Previous Post
Next Post

Previous Post
Next Post


    • There is a click to read in blue below the story… and what a shocker ! Pay to play permits, pencil whipped qualification range checks, bribe a department promotion, county board “looking into” possibly implementing an oversight review panel, etc., etc.
      Or, just business as usual most anywhere you’d look.

      • then I’m not the only one.

        maybe the article got hung up in the infamous word press ‘moderation jail’ or maybe word press censored thus removed the article or maybe the article simply was thought to have been posted but wasn’t or maybe its simply not ready to post yet.

        do others see an article?

        • Infamous Yes…I got moderated for a quite benign post yesterday. But I don’t need to see a cop being a lowlife. I see THAT all the time in ILLannoy.

      • In a nutshell the article says if you did not contribute to the high sheriff and have recommdation letters from Jesus and Mary odds were your application for a Concealed Carry Permit was denied which means you are to remain in the unarmed victim pool and die helpless at the hands of a madman while begging for the lives of you and yours. After all…It’s not the criminal that kills you it’s the sicko Gun Control that kills you.

        • “In a nutshell the article says…”

          OK, could *you* please post the link, then, since you seem to see it?

    • bottom line:…sheriff’s are political animals…and prone to all the weaknesses of politicians….so this should not be surprising

      • Would you include Polk County, Florida sheriff Grady Judd in that? I would agree that he loves press conferences but what he says at them sounds pretty fair to me. He’s hard on the criminals, even when they turn out to be law enforcement, and defends victims who fight back.

        • Yes, sheriff Grady is cool, BUT he is a media whore. BTW I can read article but today is Saturday the 17th.

  1. wouldn’t be surprising, would it? after all, the potential for abuse has always been a major factor regarding shall-issue permitting. (of anything, not just guns.)

    and re .40’s comment, all I’m seeing is the pic.

  2. I would say he should be prosecuted except he’s towing the anti gun line which means no way it’ll happen.

    This should be the kind of stuff federal consent decrees are made of as useless as they are.

    • how a out a separate action to charge this clown with felonyb [perjury for swearing his oath of office then feiling to uphold it?? End og guns for him, and no more public office.

      DO I have any hope this will happen? Nah….. more likely to snow six feet in San Mateo.

  3. Sheriff Carlos Bolanos.

    What’s the point of holding office if you can’t make some cash, reward your followers and punish your enemies? Public service? Yeah, right.

      • Maybe at least some.But I know of a number of sheriffs who are adamantly shall issue, and have actually come on their local TeeVee stations and ASKED the law abiding public to come on in and we’d LOVE to issue your Mother May I Card. We trust that you also want a peaceful and secure place to live, and your being armed helps assure that for all of us. One sparsely populated county where I know folks had over 4,000 permits current with a population about the size of a medium sized city in my state. That was ten years ago. VERY low crime rate in that county, one of the more secure in the state.

        • My county has fewer than 200,000. The former sheriff was shall issue, as is his successor. There are over 10,000 permits issued. For this State, it is a high percentage. San Francisco for many many years was absolutely no issue except to LEOs who lived out of town. One sheriff proudly flaunted his record of no issue for 20 years. It is not that bad in the rest of the Bay Area–but it is close, an infection that runs up into the North Bay and the wine country. The Sheriff in Santa Clara County was recently “convicted” in a civil proceeding of selling CCWs to very large campaign donors.

    • service… yeah, right. Lime my Dad described one of is duties when he was a kid growing up on the farm. Couple times a year he’d be assigned to lead one of their milk cows up the road to the neighbours who had a bull…. something about “service” .

      That kind of service did proeuce some useful results, though. Like the bull calf he was assigned to raise. He named im Etta. (whe queried he responded “sure. Etta Bull”: Not bad for a ten year old kid. Ten times smarter and more aware than nearly all of the current crop of silly device-captivated kids these days.

  4. Shall issue is the only way. If you meet the criteria it should not be up to one person gatekeeping. Should not be subject to any gatekeeping but that is another discussion. If follow the rules and meet the standard they issue the permit period.

    • Shall issue is the only way. Those of us with dreams of world domination shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to get a gun.

      • Only if your state doesn’t decide to restrict your ability to make use of your “shall issue” permit into meaninglessness. As is the new policy in 3 states, and will soon be the policy in all the rest that were constitutionally unfriendly.

  5. It doesn’t say anywhere in the CONSTITUTION a Citizen has to have a conceal carry permit, in fact it says you have a right to have and carry a gun.

    • I don’t have the article/link either (other than Pirate’s–thanks). May be that my adblocker killed it if it had a suspicious format? I can see it on the ipad, which doesn’t use the same adblocker as the laptop and desktop. It is located between the two “Previous Post” links.

  6. From the article linked by Pirate:

    “Public records obtained and analyzed by the I-Team from 2018 through 2021 show among non-donors who applied for a new license, 65 out of 295 were approved. That’s about 22%. Whereas, among donors, 14 out of 16 were approved. That’s around 88%.”

    Those numbers look bad for him.

    • That depends on how you choose to look at it. If I choose to believe that Californians are mostly fruits and nuts, but the sheriff is surrounded by and supported by the least fruity and the least nuts, then we might be able to stretch the facts. Those who supported the sheriff are the most sane and stable people around, and deserving of carry permits!

      • Well, then the story gets worse for his supporters.

        “Concealed carry weapon permits are issued by Sheriff Carlos Bolanos, who lost re-election in June.”

        He lost re-election, and then may end up with criminal charges to boot.

  7. all ccw’s are unconstitutional always have been, and like everywhere they have been used they are fife with corruption and denyin basic human rights and civil liberties.

    “Police typically say that their top mission is to protect “public safety.” That’s the lingo; the concern about the public’s actual safety sometimes is so low on the list of police priorities as to be none existent – they’d rather drive around and harrass drivers for revenue or the victimless criminals where again no harm to anyone, but generates a tremendous amount of revenue for the governments.

    I know most gun owners and gun organizations are not comfortable with Concealed/Open Constitutional Carry (or no CCW permits/licenses required) options. But its just a another form of Gun Control

    Concealed weapons permits – what it’s like to have your civil liberties/rights licensed much like a privilege.

    1. What is a CCW?

    a. a permit to carry a concealed weapon is just another way your government attempts to control your behavior. It is a licensing of your right to bear arms, perhaps the only enumerated right that we openly license.

    2. What is a CCW supposed to do?

    a. the whole idea behind the concealed weapons permit process is to make certain that only the “good guys” are carrying guns and other concealed weapons out there among the rest of us. It is designed to keep guns out of the hands of the “bad guys” and thereby prevent violent crime.

    3. Are CCW really needed to help ensure our safety?

    a. the whole idea of a concealed weapons permit is absolutely unnecessary because the process only applies to the law abiding. As you’ll probably come to agree, the law abiding are the ones who we shouldn’t have concern about in the first place, so why try to regulate their actions?

    Reminder the answers are coming from a Libertarian/Voluntaryist bent

    Gun control has been with us for many generations. A concealed weapons permit is just another form of it; gun control regardless of the intentions, it really only punishes the innocent and law-abiding among us, and does nothing but benefit the criminal-minded.

    The idea behind the permit process is to supposedly keep the guns out of the wrong hands. Those that “qualify” and are “allowed permission” should have guns on the street, so why is it that criminals everywhere have guns if they so choose? The answer is simple, they pay for them on the black market. It is so ironic that the criminal underworld operates very much on the basis of free enterprise, whereas the free market economy operated in the light of day has many restrictions that cause it to be not so very free after all.

    In other words, the law-abiding are faced with the restrictions such as applications, training, fingerprinting and waiting for approval, and the lawless are not.

    Simply put, the law-abiding are the ones that apply for a concealed weapons permit. Even if criminals do apply, they generally won’t be approved (if the process works correctly), so again only the law-abiding will have a permit. The law-abiding are the ones who we should not fear, and yet they are the ones who we are trying to regulate. Criminals are indeed the ones we have something to be concerned about and fear yet they aren’t regulated at all; until they commit a crime. While not committing a crime they would appear as any other law-abiding citizen on the street.

    Governments are imposing a regulatory burden on the law-abiding. This regulatory burden is indeed a penalty of sorts for being a law-abiding citizen. Criminals has no such regulatory burden, unless they are apprehended during their involvement in a crime and are in possession of a concealed deadly weapon. Though oftentimes these “in possession of” minor-criminal offenses are plea-bargained away in favor of prosecuting the major offenses, or a criminal pleads guilty to the misdemeanor of concealed carry as a lesser offense in order to escape prosecution of the more serious crimes.

    And also remember to notify government authorities of your changes of address, and periodically pay a fee to be reissued your permit to carry a concealed weapon. More theft by extortion.

    More info:

    Additional Info:!)

    Trying to get a CCW in California good video series about
    Or Emily Miller’s well documented attempts in Washington DC (c2010)

    That’s why you never register or license anything. If you “voluntarily” give up a civil liberty following unconstitutional laws, the courts will treat you accordingly and say that you waived your liberties, and voluntarily accepted into the confiscation process and are now subject to the voluntary government permission process and you’ve lost the civil liberty.

    They pull the same BS with the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments, and getting you to voluntarily waive your rights.

    yet another reason not to voluntarily comply with unconstitutional laws to begin with…

    Especially those that convert absolute civil liberties (no limits and no government permission) into civil rights (granted only government permission if they feel like it). Next step –> confiscation of the voluntarily registered self-defense tool(s)…..

    #neverRegister #neverLicense any civil liberty tool(s)

    There are no Constitutional Gun Laws in NY, or in any of their cities/municipalities, towns or counties, all are unconstitutional – the 2nd Amendment gave exclusive jurisdiction and domain solely to the people (the 9th and 10th Amendments, removes all confusion that all levels of government were banned from infringing on the 2nd Amendment’s civil liberty protections of “we the people”

    It was always about control, that’s why it’s called “Gun Control”… it has never been about safety.

    Never register or license anything, the only ones breaking the law are the federal, state and local governments creating and enforcing unconstitutional laws.

    The Armed Government Workers [AGW’s] no longer honor their oaths and haven’t for a very long time are upping their taken oath violating to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights by continually physically violate citizens as often as possible, now they are not just going around the absolute laws of the land, but now also directly increasing the harm that their violence will cause.

    Are cops constitutional? Clearly no, and it’s incidents like this that highlight that fact.

    Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ “textualist” and “originalist” methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution’s ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America’s founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.

    Are Cops Constitutional? By Roger Roots

    We Do Not Want To Be Hunted by DH Gans

    weapons registration laws have a history—a consistent history, over the years, officials in New York City and California used registration records to confiscate guns, in violation of their own promises.

  8. the # of good reasons to live in california: zero
    the # of good reasons to move out of california if you live there now: one million

  9. I chased this issue HARD between 1997 and 2005. In 2002 I was thrown out of the California chapter of the NRA (banned from speaking at NRA Member’s Council meetings) on the orders of Ed Worley. In the phone call he had with me just prior to that, he explained that most of the sheriffs I was attacking were Republicans, including somebody he described as a “rising star”: Laurie Smith in Santa Clara county, who we now know is dirty as fuck.

    Because of term limits, the state GOP needed a constant source of fresh candidates for the legislature and they planned on raising sheriffs up, except I was tearing them apart.

    Here’s some of the best stuff I published back then: – the single most damning, proof of a long term racial redlining compact involving the sheriff and ALL of the police chiefs of Contra Costa county. This is what scared Worley the most. – funny as fuck. – CCW application from a gun grabber state legislator. – older but damning and relevant because one of the brass mentioned (Blanas) was sheriff when I published this.

    I went after the central Cal-DOJ records of CCW issuance and denial, intending to do an analysis of racial and gender bias statewide. The California NRA helped write a bill allowing the state DOJ to throw out the public records I was after:

    Upshot: there’s at least a dozen more corrupt sheriffs to go after. Likely more. None of the deputies who willingly worked for sheriffs they knew were corrupt can be trusted – ever .

    • Jim Simpson,

      It’s been quite a while, but ‘back in the day’, when I got my CCW in CA, that was ‘standard operating procedure’ if you wanted a permit – a healthy ‘campaign donation’ to the crooked LEO of your choice (or of your county). About the only CA LEOs who WEREN’T crooked as f*** were Northern Cal county sheriffs, who pretty much gave permits to anyone not a “prohibited person” (effectively a ‘shall issue’ regime’). Thank God for honest rednecks over corrupt “progressive” LEOs!!!

    • thats where I recognize his name from. his friend is a douche bag, entitled a hole. the sheriff’s got some splainin to do on that deal

  10. For those of you not seeing the article its ad-block blocking it. I had to disable both my ad block apps to see it. Not going to do that, I’ll do without the articles here that do that and read them elsewhere.

  11. I’m afraid that’s what happens when you have elected Police Officers. It goes way back to when Sheriffs of the Old West [more myth than fact and only lasted 25 years or so!!] whenthe best ELECTED Sheriffs including Wyat Earp were out-and-out criminals. I notice that the opening comment does not appear to take sides. A So that’s alright them! > I do not see w the connectioin between Cocealed carry and the election anyway -and I don’t see why if t should be left in the hands of an elected Police Offier either. It should be in the hands of a Specialised and Accountable Independent licensing authority Licensing. In the UK such licemnnsing is in the hands of Specialised Firearms Officers who can be challenged, but very seldom are, in court – The test is always a demonstarion of cause [to own a firearm]. and self defence is not one of them!!

  12. The “Crooks” are running the country. The lesson here, is the entire system has been perverted and corrupted beyond repair.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here