PDA

View Full Version : Orange County sheriff taking away hundreds of CCWs


Dan M.
October 10, 2008, 12:08 PM
Please follow the link and comment. Thanks!

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/permits-carona-concealed-2186181-county-department?orderby=TimeStampDescending&showRecommendedOnly=0&oncommentsPage=1

Ballenxj
October 10, 2008, 12:55 PM
"The Department has determined that your identified risk does not meet the good cause threshold as required under the new CCW policy based upon the information you provided. As a result of this determination, the Department's present intention is to revoke your CCW license," reads the form letter sent out this month.
Good cause?
Answer, Um, The Second Amendment? :rolleyes:
-Bruce

cohoskip
October 10, 2008, 02:13 PM
After all, it's Kalifornia...

Creature
October 10, 2008, 02:23 PM
Perhaps she will be voted out of office for doing this.

blume357
October 10, 2008, 03:23 PM
Kalifornia's method of having the county sheriff approve CCWs is totally wrong and very partial... there was one county that had not issued any permits to Black folks in years as and example....

this is just another example... I wonder what the sheriff uses to decide.

Majic
October 10, 2008, 03:31 PM
Take them to court. The license was issued because the applicant met all the requirements needed at that time. Now I can see them not renewing because of the new law but not revoking a current one when there has been no infraction.

johnwilliamson062
October 10, 2008, 03:35 PM
Ohio Sheriffs also have discretion. System seems to work pretty well here. I think it is reasonable for local law enforcement to be included to make sure someone who applies is not under suspicion for criminal undertakings even if they have not been brought up on charges yet. Probably a lot will disagree with me here, but if you have an anti-firearm sheriff you probably have a bigger problem than not being able to get a CCW.

Double Naught Spy
October 10, 2008, 03:37 PM
Good cause?
Answer, Um, The Second Amendment?
-Bruce

The 2A is only a good cause if you believe it to be a good cause. The 2A does not constitute justification of risk which is what the Sheriff requires and the Sheriff has the authority to issue and revoke CCWs.

PT111
October 10, 2008, 05:27 PM
In SC the local Sheriff is notified of your application for a CWP and has 7 days to eitehr approve or deny it. If the Sheriff wants to deny it he notifies SLED and they follow up on it. If the Sheriff doesn't respond at all then it is approved. This is one reason for the slow turn-around for SC permits as very few applications are ever looked at by the local Sheriff so it takes the full time. :mad: Use to be they had 30 days. :eek:

Ballenxj
October 10, 2008, 05:59 PM
The 2A is only a good cause if you believe it to be a good cause. The 2A does not constitute justification of risk which is what the Sheriff requires and the Sheriff has the authority to issue and revoke CCWs.
So, What You're saying then is the Sheriff can just willy nilly say who can carry, and who can not?
Remember, These are law abiding citizens we are talking about here.
-Bruce

lockedcj7
October 10, 2008, 07:19 PM
I think it is reasonable for local law enforcement to be included to make sure someone who applies is not under suspicion for criminal undertakings even if they have not been brought up on charges yet. Probably a lot will disagree with me here, but if you have an anti-firearm sheriff you probably have a bigger problem than not being able to get a CCW.

How utterly absurd. There's a reason that we have a legal system with rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence. I have a serious problem with laws that deprive a person of their rights when they have not been convicted of a crime. At present, a person looses their 2A rights if they are subject to a restraining order or under suspicion for domestic violence. (Not sure if that's a federal or state law.) The burden of proof is much lower and the defendant doesn't even get a chance to be heard in some jurisdictions. In others, they don't even have to be notified of the hearing.

So a psycho vindictive ex decides to get back at you for some real or imagined insult. She gets a sympathetic judge to issue a restraining order against you in absentia and the next thing you know, the sheriff shows up at the door and confiscates your firearms. If you ever want to see them again, you're going to have to spend a lot of money on a lawyer. Your CCW application get denied, or your permit gets revoked. That's OK with you?

I don't care if the sheriff has me under surveillance and believes I'm cooking meth in my basement. Until I'm convicted of a crime, I should not lose any of the rights I enjoy as an American citizen. I've seen enough real investigations done that I don't ever want to be the subject of one. In one case, the authorities didn't interview the one person who was privy to the most information. They couldn't prove that the subject had done anything wrong, which he absolutely had.

If you can't tell, I'm extremely mistrustful of authority figures who have too much power. Having discretionary power as to what constitutes "just cause" is waaaayyyyyy too much power for one person.

MrNiceGuy
October 10, 2008, 07:28 PM
Ohio Sheriffs also have discretion. System seems to work pretty well here. I think it is reasonable for local law enforcement to be included to make sure someone who applies is not under suspicion for criminal undertakings even if they have not been brought up on charges yet.

the thing about discretion is that it doesnt have to be validated by such pesky things as "reasons" nor is there any reliable system to dispute the decision.

perhaps the officer under who's discretion the decision falls decides that he's just having a bad day, or perhaps the handwriting isnt neat enough, or maybe for some reason, the officer just has a "bad vibe"

an individuals "discretion" is a awfully shaky premise to rest ones rights upon.

Dangerwing
October 10, 2008, 07:33 PM
If you can't tell, I'm extremely mistrustful of authority figures who have too much power.

Here Here!! Sounds a lot like some people I learned about in history class...Some guy named Washington, and I think there was one named Jefferson. Oooh Oooh, and I think Franklin and Hancock ring a bell too!!:D

The fact is, the main reason that our country came to be was a general mistrust of a large federal government. Some say it was "taxation without representation", others say it was "a freedom of religion" issue etc etc, but all of those issues are encompassed by the idea of a mistrust of "the king". That also explains why orriginally the federal government was extremely week - it couldnt even collect taxes!

PT111
October 10, 2008, 08:03 PM
It wasn't a mistrust of the King, just they didn't like what he was doing. You don't have to mistrust someone to disagree with them or think that they are an idiot. The King said the colonies couldn't do certain things and they said yes we are and did it anyway.

Dangerwing
October 10, 2008, 08:29 PM
Ok, not mistrust in a sense that he was being dishonest. They didn't trust in his ability to lead fairly. They didn't trust that his rules/laws were what was in the best intrest of their society. Make sense?

Ballenxj
October 10, 2008, 08:37 PM
How utterly absurd. There's a reason that we have a legal system with rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence.
Hear, hear! The Sheriff is meant to uphold the law, not make them up on the fly, and as he or she see's fit. :eek:
-Bruce

PT111
October 10, 2008, 09:20 PM
Ok, not mistrust in a sense that he was being dishonest. They didn't trust in his ability to lead fairly. They didn't trust that his rules/laws were what was in the best intrest of their society. Make sense?

I can go along with that. :) Distrust of one's abilities or that they will do the best thing either intentionally or not is different. I trust Al Sharpton a lot more than John Edwards. But I do not trust either to do the best thing for the country? No!!!!!!!!

I trust McCain a lot more than Obama to do the best things for the country but I do not trust either one of them to do very many good things.

Bud Helms
October 11, 2008, 12:12 AM
A word to the wise: Taking a thread "political", even unintentionally, by using political candidates or parties by name will get a thread closed quickly in General Discussion.

sholling
October 11, 2008, 01:43 AM
The way it works here is that issue is purely discretionary. In about half of the (mostly rural) counties CCWs are relatively easy to come by. In the urban centers and a couple of rural counties they are almost impossible to come by. In Los Angeles for example excellent political connections, and throwing celebrity filled campaign fund raisers for the sheriff are the only "good cause" necessary. On the other hand a mere common citizen with a clean record that could document that there is a contract out on their life would probably not be considered to have a good enough cause.

Orange County went from a sheriff famous for only issuing to cronies and contributers to a new sheriff that opened up permits to anyone with a clean record and something resembling good cause. Unfortunately he got caught with his hand deeply in the cookie jar and has been replaced with an anti gun political hack. She's in the process of routinely denying new permits and renewals, and revoking as many existing permits as possible. I suspect that things will eventually settle down into good cause being strictly defined as being a crony, political ally, or major contributer. But it's hard to say right now with her in full disarm the public mode. Since it is for all intents and purposes impossible to unseat a sitting sheriff she's likely there for life. We have a no Beauford Pussers law to prevent the peasantry from running for that office.

PT111
October 11, 2008, 05:14 AM
You have pointed out the problem with "May Issue". In theory the "May Issue" thought is great but sets it up to be ripe with cronyism and graft depending on the whim of the sheriff or judge with the power. To overcome this states must got to "Shall Issue" and make the sheriff state why they are denied rather than "I don't like him or he didn't contribute to my election". Local issuing of permits sounds great but leads to discrimination.

Good luck to all those affected.

Double Naught Spy
October 11, 2008, 05:35 AM
So, What You're saying then is the Sheriff can just willy nilly say who can carry, and who can not?
Remember, These are law abiding citizens we are talking about here.
-Bruce

Well Bruce, that is the law. It is up to the sheriff because it is a "may issue" law, not a "shall issue" law (although some places go through a judge, I understand, but many/most go through the local law enforcement). You can call it willy nilly or whatever you like because you don't agree with the parameters, but that doesn't change the law.

Of course they are law abiding people. If they weren't, they would not have been given CCWs in the first place. There will be plenty more law abiding people who won't get CCWs because the current sheriff will deny the requests because of a lack of justification. It doesn't make it right, but that is how it is.

sholling
October 11, 2008, 10:03 AM
Keep in mind that the law was originally intended to keep firearms out of the hands of minorities. Thus the requirement for a face to face interview. It was important to verify the race of the applicant. Thanks to Incitatus for posting this link (http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2008/06/racist-origins-of-anti-gun-concealed.html) earlier. These days it's simply evolved into a tool that allows the sheriff reward friends, supporters, and large contributers; and to punish political enemies by leaving them vulnerable to physical attack, robbery, rape, and murder. A tool few sheriffs won't fight to keep tightly under their control.

Double Naught Spy
October 11, 2008, 11:42 AM
If the law isn't being used for minority exclusion these days, why must we keep in mind that minority exclusion was part of the history of the law? How is this relevant to the current situation?

sholling
October 11, 2008, 12:03 PM
Because I think to a degree it's still done at an unconscious level. Why else keep the face to face aspect? It's also important to understand the history so that we can fully understand that it was always intended as an exclusionary good old boy system. Like all government encroachment on freedoms the powers that be promise that it only effects other folk, then pretty soon we all get screwed.

Rich Miranda
October 11, 2008, 12:42 PM
It's funny how each State in this great Union is so different!

I cannot imagine this ever happening in Texas.

mr kablammo
October 11, 2008, 11:43 PM
As others have noted, the very notion of 'discretion' is fraudulent and insulting. Voting that sheriff out of office and changing the law should be done to the degree possible.

Bogie
October 12, 2008, 12:30 AM
So, campers...

Not to derail from the whole '**** and moan' fest, but...

How can we turn this around? In the media, and otherwise?

Ballenxj
October 12, 2008, 09:05 AM
So, campers...

Not to derail from the whole '**** and moan' fest, but...

How can we turn this around? In the media, and otherwise?
Class action lawsuit? Time to put "Her" on the defensive. See how she likes that! :mad:
-Bruce

Double Naught Spy
October 12, 2008, 07:45 PM
Because I think to a degree it's still done at an unconscious level. Why else keep the face to face aspect? It's also important to understand the history so that we can fully understand that it was always intended as an exclusionary good old boy system.

Okay, now how does that apply to rectifying the situation since we understand it so well?

Class action lawsuit? Time to put "Her" on the defensive. See how she likes that!
The lawsuit won't affect "Her" per se and make her feel bad. She is operating within the law. It would be a whole other matter if she was operating illegally.

B.N.Real
October 12, 2008, 07:49 PM
Sure would be nice if they spent as much time on the street getting the criminals as they do going after people lawful enough to put their names down and show that they legally own firearms for lawful self defense purposes.

Interesting use of public safety resources.

To deny the public their rights.

EastSideRich
October 12, 2008, 09:27 PM
I'm shocked that she can legally revoke permits like this. As someone stated before, I can see not renewing (not saying I agree with it), but being able to revoke on a whim after a permit has been issued is ridiculous.

Does anyone know the criteria for "good cause"; I'm assuming there must be some legal guidelines she has to or is supposed to consider in deciding whether or not to issue - or in this case revoke.

Absolutely disgusting. Unfortunately I have the feeling these people are just S.O.L. I also doubt, considering the location, this will effect her being re-elected when that comes up.

Recon7
October 12, 2008, 10:42 PM
Somebody should research the average response time for a 911 call in Orange County and put that they can't wait that long when somebody is trying to kill them.

Seriously, somebody should find an acceptable reason that is broad enough for everybody to use and put the info out to all the people who got the letters and all CCW instructors. Remember this came out because people listed reasons like "avid shooter" You can easily practice target shooting without a permit. Since this is kali, they will probably just have to play their stupid game.

44 AMP
October 12, 2008, 10:59 PM
It won't matter. The Sherriff is acting within their authority, under existing law. I don't agree either, but that is the way it is. The only thing you can do is work to get the law changed.

And that takes influence. Political cronyism (read corruption) is as old as politics. In the USA, under our current system, we have a slim chance to beat that age old influence. But only a slim one.

But a slim chance is better than none. Don't give up the fight.

Double Naught Spy
October 13, 2008, 07:09 AM
Interesting use of public safety resources.
It is within the scope of the Sheriff's position.

To deny the public their rights.
Nope. This is denial of limited privileges that were a part of the law when those who applied for the permits (now getting revoked) originally got their permits. In other words, it isn't even as if the law changed. They knew or should have known the rules when they got their permits and applied anyway.

Just how hard were those 1000+ permit holders working to change the law in their favor over the last several years to protect themselves? The risk of losing the permits has always been there. It sounds like trying to close the barn door after the cows got out. Somebody should have closed the door long ago.

sholling
October 13, 2008, 11:56 AM
Just how hard were those 1000+ permit holders working to change the law in their favor over the last several years to protect themselves? The risk of losing the permits has always been there. It sounds like trying to close the barn door after the cows got out. Somebody should have closed the door long ago.Our commissars may be brain damaged but they aren't entirely stupid (although many would disagree), they have successfully used the divide and conquer tactic for decades. First aiming the law at minorities, and then as race discrimination became unacceptable they moved to the privileged vs the common citizen.


Judges are kept happy because they have easy access to permits and longer permit terms.
The politically connected are happy because sheriffs trade permits for favors.
The wealthy are kept happy because most have easy access to permits - as long as they keep donating.
The police unions are kept happy because their members and retirees are exempt, the the public employee unions rule this state.
And it feels oh sooooo good to have something that nobody else can have. To be special. To be a privileged class. So no one in any of those groups will lend their support to cleaning up a corrupt system and extending the right to bear arms to commoners. The exception really has been Orange County where many of these people have been active in trying to open up the process and thought that they had chosen a sheriff that would open it up to almost everybody. Unfortunately he turned out to be a crook and got himself busted, and now they are now saddled with an unelected elitist hack.

If California had free elections (we don't) we might be able to run candidates that were more to our liking.


A powerful but unpopular sheriff facing defeat by a judge used his connections to pass a ban on commoners running for sheriff.
Scientifically gerrymandered districts make it impossible to defeat the ruling party in the legislature.
Campaign finance laws are designed to make party leaders (extremists) king makers.
A wildly left wing press corp backs the current system. They will tell any lie and withhold any facts and hype any issue necessary to keep leftists running the state.
Next month we go to the polls to do something about gerrymandering.
This year will probably see incorporation and then loaded open carry bans challenged under Heller. It's coming but it's taking time.

bikerbill
October 13, 2008, 04:27 PM
What a surprise! Permits being revoked in The Peoples Republic of Kahleeforneeah .... so glad I got out of that place, it's pretty but the politics come straight from Cuba ... see Arnie may be recalled ... jerk ... good riddance

PT111
October 13, 2008, 07:24 PM
Next month we go to the polls to do something about gerrymandering.

Good luck with that. I wish thar we could do something about that down here in the South but the 1964 Civil Rights Act prevents us from doing anything about it. Here we have to gerrymander our school board elections to be sure that minorities are elected not to mention a congressional district that runs 100 miles down Interstate Highway (only inlcudes the highway) just to include a predominately black area. Local representation no longer exists for us.