Sheriff To Stay Revocations Of Carry Concealed Weapons

[High Country]

Supervisor Pat Bates wrote:

SHERIFF TO STAY REVOCATIONS OF CARRY CONCEALED WEAPONS (CCW) PERMITS UNTIL CLARIFICATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS RECEIVED
During last week’s Board meeting, it came to light during the testimony of several speakers on the CCW license issue that the revocation of a CCW license due to the new Sheriff’s more stringent policy would have the unintended consequence of any CCW revocation appearing on the person’s Department of Justice record in the same manner as if the license had been revoked because of criminal misconduct or other wrongdoing. This raised a significant concern that law-abiding citizens may suffer negative consequences in their personal and professional lives as a result of this license revocation appearing on their Department of Justice record.
To address this issue, I recommended to my colleagues on the Board to direct County Counsel, in conjunction with the Sheriff, to contact the Department of Justice in an effort to clearly distinguish on the individual records that failure to meet a revised discretionary interpretation of “good cause” must not be misinterpreted and entered into the Department of Justice record as not being fit to carry a concealed weapon.
My recommendation was unanimously supported by my colleagues on the Board. More importantly, the Sheriff has agreed to stay all revocations of CCW permits until the Department of Justice provides clarification related to the impacts any revocation may have on a CCW permit holder’s record. This is a positive step forward in working cooperatively and I appreciate the Sheriff’s willingness to re-look at this important issue.







GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of County of Orange, California • 10 Civic Center Plaza • Santa Ana CA 92701 • 714-834-5400

__._,_.___



__,_._,___

[Barky]

A little bit of something is better than nothing (?)

Thanks for the update.

[zinfull]

You guys should not have any problems. Trying to get the DOJ to state an opinion on any issue for clarification is a mighty job. They make take years to officially come out with a stance. Good luck I am hoping for the best.

zinfull

[jim2005]

Originally Posted by zinfull

You guys should not have any problems. Trying to get the DOJ to state an opinion on any issue for clarification is a mighty job. They make take years to officially come out with a stance. Good luck I am hoping for the best.

zinfull

I could take a long time


So if I get this right, at this time the revocation understanding/misunderstanding rests in the hands of the DOJ personal. If the DOJ agrees with the Sheriff that a revocation in itself may not be interpreted as a blemish on an individuals record until further investigation into the issue of why the revocation was issued has been completed, were does that leave this?

I can see the DOJ take a position that they may see as a “safe” approach to this and state that the revocation is not the blemish but the cause behind the revocation of the permit is the issue.

Hope to hell it doest go that way but I would be thinking about what the OC CCW holders next move will be if this doest go our way.

Does the DOJ take public opinions on issues?

Is there a way to find out exactly what question was asked of the DOJ? (How was the question phrased)

Do we know who in the DOJ will be researching and answering the question?

[YankeeDog]

Is this true?
YD

[libertarian]

Pat Bates sent out the word last night, apparently, so it seems like it's probably true. I haven't heard confirmation from anyone at OCSD, but it'd make them both look like monkeys if it's not true.

Keep in mind a few things though:

• If you got a revocation letter, YOU MUST STILL RESPOND BY THE DEADLINE. Just because they're not going to yank you right away, if they do start yanking permits, they can just say "Well you didn't respond in time, you're SOL."
• The DOJ is a wild-card. Eventually this issue may well find its way to the AG's desk, and there's no telling WHAT Jerry Brown will do - but he's not an ardent gun rights supporter, that's for sure.
• Even if the DoJ tells her "no, there's no special exception for you" she might decide to revoke anyway.
• If the DoJ does give her an exception, I'd expect she's going to go nuts and start yanking permits like crazy - the people who haven't got letters yet are unlikely to be safe if this is the case.
• The fact that the Sheriff put a temporary hold on revocations ONLY AFTER the BoS brought up the issue of the CLETS record means that she very likely knew about this before and just didn't care that it'd be following people around. She just thought no one would try to stop her. Keep that in mind for future dealings with her.

[Spicy McHaggis]

Originally Posted by libertarian

Pat Bates sent out the word last night, apparently, so it seems like it's probably true. I haven't heard confirmation from anyone at OCSD, but it'd make them both look like monkeys if it's not true.

Keep in mind a few things though:

• If you got a revocation letter, YOU MUST STILL RESPOND BY THE DEADLINE. Just because they're not going to yank you right away, if they do start yanking permits, they can just say "Well you didn't respond in time, you're SOL."
• The DOJ is a wild-card. Eventually this issue may well find its way to the AG's desk, and there's no telling WHAT Jerry Brown will do - but he's not an ardent gun rights supporter, that's for sure.
• Even if the DoJ tells her "no, there's no special exception for you" she might decide to revoke anyway.
• If the DoJ does give her an exception, I'd expect she's going to go nuts and start yanking permits like crazy - the people who haven't got letters yet are unlikely to be safe if this is the case.
• The fact that the Sheriff put a temporary hold on revocations ONLY AFTER the BoS brought up the issue of the CLETS record means that she very likely knew about this before and just didn't care that it'd be following people around. She just thought no one would try to stop her. Keep that in mind for future dealings with her.

If she did know about it, she flat out lied to the BoS when she mentioned the 90 days / 2 years issue.

[IAmASensFan]

Originally Posted by Spicy McHaggis

If she did know about it, she flat out lied to the BoS when she mentioned the 90 days / 2 years issue.

She lied to them when she was in the interview process, why should she stop now?

[SierraNevadaCCW]

Some of the best liars I've ever known were at LASD. Whoops...can I say that?

[YankeeDog]

That the BOS might feel a bit duped by all this. All the half-truths, asking questions of staff at the meeting of the 18th etc. I wonder if they are having second thoughts.

my .02
YD

[libertarian]

Originally Posted by Spicy McHaggis

If she did know about it, she flat out lied to the BoS when she mentioned the 90 days / 2 years issue.

After 31 years in law enforcement in California, what are the odds she didn't know about CLETS?

I have it on good authority those records stay a lot longer than that, so I can't imagine who at DoJ could have told her that.

Though it's possible one of her staff was lying to her, and she was just passing it on.

[Gr8OCGuy]

My 2 cents, she wasn't lying at the BOS regarding the DOJ and CLETs time frames. She was 'guessing' without 'knowing'....and hoping it would fly.

Just like she did with the 'numbers' on her presentation, she was sailing along until someone questioned the totals, and then she responded incorrectly and had to be corrected by her staff. The same thing with the 'blemish' issue. She just responded with a quick 'sounds good' response and hoped it would fly. It didn't. It was only after being seriously challenged, throughout the day, and then after the BOS meeting, that she decided to check into the DOJ...

I think the Sheriff has been consistent in her lack of preparation, knowledge and willingness to act before fully vetting the issues. She simply doesn't concern herself with the 'details'.... If this is how she handles something as straight forward as CCWs, I can't imagine what is running around under her nose with the Jail issues....

[THE Gimper]

Whatever else happens after this, this was a victory for us.

We made the Sheriff look foolish in front of the BOS. We gave her a black eye. We forced her to go back and reconsider something she was intent on doing, and at least temporarily delay it.

Everybody needs to understand that this is still going to be a long fight. We're at war. This was only one battle. We have to be patient and see this through to the end. We're not finished yet. There are still many things that are being worked on.

[libertarian]

Originally Posted by Gr8OCGuy

I think the Sheriff has been consistent in her lack of preparation, knowledge and willingness to act before fully vetting the issues. She simply doesn't concern herself with the 'details'.... If this is how she handles something as straight forward as CCWs, I can't imagine what is running around under her nose with the Jail issues....

Ready. Fire. Aim.

[RomanDad]

What did I miss?