Sacramento

[CaliforniaLiberal]

I have a quick question. Please save me from "Search" hell if you have the answer.

I have a COE, so CA DOJ has my Live Scan prints on file. Do I have to get another Live Scan for the LTC application or am I good to go with what's already on file?

[Bainter1212]

I have a quick question. Please save me from "Search" hell if you have the answer.

I have a COE, so CA DOJ has my Live Scan prints on file. Do I have to get another Live Scan for the LTC application or am I good to go with what's already on file?

You have to do it again.......however, your approval will come much quicker than most.

[CaliforniaLiberal]

You have to do it again.......however, your approval will come much quicker than most.

Thanks!

[hoffmang]

If the Sheriff changes his mind or a new Sheriff comes and doesn't want to issue and "may issue" isn't resolved, Sac is nothing if renewals are no longer granted. Handshakes are not a great help when stipulating out of court. It's nothing more than a soft agreement.

Hence the ongoing case of Richards v Prieto.

We thought that getting 3,000+ people carrying in Sacramento was important enough to delay the case and force the changes.

Maybe you differ.

-Gene

[taperxz]

Hence the ongoing case of Richards v Prieto.

We thought that getting 3,000+ people carrying in Sacramento was important enough to delay the case and force the changes.

Maybe you differ.

-Gene

Not at all on differing. Hanging your hopes on Richards is a pretty high stakes bet though. Since you got so many LTC's in SAC, What about the rest of the state?

Why is it that this initiative has died in the last 18 months? Your own analysis that you just put out shows how LTC's have slowed since this initiative died.

You had a good thing going but now its almost dead. No explanation, CGF just disappeared. No more posts, no updates, nothing. Except 13 failed court cases and one that made pre emption invalid in San Mateo County.

BTW that was a statute you challenged that wasn't even enforced until you decided to take them to court. Did you know that? Did you know that after your case lost, a bulletin was put out to all deputies that the no gun law in San Mateo county parks was to now be enforced?

How do i know this? My Deputy buddies told me this.

[hoffmang]

Not at all on differing. Hanging your hopes on Richards is a pretty high stakes bet though. Since you got so many LTC's in SAC, What about the rest of the state?

Why is it that this initiative has died in the last 18 months? Your own analysis that you just put out shows how LTC's have slowed since this initiative died.

You had a good thing going but now its almost dead. No explanation, CGF just disappeared. No more posts, no updates, nothing. Except 13 failed court cases and one that made pre emption invalid in San Mateo County.

BTW that was a statute you challenged that wasn't even enforced until you decided to take them to court. Did you know that? Did you know that after your case lost, a bulletin was put out to all deputies that the no gun law in San Mateo county parks was to now be enforced?

How do i know this? My Deputy buddies told me this.

And why do you think they don't want to enforce gun laws in San Mateo Parks? Which entity can fully avoid a federal court certifying a question to the Cal Supremes about carry in parks?

Could you please show me the 13 supposed cases. You'll have to leave Silvester out because we're winning that. You'll also have to leave out all the prosecutions we got dropped.

Also, maybe you missed the statistics update showing that quite a few counties we've been involved with have had significant increases in license issuance.

Or maybe you're just a hater.

-Gene

[taperxz]

And why do you think they don't want to enforce gun laws in San Mateo Parks? Which entity can fully avoid a federal court certifying a question to the Cal Supremes about carry in parks?

Could you please show me the 13 supposed cases. You'll have to leave Silvester out because we're winning that. You'll also have to leave out all the prosecutions we got dropped.

Also, maybe you missed the statistics update showing that quite a few counties we've been involved with have had significant increases in license issuance.

Or maybe you're just a hater and a troll.

-Gene

Here is the problem i have with your rhetoric. YOU seem to think that YOU are responsible for the uptick in CCW's. I acknowledge that you certainly helped in Sac. (somewhat) I believe the incoming Sheriff was also receptive to the idea anyway though.

Isn't it fair to say that the Obama administration also created a panic that also enlightened citizens to go out and get their license. More guns sales/ more people interested in carry?

I looked at the stats. I don't see how in two years CGF who primarily used CGN as a communication tool could have gotten 30,000 CCW's. Many don't even know who CGF is.

Point is, if you would stop embellishing your story, it would be easier to follow. Accountability goes a long way. People are smarter than you think.

It sure would be nice if you came back to earth and simply were honest about what is really going on instead of burying you heads in the sand and disappearing from the one forum that got you to where you were 18 months ago. CGF posts barely get noticed on this forum any more. You had a great thing going then you.... Well, i don't know what you guys did.

Not a hater, not a troll, just calling it like i see it. If i'm wrong, help me to see it the right way.

[hoffmang]

Here is the problem i have with your rhetoric. YOU seem to think that YOU are responsible for the uptick in CCW's. I acknowledge that you certainly helped in Sac. (somewhat) I believe the incoming Sheriff was also receptive to the idea anyway though.

The incoming sheriff was who we negotiated and settled with, or did you not think that through?

-Gene

[taperxz]

The incoming sheriff was who we negotiated and settled with, or did you not think that through?

-Gene

I do believe you talked with him. My point was more to that it was somewhat documented that the incoming Sheriff already had a pro-2A stance as many residents in SAC have also mentioned.

I certainly applaud the pro-active nature of CGF! It just seems like you want to take credit for the whole thing and not give credit to other parts of the equation. (incoming sheriff was pro-2A already) I think you are well aware that this sheriff could change his mind if he wanted to or a new sheriff could shut the whole operation down too.

I think this back and forth stuff on this forum convolutes and exacerbates our opinions

[kdub1290]

Anyone heard anything about there ever being weapons modification appointments again?

[hoffmang]

I certainly applaud the pro-active nature of CGF! It just seems like you want to take credit for the whole thing and not give credit to other parts of the equation. (incoming sheriff was pro-2A already) I think you are well aware that this sheriff could change his mind if he wanted to or a new sheriff could shut the whole operation down too.

Two points. First, we're not taking 100% credit, but I can tell you that when the Cal State Sheriff's Association talks about this issue, CGF is the primary thing they talk about. When we filed the very first post Heller carry case many other gun rights organizations (who now wish to claim they support carry litigation - especially after Moore) told us we were insane to push this issue. I can clearly state that CGF is the only gun rights organization to push a county in California to virtually shall issue. In addition, the increases in many other counties are solely (or in partnership with one or two other groups) our efforts. There are other smaller counties that have always been VSI that have simply had increases due to the reasons you mention though.

Second, the incoming and now current Sac Sheriff took more convincing than you think. A CGF volunteer - who refuses to be talked about - did the heavy political lifting. It burns when people who aren't close to the issues don't understand the fact that that volunteer can not be quoted and due to the ongoing case/controversy we can't publish privileged exchanges with the County - but at least those are alluded to in the blog post I made earlier.

When Richards is over, I'll happily share written proof of CGF and SAF's role in turning Sacramento virtually shall issue.

But going back to point 1, you have no idea how hard people disbelieved that Sac was VSI until they then started to tell us that we had no involvement in creating that. Gun owners have some difficulty getting over old wives' tales.

-Gene

[Tincon]

Gene and his lies

Ah, so you can prove you made Sac increase issuance, except that you can't because it's all hush hush/secret. Please, how stupid do you think people are?

If you had done ANYTHING in Sac, there would be a binding settlement.

[hoffmang]

Ah, so you can prove you made Sac increase issuance, except that you can't because it's all hush hush/secret. Please, how stupid do you think people are?

If you had done ANYTHING in Sac, there would be a binding settlement.

I expect that most people hurdle your low bar.

Please explain this document: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....91626.42.1.pdf

The relevant quote is:
Are you accusing us of perjury? Be careful here.

-Gene

[Tincon]

Are you saying there is a binding settlement? I see nothing in that quote that suggests as much.

[hoffmang]

Are you saying there is a binding settlement? I see nothing in that quote that suggests as much.

Are you saying that's not "ANYTHING" as you said above?

-Gene