Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87
Last time, two pro ccw candidates split the vote and both lost.
|
Not true, actually. Hutchens won with more than 50% of the vote. Even if one of her opponents had dropped out and ALL of his votes had gone over the other, (an unlikely occurrence), she still would have won.
I have heard good things about Barnes (similar to DVSmith's post above) but the following makes me wonder:
Barnes stated he favors “reasonable issue” over shall-issue (despite the success of shall-issue, which has swept the country over the last three decades). I have no idea how reliable that quote is, I just found it Googling Barnes.
Edit: Poking around a bit more, I found
this PDF from 2012. Points 7 and 16 are the most relevant:
Quote:
7. If the “good cause” requirement were eliminated from Policy 218 and from the Penal Code, thereby increasing the numbers of persons eligible to carry concealed handguns, neither the citizens of Orange County nor its law enforcement officers would be safer.
|
Quote:
16. The “good cause” requirement allows Orange County and the State to limit the number of weapons that the public at large has access to immediately, which protects both officers and the public. Increasing the numbers of concealed weapons increases the threat and possibility of firearm violence to the community at large and to law enforcement officers.
|
Trying to give this the benefit of the doubt, this was before the Peruta decision, which seems to have changed the policy. At least Barnes cites Peruta in
this (very brief) clip where he defends his 2A credentials. Still, he goes into great detail (under penalty of perjury) in explaining why the Good Cause requirement is necessary. Hard to reconcile that with his current position.