[Jim March]

This came in my inbox. I'm going to be VERY careful to strip out all names and anything potentially identifying the people, location, his good cause or occupation, even the county at issue for privacy reasons but I think we can discuss this otherwise.

Understand that I get generally several "help me score a CCW please" EMails a week and try hard to answer them all, including a lot of back and forth exchange. All of which is held in strict confidence.

But this is a new one. I answered already and we're having a reasonable exchange but I want to see what you guys think.

-----------------
Jim

I am writing to you to give you a heads up on some advice you recently gave a man, my husband, on obtaining a CCW permit. This is a man that had a secret life of thinking that he was the law. According to law enforcement, he had enough ammo to wipe out our small city of XX,000. He was advised by you (not your fault) on how not to appear as a wannabee. Luckily, he was discovered before recieving a CCW. I am only writing you to prevent this from happening to anyone else. With this e-mail maybe your profiling system could change a little.

Sincerely
[femalename]
-----------------

Jim again: let me add that nothing about the EMail exchanges with the dude made me uneasy.

[fjolnirsson]

Jim, just my opinion, but the wife sounds a little anti gun. I would send a polite email, asking for more information. "Enough ammo to wipe out the city of XXXXX?"
All on his lonesome, eh? Sounds like something Warren Rupf would say. (By the way, is he still Sherriff?)
Just not enough info there for a real detailed email, IMO.

[MrTuffPaws]

XX000? Is that one round per person?

If I where you, I would stay away from that. It looks like she does not want her husband having a CCW and will revert to slander to do so. I hope her sights don't turn on you.

[Jim March]

No longer needed. New post below right after I edit this though.

[geekWithA.45]

He (presumably) said: I'm a law abiding citizen who wants to more fully practice my right of arms.

She (apparently) said: He's a dangerous freak, I'm glad he was found out.

He said, she said = domestic dispute, which I have a policy of not getting into the middle of.

[Art Eatman]

Absent face to face, or via talking with several who know these people, I don't really see any way to know "truth". Info exchanges via emails would take a long, long time to establish credibility.

IMO, best to back off. Doesn't matter who's right or wrong when you're talking married couples with conflicts. Outsiders lose.

2¢,

Art

[jsalcedo]

He was found out?

By who? For having a few thousand rounds of ammo?

Hell, a lot of us would be found out too.

A wannabe cop?

That is an opinion. Many liberals have accused me of that becausee I collect
military style weapons.

Just because someone is accused of being a wannabe gun freak cop doesn't make it so.

I would ignore the Email and go about business as usual.

[JohnKSa]

You did what you thought was right.

The system worked.

I don't see a problem...

[Pilgrim]

I wonder how the law "found him out" unless she "ratted" him out.

I expect she was upset that the man she thought she knew decided without her "permission" to get a CCW. She took care of that when he wouldn't listen to (her) reason.

Pilgrim

[Joejojoba111]

If he was turned down, I have to wonder if it might have had something to do with communications from his wife to the police department, "He has enough ammunition to kill thousands, he is mentally unstable, etc."

It's likely best to walk away, the husband could have divorced her and she's mad about it, or something. Any wrong move and the crazy lady could sue you, maybe she'd even get mad if you showed her husband what she wrote about him behind his back.

But the man asked for advice, it'd be kind of wrong to not give the obvious advice, "leave the angry woman at home", "don't tell the angry woman what you plan to do because she sneaks around fouling it up as a hobby", "keep your firearms locked securely and never let the angry woman get into range to grab one" etc, "the angry woman invites police into your house to search through your property when you go out, ask her to stop that".

lol.

[CAnnoneer]

He said, she said.

Psychoes don't need no stickin' permit to go vigilante.

I smell a whopress (female whopper)...

[Powderman]

If he was turned down, I have to wonder if it might have had something to do with communications from his wife to the police department, "He has enough ammunition to kill thousands, he is mentally unstable, etc."


No doubt. No doubt at all.

Plus, I believe that she is still using the present tense--meaning that they are still married. Here, I would bet that she is--or is attempting to be--the dominant one of the couple.

She has probably been turned into another latte-licking, hummus-munching, felafel-flinging, tofu-swimming liberal--or has commenced active negotiations with the Birkenstock bunch.

She more than likely went and told a bunch of crap about the guy. Had to, for them to turn him down like that.

It's a shame that he doesn't subpoena the records of his license request, and see the quotations therein.

[Jim March]

Well on with the story. Here's my reply to that (yeah, it's long :)) - note there will be chunks missing so as make everything completely anonymous:

---
Hmmmmm.

Well obviously this is disturbing if the guy really is what cops call a "strange ranger" (wanna-be cop who acts out on those fantasies).

Let me back up a sec and explain what my website is really all about. There are some people who believe in self defense as a principle. This in and of itself is NOT the same as "strange ranger" although some people often confuse the concepts...and I have to say it's possible that's something you're doing. I don't know.

The best insight I can give you into the "self defense mentality" is to have you read this essay:

http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

That sort of thinking is neither popular nor common in California. It's normal enough elsewhere however and esp. in states that have much lower crime rates than California: Montana, Vermont, Idaho, etc.

Law enforcement doesn't like the idea of CCW in general, and often tries to portray people as "strange rangers" when they aren't.

This shows up clearly in the statistics and individual stories surrounding CCW issuance in California. Some of the agencies are handling the process very poorly...in some cases there's at least an appearance of corruption and/or racism.
See also:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/oaklandzen.html

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/colafrancescopapers.pdf

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/fresnobee.html

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/lastory.pdf

Take a look at what happens when you cross-reference CCW issuance by county with each county's demographics - in the counties with less than the average black population, CCW issuance is six times higher than in the counties with more than the state average black population:

http://www.equalccw.com/CCWDATA2003.html

In other words, if police chiefs and sheriffs were handling the process properly and ONLY denying those people who were real "problem children", that would be one thing. But it's clear they're doing blanket denials and in some cases coming up with excuses not to deny that don't make any sense, either because they're against the very idea of legal self defense or worse, because they're selling the permits under the table and by keeping them rare they raise their value (see also the Colafrancesco incident above).

Given horror stories like this, I do NOT trust law enforcement to evaluate anybody at this point. Your husband came across in EMail to me as being a lot saner than some of the cops I've talked to.

Let me give you an example. In 2002 a deputy was running for sheriff in Contra Costa County, against his boss. Steve Jacobs had joined the department six years earlier specifically to run for sheriff, despite already having a law degree and practice. In California you can't run for Sheriff without first being a law enforcement officer of some sort for at least two years. His boss Sheriff Rupf is one of the most corrupt top cops in the state; Rupf has a "Sheriff's Posse" political support club with no official law enforcement ties - yet this largely wealthy bunch have their own badges, uniforms, special privileges with the department and hold at least 2/3rds of the CCW permits in the county.

I lived in Contra Costa County at the time. I wanted to back Steve Jacobs. So I called him up, we talked for about an hour. Sure enough, when he joined the department he realized how evil the "discretionary" CCW process in this state is, and was supportive of a switch to the sort of broad issuance they do in most other states. But six years on the job had changed his mind and he was in favor of the sort of limited issuance California does now. I asked him why his views had changed, and I'll never forget his answer:

"California is too diverse."

In other words, daily contact with the criminals of the Richmond area in jail (mostly African-American) had turned him into a full-blown racist.

Mrs. xxxxxxxxxx, until I got involved in this issue I had no IDEA how much racism has invaded our police departments. I'm still shocked.

(Paragraph blanked here for privacy)

So forgive me if I don't find law enforcement impressions of somebody interested in self defense very valuable.

Most states don't handle CCW like this. In 36 states today, if you are able to pass a background check and (usually) some training, you're going to get the permit. In most cases law enforcement can still deny if the background check is clean BUT they have to come up with some solid reason not to issue that a court won't object to.

And the system works very well in those states, as this collection of newspaper articles from states that have switched to non-discriminatory CCW systems has shown:

http://www.equalccw.com/ccweffects.html

Having xx,000 or more rounds laying around doesn't by itself mean anything. Competitive shooters will usually go through 10,000 - 20,000 rounds a month. People who reload their own ammo to save money will often get components (shells, primers, powder and bullets) in bulk and roll them up while watching TV or something on rainy winter evenings, sometimes building up a fairly impressive stash - but then they'll use it up during the times of the year they're more actively doing target practice or competition or whatever. Collectors of old military rifles for example might have guns in a dozen or more calibers and shoot them all often enough to buy ammo in bulk lots (500 - 1,000) - multiply that by the number of calibers, plus a handgun or two plus a shotgun and yeah, you can hit that sort of round count in a hurry.

Somebody who's a "car nut" can easily squirrel away thousands of nuts and bolts, thousands of dollars worth of spare parts and almost that many tools. We don't view that as "dangerous", it just means he's into fixing up/enjoying old cars. By itself a lot of ammo laying around means nothing more than "yeah, he's into guns" :). All sorts of hobbies can get "out of hand", look at Imelda Marcos and shoes for God's sake <grin>. The "hobby bug" (of whatever sort) isn't at all connected to violent behavior even if guns/ammo is involved :).

On top of self defense issues, you should understand that a day shooting at the range is treated by some of us as a day of relaxation similar to how others treat a day of golf or whatever. Shooting accurately is a discipline involving calm and precision, not that different from golf in terms of the mental state needed to do it right. Good golfers don't act "hyper" and there's a reason for it...good shooters are the same.

It's that little thing called "intent" that means a whole hell of a lot more. "Intent" for self defense preparedness is harmless in and of itself, and I would argue beneficial for society as a whole. "Intent" to throw your weight around as a "de facto cop" is of course far from harmless and bordering on criminal.

So.

What disturbs me about your letter is that you don't state that you fear him, or were threatened by him, other than the high number of rounds laying around and that you suggest he "thinks he's the law". Does that simply mean he's willing to call the police regarding gangbangers or whatever other problems are in the neighborhood? That's simply good citizenship. Deliberately getting in *gunfights* with gangbangers would be a whole 'nuther thing entirely, and without question criminally stupid...do you think *that* is actually a risk?

I went back through my EMail exchanges with Xxxxxxxx and in no sense did I get the impression he was a "strange ranger". He came across as somebody interested in personal (and family) defense and since "good cause for issuance" for a CCW permit isn't defined anywhere in law, he was interested in learning more about what's often acceptable.

Normal enough. The law on this stuff is deliberately unclear.

I think you need to ponder whether or not you're misinterpreting your husband's stand on life. IS he actually dangerous? It didn't sound like it to me when we talked and at this point it still doesn't. Do you really fear him? Or are you influenced by what the police are saying, and by society's norms in this very liberal area of the country?

I hope you'll forgive the length of this. This is a really heart-wrenching situation for me, I would hate to be even peripherally involved in stress to somebody else's marriage. I can assure you (and your husband) that I will treat your message with absolute confidentiality; with your name, EMail and location stripped off I may show it to select others to ask their advice but it's otherwise generic enough and I deal with at least a dozen queries such as from your husband a month. (Something else edited for privacy.)

Thank you for at least reading this far,

Jim March
---

And here's what came back:

---
Jim Thanks for the detailed e-mail. You sound like a very "grounded man" Of course I probably left a lot out because I assumed you would figure out who my husband was and realize that he was a xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx. No matter what I need his income to support our two children. Therefore, I could not afford putting the horrific details on paper, in fear that they could be forwared to the city. I have dated a few Cops :( in my day and know how prejustice they can be...This was not the case. (edited bit) Thanks again for taking the time. Best Wishes!
{femalename}
---

Jim again. Clearly I hadn't made anything worse :). I sent the following back:

---
Right. Well assuming you're right, and you're the one married to the dude <grin> then the lesson here is that if law enforcement WAS handling this process correctly, and denying only when it's really warranted, then...well first my life would be a lot less stressful <grin> but we could all TRUST the cop's judgement in matters like this.

Look...I make a suggestion years ago to a department in the city I lived in, Richmond. I asked if they would handle the CCW process fairly, but also post listings of applicants in the squad rooms, so that if any cop flipping through the list came across somebody he knew was a problem child, then even if their formal record was clean the cop could write up a statement to the effect of "this guy is a drunk" or "we're constantly breaking up fights at that address!" or "all his buddies are gangbangers" or even "he's just a nut". Or whatever. And if a cop was willing to write up a statement to that effect, cool, go ahead and deny.

That's how several of the non-discriminatory states handle it and it's a good system.

As long as it's otherwise handled fairly.

If it's NOT, the system breaks down completely which is what happens whenever cops act crooked.

Sigh.

Anyways. It's a real tough situation, the first one I've encountered. You can rest assured I'll say nothing whatsoever to anybody that would allow an ID of anyone involved. I've helped...jeez, well over a dozen people score permits, never got one myself (lived in areas of California that were totally screwed up) and I've never had cause to worry about any of the people I've helped.

I do want to point out that people who score the permit (in any state) and first start packing report a feeling of distinct unease, esp. at first. It's like strapping on a huge weight of responsibility. As it should be. I encountered this feeling on a trip to rural Arizona with a bunch of "fellow gun nut" friends on a campout where we all open-carried as is legal there and yeah, it makes you think. You know that any fight, even any argument can go really bad, and a VERY common comment among the newly armed on various discussion forums is that they find themselves going out of their way to be polite, ignore raised middle digits in traffic, avoid bad areas, etc. Because the consequences go up.

Put another way...when people are treated like adults by the government, and are visibly more able to take care of their own defense, they act more adult in consequence. It's an unusual but very real advantage to legal CCW.

On the other hand, in California where all too often only the "specially privileged insiders" are allowed to pack, they act exactly as if they're above the law. See also the Colafrancesco case I linked to for a classic example. THAT just sucks. And when the sheriff/chief personally signs off on each permitholder on a discretionary basis, any screwup by the permitholder reflects badly on that top cop so screwups (at least short of a dead body involved) tend to get covered up. That sucks too. Under non-discriminatory systems, screw up in any way where a gun is concerned and law enforcement is going to come down on you like the hammer of God.

So I'm fighting to reform this law, and have no regrets doing so.

Good luck to you, OK?

Just as an aside, I'm not just involved in the gun issue:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/11/10/financial1831EST0118.DTL

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/8556.html?1122679073

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/8568.html?1122664155

:)

Jim
---

So why did I go into this much detail?

Well one, it..."felt right". Second, the last thing I need is a lady like this going on a mission to "warn top cops that there's this guy running around helping arm nutcases". That could...cause problems.

Fortunately as is normal in my conversations with people who are trying to score, I never suggested lying or doing anything unethical. So if (as is close to certain) this lady read my earlier EMails to her husband she wouldn't have too much cause to be upset and I think that showed in her very first message to me.

Sigh. Tough situation.

[jefnvk]

No, it is good to go into detail, and remaining calm. Shows that you are confident in your position, that you know what you are talking about and that you are the rational one.

[hso]

Sounds reasonable enough to me. I would have reduced the political and made it more about her personal problems after her reply.

The only thing you might have done was offer to help her get a CCW if she ever thought that she wanted to. Considering this statement, "No matter what I need his income to support our two children. Therefore, I could not afford putting the horrific details on paper, in fear that they could be forwared to the city. ", she may need that help some day.

[Jim March]

One step at a time :). As long as she doesn't run around screaming I'm a nut I'll call this a draw :D.

[JohnKSa]

No matter what I need his income to support our two children. Therefore, I could not afford putting the horrific details on paper, in fear that they could be forwared to the city.She and her kids are safe with this guy but if anyone else finds out about the "horrific details" she will lose her "income"?

Oh brother...

[Joejojoba111]

She and her kids are safe with this guy but if anyone else finds out about the "horrific details" she will lose her "income"?

Oh brother...

...If you suspect someone is lying like that, let it go. If you call them on it they just get agitated and start lying even more, even if you're polite. Sort of how she brought up these 'horrible' acts he commits, after Jim Marsh pointed out that possessing ammunition is not a bad thing.

I met a guy who lied for a living, when he must have been having an off day. It was really uncomfortable, but I just ended the conversation as quickly as possible once I realized what was happening.

But maybe the lady is absolutely honest, and simply forgetful, like forgetting to mention the man's sadisdic depravity, along with his possession of ammunition.

[Jim March]

I doubt she's lying exactly...she might however be misinterpreting where his head is at.

Or not. I dunno.

[Tomcat1066]

I think the whole situation was handled fine. You presented your position in a calm, cool manner and backed it up.

Good job :)

Tom

[AJ Dual]

A. The hubby is a control freak, or an abuser, or has anger problems and could be a potential abuser, and it just hasn't risen to the level where law enforcment has become involved, or she's got Battered Spouse Syndrome/Stockholm Syndrome, and actively hides the abuse.

B. The wife is anti, doesn't like his shooting, and wants to rein him back in as one of the "sheep". She is painting him as being "A" (see above) to try and bolster her arguments, and keep you from helping him.

Either way, you did the right thing. A real catch-22, she's lying, or, he really is a controler/abuser, and he'll assult her if he finds out she went behind his back to Jim.

I see why you needed to unload on us a bit... :(

I'm not particularily religious, but there's a reason the "Lying Commandment" is really "Thou shall not bear false witness". Simple "lying" did not rise to the level of making it on to those tablets Charlton Heston brought down off of that nifty matte painting of Mt. Siani. Lying to get someone in trouble did.

[Joejojoba111]

It seems a lot like her first accusations were completely different, even contradictory to the second ones. When it was clear that her accusations of him having too much ammunition, and being a 'wannabe cop' were not working, she drops them and picks up a completely new approach. But this time she makes it vague, learning from the first exchange.

The problem is how quickly she switches, and how completely. No carry-over whatsoever, no hint of the second set of accusations in the first post, and no further mention of the first set in the second post. Some other people might elaborate, as people discussing things do;

"Oh, good information, but he only has 1 gun and he has a room of ammunition."
or
"I didn't think of it that way, maybe it is reasonable, since he has a variety of firearms."

But she leaves her previous arguments behind like a person leaving a stinky washroom, it's just too suspicious.

[Wiley]

Were it me, I would answer all of that sort of emails (the initial one) with a canned response along the lines of:

"When asked, I provide some limited information on complying with existing law and exersizing one's Constitutional rights. If you believe a law has been broken, talk the the police."

And then add the sender to your blocked senders list.

You've spent a fair amount of time debating someone who seems incapable of understanding more.

[DRZinn]

I think the "thinks he's the law" statement is the clue. That's newspeak for wanting to be able to protect yourself instead of waiting around for "the law" to come protect you.

Not knowing any more details, I think she's a full-fledged, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-gun idiot, and her only real objection is that he "thinks he's the law."

[BB62]

It seems a lot like her first accusations were completely different, even contradictory to the second ones. When it was clear that her accusations of him having too much ammunition, and being a 'wannabe cop' were not working, she drops them and picks up a completely new approach. But this time she makes it vague, learning from the first exchange.

The problem is how quickly she switches, and how completely. No carry-over whatsoever, no hint of the second set of accusations in the first post, and no further mention of the first set in the second post. Some other people might elaborate, as people discussing things do;...

But she leaves her previous arguments behind like a person leaving a stinky washroom, it's just too suspicious.

I agree 10,000%. Very, very suspicious.

On the other hand, assuming it is real, IMHO you (Jim) have gone way, way, way above and beyond with this woman.

Let's face it, sane, "wannabe", or whatever, if he wants to carry a gun, he is going to do so. Sane, normal, or whatever, if he misuses that illegally carried gun, he is going to be dead, in a courtroom, a jail or a prison.

If he gets a license to do so and does some "wannabe" stuff that's too much "out there" he's going to "wanna be" free like the rest of us.

There could be issues here between the spouses, issues with guns, or real psychological makeup issues present.

As one who previously had a paranoid schizophrenic living across the street (who was quite intelligent, btw), trust me when I say that especially via e-mail, one can appear however they choose (news flash!).

As a CCW instructor, I too share your concerns, but are you going to burden yourself in a reasonable fashion, or are you going to take the yoke the antis would like to affix to you?

Regardless, you've done more than right, in my opinion.


BB62

[BB62]

dupe post

[BB62]

dupe post