|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 10, 2008, 12:08 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: February 6, 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 93
|
Orange County sheriff taking away hundreds of CCWs
__________________
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. |
October 10, 2008, 12:55 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2006
Posts: 312
|
Quote:
Answer, Um, The Second Amendment? -Bruce |
|
October 10, 2008, 02:13 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 10, 2007
Location: Chimacum, WA
Posts: 424
|
Oh well
After all, it's Kalifornia...
__________________
To err is human, to forgive divine Neither is Marine Corps policy... NRA Life Member |
October 10, 2008, 02:23 PM | #4 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Perhaps she will be voted out of office for doing this.
|
October 10, 2008, 03:23 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 3,943
|
I think the write up about Racist Gun Control notes that
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. |
October 10, 2008, 03:31 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2004
Posts: 3,888
|
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.
|
October 10, 2008, 03:35 PM | #7 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
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.
|
October 10, 2008, 03:37 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
|
Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
October 10, 2008, 05:27 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
|
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. Use to be they had 30 days.
|
October 10, 2008, 05:59 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2006
Posts: 312
|
Quote:
Remember, These are law abiding citizens we are talking about here. -Bruce |
|
October 10, 2008, 07:19 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2007
Posts: 1,215
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
To a much greater extent than most mechanical devices, firearms are terribly unforgiving of any overconfidence, complacency or negligence. |
|
October 10, 2008, 07:28 PM | #12 | |
Junior member
Join Date: August 16, 2008
Posts: 919
|
Quote:
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. |
|
October 10, 2008, 07:33 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 9, 2007
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 237
|
Quote:
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!
__________________
Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms should be an aisle at Wal-Mart, not a government agency! Only faithful men teach their wives to shoot. |
|
October 10, 2008, 08:03 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
|
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.
|
October 10, 2008, 08:29 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 9, 2007
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 237
|
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?
__________________
Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms should be an aisle at Wal-Mart, not a government agency! Only faithful men teach their wives to shoot. |
October 10, 2008, 08:37 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2006
Posts: 312
|
Quote:
-Bruce |
|
October 10, 2008, 09:20 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
|
Quote:
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. |
|
October 11, 2008, 12:12 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia, USA
Posts: 13,198
|
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.
|
October 11, 2008, 01:43 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,261
|
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.
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation. Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society. |
October 11, 2008, 05:14 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
|
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. |
October 11, 2008, 05:35 AM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
October 11, 2008, 10:03 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,261
|
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 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.
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation. Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society. |
October 11, 2008, 11:42 AM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
|
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?
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
October 11, 2008, 12:03 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,261
|
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.
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation. Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society. |
October 11, 2008, 12:42 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2008
Location: San Antonio, not San Antone...
Posts: 1,203
|
It's funny how each State in this great Union is so different!
I cannot imagine this ever happening in Texas.
__________________
Read this!: I collect .38 Special and .357 Mag cartridges and I will PAY CASH for the headstamps I don't already have! Please PM me. Please donate blood, plasma, and platelets - people's lives literally depend on it. |
Tags |
l&cr |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|