Just got this e-mail from Chief Paul Walters at Santa Ana PD.

[tango-52]

Originally Posted by jdoane9724

Carmen Trutanich has been endorsed by Lee Baca, another individual those desiring CWPs want out.

Are you SURE he's the guy?

Trutanich has the support of the NRA.

[jdoane9724]

I'lll see what I can do!

Thanks!!

PS: any Sheriff candidates that look promising?

[NikNak]

I'll hold my breath a little and wait to see if Walter's pans out .... what other "groups" he tries to solicit for his bid at OCSD.

I can't wait to re-apply for CCW with new sheriff (assuming mine is revoked as "intended").... with the statement borrowed from DC Mayor Marion Barry "The bith set me up!"

[MrJoePublic]

Originally Posted by PirateQueen

They don't have to mention Mr. Carona, all Walters has to say is when elected I will have the most well armed county in the state. This county will be better then ever able to protect its citizens and it self from criminals.

This was taken off Hunts website (http://billhuntforsheriff.com).
"I will issue concealed weapons permits (CCW) to any applicant who is a law abiding resident of the county, meets state mandated requirements and is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. I will depoliticize the process and establish an annual audit to review each application to ensure the process is unbiased, non-political and equitable." Pretty clear to me... although the second amendment is also pretty clear to me... nevermind words don't seem to mean much anymore ;o(

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by MrJoePublic

This was taken off Hunts website (http://billhuntforsheriff.com).
"I will issue concealed weapons permits (CCW) to any applicant who is a law abiding resident of the county, meets state mandated requirements and is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. I will depoliticize the process and establish an annual audit to review each application to ensure the process is unbiased, non-political and equitable." Pretty clear to me... although the second amendment is also pretty clear to me... nevermind words don't seem to mean much anymore ;o(

One of the "state mandated requirements" is that the applicant have good cause. So really, his statement isn't saying anything. Hutchens is doing that.

[glbtrottr]

I agree, yet...

...I believe another organization with similar intent, SafeOC, will be backing Bill Hunt for Sheriff and have had a number of conversations with him.

Expect his statement to be refined; not the issue. Splitting the vote against an incumbent, however, may be.

[CCWInstructor]

Originally Posted by MrJoePublic

This was taken off Hunts website (http://billhuntforsheriff.com).
"I will issue concealed weapons permits (CCW) to any applicant who is a law abiding resident of the county, meets state mandated requirements and is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. I will depoliticize the process and establish an annual audit to review each application to ensure the process is unbiased, non-political and equitable." Pretty clear to me... although the second amendment is also pretty clear to me... nevermind words don't seem to mean much anymore ;o(

Very interesting! His old site said he would issue for personal protection and self-defense. Wonder why he removed that?

Right now he sounds just like the current Sheriff's policy.

[PirateQueen]

Originally Posted by CCWInstructor

Very interesting! His old site said he would issue for personal protection and self-defense. Wonder why he removed that?

Right now he sounds just like the current Sheriff's policy.

That would be a darn good question to ask him during one of his fundrisers.
So tell me how is your stance on CCW any different from the current Appointed Sheriff.

[swdr]

Originally Posted by PirateQueen

That would be a darn good question to ask him during one of his fundrisers.
So tell me how is your stance on CCW any different from the current Appointed Sheriff.

The question would be "When did you decide not to 'issue for personal protection and self-defense' to trained law-abiding citizens, as your website used to state?"

[glbtrottr]

Originally Posted by swdr

The question would be "When did you decide not to 'issue for personal protection and self-defense' to trained law-abiding citizens, as your website used to state?"

...I like your thinking.

However, the question must be asked in the most populous and public of events - not just at the first opportunity.

[swdr]

Originally Posted by glbtrottr

However, the question must be asked in the most populous and public of events - not just at the first opportunity.

Good idea.

[JackOfClubs]

Originally Posted by swdr

The question would be "When did you decide not to 'issue for personal protection and self-defense' to trained law-abiding citizens, as your website used to state?"

Has he actually changed his mind, or is he just being more cautious? It seems a reasonable political calculation might be that saying flat out that he would issue for personal protection might be used against him in an election to paint him as an extremist. If he once supported personal protection as a GC, I suspect that he probably still does. It is reasonable to try to get him to clarify his position, but I would hate to see Hutchens swept into office on as the "moderate" candidate. We need to be sure we aren't damaging our own interests by forcing a potentially sympathetic candidate to tip his hand.

[Ken_In_Colo]

Originally Posted by PirateQueen

That would be a darn good question to ask him during one of his fundrisers.
So tell me how is your stance on CCW any different from the current Appointed Sheriff.

+1 Yes! The wording is perfect. Ask him that, word for word.

Originally Posted by swdr

The question would be "When did you decide not to 'issue for personal protection and self-defense' to trained law-abiding citizens, as your website used to state?"

And that's a good question too!