Comments by RBJL5

  • Older Comments
  • Page 1 of 1
  • Newer Comments
Written on Simi Valley/Moorpark Tea Party argues for right to bear arms:

in response to bikey1:

But shouldn't the Police be there protect you?... Why do you need a gun if the Police are only minutes away?

See, this is a total fallacy.
Police have NO duty to protect individuals.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) has made this abundantly clear in Warren v. District of Columbia. Law Enforcement are there to clean up and take reports after the scene of a crime.

So, when a criminal breaks in to your house, ready to slaughter a family, do you really think you're gonna have time to ask them to "hold on a minute" while you dial 911 and wait for police to arrive?? Right.....When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.


For the folks who just don't get it.
This is not a Tea Party, nor Republican nor Democrat issue. The Second Amendment is an American Civil Rights issue. The 2A is not written for one party or the next. It's YOUR fundamental, inalienable right to Keep and Bear Arms...which "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".


in response to Patriot31373:

The utter cowardice of people who feel the need to carry concealed weapons never fails to amaze. These people are timid little creatures who practically fall over at the sight of their own shadows. They see danger all around them. They are trying to make up for something they lack.

If I find out you are carrying a concealed weapon around me or my children, I will get in your face. Loudly. I will take your silly little gun away from you. I will humiliate you and call you a miserable coward, to your face, in public. You will never be that sorry again, for putting other people's safety in jeopardy, making us live a few foot-pounds of pressure away from a murder at the whim of your impulses and cowardice.

You gun nuts are a huge part of the problem of violence in this country. You are absolute disgraces.

That’s great to know that you feel Judges, retired police officers, folks who work for search and rescue, and Law-abiding people who have a constitutional right to defend themselves, timid little creatures whom you would gladly verbally assault, commit a felony by stealing their firearm all while acting like an irate 12 year old throwing a tantrum.

You’re the only hostile one here in the equation…


in response to ADavis:

Why are comments allowed? You guys know this is going to start a thread war again like it did last time.

Also not sure what you mean a thread war.
The last topic on this was July 06.

The conversation then was pretty darn civil and mature compared to many of the comment chatter VCS used to have on most unrelated stories.


in response to ADavis:

"The organization plans to test Ventura County's process by helping local members with reasons similar to those already accepted by the sheriff apply for permits, Hoffman said."
Well at least they are following through. Many who were opposed to the record release suspected that was the reason in large they started this in the first place.

The main reason many “in large” opposed (VC included) alleged that releasing of good cause statements would put the individuals info who have a license to carry in the open, and that it would be a security risk for them. VC also argued that the cost of paying someone to redact sensitive information, (which would probably have been a heck of a lot less than what they had to pay to Calguns in legal fees) was a financial concern. Not because it would allow Law-Abiding people to exercise their right to Bear arms for self defense. (well, maybe only to those that don’t understand that the 2A to keep (poses) and to bear (carry)arms is a fundamental individual civil right). Not even VC used that excuse in their briefs, because suggesting so is so unconstitutional it’s not even funny. As was their initial denial of releasing Public records that violated CA law under the Public Records Act for which they got sued for, and lost.

We can finally see now, reading these GC statements with necessary sensitive information redacted… and as was predicted, that personal, family or other indentifying information or sensitive travel locations is not a concern. I’ve just read every single one and in no way would I have the means to put any true identity of the individual, where they go and what they do with what the GC was they stated and by what was redacted.

When the denial applications are released and show other's who may have applied with the same or similar good cause were denied, the door opens up to an equal protection issue.

Instead of people trying to fault Calguns in some arbitrary way, it should be more concerning that your County and local Sheriff work in compliance of the law, which they, their law enforcement and county judiciary are sworn to uphold.

Calguns Foundation in this case has made sure of that.

Written on Bill fights death penalty:

That's CA for you! Go lighter on the criminals and harder on the good citizens.

The problem here is going too soft on criminals, ESPECIALLY the ones that deserve the Death penalty! I mean good lord, these aren't petty thieves. The ones that are on death row are the Worst of the Worst. Now we should go easy on their punishment? It's NOT about is the "world safer" because a psycho path has been executed vs. sitting in a cell all their life (while we still pay for it).

The bigger picture here is that it will have opposite and disastrous effects you want it to have..ending up with more crime.

Criminals will no longer fear that they might face execution for their actions, and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that at current, the fear of being put to death and capital punishment has been a major deterrence of many would-be criminals.
Now you're talking about taking that element out of "crime-control" and opening the door to the "they ain't gonna kill me any more so what have I got to lose" mentality.
That's so NOT right.

It seems these people are just reacting by "feeling bad" over an execution of an evil person (who in reality has committed an act so violent they have been sentenced to death)... How is that even so??

These people are looking at it from one perspective and don't even see the repercussions in crime escalation this can have because we'd be loosening punishments.

I don't feel it's really over money either, or the questions that would have been asked after the executions would be to the effect of "Is our budget worse because of what we did tonight?" But it wasn't. It was all based over the emotions of the inmates death if its right or wrong. Then justify the idea for abolishment in bringing costs into play is simply because "We don't like to do this" wouldn't ever fly in a defense.

If these folks can't or no longer like to fill the capacity they chose to do, then they are in the wrong profession.

Written on Judge sides with gun rights group on concealed-weapon records:

I'm also pretty certain Calgun Lawyers will be doing redactions too, in addition to the county. If you look at some other "Good Cause" statements released by other counties who chose to follow the law to avoid litigation, (that may have different rules from VC to their own redactions) on calguns' site, you will see every single name of the applicant and or spouse and other personal identifying information is redacted.

Calguns isn't just a fly-by-night Foundation, they take all matters of firearm civil rights and privacy seriously.

Disclaimer: I nor my posts am in no way representing Calguns.
This is from my own personal research.


I'm not sure you're agreeing with me or not since your first post sides with the county...I can't tell. One, I did state a generic name in my example of "John Doe".

Anyhow, thanks for typing out pages to the CCW app. However, according to the order only pages 11 & 13 are to be released.

Nothing you type out, on page 12 is granted, so it's a non issue.

"The writ petition is granted.
Respondent County of Ventura is ordered to produce within 45 days of the date of this ruling the following:
a. Pages 11 and 13 of each application for a CCW submitted to Respondents for the period January 1,2007 - July 15, 2010 as well as any additional pages submitted by an applicant to complete those pages;"

You can read the whole ruling here.


Furthermore, the county is arguing that it would cost "$14,600". How much do they think they're not going to lose trying to fight this?

They're already paying Calgun's legal fees for losing this hearing. How much more are they willing to spend, when they could have just followed the PRA law? It makes no sense to pay and pay for litigation fees when you're trying to use fees as your argument. As the Judge stated, it's the county's problem here. They're going to be spending a lot more than $14,600 in legal fees if they continue to ignore the PRA grindging deeper into more litigation. I hope my county is smarter than that and will use that money for more community services, rather than fight a losing battle.


Gosh, everyone is getting in such a tizzy.
Judge Walsh made the right decision here. And his decision was spot on and in FULL compliance with the PRA.


In this case, they’re making sure that the county is following the Public Records Act by the law. The county MUST follow this law too, or then, what’s the point of having laws or a judicial system when the county can just skate around it???

To the ones who are STILL concerned about this as releasing "private" public information (which the which when you apply for a CCW, YOU SIGN AND AGREE TO THESE PUBLIC RECORD TERMS.)
You can clearly see what Judge Walsh has outlined for reasonable redaction.

"Respondents are further ordered to delete from any records produced the following:
a.home address
b.home telephone number of any business, security number, physical description,
e.Times and places and specific weapon authorized.
f.medical or psychological history or that of family members
g.Information related to when applicant is potentially vulnerable to attack."

For example, here is a hypothetical “Good cause” statement: First, not redacted and then redacted according to the order.

John Doe
SS# 528-61-8832
1234 St.
Ventura, CA 93004

I am applying for a CWW permit because I work for Big Al’s Music Shack… located at: 1111 Ave and at times, I carry large amounts of cash as well as expensive high-end electrical equipment. I’d also like a CCW for personal protection since I often work nights and close Big Al’s Music Shack around 11pm during which time I’m left all alone. I am also very small in stature and also have a bad leg so I am often carrying a cane…. My wife or myself can walk very fast late at night transferring the property.

And redacted given the court's ordering –

Xxxx xxx
SS# xxx-xx-xxxx
xxxx xx.
Ventura, CA 93004

I am applying for a CWW permit because I work for xxxxxxxxxxxxx… located at: xxxxx xxx,
and at times, I carry large amounts of cash as well as expensive high-end xxxxxxxxxxx equipment. I’d also like a CCW for personal protection since I often work xxxx and close xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx during which time I’m left all alone xxxxxxxxx x xxxx x x x x x x xx xxx xxxx xx x xx x xxx xxxxx xxx transferring the property.

Now, I challenge ANYONE who can sit there for the better part of their day playing “What’s my line”... but here you get one sample and you can’t ask any more questions. Let’s see how far one can get concluding that with the redacted above, it would jeopardize this hypothetical person’s privacy.

I hear crickets……………

Written on American Legion Turkey Shoot quashed by CSU Channel Islands:

“But our discomfort is with firearms in general.”

This is a total load of crap!!!!
These Communists at CSU don't realize that it's the People's FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT protected by Constitution of the United States Second Amendment to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! Do these A-holes at CSU also have a general discomfort with the 1st amendment, 4th 5th and the rest of our Rights too???? Typical Liberal socialist scum at work here. They have ZERO respect for the people because they run on knee-jerking emotional driven reactions and nothing more. These A-holes have NO justification for this aside from their "Firearms are bad... mm kay" emotions.
These anti-gun (name calling removed), are always trying to ruin our traditional values in this country. Now they're attacking a perfectly fine Law enforcement venue that has brought the community together and has had ZERO problems for years. They need to be sued and driven out!!

Written on Gun group sues Ventura County sheriff to obtain permit records:

I want to know from everyone here who has said that they dont want their personal info released (which Calguns is NOT asking for) can justify that, by only disclosing the "Good cause" and "reason" for issuing the CCW was?? How does that in any way put your privacy in jeopardy???? I bet that no one will give me a factual answer on that... As i bet the ones who keep going on and on havent even begun to check out, read or asked their own questions to CGF themselves. Its stated cleary and openly on the forums that they're not interested in personal info.

Stop running on instant emotional reactions without the facts of what CGF is acually asking/suing for!


in response to redhat:

Who appointed CALGUNS sheriff? Just go away until the batman signal flashes for you in the night sky.
We already have plenty of guns in the hands of the nuts and felons.

Uhgg not Redhat again.
Ignorance NEVER gets it.

"We already have plenty of guns in the hands of the nuts and felons."

And that's why the Law-Abiding must not be denied their right to Bear (carry) arms for self defence. Persons with metal issues or convicted felony criminals DON'T apply for CCW licenses, Felons already do it illegally.
So your "argument" is already flawed beyond reason to this suit.

It sounds like you also want to keep firearms out of the hands of non-prohibited, law-abiding people, acknowledging full well by your post, that the criminal "nuts and felons" have them.
Pck up and move to a Communist country.
You have the mentality and the color hat for the socialist party already.

It utterly baffles me that Anti self defense Gun-grabbers chant for permits and licensing for gun owners, but when there is actually people applying for these licenses, then that's still not good enough.
It proves again and again, that there is NO logical reason or substance to their argument other than "Guns are bad and you shouldn't have them, mm kay". Tyrants....


in response to TBJWebmaster:

There are numerous court cases, such as CBS v. Block and Guillory v. Gates, where the appeal court specifically ruled that sheriffs must make available data, such as the Good Cause, that CalGuns Foundation is specifically requesting. The sheriff is allowed to redact a minimal amount of information if this will protect the CCW holder from harm, but the general outline must be made available, as Gene Hoffman states above.

The courts have made it very clear that only by allowing prospective and denied applicants to know what Good Causes have been accepted in the past can we assure that all applicants are getting equal treatment under the 14th amendment.

These documents only need to be made public because California has a "Discretionary Issue" system. If all qualifying law-abiding citizens were given a CCW permit on application (so called "Shall Issue"), this lawsuit would not be appropriate or required.

This is a delaying tactic that will clearly lose. Should they continue to fight it, the end cost to the county in legal fees and other expenses will far outweigh the cost of supplying the requested information.

TBJWebmaster's comment needs to be quoted again because 100% spot on correct. Especially the last paragraph. It gonna get REAL expensive for the VCSD.


Fixing Typo -

Law-Ab"I"ding Firearm owners...


Baseball & JerichoGirl -

Calguns is NOT, I repeat, is NOT asking for personal information of CCW holders. Quite the contrary. IF that information was given to them, that's the Sheriff's own doing. Marina Porsche is trying to spin it that this is what CGF is asking for and its NOT the case AT ALL.
All that's being asked (and now sued for) is legal legitimate PUBLIC RECORD of what the "Good Cause" was in issuance of the number of CCW permit holders. That's in NO WAY releasing sensitive information about the applicant.

You should join and see what is talked about and discussed openly on their forums by the very people that has filed this suit. Plus, IF Calguns even had your name any how, there isn't a more respected Foundation you could trust with your Rights.
But again, that's not what Brooks is being sued for, nor whats wanted. It's Brook's illegal lack of releasing legitimate legal Public information violating the California Public Records Act.

WTG Calguns, keep up the good fight for
Law-aboding firearm owners!!

Written on Man holds four at gunpoint in Oxnard home invasion robbery:

in response to redhat:

I wonder which NRA enthusiast "donated" the gun to this criminal?

Yawn….. Oh get off it, the blaming the "gun" or any member of the NRA for this scumbag’s criminal activity. Criminals steal or buy stolen guns off the street and from anywhere they can. Maybe he stole it from his parents. Maybe it wasn’t even a real gun. Your Anti Second Amendment mindset is tired, old and nauseating. Why don't you ask maybe where his parents went wrong raising him, or what is the REAL cause to the instability of this jack hole.

The next time this plague on society of human trash enters the wrong home; I hope to God a full magazine "by an NRA member" is "Donated" into his body.

  • Older Comments
  • Page 1 of 1
  • Newer Comments

Featured Promotions