Santa Clara County sheriff draws legal fire for way she hands out concealed-gun permits

[alp227]

Tracy Seipel, San Jose Mercury News

When Tom Scocca applied to Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith three years ago for a permit to carry a concealed firearm, he thought he had all the right stuff.

Not only was he a former police officer and sheriff's deputy working as a security manager at a major Silicon Valley tech company, he owned an investigative firm and was already licensed to openly carry a loaded gun.

But the sheriff turned him down.

Now that denial is the basis of a federal lawsuit in which Scocca alleges that Smith issues concealed-weapons permits in an arbitrary and capricious way.

He may have a shot. A review by this newspaper of the list of people with such permits indicates that some who appear to have less reason than Scocca to carry a concealed weapon have had no problem getting a permit from Smith.

And although state law requires that permit holders must be "a resident of the county or a city" where the permits are issued -- or at least spend a substantial amount of time in a principal place of employment or business in that city or county -- the Sheriff's Office refused to explain how Smith defines who is a "resident."

In fact, some of those who currently hold permits don't appear to fit the ordinary definition of that word, including the scion of the Eggo frozen-waffle fortune who lives in Russia and the 86-year-old patriarch of Bechtel, the international engineering and construction firm. He lives in San Francisco.

full: http://www.mercurynews.com/rss/ci_19521214

also "A who's who of permit holders in Santa Clara County": http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_19521383?source=pkg

[Remmah2]

1. What is the point?

Where in the Second Amendment does it say anything about having a carry permit?

The Second Amendment "is" my carry permit, everything else is an infringement.

[Hoyt]

3. Fortunately, the courts, law enforcement and just about every Constitutional scholar disagrees.

[gejohnston]

4. name one

Constitutional scholar.
Can you defend the sheriff handing them out to unqualified rich people and not qualified 99 percenters? Sounds like shades NYPD that has test not that much different than the literacy tests in the south (which were sometimes in Chinese) while handing them out to racist drunks like Don Imus or some guy from (same day service, without test, background check)?

[Hoyt]

6. The poster I responded to said that government should not have any say in what folks do with guns.

The poster used the phrase "infringe" while ignoring phrases like "well regulated militia," etc. More importantly, the courts -- including the Supreme Court -- have consistently ruled that government has the right to regulate guns. Now, we might argue over the breadth of that, but hardly anyone thinks the gun owners should have their way with guns at the expense of society.

I do think the sheriff needs to use objective criteria in granting permits. Personally, I'd like to see those applying for a permit submit to a rigorous psychological assessment. If for no other reason so that we can better understand the psyche of those who want/have to carry a gun in public.

[PavePusher]

8. That's not at all what he said.

Either your reading comprehension is for shit, or you are lying.

Perhaps you can explain how a dependent clause controls an independant clause, and give some historical evidence that weapons ownership depends on militia membership.

[Hoyt]

9. I suggest you start with reading the excellent materials at this link. We'll go from there.

http://www.guninformation.org/


BTW -- That ole "dependent vs. independent clause" argument is a real laugher.

[Remmah2]

14. "Militia" was never defined in the constitution.

Is a militia government organized or an ad hoc group of concerned citizens banding together for the common purpose of defense of their homes? Where in the constitution does is state the size and organizational tables to qualify as such?

What is "government"? My homeowners association qualifies as a government. If a hurricane hit and outside assistance was not possible would we be a militia if we banded together to prevent looting?

Is it possible to have an organized government and an informal government?

[gejohnston]

15. are you serious?

can you come up with something, say better written or scholarly? Did you send him some money?

[PavePusher]

20. Hahahahaha, hahahah, hahahahaha!

Whew....

Repeated references to Kellerman? Really? I thought you were getting better at this....

[Straw Man]

23. That ole clause...

[div class = excerpt]That ole "dependent vs. independent clause" argument is a real laugher.
Perhaps you'd like to explain that argument and what you find so laughable about it.

[one-eyed fat man]

24. Whose site is that?

No where does the author say who he is or what qualifies his opinion. He (maybe you?) is not to ashamed to ask for donations via Paypal.

Since it likely doesn't qualify as a non-profit are you declaring the income, Hoyt?

[Hoyt]

25. Let's hope you don't shoot someone based on your erroneous suspicions. Don't have a gun site.

You care to comment on what's posted there, rather than running off at your keyboard?

[one-eyed fat man]

26. I like that arguement

The people in the Second Amendment are not the same people that are in the First, Fourth, Ninth or Tenth Amendment.

The Bill of Rights was written as a check on the powers of government, except for the Second Amendment. It was written in 1791 to protect the right of the National Guard, which is established 112 years in the future, to be armed.

As a namesake once said, "I never shot nobody I didn't have to."

So far every Board of Inquiry, Article 32 investigation, Coroner's Inquest and Grand Jury has been in agreement. All them had the luxury of not having to act under duress, in well-lit, comfortable circumstances, with access to a well-stocked legal library, a bevy of assistants and under absolutely no risk of personal harm, regardless of how long they deliberated.

[SteveW]

27. Why, her standards for issue make sense: Rich and old. I'm covered on the latter. nt

[PavePusher]

7. And yet you still can not show us your First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Ninteenth Amendment Permits.

How does that work again?

[Hoyt]

10. Ask the Supreme Court.

[Remmah2]

13. Face it.

Courts are overruled, law enforcement in many situations violate peoples rights and there are constitutional scholars on both sides; hence debate.

That makes you 0 and 3.

[Old Codger]

2. This stuff

Is the main reason many states are now "shall Issue" too much favoritism like this, that takes the political cronyism out of the decision... probably never happen in Cal. though.

[GreenStormCloud]

5. National reciprocity will cure this problem.

Smith could simply get an out-of-state permit from UT or FL. CA would then have to honor it.

[Euromutt]

21. Well, not Utah any more

IIRC, Utah changed the rules this year so that, to get a Utah non-resident permit, you have to hold a permit from your own state of residence first.

[ileus]

11. Let's hope he wins this one....it could be win for all of California.

[PavePusher]

12. Reporting fail?

"...was already licensed to openly carry a loaded gun."

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such licence in Cali. There is unlicenced, unloaded open carry, and also unlicenced, loaded open carry in unincorporated areas.

Is there perhaps a special carry licence for his job?

[petronius]

16. For PIs and security guards, it seems there is an 'exposed carry' permit issued by

the CA Department of Consumer Affairs. It specifically excludes concealed carry without a locally-issued CCW...

http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/fire_fact.shtml

[PavePusher]

18. Larn sumpin' new ever day. Thanks! n/t

[hack89]

17. Here are the details for a security guard firearm permit

since he is a security manager, I suspect this is what he has. Notice it specifically does not authorize concealed carry.

http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/guard_fact.shtml

[PavePusher]

19. Thanks! n/t

[Old Codger]

22. I thought

That ex-police officers, retired or just moving out of law enforcement were automatic in all states.... Seems like I read somewhere that was a federal license, have to look it up later today...
(on edit)
Found something on it

Passed in 2004, the federal law exempts officers from state gun laws, which means Wisconsin's law that allows only peace officers to carry concealed weapons. But the federal act sensibly imposes several restrictions.

First, officers must have accumulated at least 15 years of service, which should weed out unstable and irresponsible personalities.

Second, they must train annually to ensure they remain proficient in the use of firearms, and this is done at their expense.

Third, the federal law does not override restrictions which private property owners can apply, nor does it allow these retired officers to carry firearms in public buildings where possession is already prohibited.

Local officers wishing to carry firearms must acknowledge that they have no arrest powers and assume all responsibility for what they may do, just like any other private citizen. They will shoot less often than working officers - once a year instead of quarterly. Their training will be more general, and the police chief will have the authority to refuse any applicant.

Read more: http://www.journaltimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_297d24fb-31fd-5680-a395-a8073560503b.html#ixzz1gL3UozIX