to the sheriff to ask him why he demands evidence of heightened risk, a standard which would have caused many people to die in those examples.Sheriff Moore seems to be of the opinion that you need to have a history of being robbed, attacked, and/or threatened to want to be prepared, in case it happens again. I think I'll cancel my car insurance, ditch the jack and spare tire, sell my SRS airbag, stop wasting money on 9volt batteries for my smoke detectors, stop wearing steeltoes/safety glasses/hardhat at work, and not bother locking my doors at night. All until my life/safety is somehow affected by not having them.

It's quite sad... it is like pulling teeth trying to get a CCW, all the while, the penalty for carrying illegaly is simply a misdemeanor. Just reinforces the fact that criminals have more rights than law abiding citizens.