|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#82
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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/
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 09-03-2017 at 8:49 AM.. |
#83
|
||||
|
||||
^^^ 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." |
#84
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#86
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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; 09-02-2017 at 11:22 PM.. |
#87
|
||||
|
||||
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!’ Peace, love, and heavy weapons. Sometimes you have to be insistent." - David Lee Roth |
#88
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#89
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#91
|
||||
|
||||
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
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
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 ? |
#93
|
||||
|
||||
I stand corrected, unless you are convinced of pc 17500 while protecting yourself.
|
#94
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Or, just click here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=858390 |
#95
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 12-12-2017 at 6:13 PM.. |
#96
|
||||
|
||||
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
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#97
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
"Taxpayers should not be subsidizing ILLEGAL gun owners who want to roam our streets with loaded weapons". There, I fixed it for you!
__________________
Last edited by truthseeker; 09-03-2017 at 7:23 PM.. |
#99
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
#100
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
[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 |
#103
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 |
#104
|
||||
|
||||
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." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#105
|
||||
|
||||
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?
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
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!
|
#108
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#109
|
||||
|
||||
WAIT!!! That's it? That's all the audit came up with? This is laughable.
|
#110
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#111
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#112
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#113
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#114
|
||||
|
||||
(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!
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 12-13-2017 at 6:22 PM.. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#116
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#118
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
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
__________________
------------------------- |
#120
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|