Quote of the Day: Why I Don’t Issue Concealed Carry Permits in SF Edition

San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr (courtesy sfgate.com)

“I think concealed carry permits should be handed out subjectively with an objective standard. We’re a crowded place. … The last thing I need is people that aren’t trained on firearms who may not be in the right frame of mind from being so scared or having a cocktail or two. I would much rather they rely on us.” – San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr quoted in Want a concealed gun in California? Head north [via sfgate.com]


  1. avatar David PA/NJ says:

    The fact they can’t be relied upon is inconsequential to this man

    1. avatar Alex Peters says:

      And there’s this from yesterday. Bet some of those law-abiding citizens in the area wish they had a CC permit to help bridge the time between when the shots were fired and the police showed up:


    2. avatar Avid Reader says:

      Fascinating, considering this story about interaction with members of his department:


      Note: no dogs were harmed in the production of this story.

      1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        Saw that on Reason.com the other day. Doesn’t the SF Office of Citizen Complains seem a bit North Korean to you? I have an image of this office in my head with a trap door to a dungeon right under the ‘take a number’ machine.

    3. avatar ThomasR says:

      Hey, Dan; you messed up, you took a shot of a Nazi storm trooper from WW II. Ooops, my mistake, it”s a retro Nazi storm trooper.

    4. avatar Cliff H says:

      TTAGers, we bitch and moan about this stuff a lot, and we “know” the statistics are on our side, but could RF or Nick or anyone here with more knowledge of Internet research than I have (meaning more than zero) compile some stats on 1) how many shootings in a specific urban area, and 2) how many law enforcement officers respond to “shots fired” calls.

      It would seem obvious that no one can “rely on us” [police] if the majority of the police response is to shots already fired. Too little, too late.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        I think you just volunteered. Improve your Internet skills; learn to use Google.

    5. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      I won’t bash the good men and women on the street. Some are not good but that is an individual case by case basis.
      Ok having said that the chief works for the mayor. This is why we have fought to make the Sherrif’s the issuers with no input from the chief.
      If the 9th court decision stands he will have no choice.

  2. avatar Jim at the NSA says:

    Hey Greg, you gonna tuck me in at night too?

    1. avatar Don1974 says:

      Mr. Greg, don’t forget to take me potty before night night time.

      1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

        This made me laugh loudly!

  3. avatar surlycmd says:

    I’m sure his officers can draw the chalk line around my dead body quite well.

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      Well there are quite a few artists in San Francisco.

  4. avatar speedracer5050 says:

    “I think Police Chiefs like myself are idiots! Thank you there will be no further questions”!!

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Chief, CHIEF! Can you fix stupid?

  5. avatar the ruester says:

    If the hollywood stereotypes of typical san francisco residents were accurate, I’d be a little worried about it, too.

  6. avatar KingSarc48265 says:

    Why am I not surprised?

  7. avatar Korvis says:

    “I would much rather they rely on us.”

    So, does that mean that DeSantis is going to be releasing a “Cop Scabbard” that will allow the residents of San Francisco to draw and present one of the SFPD’s finest when confronted by a mugger or rapist or home invader?

    The product review on that one should be interesting.

    1. avatar Kent Unterseher says:

      By my calculations, it appears the SFPD will soon be hiring an additional 1.9 million new officers. (give or take a few thousand) I mean, that is what he promised right? No need to have a firearm yourself, WE will protect you. 1 SFPD officer for each of the 1.2 million residents. Seems like a great Obama jobs program. 🙂

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      I believe it was Clint Smith who first uttered the now well used phrase: “I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.”

      As true now as it was then.

      1. avatar Tile floor says:

        The police CANNOT be relied on to save anyone, and this is coming from one. Even if the officer does what he should and rush to the aid of those in distress, realistically it’s going to be a few minutes. By then you’re dead. I hate police who act superior to everyone else and think the average citizen is helpless without them. I put those I work with with that attitude in their place, or attempt to at least

  8. avatar whiskeytangofoxtrot says:

    “The last thing I need is people that aren’t trained on firearms…”. So? Get them trained.

    1. avatar JoshtheViking says:


    2. avatar peirsonb says:

      The last thing I need is people that aren’t trained on firearms

      Read: There are about to be a significant number of job openings in the SFPD.

    3. avatar BillF says:

      “The last thing I need is people that aren’t trained on firearms…”. So every SF resident must live and exist according to Suhr’s “needs”.

    4. avatar Ron says:

      The bill of rights doesn’t require training either. It simply says ” shall not be infringed”. I take that to mean a judge, police chief or anybody should interfere with that God given right.

      1. avatar Hal J. says:

        The last thing I need is people that aren’t trained on writing skills.

        Hey, if it applies to the 2nd Amendment, why not the 1st as well?

        1. avatar BillF says:

          Suhr’s use of “people that” proves that he doesn’t consider us people or he would have written “people who”. He might as well have said: “The last thing I need is an unwashed mass that….”

      2. avatar peirsonb says:

        Add to that the fact that creating an anti-gun culture has created a lack of skill in handling firearms. When 2A was written there was no training required because everyone was expected to, and almost everyone did, own a gun and know how to use it.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          No, I wouldn’t say everyone owned a gun. In the British colonies, guns were expensive, hand crafted individual mechanisms. They were made one by one, and parts were not standard or interchangeable.

          Not everyone could afford a gun. Those that needed them scrimped and saved to buy one. It was a tool, bought out of necessity. Thus, at the opening of the War of Independence, the US depended completely on the personal arms of the inhabitants (as well as raids on British armories). Government-issued arms for the militias and army would appear later in the war.

        2. avatar peirsonb says:


          I don’t know if that link will display correctly. The article was written as an answer to Arming America. Among the samples taken from the period, guns were listed in anywhere from 50%-75% of the sampled male owned estates.

    5. avatar Rick says:

      Trained? You mean like this guy:


      Waitaminnit. How well could an Oakland PD cop be trained??

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        That depends on how many bananas you have.

    6. avatar DrVino says:

      16 hour course is required for CCW app in CA:


      1. avatar Gene says:

        That’s 4x more than NYPD gets per year.

    7. avatar Mark N. says:

      The hypocritical reality of this comment escapes those who are not aware of the requirements SF imposes on any who would seek a CCW there (most of which are not authorized by state law). California law requires 16 hours of training for a new applicant, 8 of which are range time (which in reality, because of class size I suppose, translates to 100 to 200 rounds and the NRA basic safety course). That’s the easy part. San Francisco was further requiring that an applicant pass the same shooting qualification as a SFPD officer, on the SFPD shooting range, monitored by a SFPD range officer, and paying for both the range time and the hourly salary of the RO.(est. $2000.) I don’t remember all the details of the qual., but they were far more than putting holes in paper CM at 7 yards.

      Given this, one would assume that a SF resident CCW holder would be just as proficient in shooting as a police officer.

  9. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    Harry ! Harry Callahan ! Where are you hiding Harry !

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      I just watched all 5 of those very excellent movies for the very first time. Most movies I take at face value as good, fun entertainment. These are definitely in that category.

      But if I wanted to read more into them I could see the themes about police overreach that we rail against almost daily on this site…

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        There is some of that in many of the Hollywood productions, but what is most telling is how often they portray disgusted police who are forced to go rogue (vigilante) to accomplish any sort of real justice due to being illogically constrained by the judicial bureaucracy in which they are forced to work.

        I do not recall Dirty Harry being a bully or a thug picking on wrong targets, just a man with a mission get the real punks, and corrupt officials, off the streets.

        I think the fact that this theme shows up so often really highlights the fact that people in general are frustrated by the system seeming to be weighted in favor of the perpetrators over their victims.

      2. avatar Evan HB says:

        Yes, that is part of the problem with how Harry acts in the frame of being a police officer. I generally prefer to view him as a character who does what is necessary to find justice and or do what, he perceives is right. This doesn’t always work and it certainly falls into the realm of overreach.

        For example, the final scene in the first movie. I pretty much assume that he knew he had one more round. In an effort to coax Scorpio into reaching for his p38 so Harry could take him down permanently. In real life police overreach rarely occurs in cases where the opposing force is so obviously evil. “Magnum force” was actually a response to your very sentiment trying to say the police can in fact go too far and that’s not okay.

      3. avatar pg says:

        Good observation, the police movies and television shows in the 70s, and from then forward, have a strong overreach theme, conditioning the public for police skirting the law. It was rampant, remember politicians being scared of being perceived as soft on crime?

  10. avatar Gyufygy says:

    Gee, because we’ve never heard this line before, and we certainly don’t see it disproven everyday.

  11. avatar TexanHawk says:

    Pardon me, please hold on whilst I ring up the police. Good. Now will you please wait the national average of 8 1/2 minutes for a priority 1 call so that the police can come intervene on my behalf before you do me harm?

    1. avatar JoshinGA says:

      Haha. Good luck getting a cop to even show up in 8.5 minutes for anything that isnt shots fired…alternatively, carrying is also a great way to increase police response time when you need them to come clean up.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Last time I looked the standard response time for an alarm in the DC Metro area was 30 minutes. Help! I’ve fallen and I can’t get up!

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      That video last week of the assholes driving through neighborhoods pranking pedestrians gives me an idea.

      Rig a very load speaker to you doorknob that if it is jiggled after you’ve gone to bed it broadcasts at high volume the sound of five shots from a .357. If it doesn’t scare off the BGs it may elicite a call from a neighbor to the police of “SHOTS FIRED!”

      Well, it might be just as effective as hiding in the closet and hoping for the best.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Yup, you’ll really enjoy SWAT breaking your door down and tuning you up as a result of that.

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      The average response time in SF (it is a small city, after all, about 7 miles by 7 miles) is 4 minutes, less in areas of concentrated criminality (like around the Powell Street Station on Market street where the shooting linked above occurred). The one and only time I had occasion to call 911 when I lived there (true, that was 1986) was 28 seconds. Must have been a slow night.

  12. avatar JoshtheViking says:

    He’s a full general, must know what he’s talking about. /sarc

    1. avatar Kent Unterseher says:

      Don’t you just love chiefs that start tacking on all the stars. Dude, you are NOT Patton, let it go!

      1. avatar Herb says:

        The title `chief of police’ apparently entitles the officeholder to four stars on each collar even if he commands but one cop in a township of two hundred.

        Watch for another Obama-sponsored “Police Chiefs Call for Assault Weapons Ban” group photoshoot. More stars than the Milky Way in that pic.

    2. avatar Kent Unterseher says:

      Also the highest paid cop in the nation… I guess the old saying, “you get what you pay for”, isn’t always true…

      1. avatar Taylor Tx says:

        You get what you pay for, some sweet collar decorations and a whole lot of koolaid to give out to the bay area.

    3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Even Generals aren’t Generals anymore…

      The days of Smedley Butler and George Patton are long gone, stars on the collar don’t mean you’re a battle hardened leader like it once did.

      Now, it means you’re bureaucrat that knows how to play ball, for the most part, there are still some good military leaders out there, but the pool is getting shallower as time goes on.

      1. avatar Chevelier says:

        It’s always been this way. Look up political generals of the revolution. War with Mexico of 1848, The Civil War etc. generals must be promoted by congress I.e. Politics.

      2. avatar Ardent says:

        You’re onto something. Patton is a great example, an actual combat veteran prior to moving up through the ranks. In the current system such things are uncommon but not unheard off. I have a friend who saw combat as a Sergeant and finished his career as a Lieutenant Colonel, and could have stayed on (he retired at 43) though so it does still happen. Largely, staff officers lack individual combat experience, however I’m not entirely sure that it’s a serious short coming to their ability to perform their duties. On the other hand, I’d much rather serve under someone who truly understood both the plight and the needs of the men first hand. Just something else that political correctness and politics in general have royally screwed up.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          Yes, well, Patton himself claimed that he had combat experience even before he was born. He firmly believed that he was a reincarnation of at least one great military leader from the past.

        2. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Alexander the Great, if I remember correctly. Of course, so did Petraeus.

        3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          I used to fool around with this broad that swore she had been, Joan of Arc, Marie Antoinette, and Cleopatra in her past lives…

          I used to say,” Damn, shouldn’t have used up all your cool life’s so early…”

          Side note: she was also heavily self medicated

  13. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    In adult Peanuts voice-“Waaa wawaaah, wah waaa”.
    Charlie Brown’s voice -“so what your saying is you get to be the judge of who can exercise a constitutional right?”

  14. avatar Hal J. says:

    “I think concealed carry permits should be handed out subjectively with an objective standard

    Typical bureaucratic doublespeak. He’s hesitant to simply speak his actual thoughts on the matter:

    “We don’t trust citizens who don’t work for the government with deadly force”.

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      subjectively with an objective standard

      Commence eye twitching….

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others

        1. avatar Ardent says:

          There it is again and apropos too. I’ve got to reread Animal Farm, it’s been too long.

      2. avatar Hal J. says:

        Commence eye twitching….

        What…just now? Hell, I’ve been practically having seizures since I became politically aware some 30 years ago.

        1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

          ^^^^ THIS!!!!!

      3. avatar NWGlocker says:

        “subjective” and “objective”. Now that’s a contradiction.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      “I think concealed carry permits should be handed out subjectively with an objective standard…”

      Which means that even if you meet exactly the “objective” standard it still remains up to my “subjective” standards whether or not you get to exercise your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

  15. avatar Mike Wenzel says:

    You are using emotion, not good for a police officer. The facts don’t back up your comment. BTW many of us with CCW’s are very well trained. We have proven that we can reduce crime in states that believe in constitutional rights.

  16. avatar craig says:

    I feel the same way about welfare recipients having children they can’t pay for…

  17. avatar Kent Unterseher says:

    Relying on the police is fine. It works great for filing a report AFTER the fact. They are going to have to hire a LOT more officers if he is promising to protect everyone…

  18. avatar Scott says:

    They’re only 30 minutes away folks.

  19. avatar GS650G says:

    Cross this place off the list of cities to visit

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      You don’t know San Francisco, Butters. It was the breeding ground for the hippie movement in the 60s. Those hard-core liberals, lesbian activists, and diehard modern hippies young and old. I swore I would never set foot in San Francisco. God help me. – Eric Cartman

      1. avatar Taylor Tx says:

        They can now proceed to smelling their own farts 🙂

  20. avatar J. Knight says:

    Hey, crooks! The people in SF are unarmed and ripe for the pickings. Sounds like a sweet deal for you, so I advise you to go there post haste. Now, crime should go down in my town. Oh, yeah, I hear they have generous welfare bennies as well, so your 8 illegitimate kids and 3 baby mamas can prosper as well. What’s not to like?

    1. avatar Ardent says:

      This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_hmXbLCEkE

      Only change ‘homeless’ to ‘criminals’

  21. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “I would much rather they [unarmed citizens] rely on us.” – San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr

    And I would much rather NOT rely on police in San Francisco County. So it is just a pissing match then and Police Chiefs win because they are … Police Chiefs?

    All that matters to chief Suhr is that he feels good … even if it means sending women out into the streets unarmed to endure brutal, life shattering sexual assaults. What kind of lowlife scumbag would do such a thing?

    Screw you chief Suhr. I wouldn’t let you lick the sweat off my [email protected] if you were dying of thirst.

  22. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    “I think concealed carry permits should be handed out subjectively…”

    Subjectively- based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, and opinions

    “… with an objective standard.”

    Objective- not based on or influenced by personal feeling or opinions.

    So, the standard should be made to be fair and unbiased, but actual application of the standard should be unfair and biased?

    Equal, but seperate… Got it!

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      He lost me there too.

    2. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

      It’s the same but different!!!

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        It’s like rain on your weddin’ day
        It’s like a free ride when you’ve already paid
        It’s like the good advice that you just didn’t take
        And who would’ve thought, it figures

  23. avatar JAS says:

    “The last thing I need is people that aren’t trained on firearms who may not be in the right frame of mind from being so scared or having a cocktail or two. I would much rather they rely on us.”

    Assuming that training is required to get a conceal carry permit,

    – Why the “I” pronoun? Is this a personal fear of yours?
    – Do any of you guys in the police force conceal carry when off duty?
    – If so, any of you guys in the police force ever get scared?
    – Do any of you guys in the police force ever drink when off duty?

    If the answers are “yes” then:

    – Are you not forcing us to rely on EXACTLY what you are afraid of?

  24. avatar ChuckN says:

    I’d like to know how many people with training (and/or
    experience) that exceeds SFPD were denied permits.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      If any, all of them. There are fewer than 10 issued CCWs for both SFSO and SFPD. Last stat (from 2013) I have is actually 4, two issued for reserve officers (1 for each department) and two (1 each) issued for civilian employees of the SFPD and SFSO. One of those two “civilian” CCWs was undoubtedly for Sheriff Mirikami, who is not a LEO and cannot otherwise carry a firearm.

      1. avatar Rick says:

        Wasn’t Mirikami barred from carrying weapons due to some domestic-violence dustup?

        Inn-teresting if true that doesn’t bar one of The Ones from getting a CCW.

  25. avatar Jim Jones says:

    “[H]anded out subjectively with an objective standard.” My head hurts from so these mental gymnastics.

  26. avatar Hal J. says:

    On an extraordinarily geeky side-note: the roleplaying game GURPS assigns each piece of equipment which a character may possess or to try to purchase a “Legality Class” from 0 to 4, which, when compared to the “Control Rating” (from 0 to 6) of the society in question, determines how hard it is to acquire. Modern day examples include (from GURPS 4th Edition):

    LC 0: Banned. Weapons of mass destruction.: strategic missiles, orbital weapons platforms, intercontinental bombers.

    LC 1: Military: Heavy weapons: air defense radar, sensor jammers, armed vehicles, land mines.

    LC 2: Restricted: Light assault weapons: silencers, surveillance technology (wiretaps, etc), armored cars, burglar’s tools (i.e., lockpicks), explosives, dangerous drugs.

    LC 3: Licensed: Handguns, hunting guns, radio transmitters, most unarmed vehicles, ordinary drugs and medical equipment.

    LC 4: Open: Nonlethal weapons (e.g., tasers), home computers, radio and television receivers, cameras, most tools, first aid kits.

    To determine if the item is legal:

    LC=CR+1 or more: Any citizen may carry the item.
    LC=CR: Anyone but a convicted criminal or the equivalent may carry the item. Registration may be required, but there is no permit fee.
    LC=CR-1: A license is required to own or carry the item. To get a license, one must show a legitimate need or work for the government.
    LC=CR-2: Prohibited except to police SWAT teams, military units, and intelligence services.
    LC=CR-3 or worse: Only permitted to the military or secret police.

    Now bearing in mind that this is a generic formula designed to fit virtually any society, GURPS normally assigns the modern United States a Control Rating of 3 (although some states are 4). Most countries on Earth currently range from 4 to 5, which is where leftists want to take us…as does, obviously, the police chief in question. I think it safe to speculate that most on this board would want the USA to go to a “2”.

    This has been your moment of nerd culture for the day…

    1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      GURPS-ness aside, that’s an example of a powerful thinking tool: how would I generically model this thing that’s going on?

      When you find a model that’s descriptive, predictive and prescriptive, you’ve got something.

    2. avatar Gyufygy says:

      GURPS: Why have rules to simulate something when you can have rules to simulate everything!

    3. avatar CarlosT says:

      And to throw in some D&D, the chief had some major fails when rolling for INT, WIS, and CHA.

  27. avatar JAS says:

    This one is pretty easy. Constitutionally it is not up to San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr to decide who carries in his city. Lacking Constitutional laws at the state level it’s up to the County Sheriff. As an elected official, the Sheriff’s Constitutional powers supersede even those of the state’s legislators.

  28. avatar TheSleeperHasAwakened says:

    “I would much rather they rely on us.”

    FAH-Q Police Chief Greg Suhr!

  29. avatar Pascal says:

    It is really simple to counter that argument. I have done so with local police in public forums only to have them STFU. I asked them plainly in simply, if I am in a situation where someone has drawn a gun on me and my life is in danger can you guarantee 100% of the time that police will show up before I am shot and killed? If a person is in my house with a gun and I call 911, will the police arrive and stop the intruder before my wife or daughter or myself are shot dead? How many rapes do the police stop every year before they occur? And finally, since this is CT, I ask — where were the police in the home invasion of the Petit Family in Cheshire (for those who don’t know, waiting outside watching the house burn). So far I am 3 for 3 in having in the Chief of PD STFU. I also come with print outs of every court case where it was upheld that the police have no duty to respond and ask them how to counter the fact that they have no duty to respond.

    1. avatar Hal J. says:

      If they were honest they would respond, “We believe that the overall level of violence in society will be less if we archive our goal of complete civilian disarmament, and the chance that you or your family will be attacked and not able to defend yourself is the price that we all must pay”.

      (Well, all of use except those the government deems privileged enough to be armed. All animals being equal, yada-yada-yada…)

  30. avatar Cashland says:

    I carry in SF all the time. I was permitted outside of San Francisco County. If they think there are no legal permit holders on their streets they are quite wrong

  31. avatar Anonymous says:


    “I think concealed carry permits should be handed out subjectively with an objective standard.”
    We are the “authority.” You do what we say and we feel that only the ruling class and us… should be carrying firearms.

    “I would much rather they rely on us.”
    We know that we can’t be everywhere at any given moment. But honestly, we do no care about your safety. If we did, we would provide you with the means of protecting yourself. Instead, we care about our safety, and our convenience and only we want to be legally allowed to carry firearms.

  32. avatar RockThisTown says:

    We’re a crowded place . . .
    1. Not my problem, 2. I didn’t cause the crowding, 3. That doesn’t detract from the argument to carry, it actually enhances it, and 4. Crowded or not, I’m still a law-abiding citizen with the right to KABA.

    The last thing I need is people that aren’t trained on firearms who may not be in the right frame of mind from being so scared or having a cocktail or two.
    Your need(s), or lack thereof, are irrelevant to my right to KABA. And who are you to say that I’m scared or that I’ve had a cocktail or two? When I’m armed, I shouldn’t be scared & I certainly won’t be having a ‘cocktail or two’. Keep your bigoted stereotype(s) of law-abiding gun owners to yourself.

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      I’d match my skills against any one of his cops any day of the week. I probably shoot more often than they do, and I don’t hit the range nearly as often as I’d like.

      1. avatar Hal J. says:

        Given that many (most?) police seem to have done their training at the Imperial Stormtrooper School of Marksmanship, I’m going to bet on your skills vs. theirs….

        1. avatar CarlosT says:

          “… And these blast points; too accurate for Sand People. Only Imperial stormtroopers are so precise.”
          ―Obi-Wan Kenobi

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      No doubt; I don’t recall anywhere in the BoR it saying that rights apply only where it’s not too crowded.
      Since SF is very crowded, imagine how much quieter it would be if most people weren’t allowed to speak.

      In better times a Chief like this would be arrested for violating his oath (to uphold the constitution).
      In worse times he’d be tarred and feathered and run out on a rail.
      In the worst of times people nod or shake their heads and do nothing else at all.

  33. avatar Bitten says:

    “I think concealed carry permits should be handed out subjectively with an objective standard. I would much rather they rely on us.”

    Short version: If you’re not cop, you’re little people.

  34. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Top LE is in fear of losing his/her control over the people, fact of the matter is that the people no longer trust LE “To Protect and Serve”…this just another example of how the govt is trying to strongarm the people into submission…

  35. avatar John Moses says:

    Once again, behold the face of a tyrant. Just shut up and submit.

  36. avatar jirdesteva says:

    Drinking too much of the cool-aid may give you delusions of grandeur and a bloated ego.
    “I would much rather they rely on us.”
    “Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government
    take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.”
    ― Henry Ford
    Self reliance should be the goals WE seek. Dependency on the government is the new slavery.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      Henry Ford’s dictum was over broad: A great many people, Americans, have prospered mightily by relying on government to protect their….guaranteed high pay. By legislation bought fair-and-square they have acquired legislative moats around their guild, assuring that no matter how expensive their services become, no cheaper or more efficient competitor can enter the market, nor can the individual equip themselves to obviate need for the guild. This applies variously, and at great cost to us, in regard to police, attorneys, dentists, and a variety of other services. In short, Ford’s notion has limited applicability, and the only truth in it is “for god’s sake don’t be an American Indian!” And yet here we are, treated like the very same indian that was to serve as a warning. We’re fleeced of our money rather than our ‘happy hunting ground.’ And to undo the injustice we have to win an election in which fifty-two percent of the population is voting single-issue in favor of something else. This is the bain of representative democracy, especially one in which the constitutional process of amendment is repeatedly by-passed in favor of a more ‘flexible’ judicial redefinition of the rights of citizens and powers of government.

      1. avatar jirdesteva says:

        Should have stated the obvious WE as a whole have allowed this to pass and this is OUR just deserts. But, there is still time to stop the erosion of our rights. But, it will take effort and power of will to stop the overreaching of government.

  37. avatar John n says:

    Should we reference all the accidental shooting that cops do.

    Tired of these fools thinking they are some expert in shooting a firearm.

  38. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    I didn’t know the guy from Pawn Stars was a police chief./// The last thing “I” would need chief is an incompetant bumbling keystone cop arriving 10 minutes too late to protect me. There, fixed it for you herr suhr.

  39. avatar Yossarian says:

    Digging the pic… Nazi SS, nein?

    1. avatar Randy Drescher says:

      Nicht, he’s the Whitehouse doorman.

  40. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

    “In the city, police are generally just four minutes away, Suhr said.”

    I guess four minutes of being assaulted is ok, as far as the chief is concerned.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Weren’t police four minutes away at Sandy Hook? The police protection didn’t work out so well for 26 people there.

      1. avatar SAS 2008 says:

        Depending on where you count from, yes. Time from the 911 call to police on scene was about four and a half minutes. Depending on when you believe the shooting started it was also about four and a half minutes of shooting (time from first 911 call to final shot).

        A lot can happen in 4 minutes.

        From Wikipedia:
        First Response Timeline

        Time Event
        9:30 am Shooter is believed to first enter SHES.
        9:35:39 am First 911 call to Newtown Police is received.
        9:36:06 am 911 dispatcher broadcasts shooting at SHES.
        9:37:38 am Connecticut State Police dispatched to SHES.
        9:39:00 am First Newtown police arrives behind SHES.
        9:39:13 am Two more Newtown officers arrive at SHES.
        9:40:03 am Last shot heard. Believed to be shooter suicide.
        9:42:39 am Newtown police reports shooter’s car license plate.
        9:44:47 am Newtown police officers enter SHES.
        9:46:23 am Connecticut State Police arrive at SHES.
        9:46:48 am Connecticut State Police enter SHES.

        1. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

          If only some reporter at a press conference would say:

          “Chief Suhr, you mentioned that police are generally about four minutes away in San Francisco, and provided this as a reason to generally deny concealed carry permits to residents. Given that the police response time was roughly 4 minutes to Sandy Hook Elementary School, and 26 people were slaughtered there, can you please explain why it is appropriate for you to deny people the ability to effectively defend themselves from a criminal?”

        2. avatar Accur81 says:

          @ Delmarva,

          My thoughts exactly. Its a damn shame that our liberal – progressive media rarely asks tough questions of statists. I’m way too hardcore right wing to ever be a journalist.

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      A homicide lasting more than 4 minutes from onset of violence to death would be one brutal, nasty and poorly executed affair, a real botch job. A home that could resist 4 minutes of a determined individual attempting to enter it is a virtual fortress. A mugging that lasts 4 minutes is street theater put on by struggling actors. A woman who can avoid both serious injury and being sexually violated for 4 minutes at the hands of a determined rapist is either very tough or very lucky. 4 minutes is longer than a round of boxing, I think it’s a rare senior citizen (or anyone at all) who could take a 4 minute continuous beating without sustaining serious injury.

      For all that, 4 minutes is the time from when you call 911, they actually answer, and you accurately describe both the emergency and your location and is dependent on you staying at the place described rather than fleeing. Somehow I think that would take significantly longer than drawing a pistol and incapacitating ones attacker with it.

      Either the Chief hasn’t considered this in developing his policy (in which case he’s woefully incompetent) or he has considered it and decided against allowing citizens to exercises their rights and provide for their own defense, in which case he’s malicious and evil regardless of his reasoning. Either way, he shouldn’t occupy a position of authority (and in the latter case he shouldn’t be allowed loose in society at all).

      Regardless of all that, he insists that he is opposed to the exercise by the citizens of their natural and constitutional rights, which, since he has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution, makes him a criminal and a tyrant.

      Such people will always exist. What’s problematic is that the mayor has not already removed him from office due to his anti-liberty anti-constitutional rights statements. Perhaps he is incompetent or evil too.
      What’s more problematic is that the citizens of SF haven’t forced the mayors hand by deluging his office with calls, letters and emails railing for the chiefs removal and showing him that his political survival depends on scapegoating the chief, then voting him out in the next election anyway and replacing him with someone who would know what to do when his appointees start maligning the constitution and violating their oaths of office.

      It’s very difficult to help people who wont be helped.

  41. avatar Hal J. says:

    San Franciscans who want a concealed carry permit are required to submit a lengthy questionnaire, a psychological evaluation, a shooting test and an interview with Suhr.

    I don’t think he’d enjoy having an interview with me, as when he asked why I thought I should be able to carry a firearm I’d simply pull out my pocket constitution rather than beg, hat in hand, for the right.

    Were I to live in San Francisco (shudder), the phrase about the advantages of being tried by 12 vs. carried by 6 comes to mind…

  42. avatar jirdesteva says:

    These should be the simplest way to get them off their holier than thou soap box. Relying on you how did all these crimes still occur?


  43. avatar Marc says:

    The duty of Police officers is to enforce the Letter of the Law, as in how its written. Wasn’t it decreed by a Supreme Court Judge that the Police cannot be held responsible for an individual’s personal safety? If so, then is this man going above and beyond his station and contradicting a Supreme Court jJudge by asking that the individuals of the country (specifically those in SF) allow their safety to be the responsibility of the Police?

  44. avatar NJDevil says:

    So he’s worried about people who are willing to go TO the police office, fill out forms, present id and get fingerprinted having guns? How exactly is that preventing criminals from carrying?

    1. avatar Hal J. says:

      In his eyes, virtually anyone who wishes to carry is a criminal.

  45. avatar Dermott says:

    The lesson is simple:
    1. Call 911 only if you can leave before they show up.
    2. NEVER talk to a cop.

  46. avatar former water walker says:

    I thought Chicago sucked. Self medication indicated in SF.

  47. avatar Totenglocke says:

    Of course he wants to convince people to rely on the cops. If people figure out that they can do things themselves, he’s out of a job.

  48. avatar Cubby123 says:

    Sorry BOZO it’s not up to you and the 9 th just decided for you.IT’s NOT A PRIVLEDGE .it’s a RIGHT! Your statement shows me how REALLY IGNORANT you REALLY ARE! YOU need to go through CCW training to find out —you don’t know what you don’t know!
    By the way,the Supreme Court Ruled –Police Have no Duty to personally protect individuals.So waiting minutes when seconds count ,Sorry Commissioner,Doesn’t Work!
    Soooo Get off your high horse and start obeying the court decision which by the way is The Law Of The Land.Which is what you swore to uphold!

  49. avatar Lough Sun says:

    Chief Greg can you read me a story?

  50. avatar Jeff says:

    I consider these concealed carry restrictions as lawful as slavery. I do not comply with unconstitutional laws. Of course only you can make a decision for yourself. But in the case of law-enforcement FLAGRANTLY disregarding the Constitution, I recommend JCA – Just Carry Anyway.

  51. avatar Cubby123 says:

    How about some good old fashion California Recalls! Worked for Colorado!

  52. avatar Yvan91 says:

    This should surprise NO ONE. If it does, I have a bridge I want to sell you…

  53. avatar PavePusher says:

    Translation: “I’m a Fascist.”

  54. avatar Joe Grine says:

    That’s really nice of Officer Suhr to offer up his Police force to serve as a free bodyguard service, as an alternative to concealed carry. I’ll have to call him up and ask him how I can sign up for this great new public service.

  55. avatar Noishkel says:

    This reminds me of a comedy skit on some old British TV show where the constable in charge of firearms permits has only on question on his firearms permit application. ‘Do you want to own a firearm?’. If you answer yes then you’re immediately denied a permit to own one. The scents goes on to make some sort of asinine statement about weapons and the rights of the people over the individual. Comparing everyone to ants with one ant that want’s to own an ant eater.

    People with this kind of mindset are completely divorced from reality. People so divorced from reality that they buy any anti-self defense dogma that gets spoon feed to them by the state.

    1. avatar Noishkel says:


      Inspector Fowler (Rowan Atkinson) explains a ‘sensible’ approach to firearms control to DI Grim (David Haig)

    2. avatar Rick says:


  56. avatar Serge says:

    My family and I have been staying at a hotel a block from Union Square for the long weekend, a few blocks from where the shooting took place. I don’t think I’ve seen so much as a squad car in the vicinity since we arrived four days ago.

    Aside from everything else that is so wrong with his statement, does he realize that not only is he preventing SF resident from carrying in the crowded city, but also anywhere in the state? So if someone wanted to vacation in one of California’s beautiful open spaces, can they rely on SF’s finest to come along for the trip?

    On a side note, I did see a sign for an Airsoft shooting range by Fisherman’s Wharf, which made me giggle a little bit.

    1. avatar Hal J. says:

      I’ve never “gotten” the Airsoft craze. Spending hundreds of dollars on a what is, at every level, a mere toy when one can get the real thing instead? Perhaps if I lived in Japan, but in the USA…not so much.


      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        Want to run and gun with your friends? Want to avoid shooting them with actual bullets? Or better yet, them shooting you? Want to use something resembling your “real” guns? If the answer to these questions is yes, then AirSoft is for you.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      You don’t need a CCW out in the open spaces–open carry is legal there.

  57. avatar DrVino says:

    CA requires a two day course for CCW. What does he mean “people that aren’t trained on firearms”?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      8 hours is classroom, typically covering the (VERY) basics (the 4 rules) and the laws particular to CCW and use of force. 8 hours is range time, and classes vary widely as to what you are taught and how much you shoot. The minimum is usually 100 rounds, covering grip, draw and shoot, and reinforcing safe handling. Most courses shoot at only 7 yards, none that I know of over 15 (which is ok–it is pretty rare to have a justifiable need to be shooting at someone who is 25 yards away, and at that range, most can only hit the broad side of a barn anyway). I don’t think that 100 rounds equals proficiency, unless you are a fast study. Shooting qualification varies widely from county to county, from none to a required minimum score on a standard target, again at 7 yards. SF (used?) to require a lot more, but the portion of he web site detailing their requirements has since been taken down. (It was probably unlawful, as it included the costs of the testing, while state law limits the fees charged to a statutory sum of about $150 (depending on the local costs of fingerprinting).

  58. avatar T says:

    Once again, fear and emotion of the people having arms to defend or enjoy themselves. But what do you expect in Commiefornia.

  59. avatar Jus Bill says:

    Did you notice that most badged bullies look like WWF characters. No hair, fingerless gloves, uniforms like those from a banana republic army. Or a doorman.

  60. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    And cops wonder why so many of the gun-owning public are turning against them.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      This guy isn’t a cop. Cops drive patrol cars, respond to calls, arrest people, check for warrants, and shoot dogs. This guy is a politician in uniform who sits in an air conditioned office with a desk that smells of rich mahogany, with a wall of leather-bound books. I have a sneaky suspicion he also has diplomas and awards tacked up all over his office.

  61. avatar California dreaming says:

    Goes to show the views of California’s chiefs regarding ccw by county. It’s pretty sad

  62. avatar David Calhoun says:

    “I would much rather they rely on us.” – San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr

    Hey there Chief: look up Warren v. District of Columbia, Castle Rock, CO v. Jessica Gonzales et. al.,
    and this article in Police Chief Magazine : http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=341&issue_id=72004

    that cites a whole slew of other cases where it has been ruled that the police have NO duty to protect the individual citizen. It seems to me that we can’t rely on you; not if we want to actually be protected!

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      Heck, just look at the California Government Code. They don’t just rely on precedent, its specifically stated-

      ‘845. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
      failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide
      police protection service or, if police protection service is
      provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection

  63. avatar Hannibal says:

    “I would much rather they rely on us.”

    Classic disconnect between a politician in a police uniform and an actual cop… the latter would never same something so stupid.

  64. avatar Mina says:

    … because just what I want when someone grabs me from behind on my horse property is to rely on the the police who are at least 45 minutes away. (110# female talking)

  65. avatar Dave says:

    I don’t completely disagree with the chief, in that where there is a heavier population there is more risk with CC than in lighter populated areas of issues where anger and/or frustration may override a CC holder’s reason and reserve. It’s happened, mutliple times, and it will continue to happen.

    If the people are to rely on law enforcement in these heavy populated areas then the law must be better able to respond than the usual 15-20 mins too late (actual statistics, plus real confessions by LEO). If the chief is unwilling to concede this, then he’s simply prejudiced against CC holders.

    Law enforcement must stop viewing CC holders as dormant hostiles or unidentified terrorists and start viewing them as allies in the fight to prevent crime. In many areas, the prescence of CC holders and even Open Carry persons has led to the reduction and/or prevention of crime. There are much more numerous instances of this than of CC rage leading to a shooting, yet this is never mentioned in the media and very rarely, if at all, on Pro-Gun/Pro-2A websites (this one included). Yet I know it happens from the few times we see coverage.

    Statistically, the heavier the population the more prevention is required. Since the agencies can’t do it, why not the lawful, licensed citizens? Ideally, as a CC holder and active carrier, I’d love it if I could leave my house without having to carry my firearm. Realistically it’s not feasibly safe in a town as large as my home town.

    Yeah I’d love to not have to carry, but I HAVE to carry to protect myself and my family. I think any reasonably sane person would love to not have to carry, but for most people there’s no other choice if you want to protect yourself and/or loved ones.

  66. avatar Maineuh says:

    Wow. There’s some aggravating reports on TTAG today (NY, The Courant, etc.) but for some reason, this narcissistic tool of a chief gets under my skin more than any of it. Except, you know. That Courant thing.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      The Courant is not now, nor has it ever been, au courant.

  67. avatar Ralph says:

    subjectively with an objective standard

    And this moron is worried about us being drunk.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Translation: you peons are not allowed to question my opinion.

      1. avatar Maineuh says:

        Yut. I decide who gets to carry. I decide who gets protection. I have a shaved head and bling on my collar so clearly I am the authority.
        It’s not surprising that a police chief feels this way, but it is a little stunning to see one assert these things so openly. How can anyone read these comments and believe the chief’s approach is reasonable? As things stand, he can look across his big shiny desk at an applicant and say, “permit denied. This one’s got crazy eyes, and what’s more, I just don’t like him.”

  68. avatar Excedrine says:

    So, in other words, Mr. Suhr: you’re an asshole. And an idiot to boot. Right.

    Got’cha. Loud n’ clear.



  69. avatar Ked says:

    rely on them for what? these days your more likely to be killed by the police when they finally show up than you are by anyone else. not saying that the police arent needed to some degree but relying on them will make you feel stupid at some point in your life.

  70. avatar JoeZ says:

    By the time I can verify his trust, I could be dead.

  71. avatar HillCountryDog says:

    “…subjectively with an objective standard.”

    What the heck does that mean? I think its like the Feds. The Constitution will be followed when I agree with it, otherwise I will do what I think is best.

  72. avatar New Chris says:

    “subjectively with an objective standard.”

    No really, this guy is worse than stupid.. Someone get him a middle school vocabulary workbook, he doesn’t understand that these two words are opposites.

  73. avatar JimB says:

    In other words “We (police) have ours, screw you.”. And if they’re not there or don’t get there in time, well, “tough break, so sorry.”

    He obviously doesn’t care whether ordinary (non-cop) people are killed because of his policy. His fear of ordinary folks having a gun trumps their right to defend themselves with a firearm. Police are protected. They have guns. Non-cops are expendable.

    And of course, we can just ignore all the instances of cops’ improper use of firearms. They never make mistakes or have bad judgement. And if they do, they get punished severely, much more than an ordinary citizen who make same a similar mistake or judgement call. .

  74. avatar styrgwillidar says:

    I would like the Chief to square his comment about relying on the police with the California Code of Government:

    845. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
    failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide
    police protection service or, if police protection service is
    provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection
    service. ….

    846. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
    injury caused by the failure to make an arrest or by the failure to
    retain an arrested person in custody.

  75. avatar mtn biker fred says:

    I’m just going to leave this right here…


    The recent Ninth District Court ruling highlights the language “bear arms” as our constitutional right.

    No city, state, or even federal law overides our right to be armed for the purpose of defending ourselves against man, beast, or tyranny.

  76. avatar mtn biker fred says:

    I’m just going to leave this right here…


    Thats right. The police DO NOT have to protect us. their only job is to catch law breakers and gather evidence.
    The recent Ninth District Court ruling highlights the language “bear arms” as our constitutional right.
    No city, state, or even federal law overides our right to be armed for the purpose of defending ourselves against man, beast, or tyranny.

  77. avatar IdahoPete says:

    Got a new problem, Chiefie- 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision Peruta v. San Diego, 2/13/14. Shot down the whole “subjective standard” for denying concealed carry permits. Watch the panic among PRCa legislators and city PDs.

  78. avatar Ankylus says:

    It’s an old adage, but true…”when seconds count, police are only minutes away.” Sometimes 10 or 20 minutes. There’s another old adage about the guy who carries a weapon because he can’t carry a policemen.

    It’s all well and good for him to sit in the safety of his office literally surrounded by dozens of weapon toting police offices to tell everyone else to rely on the police. But the poor sap on the street facing the miscreant’s gun/knife/club relying on the police basically has to wait around to see how it all turns out.

    Fundamentally unjust and immoral.

  79. avatar Heartland Patriot says:

    People like that police chief, and those who put him in office, are why I left California after I “retired” from military service. I’d much rather live out here in the Free States and “cling to my guns and religion” than have people like that jerk “looking out for me”.

  80. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “The last thing I need is people that aren’t trained on firearms…”

    OK, it ain’t about you.

    To make this argument it needs to be: “The last thing our citizens need…”

    And who gets to decide? “The law is what I say it is?”

    Well, at least the focus is on serving and protecting the citizens. Oh, wait… Seriously, and I am not kidding in the least, if the enforcers think their job is to do what they like, we should stop paying them. We pay them for *our* benefit. If they’re gonna work for themselves, they should, you know, work for themselves.

    (And yes, I know that with civil asset forfeiture too many of them already are. And that this mechanism only provides legal cover for some practices that were in place long before the law. And other, related practices continue, as they ever have.)


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