Sonoma

[baggss]

Originally Posted by violaron

I was there and I agree with this:


Thankfully, it seems that most of the current Sheriff force are supporting Essick.
Hopefully he said what he believed (regarding supporting shall issue) and didn't change his message for the crowd. The other two are definitely on the wrong side with this and other issues.

Someone did videotape the forum. I haven't heard yet if it's available anywhere.

Unfortunately, we have office rent to pay, and these fundraising meetings are one way we pay our bills.

Getting Sonoma to turn green would be a HUGE win for the bay area and just might convince some other bay area Sheriffs to loosen their policies as well.

[ssteve]

I feel pretty confident they Essick will win the race. He’s the right guy and he is backed by the right people.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by ssteve

I feel pretty confident they Essick will win the race. He’s the right guy and he is backed by the right people.

While I hope you are correct, leave nothing to chance: whoever wins the sheriffs race will likely be your sheriff for at least 12 years, barring any major scandals. If Essick is for SD = GC, but he does not win, you guy could be (whatever'ed) for the next decade.

Sacto won't pass SI and we've learned the hard way with various Carry Cases not to count on the fed courts or SCOTUS. Even if Nat'l Reciprocity passes, it could be tied up in the courts for MANY years before it takes effect, if ever....

Fight for Essick like he's you're only hope for a CA CCW because that may very well be true....

[ssteve]

Originally Posted by Paladin

While I hope you are correct, leave nothing to chance: whoever wins the sheriffs race will likely be your sheriff for at least 12 years, barring any major scandals. If Essick is for SD = GC, but he does not win, you guy could be (whatever'ed) for the next decade.

Sacto won't pass SI and we've learned the hard with with various Carry Cases not to count on the fed courts or SCOTUS. Even if Nat'l Reciprocity passes, it could be tied up in the courts for MANY years before it takes effect, if ever....

Fight for Essick like he's you're only hope for a CA CCW because that may very well be true....

My union is backing him and I’m supporting him for more reasons than just a ccw. He’s the right choice for a lot of reasons.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by violaron

I was there and I agree with this:

I'm glad to hear this.

Originally Posted by violaron

Thankfully, it seems that most of the current Sheriff force are supporting Essick.

Originally Posted by ssteve

My union is backing him

Originally Posted by ssteve

I’m supporting him for more reasons than just a ccw. He’s the right choice for a lot of reasons.

Funny how those CLEOs who are right about CCWs are often right about other criminal justice issues....

www.cjlf.org
http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/

Originally Posted by baggss

Getting Sonoma to turn green would be a HUGE win for the bay area and just might convince some other bay area Sheriffs to loosen their policies as well.

IMO, the best we could hope for from Sonoma going "green" is that Napa would follow.

I'm less optimistic than you. While I think switching Sonoma and Napa to some shade of green is long overdue, I don't think either will impact the lower SFBA counties (SF, SM, SC, Ala, CoCoCo). Frankly, I don't think either would even pressure Marin or Yolo to issue. But Sonoma & Napa going green can't hurt and it would make the map look prettier!

[Robotron2k84]

Marin won't change until Doyle is gone. He's entrenched.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84

Marin won't change until Doyle is gone. He's entrenched.

Taking this off topic for a minute: Any idea when that will be?

[Robotron2k84]

No clue. I haven't seen any indication he has opposition this election. He's also coroner, so has quite a bit of support in the county. The a hat DA is leaving this year, so at least that's a start.

If Sonoma goes SI I am seriously going to consider relocating.

[estrom]

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84

No clue. I haven't seen any indication he has opposition this election. He's also coroner, so has quite a bit of support in the county. The a hat DA is leaving this year, so at least that's a start.

If Sonoma goes SI I am seriously going to consider relocating.

Really??? That guy is a class-A idiot. Whoever replaces him has to be an improvement as I don't think they could be any worse.

[Robotron2k84]

OT: happy to continue in the Marin thread

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...php?p=17996630

[operavoice]

The three candidates were at the Flamingo today, and I had a couple of minutes face to face when Essick was talking about CCW.
Bottom line, if you think Sonoma County will become "shall issue" under him, you would be wrong. Period.
Based on what he stated, and the example that he gave, under his watch, Sonoma County would become a good cause CCW.
Personal self defense "just because" would not be considered good cause.
However, he gave an example of a recently denied CCW that he stated he, personally, would have accepted after the hoops had been jumped through, and it was a reasonable cause (carrying large amounts of money or valuables as part of a job).
He also said that in that particular case, there would have been a conditional license, meaning that the CCW would only be allowed as part and parcel of the job, not a blanket license to carry 24/7.

I found his answers to be fair and reasonable, and of the three, I would pick him hands down. It's not Constitutional carry, but better than what we have now.

[Robotron2k84]

That's a shame. Not unexpected, however.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by operavoice

The three candidates were at the Flamingo today, and I had a couple of minutes face to face when Essick was talking about CCW.
Bottom line, if you think Sonoma County will become "shall issue" under him, you would be wrong. Period.
Based on what he stated, and the example that he gave, under his watch, Sonoma County would become a good cause CCW.

ALL counties are "good cause" counties since that is what the state's law requires. The question is what would he accept as sufficient Good Cause.

Originally Posted by operavoice

Personal self defense "just because" would not be considered good cause.
However, he gave an example of a recently denied CCW that he stated he, personally, would have accepted after the hoops had been jumped through, and it was a reasonable cause (carrying large amounts of money or valuables as part of a job).

He also said that in that particular case, there would have been a conditional license, meaning that the CCW would only be allowed as part and parcel of the job, not a blanket license to carry 24/7.

Of the 225+ CCW incidents I've linked in my sig line I can't recall a single one that was of a CCWer who was "carrying large amounts of money or valuables as part of a job," unless you count pizza delivery drivers as qualifying....

Originally Posted by operavoice

I found his answers to be fair and reasonable, and of the three, I would pick him hands down.

Wow. If you think that is a "fair and reasonable" standard for issuing CCWs, esp now that you've read about >225 CCW real life incidents, instead of the sheriff's candidate's propaganda, I really don't know what to say.

Originally Posted by operavoice

It's not Constitutional carry, but better than what we have now.

No county in CA can legally be "Constitutional carry" (i.e., if you can legally buy a handgun, you can legally carry it, openly or concealed, without a separate state permit). Essick could, if he wanted to, accept "self defense" as sufficient Good Cause, but according to you, he won't.

Going by the CA CCW GC map posted above, it sounds like Essick would take Sonoma from "dark red" near SF (virtual No Issue), to "dark red" near LA (extremely restrictive issue), not even making it to "light red" (given the "only on the job" carry restriction).

BOTTOM LINE: There's NO REASON to support/vote for Essick over any other candidate. Don't try to use CCWs to choose among the contenders, use other issues. Essick sounds like he wants gunnies support without giving them anything in return.

[operavoice]

To me, it sounded like going from red to yellow.

The other two candidates would remain status quo.

I also listened to some of his other policies, what he has done as a captain in the force, and I found his answers to be thoughtful, well spoken, and inclusive.

I'm not just picking him because of CCW.

[estrom]

So...we know of ONE ccw that would have been issued by Essick that has been denied. Well that's just super, and not surprising.

Doesn't sound like much will change, and that is NOT "reasonable" in any way.

[baggss]

Originally Posted by operavoice

To me, it sounded like going from red to yellow.

I would agree, if the condition of carrying only while working hadn't been added.

[elx144]

I'm seeing Mutz signs all over Sonoma county.

Is this the face of a man who would recognize rights for peasants?

[violaron]

Originally Posted by elx144

I'm seeing Mutz signs all over Sonoma county.

Is this the face of a man who would recognize rights for peasants?

uhh, probably not.

By the way, last month I ventured to Courthouse square during the "March for our lives" or, as I call it, March for our Lies.
You can see my video.
Mutz's wife spoke. Apparently she's associated with BLM
Olivares spoke. the audio isn't great, but hopefully you can hear his anti 2a comments.
Both Mutz and Olivares seem very anti LE
I saw on Essick's facebook page that signs are available.

[caliguy93]

anyone try to put an AR pistol on their CCW in this county? from what I gather, the department doesn't care much about the firearms put on the license but I don't know if that will extend to an AR pistol

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by caliguy93

anyone try to put an AR pistol on their CCW in this county? from what I gather, the department doesn't care much about the firearms put on the license but I don't know if that will extend to an AR pistol

Why ... would you want to do that?

Why would you need to CCW an AR pistol?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by operavoice

To me, it sounded like going from red to yellow.

The other two candidates would remain status quo.

Well, you'll have a chance to see if you were right: Essick won.

The Press Democrat said "He is the sole candidate to say he would expand the criteria for issuing permits allowing people to carry a concealed firearm to allow more people with demonstrated safety concerns to be armed."

How far will he expand the criteria is anyone's guess, but even if he only makes Sonoma Co one color "better," taking it to yellow, that's an improvement. My guess, is that given he was willing to say that during the campaign, that he'll take it to at least yellow, maybe light green.

[operavoice]

My fingers are crossed.
Maybe if So Co goes yellow without incident for a few years, he might go light green.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by operavoice

My fingers are crossed.
Maybe if So Co goes yellow without incident for a few years, he might go light green.

My thinking: if he was only going to liberalize to yellow (because Sonoma is so Leftist), he would have just said he's going to keep the same policy as his predecessors and avoided any possible anti/Leftist backlash. He could have easily just slightly liberalized to yellow without anyone really noticing.

But, like our map, when you make a 2 or more color change, that's noticeable. I'm hoping since he publicly addressed the issue during the campaign and still won, he's going to light green. But that's just wishful thinking at this point....

As I posted in the "707 Banter Thread, III", we'll only find out if you folk in Sonoma monitor what Essick says to the media, and posts on the SO's website once he's in office, and post it here so the rest of us will know.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1#post21733481

Naturally, the most important thing is how the process actually goes for you guys when you apply. Hopefully, there will be a number of you with varying degrees of GC who will be ready to submit your apps right when he takes office in January.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Naturally, the most important thing is how the process actually goes for you guys when you apply. Hopefully, there will be a number of you with varying degrees of GC who will be ready to submit your apps right when he takes office in January.

The interim Sheriff, from whom Essick will be taking over, did NOT run for election (he was appointed) because he does not want to be sheriff. He endorsed Essick instead. Do not be surprised if, now that Essick has won and will be the new sheriff in Jan, he steps down early and let's Essick take over for the rest of his term.

If Sonoma folk want a CCW, I'd get my app filled out and have all the copies of supporting documents needed ready to submit at a moment's notice. That way if Essick does take office early, you'll be ahead of the rush of applicants.

[Glock-23]

Has anyone heard if newly elected Sheriff Essick will be taking over as Sheriff earlier than the official January 2019 date?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Glock-23

Has anyone heard if newly elected Sheriff Essick will be taking over as Sheriff earlier than the official January 2019 date?

He just ended a political campaign in addition to his full time job (and, I assume, wife & family responsibilities). I'd guess he put family on back burner for the past 6 months and realizes when he takes office he'll have to do that to them again for 6 months to a year. So, I'm guessing he'll spend June, July and Aug decompressing and focusing on family, Sept and Oct meeting more frequently with interim sheriff to ease transition.

Then, if interim sheriff doesn't want to miss another holiday season with family, in Nov or Dec he might retire early and get back to his regular job at the SO.

Come Oct 1st, you might want to google every weekend to see if there's been any announcement of a early transition announcement that you missed. You might want to do it more frequently after mid Nov.

[Glock-23]

Originally Posted by Paladin

He just ended a political campaign in addition to his full-time job (and, I assume, wife & family responsibilities). . . .

Paladin: Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'll continue to keep abreast of the situation between now and January.

[TheBest]

Anyone know when we will be able to legally carry openly under the Young court decision?

[Apollo]

Originally Posted by TheBest

Anyone know when we will be able to legally carry openly under the Young court decision?

Jan 1st, 3019.

In all fun though I am curious about this too.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by TheBest

Anyone know when we will be able to legally carry openly under the Young court decision?

It is far too early to be "date setting." It could very easily be appealed. We should have a better idea come Sept 1st. Best to check the Young thread in the Litigation forum after then.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1424391

[bisonthecruiser]

Originally Posted by Paladin

He just ended a political campaign in addition to his full time job (and, I assume, wife & family responsibilities). I'd guess he put family on back burner for the past 6 months and realizes when he takes office he'll have to do that to them again for 6 months to a year. So, I'm guessing he'll spend June, July and Aug decompressing and focusing on family, Sept and Oct meeting more frequently with interim sheriff to ease transition.

Then, if interim sheriff doesn't want to miss another holiday season with family, in Nov or Dec he might retire early and get back to his regular job at the SO.

Come Oct 1st, you might want to google every weekend to see if there's been any announcement of a early transition announcement that you missed. You might want to do it more frequently after mid Nov.

Does anyone know if the GC is still a required part of this. I haven't been able to find any active links for GC in Sonoma County. Is there updated information for Sonoma County? I'd really like to be ready for this come October.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by bisonthecruiser

Does anyone know if the GC is still a required part of this.

The requirement for GC and proof of it is required by state law. What a CLEO (sheriff or chief) will accept as sufficient GC and the evidence to support it is up to him/her.

Originally Posted by bisonthecruiser

I haven't been able to find any active links for GC in Sonoma County. Is there updated information for Sonoma County? I'd really like to be ready for this come October.

IIRC, the last time GC statements were surveyed and posted on CGN was back ~2010... Don't keep up with CGN much, do you?

Besides, what a previous sheriff required/accepted for GC would be of little value when applying with a new sheriff. Best to heed the advice I gave (and you quoted) to the previous poster.

[Paladin]

I came across a 1 hour Q&A for the Sonoma Co SO candidates by the Santa Rosa Democratic Club video on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/SRDemClub/v...type=2&theater

I only watched/listened to the first 30 minutes. About ~14 min in, his opponent Ernesto Olivares says that there are currently ~130 Sonoma SO CCWs and that Essick told a Repub group that he'd increase the number of CCWs in the county. About 19 min in, Essick gives a vigorous defense of allowing the law-abiding and trained get CCWs and carry -- he says not only do CCWers not cause any problems, they actually enhance public safety. He even mentioned that a county to their north (Mendo? Shasta?) has issued 3,000 CCWs and has had zero problems and a county to their east (Solano? Sacto?) that's issued 5,000 CCWs and has had zero problems. He's prepping them psychologically for 1,000s of CCWers without any problems. This sounds great even before you remember this is before a roomful of CA Dem voters/activists! He faced the issue and our opponents square on and stood his ground!

Especially after watching that video, I think Sonoma Co folk should be optimistic: I was thinking he'll go yellow, now I think he may even go -- perhaps not right away -- to light green!


Watch it all to see if I missed any CCW discussion in the 2nd 30 min of the presentation, or just watch those 2 segments I mentioned, and let me know what you think.

[Paladin]

Another video, this from the end of August, where now sheriff-elect Essick talks about CCWs (11:55 to 13:50) to the Republican Party of Sonoma Co.



It was disappointing to hear that a Republican activist at that gathering did not know what "CCW" stood for.

Plus, Essick did NOT say he'd accept SD=GC, and, by specifically stating that he'd require an "articulable reason" for getting a CCW, he ruled that out. My impression is that he'll take Sonoma Co either to "light green" (example of sufficient GC: "I need a CCW for when I go backpacking in areas w/o cell phone coverage and thus no LE response. Here's map of areas I've been to and photos from those areas."), to "dark green" (example of sufficient GC: "I'm an avid shooter who regularly goes to the range with several semiauto handguns and hundreds of rounds of ammo, making me a target for armed robbery. Thus, I need a CCW to protect my guns and to defend myself. Here's copies of my club membership card and dues receipts. Here's photos of me shooting.")

Almost forgot: earlier in the video he says he takes office at noon on January 7th. I'd have my CCW app and GC statement ready to be turned it at 12:01pm that day, if I lived in Sonoma Co.

ETA: Sheriff-elect Essick gives us some current (he probably just called those sheriffs and asked them), rough CCW estimates for Sonoma and nearby counties.

Sonoma pop.: 500k
#CCWs: 135

Solano pop.: 450k
#CCWs: just under 6,000

Mendo pop.: 90k
#CCWs: 3,000

ETA2: Here's the rest of Essick's Sonoma Co GOP presentation/Q&A

ETA3: Essick talks about guns/2nd A RKBA in this video at: 30 sec to 3:15 ; 15:00 to 15:45 and 35:10 to 40:20

[violaron]

Originally Posted by Paladin

It was disappointing to hear that a Republican activist at that gathering did not know what "CCW" stood for.

Exactly! The person that asked should know things like that too.

btw, thanks for sharing my video. I meant to post it here earlier, but alas!
Just thought it valuable to record and publicize his speech.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by violaron

Exactly! The person that asked should know things like that too.

Assuming this was not sarcastic and the facepalm was for them and not me, I agree. But hopefully, she, who sounded old, now knows about CCWs and will look into applying for one once Essick takes office.

Originally Posted by violaron

btw, thanks for sharing my video. I meant to post it here earlier, but alas!
Just thought it valuable to record and publicize his speech.

And thank you for being there, taking the video and sharing it with the rest of the world!

Since the current sheriff is only an interim sheriff and he did not run for sheriff, the next chance someone gets to talk to Essick, ask him if there's any chance he may take office early. I'd LOVE to see the CA CCW GC map with Sonoma Co light green before the Holidays.

[solipsism]

He’s already controlling day to day operations.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by solipsism

He’s already controlling day to day operations.

The key question is (interim) Sheriff Rob Giordano reviewing & approving CCW apps under Essick's more liberal GC standard right now, or will the SO wait until Essick's the one signing the CCWs as sheriff?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

The key question is the SO reviewing & approving CCW apps under Essick's more liberal GC standard right now, or will the SO wait until Essick's the one signing the CCWs as sheriff?

If the SO is processing apps under Essick's more liberal GC policy now and you have some evidence to support that, please either post it here or PM it to me and then baggss and I will consider whether to update the CA CCW GC map now.

[Paladin]

From an article dated Nov 27th:

Sheriff-elect Mark Essick takes office next month.

<snip>

The timing, and the alacrity of the SCSO's response to Threet's second annual report, comes as Essick is poised to take over the top-cop job in Sonoma County in January.

<snip>

Essick says that despite taking the reins as elected sheriff in a month, "we still have a sitting sheriff and [Giordano] is the one who is going to be answering, speaking for the SCSO on the report."

In a phone call with the Bohemian, Essick declined to offer a view on the future of the IOLERO. Giordano's still his boss, he says. "I could say something that would undermine him. We're really close to me taking over, but his name is still on the front door. I don't want to do something to jeopardize the relationship with him."

More at:
https://www.bohemian.com/northbay/la...nt?oid=7768127

Some of the bolded makes it seem like Essick will be taking office in Dec ("next month"), and other makes it seem like January.

If I were you guys in Sonoma Co, I'd watch the local news closely and have a CCW app all filled out and ready to submit on a moment's notice. You might even want to complete your training ahead of time (assuming Essick will use the same trainers as currently).