He's still up to his old tricks.
From on-the-scene correspondent Gerhard Paul:
Yeah, you're a very responsible and upstanding citizen. But not being one of my specially trained "Only Ones," or fitting one of my other arbitrary categories for super citizen status, I just don't trust you. So I've decided to make your choice on whether or not your life is worth protecting for you.
It's not.
But don't take it personally. And I hope you still think highly of me and my department, even though we will ruin your life big time if we catch you disobeying me.
And despite repeated attempts over the course of many months by several individuals to get a straight answer, hell, any answer, there's still no explanation for how and why this happened:
"He stated to me that he is an NRA member," Mr. Paul, a former eight-year CCW holder reported after his meeting with the sheriff on why his permit renewal was denied.
Bummer. But look at the bright side--now that you know him, maybe you can sit at his table at a FONRA dinner some time...
I'm pretty sure that's SOP in SB. Unless you're a movie star or some other elite status citizen, good luck.
ReplyDeleteJust enforcing existing gun laws, as the NRA recommends.
ReplyDeleteTo the hilt.
"Our lobbyist has carefully evaluated Bill Brown's stand on the Second Amendment. In fact Bill Brown has worked with the NRA to defeat anti-gun legislation at the State Capitol. As for his opponent Sheriff Anderson, he never returned the questionnaire that the NRA-PVF sent to him. We assume that is because he is hostile to gun rights."
ReplyDeleteThere are many lies in that statement.
1. There is no evidence NRA evaluated his 2A stand, unless the goal was to support a gun grabber.
2. No evidence that Brown worked to defeat anti-gun legislation in Sacto.
3. Brown is anti-gun and rabidly anti-citizen carry, they knew it. Many local members went way out of their way to make sure they knew.
4. Not returning the questionnaire is an excuse. They could've easily ascertained that Anderson was wildly pro-gun compared to Brown. They were made aware that Anderson had gone far beyond the call of duty to stand up for gunowners and throw cold water on calls for a ban after a post office massacre in his district in Feb 2006 (see below). Rather than reward him for what he did for gun owners, the NRA screwed him and to rub salt in the wound elected a known gun grabber in his place ... sending a message to every elected official: Don't bother standing up for 2A.
5. They did not "assume" Anderson didn't return the questionnaire because he was hostile to gun rights. That is a clear lie. They knew he was vastly superior to Brown on 2A. They wanted to elect Brown even though they knew Brown was anti-gun. Why?
6. They gave Brown an "A". The biggest lie of all.
The rating, endorsement and donations by NRA were undeserved in that they were given on a basis other than performance and relative position on 2A (either that or he was given an "A" BECAUSE he was anti-gun and BECAUSE Anderson stood up for 2A when the gun rights community really needed it). So on what basis was Brown given the big lie "A"? What did NRA operatives expect in return that they could not expect from Anderson?
====================================
In Feb 2006, a deranged gunman killed six in a post office in Anderson's district. From long experience, after such a shooting I expect anti-gun hysteria for months. But within a week, refreshingly, Sheriff Anderson was on Russell Palmer's local radio show, helping calm the hysteria when he could’ve benefited from demagoguing instead.
Anderson showed no interest in exploiting the tragedy to enact new gun controls that would leave more people defenseless. One caller referred to John Lott's results (Lott demonstrated strong negative correlation between shall-issue and reductions in violent crime; something like 80% reduction in public shootings as I recall.) Anderson wasn't familiar with the studies but said they should be considered for possible implementation. Anderson said the right things at the critical time right after the massacre.
Analysis such as that which was heard on Palmer's show facilitated usually isn't heard when it's really needed, in time to nip the hysteria in the bud and keep it from turning into bad bills. Palmer & Anderson helped cool the usual suspects, and the hysteria quickly died.
Elected LEOs often can't resist exploiting tragedies to demagogue for gun controls that will cause more tragedies and make them worse. If we'd had such discussions early on after shootings like Stockton, and less subversion by folks like Bush 1, Deukmejian, and Ruger, and less fecklessness and treason in the leadership of the gun rights community, we could've avoided a string of unconstitutional gun controls nationwide.
====================
Russ Howard
I wish I lived there (not) so I could buy all the tickets to the F&P Ball and all their lunches. If I lived in Californicator I would move move move.
ReplyDeleteWe once had the same thing here; the police would decide whether you had sufficient reason for a concealed carry permit. A threat, carrying large amounts of money in business, those were "reasons." Defense of self and loved ones was not. Then shall-issue concealed carry was passed.
ReplyDeleteBefore it passed, did people let the opinion of an elitist keep them from going armed? Some did. I don't know any of them, but I read about some. Some of them were senselessly killed. But at least they never got arrested.
This might be a game of points and influence to Sheriff Brown, but it's no game. It's a declaration: "I don't care if you DIE!!!"
You may have seen the video of an elderly Connecticut man being hit by a car and subsequent cars continuing to pass by ignoring him.
What's that brown bump in the road? Oh, it's one of Sheriff Brown's deputies. Gosh, I hope he'll be all right. Maybe we'll hear on the news tomorrow. No time to stop. No, heck no, don't call 911! That's a good way to get tossed in a cell naked.
"And despite repeated attempts over the course of many months by several individuals to get a straight answer, hell, any answer, there's still no explanation for how and why this happened:"
ReplyDeleteOk, here's the answer. First we must assume the NRA is anti-gun as they have not returned the questionaires with answers. I believe that is the criterion they used.
Second, and most importantly, if one could convince LaPierre that one could get him invited to a dinner with "important" people he would drop to his knees in front of one and pull the zipper down with his teeth. Further ministrations would be dependent on his assessment of his chance of personal gain.
The only reason I voted for Brown instead of Anderson was due to that postcard. I changed my vote because of it. I feel betrayed by the NRA for over this. I even called several times and sent multiple inquiries about this and got nowhere, nary a response from anyone.
ReplyDeleteNothing has changed over the years with Brown. He continues to deny the right to self-protect within Santa Barbara county, as well as the rest of California. If you happen to have a California driver's license with a Santa Barbara address, you are effectively blocked from obtaining a LTC, no matter what.
ReplyDeleteWhat I can assure Sgt Brown, is that if I see one of his deputies at the side of the road being shot at from a law breaker, and I happen to be going by as I am returning from the local gun range, I will not stop to render aid. They're on their own.