California sheriff under probe for denying CCWs to residents - Page 2

California sheriff under probe for denying CCWs to residents

This is a discussion on California sheriff under probe for denying CCWs to residents within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by mmb617 I was reading today that the US supreme court is going to consider a gun rights case and the left is ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 37
Like Tree88Likes

Thread: California sheriff under probe for denying CCWs to residents

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    31,830
    Quote Originally Posted by mmb617 View Post
    I was reading today that the US supreme court is going to consider a gun rights case and the left is afraid of what will come of it due to the conservative majority. From what I understand the issue at hand is basically local authorities passing laws that violate 2nd amendment rights.

    Perhaps it will come to pass that locals will not be able to enforce their versions of gun control.
    That would be the hopeful outcome, but don't start up the chicken-counting machine just yet.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  2. #17
    Distinguished Member Array GraySkies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    1,388
    Quote Originally Posted by mmb617 View Post
    I was reading today that the US supreme court is going to consider a gun rights case and the left is afraid of what will come of it due to the conservative majority. From what I understand the issue at hand is basically local authorities passing laws that violate 2nd amendment rights.

    Perhaps it will come to pass that locals will not be able to enforce their versions of gun control.
    I do not have high hopes for this case. Their recent history, if they take ANY 2A cases at all, is to rule in such a narrow way that it cannot set precedent for any of the other types of laws. Also, they have not made ANY moves to slap down the circuit courts that have been defying them where the 2nd is concerned. With the NY law at issue, it doesn't seem like there is enough there that applies outside of that particular case for it to be very helpful. The fact that THIS is the 2nd Amendment case they chose to hear, leads me to conclude that they are probably just going to use this as an excuse to dodge the issue for 10 more years, and just say "hey, we ruled in your favor in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York, so shut up and go away". I'm betting that they'll rule to strike the NY law, but the ruling will be on such narrow grounds that it will not apply to any other case. When other states enact similar laws, and they are upheld by the circuit courts, the Supremes will refuse to hear them or otherwise bring the circuits in line.

    This is how it has been for too long. They are NO help. Heller and McDonald should have been the beginning of a monumental landslide of infringements being overturned, and instead these landmark decisions have been passing gas in the wind... I've long since lost any hope for relief from the Supreme Court, no matter who they appoint to it. Change my mind...
    The antis just don't understand the depth of love & bonding that comes with guns - redbirddog5

    2nd AMENDMENT: The gateway drug to freedom addiction.

  3. #18
    Senior Member Array Psycho41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    886
    Quote Originally Posted by GraySkies View Post
    I do not have high hopes for this case. Their recent history, if they take ANY 2A cases at all, is to rule in such a narrow way that it cannot set precedent for any of the other types of laws. Also, they have not made ANY moves to slap down the circuit courts that have been defying them where the 2nd is concerned. With the NY law at issue, it doesn't seem like there is enough there that applies outside of that particular case for it to be very helpful. The fact that THIS is the 2nd Amendment case they chose to hear, leads me to conclude that they are probably just going to use this as an excuse to dodge the issue for 10 more years, and just say "hey, we ruled in your favor in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York, so shut up and go away". I'm betting that they'll rule to strike the NY law, but the ruling will be on such narrow grounds that it will not apply to any other case. When other states enact similar laws, and they are upheld by the circuit courts, the Supremes will refuse to hear them or otherwise bring the circuits in line.

    This is how it has been for too long. They are NO help. Heller and McDonald should have been the beginning of a monumental landslide of infringements being overturned, and instead these landmark decisions have been passing gas in the wind... I've long since lost any hope for relief from the Supreme Court, no matter who they appoint to it. Change my mind...
    The NY law no longer exists. They changed the law as soon as they realized it was going to go to the supreme court. Typically such cases would be dropped by scotus because they are now moot. NY believed they would lose (which would indicate even they felt it was unconstitutional) and a decision against them *could* have bigger consequences to other anti-2A legislation. There is a belief that scotus (at least some members) want to hear the case to address that action. Simply dropping a law because it is being challenged would seem to indicate NY was knowingly infringing people's rights and only dropped to not have it decided in a court. I'm sure many of us believe there are plenty of unconstitutional laws with regard to 2A, but as long as they are never challenged and found as such, they continue to stand. So, I can see that they would fear a potential decision that could have consequences to more than just this specific law. I'm giving it a 50/50 chance that they will drop it during the initial hearing on the mootness of the law.

  4. #19
    Senior Member Array Bubblehead751's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    NEPA
    Posts
    900
    Why don’t I trust government to take care of me like the socialist believe would be best.

    Never mind remember now.
    Sister likes this.
    Montani Semper Liberi

    Mountaineers are Always Free!

  5. #20
    Member Array rotorhead1026's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    The Far Side
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Sister View Post
    What gets me about this picture is the ladies eyes, is she related to Adam Shif*t? Her eyes are all wide open in a peculiar way like his is? A guess would be some kind of medications that makes a persons eyes sub-normal, or rather zombie like?
    Thoughts?
    You can simulate this effect by gobbling speed every few hours and not sleeping for five days straight.

    And, yeah, her walking around with a O-10’s stars is a joke. I will say, though, that that is also true for some actual O-10s
    retired badge 1 and M1911A1 like this.
    *********************************

    Never let anything mechanical know that you're in a hurry.

  6. #21
    VIP Member Array dangerranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Exact center of CA
    Posts
    5,466
    Quote Originally Posted by tahmail View Post
    Turn up the volume folks - the more we speak out in unison and let them know we WILL BE HEARD, the better chance we have of forcing them to bend.
    But that's the problem with this! It's one reporter sniveling because he couldn't get them to cough up the info he wanted! Not the citizens demanding their right to a CCW! Not surprising this is a bedroom community of San Francisco. DR

    Edited to add, If she was being accused of not giving info about CCW license holders to the press we would be holding her up as a Hero! It just depends on which way you spin the Opinion! DR

  7. #22
    Senior Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    18,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Sister View Post
    What gets me about this picture is the ladies eyes, is she related to Adam Shif*t? Her eyes are all wide open in a peculiar way like his is? A guess would be some kind of medications that makes a persons eyes sub-normal, or rather zombie like?
    Thoughts?

    Quite possibly hyperthyroidism behind the bulging eyes.
    OD* and airslot like this.
    Smitty
    AZCDL Life Member
    NRA Patron Member
    NROI Chief Range Officer

  8. #23
    Member Array M1911A1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Washington State
    Posts
    464
    The Sheriff is an elected official.
    A sheriff who goes against the wishes of the voters of his or her county will soon be dis-elected.
    This particular Sheriff must be doing what her constituency prefers, which bodes ill for the gun owners of Santa Clara County.

    The same is true for Los Angeles County's Sheriff, as well as San Francisco City-and-County's, and a few others.

    The problem that all of this raises for me is that, upon my death, my Silicon-Valley-dwelling daughter wants to inherit my modern firearms, many of which could possibly be illegal to possess in her county as presently constituted.
    I hope that California law changes before I die, and that California's "peninsula counties" change politically too. But hope ain't much to go on.
    Steve
    Retired Leathersmith and Practical Shooter

    "Qui desiderat pacem, præparet bellum."

  9. #24
    Member Array starlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    Easy solution that most states have: Shall issue. Get that voted in and problem solved.

    We got it voted in our state 20 years ago, against a Democratic trifecta, so it can be done. Now we have so many people with permits, that is one thing the new Democratic trifecta probably will not mess with.

    - we are trying here
    - the first step is to OUT all the sheriffs who don't grant CCWs -- the local PACS have done that in Santa Clara county
    - 90% of the counties here are 'virtual' shall-issue

    - for California it is a BIG DEAL that the prosecutors and the feds are putting this sheriff in the hot-seat so-to-speak...
    - they didnt just wake up one day and go 'what's the sheriff doing with CCWs?'
    - the PEOPLE of Santa Clara are COMPLAINING and sick of the BS -- aka they are fighting for their 2A rights...
    retired badge 1 likes this.

  10. #25
    Member Array starlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by 1942bull View Post
    I am with jmf552 that shall issue” would be a remedy. PA is a shall issue state, and it has been working here since CCW permitting began. Unless you fail to pas the NICS or PICS reviews you get a permit. PICS is the Sage crime reporting system. It is possible to pass NICS and not pass PICS, but that is rare. guess what? PA does not have a gun crime problem equivalent to CA where the draconian “may issue” policy is a proven failure.

    - I fully understand
    - the people in CA are working on it

    - In PA, both Philly and Pitsburg are defacto MAY issue dispite the state being 'shall issue'
    - Alot of this wording is subjective

    - In my county it IS defact shall-issue
    - In say, LA or SF it is defacto NO-issue

    - California is very county-based
    - the idea is to 'convert' one county at a time
    - to get the 'on the fence' counties to loosen up

    - that is the current gameplan for those here who are fighting

  11. #26
    Member Array starlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoganbeg View Post
    The SF bay area—no surprise there. Yes, shall issue statewide would be great. Well, it's a step in the right direction and good to hear. We'll hope for an outcome that favors liberty.

    - thank you

  12. #27
    Member Array starlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by retired badge 1 View Post
    24 years as a cop, retired as police chief. Always amuses me to see them all dressed up with rank insignia and as much foo-for-rah as possible to display. Reminds me of generals in banana republics.

    I remember my guys wanting permission to wear this or that nonsense on their duty uniforms. My reply was always that a badge and name tag were enough. By the mid-90's we were wearing jeans and boots with uniform shirts, Carhartt coats in the winter time (sub-zero temps pretty common), straw hats optional in the summer (temps regularly over 100 degrees and 336 days of sunshine per year), baseball caps optional year-round. Don't recall anyone ever having trouble identifying the cops, and never had enough officers that they had trouble remembering who was the boss or who my #2 was. Local Eagle Scouts provided auxiliaries when needed, and several became cops themselves.

    Of course, I was out on the high plains of Colorado (flyover country), not in the rarified atmosphere of Kalifornia (home of the enlightened and anointed); and my focus was protecting lives and property, not building a brave new social order.

    Just a few more ramblings of an old man. Move along now, nothing to see here.


    - don't all sheriff's nation-wide wear general stars on the collar??



    ?

  13. #28
    Member Array starlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by dangerranger View Post
    I'm not defending the Sheriff, But the news piece is not News it's an Opinion piece written like news. If the DA is investigating anything at all its political corruption. The lawsuit was a freedom of information suit filed by Mercury News. [ That happens every day].
    And there is no law that says She has to approve anyone's CCW!

    The Citizens may be upset, but that's not what I get out of this article. Just one news guys bluster......

    The only way that county is getting there CCW's is to get it on the ballot to make CCW's Shall Issue. And I don't see any clamor for that there! DR


    - how did it even come to light?
    - A: people complained and are fed up
    - they want answers
    - they contact the media/newspaper
    - the people are behind this

    - now that the issue comes to light the NEXT sheriff is more likley to run on pro2a sentiment -- like what happened in San Diego county and many other counties...

    - it's progress (relative to california)

  14. #29
    Member Array starlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by tahmail View Post
    Turn up the volume folks - the more we speak out in unison and let them know we WILL BE HEARD, the better chance we have of forcing them to bend.

    - Thank you
    - I have been trying to induce support on this forum
    - it is hard to remove the stereotype that california is LA and SF

    - there are some seriously GOOD pro 2A sheriffs in CA that are doing their part
    - but all that escapes CA is the LA/SF snowflake nonsense

    - we want to do better
    - we are tying the best we can
    - send us your hugs at the very least

    - I post this map often here, but I implore everyone to study it to see the true CA:


  15. #30
    Member Array starlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by M1911A1 View Post
    The Sheriff is an elected official.
    A sheriff who goes against the wishes of the voters of his or her county will soon be dis-elected.
    This particular Sheriff must be doing what her constituency prefers, which bodes ill for the gun owners of Santa Clara County.

    The same is true for Los Angeles County's Sheriff, as well as San Francisco City-and-County's, and a few others.

    The problem that all of this raises for me is that, upon my death, my Silicon-Valley-dwelling daughter wants to inherit my modern firearms, many of which could possibly be illegal to possess in her county as presently constituted.
    I hope that California law changes before I die, and that California's "peninsula counties" change politically too. But hope ain't much to go on.

    - kinda
    - the constituency is CHANGING
    - the people are going, 'hey were sick of this not issuing CCWs nonsense -- change it'

    - she will either pander to her [changed] constituents OR a new pro2a sheriff will be elected and the county will be virtual 'shall issue'


    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by M1911A1 View Post
    I hope that California law changes before I die
    - I know you think I'm crazy, but CA is changing...
    - I see it
    - I hear it
    - I feel it

    - you will live to see it
    - easily

    - high rents in SF are creating a new influx of Chinese immigrants
    - they are sick of being targeted by criminals
    - they want thier CCWs
    - the last mayoral candidate for SF was pro gun and had support
    - no enough to win

    - but soon enough...




Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •