jimpeel
Member
I find it interesting that Jim March has a dream and gets 125 responses with scads of "volunteers" and I can't get seven people to go to their local airport to leaflet in favor of arming airline pilots.
Go figure.
Go figure.
IMMEDIATE CALIFORNIA SHALL-ISSUE!!! Read this, guys!
- Thread starter Jim March
- Start date
- Status
Larryect
Member
I must admit I have not completly read this whole thread. However I did see some comments that I think I should warn about. I apoligize if someone covered it and I missed it.
I am not LEO or a lawyer. So, YMMV.
When I was in my last CCW class at the Sherrifs dept. The instructor commented they had one LA county resident that decided to set up phony residence in Riverside county to obtain a CCW. Even changed his address on his drivers license. Turns out it is a misdomeanor to falsify infomation on the CCW application. But, it is a felony to falsify your DL. They discovered what he was doing, cuffed him at the CCW class and hauled him off.
Be careful.
Larry
I am not LEO or a lawyer. So, YMMV.
When I was in my last CCW class at the Sherrifs dept. The instructor commented they had one LA county resident that decided to set up phony residence in Riverside county to obtain a CCW. Even changed his address on his drivers license. Turns out it is a misdomeanor to falsify infomation on the CCW application. But, it is a felony to falsify your DL. They discovered what he was doing, cuffed him at the CCW class and hauled him off.
Be careful.
Larry
Jim March
Member
Well they might have tried to press charges, but they wouldn't have stuck. California's tax codes define residency and include the idea of multiple residences. That whole concept has been reviewed by a bunch of lawyers.
---------------
That said, what I'm proposing does NOT rely on "second residency" CCW. A sheriff would set up a limited-duty, low-level reserve deputy status and issue on THAT basis to people who declare their current normal residence. Sheriffs can issue to their reserve deputies anywhere in the state.
Update:
We've got a preliminary review by an attorney that says this isn't crazy
.
Next week I'm going to try floating this past a couple of very rural NorCal sheriffs. I want "initial impressions", info on what circumstances they'd back this, etc. before trying the "big one" - Kern, the southernmost possible (for the SoCal crowd).
---------------
That said, what I'm proposing does NOT rely on "second residency" CCW. A sheriff would set up a limited-duty, low-level reserve deputy status and issue on THAT basis to people who declare their current normal residence. Sheriffs can issue to their reserve deputies anywhere in the state.
Update:
We've got a preliminary review by an attorney that says this isn't crazy
.Next week I'm going to try floating this past a couple of very rural NorCal sheriffs. I want "initial impressions", info on what circumstances they'd back this, etc. before trying the "big one" - Kern, the southernmost possible (for the SoCal crowd).
Gordon Fink
Member
Jim March’s idea has the potential to bring CCW permits to us peons in California—though I doubt it will work—which is a much more immediate gain than yet another armed elite. Furthermore, the G. W. Bush administration is supposedly working to arm pilots, while no one in power is trying to help more Californians win the “privilege†to bear arms.
~G. Fink
cryptoguru
Member
GW Bush has the wrong man in as Transportation Secretary if he's trying to arm pilots. Norman Mineta is a California liberal.
Guy B. Meredith
Member
Uh, Jim... I thought this procedure was already in place in Contra Costa County. I was just assuming that I couldn't afford the posse entry fee as I am not a dentist. Also would be wary of appearing to support politicians. Would be willing to learn to ride horseback for parades.
Edit: The above is only slightly non-sarcastic.
Edit: The above is only slightly non-sarcastic.
Last edited:
PressCheck
Member
1. Posse is not expensive.
2. You don't have to support Politicans.
3. It's a MYTH that joining the Posse will get you a CCW in Co Co County.
4. Don't beleive that the Mounted Posse even exists anymore.
I know Many People in the Posse that have donated Large sums of money to the Posse(Sheriff's Charities) for years, and can't get a CCW.
http://www.thehalogroup.com
alan
Member
jimpeel wrote:
I find it interesting that Jim March has a dream and gets 125 responses with scads of "volunteers" and I can't get seven people to go to their local airport to leaflet in favor of arming airline pilots.
It never ceases to amaze one, looking at things that turn people "on", compared to things that do not.
I find it interesting that Jim March has a dream and gets 125 responses with scads of "volunteers" and I can't get seven people to go to their local airport to leaflet in favor of arming airline pilots.
It never ceases to amaze one, looking at things that turn people "on", compared to things that do not.
jimpeel
Member
Alan
Then someone asks THRers if they would like to spend an afternoon -- one damned stinkin' afternoon on the weekend -- leafletting passengers at airports; and do these "men and women of action", these "keyboard activists" leap to the challenge? Nah. They have to mow the lawn.
They think that the TSA and the airports will "hear" their voting with their wallets louder than they will if 10 or 12 major airports are leafletted on the same day all over the country urging passengers to contact the TSA and demand that the law be enacted. They think that inaction on their part will be far more effective than having the press there at the airports asking us questions.
The fact is that most of the armchair activists who gather here are all show and no go. They "talk" with their keyboards about the issues and what should be done; but when it comes to actually doing something -- ho, hum. They bitch and moan about the hunting, trap, skeet, target, cowboy shooters and how they have failed to support the RKBA because their sports are "unaffected"; but then are unwilling to give up a few hours of their time standing in an air-conditioned building smiling and handing people a 4 1/4 X 5 1/2 inch piece of paper.
I guess that just doesn't "turn them on". What it does do, however, is define them.
Saying "Yeah, Jim (March), I'm with ya 100%" is easy. I think he might be a bit disappointed when the time comes for them to show up.
Jim March has proven himself to be a man of action, the guy who will carry the water, the guy who will pledge his life, fortune, and sacred honor. He has a proven track record of being a thorn in the side of our opponents, the guy who shows up, the guy who testifies. But here is a bit of advise for him:
Don't hold your breath waiting for this crew unless you look really good in blue.
Look at the number of threads that have been "bitch and moan" sessions on the reluctance of the government to arm pilots. "Minetta should be fired!" "The TSA should be disbanded!" "We should be able to be armed if the pilots can't be armed!" etc, etc, ad nauseum.
Then someone asks THRers if they would like to spend an afternoon -- one damned stinkin' afternoon on the weekend -- leafletting passengers at airports; and do these "men and women of action", these "keyboard activists" leap to the challenge? Nah. They have to mow the lawn.
They think that the TSA and the airports will "hear" their voting with their wallets louder than they will if 10 or 12 major airports are leafletted on the same day all over the country urging passengers to contact the TSA and demand that the law be enacted. They think that inaction on their part will be far more effective than having the press there at the airports asking us questions.
The fact is that most of the armchair activists who gather here are all show and no go. They "talk" with their keyboards about the issues and what should be done; but when it comes to actually doing something -- ho, hum. They bitch and moan about the hunting, trap, skeet, target, cowboy shooters and how they have failed to support the RKBA because their sports are "unaffected"; but then are unwilling to give up a few hours of their time standing in an air-conditioned building smiling and handing people a 4 1/4 X 5 1/2 inch piece of paper.
I guess that just doesn't "turn them on". What it does do, however, is define them.
Saying "Yeah, Jim (March), I'm with ya 100%" is easy. I think he might be a bit disappointed when the time comes for them to show up.
Jim March has proven himself to be a man of action, the guy who will carry the water, the guy who will pledge his life, fortune, and sacred honor. He has a proven track record of being a thorn in the side of our opponents, the guy who shows up, the guy who testifies. But here is a bit of advise for him:
Don't hold your breath waiting for this crew unless you look really good in blue.
dpsychs
Member
Pink Pistol here...
Hey Jim,
There was some mention of tying this in to Pink Pistol stuff as a way of "liberalizing" the PR that may be done around it. I am the co-founder of the Sacramento group, so if there is anything you need from me/us, say the word.
Deanna.
Hey Jim,
There was some mention of tying this in to Pink Pistol stuff as a way of "liberalizing" the PR that may be done around it. I am the co-founder of the Sacramento group, so if there is anything you need from me/us, say the word.
Deanna.
Jim March
Member
PressCheck: Sheriff Rupf is on record (quoted in the press, and I talked to the reporter afterwards) as saying that more than half of all the permitholders in Contra Costa County are members of the Posse.
When you discount judges/DA staff and similar who are going to get permits no matter what, and the EXTREMELY low number of permits (less than 200 in a county of almost a million people) you get the distinct impression that there damned well IS a connection.
Is it ironclad? No. I talked to a business owner who joined the Posse mainly in order to sell goods to the sheriff's office. He got in the Posse, but when he tried to score CCW some existing long-time Posse member badmouthed him and he still doesn't have a pemit.
Look, in "shall-issue" areas, the level of female permitholding seems to hover just below 20% - it's 17% in Kern County (out of 3,500 permitholders as of a couple years ago), 18.something% in Texas (DPS figures) and 19.something% in Tennessee.
In Contra Costa, it's one female permitholder out of 176 as of two years ago, and she was a judge.
Are you SERIOUSLY saying nothing is wrong in CC County?
When you discount judges/DA staff and similar who are going to get permits no matter what, and the EXTREMELY low number of permits (less than 200 in a county of almost a million people) you get the distinct impression that there damned well IS a connection.
Is it ironclad? No. I talked to a business owner who joined the Posse mainly in order to sell goods to the sheriff's office. He got in the Posse, but when he tried to score CCW some existing long-time Posse member badmouthed him and he still doesn't have a pemit.
Look, in "shall-issue" areas, the level of female permitholding seems to hover just below 20% - it's 17% in Kern County (out of 3,500 permitholders as of a couple years ago), 18.something% in Texas (DPS figures) and 19.something% in Tennessee.
In Contra Costa, it's one female permitholder out of 176 as of two years ago, and she was a judge.
Are you SERIOUSLY saying nothing is wrong in CC County?
alan
Member
Jim Peel:
Other than you are a whole lot more RIGHT than WRONG in your analysis of the thing and people too, what can I say?
I too have "shot my mouth off" at THR and other sites too, I write Letters To The Editor, largly unpublished, have raised hell at my gun club, over the fact that the membership is "less than animated", spend a lot of time speaking with my congress critters and senators people on various matters, and have at times, walked about in the chilly rain, depositing literature in mailboxes.
Small efforts as the foregojng might be, it doesn't begin to hold a candle to the efforts of people like Jim March, it's likely a whole lot more than the "chairborne commandos" will ever do. Unfortunately, I do not have any sort of answer to the age old question of how does one get the majority of people off their dead asses, to get them to defend what one would assume were their vested interests, perhaps someone does, I don't.
Anyhow, while some might view your comments as overly harsh, I submit that they are a lot more gentlemanly than might be warranted, given what is involved. Perhaps such calling of a spade a spade will awaken some, one hopes so, but who knows.
Keep it up, for that which you have said absolutely needs saying. I will continue with my own, possibly poor efforts. By the bye, blue is not my best color. Should I turn out to be the last speaker left in the world, then the world will just have to listen to me, or pretend to listen, unless they choose to stick fingers in their ears, which is their choice to make.
alan
Other than you are a whole lot more RIGHT than WRONG in your analysis of the thing and people too, what can I say?
I too have "shot my mouth off" at THR and other sites too, I write Letters To The Editor, largly unpublished, have raised hell at my gun club, over the fact that the membership is "less than animated", spend a lot of time speaking with my congress critters and senators people on various matters, and have at times, walked about in the chilly rain, depositing literature in mailboxes.
Small efforts as the foregojng might be, it doesn't begin to hold a candle to the efforts of people like Jim March, it's likely a whole lot more than the "chairborne commandos" will ever do. Unfortunately, I do not have any sort of answer to the age old question of how does one get the majority of people off their dead asses, to get them to defend what one would assume were their vested interests, perhaps someone does, I don't.
Anyhow, while some might view your comments as overly harsh, I submit that they are a lot more gentlemanly than might be warranted, given what is involved. Perhaps such calling of a spade a spade will awaken some, one hopes so, but who knows.
Keep it up, for that which you have said absolutely needs saying. I will continue with my own, possibly poor efforts. By the bye, blue is not my best color. Should I turn out to be the last speaker left in the world, then the world will just have to listen to me, or pretend to listen, unless they choose to stick fingers in their ears, which is their choice to make.
alan
jimpeel
Member
Alan
Sorry for the rant but sometimes ya just gotta vent. I think most are simply afraid of the government and how they are prone to bring their inexhaustable rage down upon those who oppose them.
It all started HERE
I Tried again HERE
Gunsmith tried again HERE
Including myself, I have gleaned six -- Count 'em -- SIX people who are willing to do this. Makes it a little tough to cover 10 - 12 airports.
JPFO helped me write the text for the flyer.
I asked the NRA for help and they sent me a reply that was very helpful. Not only does PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER v. ROBINS, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) protect protesters who leaflet on private property, LEE v. INTERNATIONAL SOC. FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, 505 U.S. 830 (1992) covers airports specifically.
In that decision, the court ruled:
Sorry for the rant but sometimes ya just gotta vent. I think most are simply afraid of the government and how they are prone to bring their inexhaustable rage down upon those who oppose them.
It all started HERE
I Tried again HERE
Gunsmith tried again HERE
Including myself, I have gleaned six -- Count 'em -- SIX people who are willing to do this. Makes it a little tough to cover 10 - 12 airports.
JPFO helped me write the text for the flyer.
I asked the NRA for help and they sent me a reply that was very helpful. Not only does PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER v. ROBINS, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) protect protesters who leaflet on private property, LEE v. INTERNATIONAL SOC. FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, 505 U.S. 830 (1992) covers airports specifically.
In that decision, the court ruled:
PressCheck
Member
I don't believe it.
If there is a connection, it's a damn small one. I know people in, and out of the Posse that have a CCW. I also know that most posse members do not have a CCW.
The Sheriff has very broad Discretionary Powers. Perhaps, just perhaps, he's more comfortable issuing permits to peolpe he knows, and is comfortable with?!
Might that persons initials be R. K.?
I personally know of more that one woman that has a CCW issued in Co Co County
Nothing is perfect, especially in the PRK. I DO wish you luck!
http://www.thehalogroup.com
Gordon Fink
Member
cryptoguru
Member
All I can say is we should setup our own damn town and have our own chief and volunteer protection district, that way we all can get whatever we want.
Level I, II, III, CCW or whatever.
--Crypto.
Level I, II, III, CCW or whatever.
--Crypto.
Jim March
Member
Quoting PressCheck:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105426
Tri-Valley Herald, March 17, 2002.
What Rupf said was "fewer than half the 380 Posse members hold concealed weapon permits".
The same reporter learned that there were 163 permits as of '99 - in 2001 it was 179, although he didn't know THAT. But whatever - the point is, the number of permitholders is almost exactly HALF of the number of Posse. Do the math, tell me there ain't a SERIOUS correlation.
As to female issuance: I have the Contra Costa data from 2001 showing a total of one lady permitholder. There was one just prior who died - wazzername, the richest lady in the county, who used to own the Contra Costa Times. Died under strange circumstances..."Margaret somethingorother?". There may have been other since. But still, the numbers are WAY low.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105426
Tri-Valley Herald, March 17, 2002.
What Rupf said was "fewer than half the 380 Posse members hold concealed weapon permits".
The same reporter learned that there were 163 permits as of '99 - in 2001 it was 179, although he didn't know THAT. But whatever - the point is, the number of permitholders is almost exactly HALF of the number of Posse. Do the math, tell me there ain't a SERIOUS correlation.
As to female issuance: I have the Contra Costa data from 2001 showing a total of one lady permitholder. There was one just prior who died - wazzername, the richest lady in the county, who used to own the Contra Costa Times. Died under strange circumstances..."Margaret somethingorother?". There may have been other since. But still, the numbers are WAY low.
PressCheck
Member
Jim March
I wasn't referring to Margaret Lesher.
I wasn't referring to Margaret Lesher.
I see no SERIOUS correlation.
Jim March
Member
Oh for God's sake.
"Less than half the Posse have permits."
There's 380 Posse, 179 permits. 380 divided by two is 190.
If Rupf COULD have said "less than a third" or whatever, he would have, as the whole point to the article was to "debunk" this idea that there's a correlation. 380 divided by three would be 127...which would STILL be an excessive correlation.
So somewhere between 127 and 179 of the permitholders are Posse.
"Less than half the Posse have permits."
There's 380 Posse, 179 permits. 380 divided by two is 190.
If Rupf COULD have said "less than a third" or whatever, he would have, as the whole point to the article was to "debunk" this idea that there's a correlation. 380 divided by three would be 127...which would STILL be an excessive correlation.
So somewhere between 127 and 179 of the permitholders are Posse.
PressCheck
Member
Jim March
Jim, I don't want to argue with you, but I just don't believe it.
We have trained numerous Posse members and none had a CCW. I think that I know most of the Posse members that have a CCW, and the number is low. Furthermore, I've been at the Marsh Creek Range on numerous occassions when people are qualifying, or requalifying for their CCW(IMHO the test is a "joke"). Because of the ongoing assumption that if you have a CCW; you must be in Posse, I always ask the question. Since 1991 I have had about 4 people say yes; One on them was Kim Fang(RIP). Most of these people I see there are in their 60's, 70's, even 80's. Probably Grandfathered in before even Rainey was Sheriff, and NOT Posse members.
Yes, I am a Proud CCC. Yes, I do have an unrestricted CCW. I got my first CCW in 1967.
OBTW, I am on your side.
http://www.thehalogroup.com
Jim, I don't want to argue with you, but I just don't believe it.
We have trained numerous Posse members and none had a CCW. I think that I know most of the Posse members that have a CCW, and the number is low. Furthermore, I've been at the Marsh Creek Range on numerous occassions when people are qualifying, or requalifying for their CCW(IMHO the test is a "joke"). Because of the ongoing assumption that if you have a CCW; you must be in Posse, I always ask the question. Since 1991 I have had about 4 people say yes; One on them was Kim Fang(RIP). Most of these people I see there are in their 60's, 70's, even 80's. Probably Grandfathered in before even Rainey was Sheriff, and NOT Posse members.
Yes, I am a Proud CCC. Yes, I do have an unrestricted CCW. I got my first CCW in 1967.
OBTW, I am on your side.
http://www.thehalogroup.com
Librarian
Member
The problem here is that Rupf was being coy.
It's true that "1" would be "fewer than half". We don't know what number he had in mind.
However, Rupf clearly knew that he was being quizzed about possible favoritism. Had he meant it, he could have used some specific number, e.g. "35". He could have said "fewer than a quarter". He chose to use "fewer than half".
His phrasing is not dispositive. But common usage would lead one to infer "somewhere more than a quarter but less than half"; in this case, I think one would be justified in suggesting a number between 95 and 190. If Sheriff Rupf didn't want that conclusion, he could have been more precise, but he's not responsible for numbers conjured up from hints and estimates of common usage.
It's also true that Rupf is a citizen and longtime resident. It's reasonable to believe he knew what interpretation his expression might get. Given the defensive posture he was in, it seems to me that he gave the minimum information without actually lying about it, and he really did mean something close to half the Posse members had CCW.
PressCheck, since you seem to know a lot of these people, maybe you could take a more definite survey? If you know of about 4, I suspect either there are a bunch you don't know, or some you do know don't care to share that information (and I can't blame them for that.)
But the correlation exists between a relatively large percentage of CCC CCW licenses and the Sheriff's report of the number of Posse members with CCW licenses. The numbers are not precise, and whether the cause of the correlation is the Posse membership has yet to be determined.
Rupf could clear it up, if he chose. That he does not so choose strikes me as inappropriate, but he doesn't call me for advice.
It's true that "1" would be "fewer than half". We don't know what number he had in mind.
However, Rupf clearly knew that he was being quizzed about possible favoritism. Had he meant it, he could have used some specific number, e.g. "35". He could have said "fewer than a quarter". He chose to use "fewer than half".
His phrasing is not dispositive. But common usage would lead one to infer "somewhere more than a quarter but less than half"; in this case, I think one would be justified in suggesting a number between 95 and 190. If Sheriff Rupf didn't want that conclusion, he could have been more precise, but he's not responsible for numbers conjured up from hints and estimates of common usage.
It's also true that Rupf is a citizen and longtime resident. It's reasonable to believe he knew what interpretation his expression might get. Given the defensive posture he was in, it seems to me that he gave the minimum information without actually lying about it, and he really did mean something close to half the Posse members had CCW.
PressCheck, since you seem to know a lot of these people, maybe you could take a more definite survey? If you know of about 4, I suspect either there are a bunch you don't know, or some you do know don't care to share that information (and I can't blame them for that.)
But the correlation exists between a relatively large percentage of CCC CCW licenses and the Sheriff's report of the number of Posse members with CCW licenses. The numbers are not precise, and whether the cause of the correlation is the Posse membership has yet to be determined.
Rupf could clear it up, if he chose. That he does not so choose strikes me as inappropriate, but he doesn't call me for advice.
PressCheck
Member
Rupf is a damn good Sheriff, but he is also a Politician.
It's true that "1" would be "fewer than half". We don't know what number he had in mind.
What makes you think that he even had the numbers? The Co Co County Sheriff's job is HUGE. Why would he keep CCW figures in his head. He has LT's & Captains for this job.
This is part of your normal "Bull ????".
This is also "Bull ????". The Sheriff has Broad Discretionary Powers. He has nothing to be defensive about.
PressCheck
Member
For some reason, only part of my response came thru.
I do have another life, so I'll re-finish the post later.
We are neighbors, so, perhaps we should discuss over a bottle of "good" wine?!
Librarian
Member
Well, I don't find descriptions of my writing as "Bull ????" especially helpful. Wrong I may be - but I'd prefer a more targeted reply.
Going back to the newspaper article,
The reporter says he said "fewer than half"; the number might be wrong. He may have not actually known the number when he gave the estimate. Other than reviewing information due to the interest generated by the question, he may indeed delegate the day-to-day operation of this minor aspect of law enforcement to subordinates. Nothing wrong with that.
I implied any numbers suggested by anyone but Rupf are just guesses, but that there are reasonable ways to guess and I explained what those were. I credit Rupf with speaking English and being experienced in its use; most people with those qualifications understand how imprecise statements can be interpreted by opponents of one's position, and also understand how such guesses may be justified by the persons guessing.
He is a politician; there are lots of things I would like politicians to do or not do, but maintaining accurate minor statistics in one's head is not high on my list. There is ample time to provide accurate counts when that information is required. I think that time is now, but he doesn't. Those are the breaks.
I honestly do not understand why you are unhappy with my post.
Going back to the newspaper article,
JM was publically speaking to Rupf's boss, the Supervisors, accusing Rupf of unfairly applying his discretion on CCW licenses. Rupf chose to refute that claim to the reporter. I classify that as 'defensive', in the sense that he was defending his actions; as you say, he has broad discretion, and grounds for criticism may be lacking.
The reporter says he said "fewer than half"; the number might be wrong. He may have not actually known the number when he gave the estimate. Other than reviewing information due to the interest generated by the question, he may indeed delegate the day-to-day operation of this minor aspect of law enforcement to subordinates. Nothing wrong with that.
I implied any numbers suggested by anyone but Rupf are just guesses, but that there are reasonable ways to guess and I explained what those were. I credit Rupf with speaking English and being experienced in its use; most people with those qualifications understand how imprecise statements can be interpreted by opponents of one's position, and also understand how such guesses may be justified by the persons guessing.
He is a politician; there are lots of things I would like politicians to do or not do, but maintaining accurate minor statistics in one's head is not high on my list. There is ample time to provide accurate counts when that information is required. I think that time is now, but he doesn't. Those are the breaks.
I honestly do not understand why you are unhappy with my post.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
