Some days, I love my job :). (California CCW wars comedy)


Jim March
November 16, 2004, 06:36 PM
As many of y'all know, I'm filing a big pile of Public Records Act Requests for CCW-related data. See also:

I'm actually encouraging EMail responses.

Got this gem today:

Dear Mr. March,

I have 42 pages of documents ready for copying and sending to you related to your CCW public records request to xxx xxxxxx County. Please remit to me at the address below a check in the amount of $74.20 for duplication fees ($0.10 per copy and $10.00 per hour in time compiling records (7 hours)). Once I receive your check, I will forward copies to you by mail. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
xxxxxx xxxxxxx, Asst. County Counsel
Office of the County Counsel, xxxxx xxxxxxx County
(phone number, address, etc.)

Waitasec...that ain't right.

Did about five minutes of googling, then drafted a response:

Ms. xxxxxx,

I have some recommended reading for you: North County Parents v. DOE, 23 Cal.App.4th 144 (1994). The full text is archived at:

Allow me to quote:

Appellant requested copies of all decisions rendered in the last two years. Department charged $.25 per page for furnishing the copies, rendering a total bill of $126.50. This charge not only covered the cost of duplication of the documents, but also reimbursed Department for staff time involved in searching the records, reviewing records for information exempt from disclosure under law, and deleting such exempt information. Department refused to reduce this charge, and also refused to waive the charge upon the ground that "there is no legal authority to waive such charges." Appellant paid the charge and then brought this action seeking miscellaneous relief.

The trial court ruled for the Department, finding that section 6257 permits the Department to charge "the full direct costs of duplication," and that the Department's charge of $.25 per copy "was not in contravention of section 6257." The court made a second ruling pertaining to the potential of waiver of fees. It ruled that the Department had discretion to waive fees pursuant to section 6253.1, but that it was not required to waive fees and did not err in this case by refusing to consider waiver. Appellant contends both rulings are in error.

[1] We agree with appellant. Section 6257 provides that one who requests copies of public documents must pay the statutory fee for same, if there is one. The parties agree there is none prescribed in this case. Lacking a statutory fee the cost chargeable is a "fee[ ] covering direct costs of duplication." There seems to be little dispute as to what "duplicate" means. It means just what we thought it did, before looking it up: to make a copy. (See Black's Law Dict. (4th ed. 1968) p. 593 ["to ... reproduce exactly"]; Webster's Third New Internat. Dict. (1981) p. 702 ["to be or make a duplicate, copy or transcript ..."].) Since words of a statute are to be interpreted "according to the usual, ordinary import of the language employed in framing them" (In re Alpine (1928) 203 Cal. 731, 737 [265 P. 947, 58 A.L.R. 1500]), we conclude that the cost chargeable by the Department for furnishing these copies is the cost of copying them.

My final question: do you actually want a check for $4.20, knowing that the cost of processing the check is probably higher than that amount?

I await your response, and thank you for your time.

Jim March

About half hour later...

Yes, I actually want a check for the duplication costs. And if by that and your case reference you are refusing to reimburse the County for the compilation time of duplication, then yes, you need to send a check for $4.20.

xxxxx xxxxx

Hey! She's dropped the "Dear". I wonder why?

$4.20 on it's way.


Jim March


(Name changed to protect the guilty mainly 'cuz I ain't got the stuff yet :D.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Some days, I love my job :). (California CCW wars comedy)" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
November 16, 2004, 06:44 PM
(see my post below)

November 16, 2004, 06:45 PM
Good job, Jim!

Pff. If it takes someone 7 hours to compile 42 pages of info, they're either lying or brain-dead. Which is it? :D

Standing Wolf
November 16, 2004, 07:10 PM
If it takes someone 7 hours to compile 42 pages of info, they're either lying or brain-dead.

It's a separate sub-species: a public trough feeder in the People's Republic of California, where it can take two hours and longer to change one's address on a driver's license.

November 16, 2004, 07:16 PM
It's a separate sub-species: a public trough feeder in the People's Republic of California, where it can take two hours and longer to change one's address on a driver's license.

I am ENTRANCED by Jim March's current goings-on...

I feel like I'm watching the leaning tower of CCW, taking pictures just as a few pieces begin to crumble...


November 16, 2004, 07:20 PM
Thanks for mounting this effort, Jim.

Jim March
November 16, 2004, 07:50 PM
Just got another one even funnier, and I'm tempted to actually quote this clown:

Re: your web site wrote:

As the officer who monitors the requests for CCW permits at out agency, I have absolute knowledge that Chief Skerry has never issued a CCW permit to anyone. Your allegations about Santa Cruz Police Department and Chief Skerry being racist and only giving CCWs to rich people and political cronies as stated on your web site is a big lie! I wonder how many other big lies are included on your web site? In any case, I am forwarding the information to our city attorney. Maybe suing you will get your attention.

Sgt. Lunnen

SCPD Professional Standards Unit

(DO NOT mail-bomb this idiot, OK? Please?)

My response:


I never said that about Santa Cruz PD. It is however a pattern across the entire state, one that has been partially documented so far but hasn't been extensively tracked because the Public Records Act wasn't potent enough. Prop59 just changed that.

Let's start with "Skerry never issued CCW" - I recommend reading Salute v. Pitchess 61 Cal. App. 3d 557. It's not *exactly* analogous to what Skerry does - Sheriff Pitchess of LA was restricting CCW to government employees only. The court said:

While a court cannot compel a public officer to exercise his discretion in any particular manner, it may direct him to exercise that discretion. We regard the case at bench as involving a refusal of the sheriff to exercise the discretion given him by the statute. Section 12050 imposes only three limits on the grant of an application to carry a concealed weapon: the applicant must be of good moral character, show good cause and be a resident of the county. To determine, in advance, as a uniform rule, that only selected public officials can show good cause is to refuse to consider the existence of good cause on the part of citizens generally and is an abuse of, and not an exercise of, discretion.

The petition before us alleges that petitioners are of good moral character and are residents of Los Angeles County. It is admitted that no inquiry into the existence of good cause has ever been made in connection with the application of these petitioners, or of any other applicant outside the limited group of public officials. It is the duty of the sheriff to make such an investigation and determination, on an individual basis, on every application under section 12050.

Remember, that's not me saying that Skerry's lack of "investigation and determination on an individual basis" is "abusive", it's a binding California appellate court decision.

As to what's going on elsewhere, start here: - your odds of having a permit depend in large part on whether or not your county of residence has a high black population. By a FIVE TO ONE MARGIN! - "In Vino Veritas" - drunk permitholder blabs about the campaign finance link to his permit in a police report. - State Senator Don Perata (known hardcore gungrabber) CCW permit application letter considered so funny it made Matt Drudge. - True comedy - it appears one has to be either a serial sexual harasser or the mayor's best friend and roommate to score CCW in Oakland Calif. - Sean Penn's CCW permit data - apparantly another route to a permit runs fist-through-noses of papparazi?

Do you really think any of the above meets "professional standards"?

Jim March

November 16, 2004, 07:57 PM
This is too easy. What is wrong with these people?

Jim March
November 16, 2004, 08:04 PM
What is wrong with these people?

The very first thing that jumped into my head was "do I look like a veterinarian" but let's not go there.

The second (the "professional standards" moron from SCPD) is just par for the course. What I can't figure out is the first - I ain't a lawyer, but it took me five minutes (literally) googling on the subject of PRAR fees to debunk her (and save CCRKBA $70 just on this one response). And she IS a lawyer.



Your tax dollars at work I guess...

November 16, 2004, 08:33 PM
Good job Jim!
What I don't understand is why a citizen of the state
has to pay anything other than direct copying fees($.03 ?).These morons work for us!! They get paid whether they are looking stuff up(their job?)
or sitting on their duff(more likely).


Greg L
November 16, 2004, 09:35 PM
As has been said by many others in many different threads - Jim, you are my hero .

Give 'em hell :D .

rock jock
November 16, 2004, 10:31 PM

In the case of Sgt. Lunnen, why do you even waste your time responding to these trained monkeys? Just tell them to do their job (and maybe throw them a banana or two).

Standing Wolf
November 16, 2004, 11:32 PM
...I have absolute knowledge that Chief Skerry has never issued a CCW permit to anyone.

I'm sure I'll always miss the temperate climate and the beaches.

November 17, 2004, 12:26 AM

Sometimes the best jokes write themselves...

November 17, 2004, 01:17 AM
So Jim,

This means I can start thinking about applying for a CCW here in San Diego County? :what:

Talk about a Christmas present! I CAN'T WAIT!!!!

Thanks so much for what you're doing (and PLEASE let me know if there's anything I can do to help!)


November 17, 2004, 03:42 AM
I love the 7 hour thing - if it really took that long to copy 42 pages, then I want that job. Clock in, go to the range, six hours later drive back, make copies, hand to boss, say "All done, finally!" and clock out.
Jim, please keep us updated on all of these good responses, us in the PRK need the info; and everyone in the USA needs the laughs.

November 17, 2004, 06:02 AM
I would turn her to whatever investigative agencies California has. I'm willing to bet she's committing fraud and extortion to many people more than you. In other words, pocketting that extra money. Think if she made even less than $70 per person making document requests... The amount of money would quickly add up.

Brett Bellmore
November 17, 2004, 07:16 AM
The seven hours isn't so totally crazy, if you realize it includes tracking all the documents down, confirming that they are the correct documents, and ONLY the correct documents, confering with somebody to determine whether they're so incriminating that it's worth saying they got lost in a flood, five minutes at the copying machine, and then putting them all back.

I'm not saying they were entitled to the seven hours' pay, but it might well have taken seven hours to do all that.

November 17, 2004, 08:38 AM
Its a government copier and paper. Due to the wonders of contracting, the copier probably costs $10,000 and the paper goes for $20/ream. Dont even ask about the toner cartridge.

Nice way to stick it to them, the laughs just keep on coming.


Jim March
November 17, 2004, 08:53 AM
First, yeah, I can see seven hours coping with this :).

And the lady lawyer in question wanted the check made out to the county, not herself or cash, so I don't think she was doing anything for personal gain here.

It's probably legal for them to ASK for the extra money...and then cave in rather quickly when she realized she wasn't up against a newbie in all this :D.

So no, I don't think there's anything to "report" here, 'cept maybe a semi-comical footnote in the final legislative report.

The only other response so far is from Yolo County's sheriff, where a staffer politely said (paraphrased, both in EMail and in a letter in today's mail) "ummm, I gotta go talk to our lawyers about all this, I'll get back to you soon" which isn't completely unreasonable given that Cal-DOJ has "muddied the waters" on this whole process to an unbelievable degree.

By around Friday the "10 day initial response limit" will be about up...then we get to see who's being naughty and who's being at least semi-nice. I sent all the PRARs (except DOJ's) via certified mail...the cheap sort where I get this big tracking number I can check on the USPS website. Joy. I can just see myself spending a few hours on that this coming Sunday on the ones that ain't replied by Saturday's mail...

Oh well.

November 17, 2004, 12:47 PM
Mr. March, you're my hero. I just love stories like this. I think you should have published the attorney's name as well. This sort of behavior really burns me up, but I get an equal amount of enjoyment when somebody who takes the time to research the matter calls their bluff. I can just imagine this person's mouth hanging open as they read your response. You made my day.

November 17, 2004, 12:54 PM
Just keep fighting the good fight and keep us all posted.

November 17, 2004, 12:56 PM
Hey, Jim.

Do you have to actually send her a check for $4.20?
Couldn't you just send her 420 pennies instead? :evil: :evil: :evil:

Jim March
November 17, 2004, 01:07 PM
Hey, Jim.

Do you have to actually send her a check for $4.20?
Couldn't you just send her 420 pennies instead? :evil: :evil: :evil:



Naw. Better not :).

Jeez, man, don't DO that to me!

November 17, 2004, 01:31 PM
Hey, Jim.

Do you have to actually send her a check for $4.20?
Couldn't you just send her 420 pennies instead? :evil: :evil: :evil:

He'd just give the bureaucrat cause for refusing the payment. She could say she can't (or won't) deal in small change.

Of course, it is tempting. . .

ErikM :evil:

November 17, 2004, 01:33 PM
As much as I'd like to be a :evil: on your shoulder on this...

This is too important. LOL still funny though. too bad she didn't bill you via US postal service. wouldn't that constitute fraud/ overbilling?

November 17, 2004, 02:36 PM
Last I heard, pennies are still legal tender for all debts, public and private. ;)

November 17, 2004, 04:01 PM
I think pennies are considered legal tender only in amounts of 25 or less.

Something I read a long time ago; no idea how accurate it is.

November 17, 2004, 04:08 PM
Hey Jim: Don't you think that calling these people Idiots in a public forum could slow down progress, even if it is true?

November 17, 2004, 04:38 PM
Keep up the good work Jim.

Just to let you know this type of stonewalling is typical of some people in state governments.

There is a new Grassroots group starting up in Georgia and I am on the Board of Directors. As such I have been trying to answer questions we have been getting from members about how some state agencies and county agencies are running the CCW process differently from what Georgia Law says.

A big question was, "Why do some counties say it will take 4-6 months to get a license when the law says it should take no more than 60 days?"
I knew something was wierd because my permit took 55 days. The counties that I asked all said it was the state and federal background checks that are taking so long. When I asked the GBI what was the delay, they said "Have you been harmed by the delay?"
ME: "No"
GBI: "then why do you need the information?"
ME: "Because our members are asking why the delay"
GBI: "Do they already have thier permits?"
Me: "yes"
GBI: "Then you really don't need the information"
Me: "Then I need to talk to your supervisor"
GBI: "She's not here, I will forward your message."

Next day...
GBI Supervisor: "Why do you need the information"
Me: "Because some counties are saying it is the GBI that is not doing thier job. Now, can you tell me or am I going to have to file a FOIA request?"
GBI Supervisor: "35 to 49 days"
Me: Thank you, bye.

I have found a common theme among state workers, "Who are you to be questioning how I am running this office." Strange that I help pay thier wages but heaven forbid I ask why they are not following the law.

Laughing at them is sometimes the only way to keep from screaming at them. :cuss:

Jim March
November 17, 2004, 05:40 PM
Sven: given the long and BITTER history of this subject, anything we say here isn't gonna make a lot of difference.

The real question is "are they going to violate the new constitutional right under Prop59?"

Remember too that the data access out at the city/county level is really just a sideshow. The real fight is going to be over the DOJ's central archives...that's where the REAL gold is, the ability to do campaign finance cross-checks on ANY agency, and the ability to do the first systematic race/gender analysis.

November 18, 2004, 04:14 AM

Great job, we all, especially us californians, really appreciate all your hard work!

oh man, what is shocking is the stuff these people are writing...I mean... does that elitist from santa cruz even realize how his answer sounded, for example?

November 18, 2004, 07:58 AM
Luckily I have never been asked to or had the misfortune of even passing through one.
Looks like (thanks to Jim) within the next few years, I can plan a motorcycle route to California and hit the PCH.
Jim, it's a tough road to hoe. Alot of people and their freedom will be because of you. Not to be all gooey, but you are a fine American and anyone that dedicates themselves to protecting the rights of Americans is a true Patriot in my book. <Gooey mushy mode off >
So I must thank you ahead of time for hopefully opening up California soon.

November 18, 2004, 03:08 PM
Well, first, THANK YOU.

Second, it is probably a good thing so many of those people are such idiots.

Personally, I would like to see them identified, and local businesses refuse service to them. And then I just might stop to help if they run out of gas on some road to buy food in another county. Or maybe I wouldn't stop........

November 18, 2004, 06:24 PM
I will say this -- you don't want Jim March on your tail. He bites, then hangs on like a ferret.

Ferret -- heh -- coincidence?

Jim March
November 18, 2004, 06:39 PM
Let's remember that without the support of CCRKBA, Alan Gottlieb and the rest of the gang there and at SAF, this wouldn't have worked out nearly so well. I wouldn't have the resources to do this on my own.

They're also the folks that supported the Ohio CCW lawsuits, the cases Chuck Klein was involved in. That's their style: do reform work in a given state using and supporting a "local guide" who knows the territory. Even though they "lost" the Ohio case where CCW was concerned, they got a strong pro-open-carry ruling out of the state supreme court, which led to open-carry demonstration walks and a shall-issue law that did NOT remove the open carry provisions.

The legal situation in Ohio is different from California. There, they had a fairly decent RKBA clause in the state constitution but didn't have any CCW law at all; here in Cali, we've got a discretionary system already which can be "converted", we can challenge the existing system on equal protection/racism/corruption grounds, and we have no state-level RKBA (and in the 9th circuit, poor Federal RKBA support). So we need work with equal protection and due process law instead of RKBA.

So details vary, but the overall gameplan is ballpark similar. Local guide, nationally backed resources.

Alan, you rock :). Ditto Dave Workman, Joe Waldron, the whole gang.

November 18, 2004, 09:01 PM
LOL Jim!

He'd just give the bureaucrat cause for refusing the payment. She could say she can't (or won't) deal in small change.

I think that *technically* any government agency is compelled by law to accept cash as a form of payment. :) :evil: :evil: :evil:

Keep it up Jim, and slap the non-responders with lawsuits the instant Saturday rolls around.

November 18, 2004, 09:27 PM
I suppose he could just ask what would be legal tender in the payment of debts.

After reminding her of the constitutional provision:

Article I, Section 10. No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;...
;) :p :D

Mark in California
November 19, 2004, 02:54 PM
Pennies are "legal tender" only up about 45 cents. It law, and there is a court ruling on that. Some guy tried to pay the IRS his taxes in pennies ($4,500) and the IRS refused payment (they were also coated with honey) and then sued him for non-payment of taxes.

I seem to remember he came back and paid with nickeles and the IRS had to accept them.

November 19, 2004, 03:54 PM
$4.20 in nickles is 84 nickles... we can coat it in dishwashing detergent, with a hint of gasoline. ;)

Phantom Warrior
November 19, 2004, 04:33 PM
Good ol' Snopes (

Essentially, there is no law limiting the number of pennies (or any other coin) you may use. A private company may make an agreement before hand specificy payment (no bills larger than $20, no pennies accepted, you must pay me in jellybeans, whatever) but unless there is a prior agreement you are free to pay your bill in any form of legal tender, including pennies. I almost wish I could get fined for something just so I could do this. Almost...

November 19, 2004, 05:56 PM
I was under the impression that cash, in all its forms was "legal tender for all debts, public and private."

Especially a government agency...can't refuse to accept payment just because they don't like how you did it.

November 19, 2004, 08:52 PM
Hey Jim

any chance we in Illinois could steal you away from **********????


November 23, 2006, 11:22 PM
I didn't see where you sent a letter to Sheriff Brooks...:confused:

November 24, 2006, 12:37 AM
Couple of years back, I worked for Labcorp. Talked to a guy in collections. They had received payment in pennies for about a $60-70 bill. It was double bagged in heavy 3 mil plastic bags and coated in molasses.

November 24, 2006, 12:51 AM
Nice damn work, CA is always trying to make some extra bucks somewhere in there. Stuck to your guns and you won, thanks for that.

November 24, 2006, 01:18 AM
I might do this penny thing on my next speeding ticket. :D

And I'm glad to see there is hope for CA. Maybe one day it will be able to rejoin the US of A.

November 24, 2006, 01:50 AM
Keep up the good fight Mr. March! I love CA and would ordinarily love to live's gorgeous and larger then life. But I would never move somewhere that didn't have CCW.

November 24, 2006, 02:35 AM
Mmm, thread necromancy. First post in thread from Nov 17 2004.

Haven't heard much along the lines of new developments from Mr. March. Up until the point where the info disappears, it's all stunning and beautiful. :)

November 24, 2006, 10:35 AM
As far as I know Mr Jim March lately has been busy on other issue but still active in CCW problem in California. You want to read more of his latest thread and post on CCW, visit

November 24, 2006, 03:12 PM
Jim March hops from one issue to another. For a while, he was all fired up about ferrets. Then knives. Then CCWs. Now it's Black Box Voting. In a couple of years... who knows?

It would have been interesting to see the results of those PRARs, but ultimately they won't accomplish anything. You can put a fork in the CCW issue in California... if you want to carry here, don't live in the boonies, and aren't a cop; your choice is to just carry and hope you don't get caught or go without. Or move out of the state.

November 24, 2006, 04:45 PM
Hey, that is a great stance. Don't try and do anything about it, and criticize someone who would try. Keep up the good work "jnojr". :what:

November 24, 2006, 05:06 PM
Jim March, keep on plugging away. You're doing great work!

November 25, 2006, 01:38 AM
She went from $126.50 to 4.20 in one email? Was she high?

Sorry, I had to beat the other punsters to it!

I wish I could have carried when I was down there but San Diego wasn't carry friendly back then. Great job Mr. March, keep it up!

November 25, 2006, 10:58 AM
Sorry, I had to beat the other punsters to it!

Me thinks that if anyone were going to beat you to it they'd have done it two years ago when the thread was started....

November 25, 2006, 11:53 AM
Ah "The High Road". Here we have a great thread sarted then hijacked not only over the letter of the law on 420 pennies but now what to coat them with when sending them to bureaucrats.

Jim your'e doing the Lord's work in California and I know you need some good internet fun and feedback but please ignore all juvenile urges to get punitive with these people at least this early in the game;)

November 25, 2006, 03:19 PM
Guys - Jim is on the Black Box voting thing. He hasn't been active with CCWs in over a year. I don't know if he plans to go back to CCWs or not.

This is a two-year-old thread.

Jim March
November 26, 2006, 12:40 AM
Let me put it bluntly: it's not possible to do serious public records searches in California where the number of respondents is large. Too many agencies will tell you "so go sue us" knowing that it's impossible to do so with enough to make a difference.

That's because in California, there is no penalty for government agencies (local or state) to wrongfully withhold public records.

"Prop59" from a few years back hasn't made any difference.

In some states, cash penalties apply for wrongful failure to provide records. There was an effort last year to put in such a system, but the bill failed - barely - it set a cost of $100 a day for withholding records up to a maximum of $10,000. The newspaper lobbies ( and will try again next year.

IF that passes, it may be possible to reform CCW in California.

It's not possible until then. I think it will pass eventually. Prop59 a couple years ago was an attempt to reform public records access, pushed for hard by state political powerhouse John Burton in his last year as a state senator. The current public records situation is screwed up in every field, not just ours, and the situation is considered in some circles as a slur on Burton. That's why it was his protege Mark Leno who backed this year's reform effort.

Yeah, tell me all about the irony...our future in CCW depended on Mark Leno :).

And will again next year.


I would like to respond directly to jnojr:

For the moment, yes, I'm focused on election reform. I'm paid a small amount in the field. For right now I'm involved in a statewide project in Arizona documenting how county election processes work, and now documenting how the election was run in a few key counties and digging into what appears to be two fraud instances. I can't go into details there yet. I happen to think it's important.

But in the meantime, I still know a bit about knife law in California and when people ask me for informational help in that field I do so or pass them to people with more info. I received EMail on that subject from a public defender in Orange County not long ago, and we managed to get the guy off pre-trial after I described how linerlocks work to the attorney.

That's not "dabbling" in something, that's just helping out where I can and it's all I can do.

I've gotten involved in trying to block bad knife laws over the years, and during my tenure with CCRKBA asked their permission to do so. When a bill was being pushed to ban knives in the state capitol building, I learned that it was in part Sikh related and made a couple of phone calls to the local Sikh temple to learn what their situation was with issues like locker-at-the-door storage. Turns out they can't do that, the cutlery has to be under their control at all times so as to be certain it's "clean". The only time the knife (Kirpan) can be drawn is either to save a life (combat, cutting seat belt post-crash, whatever) or to do ritual food prep within the temple.

I was the only RKBA lobbyist to research it in that detail.

To say that I "dabble" in both knives and guns is to make two mistakes: not just calling me a "dabbler", which is your opinion I guess, but also calling that two issues at all. To me the RKBA includes knives, period, from both a historical and practical perspective.

Did I get involved in ferret legalization almost 20 years ago? Yeah. And yeah, I still keep up with that admittedly silly subject. They're cute, what can I say?

I won't apologize for my life. I haven't usually succeeded in fixing things, but...I've gotten my licks in too here and there :).

At least I've tried.

November 26, 2006, 01:24 AM
Jim March: Your still a trooper. I am guessing you find injustice in the world and you fight it. It really must piss off the politicians who have to deal with you. That is awesome that you can take a stand.

Cheers... and good luck with the Ballot Box thing as well as the ferrets.

November 26, 2006, 01:26 AM
"At least I've tried."

Tried? Jim, you've been tireless.

I know that you get a lot of verbal (and keyboard) support for what you're doing. I just hope that you're getting the ground troops to help you.

If not, just know that you're still doing what only a few people would dare to do: challenge the system.

As someone who admittedly wears smaller shoes than you, I sometimes think of the situation this way: while I'm doing what I think needs to be done, there's a "mirror" person on the other side, trying to undo my work.

And, when I think of that "mirror," I realize that I just have to keep working harder.

You've done amazing things, Jim. Keep it up.

November 26, 2006, 09:11 AM
I still have the grand vaquero I got from you, and the holsters you made me.

I was in a knife law argument just the other day and your website was a big help...yup ,I won the debate!

If you enjoyed reading about "Some days, I love my job :). (California CCW wars comedy)" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!