http://www.ocregister.com/articles/permits...nty-department#
I just wonder if this is what we have to look forward to nationwide if hussein obama (the flap eared camel jockey p.o.s.) gets into office. The folks who are having the license pulled are wide ranging -
ACCOUNTANT
ACCT MANAGER
ADMINISTRATION
APPRAISER
ARCHITECTUAL
ASSISTANT PASTOR
ATTORNEY
BANKER
BROKER
BUSINESS EXECUTIVE
BUSINESS MANAGER
BUSINESS OWNER
CEO
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
COIN DEALER
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
COMPUTER CONSULTANT
CONSULTANT
CORPORATE OFFICER
CPA/ATTORNEY
DENTIST
DIRECTOR OF CHAPLAINCY
DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE SALES
ENGINEER
ESTATE MANAGER
EXECUTIVE
FINANCE CONSULTANT
FINANCIAL ADVISOR
FINANCIAL ANALYST
FIREARMS DEALER
FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR
GENERAL MANAGER
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
INSPECTOR
INSURANCE BROKER
INVESTIGATOR
INVESTMENT ADVISOR
INVESTMENT BROKER
JEWELER
LOAN OFFICER
MORTGAGE LENDER
PHARMACIST
PHYSICIAN
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER
REAL ESTATE AGENT
REAL ESTATE BROKER
REALTOR
RESTAURANT OWNER
SALES MANAGER
SALES REPRESENTATIVE
SALESMAN
SOFTWARE DEVELOPER
It sucks to have to live under the rule of morons voted in by morons! Is this our fault for not raising our kids correctly and relying on the public school system? Not I and perhaps not you, but the majority of Amerricans? Another load of b.s. brought to you by the libs.
1911
Full Version: I'm glad I don't live in Kommiefornia
Hello, 1911
Some pretty scary stuff.
Possibly even scarier, I've been getting e-mails from co-workers and acquaintances (not confrontational) that imply that Hussein "respects the Second Ammendment, and would not strip our right to own guns"......
How friggen naive is that? People, educated folks, actually believe that because a break-down shotgun or bolt-action rifle "may" be available for "hunting" purposes that the Second Ammendment is being "respected?"
-Hussein has already gone on record as strongly opposing the entire concept of citizen concealed carry laws. Even though it is a State-granted Right, Hussein reckons it's within his domain.....
Yeeah, ask our mates across the ponds how they feel about that slippery slope idea.......I suspect the British "example" is what the F.E.C.J.P.O.S. has in mind for us....
Scary times we're a'livin in, Sir........
BTW, I made a "bumper sticker" at work for a fellow Inspector at the plant that read
"Hell Yes, I'm Voting For That FLAP-EARED CAMEL-JOCKEY BASTARD HUSSEIN OBAMA In '08!"
and applied it to his jacked-up 4x4 truck prior to his trip home through an errrr....ethnic neighborhood. He said he knew pretty quickly that something was amiss 'cause the 'groids that passed him were giving him "death looks". When he got home and saw what they were giving him hard looks about he laughed his ass off!
I guess they really desperately want him to be a "brotha" whether he is or not....
The best,
guido2 in Houston
Some pretty scary stuff.
Possibly even scarier, I've been getting e-mails from co-workers and acquaintances (not confrontational) that imply that Hussein "respects the Second Ammendment, and would not strip our right to own guns"......
How friggen naive is that? People, educated folks, actually believe that because a break-down shotgun or bolt-action rifle "may" be available for "hunting" purposes that the Second Ammendment is being "respected?"
-Hussein has already gone on record as strongly opposing the entire concept of citizen concealed carry laws. Even though it is a State-granted Right, Hussein reckons it's within his domain.....
Yeeah, ask our mates across the ponds how they feel about that slippery slope idea.......I suspect the British "example" is what the F.E.C.J.P.O.S. has in mind for us....
Scary times we're a'livin in, Sir........
BTW, I made a "bumper sticker" at work for a fellow Inspector at the plant that read
"Hell Yes, I'm Voting For That FLAP-EARED CAMEL-JOCKEY BASTARD HUSSEIN OBAMA In '08!"
and applied it to his jacked-up 4x4 truck prior to his trip home through an errrr....ethnic neighborhood. He said he knew pretty quickly that something was amiss 'cause the 'groids that passed him were giving him "death looks". When he got home and saw what they were giving him hard looks about he laughed his ass off!
I guess they really desperately want him to be a "brotha" whether he is or not....
The best,
guido2 in Houston
You guys need to read the whole article.
The preceding sheriff issued CWPs to felons, and anyone else who contributed campaign funds and other shady stuff to him / his 'campaign'. He did not issue to "normal folks", but only those who gave him money. The preceding sheriff is currently under a Federal corruption indictment.
They're just pulling the CWPs from anyone who shouldn't have gotten one in the first place.
The preceding sheriff issued CWPs to felons, and anyone else who contributed campaign funds and other shady stuff to him / his 'campaign'. He did not issue to "normal folks", but only those who gave him money. The preceding sheriff is currently under a Federal corruption indictment.
They're just pulling the CWPs from anyone who shouldn't have gotten one in the first place.
QUOTE (nalioth @ Oct 12 2008, 10:05 AM) 
You guys need to read the whole article.
The preceding sheriff issued CWPs to felons, and anyone else who contributed campaign funds and other shady stuff to him / his 'campaign'. He did not issue to "normal folks", but only those who gave him money. The preceding sheriff is currently under a Federal corruption indictment.
They're just pulling the CWPs from anyone who shouldn't have gotten one in the first place.
The preceding sheriff issued CWPs to felons, and anyone else who contributed campaign funds and other shady stuff to him / his 'campaign'. He did not issue to "normal folks", but only those who gave him money. The preceding sheriff is currently under a Federal corruption indictment.
They're just pulling the CWPs from anyone who shouldn't have gotten one in the first place.
Hello, nalioth
I did read the article. (Edit to read: I read the entire "linked" article...) it mentioned that the prior sherif was under indictment for corruption, but it didn't indicate whether the CWP issue was the core issue. And while it insinuated that "undesirables" who were campaign contributors got consideration for the carry licenses, I didn't see any mention of felons (maybe I missed that part...) and I would think that's a bit subjective based on what was stated there.
I'm not saying some of the CWP holders may not have met the letter of the California law, I'm not even familiar with it, but without any facts to the contrary, I'm going to default to the side of the legally armed citizen.
And, to be perfectly honest, I'm kind of surprised to hear anything to the contrary from you.
Not trying to criticize, however......
JMHO....
guido2 in Houston
QUOTE (guido2 @ Oct 12 2008, 01:53 PM)
QUOTE (nalioth @ Oct 12 2008, 10:05 AM)
You guys need to read the whole article.
The preceding sheriff issued CWPs to felons, and anyone else who contributed campaign funds and other shady stuff to him / his 'campaign'. He did not issue to "normal folks", but only those who gave him money. The preceding sheriff is currently under a Federal corruption indictment.
They're just pulling the CWPs from anyone who shouldn't have gotten one in the first place.
The preceding sheriff issued CWPs to felons, and anyone else who contributed campaign funds and other shady stuff to him / his 'campaign'. He did not issue to "normal folks", but only those who gave him money. The preceding sheriff is currently under a Federal corruption indictment.
They're just pulling the CWPs from anyone who shouldn't have gotten one in the first place.
Hello, nalioth
I did read the article. (Edit to read: I read the entire "linked" article...) it mentioned that the prior sherif was under indictment for corruption, but it didn't indicate whether the CWP issue was the core issue. And while it insinuated that "undesirables" who were campaign contributors got consideration for the carry licenses, I didn't see any mention of felons (maybe I missed that part...) and I would think that's a bit subjective based on what was stated there.
I'm not saying some of the CWP holders may not have met the letter of the California law, I'm not even familiar with it, but without any facts to the contrary, I'm going to default to the side of the legally armed citizen.
And, to be perfectly honest, I'm kind of surprised to hear anything to the contrary from you.
Not trying to criticize, however......
JMHO....
guido2 in Houston
The linked article is not the only one that has been written about this sheriff or his activities.
Others have definitely mentioned the "giving CWPs to felons". Googling "Mike Carona" will provide quite a lot of background on this.
From the article linked in the OP:
QUOTE
Indeed, the federal indictment against Carona details one specific instance where a wealthy contributor was granted a license under questionable circumstances.
, which takes us to one of the other articles:QUOTE
Carona did favors to another Orange County businessman, Ed Grech.
The Journal has learned that Carona granted Grech a concealed-weapon permit even though the businessman had been convicted of a concealed-weapon offense.
LinkThe Journal has learned that Carona granted Grech a concealed-weapon permit even though the businessman had been convicted of a concealed-weapon offense.
There are also many references to links to organized crime, unreported campaign "gifts", and other illegal activies.
No law abiding citizens are having their CWPs pulled.
A couple of posts from here http://www.calccw.com/Forums/announcements...ns-permits.html
IT’S SIMPLE, IT’S THE LAW
Sheriff Sandra Hutchens
As a citizen, I support the 2nd amendment and the rights of law-abiding gun owners. As the Sheriff-Coroner of Orange County, it is my sworn duty to uphold the law and apply it equitably to all people. Recently, there have been some who have questioned my policy on the issuance of concealed weapon permits. I would like to take this opportunity to give you the facts. California Penal Code Section 12025(a) prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm. California Penal Code Section 12050 authorizes the Sheriff of a county or the chief of a municipal police department to issue a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. Penal Code Section 12050 was designed to be an exception to Penal Code section 12025(a)—not a way around it.
Penal Code Section 12050 reads in part: The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person ………
The only guidance on “good cause” is from a 1977 Attorney General’s opinion : Opinion No. CR 77/30I.L. states “the issuing authority must determine whether the threat to the applicant (or other causal situation) is as real as the applicant asserts (e.g., is there a clear and present danger to the applicant, his spouse, his family, or his employees). Finally, if the danger is manifest, the authority should determine whether that danger cannot be significantly alleviated by alternative means of security and whether in fact can be lawfully mitigated by the applicant’s obtaining a concealed weapons license.”
As the Sheriff-Coroner of Orange County, it is my duty to follow the law as it currently exists. Some have argued that I am somehow impacting their 2nd amendment constitutional rights. This could not be further from the truth. My decision to issue or not issue a concealed weapons permit to an applicant in no way impacts that individual’s right to bear arms in their place of business or in their home. In fact, I would encourage those who are concerned about the concealed weapons permit policy to put their energies into getting the law changed. And, if the State of California decides to change Penal Code section 12025(a), I will support that law as well.
I encourage anyone who believes they have good cause to apply for a Concealed Weapons Permit to apply. It’s simple: The decisions I make and those made by the over 4000 members of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department are to follow and uphold the law. I believe that is what the citizens of Orange County want us to do and what I was hired to do.
Chris
Red Flag
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Red Flag
Find all posts by Red Flag
#11 (permalink) 10-10-2008, 01:55 PM
Dan M.
Founding Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,428
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Flag
Just posted on the OCSD Blog...
IT’S SIMPLE, IT’S THE LAW
Sheriff Sandra Hutchens
My e-mail to Sheriff Hutchens through the OCSD "Contact us" link:
Quote:
Dear Sheriff Hutchens,
Your recent blog entry on your actions regarding CCW policy in Orange County is very well stated, but raises a question. Most of the other counties (nearly 40, San Bernardino and Kern being the closest) in California have a looser interpretation of the state law on good cause than does your new policy, or even than former Sheriff Carona's policy. Why do you feel the need to have tighter restrictions than those other counties?
Nearly 95% of the formerly current CCW holders in Orange County have committed no offenses or abuses that would prompt a tighter policy. If public perception is otherwise, wouldn't it be effective (and truthful) to announce to the public that you've investigated and found that the few offenses were committed by "Carona cronies" and that those few CCW holders have been weeded out, rather than cast a doubtful light on all CCW holders as possible cohorts with a corrupt Carona administration?
I had no connections whatsoever to Carona, but because of the new, tighter restrictions, I have been denied renewal of my CCW. Many of my friends and personal acquaintances are receiving similar denials or letters of revocation. Friends from other parts of the state and other states say, "Move!" Surely that will not be your response? You may say "Change the state law." The state law allows you to make the same interpretation as the sheriffs in those other counties with more relaxed policies, yet you've chosen not to.
Why?
Sincerely,
Dan M.
Stanton
I also CCed the BOS.
IT’S SIMPLE, IT’S THE LAW
Sheriff Sandra Hutchens
As a citizen, I support the 2nd amendment and the rights of law-abiding gun owners. As the Sheriff-Coroner of Orange County, it is my sworn duty to uphold the law and apply it equitably to all people. Recently, there have been some who have questioned my policy on the issuance of concealed weapon permits. I would like to take this opportunity to give you the facts. California Penal Code Section 12025(a) prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm. California Penal Code Section 12050 authorizes the Sheriff of a county or the chief of a municipal police department to issue a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. Penal Code Section 12050 was designed to be an exception to Penal Code section 12025(a)—not a way around it.
Penal Code Section 12050 reads in part: The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person ………
The only guidance on “good cause” is from a 1977 Attorney General’s opinion : Opinion No. CR 77/30I.L. states “the issuing authority must determine whether the threat to the applicant (or other causal situation) is as real as the applicant asserts (e.g., is there a clear and present danger to the applicant, his spouse, his family, or his employees). Finally, if the danger is manifest, the authority should determine whether that danger cannot be significantly alleviated by alternative means of security and whether in fact can be lawfully mitigated by the applicant’s obtaining a concealed weapons license.”
As the Sheriff-Coroner of Orange County, it is my duty to follow the law as it currently exists. Some have argued that I am somehow impacting their 2nd amendment constitutional rights. This could not be further from the truth. My decision to issue or not issue a concealed weapons permit to an applicant in no way impacts that individual’s right to bear arms in their place of business or in their home. In fact, I would encourage those who are concerned about the concealed weapons permit policy to put their energies into getting the law changed. And, if the State of California decides to change Penal Code section 12025(a), I will support that law as well.
I encourage anyone who believes they have good cause to apply for a Concealed Weapons Permit to apply. It’s simple: The decisions I make and those made by the over 4000 members of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department are to follow and uphold the law. I believe that is what the citizens of Orange County want us to do and what I was hired to do.
Chris
Red Flag
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Red Flag
Find all posts by Red Flag
#11 (permalink) 10-10-2008, 01:55 PM
Dan M.
Founding Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,428
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Flag
Just posted on the OCSD Blog...
IT’S SIMPLE, IT’S THE LAW
Sheriff Sandra Hutchens
My e-mail to Sheriff Hutchens through the OCSD "Contact us" link:
Quote:
Dear Sheriff Hutchens,
Your recent blog entry on your actions regarding CCW policy in Orange County is very well stated, but raises a question. Most of the other counties (nearly 40, San Bernardino and Kern being the closest) in California have a looser interpretation of the state law on good cause than does your new policy, or even than former Sheriff Carona's policy. Why do you feel the need to have tighter restrictions than those other counties?
Nearly 95% of the formerly current CCW holders in Orange County have committed no offenses or abuses that would prompt a tighter policy. If public perception is otherwise, wouldn't it be effective (and truthful) to announce to the public that you've investigated and found that the few offenses were committed by "Carona cronies" and that those few CCW holders have been weeded out, rather than cast a doubtful light on all CCW holders as possible cohorts with a corrupt Carona administration?
I had no connections whatsoever to Carona, but because of the new, tighter restrictions, I have been denied renewal of my CCW. Many of my friends and personal acquaintances are receiving similar denials or letters of revocation. Friends from other parts of the state and other states say, "Move!" Surely that will not be your response? You may say "Change the state law." The state law allows you to make the same interpretation as the sheriffs in those other counties with more relaxed policies, yet you've chosen not to.
Why?
Sincerely,
Dan M.
Stanton
I also CCed the BOS.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.