CA CCW

[armsmaster270]

The Sheriff of Sacramento County told News Reporters that he may have to relax CCW requirements and issue CCW permits due to his having to cut 400 positions from the Department due to the budget.

 

[Trigger Finger]

I guess he feels that more ccw permits will help reduce crime!! Most of us know this to already be true. Imagine if he did not cut positions AND increased permits!

I have always felt that no matter what circumstance a city or county finds itself in reducing law enforcement and fire fighters is not the way to go, EVER. Just stop hiring and let attrition save money. Nothing is more important than the safety of the community!

 

[DWARREN123]

I have always thought CC in CA was harder to get than frog fur!

 

[treg]

I have always felt that no matter what circumstance a city or county finds itself in reducing law enforcement and fire fighters is not the way to go

Seems like they are the first to be threatened and cut because people will vote for a "neccessary" tax increase to save them.

 

[sakeneko]

What treg said. Ever since "Proposition 13" back in 1978, the state of California has had severe limits on the property taxes it could levy. The citizens of the state (of whom I was one for over 20 years) also distrust Sacramento and their local governments, and rarely will approve tax increases. The state and local governments, in response, usually threaten to cut police and fire protection *first* when things get tight, in hopes of panicking the citizens into agreeing to increase taxes or passing a bond measure.

It's a vicious cycle, part of a larger vicious cycle that has led California (which has been and should be the powerhouse economy of the United States) to the brink of bankruptcy and to legislative gridlock. It saddens me to see what has happened there, but I'm glad to be out of it.

 

[lmccrock]

I have always thought CC in CA was harder to get than frog fur!

"May issue" usually means "no issue" for most of the population. However, if the local chief LEO decide there is a need, they can sign off. Some counties issue lots (100's !!), but those tend to be rural with not much population. A county sherriff would not usually issue to someone in a city in the county, but they can. Most of Sac County is urban, inside city limits, so not likely much of an impact in terms of total CCW approvals. More likely a tactic to get more budget.

Lee

 

[JJE]

Since this was said in the context of the county budget, I would say that it is most likely a scare tactic by the Sheriff ("If you cut my budget, I will be forced to issue CCWs, which is something that none of us actually want"), and not a true indication that the sheriff is inclined to issue more CCWs.

I search on the Sac Bee for a story, but came up empty. Was this published in a newspaper?

 

[Keltyke]

"May issue" usually means "no issue" for most of the population.

SC = SHALL issue! American by birth, Southern by choice!

 

[jfrey123]

Am I the only one worried that the sheriff is saying this to panic the Sheeple? I'm worried his line of reasoning is: "if the people think I'm going to start giving more people carry permits, maybe they'll be scared and make sure I don't lose any budget here and I can keep my deputies."

 

[sakeneko]

You're one of a bunch of people thinking that, Jfrey123. :/

 

[dav]

JJE - I found it here: http://cbs13.com/local/The.Scoop.Sacramento.2.1042825.html

 

[armsmaster270]

That's the one I saw.

 

[blume357]

I wonder if the sheriff or the folks that wrote the above linked article

realize how really really stupid the whole thing is....

So, 300 deputies out of work means a person 'might' have to protect themselves? I don't see how one has to do with the other.... then they say because of less police out there the sheriff might have to allow folks to have their right to protect themselves or something convoluted thing like that....

I'd be asking the sheriff if he/she gets the funds to keep the 300 does this mean they are guaranteeing I will be safe and protected at all times while in the county?

 

[JJE]

Thanks for linking that dav.

I'm just about as cynical as you can be about elected officials, so I'm still guessing that this "Scoop" was leaked by the sheriff's office to justify their budget. I can't see a sheriff who's opposed to CCWs all of a sudden seeing the light because his budget is at risk.

Note that the sheriff isn't saying this publicly ... because if he did and his budget was slashed, that would create an opening for Sacramento residents to use in a CCW application: "The sheriff said that if he laid off deputies, that I would need to protect myself, so here's my application." Because it's just hearsay, the sheriff doesn't have to worry about actually issuing CCWs even if 300 deputies are laid off. He can just say: "I never said that, no CCW for you."

 

[armsmaster270]

You say he isn't saying it publicly he said it on network TV how public do you want itChannel 13 covers a major part of the central valley.

 

[dav]

armsmaster270 - cbs is reporting about it, but they do not claim the sheriff told it to them directly. They only imply second hand knowledge that that is what he is considering. They attribute the idea to him

Easy acquisition of concealed weapons permits for law abiding residents is one idea being considered by Sheriff John McGinness,

but never say that he actually said it.

 

[armsmaster270]

The newscast I saw had the Sheriff himself in front of the camera giving the oh woe are we speech and he saying the We may have to issue. I have had lunch with him I think I can recognize him.

 

[dav]

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know anyone had seen any more than this article.

You're right, you can't get much more public than that.