San Diego Sheriff Expects “Increased Volume” of CCW Permits

Here’s an interesting press release from the San Diego County Sheriff Department. The Sheriff, William Gore, is up for re-election in a few months. The release is decidedly ambiguous as to the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision, but having worked in bureaucracies, that’s to be expected. No one wants to be seen as making a decision, or telegraphing future policy until there has been time to consider all the possibilities . . .

The chairwoman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors says she’s just fine with the Ninth Circuit decision. From the LA Times:

Dianne Jacob, chairwoman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, said her initial reaction was positive.”I have no problem with law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons in the name of self-defense,” Jacob said.

It’s clear that Sheriff Gore is anticipating a large run-up in CCW applications, a positive development. With Sheriff Gore facing the voters again soon, he needs to hear from his constituents.

According to the Sheriff’s CCW license applications page,

 We will continue with existing procedures and all CCW applications will be handled by appointment only.

That won’t make it easy to process a flood of applications . And there doesn’t seem to be anywhere to register comments about the process on the San Diego County Sheriff Department’s facebook page.

I found this email for Sheriff Gore:

bill.Gore@sdsheriff.org

I sent an email and have not received an error message, so it may be a good one. I called the Sheriff’s office and obtained the phone number of the public affairs office:

(858) 974-2184

I called but no one picked up, and while I waited for several rings, I did not get an answering machine.    They will not be open until Tuesday, 18 February.

Here’s the email that I sent to Sheriff Gore:

Sheriff Gore,
Thank you for your service.  I would like to offer a campaign contribution, but I wish to be sure of your commitment to upholding the second amendment of the Constitution.
The issue seems quite simple.  The best way for you to show your support of the second amendment is to not appeal the recent Ninth Circuit ruling in Peruta v County of San Diego. 

I look forward to seeing that no appeal has been made, and the ruling is allowed to stand. 

While I’m sure that Sheriff Gore is studying the implications of the ruling, it doesn’t hurt to remind him of the strong level of support that exists for the Constitution and the Second Amendment in California.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch

comments

  1. avatar neiowa says:

    Interesting the court opinions issue (even when not supported by custom, law, or the constitution) but which are libtard totems immediately go into effect.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      It’s true that every time a court finds that gay marriage is required by the state constitution, it starts happening that day.

      1. avatar jerry says:

        But that’s different you see. Gay marriage and abortions are extra special, super-duper rights. The 2A, not so much.

      2. avatar Bill says:

        Well, you never know what people with a mental disorder are going to do, so you have to appease them quickly.

        1. avatar Gyufygy says:

          “Mental disorder”? Really?

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          Obsessing about what other people do in private and who they do it with is the very definition of a mental disorder.

        3. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

          Gyufygy? It was only in the 1970’s that the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.” Even that was largely by recognition of shifting social norms and heightened political activity of the gay movement, as opposed to serious and conclusive scientific reasoning. So let’s save the shocked face and dispense with the “‘Mental disorder?’ Really?” comments. It may well be politically incorrect to suggest the orientation is a disorder; but the opposite is hardly settled science.

          Ralph? Since when does a single, short and relevant comment constitute an “obsession” over anything? Were you in agreement, you wouldn’t have even replied, now would you? That knee jerk overreaction of yours, however, may indicate something. Check out labile affect.

        4. avatar Gyufygy says:

          Using an old version of the DSM is a weak argument. It was pretty much a litany of behavior distasteful to a majority of the population, which as we’ve discovered, isn’t exactly fair, reasonable, or scientific. As the science and understanding behind mental health and illness has grown, the DSM changes. It’s still … fluid, but psychology and psychiatry are fairly young sciences insofar as being based on research and experimentation as opposed to conjecture.

          So yes, really.

        5. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

          In the centuries long span of scientific and other inquiry into mental illness, the 1970’s isn’t exactly “old.” Moreover, I mention it to illustrate that it was not scientific research whatsoever that resulted in the condition’s removal from the reference as a mental illness; but rather politics. Even you do go on to suggest that this field of inquiry is still maturing and hardly represents a body of settled science.

          Soooo…….in other words, your latest post, far from reinforcing your first or refuting my latest, actually undercuts your original post by confirming that it’s all evolving and nobody really knows for a fact whether the condition is a genuine mental disorder. So why the snarky, unsubstantiated “Really?”, as though the man had posted something that flies in the face of all that is universal and demonstrable? Oh well, I’ve reached the outer bounds of my interest in this. So I’m done.

    2. avatar jkp says:

      That’s simply untrue.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-strikes-down-va-ban-on-gay-marriage/2014/02/13/c65b7674-9528-11e3-83b9-1f024193bb84_story.html

      She stayed her decision pending appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, meaning same-sex marriages will not be immediately available in the commonwealth.

      1. avatar JoshuaS says:

        I think he had in mind the many “gay marriages” that were performed immediately, even on the same day, that the ruling was announced in CA, and in the short span before a stay was granted. There was no wasting anytime.

        Of course, in states without a waiting period for a marriage license, you cannot really delay the effect prior to the actual stay. Whereas it is understood even in shall issue states that permits aren’t issued same day. Further, the authorities that did the “gay marriages” were eager to do it. Not the case here.

        So not a fair comparison, but I do think that is what he had in mind.

  2. avatar Racer88 says:

    The courts decision was “PROFFERED???” Interesting choice of word.

  3. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

    If I thought that there was a guarantee that the SCOTUS would rule against the sheriff, I’d be fine with them appealing it all the way. Make the ruling nationwide, and help out Maryland, New Jersey, and New York residents (among others).

  4. avatar Serge says:

    From the LA Times:

    The ruling “has not yet changed existing state law,” the sheriff’s department noted in a statement Friday.

    Applications for permits will continue to be processed. In cases where the applicant can demonstrate a valid reason for being allowed to carry a concealed weapon, the permit will be issued, the department said.

    http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79317411/

    Sounds to me like it’s business as usual. My initial thought is that if Gore is not ready to stand behind a ruling from the Ninth Circuit, it’s time to vote for a new Sheriff.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      One wonder’s what authority is required to tell the sheriff that state law is changed. Can we get some federal marshals? That would be pretty funny…

      1. avatar jwm says:

        It’s a civil rights issue. US Marshals, with the backup of airborne troops have been known to enforce civil rights laws.

        Maybe this SD sheriff needs to google George Wallace for a little history into standing against civil rights.

        1. avatar Avid Reader says:

          Only politically correct civil rights. I don’t see Holder or Obama ordering the Marshals in to enforce this decision any time soon. It’s somewhere below election fraud and Fast and Furious on their Give-a-Sh!tometer.

    2. avatar Dave357 says:

      Perhaps the not yet changed State law bit can be read another way. Since some counties in CA are shall issue and some may issue, his policies can become shall issue without a change in State law. Sacramento county may have done that before after a lawsuit.

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      It would seem obvious that if a Federal Court rules that a state (or county) law is unconstitutional on its face, then that law is changed, as in null and void. For the legislature that created that unconstitutional law to get around to repealing or revising it seems a secondary issue.

      I am not a lawyer – am I missing something?

      1. avatar JoshuaS says:

        Yes. The Court did not rule against the law as such, they ruled about its application. Namely, finding that any other standard for good cause stricter than “self-defense” to be unconstitutional.

        One “shall issue” state (cannot remember which, maybe Alabama…one of the sourthern ones) has a statute nearly identical to California’s, but without removing the language of the law, they determined that desire to defend oneself= good cause, and became, from that, shall issue

        1. avatar Dave357 says:

          Alabama seems right, but they changed their law last year and are now closer to shall issue.

  5. avatar GS650G says:

    If there was ever a letter meant to discourage applying for a CCW this is it.

  6. avatar Gyufygy says:

    Regarding if the sheriff has put the ruling into force, was the decision stayed pending appeal or anything like that? Haven’t read the entire thing.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The question presented is merely one of procedure. Opinions issued in the regular course are not immediately “final,” meaning that they do not go into effect until the time for further appeals runs out and the court of appeal remands the case to the trial court. For example, for a California state courts of appeal, the ruling is subject to a motion for reconsideration for 30 days, and for a petition for review from the Cal Supreme Court for (at least) another 30 days after that, such that a case is not “final” and is not remanded (sent back) to the trial court for a minimum of 60 days. The federal courts are similar for regular appeals. There is a period allowed for motions for reconsideration or petitions for en banc review, followed by a statutory period of time to petition for review from the US Supreme Court (as I recall, the later is 90 days unless an extension is sought and granted, in which case it could be longer).

      In this particular case, there was an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the Sheriff and against plaintiffs. it will be a good six months, if no action is taken (which in my view is extremely unlikely) before the case is sent back to the trial court with an order to grant Peruta’s motion for summary judgment.

      The circumstance is decidedly different when you are dealing with writs of mandate. Decisions granting or denying writs are immediately final, such that a stay must be sought to prevent the decision from taking immediate effect. This was the case in Moore v. Madigan, where the Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of mandate that prohibited the State of Illinois from enforcing its no carry ban. The Seventh then stayed that mandate for 180 days to allow the State to enact a carry law.

      So, friends, Romans, countrymen, it has nothing to do with politics or liberal versus conservative causes, but is simply a reflection of the operating procedures of the courts given the manner in which the appeal was presented. So chill.

      1. avatar Gyufygy says:

        Okay, thanks for clarifying.

  7. avatar Dustin Smith says:

    Sherriff Gore is not a supporter for CCW’s. As a resident of San Diego County, we tried to oust him at the last election in favor of a Sherriff that was for Shall Issue and we did not succeed. Do not contribute to his campaign.

  8. avatar peirsonb says:

    This process can take several months

    Yup, no undue burden on protected rights there. No sir.

  9. avatar dwb says:

    Crossing my fingers, no appeal, because he’s deeply concerned about losing an election. Well, no appeal because he agreed with it would be a better reason, but whatever gets the job done. Who is the opposition and how can we support him/her? Let’s wheel in some pro 2A sheriffs and LEO to remind people America exists!

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      There is simply no way, IMO, that there will NOT be an application for en banc review and/or a petition to the Supreme court. There is more that is at stake than the interest of a single sheriff in being re-elected; there is the interest of every other urban sheriff (other than the Sheriff of Sacramento county) as well as the chiefs of almost every urban police department in continuing to severely restrict the number of people carrying firearms in their jurisdictions, to say nothing of all of the big city liberal politicians who support that view, along with the California Legislature and Attorney General Kamala Harris. (Harris is the California analogue of Illinois AG Madigan.) After all, “more guns=more gun violence,” right?

      1. avatar dirk diggler says:

        if Kamala Harris has ANY national ambitions, she will be advised by her liberal handlers, just like Lisa Madigan was, an appeal of bad facts like this will ensure national reciprocity for concealed carry, and thus, guarantee that her funding for such national ambitions will dry up. Madigan read the tea leaves and put her C team on this effort. I really think Harris will decide her future political aspirations are greater than principles. . . . .

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          How you jump to national reciprocity is beyond me. That requires national action, meaning a majority in both houses of Congress and a president willing to sign off on such a bill, none of which has anything at all to do with may issue or shall issue or specific state training requirements that differ from other state’s training requirements. And none of which has anything to do with Kamala Harris, whose next ambition is to become Governor of California.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Mark N,

          If the San Diego Sheriff (with backing from the state of California) appeals the 9th Circuit decision, and it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the 9th Circuit’s decision (which I believe they must), then the U.S. Supreme Court will be affirming that:
          (1) Self defense inside and outside the home is the core component of the Second Amendment.
          (2) All government entities must recognize that core component and decriminalize either concealed carry, open carry, or both.
          (3) This applies to all citizens (and probably even resident aliens) in the entire United States and U.S. Territories.

          After such a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, California cannot have a law that criminalizes open carry and concealed carry for non-residents as they currently do. Just like a non-resident has Fifth Amendment rights in California, a non-resident must also have Second Amendment rights in California. And based on the 9th Circuit’s ruling (assuming that the Supreme Court adopts that ruling as written), if California chooses to only allow concealed carry, then they must allow everyone with a concealed carry license to carry concealed, whether or not they are a California resident. Anything else would be pure insanity and a self proclamation that the U.S. Supreme Court is no longer legitimate.

      2. avatar dwb says:

        I am not convinced because there are too many moving parts. CA is a SYG state which recognizes self defense outside the home without a duty to retreat, by statute (true!). The panel will be aware of that when they look at this case. The Sheriff is up for re-election. Appealing en-banc and getting denied (or worse, a concurring opinion) might be worse than not appealing and forcing some other cases to percolate up until a better one is ready for the full circuit. As I understand it, this would only apply to San Diego for the time being, and groups will have to sue… which means a potential split that the full panel could then review.

        This is an extremely well written, thorough, and persuasive opinion. Appealing has considerable risk in a lot of dimensions, it’s not a slam dunk, and it may make sense (from the defendants perspective) to cut losses and do damage control to contain the damage. It may make sense to drop the justifiable need and find some other way to ration carry permits (which means another lawsuit more money, but loads of delays).

        If the legal team for San Diego think the SCT will eventually hear a carry case, it may make sense to prevent the SCT from hearing this case because the opinion is very strong, better than the 7th CA opinion, from an extremely well respected judge.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Currently pending in the Ninth Circuit (argued at the same time to the same panel) is a case from Yolo county and a case from Hawaii. And waiting in the wings are two cases out of Los Angeles County (Bryd v. Los Angeles Sheriff’s Office is one, an the other is a Byrd case (he’s an attorney) raising the exact same issues, which have also been argued and are awaiting decision.

          California does NOT have a stand your ground statute, but if it does apply a presumption of self-defense in cases of “forced” entry into a residence. There is also a statutory exception to the ban on carrying of weapons outside the home for the “immediate” defense of self for the brief period prior to the arrival of the police (this is mentioned in the Peruta decision, with the court commenting that this right is essentially illusory.) But that is irrelevant, as that issue has nothing to do with CCW.

          As things now stand, the decision is AGAINST the Sheriff, and DOES have state-wide application if it becomes final or is affirmed, because every other district court in California will be bound to follow it and conclude that “good cause” does not require “justifiable need” but only an interest in providing for one’s own self-defense. This conclusion is intolerable to all of the county sheriffs who have fought CCW all along, including Sheriff Baca (L.A., and presumably his successor), and Sheriff Mirikami of San Francisco (following in the footsteps of his predecessor who was famous for issuing NO CCWs in the County).

        2. avatar dwb says:

          CA is a SYG state – no duty to retreat outside the home.I was surprised by this as well

          http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/17/duty-to-retreat/

          or here:
          http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Stand-your-ground-the-rule-in-state-courts-affirm-3482665.php

          CA jury instruction 506 says: “A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/bodily injury/ ) has passed.
          This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.”

          It’s not binding on CCW, but it will weigh on judges minds, how are you supposed to defend yourself under case law without a gun?

          individuals will still have to sue to get this enforced, and they may even find a judge willing to go against it.

  10. Sheriff Gore is simply spreading confusion for cover when he says it is a matter of state law. It isn’t. It is clear in the decision that the counties have been granted the authority by the state. State law does not need to change, only the rules put in place by some counties, such as San Diego County.

    Several rural counties in California are already “shall issue”.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Many more than “several.” Most of the central valley, Sacramento, and everything north of Sac is “virtual shall issue,” meaning that “self-defense” is good cause for issuance. The sheriffs retain the right to deny based on the personal interview, such that there are fruitcakes who pass the background check who may yet be denied. Further, sheriffs can require (as it is allowed under State law) a mental evaluation in appropriate cases. (The “no issue” counties require it as matter of course, as a means of discouraging applications.)

      1. avatar Gyufygy says:

        I heard someone had filed a lawsuit similar to Peruta against Yoyo, I mean, Yolo County. Can anybody confirm?

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Confirmed. The case is Richards v. Prieto. (Formerly Sykes v. McGuiness) It too is on appeal, and it was argued the same day to the same panel as Peruta, but raises a few additional issues. I was kind of surprised that that decision was not released at the same time.

  11. avatar dirk diggler says:

    The email was much nicer than what I would draft:

    Dear Sheriff

    Hear that sound? That sucking sound is your career going down the toilet. You are the proverbial turd floating in the bowl. Do not fret, however. The electorate is going to decide that you are expendable and show you the door. Or, if you squeak by in re-election, the county board of supervisors is going to find you an inconvenient truth. No change in state law is necessary, just you to re-read your oath and abide by current state law. I am actually hoping and praying you are an obstructionist. I want you to appeal the 9th circuit ruling because this is the perfect test case for the Supreme Court. You will be known in infamy for being the asshole who brought national reciprocity for concealed carry to the masses. Years from now, those of us who are law abiding citizens will lift a drink and toast to your arrogance and memory for helping us advance our cause. Yes, you will help liberate those stuck in slave states. Thank you.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Dirk, you need to add: “Sternly worded letter to follow.”

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      National reciprocity? How? The case has nothing to do with reciprocity, and there are still three Circuit Courts of Appeal that have affirmed discretionary issuance under a “may issue” scheme.

      Second, it does not matter if the County Board finds him to be “an inconvenient truth.” It cannot fire him as he is an elected official. It can approve his budget, and that’s about it.

      Squeak by in a re-election? Get a clue. The majority of people living in urban counties support gun control–which is why there is majority of gun banners in the California legislature.

      The Peruta decision does NOT change state law, no matter what the dissent said. California is a “may issue” state that requires “good cause” for the issuance of a CCW, and it is the sheriff who has the discretion to determine what constitutes “good cause.” This decision circumscribes the sheriff’s authority in this regard, it does NOT change state law. California law also requires the taking of a class (16 hours for new applicants), and “good moral character,”plus the Sheriff may require that an applicant take a mental health evaluation basically the same eval as for police officers and by the same examiners). NONE of this is changed by the decision. Good moral character requires, in counties such as San Diego, the submission of letters of reference, and sometimes even interviews of those giving references as part and parcel of the background investigation. (The requirement of letters of referral is of questionable legality under state law, as is a requirement imposed by some counties of passing a range qualification test.)

      1. avatar donny77 says:

        “National reciprocity? How? The case has nothing to do with reciprocity, and there are still three Circuit Courts of Appeal that have affirmed discretionary issuance under a “may issue” scheme.”
        The pro-arguments discuss how defense outside the home with an arm is protected by the second amendment. In CA, concealed carry is the only form of carry allowed, and requires a permit. CA does not honor any other states permits and does not issue non resident permits. Since the constitution applies to all Americans, and not just Californians, how does a non CA resident visiting CA exercise their right?

        While this ruling does not address this, it lays the groundwork for a future lawsuit using the same rational. This could force all west coast states and Hawaii, that do not allow open carry, to honor every other states permits. Even if this doesn’t go to the Supreme Court, the implications of this could lead Congress to do something before it’s decided in the courts without their input.

    3. Feel free to send your own email. You have a computer and keyboard, and we know you can type. Go for it. 😉

  12. avatar Mike in NC says:

    Looks like the key weasel-words are right in the middle of that statement: “Those that do not meet current State Law standards will not be denied, but held in abeyance until the legal issues are resolved.”

    Translation: “We are attempting to thwart any further legal action by keeping applications in legal limbo with a non-denial-denial.”

    1. Bingo. Probably the Sheriff, but could be his PR people; we should have some kind of response next week.

      I would be pleasantly surprised if he does not appeal.

      On another forum, someone claimed that he was in on the Ruby Ridge fiasco…

      That may mean much or nothing.

  13. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    Imagine the conniptions if people had to “interview” and “wait several months” for approval to vote…

  14. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

    As I read this Sheriff’s announcement, the two key take-away items he’s communicating are:

    1.) Yes, the ruling went against us and our unholy war against the Constitution, but we’re going to ride it out until the bitter end.

    2.) When the day comes, and it will, when we’re finally compelled to abide by the law, we’re going to drag our feet and frustrate your freedoms so much as to turn it into a Pyrrhic victory for you and eventually into higher budget appropriations for ourselves.

    Well. When the day comes, and I pray it does not, that these statists push the People so far as to ignite a monumental and historic backlash, there will certainly be a priority list of grievances to redress.

  15. avatar Will says:

    How long will it take to personally interview 1/2 a million people. Is somebody looking for more staff or futher attempting to deprive people of their rights?

    1. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

      It’s government by Chinese restaurant menu: a little from Column A, a little from Column B.

  16. avatar IdahoPete says:

    If I may translate the Sheriff’s press release:

    “I am going to stall like crazy and hope to get past the next election.”

  17. avatar rlc2 says:

    Good explanation here of the history of the two cases-
    https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/2014/02/ninth-circuit-holds-californias-carry-license-laws-unconstitutional/

    1. Sykes (now called Prieto) against Sacramento NS Yolo Counties, filed first, but argued at same time, but still pending announcement of the 9ths decision,
    and

    2. Peruta vs San Diego, filed second, but applying much of the same excellent careful strategy of the firsts legal team, of patient strategy waiting for pending decisions, and applying that predence, to create an unbeatable argument, which lead to the the 9ths decision, which is the subject of this article.

    The takeaway is that a well funded team of highly experienced and proven lawyers, working together, in a strategic way, with tactical help by NRA and SAF, without the sort of glory hounding we may have seen in past, is what works, as it did also in IL recently.

    This is why you want to contribute $$$ and letters, here, https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/donate/
    as well as the NRA and SAF,
    just as you might help in your state, or other key battle grounds that set up a national win, for lawsuits that create the precedent for the Supremes to settle the law, once and for all to guarantee 2A rights.
    dont overlook the other hard work that can be emulated elsewhere, or coordinated, as CGFs spinoff FPC is already doing with other states, to quietly prepare the ground, in a similar patient and smart way, to make it easy for the 58 county Sheriffs to adopt one common-sense best practices model for CCW permit issuance, state-wide, in CGFs Sunshine initiative.
    http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/resources/carry-license-sunshine-and-compliance-initiative/

    Remember the Sheriff is an elected official, and an election is coming up, so when the appeal deadline is over, and CA is forced to acknowledge it needs to adopt reasonable policies for Shall Issue, in effect, vs the capriciousness of current county by urban county, denial of May Issue,

    then I would expect Sheriff Gore, who is a smart guy, to see and follow the will of the voters,
    especially if he is facing a good opponent, in the election later this year.

    San Diego County is a conservative county overall, and San Diego, the City, recently elected a Republican Mayor, with a decisive win over a union supported candidate, with huge out of state liberal money, totalling 2x the other sides… San Diego has its own PD, so Sheriff Gore would be following the Board of Supervisors general direction, but to be elected- would need to speak to the wishes of his major campaign contributors, and here you can see the influence of the unions in past,
    and perhaps an opportunity for national gun rights organizations, and individual contributors, to help change his mind.

    Or perhaps, to fund his opponent, as needed.. Money talks and you know what walks.

    http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/news-ticker/2013/may/13/bill-gore-files-to-re-up-as-sheriff-next-year/

  18. avatar rlc2 says:

    Sheriff Gore has announced already he will run in 2014. As an elected official he has to raise money for his campaign, and presumably make promises to those interests.

    http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/news-ticker/2013/may/13/bill-gore-files-to-re-up-as-sheriff-next-year/

    He works for the County Board of Supervisors, which acts in an executive capacity to direct the departments, and as the county covers the large rural and unincorporated areas, and the sheriff serves some of the smaller cities on a contract law enforcment basis, you would expect that guidance to be generally conservative. Its been 5 repubs on the Board for some time, but one democrat was elected, last year, covering a more centrist area in north county. So its 4-1, in that sense.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_San_Diego_County,_California#Board_of_Supervisors

    Interestingly, the City of San Diego, ruled by a mostly liberal council, changed to a strong mayor format a couple years ago, and voters just elected a Republican, to replace the sordid groper Bob Filner, former Dem congressman, by a solid margin, despite 2x the money from unions and national sources funneled to put a Dem in his place.

    So, it should be interesting, and both CGF and the Sheriffs race would be a place to make a difference- money talks and you know what walks. https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/donate/

    Heres a good resource for what to expect next, court-wise, as to deadlines, process, etc.
    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=893875

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=893875

  19. avatar rlc2 says:

    Also a very good discussion on a couple videos, including Attorney Chuck Michel on NRANews.
    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=893875

  20. avatar Tim says:

    I will be voting against Gore (Again). Never a flatfoot, he was an FBI administrator and doesn’t have a clue about insuring the safety of the civilian population in San Diego.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email