Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: CGF sues Ventura County Sheriff & Launches Statewide Carry Campaign!

  1. #1
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    CGF sues Ventura County Sheriff & Launches Statewide Carry Campaign!

    Last edited by cato; 10-18-2010 at 06:43 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    San Diego, California, United States
    Posts
    145
    It is a great thing that is happening! WOOT

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    I will soon find out what good cause is in Sandy Eggo County. woooohooooo
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    Do you think this has created some interesting backchannel chatter between the assorted sheriffs?

    Of course, anything put into an e-mail would be subject to an FOIA request.

  5. #5
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    I don't think so. If I understand this correctly, this suit isn't about any 2A issue directly, its about the release of public records. I suspect other sheriffs are scratching their heads as to why the ventura sheriff won't release public records.

    ETA: even the San Diego sheriff released their public records for the Peruta case. Maybe that's why the Ventura sheriff hasn't...he knows what will come of it if he does. He's gonna lose no matter how he tries to slice it.
    Last edited by coolusername2007; 10-21-2010 at 12:47 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    I don't think so. If I understand this correctly, this suit isn't about any 2A issue directly, its about the release of public records. I suspect other sheriffs are scratching their heads as to why the ventura sheriff won't release public records.
    I'm sure the statewide campaign mentioned will result in some backchannel chatter, especially if they have been monitoring this and related sites.

  7. #7
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Statkowski View Post
    I'm sure the statewide campaign mentioned will result in some backchannel chatter, especially if they have been monitoring this and related sites.
    Oh sure, the statewide campaign will generate chatter...hopefully a lot of chatter. But the individual suit for public records won't...other than the fact that the suit was filed. At least among sheriffs, perhaps more chatter will be generated among police chiefs.

  8. #8
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113
    Allow me to shed some light on the actual effects so far, to the extent that I can publicly.

    We know that the 58 Sheriffs are very aware of a number of drills we've run as part of this initiative.

    We know that they have been communicating closely, and often. Some letters of response are word-for-word identical.

    We know that at least some of the counties counsel are similarly communicating.

    Chiefs of Police are not as concerned, since they are not the primary target (although strategic applications of pressure have and will continue to be applied at the city level). They (CoP) have a safety valve - '(g)' agreements. The Sheriffs do not. One Sheriff told me that a certain segment was, quote, "panicked"; this was confirmed almost verbatim by a highly-placed source at another agency.

    There are some crimson threads which we cannot discuss just yet, but which will become more obvious as the initiative goes forward.

    The Sheriffs are worried that stare decisis will hold, that they will not be able to undermine CBS, and that a well-funded and capable organization will comprehensively make this issue a very difficult one for them going forward. "Fundamental right" to bear via Sykes, plus enforcement of existing law across the state - with a public and accessible means of applying legal pressure as needed to compel conformance - makes for painful resistance with quickly diminishing upside.
    Last edited by wildhawker; 10-22-2010 at 05:51 PM.
    Brandon Combs
    Secretary, Calguns Foundation
    Member, CRPA Board of Directors

    Join me in making regular monthly tax-deductible donations to the Calguns Foundation and help us advance gun rights in California today!

    Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all comments are my own and not the approved position of any organization, nor should they be considered legal advice.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Harrah, Oklahoma
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
    Allow me to shed some light on the actual effects so far, to the extent that I can publicly.

    We know that the 58 Sheriffs are very aware of a number of drills we've run as part of this initiative.

    We know that they have been communicating closely, and often. Some letters of response are word-for-word identical.

    We know that at least some of the counties counsel are similarly communicating.

    Chiefs of Police are not as concerned, since they are not the primary target (although strategic applications of pressure have and will continue to be applied at the city level). They (CoP) have a safety valve - '(g)' agreements. The Sheriffs do not. One Sheriff told me that a certain segment was, quote, "panicked"; this was confirmed almost verbatim by a highly-placed source at another agency.

    There are some crimson threads which we cannot discuss just yet, but which will become more obvious as the initiative goes forward.

    The Sheriffs are worried that stare decisis will hold, that they will not be able to undermine CBS, and that a well-funded and capable organization will comprehensively make this issue a very difficult one for them going forward. "Fundamental right" to bear via Sykes, plus enforcement of existing law across the state - with a public and accessible means of applying legal pressure as needed to compel conformance - makes for painful resistance with quickly diminishing upside.
    Man I need a dictionary when reading wildhawkers posts lol. Keep up the good work.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    I expect the ones that are in the panic mode are the most arbritrary in issueing CCW's.
    I really want to see the crimson replies. I'll bet there were some crimson phone calls between Sheriff's, too.
    Keep up the good work.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    what is that?

    for those that wondered like I did........


    STARE DECISIS:


    Stare decisis (Latin: [ˈstaːre deːˈt͡s1iːsiːs], Anglicisation: [ˈsteɹɪ dɪˈsaɪsɪs]) is the legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed."[1] In a legal context, this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedents and not disturb settled matters.[1]

    This doctrine is basically a requirement that a Court must follow the rules established by a Court above it.

    The doctrine that holdings have binding precedence value is not valid within most civil law jurisdictions as it is generally understood that this principle interferes with the right of judges to interpret law and the right of the legislature to make law.[citation needed] Most such systems, however, recognize the concept of jurisprudence constante, which argues that even though judges are independent, they should judge in a predictable and non-chaotic manner. Therefore, judges' right to interpret law does not preclude the adoption of a small number of selected binding case laws.

  12. #12
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Btt

Posting Permissions

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