Sheriff Candidate Craig Hunter in support of AB357

[RomanDad]

[THE Gimper]

For those of you (like me) who have trouble seeing the text of that letter:

The Honorable Tom Ammiano
Chairman: California Assembly Committee on Public Safety
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0013


As a citizen of California and a 30-year law enforcement officer, I am writing to express my support for AB357 (Knight), now before the California State Assembly Committee On Public Safety.

Under current California law, Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police are tasked with administering the application and issuance of licenses to Carry Concealed Weapons (CCW). Applicants for such licenses must prove that they are of good moral character, have completed a certified course of training on the laws of self defense and the proper use of a firearm, and that they can show “good cause exists for the issuance” of the license.

AB357 amends California Penal Code Section 12050 to remove the requirement that applicants for a CCW demonstrate “good cause” for the license.

At first blush, the notion that people show “good cause” to carry a concealed firearm in public is quite reassuring. It portrays the notion that we don’t want criminals roaming about with hidden firearms or untrained people shooting each other over minor disputes. But beneath the surface of the words lies a policy that cannot be supported.

The origins of Section 12050, like many laws regulating the carrying of concealed weapons, can be traced to the 1920's, a particularly embarrassing time in the country’s history. Although codified discrimination was often the standard of the day, it doesn’t stand up to modern ideals of equal rights and equal treatment for all under the law. Because you are a strong supporter of civil rights, I hope you will recognize the importance of supporting our United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights as it relates to this bill.

Even today, the evidence of discrimination is evident to anybody who looks at the statistics. “Good Cause” has created a system where wealthy business people and those who can afford to be big political donors get CCWs. The poor and working class, who are far more likely to be victims of violent crime, don’t. For example, there are virtually no CCW’s issued in the most crime ridden and socially depressed cities in Los Angeles County. On the contrary, in the more affluent cities, many licensees have been issued. All of these licenses, and the lack thereof, were controlled by the same Sheriff of Los Angeles County. The Sheriff has chosen to restrictively pick and choose who is granted this right to self defense. This scenario is played out in a few other California counties. In Orange County, my home for fifty years, we recently suffered a restrictive change in the CCW process. Coincidentally, the appointed sheriff served under the Los Angeles Sheriff for many years and has chosen to adopt the same restrictive and discriminatory standard in Orange County. As a 30-year law enforcement veteran and senior police leader in one of California’s largest cities, I am truly concerned with this misuse of discretion that is symptomatic of a poorly written and law.

There has long been a fear amongst law enforcement and public policy makers that more CCWs would result in more crime; more encounters by officers with armed strangers and more minor disputes turning into gunfights. Perhaps there was a time when such fears seemed rational, but after 20 years of Shall Issue laws in 37 U.S. States, we now know that people who apply for and are issued CCWs in liberal issuance states are by far more law abiding than the average citizen.

We also know that criminals don’t seek out CCW licenses. They illegally carry their guns and use them on the helpless. And they don’t make appointments with their future victims, which can then be listed as “good cause” on a CCW application. The current state law only serves to discriminate against the law abiding, and embolden the criminals who would prey upon them.

It appears that The Supreme Court, by their recent published decisions, are moving towards incorporation of the Second Amendment. However, that is no reason to wait and allow the law to be changed by Judicial Fiat. It is best that our duly elected representatives recognize the correct path and act accordingly. In 2010, it seems archaic that an elected sheriff or appointed Chief of Police can subjectively decide that some of his constituents have “good cause” to defend their lives, and some do not.


Thank you for your support and consideration,

Craig Hunter

5440 Calle Vista Linda
Yorba Linda, CA 92887


Cc:
Honorable Steve Knight 36th Assembly

[Rond4x4]

Originally Posted by THE Gimper

For those of you (like me) who have trouble seeing the text of that letter:

Thanks for the assist..

[rudigan]

...it seems archaic that an elected sheriff or appointed Chief of Police can subjectively decide that some of his constituents have “good cause” to defend their lives, and some do not.

Very refreshing. Sounds a lot like our Sheriff Mims. He is running for OC Sheriff this year, correct? This guy is definitely your man!

And thanks for the bigger font Mr. G., I could not see it either.

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by rudigan

Very refreshing. Sounds a lot like our Sheriff Mims. He is running for OC Sheriff this year, correct? This guy is definitely your man!

Yes. And that's why we're supporting him.

[X-ffdo]

I do not know this sheriff-to-be. Matter of fact, I am one of those who look with lots of reservation at any one sheriff candidate, they have a track record of saying something and then doing something else. Having said that, I have to affirm that I like the way this guy articulated his letter, very clear, direct and to the point. Leaving no doubt!
I believe that if I were an Orange County resident, after reading this letter, it is clear to me that I would vote to have this guy elected as the new sheriff for Orange County. I hope he wins!!

[IAmASensFan]

Most people may not vote for CCW, and thats why, if we do things right, we will quantify CCW's as an aspect of what they REALLY care about.

CCW's give innocent people a fighting chance, and the idea of armed citizens will send bad guys back to LA County where they belong (and hopefully taking Hutchens along with them).

A Sheriff who does not have a liberal issuance policy can (and should) be made to look like they are approaching crime reduction with 1/2 measures. I can lessen the chances of my car being stolen by locking the doors. I can lessen my chances of being robbed by not going to the ATM at 3am and withdrawing $500.00. I can lessen the chances of dying on a cold and lonely street if I can carry a firearm.

Hunters letter not only states his support for CCW, but it also shows that he supports self-sufficiency and the willingness to take ownership of controversial subjects. How long have we listened to Hutchens dance around with her "I support the second amendment and your right to have guns at home or in your workplace", all the while quashing the REAL intent of the 2nd, which offers NO exceptions to when or where we can carry, but simply states we CAN bear arms for protection?

Hunter has hitched up his britches and stepped off the safe path by trusting the law abiding folks of this county, and it's our job to make sure that the citizens of this county know he is willing to listen to the people who he answers to, not lord it over them.

Besides, he's got a LOAD of experience as an assistant Chief, which Hunt doesnt have. I'd be happy with either over Hutchens...but I have a much better feeling with Hunter, especially after he went over and above in his support of Shall Issue...

Damn, that took some Kahonies!

[Dan M.]

Originally Posted by IAmASensFan

A Sheriff who does not have a liberal issuance policy can (and should) be made to look like they are approaching crime reduction with 1/2 measures.

And what does that policy reflect regarding the sheriff's opinion of us?

Her budget has been slashed with more cuts looming, her department won't be able to provide a level of public protection that meets even her own standards (she has admitted that the public will be potentially less safe), and there's talk about early release of prisoners from county AND state custody. But rather than trust us like the sheriffs in San Bernardino, Kern, Fresno, and so many other counties trust their citizens, she refuses to loosen CCW restrictions, something that is entirely in her power.

There are no CCW issues in the 37 or 38 other counties that issue more liberally, even though some of them have high population centers and resort areas like we do, nor do the CCW holders from other counties bring issues with them when they visit OUR county, as many of them undoubtedly do since two of the highest issuing counties are neighboring San Bernardino and Kern counties.

So it comes down to trust. She either trusts us or she doesn't, and if the trust is not there, the only thing left is suspicion. Why would Orange County voters, even if they couldn't care less about CCW, want to vote for a sheriff who views even her county's law-abiding residents with suspicion?

[Renshai]

The shall-ssue thing came up not too long ago in Colorado, and it slid through with the support of some VERY liberal politicians in the House and Senate there. After finally getting that done there, coming here to CA and OC specifically its really the same thing all over again. It is up to US as citizens to "throw the B***ards out" as the old saying goes and get politicians who understand that they are representatives of US, and not the other way around. It took several years, and CO is admitedly a bit more conservative on the whole than CA, but we too have our extremely Liberal areas (Boulder comes to mind...ewwww) and we overcame it to get shall issue. Before that it was much like it is here now, with some areas being much more amenable to issuance and others (Denver, Boulder etc) basically ahving a No Issue policy. So people like me moved (and once they banned my dogs in Aurora I moved from there too...) to areas more in tune to my thinking, and eventually got the legislature to go the way of protecting the people as the best way to run the law enforcement and de-victimization of the state.

I think we can do the same here, little by little, and I really think that OC is the lynchpin in the whole thing. We get OC to the point of Shall Issue for the most part, and the rest of the state will HAVE to sit up and take notice.

[G36 Steve]

Originally Posted by Dan M.

So it comes down to trust. She either trusts us or she doesn't, and if the trust is not there,

+100

I don't trust people that don't trust me. Especially people in powerful positions. That's my main reason for supporting Hunter for Sheriff.

I've met him, asked him questions and I like his well-reasoned answers on every point. His position on shall issue is all about trust. We can trust him because he trusts law abiding citizens who choose to bear arms for self-defense.

[IAmASensFan]

*bump*