Page 1 of 2
Posted on July 18 at 12:14 p.m.
billclausen: You and I are thinking along the same lines. I wrote an op-ed piece for the News Press in May 2007 (just after Virginia Tech) which the editors titled "Reality Check". In that piece I explored how idealogically pre-programmed responses were blocking our society from seeing the violence for what it is and facing it squarely. It was a call to pragmatism.
Interestingly, there were virtually no responses in the letters to the editor.
Recent article in The Atlantic "The Case for More Guns", written by a strong gun control proponent, also touches on the realities versus the sentiments.
On Strict Stance on Concealed Weapons
Posted on July 18 at 12:07 p.m.
Ken - too bad I don't still live there - we could have coffee and talk trash and probably would become friends. Not everyone I run with agrees with me. Keeps life interesting.
Posted on July 16 at 8:37 p.m.
Call me a newbie if you like. I lived in SB for 14 years, and my experience is directly relevant to the story. Is that a problem for you?
I really don't understand people that, when confronted with a line of reasoning, respond with name calling.
Posted on July 16 at 12:23 p.m.
Sez Me, fair enough. I made an english mistake.
How about a substantial conversation about how Brown's understanding of the 2nd Amendment and his manipulation of the NRA to get elected? Or we could address my issue with the "reporter" in this article who appears to have done little research. Or how about the matter of people inferring that CCW holders were/are poorly trained and vetted, which I addressed?
Snippy ad-hominem comments that avoid the substance of the presentation don't cut it.
Posted on July 13 at 8:44 a.m.
Ken, what standard would you propose for determining which people can have a gun and which ones can't?
On Fighting Gun Crimes
Posted on July 13 at 8:40 a.m.
When Brown refused to renew my CCW (even though the reason for it had not changed), I challenged him to bring his best deputy to the range and told him that I would outshoot the guy.
He indicated that my skills and mental stability were not his concern, but rather that he didn't want people carrying guns around.
He says in another article on this sight about how he believes in the right to keep and bear arms. Maybe he believes the "keep" part, but definitely not the "bear" part.
Needs a lesson in English and perhaps he should read the Heller and Macdonald SCOTUS decisions.
BTW I also got the distinct impression that his drive to reduce CCW holders was part of an overall risk management campaign, as certain letters we received were very carefully drafted legal documents.
He is a political animal (which is to be expected) who is very careful to burnish his image at every turn. If a citizen's rights get bruised along the way, so be it. And he is plenty comfortable with putting little half-truth quotes out there and letting the uninformed fill in the blanks with their fears.
He is very ambitious, no doubt.
Posted on July 12 at 5:51 p.m.
The bit about gun owners needing to lock their weapons is already a CA law. When you buy a gun you have to prove ownership of a proper lock or sign an affadavit that you have a safe. If a child or other non approved person accesses your gun because you didn't store it correctly, you as a gun owner have committed a crime.
Brown is giving people advice that is already the law. And Wellen agrees. Genius.
Do your homework Mr Reporter. Quit giving people the impression that there are holes in the system where they don't exist.
Posted on July 12 at 5:47 p.m.
Wow. The speculation left unchallenged by the reporter is really disappointing.
"Presumably selling online" Huh? That's illegal. For a buyer to take delivery of a gun from an FFL in CA he has to appear in person to pick it up (and do the background check). Which is how it is in other states too. You can't just buy them on the internet and pop them in the mail. Gads.
Perpetuation of fear driven fantasies about how guns are legally procured is not responsible journalism.
Do some homework and check if your "sources" even know what they're talking about.
Posted on July 12 at 4:19 p.m.
Whoops sorry, these are the things I did to get my permit under Sheriff Thomas, not Brown!! Can't figure out how to edit once it posts.
Posted on July 12 at 4:17 p.m.
This article and comments also leave you with the impression that CCW holders in the SB area were untrained and as such a potential menace to the community. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here's what I had to do under Sheriff Brown to get my CCW:
1) Submit a letter outlining the reasons why I thought I should have a permit. This letter indicated "cause" for the permit as required under CA law.2) Submit three letters of reference from community residents indicating good moral character and support for the notion that I would be a safe carrier.3) Submit to a full psychological evalaution from Dr Nutter in Ventura, the same evaluation that new department recruits go through.4) Take an 8 hour course from a department approved provider in gun safety, legal requirements around CCW, full exploration and explanation of lawful and unlawful use of deadly force, and of course operating principles of firearms, ballistics, etc.5) Demonstrate proficiency at the range by shooting the same qualification course that Sheriff Deputies shoot. This had to be done with each gun on my permit (up to 3) and the guns were on the permit by serial number.6) Submit fingerprints, and personal information and pass a CA DOJ and Federal background check.
This process took me 6 months and about $600 to complete.
Upon renewal every two years I had to take a 4 hour refresher course, and shoot the qualification with my permitted firearms.
Trust me, the CCW community was tight around SB. We knew each other and I NEVER met anyone even slightly questionable who had a permit. The process was designed to prevent that.