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 > CONCEALED CARRY/LICENSE TO CARRY > Concealed Carry Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 10-03-2017, 8:04 AM
OCGal's Avatar
OCGal OCGal is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Barnes Real Stance

Someone sent this to me: lawsuit where Cal pistol and rifle assoc was suing OCSD, Barnes says in sworn deposition that citizens with guns makes everyone less safe and he is all for limiting the number of CCW's issued.
Looks like current statements are just election year pandering.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0By...W04S09OQk1ieHM

Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 10-03-2017, 1:23 PM
Erion929's Avatar
Erion929 Erion929 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: So. Orange County, CA.
Posts: 3,154
iTrader: 55 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCGal View Post
Someone sent this to me: lawsuit where Cal pistol and rifle assoc was suing OCSD, Barnes says in sworn deposition that citizens with guns makes everyone less safe and he is all for limiting the number of CCW's issued.
Looks like current statements are just election year pandering.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0By...W04S09OQk1ieHM


That was posted before, somewhere.....

In some defense, that was from 5 years ago and likely the whole OCSD had a different viewpoint than what is currently happening under Hutchens' watch (issuing at a +95% clip, reportedly).

However, in my mind, it would need explaining by Barnes....possibly something that could be tackled at one of the Meet-n-Greets scheduled

Harrington presently promotes a more clarified position....
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 10-04-2017, 1:09 PM
JonW JonW is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 349
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erion929 View Post
That was posted before, somewhere.....

In some defense, that was from 5 years ago and likely the whole OCSD had a different viewpoint than what is currently happening under Hutchens' watch (issuing at a +95% clip, reportedly).

However, in my mind, it would need explaining by Barnes....possibly something that could be tackled at one of the Meet-n-Greets scheduled

Harrington presently promotes a more clarified position....
Someone asked the question and it has been addressed by Barnes with a copy of the FB conversation in this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1&postcount=68
Hearing him address it in public would be good too.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 10-04-2017, 2:42 PM
Erion929's Avatar
Erion929 Erion929 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: So. Orange County, CA.
Posts: 3,154
iTrader: 55 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonW View Post
Someone asked the question and it has been addressed by Barnes with a copy of the FB conversation in this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1&postcount=68
Hearing him address it in public would be good too.


Thanks JonW

I'll post it again so others can follow his response easier. (bolded by me, where the 2013 Barnes stance that was noted by OCGal was updated ):


Inspired by FilmGuy, I pinged Barnes' Facebook messenger and he replied.

Shadrac:
Hello, I wanted to see if I could get a clear statement of your CCW position and want to know if self defense would be considered good and clear enough reason for issuance?


Barnes:
Thank you for your email and your interest about my position about CCWs. Let me say that I pledge to follow the law and continue our Sheriff’s current practice, which I supported while I was the Assistant Sheriff over command of the CCW Unit. First, the OCSD has issued more CCWs post-Peruta (return to the “Good Cause” requirement) than it did during the Peruta period (no good cause). In fact, our CCWs have more than doubled since the appellate court overturned the Peruta ruling and has issued almost 11,000 CCWs.

Here are the number of CCW licenses issued during these periods:

• CCWs issued prior to Peruta (2013): 906 average per year

• CCWs issued during Peruta (February ’13 to March ’14): 5,164 was the highest number of licenses issued

• CCWs issued Post-Peruta (March ’14 to date): more than 10,700 CCWs

I am sure you are aware that the interpretation of the law has changed several times the past five years. Orange County was being sued similar to Peruta v. San Diego. Initially, the Sheriff was concerned with the shift per Peruta, as were most other sheriffs in the state. I was scheduled to testify at the Orange County case and filed a declaration with the court detailing various concerns. What I learned through the Peruta period was that our concerns had been allayed and have changed to full support of our current practice. If that were not so, the number of CCWs issued post-Peruta would have returned to less than 1,000 CCWs within two years as the Peruta-issued CCWs expired. One additional fact, once the Peruta ruling was overturned, the OCSD did NOT recall ANY of the Peruta-issued CCWs.

Regarding your question regarding self-defense as good cause, it would depend on the circumstances as it relates to meeting penal code required good cause, which remains the legal standard. I believe we have a reasonable interpretation of good cause as is evidenced by the number of CCWs that have been issued. I would recommend you contact our CCW unit for more specific details.

I hope I have answered your questions. I recently met with several gun enthusiasts and have been endorsed by Greg Bouslog of On Target and Firearms Instructor TJ Johnson, among others. I would appreciate your support.

Best of luck to you.

Don

Last edited by Erion929; 10-04-2017 at 2:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 10-04-2017, 6:08 PM
Mibairho Mibairho is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 70
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I talked to my friend who has knowledge of the current CCW unit and program. He said 100% for certainty, the assistant sheriff, now under sheriff, has been the driver behind the unit. I know politics will start to take place and the mudslinging will begin, but I know I want to keep my CCW and I'm voting for Barnes because he's the one building the program. His actions spoke long before he thought about running.

I'm not taking any chances on a guy (Harrington) that I remember was spouting he would limit CCWs. Once Harrington realized that our votes will count, then he changed his position. Don Barnes is who will keep the program going. Plus, Don Barnes has the intelligence and ability to run the department and represent Orange County well. Have you heard Don Barnes speak? He is extremely intelligent and he listens. Harrington is not even close to the level Barnes is at in my opinion.

This is a no brainer. Don't be fooled twice. Jerry Brown pulled the wool over everyone's eyes with prop 57. That's a politician, And Harrington is a politician. Barnes is a leader with a proven track record.

Last edited by Mibairho; 10-04-2017 at 6:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 10-06-2017, 3:01 PM
CWM4A1 CWM4A1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,107
iTrader: 21 / 96%
Default

Barns is the one behind the push to liberate number of guns allowed to be carried, remove the residency check, as well as the upcoming new online application system. Action speaker louder.

Shall issue is not possible, Harrington can believe all he wants but even if he's elected, him along can't change CA law. Some has argued self defense should be accepted as good cause as other counties has done so. Let's look at penal code again:

26150. (a) When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, the sheriff of a county may issue a license to that person upon proof of all of the following:
(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.

Proof is the key and why OCSD change from just accepting your words for good cause to required proof to support your good cause (receipts, pictures, etc.). They know well whatever policy they put together needs to be able to sustain court challenge. What if some liberal file suit against those county who accepted self defense as good cause? OC is the first and only urban county that has large population which issues large number of permits. Their policy must be legally sound.

We had our meet and grill with Barns, he is very up-front saying he used to have concern on CCW. Since Peruta, over 10K permit holder in OC has proven Brady bunch wrong and he has since changed his mind. I'd rather believe someone who are actually work to improve CCW issuance process than some empty promise of "shall issue".
__________________
www.ontargetrange.com
NRA certified RSO, Pistol/Rifle/Personal Protection Inside The Home instructor, Certified SIG/Glock pistol armorer. Any question, please feel free to sent e-mail to ontargetrange@sbcglobal.net or visit our forum on Calguns under vendor section!
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 10-07-2017, 11:42 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,812
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CWM4A1 View Post
Barns is the one behind the push to liberate number of guns allowed to be carried, remove the residency check, as well as the upcoming new online application system. Action speaker louder.

Shall issue is not possible, Harrington can believe all he wants but even if he's elected, him along can't change CA law. Some has argued self defense should be accepted as good cause as other counties has done so. Let's look at penal code again:

26150. (a) When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, the sheriff of a county may issue a license to that person upon proof of all of the following:
(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.

Proof is the key and why OCSD change from just accepting your words for good cause to required proof to support your good cause (receipts, pictures, etc.). They know well whatever policy they put together needs to be able to sustain court challenge. What if some liberal file suit against those county who accepted self defense as good cause? OC is the first and only urban county that has large population which issues large number of permits. Their policy must be legally sound.

We had our meet and grill with Barns, he is very up-front saying he used to have concern on CCW. Since Peruta, over 10K permit holder in OC has proven Brady bunch wrong and he has since changed his mind. I'd rather believe someone who are actually work to improve CCW issuance process than some empty promise of "shall issue".
What a bunch of nonsense. The sheriff sets the standard for determining good cause. The applicant's statement is sufficient proof that the standard has been met, unless for some reason it lacks credibility or proof to the contrary exists.

Is what you write Barns' position, because it is flat wrong about California state law and what constitutes "good cause". "Shall issue" does not need documentation since heightened need to carry need not be established. One need only provide evidence supporting a claim of heightened risk.

It is easy for Barns to say that he has changed his mind because of the county's experience with CCW holders under the liberalized may issue policy, but weren't the same statistics available to him from other counties and states? I am deeply concerned that once elected with the help of the 2A community Barns will again change his mind.

Last edited by Chewy65; 10-07-2017 at 11:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 10-09-2017, 11:14 AM
CWM4A1 CWM4A1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,107
iTrader: 21 / 96%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65
What a bunch of nonsense. The sheriff sets the standard for determining good cause. The applicant's statement is sufficient proof that the standard has been met, unless for some reason it lacks credibility or proof to the contrary exists.
OK, English is indeed my 2nd language, but I fail to see how "proof" now equals "statement", by dictionary definition they are different. I can issue a statement that I own Exxon Mobil, it isn't true until I show proof.

Quote:
Is what you write Barns' position, because it is flat wrong about California state law and what constitutes "good cause". "Shall issue" does not need documentation since heightened need to carry need not be established. One need only provide evidence supporting a claim of heightened risk.
Ok, so I take it you are a lawyer, please educate me why I was "wrong" about CA law. Otherwise it's your opinion vs. mine. And you said it yourself at bottom of your paragraph "provide evidence supporting a claim of heighten risk". Again, evidence does not equal to a statement on your application.

Quote:
It is easy for Barns to say that he has changed his mind because of the county's experience with CCW holders under the liberalized may issue policy, but weren't the same statistics available to him from other counties and states? I am deeply concerned that once elected with the help of the 2A community Barns will again change his mind.
From my perspective, at least Barns is being honest and up front about it. I am also deeply concerned that Harrington, without any prior track record to prove that he's a true 2A believer, maybe saying he support shall issue just to woo the 2A/CCW crowd while he does not really believe it. I've also heard from people I trust and well versed in south OC politics that Harrington is another Carona in the making if elected, so no thanks.
__________________
www.ontargetrange.com
NRA certified RSO, Pistol/Rifle/Personal Protection Inside The Home instructor, Certified SIG/Glock pistol armorer. Any question, please feel free to sent e-mail to ontargetrange@sbcglobal.net or visit our forum on Calguns under vendor section!

Last edited by CWM4A1; 10-09-2017 at 11:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 10-09-2017, 9:50 PM
maidenrules29 maidenrules29 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"Good cause" is a subjective term when it comes to CCW county by county, and is defined by each Sheriff differently. Fortunately in San Bernardino County Sheriff McMahon only requires "self defense". As long as you can pass the interview and background check that is as close to shall issue as you can find in CA. Other counties have sheriffs that aren't as friendly towards the idea of thousands of people in their area carrying guns. I think to them it's an odds thing, like they are afraid a couple of bad actors who are crooks but haven't ever been caught will pass the process and then be able to carry and no one is the wiser.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J727A using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 10-09-2017, 9:53 PM
maidenrules29 maidenrules29 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just for clarification I did not mean to say that ONLY San Bernardino Co. is very CCW friendly. I know there are many others

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J727A using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 10-10-2017, 4:36 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,812
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

CWM4A1, All I can say is you should go back and read what was written and then have someone with the time to waste explain the rules of evidence. Try focusing on the absence of proof to the contrary or evidence giving rise to a lack of credibility.

What we do know for certain is what Barnes swore to under oath. As for your assertion that he is now being honest and upfront, you didn't even attempt to explain why Barnes hadn't previously considered the statistics and data concerning other jurisdictions.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 10-10-2017, 5:12 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,812
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

First, let me say that I have not categorically ruled Barnes out, although I question his position on good cause. Look at what Barnes said under oath when OCSD faced a Peruta like law suit.

Quote:
The “good cause” requirement allows Orange County and the State to limit the number of weapons that the public at large has access to immediately, which protects both officers and the public. Increasing the numbers of concealed weapons increases the threat and possibility of firearm violence to the community at large and to law enforcement officers.
Now look at Barnes answer to an email asking for "a clear statement" of Barnes CCW position and specifically wanting" to know if self defense would be considered good and clear enough reason for issuance?" Barnes throws a lot up in the air, but never answers that "yes" or "no" question. Instead he refers to a vague departmental policy and a state standard for good cause. THE PROBLEM IS NO LEGAL STANDARD IS FOUND IN THE PENAL CODE!
Quote:
Regarding your question regarding self-defense as good cause, it would depend on the circumstances as it relates to meeting penal code required good cause, which remains the legal standard.
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 4:35 PM.




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.