IMMEDIATE CALIFORNIA SHALL-ISSUE!!! Read this, guys!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Could we please split this topic into a separate post, so as not to clutter up Jim's thread? :eek:
 
OK. Let's talk facts.

Here's the report I handed to the Board of Supes:

http://www.equalccw.com/posse.pdf

Starting on page 10 (as Acrobat measures it) is a complete Posse newsletter dated June/July 2001. On the last page (page 15 of the entire file) is a list of Posse board members.

These are:

Rupf - we'll discount him for purposes of CCW :)

Donna Irwin - no CCW

Jon Challoner - permitholder

Dennis Kahane - permitholder

Louie Mangini - no CCW

Ed Menosse - no CCW

Jack Roddy - no CCW

Walther Pastore - permitholder

Joe Vrankovich - permitholder (NOTE: he had just died, but not yet been replaced on the board)

So at least just before Joe's death (he was very old), 50% of the board had CCW.

---------------

Next item: back in late '00 when I first got the permitholder list, I first cross-reffed it for campaign contributions. I also scanned the permitholders for possible cronyism/nepotism/etc, just to see what "stood out". One name did, the last name being the same as a nearby politician known to be a Rupf ally - but the permitholder was NOT a listed campaign contributor. Scratching my head, I dialed 411 to see if I could find this permitholder and sure enough, I did. Got him on the phone, asked if he was related to the politician. He laughed and said that people assumed that all the time, but as far as he knew there was no family relationship at all and that he didn't know the politician in question.

Huh.

I then asked him if he'd ever heard of the "Sheriff's Posse".

He had.

Follow? This guy was basically "picked at random" (since the family connection turned out to be a dead end), and was NOT a contributor, and turned out to be Posse.

That's the first thing that really turned me on to the Posse.

I then started conversations with permitholders who had also donated money to Rupf. The first 11 I talked to were Posse.

Presscheck: go to the file linked above, start on page 24, look through the database for yourself. See how many are Posse.
 
Count me in too!

Many thanks Jim March- I was feeling down until I found your thread.

You've given me hope that someday I may yet get that CCW, even though I live in San Diego County.

I'm ready to put $$ where my mouth is- just say where & how- and I'm also willing to do most anything else that I can to help out.

Esky

Hey, did you know that Australia is now planning to ban swords? I guess they'll be coming for pocketknives next...
 
Guys I’m all for CCW in fact I’m all for “National Reciprocity†but this ain’t gonna work.

Here’s just my take and nothing more…

CA is one of a handful of the few remaining states, which still has provisions on the books for untrained LEO reservist.

Now you are admitting in an open and public forum that all you are doing is using this for the purpose of CCW nothing more. Personally I have no problem with it; if I were a Sheriff in CA I’d be handing out CCW’s just to spite the liberals in the state assembly.

POST here in GA once allowed untrained reservists to be sworn in by a Sheriff on an as needed basis. But the liberals in the GA Assembly got wind to the fact that hundreds of folks maybe even thousands were literally walking around GA toting guns and badges without any training what so ever. Many people who were reservists had no understanding of just exactly what they could and could not do and several got into real big trouble and they are now in jail.

GA closed up that loophole real fast and now you have to be fully POST certified to hold ANY sworn LEO position. Further you have to be SWORN to have authority to carry a firearm on or off duty and make arrests.

My point is simple; once CA gets wind of this and more importantly why you are doing it they will move like lighting to stop it just like GA did.

I truly feel for you good folks in CA, the state is all but a lost cause as far as conservative values are concerned.

Also due to the way of thinking of some of the cops in CA you may very well run the risk of alienating yourselves from fulltime cops and sworn reservists who will look down upon you for doing this and may, just may very well cause you problems.

I know several police officers from CA specifically southern CA and they are more anti-gun than they are pro-gun.

All I’m saying is be safe and good luck, from what I know of CA you’ll need it.
 
Cryptoguru:

Rupf wants a lot more than that!

OK, here's what's going on: the county has VERY strict limits on campaign contribution amounts for the office of sheriff. $250 a year I think, they might have upped it to $500 but I doubt it.

Hence the "Posse".

The Posse takes in money as a political/social/benevolent club all en mass, and then organizes things like signs. All over the county, during each election you'd see signs for Rupf ALWAYS put up along with other "Posse candidates" for DA, board of supes, whatever...clearly all put up by the same group.

What USED to be called "sheriff's fundraising dinners" are now called "Posse dinners", financed primarily by the DeVincencis (owners of a chain of high-end delis) and (until he died) Joe Vrankovich (VP of a meat company).

Deli stuff and meat is what you need for the Posse dinners.

In years past, those incoming food items would be listed as donations - in fact, one of Rupf's earliest campaign contributions when he first took office was $1,800 from seven family members and three employees at the DeVincenci's deli for a "Posse Dinner" - but then the rules were cracked down in that county on spreading a large donation out among multiple people to dodge the campaign finance limit. So all subsequent major food donations were made to the POSSE versus Rupf.

This is one small example of how the Posse was used to "launder" campaign finance money - people paid more than the limits, but to the Posse versus Rupf.

Only a Federal raid on Donna Irwin's records would show the true financial picture but the upshot is that there's a LOT more financial connections between Posse members (with or without CCW) than campaign finance law allows.

All the campaign finance laws did is drive the money underground...a major reason I'm dead-set against them.

------------------------------------------

Another thing: people join the Posse for many reasons that have nothing to do with CCW. The Posse is top-heavy with major real estate development figures like the Seenos (biggest home builder in CC County; family owns the Peppermill casinos and restraunts) and Ken Behring (built the uber-rich town of Blackhawk, former owner of the Seattle Seahawks) and more.

We know that in Sacramento, Sheriff Craig was nearly jailed over taking payoffs for signing Environmental Impact Reports - sheriffs control the traffic analysis and crime impact analysis portions of all EIRs in the county.

And Rupf is cuddled up tight with folks that need EIRs on a regular basis.

God only knows how many little games like this are going on. And once a fat cat gets in close to Rupf over some other scheme, it becomes easy to score CCW.

I think the CCW rosters are a pointer towards deeper underlying problems.
 
Rupf is a damn good Sheriff, but he is also a Politician.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. My damn fine sheriff issued me a CCW permit when I was 22 years old (year 2000) and I didn't have to donate a single dollar to his campaign. My damn fine sherifff has issued over 4000 CCW permits to the citizens of our county (last I checked). Maybe your sheriff is a good guy, but when the vast majority of your citizens can't get a CCW permit, I don't know if I would call him a damn fine sheriff.

I do understand how PressCheck might not like Jim rooting around in his county (unless Jim lives there). He did the same thing down here. He wanted to go after the Kern County sheriff for being biased in issuing permits, with the idea that somehow it would cause reform across the whole state. Some people called me selfish, but I wasn't too keen on Jim pissing someone off and saying the hell with it and cracking down on us CCW holders. I think Kern County's system is very fair and when you are the county with the most number of permits issued, maybe you shouldn't stir up a hornets nest there. Giving one county hell will probably not change the whole state, it might change that county. The only change I saw coming was that we might lose what we had here. Then I could have joined you all in not having a CCW permit. Tell me how that is supposed to make things better?

Anyway, that was the feeling I one got from Jim trying to "help us" out down here once. I didn't think the system here was broke so I didn't think we needed outside help to fix it. This is not to discredit the efforts Jim makes for all of us. I thank him for it. I am willing to help out all I can with this latest effort. I think it is a good idea.

And if the legislature cracks down on us, then so be it. It can't get any worse for most of the state than it is now. I think if we get these level 3's as solely "community volunteer types" and they have no badge or official powers, but it just enables them to apply for a CCW in that county, I don't see how we can go wrong. Then the big time sheriff and police unions will have to decide if they want the legislature getting all upset and changing the system. I think this is a good nest to stir up. Well, I hope there are some level 3's out there that are pissed off like I was when Jim was nosing around here. Otherwise I would be hypocritical.

When it comes down to it, if CCW means that much to you, you will do it illegally, move to a different county, or more out of state. God knows we fight an uphill battle in this state.
 
Yo El Rojo?

The previous sheriff in Kern had 3,300 permits out in 2002. He was discriminating against the residents of towns like Bakersfield - towns with higher minority populations than the county as a whole.

Under the new sheriff, this "town discrimination" has apparantly *ended*. Y'all are up to somewhere close to 5,000 permits.

Now, I'm not saying I can take full credit for that. Or any. Maybe the new sheriff would have done it regardless...he was heavily lobbied by the local NRA Member's Council based in Bakersfield the minute he took office (they had actually backed somebody else). But I damned sure didn't hurt anything, and info on even low levels of racial discrimination couldn't have hurt the new sheriff when he needed to politically back his policy change on townies.

The one change I *know* I made down there is that Kern now has a spiffy new computer database of permitholders. They built it so they COULD respond to my PRAR! :D In fact, I was just talking to the county council there yesterday (Ernie something) - he remembered me from that CCW PRAR. (No, I wasn't doing CCW stuff in Kern yesterday - Niall Stallard and I were doing a *Diebold* related PRAR.)

Anyways. I did NOT ever publish a list of Kern permitholders, as it was obvious very few if any were "cronies" (versus the Contra Costa situation!). I sure as hell didn't make anything worse, and I may have had a hand in a significant improvement.
 
Good job. I think that was the one area we were in agreement on was hitting up the new sheriff and trying to change things through him because he was an "outsider".

I think we differ in our opinion of "he was discriminating". I still think it is still the sheriff's right to make people apply from their most local jurisdiction first if he so chooses. That is just good responsible government. You handle things locally first and if that doesn't work, then go bigger. Which is exactly what the sgt. in charge during Sparks term said to me when I called him to get the skinny. He said if you got rejected from BPD, attach that rejection letter to the KC permit and you would probably end up getting one. Again, I think it is a major stretch to call it "town discrimination". I call it responsible government to handle things on a local level first and then go up to a higher level if you have to. If the sheiff believes that he has a higher mission and he knows the city is not doing things properly and he wants to just start issuing permits as he is allowed to by law, then that is most certainly fine too.

So Whimbish is issuing to just about anyone from the incorporated spots now? I might have to call the head sgt. and talk to him about that and get his take on this. Very interesting. Remind me and I will call the sgt. Monday.
 
I still think it is still the sheriff's right to make people apply from their most local jurisdiction first if he so chooses.
Click to expand...

Not according to Penal Code 12050.

Sheriffs have discretionary control over "good cause" and "good character" - NOT "jurisdiction".

Does it bother you just a little when cops break the law?

Second, forcing people to apply at the town first is ridiculous when towns often won't hand out an application, and/or overcharge, and/or come up with weird illegal fees. All of these problems exist all over the state, and in many counties completely block people from a permit.

Do you want the sheriff auditing the legality AND equal protection compliance in CCW of each town he's bouncing people to? Because if he didn't, he'd be taking on a shared legal liability in any aspect of their misconduct.

Upshot: you're dead wrong on this point, dangerously so.
 
I still think it is still the sheriff's right to make people apply from their most local jurisdiction first if he so chooses.
Click to expand...

Wrong, here's the law...

12050. (a) (1) (A) The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person
Click to expand...

and this later

(D) For the purpose of subparagraph (A), the applicant shall satisfy any one of the following: i) Is a resident of the county or a city within the county.
Click to expand...

So he doesn't have the "right" to make you apply elsewhere first, especially when it's ridiculously expensive.

Things WERE broke in Kern, with respect to Bakersfield residents. Sounds to me like you have "duck hunter" syndrome.

"MY permit isn't in jeopardy... Don't stir up trouble, Jim!"


"They're not taking my hunting rifle... only the other stuff..."

Same thing, different words.


James

EDITED TO ADD:

Dang Jim. got to it before me
 
Ok fine, I concede. The sheriff is not supposed to deny you based on your location.

I wouldn't call it duck hunter syndrome. If I lose my CCW and you still don't have a CCW, then what good did it do to lose it? Like it or not, that is a valid argument. "They're not taking my hunting rifle... only the other stuff..." No, if I lose my CCW then they are taking my hunting rifle as you say.

I further give Jim credit for doing a good job of playing a part in waking the Kern County Sheriff up to some of the points of the law concerning CCW. I guess I was concerned about nothing.
 
OK... so it was a bad analogy. The point is: just because you have yours, doesn't mean the system works. If you LOSE yours, then that sucks, but it's better to have fought the fight than to just sit there.
 
Actually, that is your opinion. I feel it is better for me to keep my CCW and be able to literally fight instead of being a victim. If you live in an area that won't let you do that, I will support you and do what I can within my means to help you, but don't expect me to give up what I have because you live where you live. I don't expect people from outside of California to give lots of money to the CRPA to help us, even though our liberal senators might eventually screw those guys too. I don't expect them to accept a new AWB or have the current one extended because we have SB-23 out here in California. I do expect them to sympathize with us and support us in our endevors. And that is what I will do for Jim. I apologize for being so obtuse about his work in Kern County before. And if you just think my losing my permit just "sucks", then I guess you not ever getting one while I have one just "sucks" too.

So rather than continue this "sucks" a thon, lets back each other up. You want a permit from my sheriff because you are a level 3 deputy? Let me know how and when to talk to my sheriff about it or to voice my support for his taking up this cause. Now you recognize that I am fortunate to live in a CCW friendly area and try not to screw that up for me. So far, I don't think anyone is; however, that is a valid concern of mine.
 
El Rojo-

I was just told by my Sherrif's office that they "Could not and would not violate the agreement" and accept my CCW application, because I live inside a city limits and they have an 'agreement' with that city to allow said city to process my application.

I was then told by my city that they flat out would not hear my Good Cause statement, and that the Chief of Pollice 'would not sign' any CCWs. I was told to ask again 'later'. I waited 2 weeks and got the same responce.

I am going to continue to delicately press the issue, and these are only underlings I have spoken to so far. (Chief's secretaries, and lutinnents, etc.)



I'm with you, it should make sense and be fine to delegate this stuff. Unless and untill it becomes used to abuse and outright violate CA state law by CA LEOs.


I also think we need to tread very lightly here. As you said, NOBODY wins if all that happens is you loose your CCW. We're playing poker, and we want to make sure they don't call our bluff.


On the other hand, consider the following;
What if quite a few of the very rich and powerful members of CA society have already found and started using this loophole? The kind of guys who build towns as pet projects and buy Private Jets and baseball teams as gifts, and have lunch with Senators? The kind who have found creative ways to get CCWs in LA and SF, and sure as hell aren't going to give 'em up for anything. They're as adimant about RKBA as you and I, and have the influence to back it up and make it happen in government (even if only for themselves and/or family/staff.) These aren't the kind of people you just screw and repress.

What if they would stand to loose their CCWs if this level3 thing was closed?

Think it'll still happen?

I think you've got more people on your side as a CCW holder (and maybe our's eventually too) than you can possibly imagine.
 
For years was on Sherrifs reserve of Monterey county, and had carring permit. PC took over and dumped the 'good old boy ' network in late 80's. Santa Cruz county issues permits for bongs not pistols! Humboldt co , however issues permits for BOTH!:D
 
On the other hand, consider the following;
What if quite a few of the very rich and powerful members of CA society have already found and started using this loophole?
Click to expand...

You mean people like CCW holders Don Perata and Dianne Feinstein?

Just more proof that there's no liberty in liberalism.
 
dtt

I'm pretty sure that Don Perata has lost his CCW. Heard that he thought that he was to busy, and important to take the time to re-qualify, so they jerked his CCW. ;)
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't have a car.
 
dtt

Forgot to add: I beleive that Di Fi has been appointed a US Deputy Marshall from the SF Office, and now carries a Federal Permit.

Ain't it wonderful.
 
Forgot to add: I beleive that Di Fi has been appointed a US Deputy Marshall from the SF Office, and now carries a Federal Permit.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong about this this, but I'm pretty sure I read awhile back that the US Marshalls stopped deputizing members of Congress, as this technically would make the Congressmen/Senators members of both the legislative and executive branches, which could cause all sorts of funny legal problems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
Good CCW news from Orange County, California: Bill Hunt promises shall-issue
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
13K
jimpeel
J
E
  • Locked
Los Angeles Sheriff's election thread: vote for anyone but Bacca
Replies
16
Views
626
LeoC
L
KBintheSLC
  • Locked
Sheriff Candidate Pretends to Support "Shall Issue"
Replies
14
Views
947
Art Eatman
A
I
  • Locked
Iowa Shall Issue Bill Introduced.
Replies
12
Views
574
12-34hom
1
QuarterBoreGunner
  • Locked
More proof that SF and LA aren't all of California
Replies
13
Views
899
jojosdad
J
Back
Top