Candidate for Shasta County Sheriff says he would issue open carry licenses.

[CitaDeL]

This morning, candidate for Sheriff of Shasta County John Greene said he would issue licences under 26150(b)(2) on KCNR radio.

This would make it lawful to carry loaded and exposed in the county only.

How soon do you think it would be before the legislature passed a bill banning open carry again?

(Greene's interview is in the second hour of the program)



http://apps.kcnr1460.com/media//podc...2022-03-20.mp3

[Librarian]

PC 26150

(b) The sheriff may issue a license under subdivision (a) in either of the following formats:

(1) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

(2) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in only that county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

2020 Census says Shasta has about 182K.

So, any Sheriff issuing those would be merely following the law. What little I've heard suggests such licenses are quite rare.

[CitaDeL]

Originally Posted by Librarian

PC 26150

2020 Census says Shasta has about 182K.

So, any Sheriff issuing those would be merely following the law. What little I've heard suggests such licenses are quite rare.

Rare?

I'd wager there isn't one issued in any of the counties where it is available.

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

Rare?

I'd wager there isn't one issued in any of the counties where it is available.

As CC would be a better option as it’s good statewide.

[CitaDeL]

I've had this discussion before.

If concealed carry is the superior option, why don't police prefer it?

[BeAuMaN]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

I've had this discussion before.

If concealed carry is the superior option, why don't police prefer it?

Because they're wearing a uniform that indicates they're armed, so there's little use in pretending otherwise.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

I've had this discussion before.

If concealed carry is the superior option, why don't police prefer it?

Detectives do.

Open carry by police is similar to the marked cruiser by the roadside: presence has a value.

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by BeAuMaN

Because they're wearing a uniform that indicates they're armed, so there's little use in pretending otherwise.

They also carry in retention holsters and have training on retention.

Originally Posted by 9Cal_OC

As CC would be a better option as it’s good statewide.

Nothing to say that both types of permits could not be issued

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

Rare?

I'd wager there isn't one issued in any of the counties where it is available.

I'm sure there are - the law exists for a reason. You ever been to Modoc county?


The problem that a Sheriff in a large-ish county like Shasta could run into, is that if permitted open carry on a large scale causes an uproar, the cities may take back their right to manage permit issuance.

[jeremiah12]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

I've had this discussion before.

If concealed carry is the superior option, why don't police prefer it?

Plainclothes officers CC all the time. They do not want to be a target if caught in a bad situation. I have known a few in my lifetime. In today's world, a uniform and a gun on the hip has put a target on the back of cops.

Open carry is not necessarily the deterrent some say it is. There are some BG that might move on to a different target if they see someone open carrying. If that person is their target for whatever reason, then they know they will have to be ready for that. If they do not care if the target lives or dies, then they will just ambush you and shoot you just like they are doing with LEOs.

If it is in a store robbery situation and they are desperate, they will wait until you leave, put the gun to your head as the first step, or just shoot you first to start the ball rolling.

The concealed gun provides you with many options and allows you to use the element of surprise to your advantage or allows you to stay out of it if you are outgunned (like a take-over robbery situation with multiple BGs).

We all know that as soon as open carry starts in CA, the majority of stores will post no guns allowed signs and the politicians will quickly pass legislation to give them the force of law.

In my county, the Sheriff already places that restriction on every CCW he issues. If the property owner has a no guns allowed sign and you are caught carrying one inside, you loose your CCW and will not be issued another one. You will also be arrested for misdemeanor trespassing for violating the terms you agreed to when the CCW was issued.

We would get something like they have in IL where my son lives. Yes, they now have may issue CC permits. The no guns allowed signs do have the force of law and if you are caught inside of any establishment that has the legal no guns allowed sign posted, you lose your CC permit and your FOID card which means you have just lost your gun rights for a minimum of 5 years. In the college town he lives in, the majority of stores have the signs and notices that you are being video recorded so they have your picture to match with the picture the state has in the CCW database, the FOID card database, and the DL database.

[CitaDeL]

In my view, sheriffs that issue licenses to carry in any manner have violated their oath to support and defend the constitution.

These sheriffs that are permissive issuers use carry licensing to obtain votes while giving you the illusion of liberty. In my book, this makes them more dangerous than Gavin Newsom, since they claim to be your ally, but will forever hold the power of revocation over you if you do something they don't like. The application of conditions on the right to carry exposes them as a tin badge tyrant. They are excrement, unworthy of the office they hold.

CCW (carry licenses) and the right to carry cannot coexist, because licensing carry is gun control that infringes on the 2A.

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

In my view, sheriffs that issue licenses to carry in any manner have violated their oath to support and defend the constitution.

These sheriffs that are permissive issuers use carry licensing to obtain votes while giving you the illusion of liberty. In my book, this makes them more dangerous than Gavin Newsom, since they claim to be your ally, but will forever hold the power of revocation over you if you do something they don't like. The application of conditions on the right to carry exposes them as a tin badge tyrant. They are excrement, unworthy of the office they hold.

CCW (carry licenses) and the right to carry cannot coexist, because licensing carry is gun control that infringes on the 2A.

Blame the legislators who created such system. Some sheriffs issue and are bounded by the laws. Some agencies have less restrictions than others.
Alas, you have to remember, we’re in CA.

[CitaDeL]

Originally Posted by 9Cal_OC

Blame the legislators who created such system. Some sheriffs issue and are bounded by the laws. Some agencies have less restrictions than others.
Alas, you have to remember, we’re in CA.

Ah, its the fault of the legislature that sworn officers break their oath. They must do what violates the constitution, because lawmakers made the law. Right.

Can the legislature grant authority to police, to abridge the rights canonized in the Bill of Rights? Does the legislature have the authority to regulate into oblivion the bearing of arms themselves? If they don't, they can't grant it to anyone else.

You can say that its just how California is, but last I checked, California is just one of 50 states in the United States where the constitution is the Supreme law of the land. Even the California constitution concedes this.

I would argue that it is easier to keep elected sheriffs accountable to their oaths, than the leftist authoritarian gun prohibitionists chosen by a dependent and stupid urban electorate.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

In my view, sheriffs that issue licenses to carry in any manner have violated their oath to support and defend the constitution.

These sheriffs that are permissive issuers use carry licensing to obtain votes while giving you the illusion of liberty. In my book, this makes them more dangerous than Gavin Newsom, since they claim to be your ally, but will forever hold the power of revocation over you if you do something they don't like. The application of conditions on the right to carry exposes them as a tin badge tyrant. They are excrement, unworthy of the office they hold.

CCW (carry licenses) and the right to carry cannot coexist, because licensing carry is gun control that infringes on the 2A.

So, you would prefer they do not issue at all? They can do that; people keep suing them for that behavior, so apparently a number of people are not phased by Sheriffs following the law.

I suspect you might prefer instead that a Sheriff would not enforce the requirement that CCW needs a license.

[SharedShots]

The idea that carrying a firearm is focused only on what other people might do is shortsighted and pigeon holes the entire debate about carrying a firearm.

There are other reasons for carrying and not everyone lives in some craphole city where the goon platoon is waiting for you to step outside your home so they can rip you off, watch you drive away so they can invade your home and so on.

Some people actually live where a majority of the people tend to be civil toward each other and don't walk around in some paranoid view that everyone they see is a potential gunfight only seconds away. These people live where their daily lives don't revolve around sitting in a car on some freeway hoping not to be the next road rage victim or going into a grocery store is running the gauntlet of homeless and drug addicts. These people live where danger can come from wildlife and even domestic animals. They hunt and having to figure out how to transport a handgun to a campsite just doesn't make any sense.

They also tend to be the people who know what a right is and the difference between that and a privilege.

Broaden the thinking about carrying and expand it beyond the cities. It's the cities that are the problem, they create the conditions where dogs can't eat dogs because the people in them are doing that and also eating each other. And maybe, just maybe not always compare the private person with the police, you are not the police and don't carry for the same reasons.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

Rare?

I'd wager there isn't one issued in any of the counties where it is available.

As I recall, there is a case (still?) pending by a Shasta County resident who sued when the Sheriff did not issue an open carry permit. On the other hand, Sheriffs here are "virtual shall issue." Take the class, make an appointment, take your completed form and the fee to the interview (along with your guns unloaded and in locked container, no ammo) and unless the deputy thinks you are really hinky, you will get a license.

[CitaDeL]

Originally Posted by TruOil

As I recall, there is a case (still?) pending by a Shasta County resident who sued when the Sheriff did not issue an open carry permit. On the other hand, Sheriffs here are "virtual shall issue." Take the class, make an appointment, take your completed form and the fee to the interview (along with your guns unloaded and in locked container, no ammo) and unless the deputy thinks you are really hinky, you will get a license.

The decision to allow bearing arms is not the deputy's (or any government agent's) to make.

[CitaDeL]

Originally Posted by Librarian

So, you would prefer they do not issue at all? They can do that; people keep suing them for that behavior, so apparently a number of people are not phased by Sheriffs following the law.

I suspect you might prefer instead that a Sheriff would not enforce the requirement that CCW needs a license.

Nailed it. And would not enforce AW or magazine capacity limits and...

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

Nailed it. And would not enforce AW or magazine capacity limits and...

And we would have to get every CLEO in CA to also get on board. So until that happens, issuing is the best we've got and we can be thankful that many will, and that the permits they issue are valid throughout the state.

[9mmrevolver]

Told my grandma about this. Boy she was not happy. Called republicans idiots and said she doesn’t want to get shot by those people. I might have poked the bear a bit after that. I said soooo what u are saying is your vote is for John Greene right?

[johncage]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

Nailed it. And would not enforce AW or magazine capacity limits and...

not realistic in the slightest. this talk of vague notion of "oath" is nonesense. cops enforce the law, period. if you have a problem with the law, take it up with the law makers, not the cops.

if people didn't want to enforce the law, they wouldn't become cops in the first place, so it makes no sense to expect them to look the other way just for your entitled ***.

[CitaDeL]

Originally Posted by johncage

not realistic in the slightest. this talk of vague notion of "oath" is nonesense. cops enforce the law, period. if you have a problem with the law, take it up with the law makers, not the cops.

if people didn't want to enforce the law, they wouldn't become cops in the first place, so it makes no sense to expect them to look the other way just for your entitled ***.

Some people shouldn't be police.

Starting with those that have no integrity.

ETA: Law enforcement are sworn officers of the government. They hold their hand up before God and witnesses, to 'support and defend' the constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights is part of the construction of that binding document.

Effectively, they are swearing to defend your right to keep and bear arms, with a plain reading and understanding of the second amendment. If the swear an oath, and do not do the things they avowed, they have lied,... borne false witness to God.

If they swore falsely, or with some mental reservation or contrary conviction they are unworthy to serve and dishonor those that took the oath truthfully.

It is my view, that if discovered, lying oathbreakers ought to be rooted out, and discharged in shame. If you disagree, you condone the tyranny that got California where it is today.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

I've had this discussion before.

If concealed carry is the superior option, why don't police prefer it?

They prefer that "civilians" not be armed at all, and don't like CC because then they cannot tell, without close observation, who is carrying. How many times have we seen officers reacting "poorly" to the discovery that a civilian is armed? I think it scares the ever lovin' crap out of them even when they know that the person has a valid CCW.