Revoked on April 13th? ... not so fast, maybe not?

[gjj]

Why would you believe ANYTHING they say about what they intend to do?

They already have proven themselves liars. The CCW was intended to last for 2 years.

Their reliability is suspect to say the least.

There are specific laws and procedures regarding the revoking of a CCW license. They have not followed these laws.

[swdr]

Originally Posted by gjj

Heck, they PROMISED to honor the CCW for 2 years. They broke that PROMISE. So, why should we believe anything they say?

Exactly.

[gjj]

Has anyone received a formal letter stating that their CCW has been revoked per the requirements of PC 12050 subdivision (e) paragraph (3)?

(I am not talking about the intention to revoke letters designed to scare people into voluntarily giving up their CCWs.)

[EM2]

Originally Posted by gjj

Just another example of her reckless disregard for the procedures that authorize our CCWs.

They have to formally revoke it. Then, they have to notify you in writing. You can not be expected to behave differently before you have received official notice the CCW has been revoked.

Their PROMISE to revoke it on 4/13 is not the same as a formal notice of revocation! Heck, they PROMISED to honor the CCW for 2 years. They broke that PROMISE. So, why should we believe anything they say?

EXACTLY!!!
They are playing a very dangerous game with people's lives and the county of OC's money, when these lawsuits come to pass they will lose.

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by gjj

Taxman, it is not just semantics. When someone says they will do something, that means it is not already a completed fact. Cox cable can say they will terminate my television, phone, and internet services this Friday. When Friday comes, I can go downstairs and turn on my TV. The proof will be if the thing works or not. If there is a picture, I will keep watching it.

Until she does that and THEN notifies people in writing of this completed act, the licenses are still valid.


She probably will revoke the licenses set to expire 4/13. She is doing this arbitrarily and illegally without cause. I don't see the point of making her job easier.

(Spicy - did deputies show up to collect yours? Please explain.)

The problem is, your scenario only works if the Sheriff is going to send out an additional letter stating that the license has been revoked. She may. She may not. She could just as easily argue that, by telling people that their license is going to be revoked as of a certain date, they’ve already received notification.

Let’s say someone follows your advice. He continues carrying beyond the date specified in the original letter, while waiting for a final letter to arrive. It never arrives. He is pulled over for a traffic stop. He informs the officer (as required) that he is carrying. The officer runs the license and sees that it has been revoked. He is arrested. The DA asks the Sheriff’s Department if the person was notified that his license was revoked. The Sheriff’s Department tells him that they sent a letter dated xxxx informing him that his license would be revoked as of the 13th of April (or whatever date the letter says). So, the DA decides that the defendant had a reasonable expectation to know that he was carrying on a revoked license, so he files charges.

Are you a lawyer? If so, are you willing to represent anyone who is arrested and charged with illegally carrying a concealed weapon as a result of following your advice?

Everyone, please proceed with caution. Maybe you want to push the issue and be the test case. If so, more power to you. But be aware of the potential consequences of your actions and be prepared to face them. Maybe you can argue that, since the Sheriff’s Department sent out letters, then put everything on hold, then sent out more letters, you expected to receive a final letter informing you of the disposition of your license. Maybe you’ll be successful, but you’ll still have to go to court.

[EM2]

So, are we (and by that I mean the OC CCW guys) to allow the appointed sheriff to intimidate, obfuscate, mislead, misrepresent the law, etc. untill everyone just gives up and rolls over?

The law as stated earlier is pretty clear that a letter is to be sent informing that person's CCW has been revoked not going to be.

[gjj]

"The problem is, your scenario only works if the Sheriff is going to send out an additional letter stating that the license has been revoked. She may. She may not. She could just as easily argue that, by telling people that their license is going to be revoked as of a certain date, they’ve already received notification."

She could argue these things. But, she would be 100% wrong. I could argue I am Alexander the Great. That does not make it true.

You are right. There could be consequences. But, we are the victim not the criminal. If there are no other letters sent, she has disregarded the law. Not us. We did nothing wrong.

I have always wondered about something. If a man could be intimidated into giving up his CCW before it is legally taken from him, could that same man have the courage to draw his weapon in defense of himself should the time ever come to stand up to a potential robber or murderer?

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by EM2

So, are we (and by that I mean the OC CCW guys) to allow the appointed sheriff to intimidate, obfuscate, mislead, misrepresent the law, etc. untill everyone just gives up and rolls over?

The law as stated earlier is pretty clear that a letter is to be sent informing that person's CCW has been revoked not going to be.

What it means is exactly what I stated. Everyone needs to be aware of the potential consequences of their actions and proceed accordingly. I'm not going to tell someone that they should do something that may get them arrested, and that they would have to go to court to fight. That is a decision for them to make.

If you're so hot for someone to be the test case and put himself in legal jeopardy, maybe you could move down here to Orange County and volunteer.

[IAmASensFan]

Originally Posted by gjj

Why would you believe ANYTHING they say about what they intend to do?

They already have proven themselves liars. The CCW was intended to last for 2 years.

Their reliability is suspect to say the least.

There are specific laws and procedures regarding the revoking of a CCW license. They have not followed these laws.

I can't argue with these points

[spc]

OMG, What a can of worms this woman has opened up because of her self serving interests.

Lot's of good points brought up above, but let us remember WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME SIDE. Do not let her divide and conquer.

spc

[gjj]

My reason for starting this thread was to make sure we know where we stand in this disturbed, twisted process.

She endlessly spouts how she is "only following the rules" when she argues to arbitrarily deny us our right to self defense.

Well, the rules are very specific about how to revoke a license. She is not there yet.

[IAmASensFan]

Originally Posted by spc

OMG, What a can of worms this woman has opened up because of her self serving interests.

Lot's of good points brought up above, but let us remember WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME SIDE. Do not let her divide and conquer.

spc

Well, I don't think it's because she's a woman...I think it's because she is simply a gun grabber. There are a lot of Sheriff's in this state that would try the same thing if they had just a little more testosterone flowing in their veins.

[gjj]

I agree. The fact that she is a woman is not relevant. Some women are extremely pro CCW. Some men are not.

[PirateQueen]

Originally Posted by gjj

It means that those who got the letter with the 4/13 date can carry tomorrow. She has to revoke the license. Then, she has to notify each individual.

That is the big difference.

It is not over until the fat lady sings.

In our case it's not over until the A.S.S.H. signs.

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by gjj

My reason for starting this thread was to make sure we know where we stand in this disturbed, twisted process.

She endlessly spouts how she is "only following the rules" when she argues to arbitrarily deny us our right to self defense.

Well, the rules are very specific about how to revoke a license. She is not there yet.

I don't disagree with that at all. We're convinced that she has no legal authority to revoke without cause. But County counsel has advised her that she has the legal authority. So, that's going to be a matter for the courts to decide. Likewise as to what exactly constitutes legal notice is probably also going to be up to a court to decide.

Suppose that she revoked your license today, and mailed a letter to you informing you today as well. You won't receive the letter for a couple of days at least. Yet your license is already revoked. Now, what if you get caught carrying inbetween the time that she revoked your license, and you receive the letter telling you that your license is revoked? If you hadn't received a previous letter telling you of her intention to revoke your license as of a specific date, you could argue that you can't be held liable for breaking the law because you had no way of knowing that your license had been revoked. But, since you already received the first letter, a court is likely to decide that you should have known.