UPDATE: Supervisors tell Sheriff to ease concealed gun policy

[Harry Carry]

Despite what the Sheriff stated, we know from sources that she is well aware of what is going on with revocations and completely approves of it.

Originally Posted by SmokinMr2

I doubt she will change her policies as well.

After listening to some of the speakers that had revocation letters sent to them, I think she is seriously not involved in the issue/revocation process. She really had no idea what her staff was doing and had no idea about the numbers involved.

She had no idea (or didn't care) about the effect a revocation would mean to some participant's careers.

Even if she takes the results of the meeting to heart, I'd imagine the only change is that she will let the current licenses expire instead of being revoked.

While the Board's action has no actual teeth, (since they can't actually make her do anything different than she want's to) it would have been nice to see a little sharper teeth in their result.
Absolutely nothing was done for new applicants IMHO, and the whole "good cause" fiasco is still very troubling.
My own take on the meeting was that the Board's actual membership appeared to be 3 to 2 against CCW, which I found rather odd considering some of the very good questions the Board had asked the Sheriff. A couple of the members had me fooled until the end

Such is life. The most we can hope for is a change in 2010, or a change in the law at state level which apparently will not be happening any time soon.

[Harry Carry]

Until a few days ago, that IL Opinion was not on the net. And we are fairly certain that the Sheriff has never read the full letter until very recently.

We've had it for quite a while. It was not easy to get.

EDIT TO ADD: That snippet is not the full opinion, IIRC. The full opinion is 5 pages and allowed us to provide good information to the Supervisors.

Originally Posted by SmokinMr2

Another interesting tid bit.

I kept searching for that 1977 AG opinion letter that the Sheriff keeps quoting as her end all be all "good cause" guide, and for the life of me I couldn't find it googling the author, number etc.

This morning I found the only mention of it I have seen, and quite by accident.
I was searching for something I thought I read in law about a Sheriff not being able to delegate CCW issuance to staff (still can't find that) but what I did find was right in our own back yard...

"The official California Attorney General view is expressed in the statement made by California Attorney General Evelle J. Younger, in August 23, 1977:

OPINION NO. CR. 77/30 I.L. '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 weapon license."

Concealed Firearm Carry Permit in California: Information Database

Since the Sheriff was told who knows how many times yesterday by lawyers for our side that the opinion was only a published letter, and not worth much and definatly not an actual "legal opinion", it's a shame to see it on the front of what appears to be a "pro" CCW web site.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's where she got it.

I sure haven't found it anywhere else, and considering her own opinions and statements it's not a far stretch to imagine her being the type (or at least her staff) to use our own information against us.

[DVSmith]

Originally Posted by Harry Carry

Until a few days ago, that IL Opinion was not on the net. And we are fairly certain that the Sheriff has never read the full letter until very recently.

We've had it for quite a while. It was not easy to get.

EDIT TO ADD: That snippet is not the full opinion, IIRC. The full opinion is 5 pages and allowed us to provide good information to the Supervisors.

But thanks to the very diligent work by some well connected members we did. So thanks to you and you know who your are!

[AMS MIKE]

Originally Posted by DVSmith

But thanks to the very diligent work by some well connected members we did. So thanks to you and you know who your are!

I second that. Excellant work!

[SmokinMr2]

Very cool. Thanks for the clarification

[TaxMan]

Originally Posted by Harry Carry

Until a few days ago, that IL Opinion was not on the net. And we are fairly certain that the Sheriff has never read the full letter until very recently.

We've had it for quite a while. It was not easy to get.

EDIT TO ADD: That snippet is not the full opinion, IIRC. The full opinion is 5 pages and allowed us to provide good information to the Supervisors.

Your memory serves you well, it is 5 pages and yes it did.

[CCWInstructor]

Originally Posted by SmokinMr2

Another interesting tid bit.

I kept searching for that 1977 AG opinion letter that the Sheriff keeps quoting as her end all be all "good cause" guide, and for the life of me I couldn't find it googling the author, number etc.

This morning I found the only mention of it I have seen, and quite by accident.
I was searching for something I thought I read in law about a Sheriff not being able to delegate CCW issuance to staff (still can't find that) but what I did find was right in our own back yard...

"The official California Attorney General view is expressed in the statement made by California Attorney General Evelle J. Younger, in August 23, 1977:

OPINION NO. CR. 77/30 I.L. '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 weapon license."

Concealed Firearm Carry Permit in California: Information Database

The above is a internet legend! More like a lie. The index letter is 5 pages. This is two sentences from the analysis, NOT the conclusion. That is also the incorrect number. To be polite is it BS.

[SmokinMr2]

Originally Posted by CCWInstructor

The above is a internet legend! More like a lie. The index letter is 5 pages. This is two sentences from the analysis, NOT the conclusion. That is also the incorrect number. To be polite is it BS.

I wish the owner of that site would just remove it.

Anyone want to share the original 5 pages?

[AMS MIKE]

Originally Posted by SmokinMr2

I wish the owner of that site would just remove it.

Anyone want to share the original 5 pages?

That is Billy Jack. let's not go there.

thanks.

[BonoVox]

Originally Posted by Harry Carry

Despite what the Sheriff stated, we know from sources that she is well aware of what is going on with revocations and completely approves of it.

Yep.

I think we will not have long to wait to see if the Intend to Revoke group starts getting revocation letters or not. I had the feeling she was waiting for this meeting to take place and then act to revoke most if not all of them.

Then again, she did not even know (or maybe she was caught in a lie) what her own slide meant when asked if the people that had sent in updated GC information meant they were safe.

It took everything in my power to keep me from jumping out of my chair and yelling that is BS!

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by SmokinMr2

I wish the owner of that site would just remove it.

Anyone want to share the original 5 pages?

yes...

http://romandad.com/Youngermemo.pdf

[PHM]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

yes...

http://romandad.com/Youngermemo.pdf

Thanks for the link RD. After reading the entire opinion, I cannot believe that Hutchens actually read the entire article, because the one section she cited and that is all over the net and on BJ's website pertains to case law from a ruling that took place in New York State, not California, but New York State and was only offered as an example of the kind of issues that an issuing authority MAY consider, not obligated or mandated to do so.

If Hutchens actually read the entire opinion, she would not have come to the conclusion she did or at least she would not have used this AG opinion to arrive at her conslusion. It is very clear that a Sheriff can issue for whatever reason they see fit as long as the applicant is not in a prohibited class.

[Nightingale]

If she's actually read it, she'd have used the correct citation.

[SmokinMr2]

Originally Posted by AMS MIKE

That is Billy Jack. let's not go there.

thanks.

Did a little research and figured out what you meant. Thanks.

[SmokinMr2]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

yes...

http://romandad.com/Youngermemo.pdf

Thanks for the link. Interesting read.