It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sherrif Begins Taking Away Concealed Weapons Permits

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Now hold on there Sparkies!

Former Sheriff Mike Corona would hand out CCWs to any supporter that asked, some of these were passed to people suspected of having broken the law regarding business practices and campaign contributions. Why his Number Go-To-Guy Don Hiedle or something, his juvenile son drugged, and then raped a 14year old girl and video taped it!

From The Article!

Under state law, a Sheriff has discretion to issue concealed weapons permits. And under the administration of former Sheriff Mike Carona – whose federal corruption trial starts on Oct. 28 – guidelines for issuing concealed weapons permits were loosened.

Records reviewed by the Orange County Register show that concealed weapon permits soared under Carona, from 38 in 1998 to 468 the next year. By 2006, it was up to 1,400, a four-fold increase.

When Carona took over in 1998, Orange County ranked 34th in terms of the numbers of permits granted. By 2006, Orange County was ranked number nine.

However, the Register also found numerous instances where campaign donors received the permits. A Register analysis of Carona campaign contributions from 1996 to the end of 2001 shows that at least 95 contributors – who gave at least $68,000 - got licenses.

Indeed, the federal indictment against Carona details one specific instance where a wealthy contributor was granted a license under questionable circumstances.




posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I LIVE IN ORANGE COUNTY, OUR PREVIOUS SHERIFF IS ON TRIAL FOR CORRUPTION, HIS REPLACEMENT IS ONLY TAKING THE PERMITS OF HIS POLITICAL CRONIES AND HIS DONORS THAT HE GAVE THEM FOR THEIR SUPPORT. She's just cleaning up his mess.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Its like this; If THE GOVERNMENT decides they want to disarm its citizens they will create a good reason, and then do it. This was proven during Katrina over in New Orleans. (see video)



Its a shame what they did, and I can only say, If It Had Been Me, And They Thought They would have came in and disarmed me, " I may not be here today, anyway.(see


Being an ole military vet and a defender of the constitution and the right to keep and bear arms, I'll have to paraphrase part of an ole saying. "From my cold dead hands", you devils.



[edit on 12-10-2008 by Bazarocka]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
Funny isn't it? The second amendment protects our right to own and carry.
"right to keep and bear arms"Our Supreme court has upheld this right.
I contend that all laws concerning "control" of guns is unlawful.If ownership and transport of weapons is a guranteed right,why do you have to have a license? A license is a special permit to do what would otherwise be illegal.Can't practice medicine without a license,or do dental work.I understand this,but requiring a permit to excert an already guranteed right.
These people must be daft!


Why do you need a license you ask? It's so that the government knows who to go after when they decide you no longer have the right to own guns. That is THE reason and it IS the ONLY reason! To me thins sounds like they are preparing for the obama dictatorship to begin...disarm everyone so nobody has the ability to fight back against a full liberal dictatorship.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
I cannot get the link to take above. I actually seen this on another thread Katrina Exposed, theres 3 vids on the 2nd page, these really are a must see. Or you can google " National Gaurd Confiscates Weapons In New Orleans" on youtube. Blew my mind.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights

Please some one explain to me why 146 people out of 1,024 not meeting the new requirments is a big deal



A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed


That's why it's a big deal. If you don't support our Constitution, either convince your representatives to ammend it, or get the # out of our country. Simple as that.

[edit on 12-10-2008 by Double Eights]


No thats why it is NOT a big deal. As I stated, and as the article stated. They are not taking away their right to own a gun! People dont seem to understand that. All that has happened is the requirements to have a concealed weapon licence has been raised. Thats it.

These people who are losing their concealed weapons licence ARE NOT losing their right to own a gun. They just cant carry it out in public as a concealed weapon.

What makes you think that I dont support the constitution? because I fail to see how not allowing people who commited felonies should be allowed to have a concealed handgun license? This isnt even an issue with the constitution .its an over reaction to the hightening of the minumum requirements to carry a concealed weapon. No one is trying to take their guns. For your information you are allowed to own a gun without a concealed hand guns lincence. to even suggest that having requirments and proper training to conceal a weapon is unconstitional, I find that funny. We have the right to own a gun. Owning and concealing are two different things.


On a lighter note, I havent heard the love it or leave it argument in a long time. Thanks for the flash back and the good laugh that comes with that old and outdated attitude


Here is an attitude that alot of people now adays have. America Love it or change it. If you dont like the way things are going then set out to change the laws. Go challenge the law if you feel in is unconstitutional for us to need a license to carry a concealed weapon. If you feel your rights are being violated then stand up and shout it out.

And for the record, since you seem to think that I hate my country, let me clear things up. I love my country. I love it so much that I am willing to stand up and fight for my rights if I feel they are being violated. In this case I dont feel they are. How ever you live in a country where you have the right to disagree! isnt that great!? If you feel that hightening the requirments for having a concealed weapons license violates your rights as an american than it is your right, no your duty to stand up and shout.

I own guns myself. I promise you. The day they start taking my guns away with no warranted reason I promise I will stand up and shout untill I cant shout anymore. BUt let me assure you, that is not what is happening here. even the people who have lost their license are not losing their guns or their right to own one.



[edit on 12-10-2008 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   
This is why I like living in Alaska - we are a if you got it, carry it state. No CCW permit required (then again, I don't carry because there is no need to, as this is a pretty safe place to live).

I would really like to live in Calif, as I was born and raised there. But the current gun and general political situation in Calif is a total no-go for me. As I look for a new state to move to, one of the first things I do is look at the gun laws, and most of my guns are illegal or would need modification to be legal in Calif
.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Bazarocka
 


Agreed......although I live in another state, I have mil and law enforcement experience and hold the dreaded CCW............EVERY law enforcement officer I have come in contact with (yes, I have been stopped in a traffic stop
has understood and said, if you are trained, and especially if you are a former LEO....more power to you!!!!

"cold, dead hands"........



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by sacrifice
 


Not only might your guns be illegal but to try to move them there as your personal property would make you a felon. California has made it almost impossible not to break the law. Nearly every gun company and dealer I am familiar with will no longer sell or ship to California. The cost to retrofit many arms to comply with California law is not worth the trouble. Some makers have and they are getting stuck with weapons no one wants or is willing to buy because the resale value for them in an emergency is non existant. You are not allowed to transfer many types to anyone else and if you want to get rid of them the only choice you have legaly is to destroy them. Whole collections of many rare arms in probate court are being destroyed as we sit here and writing this because of this stupid ruling!

Zindo



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights
How #ing hard is it to read and interprit the 2nd ammendment?

For christ's sake people, the founders #ING SAID WHAT THEY MEANT WHEN THEY MADE THAT AMMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How many documents must be read to understand the meaning of our Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution? It isn't rocket science!

I seriously, and I am being honest here, want to #ing revolt against this country right now. Nothing would make me happier than to declare my [our] independence and remove these types of douchebags from office and police forces.

I will carry my gun regardless of the laws. It is my Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms," and I will exercise that right to the fullest. If they have a problem with that, come get my guns. I dare you.

I have had it with this government.


Star for you friend. I live in Hellinois, a No Issue state. It sux, but momentum is being gained on getting CCW laws passed, county by county. They will be voting on it in November in Winnabego County and alot of others as I've heard.

Also, for anyone who is living through this in Cali, get ahold of the NRA and have them file a lawsuit. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear. And if they keep this up, they are going to find that out the hard way.


[edit on 12-10-2008 by Oreyeon]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 

A tad off topic, but if they did the same thing in New York, it would actually take a person's right to own a handgun away. In NY, the permit is a permit to own a handgun and a permit to conceal. There is no either/or.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights
There should be no permits in the first place.

Where in the Constitution does it state permits must be given to those who want to posses arms? Where?


That is a very good question.

Unfortunatley the constituion is not written in stone. There are changes made to it all the time. You seem to be only aware of the original copy. Well let me show you where it says the government has the right to control who gets to use guns and who doesnt. Through the years their have been trials that went to court over whether or not peoples second amendment rights were violated.


Id. at 178. In Cases v. United States, 131 F. 2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943), the court, upholding a similar provision of the Federal Firearms Act, said: ''Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'' See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (dictum: Miller holds that the ''Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia'''). See also Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff lacked standing to challenge denial of permit to carry concealed weapon, because Second Amendment is a right held by states, not by private citizens), cert. denied 117 S. Ct. 276 (1996); United States v. Gomez, 92 F.3d 770, 775 n.7 (9th Cir. 1996) (interpreting federal prohibition on possession of firearm by a felon as having a justification defense ''ensures that [the provision] does not collide with the Second Amendment'').


Complicated I know but what it means is that if you are not keeping your guns for the sole purpose of running and maintaning a militia then the government DOES get to put limits on who gets guns and who doesnt. It has been found constitutional for the government to control who can carry a concealed weapon and who cant.

I hope that eliminates any confusion you may be having as to how it is constitutional.

[edit on 12-10-2008 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by AHostileMe
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 

A tad off topic, but if they did the same thing in New York, it would actually take a person's right to own a handgun away. In NY, the permit is a permit to own a handgun and a permit to conceal. There is no either/or.


Ah, You raise a VERY good point. I forgot state laws. Ugh. That may just render my whole argument earlier pointless as Im not sure of california state gun laws. let me check really quickly.

crime.about.com...

Ok according to this you CAN buy and own guns and rifles without a permit. Although you do have to register it (obviously).You DO need a license if you plan to carry a concealed gun though. Ok so my argument is still valid. phew! I thought you had me there for a second.

A Big blue star coming your way though for keeping me on my toes. Id applaud you for that but im not a mod so I cant.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
It doesn't matter if it's Cali or anywhere else. This is just wrong. I left the Commune of Massachusetts to come to NH to be able to carry again!



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Wisconsin sucks. My Mom wanted to bring her guns here from Missouri to shoot at a range with my son, her grandson. She scrapped the plans because if she had so much gotten pulled over for a burned out tail light after entering WI she would have gone to jail.

The guns I have do not have permits...nor will they ever, even if Wisconsin ever does pass a CC law.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I stand corrected. Apparently this man is doing good by removing many possibly illegal permits that were granted in reward for campaign contributions.

As a side note, I bought another gun between my last post and this one.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Here in Texas, we modelled our new handgun carrying laws after the successful Florida model. A link to the new Texas handgun law is attached. Grits for Breakfast

It really is a matter of living in a Country where the general population should be given greater Second Amendment protections. In England, no one can carry; so most people are safe. In our Country, there are too many guns in the hands of criminal elements. No one can feel safe unless everyone is presumed to be packing. The law has the effect of making more people mind their manners. Presumed eligibility to carry lets gangsters know they are not the sole owners of lethal weapons on the streets.

I don't currently choose to carry, but want that option should I feel threatened by some situation that may arise. I am grateful that Texas has embraced the Second Amendment in letter and spirit, and hope that California will follow suit. Californians must make their own appeal to their legislature for a proper law that protects the average Californian.

As previously mentioned, we Texan's modeled our law after Florida's "Shoot First" law, which proved effective. "It shows that, even though the state's population is growing, total homicides fell by 6.9%, and firearm homicides by 6.1%. Given the population increase, the decrease in rates would have been greater."

A great article with official Law Enforcement links entitled "Florida crime rates dropping" can be found at
Of Arms and the Law

As that article notes: "Well, the Palm Beach Post reports that Florida's crime rates have fallen to the lowest level since 1971."

The Sheriff most likely won't be there when any of these folks are attacked. The Sheriff is probably scared to go into parts of town they live in too. The Sheriff will gladly hand out some speeding tickets. What ever happened to old-fashioned law enforcement, where the police took on the gangsters and left everyone else alone? Folks had more respect for the law back in the day.

I truly hope that this Country can redirect law enforcement against thugs, gangsters, violent criminals and such. Handing out Class "C" speeding tickets and revoking handgun permits isn't good law enforcement. We need to see a return to core values that allow the unrestrained right to self-defense on a National level. Violent crime decreases where citizens are properly armed. That is proven, and I do hope Californians go over their Sheriff's head on the issue.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
i think more people should stand up for thare rights.just like this thread i started.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I haven't had a chance to read through all the posts to this thread. I just wanted to put in my two cents here. I always thought US citizens had the right to bare arms. Something I have always been jealous of considering we don't have that here in Canada. I have also been suspicious of the gun registry business too. If they know you have something then they can come and take your guns from you. This article sounds very much like that.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Well it is The Peoples Republic Kalifornia....What else do you expect? I am amazed that they had any CHLs to take away in the first place. Try that here in Texas and you will end up with a bunch of dead cops, and that is about it. Jack Daniels, a AR-15, and a 1911 are the gun grabbers worst nightmare.
Each house a bunker out here. Move out of that nasty left wing state and head for TX. Just leave your socialist ideas at the border thank you.




top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join