May-Issue Profiteering: When Government Officials Decide Who Can Carry, Corruption Inevitably Follows

Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith

Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

The quote of the day is presented by Guns.com.

It’s funny how public corruption and bribery scandals tend to crop up where the right to bear arms is turned into a privilege that’s only granted by local law enforcement officers and elected officials. One of the most prominent examples of this is, of course, the gun control nirvana that is New York City.

Now, however, the Bay Area finds itself the focus of a criminal probe into how concealed carry permits are “granted” there, with subpoenas and accusations of large “donations” and quids pro quo beginning to fly.

Go figure.

A focal point of the DA investigation continues to be a single $45,000 donation by Martin Nielsen, executive protection operations and executive projects manager for Seattle-based AS Solution. Records show Nielsen made the donation in October 2018 to the Santa Clara County Public Safety Alliance, an independent-expenditure committee that backed [Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie] Smith’s bid for a sixth term, and he and multiple colleagues in the firm received concealed-carry weapon permits this past March. …

The county has been long criticized for its lack of public transparency on how many applications are received and rejected and is the target of at least one active civil lawsuit over how the privilege is granted. CCW permits in California are issued at the sole discretion of the state’s sheriffs and police chiefs, and their sensibilities range widely. Santa Clara County tends to issue fewer permits than most of the state’s 58 counties, particularly those outside of the Bay Area.

Currently, only about 150 such permits have been issued or renewed in Santa Clara County since 2014. San Bernardino County, which has a similar population albeit stretched over a far larger geographical area, has over 3,000 active permits. And Sacramento County, which has 20 percent fewer people than Santa Clara County but is similar in its urban and suburban mix, has over 5,000 such permits issued to residents.

– Robert Salonga in Undersheriff ensnared in Santa Clara County concealed guns corruption probe

 

comments

  1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    She should take that lemon out of her mouth when there are cameras around.

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      Some women have permanent RBF…

      1. avatar QWERTY says:

        That’s not R.B.F. that’s her duck lips selfie pose..

    2. avatar Thixotropic says:

      Probably from sucking sour poontang.

      Looks like a bushwhacker to me.

      1. avatar Tim says:

        Believe all womynz!!11!

  2. avatar WI Patriot says:

    In a sense, it’s ALWAYS been “may issue”, whoever has the $$$ and connections got the “permit”, leaving the rest of us to wonder in amazement…with the advent of “shall issue”, while being more relaxed(depending on where you live), there are still hurdles to overcome…

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I’ve lived in LA County for decades, and I don’t recall this area ever issuing permits. Our current Sheriff is openly against them.

  3. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

    May or may not issue. Depending on how and whom you ask and how connected/willing to pay you may be.

    Until ALL LAWS are applied equally to ALL citizens regardless of who they are this will persist. Ex LEO having carve outs in gun laws is unacceptable. This should be a lawsuit waiting for a win.

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      I can’t find it in the constitution. Somewhere it must be written: “Bill of Rights only applies if there is : proof or written receipt of payment to legislator.” Kinda like a Stamp Tax.

      1. avatar D.T.O.M. says:

        See Victoria, that just proves it… You’re no Ruth ‘Vader’ ‘Guns’berg.

        Ole’ ‘Guns’burg could find it in the constitution! In fact the ‘Notorious’ R.B.G. could find or make the constitution say anything!

        No worries, there is still hope for you yet, just go to r̶e̶-̶e̶d̶u̶c̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶/̶i̶n̶d̶o̶c̶t̶r̶i̶n̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶c̶a̶m̶p̶s̶ ̶ err ‘College’ and you will be fine. Penny-less but fine.

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      The Connecticut Constitution reads:

      ARTICLE FIRST.
      DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.

      That the great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established,

      WE DECLARE,

      Sec. 1. That all men when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and that no man, or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community.

      But the Public Law 13-3, which targeted modern sport rifles and magazines over ten rounds in Connecticut provides for numerous exceptions for certain people in Connecticut including Retired Veterans, Active Duty Military, Police, Police Retirees and a handful of others. The Question will come up some day.

  4. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

    ” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    No where in the wording do I see any mention of seeking permission from the crown,to exercise a God given right.

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      If you were “the Crown”, what would you do to keep your head attached to your neck?

      1. avatar M1Lou says:

        Not be a shit head?

        1. avatar GunnyGene says:

          Unfortunately, being “the Crown” requires one to be a shit head. It’s a major part of the job description. 😉

      2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Let them eat cake.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Let them eat cake.”

          Hhhmmmm. That didn’t work out so well before. It wasn’t the actions of the Crown that led to revolution, it was the really bad cake that upset the crowds.

          Bad cake and rabble don’t mix…even with JW Blue.

      3. avatar neiowa says:

        Suborn the Main Stream Media and issue their talking points/narrative.

  5. avatar jwm says:

    Same thing in Alameda county. If you’re not rich, white and connected you get no permit.

    But where are all the ‘woke’ sjw’s screaming for equality and fairness? The ACLU? Phonies. Each and every one.

  6. avatar dph says:

    At least she’s not a 4 star Sheriff like most of them that I see here, other than that I got nothing. Hope she rots in hell.

    1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

      Naw, she’s one of them five costume jewelry stones sheriff, she outranks those four tin stars.

  7. avatar Randy Jones says:

    Let’s just be honest and say this doesn’t surprise anyone. At one time, in California, you were supposed to apply for a CCDW permit in the county you lived in and if that didn’t go through, you could apply in the adjacent county. I don’t know if that is still true, but it says tons about the process and likelihood of getting a permit in some counties.

    If the Blue wave continues, more states and counties will become that way.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      You can only apply in the county in which you reside for a two year permit. You can apply for a CCW in the county in which you work, but it is good only for 30 days. You can apply to your local Chief of police, and if rejected, go to the County Sheriff–but if denied by one you will not be granted by the other. Some counties do not issue. LA has 119 active permits. San Fransisco none (and proud of it). (I think DiFi was the only civilian to obtain a CCW in the last 50 or 60 years.)

  8. avatar TickTalk says:

    The majority of counties in CA are what they call ‘self defense/relaxed good cause’ … meaning they are supposed to accept self defense as a reason to be allowed to exercise a constitutional right… in reality, only a couple of counties follow that.. all the rest are who you know, and how much you pay to the right people…
    One thing you need to remember.. many counties out left are the size of states for you right coasters..

    1. avatar carnitas says:

      I’m not so sure about that, I think the situation is the reverse of how you described it: most counties are de-facto “shall issue” where simply writing down “self-defense” is a good enough reason. Its only a handful of counties : SF, Alameda, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, that are virtually “no issue.” For instance in my County, San Joaquin, it only took my dad about 6 weeks to get his ccw, in the next county over, Sacramento, the sheriff Scott Jones is a huge proponent for ccw.

  9. avatar Sam I Am says:

    If one clicks on the link to the whole article, one finds this:
    https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/10/californias-criminal-cops-convicted-but-stay-on-the-job/

    Note that the top headline notes 100 cops, but a sub-headline reads “80”.

    BTW, for all of us convinced the SC will one day strike down all the gun control laws, consider: if the court relies on “history and tradition”, there is a whole body of legal opinion that open carry of long guns is the only “right” protected by the SC. At that point, there is no “ban one or the other, but not both” principle. CCW becomes government fiat everywhere, at once.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      “CCW becomes government fiat everywhere, at once.”

      It doesn’t work that way, even if the SCOTUS holds as you suggest. Each state is allowed to establish its own carry laws subject only to constitutional minimums set by the US Constitution. State Constitutions may be interpreted differently or have broader provisions.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Each state is allowed to establish its own carry laws subject only to constitutional minimums set by the US Constitution. State Constitutions may be interpreted differently or have broader provisions.”

        My point, exactly. Immediately after SCOTUS declares only long guns are protected by the Second, every state can, with impunity, declare concealed carry dead…without fear of a federal constitutional challenge. Some states will be able to eliminate concealed carry by executive order, some by legislation, some by amending the state constitution. But, their freedom to act without fear of federal consequence will be immediate.

  10. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    NAW!

  11. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    I don’t know how the Peoples’ Republik of MA has been able to dodge that sort of shenanigans.

    Or, perhaps, it hasn’t been uncovered yet…..

  12. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I asked this before and I will ask it again. I want to know how many privileged, connected, white homosexuals have gun permits in the state of california?
    And don’t even think about bringing up the Mulford Act. Ronald Reagan is dead. Who runs california now??? And who has endorsed the Mulford Act now????
    You (White Liberals) don’t want to know the things I learned from my college research on history of the Mulford Act.

    California doesn’t have the level of KKK history, that the former Confederate States have. But that has not stopped California from have having a very racist history.
    From Clayton E Creamer. Thank you sir:

    The Racist Origins of California’s Concealed Weapon Permit Law
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2599851

    If anyone is upset by my questions or statements, I suggest you check yourself to see if you really support the Second Amendment???

    Los Angeles Chinese Massacre of 1871. video 12 minutes long

  13. avatar possum says:

    Government officials have already decided who can carry, reference the second ammendment

  14. avatar Pete says:

    Hint, it’s not just gun permits.
    When the State controls who can and who can’t, there will be bribery.
    Try to get a building permit in any big city.

  15. avatar DJ says:

    Suck a dick.

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