Sheriff Gore Aims to Issue More Concealed Gun Permits in San Diego County

[CessnaDriver]

Article on what we kind of know already.........

https://timesofsandiego.com/politics...n-diego-county

[Paladin]

But Gore argued that he’s following California law — while trying to make it easier to obtain a CCW in San Diego County. He said 1,350 county residents have such permits now — four times the number of three-times-larger Los Angeles County.

“We’re really trying to broaden the categories and not be a stickler as far as waiting for an actual threat,” Gore said, noting the case of a female real-estate agent who once confronted him.

“She said: ‘Sheriff, I’ve had a gun my entire life. I know how to shoot it. I grew up with guns. In the nature of my business, I’m out … doing open houses, and I don’t know who’s going to walk through that door.”

Gore said he didn’t have a “comeback” for that. “And we shouldn’t have to have her get a threatening email from somebody (to prove she needs a CCW).”

He called that a “perfect category” for expanding the definition of “good cause.”

Gore said he talks to Michael Schwartz, executive director of the local gun owners group (who spoke on air to DeMaio that June day).

“He wants to take it to the other extreme of a self-defense good-cause requirement,” Gore said during a 45-minute appearance. “I said: ‘Michael, work with me. Let’s see if we can broaden it. It would satisfy a lot of your supporters. That’s what we’re trying to do right now.”

Further, Gore told the 70-member audience he tires of hearing people say they shouldn’t even apply for a CCW “because he won’t give you one.”

“So apply,” Gore implored. “If you [have] anything out there that you can articulate short of ‘I want one,’ apply.”

(One woman in the audience triggered laughter by saying: “We voted for Trump, and they’re chasing us!”)

Noting that Orange County loosened its CCW rules after a 9th U.S. Circuit panel initially ruled against San Diego County, Gore predicted that “when [permit] renewals come in, they’ll start going back to their old [and stricter] policy.”

From https://timesofsandiego.com/politics...-diego-county/

Re. his prediction about OC, working from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruta...County#History

Hutchens liberalized her CCW policy, to the point of SD = GC, back after the 3-judge panel decision in 2014 Feb.

When Kammie butt in and asked for en banc appeal in 2014 Feb, Hutchens did not revert to her previous restrictive GC standard.

When CA9 sue sponte asked for en banc in 2014 Dec, Hutchens did not revert to her previous restrictive GC standard.

When CA9 granted en banc in 2015 May, Hutchens did not revert to her previous restrictive GC standard.

When we lost the CA9 en banc in 2016 June, Hutchens did not revert to her previous restrictive GC standard, even though she did stop accepting SD = GC.

When we were denied CA9 full court en banc appeal in 2016 Aug, Hutchens did not revert to her previous restrictive GC standard. As a matter of fact, she was ramping up her CCW unit to handle having 20,000 CCWers in OC! “Based on the number of applications pending and the CCWs already issued, we anticipate passing the 20,000 mark,” Stiverson says. “The demand is absolutely out there.” From: http://behindthebadgeoc.com/cities/o...weapon-permits

There is no reason for us to think having been denied SCOTUS review will cause Hutchens to revert to her previous restrictive GC standard. AFAIK, she has not had any problems with the folks she's issued CCWs to. People who got OC CCWs just after our 3-judge win will be coming up for their 2nd renewals this coming Feb.

Remember: OC is slightly less populous than SD Co and she's got something like 9,400 (2016) CCWs issued: ~7x as Gore in SD Co.

Notice how Gore says allowing SD = GC is "extreme", yet 42 states are Shall Issue, where you don't even need a GC and in CA ~35 counties either accept SD = GC or require only minimal GC. See: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1236204 Gore's restrictive CCW policy is the "extreme" one in America and in California, not SD = GC!

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by Paladin

From https://timesofsandiego.com/politics...-diego-county/

four times the number of three-times-larger Los Angeles County.

Four times bupkiss is still bupkiss.

San Bernardino County has 2/3rds the population of San Diego County and has at least four times as many permits issued.
Orange County has a similar population to SB and has more permits issued.

[Paladin]

Another important quote is:

Sheriff Gore said of concealed weapons permits: “I talk to all the (police) chiefs in the county. … Every six months, I ask: Are you all right with our policy? (They say) we’re happy with the policy.”

(1) SDCGOPAC needs to remind Gore he works for the American citizens in SD Co., not for the CoPs in SD Co. They are the ones who vote for who is sheriff. The voters, not the CoPs, are his boss....

(2) SDCGOPAC needs to have their members get in touch with their CoPs and tell them to demand CCWs.

ETA: the more I read, the less I like Gore...

Under a photo near the bottom of the article, Gore is quoted as saying, “After I won at the Supreme Court, I came back and I said: I want to be fair. But there are some people in San Diego County that don’t think anybody … should have a gun whatsoever.” First off, you did NOT "win" at the Supreme Court. You were not even a party to the case at that point. Next, NOBODY "won at the Supreme Court": it denied cert. It did not hear, much less decide the case. In a separate quote he seems to get it right: “What I did after the Supreme Court refused to hear it, I went back and looked at how we could broaden some of the (CCW) categories.” Maybe the first was merely a slip of the tongue, or maybe it reveals how he really views it.

But like him or not, if I lived in SD Co and wanted a CCW, I would figure out my best GC and apply ASAP since he seems like he is liberalizing issuance.

[Zspicy]

For what its worth, a guy on another group claimed he got one recently in under a month in SD. With using his business and carrying large sums of cash as good cause. I remember things like that being denied in the past.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Zspicy

For what its worth, a guy on another group claimed he got one recently in under a month in SD. With using his business and carrying large sums of cash as good cause. I remember things like that being denied in the past.

That would qualify as GC in a "light red" or "yellow" county. It would not qualify in a "dark red" county. The CA CCW GC map currently has SD Co. as light red, so no change is called for, yet.

The ironic thing is, in my list of, currently, 220 CCW incidents linked in my signature line, only a few had restraining orders against their attackers. I can't remember any being gold coin dealers, jewelers, or MDs/pharmacists. A few were folks at ATMs. One, IIRC, was a bank manager. None were property managers who collected cash rents. But a TON were pizza delivery drivers who carry what, $50 max?

IOW, all the people Gore thinks would be targeted and would issue a CCW are the ones who are not being attacked.

(Yes, I do LOVE posting the map! )

[Paladin]

Worth cross posting here too:

Originally Posted by Paladin

The best argument for electing Dave Myers that I've seen is Sheriff Gore's ideas of what it means to liberalize his CCW GC standard. Go to: http://sandiegocountygunowners.com/ccw/

Watch the 4 min video. Read the SDCGOPAC response and be sure to read Gore's ideas at: http://sandiegocountygunowners.com/w...y-9-6-2017.pdf



Gore just doesn't get it. He "sees no reason to change" SD's CCW policy. If I lived in SD Co., I'd tell him "I see a reason for you to change your policy: so I can get a CCW to defend myself. I'm sure there's lots of folks here tonight who also want to get a CCW so they can defend themselves and see it as a reason you should change your policy. If you disagree with that, you don't represent our interests and we'll elect someone who will issue CCWs to us!"

[sofbak]

After all I've read here, my opinion of gore has only fallen even more.

And also I'm becoming jaundiced at the "behavior" of SDCGO Pac. Its looking a lot like they are buying into Gore's "easing of restrictions" as acceptable progress.

I'm not going to conjure some GC statement to support either of them. I believe in "shall not be infringed". SDCGO Pac should too and stop playing into Gore's political strategy.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by sofbak

After all I've read here, my opinion of gore has only fallen even more.

And also I'm becoming jaundiced at the "behavior" of SDCGO Pac. Its looking a lot like they are buying into Gore's "easing of restrictions" as acceptable progress.

I'm not going to conjure some GC statement to support either of them. I believe in "shall not be infringed". SDCGO Pac should too and stop playing into Gore's political strategy.

This post makes it seem like you didn't even read SDCGOPAC's response to Gore's misstatements at: http://sandiegocountygunowners.com/ccw/

Plus, you appear unaware of their post re. candidate Dave Myer's statement on CCWs at: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1396829

SDCGOPAC isn't in Gore's pocket....

[sofbak]

"SDCGOPAC isn't in Gore's pocket...."

Sure sounds like they're moving there even if they don't realize it.

From this, uncle bill sure sounds like he's working hard with the pac and enjoys a good relationship there:

Gore said he talks to Michael Schwartz, executive director of the local gun owners group (who spoke on air to DeMaio that June day).

“He wants to take it to the other extreme of a self-defense good-cause requirement,” Gore said during a 45-minute appearance. “I said: ‘Michael, work with me. Let’s see if we can broaden it. It would satisfy a lot of your supporters. That’s what we’re trying to do right now.”

Broaden it? With some "conjured" GC statement? Is that an acceptable alternative to SD=GC?

Then why is the Pac encouraging people to try and apply with some "heightened" GC statement.

Have you considered that Gore will cite every permit issued under this as good reason to re-elect him? Just like he did here:

"But Gore argued that he’s following California law — while trying to make it easier to obtain a CCW in San Diego County. He said 1,350 county residents have such permits now — four times the number of three-times-larger Los Angeles County."

And you apparently want to help him boost his CCW-friendly stats with this:

, "I would figure out my best GC and apply ASAP since he seems like he is liberalizing issuance."

So accepting his election year "liberalizing" crumbs (see above) while acknowledging:

"Notice how Gore says allowing SD = GC is "extreme".

Either SD=GC is the minimum acceptable change from gore or you have to refute him totally.

[Blade Gunner]

Sounds like all yack no shack

[L84CABO]

He said 1,350 county residents have such permits now — four times the number of three-times-larger Los Angeles County.

His comment is both hilarious and infuriating. He has the audacity to point to a county (L.A.) that for all intents and purposes doesn't issue and say, "but at least we're better than them." Three times zero is still, basically, zero. 1350 permits in a county of 3.3 million people is about one third of one percent of the population.

Mr. Gore, you can suck it!

[Mr.Caketown]

“We should thank God” that Gov. Jerry Brown is in Sacramento, Gore said,

Please tell me he was being satirical

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Mr.Caketown

Please tell me he was being satirical

Read it in context: he was saying that the "sanctuary state" law would have been far worse if not for Brown, who heard him out for 3 hours and somewhat moderated the bill (now law).

[Paladin]

Since sofbak continues to misrepresent SDCOPAC's position, I'm quoting their entire response to Gore's LAPA CCW comments below. In the quote, the bold is what Gore said and the rest is SDCGOPAC's correction/reply. For ease of reference, I've numbered the 7 issues using numbers in brackets ([]).

After viewing the above video of San Diego County Sheriff Gore talking about his concealed carry permit (CCW) polices at a Latino American Political Association (LAPA) meeting, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC (SDCGO) is compelled to clarify some statements by Sheriff Gore that could easily mislead voters. Clear, accurate facts and a candidate’s ability to deliver those facts are important factors when voting.

SDCGO is positive that Sheriff Gore is an honorable man so the misleading information was surely unintentional. Still, understanding the facts is important in order to make a good decision in next June’s election.

Below in bold are direct quotes from Sheriff Gore to LAPA members followed by additional clarifying information from SDCGO.

[1] Sheriff Gore’s statement: Referring to San Diego’s CCW polices, “For 35 years, in San Diego County…going back to John Duffy…the policy has been the same.”

Concealed weapon permits or CCWs are California permits issued by a sheriff (or police chief). All the policies are defined clearly in the California’s Penal Code except for the state’s “good cause” requirement. California law requires the issuing authority to have a “good cause” policy, but the definition of “good cause” is left to each sheriff or police chief. The policies of Sheriff Gore’s predecessors may be similar, but Sheriff Gore’s policy is his to define and state law gives him latitude to change it any time.

[2] “….this all started in 2008 with the election of Barrack Obama. And the big threat was, ‘he’s going to take away all our guns’ I guess.” And “that’s when all the pressure came on to change the law.”

It is unclear what Sheriff Gore means when he suggests that voters worried about federal gun confiscation, would respond by pushing to improve county CCW policies. It appears he is conflating two issues. The right to keep arms and the right to bear arms are two separate issues, but protected by the same federal law. There is no link between a fear of federal confiscation of firearms and Sheriff Gore’s policy of banning sane, trained, law-abiding people from carrying concealed in order to protect their life.

Modern CCW reform started in the late 1980s with Florida. In 1987 Florida made their CCW policy objective and non-discriminatory for law-abiding, trained citizens. Statistics have proven that Florida’s CCW policy modernization has enhanced public safety by bolstering the ability for potential victims to protect against violent attack. Most other states have followed Florida’s success and CCW modernization spread across the country and across the vast majority of California’s counties with one of the exceptions being San Diego County. (please see map below)

[3] “Some Sheriffs in very rural counties in the middle part of the state, they give out CCWs for good cause. I can’t control what they do.”

There are 58 counties in California. Of the 58, 35 of them issue CCWs using “self-defense” as good cause and an additional 8 use a “reasonable” good cause policy. The graphic provided shows how each county issues. The changes we are asking Sheriff Gore to make would take him out of the extreme category and align him with the 35 to 45 counties who generally allow their law-abiding, trained residents to protect their life and their family’s life when outside of the home.

Counties like Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Sacramento counties (and others listed) are not “very rural” counties. Regardless, a person living in a urban or suburban neighborhood places the same value on the importance of their life as people in a rural neighborhood.

When referring to the 40+ other sheriffs in the state who issue CCW permits to people for self-defense, “I see no reason to change my…uh our…policy we’ve had for 35 years for San Diego County.”

The biggest reason to change Sheriff Gore’s CCW policy; specifically, his definition of “good cause” is because it is subjective and vague which leads to discrimination. The ability for trained, sane, law-abiding San Diegans to protect their life and the life of their family is being deeply affected by Gore’s outdated policies that (by his own admission) have not been revised in at least 35 years despite watching the rest of the country and state modernize their policy with positive results.

[4] “We have 1500 concealed carry permits out there. That’s 300 more than LA county….”

Los Angeles County and San Francisco County have the most restrictive CCW policies in the state. Orange County is far more similar to San Diego County in population and demographics and they have over 10,000 CCWs issued. Please find the graphic attached to this email showing each county’s CCW policy.

[5] “Michael (from San Diego County Gun Owners), you say my policy is vague and needs more explanation so I put together a group with Michael and another member of his Board. We sat down and hopefully in the next week or two there will be a new policy up that hopefully broadens the categories.”

Sheriff Gore’s statement implies that SDCGO approves of or had a say in changing Sheriff Gore’s CCW policy, but neither is accurate. Sheriff Gore asked to meet with SDCGO to help make his policy “more objective” and “broadened beyond based on risk”. It was made clear in our meetings and conversations that SDCGO’s position is that the only way to make his “good cause” policy objective and non-discriminatory is to accept “self-defense” as good cause. “Self-defense” is the only legal reason a person can use a concealed weapon, but it was made clear in the meetings that Sheriff Gore will not change his policy to accept “self-defense”.

SDCGO provided the sheriff with 16 objective qualifications and the reasons the categories fit into Sheriff Gore’s current policy. SDCGO’s suggestions can be viewed by clicking here. The document Sheriff Gore supplied to us did not include one word we suggested to him. Sheriff Gore’s suggestions can be viewed by clicking here.

It is confusing that Sheriff Gore started his talk to LAPA by saying he will not change his polices because it has been the policy for 35 years and then go on to say he is changing his policy after meeting with SDCGO. To clarify, Sheriff Gore’s proposed “changes” are not changes in his policy at all, but are slightly better explanations of his current policy. The explanations also shows just how subjective his policy is and amounts to nothing more than a new list of ways to say “no” to anyone brave enough to apply for a CCW.

[6] “I’m not anti-gun. I have 6 guns myself.”

The claim and thought by most is that Sheriff Gore is anti-CCW. Unfortunately, that claim is backed up by the tiny number of CCWs issued in San Diego County that has a population of almost 3.5 million people. That fear is further confirmed with Sheriff Gore’s additional explanation of his overly restrictive CCW policies. It really doesn’t matter how many guns an elected official has. Nobody is trying to prevent government officials and law enforcement from self-defense. What matters is how elected officials view a person’s ability for self-defense.

[7] “I have an obligation to follow the state law.”

It is understood that following the law is far more than an obligation; it is a requirement. Changing Sheriff Gore’s policy to accept “self-defense” as “good cause” is allowed by California’s law. The State does not define “good cause” and leaves it up to each sheriff (or police chief) to define with total liberty. As Sheriff Gore mentioned in his talk to LAPA, many other sheriffs issue permits using “self-defense” as “good cause”. We are not asking Sheriff Gore to do something that isn’t already being done in 40+ other counties. We are simply asking Sheriff Gore, to improve public safety by modernizing CCW policies so they are objective and not discriminatory.

From: http://sandiegocountygunowners.com/ccw/

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by sofbak

"SDCGOPAC isn't in Gore's pocket...."

Sure sounds like they're moving there even if they don't realize it.

Yep, that's why they posted 7 major misstatements by Gore and their corrections/responses, right?

See post #15 immediately above or the original at: http://sandiegocountygunowners.com/ccw/

Originally Posted by sofbak

From this, uncle bill sure sounds like he's working hard with the pac and enjoys a good relationship there:

Gore said he talks to Michael Schwartz, executive director of the local gun owners group (who spoke on air to DeMaio that June day).

“He wants to take it to the other extreme of a self-defense good-cause requirement,” Gore said during a 45-minute appearance. “I said: ‘Michael, work with me. Let’s see if we can broaden it. It would satisfy a lot of your supporters. That’s what we’re trying to do right now.”

Broaden it? With some "conjured" GC statement? Is that an acceptable alternative to SD=GC?

SDCGOPAC dealt with that in their response in point 5. Again, you either didn't read it, didn't comprehend it, or are trying to deceive CGNers (or have some sort of psychological/neurological problems). ANYONE can see that by actually reading their response. You are tearing down your reputation on CGN with every misstatement.

Originally Posted by sofbak

Then why is the Pac encouraging people to try and apply with some "heightened" GC statement.

Because that's the only way to find out if Gore is even being honest in issuing for "heightened" GC. Why do that? Because SDCGOPAC does not trust Gore to keep his word.

Originally Posted by sofbak

Have you considered that Gore will cite every permit issued under this as good reason to re-elect him? Just like he did here:

"But Gore argued that he’s following California law — while trying to make it easier to obtain a CCW in San Diego County. He said 1,350 county residents have such permits now — four times the number of three-times-larger Los Angeles County."

Once again, sofbak, you ignore what SDCGOPAC replied when he said something similar before LAPA, as seen in point 4.

Originally Posted by sofbak

And you apparently want to help him boost his CCW-friendly stats with this:

, "I would figure out my best GC and apply ASAP since he seems like he is liberalizing issuance."

Yeah, don't you want more people in SD Co to get CCWs even if you can't?

As far as me, I'm HAPPY Napa Co is issuing CCWs at a much higher rate than Marin or SF counties. Does that make me satisfied, want to stop prodding them to liberalize their GC standard? No.

By the sound of it, you'd be happier if he pulled almost all SDCSO CCWs.

Originally Posted by sofbak

So accepting his election year "liberalizing" crumbs (see above) while acknowledging:

"Notice how Gore says allowing SD = GC is "extreme".

Yeah.... Your point is???

Any liberalization in acceptable GC and increase in the # of CCWer is good, IMO. Does that mean we quit fighting? No, not until we get SD = GC or the state goes "Shall Issue."

Originally Posted by sofbak

Either SD=GC is the minimum acceptable change from gore or you have to refute him totally.

That's your opinion. Mine -- and I'm speaking for myself since I'm not part of SDCGOPAC since I don't live in SD Co -- is that any improvement is better than no improvement. In OC, Hutchens stopped accepting SD = GC after our CA9 en banc loss, yet there are ~10,000 CCWers in OC and they're expecting that number to reach at least 20,000! According to your reasoning, such as it is, gun owners in OC should "refute [her] totally" since she won't accept SD = GC.

“Based on the number of applications pending and the CCWs already issued, we anticipate passing the 20,000 mark,” Stiverson says. “The demand is absolutely out there.” From: http://behindthebadgeoc.com/cities/o...weapon-permits

Fro those who are less biased, here's an article by a SDCGOPAC leader re. Gore and the results of his current CCW policy & practices: https://sdrostra.com/san-diego-count...mbers-numbers/ SDCGOPAC says SD Co should have >165,000 CCWers!

[desertjosh]

I don't trust him, he just wants votes.

[njineermike]

Anybody that believes one word of anything Gore says should really come and see this great bridge I have for sale.

[sfpcservice]

I agree with applying. Even in SF, apply apply apply. I'm sure the Sherriff knows every denial is a vote lost. Loosing a thousand votes a year could get a county politican's attention, especially if the race is close.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Read it in context: he was saying that the "sanctuary state" law would have been far worse if not for Brown, who heard him out for 3 hours and somewhat moderated the bill (now law).

Exactly.
As bad as he is, he is and always has been a known-commodity. His personal focus has always been on environmental issues. He is a moderate Democrat on pretty much all other issues. He never met a tax he didn't like because he agrees with the philosophy that any problem can be solved by throwing government money at it, but he is absolutely not the worst person that COULD be sitting in that office.
That is one of the reasons that "the right people" supported him over Meg, as Meg's position on gun control was also a known commodity (and no, I did not vote for him)

Unfortunately, in January 2019, the person sitting in that office will have all of Brown's negative traits, without the positive ones, and without a filter.

Originally Posted by desertjosh

I don't trust him, he just wants votes.

Of course.

[SDBlaster]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Yep, that's why they posted 7 major misstatements by Gore and their corrections/responses, right?

See post #15 immediately above or the original at: http://sandiegocountygunowners.com/ccw/


SDCGOPAC dealt with that in their response in point 5. Again, you either didn't read it, didn't comprehend it, or are trying to deceive CGNers (or have some sort of psychological/neurological problems). ANYONE can see that by actually reading their response. You are tearing down your reputation on CGN with every misstatement.


Because that's the only way to find out if Gore is even being honest in issuing for "heightened" GC. Why do that? Because SDCGOPAC does not trust Gore to keep his word.


Once again, sofbak, you ignore what SDCGOPAC replied when he said something similar before LAPA, as seen in point 4.


Yeah, don't you want more people in SD Co to get CCWs even if you can't?

As far as me, I'm HAPPY Napa Co is issuing CCWs at a much higher rate than Marin or SF counties. Does that make me satisfied, want to stop prodding them to liberalize their GC standard? No.

By the sound of it, you'd be happier if he pulled almost all SDCSO CCWs.


Yeah.... Your point is???

Any liberalization in acceptable GC and increase in the # of CCWer is good, IMO. Does that mean we quit fighting? No, not until we get SD = GC or the state goes "Shall Issue."


That's your opinion. Mine -- and I'm speaking for myself since I'm not part of SDCGOPAC since I don't live in SD Co -- is that any improvement is better than no improvement. In OC, Hutchens stopped accepting SD = GC after our CA9 en banc loss, yet there are ~10,000 CCWers in OC and they're expecting that number to reach at least 20,000! According to your reasoning, such as it is, gun owners in OC should "refute [her] totally" since she won't accept SD = GC.

“Based on the number of applications pending and the CCWs already issued, we anticipate passing the 20,000 mark,” Stiverson says. “The demand is absolutely out there.” From: http://behindthebadgeoc.com/cities/o...weapon-permits

Fro those who are less biased, here's an article by a SDCGOPAC leader re. Gore and the results of his current CCW policy & practices: https://sdrostra.com/san-diego-count...mbers-numbers/ SDCGOPAC says SD Co should have >165,000 CCWers!

This......
as a proud and active member of SDCGO I can tell you that the org is definitely not buying into gores politics. They have been the only organization pushing for CCW’s (and 2a rights) in San Diego for sometime. As far as I understand they have met w Gore a few times to talk about his CCW policy, or lack of, and it seems that they are starting to make progress in this area.

[rice_man]

So what do you suppose they are doing with all the applications that were submitted when Peruta won the first appeal? Are they going to start calling those people?

[CessnaDriver]

Originally Posted by rice_man

So what do you suppose they are doing with all the applications that were submitted when Peruta won the first appeal? Are they going to start calling those people?

I would be surprised if they did. I think they would have to be forced to do it, most of those are going to say self defense as the reason anyways, Gore will reject that.

[Paladin]

Let's assume the CA CCW GC map is right and Gore's current/past policy was "light red" re. ease of passing GC. If SDCGOPAC and the fear of Myers (with Dem backing) winning gets Gore to adopt a "yellow" policy, that's a win.

We have to remember is that Gore may win reelection. If he does, does it do our side any good to have gotten him pi--ed off at us by saying he's a liar or similar? No. It might even make him, after the election, to drift back to "light red."

But never forget: Gore HATES the ideas of "Shall Issue"/SD=GC so much that's he's willing to risk losing the election -- and his job ($$$) -- just to avoid readily issuing CCWs to law-abiding average citizens.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Another way to look at things is that Gore HATES the ideas of "Shall Issue"/SD=GC so much that's he's willing to risk losing the election -- and his job ($$$) -- just to avoid readily issuing CCWs to law-abiding average citizens.

Which means that whether we pi___ed him off or not, he's going to go back to "light red" after the election.

The fact that he appears to be concerned is encouraging though... it is virtually unheard of for a sitting Sheriff to be unseated.

[Jimi Jah]

This quote is more realistic:

"That 'll be the day" ~ John Wayne

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by Cokebottle

Which means that whether we pi___ed him off or not, he's going to go back to "light red" after the election.

The fact that he appears to be concerned is encouraging though... it is virtually unheard of for a sitting Sheriff to be unseated.

His promise and $2 will get you a cup of coffee.

[baggss]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Let's assume the CA CCW GC map is right and Gore's current/past policy was "light red" re. ease of passing GC. If SDCGOPAC and the fear of Myers (with Dem backing) winning gets Gore to adopt a "yellow" policy, that's a win.

We have to remember is that Gore may win reelection. If he does, does it do our side any good to have gotten him pi--ed off at us by saying he's a liar or similar? No. It might even make him, after the election, to drift back to "light red."

But never forget: Gore HATES the ideas of "Shall Issue"/SD=GC so much that's he's willing to risk losing the election -- and his job ($$$) -- just to avoid readily issuing CCWs to law-abiding average citizens.

If any of Gore's promises turn out to be true and last beyond 2018, SD county would likely move to Yellow on the Map. I just am personally skeptical that he will not lock the process back down after the election (assuming he wins).

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

But never forget: Gore HATES the ideas of "Shall Issue"/SD=GC so much that's he's willing to risk losing the election -- and his job ($$$) -- just to avoid readily issuing CCWs to law-abiding average citizens.

The more I think about this, the more frightening it is.

Gore probably gets $1/2M per year in total compensation. For four years, that means he's putting at risk $2M in income (plus increased retirement benefits), just to keep law-abiding SDians from carrying. That's how much he HATES the idea of law-abiding "average" citizens being able to Carry to defend their lives and the lives of the family, and even strangers being attacked.

If Gore is that much against CCWs, anyone know the "inside scoop" on why he stopped fighting Peruta after we won the 3-judge panel?

Plus, think about it this way: If he's that set against a mere sheriff's policy for a permit to CC, calling it "extreme," Gore must NOT believe in the far more "extreme" position that Americans have a 2nd A RKBA "that shall not be infringed." What does Gore believe about our Constitution, the document he has taken an oath to uphold and defend?

How did SD Co Repub leadership EVER choose to support him? How was ever selected to be sheriff? What do SD Co Repub leaders think about our 2nd A RKBA? What do they think about Gore?

Now, Dave Myers may not believe in a 2nd A RKBA "that shall not be infringed" either. As a gay guy who saw what happened in the Pulse nightclub massacre, he may merely be for a county sheriff's CCW policy where SD = GC as a good "public policy." But even that is a TON better than Gore! It doesn't appear that you'll have to drag Myers, kicking and screaming, to issue CCWs the way you have had to (unsuccessfully so far) with Gore.

[Casual_Shooter]

Originally Posted by Paladin

<snip>

If Gore is that much against CCWs, anyone know the "inside scoop" on why he stopped fighting Peruta after we won the 3-judge panel?

<snip>

Don't know about an inside scoop, but from the interviews with him I've seen and heard, he's only going to give up as much as he has to. Until the court says "you'll start to issue for Self Defense", he'll fall back on his position of "I'd love to issue for Self Defense but the court won't let me.

He stopped fighting after we won the 3 judge panel because he didn't have the wiggle room any more. Of course, he'd probably still not issue because he'd start using the "Moral Character" clause.

Only he knows why he doesn't want to issue permits, but my feeling is it's a liability issue. Someone with a CCW accidentally shoots someone's kid and they will go after him- in the courts if possible and/ or the media.

I seriously doubt he cares at all about the small number of voters who will put a checkmark in another box in the voting booth just because the can't get a CCW. CCW is just not that big of an issue to most of the population.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Casual_Shooter

He stopped fighting after we won the 3 judge panel because he didn't have the wiggle room any more. Of course, he'd probably still not issue because he'd start using the "Moral Character" clause.

But he did have wiggle room: ask for an en banc appeal. Since Kammie/CA won when CA9 called for it sue sponte (to get around defects in Kammie/CA asking for it), Gore obviously would have won if he had just asked for it. Why didn't he?

I had hoped it was because he saw "the error of his way" re. CCWs, but after watching/reading his words recently, I really don't think he's changed his mind and is only giving you guys the bare minimum to keep you "on the plantation" vs voting for Myers. And, if he gets reelected, who knows if he'll revert back to his previous highly restrictive issuance policy.

[Jimi Jah]

This is a pipe dream. CA is moving away from issuing. The next CA administration will crack down even further.

The last thing the ruling party wants are subjects walking around armed.

[baggss]

Originally Posted by Casual_Shooter

Only he knows why he doesn't want to issue permits, but my feeling is it's a liability issue. Someone with a CCW accidentally shoots someone's kid and they will go after him- in the courts if possible and/ or the media..

IANAL.

Actually, I believe he's exempt from prosecution. CA Government Codes 818.4 and 821.2 free him from any liability.

Originally Posted by CA GC 818.4

818.4 A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or by the failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend or revoke, any permit, license, certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization where the public entity or an employee of the public entity is authorized by enactment to determine whether or not such authorization should be issued, denied, suspended or revoked.

Originally Posted by CA GC 821.2

821.2 A public employee is not liable for an injury caused by his issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or by his failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend or revoke, any permit, license, certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization where he is authorized by enactment to determine whether or not such authorization should be issued, denied, suspended or revoked.

There's also GC 820.2:

Originally Posted by CA GC 820.2

Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.

He's only liable if he or another employee in the chain ignores or breaks the law willfully, IAW CGs 815.2.

That whole section of Government Code essentially exempts every state employee and agency from almost any act connected to their job that they or their agency (entity) could be sued for. Interesting reading.

[SD County Gun Owners PAC]

SDCGO response to Time of San Diego Article.

https://sdrostra.com/undesignated/sd...-article-gore/

[Paladin]

The results of the CA state audit of Sac, LA and SD county sheriffs' CCW policy & practices was released today and is being discussed at:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...4#post21027724

[baranski]

Originally Posted by desertjosh

I don't trust him, he just wants votes.

If he issues, I really have no other issues with him.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Let's assume the CA CCW GC map is right and Gore's current/past policy was "light red" re. ease of passing GC. If SDCGOPAC and the fear of Myers (with Dem backing) winning gets Gore to adopt a "yellow" policy, that's a win.

We have to remember is that Gore may win reelection. If he does, does it do our side any good to have gotten him pi--ed off at us by saying he's a liar or similar? No. It might even make him, after the election, to drift back to "light red."

But never forget: Gore HATES the ideas of "Shall Issue"/SD=GC so much that's he's willing to risk losing the election -- and his job ($$$) -- just to avoid readily issuing CCWs to law-abiding average citizens.

Well, it sounds like more SDians are getting CCWs issued by Gore. Of course, these are folks who have heightened Good Cause, folks like small business owners who regularly make cash deposits, not average gun owners who just want to be able to defend themselves in case of attack while in public.

See: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1408131

If you have some sort of GC that's above just "self-defense" AND can afford to potentially waste some time, money and effort, now might be a good time to apply for a CCW. My guess is Gore is nudging SD from "light red" to "yellow" in the CA CCW GC map, just enough to take some wind out of the sails of Myers' campaign.

Remember: if you apply now with Gore and get a CCW that does NOT require you to vote for Gore in June. Similarly, if you plan to vote for Myers in June, that does not mean you should not try applying with Gore right now.

[Jimi Jah]

I live in San Diego county and I can get one here too. All I need to do is donate $10,000 to Gore's re-election campaign.

[Doheny]

Funny how CCW requirements tend to loosen up when an election is around the corner. OC’s program is changing for the better.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by baranski

If he issues, I really have no other issues with him.

The issue is, will he continue to issue after next year?