California sheriff under probe for denying CCWs to residents - Page 3

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 starlights - In PA, both Philly and Pittsburgh are defacto MAY issue dispite the state being 'shall issue' What is your citation ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 31 to 37 of 37
Like Tree88Likes

Thread: California sheriff under probe for denying CCWs to residents

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,776
    Quote Originally Posted by starlights View Post
    - In PA, both Philly and Pittsburgh are defacto MAY issue dispite the state being 'shall issue'
    What is your citation on that? I don't believe that is correct. Shall issue is the law in PA, with no local preemption. Also, Pittsburgh is not even in charge of issuing permits for its residents, Allegheny County is. I had an Allegheny County permit when I lived there. What some counties in including Allegheny have done, and this is legal, is refuse to issue non-resident licenses, but that is not a problem. Non-residents can just apply at another county.

    Pittsburgh has tried to illegally create some of its own gun laws, including trying to ban open carry, although the legality of the that is in question and the mayor has been threatened with arrest and impeachment over it. But I just checked, both Allegheny County and Philly's website have applications online and I could not find an article saying they were not following PA law on issuing.
    Havok and bill35738 like this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  2. #32
    Senior Member Array retired badge 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by starlights View Post
    - don't all sheriff's nation-wide wear general stars on the collar??



    ?
    Some do and some do not.

    Law enforcement organizations have a long history as paramilitary forces by nature. Constitutionally, law enforcement personnel are considered part of the "select militia", that body of the population selected and appointed to perform specific public duties on behalf of the community. State police organizations, in particular, have a history of using traditional military rank designations. Local law enforcement (police departments and sheriffs' offices) probably followed along on the trend, which has been pretty consistent since the early 20th Century.

    Earlier, during most of the 19th Century, few communities had police departments. Those who did have local officers typically had constables or marshals, primary duties being the service of writs, summons, subpoenas, and other court orders. County sheriffs were primarily responsible for operating and maintaining a jail. Routine patrols or responses to crime scenes by law enforcement officers were highly unusual, something that did not become commonplace until the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Most states had some form of police organization, usually organized on military lines and frequently under the command of the state adjutant general as part of the state militia. Texas had the Texas Rangers (officially known as the Frontier Battalion), Colorado had the Colorado Mounted Rangers, New Mexico Rangers, Arizona Rangers, and several other states had similar organizations, generally paramilitary "quick response" elements of the state militia forces (which required time to call up the troops, organize, equip, plan, and deploy).

    I know from serving for quite a few years on a police department in a city with a heavy military presence (army post, air force base, and service academy) that when interactions between military and civilian law enforcement is needed (and it is needed frequently) military protocol is to extend treatment to police chiefs and sheriffs equivalent to what would be granted to general officers. This is likely to be the route by which the wearing of stars by chiefs and sheriffs came to be an accepted practice.

    It all seems silly at best, perhaps ego-centric, because the authorities and duties of public officials are generally spelled out by statute. Each sheriff may appoint deputies to assist in exercising legal authority and fulfilling legal responsibilities, as each police chief may appoint officers to assist them. None has significantly greater statutory authority than their surrogates, only greater statutory accountability and responsibility.

    To me what these symbols or rank and position say is: "Look at me! I am the boss. I am in charge. I am the top dog". As stated, kind of silly in my opinion, but traditions are traditions, and humans are humans.

  3. #33
    Member Array mmb617's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Altoona, PA
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by starlights View Post
    - 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
    To me your post illustrates the problem. What gives any locality the ability to deny a right granted by the US constitution? Aren't we always told that federal laws supersede local laws?

    How are these location specific gun laws any different than for example a city censoring what they allow the local newspaper to print?

  4. #34
    Member Array mmb617's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Altoona, PA
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    What is your citation on that? I don't believe that is correct. Shall issue is the law in PA, with no local preemption. Also, Pittsburgh is not even in charge of issuing permits for its residents, Allegheny County is. I had an Allegheny County permit when I lived there. What some counties in including Allegheny have done, and this is legal, is refuse to issue non-resident licenses, but that is not a problem. Non-residents can just apply at another county.

    Pittsburgh has tried to illegally create some of its own gun laws, including trying to ban open carry, although the legality of the that is in question and the mayor has been threatened with arrest and impeachment over it. But I just checked, both Allegheny County and Philly's website have applications online and I could not find an article saying they were not following PA law on issuing.
    My research indicates that the entire state of PA is shall issue. However Philadelphia alone has open carry restrictions. This from the PA Firearm Owners Association:

    To summarize, open carry is legal in Pennsylvania without a License To Carry Firearms except in "cities of the first class" (Philadelphia) and vehicles where a License To Carry Firearms is required to do so.

  5. #35
    Member Array rotorhead1026's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    The Far Side
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by starlights View Post
    - 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'


    ..



    - 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...



    She'd look more natural with a Kalashnikov and an OD green quilted jacket. :D ;)

    Seriously, I wish her well. :)
    *********************************

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

  6. #36
    VIP Member Array dangerranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Exact center of CA
    Posts
    5,535
    Quote Originally Posted by starlights View Post
    - 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)
    I think you are reading too much into a puff piece that was taken from the Opinion page of a news paper that is mostly read only by OLD people.[ Like Me]. I have family in Contra Costa county, Marin, Alameda, and Napa county's. I have not heard of any ground swell of citizens pushing for CCW's. And I can't find any ongoing investigation into this Sheriff. I just don't see it.

    If the citizens of Contra Costa wanted to make this an issue it will come up at election time. Run a candidate thats Pro 2A. I'm afraid the attitudes of those that live there would block any 2A candidate from being elected! I'm not saying it shouldn't be, I'm saying the people that live there won't vote it in! DR

  7. #37
    VIP Member Array G26Raven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Southwest
    Posts
    7,348
    And here I thought everything was "perfect" in California! Or at least, that's what someone told us a little while ago....
    dangerranger likes this.
    So many weapons, so little time.

    Learning occurs only after repetitive, demoralizing failures.

    We are ALL Virginians!

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

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
  •