It's one of the easiest counties in California to get a CCW in. The only info I could find was about a guy who didn't follow directions and got all butt hurt. Anyone know more?

Well I would hope there is something more than trying to file an incomplete packet and/or paying in a method they didn't accept.

That website is not very inspiring to me.  I cannot recall ever using the word "quipped" and hope I never will.

If I was sheriff, and some clown lost his temper because he could not follow simple and reasonable directions, I would not issue him a permit either.

It was poor judgment for CGF to take up his case, when there are so many better plaintiffs out there.

After reading the linked article, it seems to me the Sheriff got it right. I've known several people with ccw's that shouldn't have them.

Tom

I hope you have a more substantive objection than that.  



You believe CA is right to remain a "May Issue" state, and that any sheriff or chief can disapprove or revoke a license without due process or evidence to support his decision?  



See above.  How many have you known that should have them, but cannot?  Would you like to have one?  Do you think you should have to prove your "worth" before being granted one, while the likes of Feinstein et al are granted them based on status and rank, all the while working to make sure you cannot even own a gun, much less carry one with you?


Perhaps I'm overreacting here, but you guys have seriously missed the point.  I won't disagree that, as the issue stands now, the sheriff may well have been right to deny him a permit.  But the broader concern is that the sheriff should have no say whatever in the matter beyond the criminal background check, and that his being able to issue them as he pleases is a serious violation of rights for the people of SB county, and CA at large.  Your comments appear to very well support the minority rule, and it needs to stop.

Not really.  I object to the style.



1) I never stated that I did.

2) that is not what happened.



You are.  And, you misunderstand.

I know many people who should have them don't because of where they live and I hope the courts stay with their recent decision.

I do have one because I live in a shall issue county.

I believe you are overreacting here. The article shows that the applicant has a hair trigger temper and is unable to follow simple instructions. How would he handle the responsibility that comes with carrying a concealed weapon?

I Think it is up to the sheriff to cull out the people who shouldn't carry. That's his job.

When I got my first ccw 25 years ago I had to jump through all the hoops, letters of recommendation, show a cause besides self defense, etc.etc.
A few years back my uncle got his and all of us in the family were wondering how the hell he did. He definitely had issues. He proved us right when he murdered his next door neighbor and tried to claim self defense. The secong magazine into the down victim was proof enough for the jury.

I wish the sheriff had culled him out of the applicant pool.

Tom

Wow, your uncle actually killed his neighbor while legally carrying concealed? I agree, there is no way a guy with issues would have killed someone if he would have had to walk all the way back into his house and retrieve a pistol.

Or then again maybe he was just...

there is less chance to blow up in the heat of the moment and shoot somebody if the person has to walk inside to get a gun.  and I would not sell a gun to somebody if I knew they would misuse it.

not everybody should carry a pistol, not everybody should drive a car, and lots of people should not have children.  it's OK to realize that no right is limitless, and it's OK if society's attempt to prevent harm to itself means that some people don't get a carry permit how and when they want.  if they cannot follow simple, reasonable rules, and remain polite when they are not getting things their way, then maybe they should not carry a gun around.  who writes checks anymore?  Money orders are widely and conveniently available.

think about it.  the world is full of a-holes, serious a-holes, making everybody else's life miserable, yet they do not deserve to get shot.  if some spoiled egomaniac dickhead can't remain polite when applying to the SB Co. sheriff - who is known for being CCW friendly - then what will that spoiled, egomaniac dickhead do when he has a gun, and he inevitably runs across one of those many a-holes out there?

I will be perfectly satisfied to know that the dickhead never gets a CCW permit.

It's funny you bring up the "shooting assholes" point. That was the main justification that my uncles supporters trotted out, the victim was an asshole.

My response was, " He may have been, but if you could go around killing people just because they are asshole, half of us would already be dead!"

My point originally was that under the old system with refrences etc. he wouldn't have had a ccw. He probably would still have had a gun but I think things would have turned out differently. He would'nt have been able to claim self defense if he had to go inside to get the gun, and that was his whole justification for the shoot.

Tom

I too would be happy if "dickheads" did not carry concealed. It seems to me there are two ways to go about that.

The way it is now the state more or less treats everyone as criminals who have to prove their innocence. The citizen must go to the state (county or city) and ask for permission to have the means to help protect his own life. I believe that system is fundamentally wrong. I believe that system is immoral. I do not believe my neighbors or friends or fellow citizens or sheriff should determine, for me, if I am able to protect my own life and the lives of my family. That should be my decision.

The other way to go about this would be to treat citizens as innocent until proven guilty. Everybody should be free to choose whether to carry or not. If a person has proven himself not trustworthy with a firearm, I am fine with society removing his previous right to carry.

I was referring to the plaintiff throwing a fit when asked to follow CCW application procedures.  and then, when the sheriff's policy is "no checks," the plaintiff writes a check.  in a county where the sheriff famous for being liberal with CCW permits in a restrictive state, where most applicants are able to obtain their permits without a tantrum or a lawsuit, the plaintiff cannot maintain his temper. I am glad he got himself denied, and I hope he takes a few anger management courses and his medication.



I am not opposed to right-to-carry, it seems to work well enough in the states that have it.  but a simple application process doesn't bother me if it weeds out dickheads like the plaintiff.  the plaintiff is a petulant, narcissistic tool.  CGF is guilty by association.