Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 04-03-2017, 12:36 PM
SamsDX's Avatar
SamsDX SamsDX is offline
Signal Out of Banned
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Unincorporated South Orange County
Posts: 1,221
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

I'm in Southern California so I don't know much about the local political winds in Sacramento - what's with McCarty's personal crusade against CCW? Did he get into a pissing match with the Sheriff or some other elected leader, and lose?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member, SAF Life Member, CCRKBA Life Member

Gavin Newsom is a lying, cheating slickster and will be is the worst mistake California has ever made if he gets now that he has been elected Governor. Hollywood movie producers look to him and his oleaginous persona as a model for the corrupt "bad guy" politician character. This guy is so greasy, he could lubricate an entire arsenal of AR-15s just by breathing on them.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 09-02-2017, 7:23 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,416
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Concealed Weapon Licenses

The audit by the California State Auditor will provide independently developed and verified information related to concealed weapon licenses issued by licensing authorities in Sacramento County, San Diego County, and one other county over the past three fiscal years, and will include, but not be limited to, the following:

1. Review and evaluate the laws, rules, and regulations significant to the audit objectives.

2. Identify the number of new, renewed, and amended concealed carry weapon licenses issued, the number of denied licenses, and the number of licenses revoked each year.

3. Determine whether the licensing authorities are consistently following existing laws and enforcing their processes for concealed carry weapons licensing in their county, including:

a. Issuing licenses in accordance with state law's requirements.

b. Collecting adequate evidence to demonstrate "good cause" and an individual's "good moral character."

c. Enforcing the license program by revoking concealed-carry weapons licenses upon receiving notification that the license holder became ineligible.

4. Determine, to the extent possible, whether the factors licensing authorities consider before issuing a license should be expanded in state law. For example, determine whether there is a need to clarify the statutory "good cause" requirement.

5. Compare and contrast fiscal information about the concealed-carry program across licensing authorities. At each licensing authority, determine:

a. The licensing authority's budget and costs for processing concealed-carry weapons licenses and enforcing the license program.

b. The amount of fees charged and collected.

c. Whether the fees the licensing authority charges and collects comply with state law, including the degree to which licensing authority fees were increased and whether the licensing authority's fees increased at a rate that exceeded the California Consumer Price Index.

d. Whether the licensing process had an operating surplus or deficit and, if applicable, how the program was subsidized as well as any associated fiscal impact on county budgets.

6. Review and assess any other issues that are significant to the audit.

California State Auditor's Office
3/17/2017
From: https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/scope/2017-101

My guess is Kevin McCarty wants to find out if SD and LA are being highly restrictive in CCW issuance legally, and if so, wants to draft legislation to make those restrictive local policies of SD and LA counties part of the state CCW law. (IOW, make issuance for ALL CA counties as restrictive as LA & SD counties.) Plus, he wants to increase the CCW fees.

Why didn't he just introduce a bill to do these things? He first wants the CA State Auditor to provide him facts that will provide a "rational basis" for the bill, so it will survive 2nd A court challenges.

Hopefully, my "guess" is pure paranoia. But this is CA....

The estimated release date of the report is this November: https://www.auditor.ca.gov/
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 09-03-2017 at 9:49 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 09-02-2017, 8:46 PM
Tasty's Avatar
Tasty Tasty is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,797
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

^^^ My money says you're right. This is CA, and anyone who thinks any good can come from this is in denial.
__________________
As the great warrior poet Ice Cube once said "If the day does not require an AK, it is good."
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 09-02-2017, 9:42 PM
dobek's Avatar
dobek dobek is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 580
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

so how do we audit the welfare system in the state? I would think that the welfare payments are being used to support drug dealers. Should the California public be required to support drug dealers?

Let's institute a Drug test for public assistance.

Steve
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 09-02-2017, 10:05 PM
9M62 9M62 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,483
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

If Sacramento thinks they can legislate what a Sheriff in Placer County, a police Chief in Yreka, or thinks the citizens of counties similar to that will have any concern what so ever for the law when all of a sudden their Sheriff's policy is superceeded by State Law -- they are horribly mistaken.
__________________
Warning: Nothing on the Internet is true, including this post.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 09-03-2017, 12:19 AM
glockmen17's Avatar
glockmen17 glockmen17 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 111
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UP2MTNS View Post
Curious about this...are there any cases/precedent of someone getting arrested and charged with illegal possession of a weapon after they stopped some crime or defended themselves?

Or the opposite...someone is illegal CCWing, stops a crime/SD/whatever, police arrest said person, but DA says, 'No...we're not going to prosecute a good samaritan.' ??
I've seen a few cases where an individual wasn't charged with possession of a firearm that they used to defend themselves with and it wasn't even registered to them and was probably even stolen.
On the A&E show "The first 48" season 15 episode 6 "Last Shift" This particular case was a gang member that protected himself from a unprovoked shooting from a rival gang member.
Possession of a loaded concealed firearm by the registered owner is only a misdemeanor for the first offense, even with a couple of minor misdemeanor charges in someone's past a 30 day sentence serving 20 for good time/work time and a few hundred dollars in fines is the most that you'd get.
Bailing out and pleading guilty would likely result in no further jail time a fine community service and 10-30 hours community service, the biggest punishment being the charge is a 10 year gun prohibiting misdemeanor.

Last edited by glockmen17; 09-03-2017 at 12:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 09-03-2017, 6:54 AM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,643
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasty View Post
^^^ My money says you're right. This is CA, and anyone who thinks any good can come from this is in denial.
Bingo. This is going to be used to further restrict CCW issuance in the counties they consider "lax".
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 09-03-2017, 10:48 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,674
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glockmen17 View Post
I've seen a few cases where an individual wasn't charged with possession of a firearm that they used to defend themselves with and it wasn't even registered to them and was probably even stolen.
On the A&E show "The first 48" season 15 episode 6 "Last Shift" This particular case was a gang member that protected himself from a unprovoked shooting from a rival gang member.
Possession of a loaded concealed firearm by the registered owner is only a misdemeanor for the first offense, even with a couple of minor misdemeanor charges in someone's past a 30 day sentence serving 20 for good time/work time and a few hundred dollars in fines is the most that you'd get.
Bailing out and pleading guilty would likely result in no further jail time a fine community service and 10-30 hours community service, the biggest punishment being the charge is a 10 year gun prohibiting misdemeanor.
In California there isn't a 10 year prohibition for illegally carrying a concealed weapon registered to you. You cannot own a firearm on probation though.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 09-03-2017, 11:42 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,998
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamsDX View Post
I'm in Southern California so I don't know much about the local political winds in Sacramento - what's with McCarty's personal crusade against CCW? Did he get into a pissing match with the Sheriff or some other elected leader, and lose?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
From: https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/scope/2017-101

My guess is Kevin McCarty wants to find out if SD and LA are being highly restrictive in CCW issuance legally, and if so, wants to draft legislation to make those restrictive local policies of SD and LA counties part of the state CCW law. (IOW, make issuance for ALL CA counties as restrictive as LA & SD counties.) Plus, he wants to increase the CCW fees.

Why didn't he just introduce a bill to do these things? He first wants the CA State Auditor to provide him facts that will provide a "rational basis" for the bill, so it will survive 2nd A court challenges.

Hopefully, my "guess" is pure paranoia. But this is CA....

The estimated release date of the report is this November: https://www.auditor.ca.gov/
McCarty is trying to position himself in Sacramento County and the Legislature to fill in behind Steinberg and de Leon.

Last year, Gov Brown shoved AB 450 up McCarty's fourth point of contact. https://www.gov.ca.gov/docs/AB_450_Veto_Message.pdf

Here's a quick overview: https://www.gunownersca.com/2017/04/...eping-promise/

Here's the CalGuns discussion on it: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...1211689&page=5

McCarty then went to the auditor to ask for an audit that will skew the results against Sacramento Sheriff and his costs of issuance. Comparing the cost of issuance in SD and LA with Sacramento is intended to show that the fees charged are inadequate for running a high-issuance program. With that, he can challenge the Gov's earlier veto, present a new bill and seek across-the-board increases in mandated fees.

No need to legislate against the process. The expected result will legally price the common man/woman out of the CCW process.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 09-03-2017, 1:17 PM
DRL247 DRL247 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 55
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
The funny thing is, it actually might lead somewhere good. If you think about it, there's almost no way they could twist the results of a CCW study to fit their narrative - all of the facts say the opposite of what they want to hear.

Fiscally:
A CCW costs a licensee a LOT of money. First, there's the gun, which the state gets sales tax, FSC fees and DROS fees for. Then, there's the CCW classes, from which the state gets income tax from the instructor fees. Weapons qualifications, which the state also gets income taxes for, plus sales taxes for the hundreds of rounds of ammo required. Then, there's the license itself, which has a multitude of fees involved, which more than cover the administrative costs involved to the issuing agency. Those are just the hard-evidence numerical figures. Add to that the possibility of needing less LEO presence in areas which have well-armed citizens.

Safety:
As mentioned earlier, there is virtually zero safety risk associated with licensed concealed carriers. It's immeasurably low. But the safety benefits have been recorded in great detail, with hundreds (maybe thousands) of violent crimes in CA halted as a result of CCW-holding citizens.

I'm pretty confident that any "study" is going to find all of the above. So this might actually come back to bite them.
Is there any website that details the halting of violent crimes? I rarely, if ever hear any stories where good citizens are using their weapons to stop crime.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 09-03-2017, 1:55 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,109
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRL247 View Post
Is there any website that details the halting of violent crimes? I rarely, if ever hear any stories where good citizens are using their weapons to stop crime.
A member here has a whole thread listing hundreds of times a CCW has saved lives. I forget who, and where the thread is, I'm on my phone or I'd dig it up for you
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:


Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 09-03-2017, 2:10 PM
Dano3467 Dano3467 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: 85 mi south of Oregon
Posts: 6,370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

There must be made an avenue to sue the state (BIGLY) for injuries or loss of life if your CCW is taken away under any law made like this.

Can something like this be put into law ?, or just another lost hope for CA citizens.

There will be more senseless deaths of law abiding, tax pay Non-Criminals in commiefornia ?
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 09-03-2017, 2:15 PM
glockmen17's Avatar
glockmen17 glockmen17 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 111
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
In California there isn't a 10 year prohibition for illegally carrying a concealed weapon registered to you. You cannot own a firearm on probation though.
I stand corrected, unless you are convinced of pc 17500 while protecting yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 09-03-2017, 6:21 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,998
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRL247 View Post
Is there any website that details the halting of violent crimes? I rarely, if ever hear any stories where good citizens are using their weapons to stop crime.
If you go up to post 82, you'll see Paladin has the link to his list in the sig box.

Or, just click here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=858390
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 09-03-2017, 6:38 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,416
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
If you go up to post 82, you'll see Paladin has the link to his list in the sig box.

Or, just click here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=858390
Yep, and about 1 1/2 yrs ago I reduced the time I spent on the List. About 6 months ago I pretty much stopped updating the List.

Why? When I first started it, finding examples was difficult since the national MSM rarely reported such incidents and very few local news sources/stations were on the web. Then, about 5 or so years ago, local sources/stations started a stampede onto the web. Now, it is very easy to find examples by just searching "Concealed carry saves lives." People have YT channels devoted to it! I figured at 215+ examples is plenty to draw your own conclusions/lessons from. FWIW, no, I do NOT discriminate: whenever I came across an incident, I added it, regardless of the race/s involved.

My bottom line conclusions are: (1) have a gun (i.e., get a CCW and frickin' EDC!), a G43 in the pocket beats a G19 at home every time. (2) Obey the 4-S Rule (Don't hang around Stupid people; don't go to Stupid places; don't do Stupid things; and don't be out at Stupid times.) Stupid places include not only bars and strip joints, but McDonalds, IHOP, Waffle House and Denny's, especially late at night (Stupid times). (3) Don't get a job delivering pizza.... It just ain't worth the risk. (4) Things like mounted lights, lasers, BUGs and spare mags are a distant second to rule #1: have a gun. (5) "Racial profiling" is a thing for a reason....

I'm sure you can come to your own conclusions/lessons after reviewing those incidents.

/off topic
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 12-12-2017 at 7:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 09-03-2017, 6:48 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,109
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Thanks Paladin, I was pretty sure it was you who put the list together but I couldn't remember. Thanks for doing that by the way
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:


Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 09-03-2017, 8:21 PM
truthseeker's Avatar
truthseeker truthseeker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Near Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,518
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
If the rest of California ends up like San Diego, what are all you CCW holders going to do about it?

Not doing a thing as I will probably never get one living here. I only meet one guy here that has one only because he's a Federal Agent. The rest of us here are used to being disarmed.
Used to being disarmed while the criminals roam our streets with loaded weapons.

"Taxpayers should not be subsidizing ILLEGAL gun owners who want to roam our streets with loaded weapons".

There, I fixed it for you!
__________________
http://calgunsfoundation.org/images/stories/CGF_gotSIGsm.jpg

Last edited by truthseeker; 09-03-2017 at 8:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 09-04-2017, 8:38 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,578
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

We need to audit the State Government, right after we audit the Federal Reserve. Neither will ever happen.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 09-04-2017, 7:21 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,580
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaperPuncher View Post
Study it so they can say it makes more sense to eliminate the program entirely.

How many people will die in Ca. if they can't carry? 100? 200? 20,000?
Not a huge hit.

Are a majority of them Democrats? No, bonus.

Any reason to have a program that costs anything? Nope
Quote:
Originally Posted by BluNorthern View Post
Exactly...they won't even acknowledge Kate Steinle's death or the 2 LE deaths in the Sacramento due to their coddling of illegals here. They certainly won't acknowledge the part they played in those deaths.
Of course not because that is what Sacramento wants. Rampant crime and when it reaches a point to where the public is crying for a solution well think about countries who completely outlawed the ownership of firearms all together and you have California's solution.

Doesn't matter whether it's Constitutional or not they will pass an outright ban on guns here. Don't think it's already written think again. It is. They are just waiting for the right moment to do it. Newsom IMO will give them the reason to introduce it. A mass shooting in the country or heaven forbid this state it's game over. Newsom will grandstand it on the news prime time. the families will be useful pawns in this legislation and when it's passed and signed into law those families will be tossed aside and they will be forgotten by all of the anti gun groups who wrote this monster.

again this is just an opinion and no facts are in it. Except that is a pretty dam good chance Newsom will win.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 09-05-2017, 1:59 PM
Roering's Avatar
Roering Roering is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 430
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So if the license requirements are too onerous and we scrap the program, wouldn't we default to constitutional carry? After all, if not permitted in some way it would be a blatant violation of our Federally protected rights.

Might be fun to see if the scumbags in Sacramento screw themselves again.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 09-05-2017, 2:35 PM
thesmoggod thesmoggod is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 46
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

[QUOTE=lowimpactuser;19898469]*State findings*

The state finds that the CCW process is grossly inadequate to protect public safety. The average background check for a police cadet candidate costs $3,000. The average spent on CCWs in Sacramento county is $200. This is grossly inadequate to investigate the background of a person to carry a deadly weapon, with less training than a police officer.

There is no evidence that carrying a gun has made the public at large any safer, and numerous CCW holders have nearly created tragedy leaving guns behind in restrooms, forcing the legislature to ban these dangerous carriers of guns from school campuses. Indeed, this increases costs to law enforcement and impacts the public's perception of their own safety.

Finally, the process in Sacramento especially costs more money than it takes in from applicants, even for the cursory and non-thorough background check.

Committee recommends a full, law enforcement style background check for any CCW applicant, costs to be borne by said applicant with no refund for costs if the permit is rejected. Applicant also should attend at least the use of force portions of police academy, costs also borne by applicant. Lastly, upon approval of a permit, the permit holder should post a $5,000 bond to cover any incidental police investigation caused by negligence by the permit holder, so as to make the CCW program revenue neutral, instead of forcing the state to pay for dangerous weapons to be carried by people who aren't thoroughly vetted.

Whose finding sounds more likely from a committee set up by McCarty- yours or mine?[/QUOTE

"and numerous CCW holders have nearly created tragedy leaving guns behind in restrooms "... this cracked me up
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 09-05-2017, 2:35 PM
thesmoggod thesmoggod is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 46
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"and numerous CCW holders have nearly created tragedy leaving guns behind in restrooms "... this cracked me up
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 09-05-2017, 2:42 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,006
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
So if the license requirements are too onerous and we scrap the program, wouldn't we default to constitutional carry? After all, if not permitted in some way it would be a blatant violation of our Federally protected rights.

Might be fun to see if the scumbags in Sacramento screw themselves again.
Maybe because we live in the real world of the 9th Circuit ...where concealed carry is not recognized as a right (nor is carry outside the home).

The Peruta 3-judge panel thought as you did until the en banc panel overruled them. Aint nobody riding to the rescue either
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 09-05-2017, 2:53 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,776
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
The Peruta 3-judge panel thought as you did until the en banc panel overruled them.
Make no mistake, this was entirely Chief Judge Sidney Thomas' doing. He alone runs the 9th.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 09-05-2017, 7:43 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,109
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thesmoggod View Post
"and numerous CCW holders have nearly created tragedy leaving guns behind in restrooms "... this cracked me up
If their solution to this is letting fewer people carry guns, it would have to apply to everybody. Or do they think police officers have never left guns behind in bathrooms on accident?
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:


Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 09-06-2017, 7:28 PM
hossfol hossfol is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 59
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Yet this horses *** has no problem with a million dollar program that PAYS gang-banger thugs a $1000.00 a month not to shoot each other with their illegal guns that they undoubtedly DO NOT have CCW's for.... This asshat is also one of the POS politicians responsible for AB 109 which resulted in the shooting death of a Sacramento deputy sheriff by a felon who had been let out of prison to continue his murderous criminal ways!
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 12-11-2017, 4:51 PM
AlienHobo's Avatar
AlienHobo AlienHobo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 414
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default Sacramento CCW Audit results are in.

Sacramento CCW Audit results are in.

Here is Sheriff Jones' (Sacramento) reply to the audit results...




Attached Images
File Type: jpg 1.jpg (91.1 KB, 592 views)
File Type: jpg 2.jpg (98.9 KB, 581 views)
File Type: jpg 3.jpg (95.8 KB, 588 views)
File Type: jpg 4.JPG (74.7 KB, 581 views)
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 12-11-2017, 5:16 PM
jessdigs's Avatar
jessdigs jessdigs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Somerset ca
Posts: 323
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Wow, interesting. Maybe they will be more thorough in detailing why am applicant was denied. I have read a free threads saying "I was denied and don't know why" and "denied after being approved" etc. Sac should tell applicants in detail why they were denied. For the money and time the applicant spent, it's the least they can do.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 12-11-2017, 5:40 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,998
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienHobo View Post
Sacramento CCW Audit results are in.

Here is Sheriff Jones' (Sacramento) reply to the audit results...
WAIT!!! That's it? That's all the audit came up with? This is laughable.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 12-11-2017, 5:49 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,998
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessdigs View Post
Wow, interesting. Maybe they will be more thorough in detailing why am applicant was denied. I have read a free threads saying "I was denied and don't know why" and "denied after being approved" etc. Sac should tell applicants in detail why they were denied. For the money and time the applicant spent, it's the least they can do.
I've read a number of posts saying, "I was denied and don't know why." Then, as the discussion progresses, the full story comes out. Usually, it's something which the poster doesn't think should have weight, but just about everybody else can see the impact.

And, of course, if the Sheriff gives specific details on the reason for denial, the protests will arise, along with the lawsuits. The only way to halt that kind of nonsense is to shut down the program. That seems counterproductive.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 12-11-2017, 6:05 PM
AlienHobo's Avatar
AlienHobo AlienHobo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 414
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
WAIT!!! That's it? That's all the audit came up with? This is laughable.
Yup. Bottom line is:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheriff Scott Jones
At an estimated cost of $350,000 to the taxpayers of California, the audit is now complete and will be made public later this week. Although the audit as expected was critical in some respects of the manner in which we issue CCW permits, of the over 11,000 application files the audit team was given access to they found:

• no permits were issued in violation of law;
• no examples where permits were issued with improper residency;
• no examples or evidence that subsequent revocations indicated that the permits should not have been initially granted; and
• any CCW program deficit was internally funded, was of negligible impact to the County overall, and the Sheriff’s Department was under-budget and returned money to the County each year in a greater amount than the operating deficit of the CCW unit.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 12-11-2017, 9:10 PM
SamsDX's Avatar
SamsDX SamsDX is offline
Signal Out of Banned
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Unincorporated South Orange County
Posts: 1,221
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

That ugly subhuman scum Kevin McCarthy can suck it. I hope the sheriff sends him a personally signed copy of the letter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member, SAF Life Member, CCRKBA Life Member

Gavin Newsom is a lying, cheating slickster and will be is the worst mistake California has ever made if he gets now that he has been elected Governor. Hollywood movie producers look to him and his oleaginous persona as a model for the corrupt "bad guy" politician character. This guy is so greasy, he could lubricate an entire arsenal of AR-15s just by breathing on them.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 12-12-2017, 2:12 PM
Markinsac Markinsac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 777
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The estimated cost of the audit: $350,000 (I'm not sure if this is just Sacramento county or all three). Paid by the taxpayers, of course.

More information at: https://www.sacsheriff.com/media/Release.aspx?id=1758

From the Sheriff's posting along with the response:

In the 2016 legislative session, Assemblymember Kevin McCarty authored two bills to make it more burdensome to obtain CCW permits statewide. One bill was killed early, and one made it to the Governor’s desk. In his veto message for that bill, Governor Brown correctly pointed out:

“This bill was spurred by a local dispute in one county. I am unaware of a larger problem that merits a statewide change at this point.”

Undeterred in his effort to impact me personally and the issuance of CCW permits statewide, Assemblymember McCarty took to social media on December 21st and threatened to use the State’s Legislative Audit function to examine the CCW program of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department. True to that threat, in early 2017 an audit was initiated by Assemblymember McCarty of my CCW program, and two other low-issue counties to demonstrate contrast.

At an estimated cost of $350,000 to the taxpayers of California, the audit is now complete and will be made public later this week. Although the audit as expected was critical in some respects of the manner in which we issue CCW permits, of the over 11,000 application files the audit team was given access to they found:
•no permits were issued in violation of law;
•no examples where permits were issued with improper residency;
•no examples or evidence that subsequent revocations indicated that the permits should not have been initially granted; and
•any CCW program deficit was internally funded, was of negligible impact to the County overall, and the Sheriff’s Department was under-budget and returned money to the County each year in a greater amount than the operating deficit of the CCW unit.

Included with this media release is my full written response that is attached to the audit findings, which should be released from California State Auditor’s office later this week.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 12-12-2017, 7:08 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,416
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

(1) This is only the Sac sheriff's response to the preliminary draft of the audit. The actual audit will be released on their website Thursday morning and covers Sac, LA and SD sheriffs' offices.

(2) The antis were hoping for ammo to use as legislative history (to protect it from inevitable challenge by the NRA et al) for an anti CCW bill. They were/are (depending upon the final report), hoping to find outrageous negligence on Sac sheriff's part as the reason for the explosion in the number of Sac SO CCWs over the past several years. Shockingly (for the antis), the audit came up with, on the whole, compliance with all relevant state laws. This is GREAT NEWS!!!

(3) The goal of that hoped-for anti CCW bill was to force Sac and all other counties to adopt the highly restrictive May Issue policy and practices of LA and SD sheriffs. Since the audit found, on the whole, compliance, the antis won't be able to use it to bash Jones and push an anti CCW bill: the antis will be p-ssed! I can't wait to read the final report and see what corruption/illegalities, if any, they found committed by the LA and/or SD sheriffs.

Stay tuned!
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 12-13-2017 at 7:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 12-13-2017, 6:17 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 461
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
*State findings*

The state finds that the CCW process is grossly inadequate to protect public safety. The average background check for a police cadet candidate costs $3,000. The average spent on CCWs in Sacramento county is $200. This is grossly inadequate to investigate the background of a person to carry a deadly weapon, with less training than a police officer.

There is no evidence that carrying a gun has made the public at large any safer, and numerous CCW holders have nearly created tragedy leaving guns behind in restrooms, forcing the legislature to ban these dangerous carriers of guns from school campuses. Indeed, this increases costs to law enforcement and impacts the public's perception of their own safety.

Finally, the process in Sacramento especially costs more money than it takes in from applicants, even for the cursory and non-thorough background check.

Committee recommends a full, law enforcement style background check for any CCW applicant, costs to be borne by said applicant with no refund for costs if the permit is rejected. Applicant also should attend at least the use of force portions of police academy, costs also borne by applicant. Lastly, upon approval of a permit, the permit holder should post a $5,000 bond to cover any incidental police investigation caused by negligence by the permit holder, so as to make the CCW program revenue neutral, instead of forcing the state to pay for dangerous weapons to be carried by people who aren't thoroughly vetted.

Whose finding sounds more likely from a committee set up by McCarty- yours or mine?
BINGO! As I understand it, some counties down south (and I think LA is one of them) require three letters of recommendation (illegally), the name of your current employer (illegally), and then they go out and not only interview each reference but your boss as well as your neighbors! That has GOT to cost a huge sum of money that is not covered by the fees charged, even with all the denied applications for "lack of good cause." I assume SD is similar--which is why those counties were chosen. McCartey just doesn't like CCWs and has been in an ongoing battle with Sacramento Sheriff because he is shall issue.

With the denial of cert in Peruta, such that a CCW is no longer a right, the Legislature will either make the fees the highest in the nation or eliminate carry all together.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 12-13-2017, 7:17 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,998
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
BINGO! As I understand it, some counties down south (and I think LA is one of them) require three letters of recommendation (illegally), the name of your current employer (illegally), and then they go out and not only interview each reference but your boss as well as your neighbors! That has GOT to cost a huge sum of money that is not covered by the fees charged, even with all the denied applications for "lack of good cause." I assume SD is similar--which is why those counties were chosen. McCartey just doesn't like CCWs and has been in an ongoing battle with Sacramento Sheriff because he is shall issue.

With the denial of cert in Peruta, such that a CCW is no longer a right, the Legislature will either make the fees the highest in the nation or eliminate carry all together.
You do realize that the post you quoted from low impact user was a fabrication from months ago, yes? It is completely irrelevant to the current discussion and the actual report which is coming to us.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 12-13-2017, 8:37 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 461
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
You do realize that the post you quoted from low impact user was a fabrication from months ago, yes? It is completely irrelevant to the current discussion and the actual report which is coming to us.
I beg your pardon? It is OBVIOUSLY a "fabrication" as you call it, or, one could argue, a perfectly valid guess of what we can expect from the audit, which everyone here knows hasn't even been started much less completed. Doh! I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that anything about the audit will be fair; instead it is a political exercise to give the Legislature an excuse, a "factual basis" for its "findings" to act as I have suggested.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 12-14-2017, 6:26 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,998
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
I beg your pardon? It is OBVIOUSLY a "fabrication" as you call it, or, one could argue, a perfectly valid guess of what we can expect from the audit, which everyone here knows hasn't even been started much less completed. Doh!
The audit has begun and is in it's final stages. In fact, it is due to be released, today. This was noted immediately above your post. Preliminary results of the findings on Sac Sheriff's program have been received, responded to, and provided by the Sheriff to the general populace.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 12-14-2017, 7:01 AM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 856
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

It will indeed be interesting to see what the audit says about LA, a virtual “no issue” jurisdiction. Audit is mentioned as in progress, estimated release today right on th home page at http://www.auditor.ca.gov
__________________
-------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 12-14-2017, 7:07 AM
AlienHobo's Avatar
AlienHobo AlienHobo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 414
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorium View Post
It will indeed be interesting to see what the audit says about LA, a virtual “no issue” jurisdiction. Audit is mentioned as in progress, estimated release today right on th home page at http://www.auditor.ca.gov
Thanks for the link. I was wondering where we could see the report.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:04 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.