Ammo For Sale

« « “Morally repulsive” | Home | Idiot » »

“May issue”

Is usually will not issue.

In LA county, the folks who get carry permits line up quite well with the sheriff’s gift reports and contribution records. But I’m sure I’m just a morally repulsive radical for pointing out the behavior of the police.

12 Responses to ““May issue””

  1. Phelps Says:

    The whole dorner thing seems to have thrown bob off his rocker. It’s always disheartening when a seeming intelligent guy goes full partisan.

    You never go full partisan.

  2. Old NFO Says:

    And Orange Co is no better…

  3. Mu Says:

    Sorry Uncle, you just outed yourself as one hell of a hypocrite. Lamenting the naming of gun owners if it’s done by “the left media” and then supporting it when it’s done “in the right cause” is pretty despicable. Either you support the privacy of gun owners, or you don’t. Can’t be just a bit pregnant.

  4. SayUncle Says:

    Where did I support outing them, exactly? Though I admit this is one benefit of disrespecting privacy.

  5. Mike Says:

    I am conflicted about this.

    On the one hand, the privacy of gun owners ought to be protected.

    On the other hand, if lists of permit-holders were not available in restrictive jurisdictions, we would never find out just how corrupt the may-issue system can be. I would bet dollars-to-doughnuts that a list of MD permit-holders would contain a large number of political cronies and “donors”. Only one way to find out, and it goes right through a FOIA request.

    Life is full of these dilemmas….

  6. Sigivald Says:

    Also, contra Mu, “supporting accountability on may-issue because we know it’s all cops, judges, and cronies, to prove exactly how corrupt it is” really is different from “supporting publishing a shall-issue list where there’s no possibility of corruption”.

  7. TS Says:

    I agree with Sigivald. Shall issue lists should be private. If the state is going to require may issue, there should be accountability of it is used for corruption. The sheriff’s buddies can still get their permits, but they’d have to apply the same standard for all citizens or it will get noticed. That’s fair.

  8. Seerak Says:

    On the one hand, I’m inclined to agree with Sigivald and TS: If the decision over who carries is public (decided by a public official, the sheriff) rather than private (shall issue), so should the results be. Transparency.

    On the other hand, the same argument applies: if Lee Baca were to be overcome by a fit of common sense and grant a permit to an abused wife hiding from a murderous ex, should she be exposed?

    The root of the problem and source of the contradictions is, of course, “may issue”. This illustrates the limits of trying to be pragmatic within a context that is wrong in principle.

  9. Mu Says:

    I have no problem with “C.G., an octagenarian…” to make the point on corruption, or at least conflict of interest in granting permits. But the article names people, and links to the full list of all holders. Not any better than the Journal News of NY.

  10. mariner Says:

    Mu,

    Either you support the privacy of gun owners, or you donít. Canít be just a bit pregnant.

    Bullshit.

    We don’t need to support the privacy of corrupt officials and their cronies, just because they own firearms (while denying them to the rest of us).

  11. Will Says:

    Of course that is how it works in CA with their “may” issue system. In San Jose, whenever the local rag had a disagreement with the sheriff, they would print the complete list of permit holders. Normally, the only way to get one was to donate a specified amount to his re-election campaign account, along with yearly donations to keep your permit active. I’m told the cost ran $1k minimum/year. They generally ran around 550 permits issued.

    The latest sheriff (female) refused to issue or renew any permits. I suspect the local rag (Murky News) must love her. Don’t actually know, since I quit reading them twenty years ago, after they confirmed they were liars.
    (I love the fact that a bay area socialist company like Craigslist has essentially driven a stake through the heart of all these left-wing newspapers, by taking away almost all their classified advertising revenue. And, they do it for free, mostly :)

  12. Stretch Says:

    Large (4 digit minimum) check to any Maryland democrat is about the only way to get your concealed permit.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills


blog advertising is good for you

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives