• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Modesto Bee - Stanislaus County sheriff signs pledge to make gun permits easier

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Looks like Sheriffs might be moving toward more liberal issue of concealed carry permits:cool:

--

http://www.modbee.com/2010/04/12/1125435/stanislaus-county-sheriff-makes.html

SNIP

Stanislaus County sheriff signs pledge to make gun permits easier
In surprise move, Christianson promises to view protection as 'good cause'
By Garth Stapley


People with a clean record who want to carry a gun will have a much better chance at snagging a concealed weapon permit, Sheriff Adam Christianson said Monday, drawing thunderous applause from firearms advocates.
The stunning change in policy comes as Christianson prepares to lay off dozens of deputies because of budget cuts. He has released 300 inmates to comply with new state rules.

The sheriff, who is running for re-election on the June 8 ballot, stood grim-faced during a 12-minute introduction at Monday's public meeting of the Madison Society, whose leaders have criticized Christianson for being stingy with gun permits. He had told them -- and The Bee as recently as two weeks ago -- that he would not sign a pledge accepting self-protection as "good cause" for licensing. Given the stage Monday, Christianson shocked a standing-room-only audience of more than 100 by immediately signing the pledge with a flourish.

"I'm not going to infringe upon your right to protect yourselves," the sheriff said. "You are more likely to get a gun permit when you apply for one."

The pledge reads, in part: "As sheriff, self-protection shall always constitute good cause for the issuance of a permit to carry a concealed wea-pon as that term is defined in (the) California Penal Code."

During a question-answer session, many audience members said Christianson had denied their applications. But they seemed reluctant to grill a sheriff who had just signed the pledge.

Christianson encouraged many to reapply, providing his personal phone number to several former rejects.

. . .
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

Re-election can be a positive motivator. However, I don't think they would be so generous with their power if it wasn't for the writing on the wall...SCOTUS will soon be ruling...likely in favor of incorporating the 2nd. Don't re-elect those who have so willingly denied you your rights for so long. I'm sure their opponents will offer up CCWs also. Its time for new elected representatives and that includes your sheriff.
 

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
imported post

Hey Coolusername2007,

I keep hearing that if SCOTUS rules the way we hope, everything will be OK. The McDonald case is a narrow case isn't it?

Heller made constitutional the possession of handguns in homes. It also made constitutional the transport of a weapon to the home.

However, Heller made it legal for DC to create regulations for gun registration and gun-owner testing/permitting.

McDonald is along simiilar lines. All that we will get with McDonald is incorporation and the constitutional right to transport guns to and from the house, and keep them in the home. It will take more rulings to concrete-in greater citizen power to carry concealed or open in public.

Am I wrong?

markm
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
Hey Coolusername2007,

I keep hearing that if SCOTUS rules the way we hope, everything will be OK. The McDonald case is a narrow case isn't it?

Heller made constitutional the possession of handguns in homes. It also made constitutional the transport of a weapon to the home.

However, Heller made it legal for DC to create regulations for gun registration and gun-owner testing/permitting.

McDonald is along simiilar lines. All that we will get with McDonald is incorporation and the constitutional right to transport guns to and from the house, and keep them in the home. It will take more rulings to concrete-in greater citizen power to carry concealed or open in public.

Am I wrong?

markm

Hey Markm, I'm not a lawyer, so who knows. But I will give you my opinion and what I believe to be true.

Yes, Heller and McDonald are narrowly defined cases. And strictly legally speaking, nothing in Heller affects anyone except those who reside in DC. But in a practical, reality sense, everyone now believes that we all have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

McDonald is essentially the same case as Heller because, as Gura has explained it, Chicago's handgun ban is virtually the same as was DC's. So when the Supremes rule that Chicago's handgun ban is unconstitutional, they will need to incorporate the 2nd to the several states. In so doing, this will automatically recognize the right to keep and bear arms not only inside the home but also outside the home. To limit the right to only inside the home would completely fly in the face of the 2nd as written. But that doesn't mean the anti's won't die trying.

Now, what does all that mean to us in the PRK? Well the legal eagles and the "right people" will tell you that won't mean a hill of beans to us because all of the PRK's anti-gun laws will have to be challenged and overturned one at a time. That may be true in a pure legal analysis, but that couldn't be more wrong on the realistic practical application of the law. In my opinion, as an average citizen who reasonably understands the law, and I would argue as one of the bases of American Jurisprudence, once the supremes rule...that's it, all is a done deal. However, that doesn't mean the anti's will leave you alone. You may very well become the test case/subject if you follow my lead (or lack thereof) which could end up very badly.

Regarding LOC, my opinon on what incorporating the 2nd means to us in the PRK, is that once the 2nd is incorporated, LOC is an automatic recognized and protectedright. Now if you choose to LOC the day of or the day after SCOTUS' decision don't be surprised if you are arrested and charged with violating 12025. You can be sure the anti's will fight tooth and nail for a very long time with case after case all the way to the Supreme Court to get to the bottom of "reasonable regulations."

Case in point, 12031(e) is a clear violation of the 4th amendment, yet it's on the books and administered and will continue to be that way until someone stands up and challenges it. CGF has hinted that a challenge to 12031(e) is in the works and may even be brought before the McDonald ruling. Plus it's important to know that the PC's that created UOC have no teeth whatsoever once12031(e) is successfully challenged. Because unless youadmit to an LEO your gun is loaded, they would have to violate your 4A rights to find out for sure, assuming they don't have probable cause to search you to begin with.

Again, I'm not a lawyer and as Dennis Miller says "But hey, I could be wrong." :cool:
 

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
imported post

Hey Coolusername2007,

I concur with your opinion.

For me, I am not well-off financially; theretofore, I will stay "this side of the law." That does not mean that I won't support legal and political action to get what we believe enacted through the courts or legislature.

I believe that UOC is a 1st A action just as the Tea Party event that I will attend tomorrow is 1st A action.

I am itch'n to UOC at a meet-up.

markm
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

This will be great news for those of us interested in paying a tax and taking a test in order to exercise a right.

For the rest of us... I'm still waiting to hear what the Sheriff thinks about an un-infringed right to keep and bear arms.
 
Top