At their meeting August 25, 2009, all members of the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a resolution asking "that the duly elected or appointed El Dorado County Sheriff adopt and maintain a fair and equitable “Shall Issue” policy for the issuance of CCW licenses."  The resolution does not have the force of law, but essentially criticizes the Sheriff's recent policy of not recognizing "self protection" as "good cause" to issue a concealed weapons permit to persons otherwise ... vinceward GunInstructordotcom comment-12941 2009-08-31T22:46:37Z 2009-08-31T22:46:37Z Most north state county sheriffs freely issue concealed carry licenses. El Dorado County should not be any different. Here at BullsEye Tactical Firearms Training in Shasta County, we have trained thousands of students and have not experienced any misuse of concealed carry by anyone. GunInstructordotcom 2009-08-31T22:46:37Z mbuck comment-12912 2009-08-30T17:49:39Z 2009-08-30T17:49:39Z Shazbat1 I agree with much of this, except that I don't agree that unloaded open carry with ammo at the ready is a disadvantage to total disarmament. mbuck 2009-08-30T17:49:39Z mbuck comment-12910 2009-08-30T17:45:37Z 2009-08-30T17:45:37Z Shazbat1 I agree with much of this, except that I don't agree that unloaded open carry with ammo at the ready is a disadvantage to total disarmament. mbuck 2009-08-30T17:45:37Z shazbat1 comment-12855 2009-08-29T20:30:58Z 2009-08-29T20:30:58Z Yo Gondola, Not much thought there? 38 states have a Shall Issue system that empowers people to protect themselves. All states bordering Cal. have such laws. Are Cal. residents somehow unworthy of being able to protect their loved ones? As for open carry. Cal will probably never change that. It's unsafe to walk around with an empty gun, If challenged by some idiot who covets your gun, and has his own, you lose. Whereas, the crooks are on the run. It is quite likely in other states that they might encounter a permit holder with a gun to stop a crime, before it starts. The only place for open carry, is to prevent being cited for exposing your gun accidentally. Massachusetts is a place where a cop can give you a ticket ,and maybe pull your license, because your coat blows open. shazbat1 2009-08-29T20:30:58Z Davi Rodrigues comment-12841 2009-08-29T15:13:07Z 2009-08-29T15:13:07Z I'm a open carry proponent, but not because I'm afraid of everyone. I do it because I believe that it's important to keep every aspect of our bill of rights at the forefront of our existence these days. That said, I can't help but wonder if all of this concealed carry hubris in the news these days is just aimed at stirring up fears among taxpayers so they will approve more funding for law enforcement, so that it can be diverted back to misuse to other areas later. Davi Rodrigues 2009-08-29T15:13:07Z neilevan comment-12819 2009-08-29T14:00:57Z 2009-08-29T14:00:57Z Paperwork, fingerprints, photographs, fees, and background checks to allow people to carry a side-arm? What kind of nonsense is this? The right of self-defense is a corollary to the right to life; to deny one is to deny the other. The purpose of government is to insure our rights, not to infringe on them. The fact is that governments should not be involved in permitting the carriage of weapons, either openly or concealed, by anyone. Our constitution states that the right of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed. Marbury v. Madison (1803) decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void. "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void." (16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178) In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of those protected natural rights. In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that “If the state does convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” (That means they can't punish you, folks!) To paraphrase an oft-quoted movie line, "Permits? We don' need no steenking permits!" neilevan 2009-08-29T14:00:57Z iadam comment-12818 2009-08-29T13:51:39Z 2009-08-29T13:51:39Z shoot em up cowboys iadam 2009-08-29T13:51:39Z whatthefuckdoyawant comment-12811 2009-08-29T00:59:49Z 2009-08-29T00:59:49Z The candidate that supports a "Shall issue " policy will not only get my vote, but my wholehearted support. whatthefuckdoyawant 2009-08-29T00:59:49Z