Additionally, Mr. Rankin advises he was forced to sign the following "under duress," meaning that he was informed his application would not be forwarded to Sheriff Brown for consideration unless and until he had done so:
And here's the thing--Larry says the Sheriff's Department now refuses to give him a copy of the form he signed, providing him instead with a blank. Why would they do that?
This is typical "Only Ones" arrogance, of course. They have their guns, they deny a citizen the right to bear his, and they'll arrest or kill him if he tries and they find out about it. Of course they will do nothing to guarantee the safety of Mr. Rankin and his family, nor assume liability should he or they be harmed or worse in a situation where his having a gun could have prevented an attack.
And what about this?
You'll notice there has been nothing but silence from the people who gave Sheriff Brown an "A" rating during the election--despite several attempts to contact them and an invitation to post their unedited response. I think it's past time NRA's California Grassroots explained why they solicited their membership with a pro-Bill Brown mailer and who knows what other kind of election support, and it's high time they publicly admitted they were wrong and revoked their rating and support. But it's probably easier to just have their apologists dismiss this as more NRA bashing.
I may have time this weekend to scan and post the entire new policy.
14 comments:
"...If these measures cannot be defeated and overcome by the power confer red by the Constitution on the Federal Government, the Constitution must be considered as incompetent to its own defence, the supremacy of the laws is at an end, and the rights and liberties of the citizens can no longer receive protection from the Government of the Union...."
"...In my opinion, both purposes are to be regarded as revolutionary in their character and tendency, and subversive of the supremacy of the laws and of the integrity of the Union. The result of each is the same; since a State in which, by an usurpation of power, the constitutional authority of the Federal Government is openly defied and set aside, wants only the form to be independent of the Union."
"The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will, and without the consent of the other States, from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this Union, cannot be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant both to the principles upon which the General Government is constituted, and to the objects which it is expressly formed to attain."
"Against all acts which may be alleged to transcend the constitutional power of the Government, or which may be inconvenient or oppressive in their operation, the Constitution itself has prescribed the modes of redress. It is the acknowledged attribute of free institutions that, under them, the empire of reason and law is substituted for the power of the sword. To no other source can appeals for supposed wrongs be made, consistently with the obligations of South Carolina; to no other can such appeals be made with safety at any time; and to their decisions, when constitutionally pronounced, it becomes the duty, no less of the public authorities than of the people, in every case to yield to a patriotic submission."
"That a State, or any other great portion of the people, suffering under long and intolerable oppression, and having tried all constitutional remedies without the hope of redress, may have natural right, when the happiness can be no otherwise secured, and when they can do so without greater injury to others, to absolve themselves from their obligations to the Government, and appeal to the last resort, needs not, on the present occasion, be denied...." - President Andrew Jackson, Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, January 16, 1833.
THe CA NRA chapter is full of, and controlled by, a bunch of elitist Fudds. As long as they get to shoot ducks and deer, they're fat, dumb and happy.
Prediction: Unless the national office gets involved - perhaps out of shame (fat chance) - nothing will change.
Wait, it gets worse. If I read that letter right, Brown is the sheriff-coroner. I assume common law is, well, common. That means the only official with the authority to arrest Sheriff Brown, as I understand it, is Coroner Brown.
It's good to be the king, I guess.
As I have said before, the NRA finds much more profit in the problem than they do the solution.
This is nothing more than artificially driving the market for their "services???".
Brown is simply an unpatriotic practitioner of treason against his nation and an megalomaniacal oppressor of his fellow citizens.
He should be removed from office. No matter what must be done to accomplish it. That is the true purpose of the second amendment. So that we may clean out the trash.
straightarrow said...
As I have said before, the NRA finds much more profit in the problem than they do the solution.
Absolutely! I don't think either the NRA or the Brady Campaign for that matter really want a definitive decision either way on firearms ownership or laws. There is too much money to be made in lobbying, rallying the troops and soliciting donations than to have the issue resolved. If SCOTUS decided once and for all that the 2nd was an absolute right, the NRA would probably see a large chunk of its membership disappear along with the NRA-ILA. Same for Brady, if a 100% total ban on every firearm was passed, they too would have no reason to be in business.
Bud is right about the content of the CA-NRA, it panders to the minimum standards of hunters.
The CRPA (Cal. Rifle & Pistol Assn.) is much more active and so is the GOC (Gun Owners of CA), than the NRA here. Apart from fundraising and mining a lucrative constituent-base, the NRA has given up on CA.
Bud and dirtcrashr, I actually disagree with you guys on this one here--NRA has an extensive grassroots network that works in tandem with CRPA, but they are heavily involved in all state legislation and a lot of local--I know because I am a former members council officer--and most states don't have the members council system in place.
They focus on much more than just hunting and sporting issues, and I have written about that fairly extensively in the past. Now we get to where things become arguable and that is in how their resources are used, again an area where I have brought on myself no shortage of criticism for disagreeing with tactics, candidate ratings, legislative efforts, etc.
I've had severe differences with the way NRA grassroots power is applied, but I have to make sure the record is accurate when it comes to their presence--no group representing gun owners is bigger in Sacramento, or for that matter, when dealing with municipal issues. You can disagree and dislike some of the outcomes and methods, but you can't take that away from them.
Back before the LA Members Council became one, we were the Westside Firearms Association--an NRA-affiliated club, but not "ruled" so to speak by Grassroots staffers. I supported going back to being an independent club, but the majority wanted to be identified as NRA.
I'd really like to see independent grassroots political gun clubs spring up throughout--they could maintain ambassadorships with the major orgs like NRA, GOA, CCRKBA, JPFO, etc., but would be beholden to none--that way, they could affiliate with the best each group had to offer, yet not have their innovation and local self interest stifled by the centralized control of the Members council system. They could support an NRA-backed bill if it made sense, or, like in cases where GOA might offer an alternative, the membership would be able to decide what best represented their view of the Second Amendment and not feel compelled to march in lockstep. When the NRA rep came a'callin', it would be to woo, not to instruct.
I'd like to see such clubs started in every city throughout the land--where shooting and sports are secondary recreational activities used to let hair down and recreate, but the prime goal being to protect and preserve rkba at the local, regional, state and national level.
My local Silicon Valley Member's Council was dissolved without much notice. I went to banquets and was a "Sponsor," but since my layoff I've been less able to be financially supportive. I get mail and alerts from the GOC, CRPA, GOA, and 2nd Amendment Fdn. but none from the NRA, so that's the basis for my apparent observation.
The problem with CA CCW law is that it is "MAY ISSUE" not "SHALL ISSUE" and the Sheriff or any other LE dept head can do what they want in regard to issuing or not or reversing prior policy. That law needs to be changed, but there is little likelyhood.
David, long time no see in print. Hope you and yours are well.
Joe Horn
This is yet another example of lying perfidious professional politicians. I know it's too much to hope the lying sheriff, who is a credit to exactly nothing, might read this. Usually the politicians, when the kitchen gets too hot to stay in, change their phone numbers and email addresses so the "rabble" to whom they lied going up, cannot contact them to ask, "why did you lie?"
Hi Joe. Welcome. Haven't gone anywhere--been writing regularly for GUNS Magazine for several years now, before that Handguns and G&A, and doing this blog for 2 years.
Thing is, Al, I don't see where the sheriff lied--I think he's been pretty consistent in his position. The real question is, why were gun owners in his county told he was "A" rated?
His predecessor was by no means pro-gun, but by not renewing permits. Brown has proven to be even more restrictive.
So why did our grassroots gun lobby leaders convince their followers to back a man that would leave them in an even worse position?
As a citizen of Santa Barbara County I too received the orange "vote for" card from the NRA. This card was produced by the NRA as a result of elitists in Santa Barbara that felt that their gun rights out weigh our gun rights. I knew that the Lompoc Police Chief Bill Brown was their choice because as a member of the National Association of Chiefs of Police he well supported gun control regulations. He was now running to become the top cop in the county. People like Andy Granatelli supported him and his elitism.
Back in May '06 then Lompoc Chief Brown violated the state law by releasing illegal alien school children that were ditching school (committing yet another crime) to protest against the Congress and its proposed illegal immigration reform bill. The rank and file officers supported the truancy law and arrested the "children" and had them board a bus for transportation to booking.
Police Chief Brown rushed to the scene and had his officers release the "children", appologized to them and let them go. They are now suing the City of Lompoc for false arrest.
My life is in danger due to the fact that I travel to really crappy parts of the state to investigate insurance fraud. The new sherrif won't renew CCWs and is actually in the process of revoking some of the CCWs in existance....not the ones held by Mr. Granatelli and other elitists though.
Shame on the NRA-ILA for supporting this man based on the $tatements of the elitist$ that wanted a new top cop that agreed with their position.
You need to realize I am all for guns and love them. Concealed weapons on the other hand is a tough call. I do not know the purposes for the need to carry a concealed weapon here. So, why flush Brown down the tubes for denying a concealed permit? This does not make him elitist nor anti GUN. Can one not be NRA and endorsed by NRA and deny a person a concealed weapons permit? Lot of jumping here.
No, Gun Lover, you are uneducated on the subject of the Second Amendment. I don't say this to insult you, it is merely an observable fact based on the obvious ignorance of your comments. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You are not ready to comment on this board. It's like a 2nd grader just interrupted the graduate class.
Post a Comment