Sherrif Donors got CA CCW! (Jim March was right!)

Status
Not open for further replies.

gunsmith

member
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
5,906
Location
Reno, Nevada
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/587425.html

The bounty hunter accused of kicking in his wife's door and dragging her outside, the pawnbroker who left a loaded gun tucked between the seats of his unlocked car, the drywall company owner who donated money to the sheriff's campaign and owns a vacation house with him.

All of these men subsequently received permission from the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department to carry a concealed gun.

As a lawsuit accusing former Sheriff Lou Blanas of favoring campaign contributors in decisions on concealed weapon permits wends its way through federal court, The Bee examined public records on more than 550 permits issued since 1996, all but 37 of them under Blanas' terms as sheriff and undersheriff.
Permit holders included people with past criminal convictions, not always reported on their permit applications, The Bee review found, as well as those with drunken driving arrests, which disqualify applicants in many counties.

The department's files, however, were in disarray, with documents often incomplete or missing, making a comprehensive review impossible. The department does not track such basic statistics as a percentage of applications approved and denied.

Shown The Bee's findings, current Sheriff John McGinness, who took office on Blanas' retirement in July 2006, said he plans to clean things up.

"It's going to be repaired," he said, "because otherwise you're going to have the appearance of inconsistency and a lack of fairness, even if that's not the case."

Blanas did not respond to repeated requests for an interview about his management of the permit program, including a letter hand-delivered to his home.

Already, McGinness has begun to limit the number of new permits issued to people outside the law enforcement world. Currently, 255 county residents not in law enforcement are licensed to carry concealed weapons, down from 367 when McGinness took office, state and county records show. An additional 123 deputy district attorneys, judges and police officers also have carry permits.

Sacramento County has far more concealed weapon permit holders than San Francisco County – which had just eight in 2006 – but a fraction compared with more rural counties like Shasta and Kern, which respectively issued 2,316 and 4,006 permits last year, according to data compiled by the state Department of Justice.

In its review of Sacramento permit and court files, The Bee found that over the past decade:

• Blanas collected more than $200,000 in campaign contributions from 70 current or former concealed weapon permit holders and their businesses. McGinness has collected nearly $25,000 from permit holders since he began raising money for his campaign at the start of 2005.

• The department awarded permits to at least 30 people with convictions for crimes ranging from drunken driving to grand theft to secretly videotaping sexual encounters.

• At least seven of those 30 applicants – including two contributors – failed to fully disclose past convictions in their applications.

• Permits were granted to six more people who had been charged with but never convicted of crimes including spousal abuse and brandishing a gun, allegations that can be grounds for denial if police think an applicant showed poor judgment.

Though not all of the crimes were felonies, where convictions automatically prevent applicants from getting a permit, intentionally failing to report them is itself a felony – a fact detailed in the forms applicants complete.

McGinness said not everything known by the department is in the files and, he added, deciding who gets permits for concealed weapons can be agonizing.

"If someone has a fear for their safety and I don't have enough officers in the field," he said, "I'm troubled to say, 'You can't carry a gun.' "

But McGinness said he also was troubled by evidence of scattershot record-keeping and inadequate scrutiny of applicants' past histories as well as by the applicants' lack of full disclosure.
 
I just don't see how anyone can expect any behavior other than this in a "may issue" system. The system itself almost begs for corruption.

Maybe some good will come from this, we can always hope.
 
I doubt any good will come of it. In fact, I figure the opposite. "See ... we shouldn't have any permits".

Given Schwarzenegger's complete betrayal of gun-owners in the recent bout of legislation, I wouldn't put it past him to sign into law the abolishment of CC to all non law enforcement/govt officials.

I don't think the California legislature is going to do that because the "May Issue" system works just fine for filling their pockets with ill-begotten cash, and no one seems to care because no one here pays enough attention to care about this sort of thing.
 
I live in sacramento county... the only people that worthless pos( he was worthless) was his "friends" LEO, retired LEO and DOJ employees.

When I lived 6 miles from where I do now in placer county, the fact that I was a biz owner that some times carried large ammounts of cash was enough for me to get my CCW. Sac county would not renew it... don't even get me started on how worthless the sacramento sheriffs dept is.


Between Sac sheriffs and sac metro fire... lets just say if you need a cop or your house is on fire... your skrewed. oh and did I mention that compared to other countys/ citys they are way over paid? Sac metro fire for example spends a average of 183k per employee in wages and bennies...thats not for gear/ housing/ food/ what ever. thats pay, dental and medical only.. Sac city FD on the other is right at 90k per employee. which is right in line with the average for the stete.
 
There has been a long running joke in sac county, that you had to be ether LEO or giving the sheriff a bj to get a CCW... looks like it was right.

I know they denied renewal. If it was not for me dealing with some family stuff I would atleast move out of the county.
 
"It's going to be repaired," he said, "because otherwise you're going to have the appearance of inconsistency and a lack of fairness, even if that's not the case."

I've met a couple so-called "law enforcement officers" who devoted far more time and effort to polishing appearances than enforcing the law. They were what I'd have expected to find in third world hell holes, not America.

Given Schwarzenegger's complete betrayal of gun-owners in the recent bout of legislation...

"Betrayal?" When did that self-aggrandizing European import ever support the Second Amendment in any way, shape, or form? He was never anything but a RINO whose only goal was political power.
 
our member Jim

stirred up the hornets nest when he went against the Republicans and NRA and got the newspapers to get into ...I think it was called public records act or something.
He couldn't prove racism without it...now its coming out.

I wish he were here to splain it but this could overturn CA ccw law for the better!
 
Schwarzenegger

passed up a lot of gun bills without signing, I think he was impressed by the CSI bovine excrement the micro stampers hyped.

Still with that and the .50 ban, he is a useless rino.:barf:
 
GOOGLE / Wicki

Republican In Name Only
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Republican In Name Only, or RINO, is a neologism believed to have been coined in 1992 by John DiStaso, senior political correspondent for the Manchester, NH daily newspaper, the Union Leader.[1] It is considered a disparaging term[citation needed] for a member of the Republican Party of the United States (the GOP) whose political views or actions are as liberal/Socialist as his wifes family
(arnie married into the kennedy crime syndicate in order to breed bulletproof kennedy's
 
that just scares the hell out of me. 255 folks with a gun permit vs 8 in Firsco county. Thank god I live in a state where a hunting license is a carry pemit and shotguns are excluded as being conciled in a rig.
 
This proves that

it is a racist/crony system ...now all we have to do
is prove it in Court, and the only remedy is shall issue.
 
passed up a lot of gun bills without signing, I think he was impressed by the CSI bovine excrement the micro stampers hyped.

Still with that and the .50 ban, he is a useless rino.



Atleast the 50 cal ban did have some logic too it( not that I agree with it.) The logic was the refinerys in the bay area could be shot with a 50 by a terrorist and blown up. Which is true that could happen, but you could do the same thing with 308 and AP ammo. Both of which are alot cheaper and easier to get then 50 bmg. Then again if your going to go thru that hassle nothing is stoping you from doing it with a RPG, which are availalbe for sale a stones throw away in oakland as well as just about any other weapon you can dream of. If some one is going to do something like that, nothing is going to stop them, they will ether just buy it illegally or from some where that it is not illegal to buy.
 
gunsmith said:
I think its great that the liberal MSM is finally covering stuff like this instead of ignoring it!

Except that their angle is to eliminate CCW completely, not open it up with Shall Issue.
 
the media angle

Sure, against ccw but the legal angle could be far different.
The media is sure that "the collective" whatever the heck that means, has some right to KABA but not us.
SCOTUS will decide otherwise.
Same here, the media wouldn't mind scrapping ccw altogether
but the only redress to the years of racist cronyism is shall issue
 
I doubt any good will come of it. In fact, I figure the opposite. "See ... we shouldn't have any permits".

Given Schwarzenegger's complete betrayal of gun-owners in the recent bout of legislation, I wouldn't put it past him to sign into law the abolishment of CC to all non law enforcement/govt officials.

It'll never happen. If anything, they'll pass legislation that gets ignored, revoke (and maybe then reissue) the permits from those noted in the news, or otherwise sweep the issue under the carpet. There's no way that the socialist elite will put up with their revocation of special privilege, and the Sheriff likely won't hear of it either - after all, such contributions are likely his bread-and-butter.
 
I reiterate a sometimes forgotten point:

"Shall issue" is a REFORM MEASURE for a discretionary process that begs on bended knee to be corrupted.
 
Given Schwarzenegger's complete betrayal of gun-owners in the recent bout of legislation, I wouldn't put it past him to sign into law the abolishment of CC to all non law enforcement/govt officials.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is the son of a small town Austrian police chief. His father was an early member of the Nazi party and the SA, Adolf Hitler's Sturmabteilung: the "Brown Shirts" or Storm Troopers.

Schwarzenegger married Maria Schriver. Maria Schriver is the daughter of Eunice Kennedy Schriver, who is Ted Kennedy's sister. Sen. Ted Kennedy is perhaps the most committed leader of the anti gun movement in this country.

Gov. Schwarzenegger is being true to those who have a right to his loyalties both by birth and marriage. Why would anyone expect otherwise?

Arnold Schwarzenegger most certainly did not ever "betray" California gun owners. California gun owners who supported or voted for him betrayed themselves. They got exactly what they should have expected.
 
Arnold Schwarzenegger most certainly did not ever "betray" California gun owners. California gun owners who supported or voted for him betrayed themselves. They got exactly what they should have expected.


I voted for Arnold, he was by far the best choice we had. I must say he really did try to do the things he promisted in his campign...( interm election after gray davis got the boot), he even had a special election to try to mandate change. What happend? the 3 major powers in CA( that being the teachers, LEO/correction and the firemnes unions) spent over 100 million on ads against the changes he purposed. While I did not agree with all of them, several of them were and are still needed. I beleave he is like all new politicians, they started out trying to make a diffrence, only to run into a wall that will not allow them to do so... then it becomes statis qo.


Whould I vote for him again? depends on who is running vs him.
 
Arnie the best choice?! Not in a million years, you are like the rest of Californians who fell into this lie. Tom McClintock was the best man for the job and he lost to a Nazi that people thought was their "stealth" candidate.

50 ban had logic? What logic would that be? Again, you have fallen into their trap. How many refiners have you heard of that have been attacked by a terrorist with a .50? For that matter, how many crimes have been committed in CA with a .50? Arnie banned .50's for one reason and one reason only, DiFi and the Dems dangled his budget that he wanted before him. He chose to sell us out and banned the .50's for his budget!

Your logic is also flawed about the unions, how much money did Arnie borrow (said he would pay back) from the school system funds then said screw you it's mine? He started his campaign to make it sound like it was the unions fault for him not getting his way. He's a terrible politician and should never have even run for office. How many times have we had to listen to him whine about something when he doesn't get his way?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top