-
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.
-
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.
CGF sues Ventura County Sheriff & Launches Statewide Carry Campaign!
- Thread starter cato
- Start date
Devilinbp
Regular Member
It is a great thing that is happening! WOOT
Gundude
Regular Member
I will soon find out what good cause is in Sandy Eggo County. woooohooooo 
Statkowski
Regular Member
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.
Of course, anything put into an e-mail would be subject to an FOIA request.
coolusername2007
Regular Member
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.
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:
Statkowski
Regular Member
I'm sure the statewide campaign mentioned will result in some backchannel chatter, especially if they have been monitoring this and related sites.
coolusername2007
Regular Member
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.
wildhawker
Regular Member
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.
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:
chewy352
Regular Member
Man I need a dictionary when reading wildhawkers posts lol. Keep up the good work.
Gundude
Regular Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
cato
Newbie
Btt