I wrote to the department to inquire and got this reply from their Office of Internal Affairs:
I've received your e-mail request concerning the renewal and application process relating to Conceal Weapons Permits. Normally I would forward you a packet containing all of the information you requested or call you and answer any questions you might have regarding this matter. However, a new Sheriff was recently elected and took office two weeks ago and he is in the process of reviewing the Department policy to evaluate what, if any changes he will be make to ensure that liability is kept to a minimum when dealing with Concealed Weapon's Permits. Until that time, the current policy is suspended. Hopefully, I can address this with a more definitive answer sometime at the end of February of 2007 after the Sheriff has had time to complete his revisions.Certainly sounds like an "A" rating to me...
I will, of course, follow up on this "at the end of February."
[More on Bill Brown]
5 comments:
How bout dat?
The law is what the sheriff decides it is. I guess all those damn drones in Sacramento can quit being paid now, huh?
Now we know what that "A" stands for.
Unfortunately, SA, that's the way the Sacramentoi drones have arranged things. I guess some figure the plausible deniability advantage balances out with giving up that bit of direct authority--and they still pull the strings anyway.
Well, then, that changes my mind. It is now, not can quit being paid, to MUST quit being paid.
The gun permits Bill Brown is thinking about not renewing are permits given out by Jim Anderson, the sheriff who sold badges, right? I think Bill Brown is right to question whether all of these gun permits were given for good reasons. Could it be that some of them were traded for favors?
It may be, Maura. Me, I don't believe in permits to exercise unalienable rights anyway, but I've long decried the practice you describe. Do you have specific examples of permits given out in exchange for favors that you can prove, with names?
Post a Comment