Voter’s Edge California
Conozca la información antes de votar.
Presentado por
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
November 6, 2018 — Elección General de California

Ciudad de RidgecrestCandidato para Alcalde

Photo de Thomas R. Wiknich

Thomas R. Wiknich

Businessman/Reserve Officer
3,868 votos (45.35%)
Use tab to activate the candidate button. Use "return" to select this candidate. You can access your list by navigating to 'My Choices'.
Para obtener más información a fondo sobre este candidato, siga los enlaces de cada pestaña en esta sección. En la mayoría de los lectores de pantalla, puede presionar Regresar o Ingresar para entrar a una pestaña y leer el contenido.
El candidato(a) proporcionó información.
Agradezca al candidato por compartir su información en Voter’s Edge.

Mis 3 prioridades principales

  • Priority 1: Maintain Public safety
  • Priority 2: Provide road and major infrastructure improvements
  • Priority 3: Support anti sanctuary cities



Profesión:Business Owner/ Reserve Police Officer
President CEO, GUNS4US Owner (1987–current)
Code Enforcement Volunteer, PACT — Cargo designado (2011–current)
Reserve Police Officer, Ridgecrest Police Department — Cargo designado (2017–current)
President CEO, KZGN TV Owner (2014–2018)
City Council, The City of Ridgecrest — Cargo elegido (2006–2010)
Chairman, City Infrastructure Committee — Cargo designado (2006–2010)
Member, City Org Committee — Cargo designado (2006–2010)
Contract/Program Manager, Department of Navy (1987–2005)
Program Technical Manager, Raytheon (1984–1987)


Cerro Coso Certificate, California Level II Police Officer training (2012)
Department of Defense Certificate, Contract Management (1997)
Department of Defense Certificate, Program Management (1997)
Ridgecrest School of Law 1 Year, Ridgecrest School of Law (1995)
Redlands University Bachelor of Science, Business Administration, Minor in Accounting (1986)

Actividades comunitarias

President, Ridgecrest Gun Range Association (2004–current)
City Council, The City of Ridgecrest (1984–1988)
Planning Commissioner, The City of Ridgecrest (1982–1984)


Thomas Wiknich Biography

I am a staunch Supporter and Defender of the 2nd Amendment
I am a Proponent and Supporter of Anti Sanctuary Cities
I am a fiscal and political conservative.
I am a Reserve Police Officer with the Ridgecrest Police Department.
I am a US Army veteran

I am married to my wife, Shannon. I have a daughter, and two step daughters, and I also have 3 grandchildren, including a great grandson.

In 1979 I was hired as a contractor on China Lake, and eventually became a Program Manager at Raytheon at China Lake. I was hired by the Department Of Defense as a Program/Contracts Manager. I retired from China Lake in 2005. While employed at China Lake, I started GUNS4US in 1987. I am the President and CEO of GUNS4US Inc and Ridgecrest's KZGN TV station which is the only community based TV station in Ridgecrest. I also initiated the start and physical building of the non profit Ridgecrest Gun Range Association in 2000, and am now President of the nonprofit Ridgecrest Gun Range Association. This range brings hundreds of visitors EVERY YEAR to the area.

Businessman/Police Reserve

Supporter and Defender of the 2nd Amendment
Proponent of Anti Sanctuary Cities

My priorities are Police, Crime Prevention, Roads, Major Infrastructure, Fiscal Conservative, and Transparency.
I will bring back town hall meetings.
We should maintain parks at current levels.
Pinney Pool should be repaired and made ADA compliant.

Bachelor of Science Business Administration, Accounting Minor, University of Redlands
Associates of Science Degree Business Management Cuyahoga Community College
Department of Defense certification Contract Management
Department of Defense certification Program Management
Ridgecrest School of Law 1 year
California Level II Police Officer training

Ridgecrest Planning Commission
Ridgecrest City Council
Kern Council of Governments Representative
Ridgecrest Representative to LAFCO
Chairman City Infrastructure Committee
Member City Organization Committee
Ridgecrest Police Dept. Reserve Officer
PACT Volunteer, Code Enforcement

Department Of Defense Program/Contracts Manager
Raytheon Program Manager

Lead Proponent for Voter Approved Ridgecrest
Council Term Limits and Direct Elected Mayor Initiatives 2012
President Ridgecrest Gun Range Association non profit

U.S. Army, Enlisted, 1969 to 1972

Aircraft Owners Pilots Association
Life Member Vietnam Veterans
Life Member Single Action Shooters Society
NRA Certified Shooting Instructor, Life Member

I respectfully ask for your vote and support.
Thomas Wiknich


Creencias poliza

Documentos sobre determinadas posturas

Indian Wells Valley Water Issue


Three Position Papers are provided here - one follows after the other.

1) "Indian Wells Valley Water Issue"

2) "Casino in The City of Ridgecrest"

3) "City of Ridgecrest's Anti Sanctuary City vs. Sanctuary City Status"



Position on Indian Wells Valley Water Issue

Hello everyone,

The City of Ridgecrest Mayor filing period has officially ended and my candidacy has been certified. 

I am running for mayor so that I can serve the people of Ridgecrest. My experience and qualifications would enable me to hit the ground running if elected. I want to hear from YOU the public about any questions, comments, or concerns you may have about our city.

Please contact me by the following methods:

By coming to my store GUNS4US/ KZGN TV station located at 201 Panamint Ave, Ridgecrest
Phone number 760-375-1004

I will be putting out my position on the different issues starting now.

The first important issue I will be discussing today is the Indian Wells Valley Water Issue.

First, let me make this point clear. I acknowledge that we have a problem with overdraft of our water supply in the Indian Wells Valley. I also acknowledge that the state has once again mandated that we have to do something, OR ELSE. We need to agree to a solution, or they do it for us.

As I always do in issue discussion, this will present my reasoning and a recommended solution. NOT just a quick, let’s do whatever. A REAL recommended solution looking years ahead. NOT just today or this month. This will not be just a fluff commentary like most candidates try to put out as real suggestions. Example: we need to try and save water. Of course. But how about a REAL total solution.

There are only two solutions:

1.    Stop the overdraft.

2.    Find new water

Let me first offer my comments about the mandate.

I am fed up with the state always dictating what we have to do. I believe that the state could make a solution to solve the whole states water problem. But liberal environmental zealots stand in the way of every logical solution. For example: 70% of the fresh water that is available in CA, flows out the San Francisco Bay into the ocean. Just last winter they were dumping out the northern reservoirs to make room for winter run off. Dumping the water into the ocean. Instead of capturing that water, storing it, and then distributing it throughout California, they STOP a logical solution.

As much as I dislike Gov Brown, he was trying to put in a pipeline to move water from Northern CA into the Central Valley. Environmentalists again have brought suit against that project to protect some fish up there.

Just recently, Congressman McCarthy appropriated funds to also help the water crises here. However, no project has been identified to use it for. But it is possible to bring millions of dollars to the solution.

Now let’s discuss the two possible solutions:

STOP THE OVERDRAFT. The only way to do that is to reduce the current draw. Some advocate turning ALL agriculture use off. Some demand a building moratorium.

Here’s my problem with those to ideas. And my belief is based on the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to life liberty and property. Property we can use as we see fit.

If we decide to stop agriculture, which is a taking of their right to use their property as they want, they lose their rights. To do that, WE the People would have buy them out. That would likely involve payment for their land, the crops they planted, all improvements, and then some negotiated long term loss of income that our taking of their land would deprive them of. Costing millions of dollars.

Another question. Just how big, or small, of agriculture plot would be allowed? An acre or more? 10 or more acres? Small back yard gardens? Large green areas?

But here’s the fact. If we stopped ALL agriculture right now, it would NOT stop the overdraft. It would just slow it down. Some would argue that it’s better than nothing. Which is true. But look at the cost. Both constitutional and financial. 

HOW ABOUT A BUILDING MORATORIUM? Well, again I go back to the Constitution as previously mentioned above. Do we really want to stop ALL new building? Stop ALL new home and apartment construction? And at what level. Maybe allow a couple new homes per year? Well, who will decide who gets to build and who doesn’t? What happens to the small family that owns a small home now, and decides they want to improve their living arrangements? They buy a new vacant lot and decide to build their dream home. Who are we to tell them they can’t? What if you have a family member that wanted to move here and they wanted to build a new home? Would you like some government person telling your family member they can’t come back to Ridgecrest?

 Or how about a new business? Do we turn away ALL new business, because of the water problem? And again, who will decide which new business can’t start up? Or would we ever tell the Navy we don’t want them to bring any new work here?

SO WHAT’S THE SOLUTION? A REAL LONG TERM solution. Not fluffy rhetoric most candidates put out during campaigns. The only real solution is to bring in new water. And it should start with the state. They are allowing the problem to go on and on.

We need a state wide water distribution system. One that collects all water that falls in California. One that would be able to move water anywhere in the state it is needed.

I advocate that the new Groundwater Sustainability Authority (GSA), the County, and the City should bring all the other counties and cities throughout California together, for a law suit against the state. Sue the state for not acting in their responsibility to provide for the people and businesses of California. All local water companies should also join the suit to force the state to do their duty.

Enough is enough. It’s time the politicians put the people first. Not some fish in a delta up north.

Build enough water storage to keep all the water we do get from just flowing into the ocean.

And it’s not just that. There are areas of California that have plenty of water, they could put into a state system. Then BUILD an aqueduct system through all of California, to move water to where it’s need.

I had a person say this would never happen? Well, my reply is why not? There already exist many aqueducts now. If a large portion of local entities would bring suit against the state to fix the problem, they could be ordered to do so.

We need to bring water into the valley from somewhere. Many say a pipeline is too expensive. I agree it would be expensive. But think about this. If a private company years ago was able to run a pipeline from Ridgecrest to Trona, don’t you think we should be able to bring water here from somewhere else? And with the new money McCarthy has acquired for this purpose, along with the state paying their share, we wouldn’t have the entire cost laid on us.

Buying out the AG people is real expensive. A building moratorium is expensive.

Our GSA should take the lead. It already represents three counties, the city, the water district, and the Navy. While they work on the state mandated “Plan” to stop the over draft, they should be spearheading a suit against the state for dereliction of their duty to provide for the people of California.

Oh and don’t forget, the city is planning on building a new sewer treatment facility. Those plans should include water treatment to either inject back into the ground, or make the water available for distribution for outdoor use. Maybe for AG.

Part of the GSA “PLAN” should include forcing California to do what they should do. Complete a water distribution system for the whole state. Will it be expensive? Of course. But every other solution is expensive too. With a state system, ALL the taxpayers will have to pay for it. Not just us.

Finally, I ask everyone to just think about this before throwing stones at the idea. Is it the only solution? Probably not. Please contact me if you have any concerns, questions or comments regarding our water issue.

I respectfully ask for your vote and support.

Thomas Wiknich


Casino in The City of Ridgecrest


Three Position Papers are provided here - one follows after the other.

1) "Indian Wells Valley Water Issue"

2) "Casino in The City of Ridgecrest"

3) "City of Ridgecrest's Anti Sanctuary City vs. Sanctuary City Status"



Hello everyone,

The important issue I will be discussing today is the Casino issue. 

This paper will be based on the fact is that we now have an enforceable Municipal Services Agreement (MSA) contract with the Indians to build a casino. That is where we are today. 

I ask you to read this whole paper before asking questions. 

Do I think the contract is perfect? No, I don’t. I believe that there are still a few issues that need to be addressed.

Let me start by stating that this will be my assessment of the Casino project development from start to where we are today. And I want to make clear for open disclosure, Peggy Breeden, who is my opponent running for mayor, did vote to support the casino. I don’t know what her basis was to vote in support, however in this paper I will explain my position. My position of support for the casino is rooted in my use of the Constitution as a basis to make decisions. 

I want to make one thing real clear though. From the start, this whole casino project could have been handled much better than it was. The people felt as though there was too much going on in secret, it was being handled too fast, and there was not adequate consideration of the opposing side. Whether that was true or not, that was the perception. And if it’s perception, it is real to those people. For the most part I agree with those that criticize the handling. Had I had any say in it, it would have been handled much more transparently, and with more opportunity for both sides of the issue to discuss. I would have had an informal, yet official open town hall type discussion. Town hall where the council is off their dais, and sits around tables with the people to discuss. 

It’s important that when the whole casino thing came out of the backroom, I was surprised, as were most folks. It was discussed for an unknown period of time in closed door executive sessions before being made public. When public discussions started, I did not have an immediate position. I felt I needed to learn a lot more about all the nuances involved before I made a decision. But based on my belief in private property rights, yes even with Indians, that all business’s that come to the city and want to start a business should be treated the same way every other business would be treated. All business should be treated fairly and equally. I also talked to a lot of other cities and police departments that had recently built Indian Casinos. I also questioned NAWC Management on their thoughts about the project. I did a lot of my OWN research, while also listening to both sides of the discussion locally. 

At the last council meeting, the council took up Amendment 1 of the MSA to try and address a couple concerns brought up by some folks. I have to say I was dismayed as to how poorly the agenda item was handled. It seemed a couple council members were all fired up to make changes, and a couple were basically disconnected and offered little comment other than let's vote and get this over with.  After the city attorney provided his wording, there was some disagreement to the wording. The council members should have been able to provide their own wording recommendations, and each one discussed and either approved or not. That didn’t happen. That does not bring the sides closer together. It pushes the sides further apart. I saw and heard the frustration. There should have been better discussion and handling of the amendment. The opposition should have been listened to more than they were. If you don’t believe my assessment, just go watch the video from the last meeting.

Now the elephant in the room: Yes I know that there is one big difference dealing with Indians, and it’s their sovereign immunity. I’ll be discussing that next. 

I want to start by saying there is a lot on misinformation in the city as to the casino project. I am going to address the major ones here and hopefully provide information that some folks might not know yet.

      1.  SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY of an Indian project. Let’s start with the statement that it is true that Indian projects can and do have sovereignty over their land. The dispute here is the opponents of the casino declare that the tribe cannot waive their sovereign immunity. And that if they do sign a contract, the contract is not enforceable. Years ago, that was the case. But not anymore. The congress and courts have ruled on that issue. Even as recently as April, 2010, the 9th circuit court ruled against a plaintiff that did sue and loose due to Indian sovereign immunity. But the court was real clear in its ruling. In the decision, they ruled that: “Had the contract agreement established the jurisdiction that would be used to enforce the contract, it would have been enforceable, and the Indian claim of immunity would be quashed, and the contract enforced.” Our MSA does establish jurisdiction in the City of Ridgecrest.

MSA Para 8: Enforcement of State Law and Municipal Code of Trust Lands: The City SHALL have authority to enforce State laws on the trust lands……etc.

The City SHALL have authority to enforce the provisions of Ridgecrest Municipal Code Chapter 4……etc. There are further specifics, but that is the important language.

MSA Para 16: Judicial Review: The Parties consent to judicial enforcement of any award in arbitration, which enforcement SHALL be in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

      2.  WATER: Opposition folks have raised this as an issue that the tribe would be able to drill all the    wells they want, and even sell water if they want to. Again, this would be true if there wasn’t language to stop them in the MSA. From the MSA and Amendment 1:

MSA Para 10.B The Tribe SHALL provide for a water supply for the trust lands and may apply for water service with the local water district. I agree this wording was weak and needed to be enforced.

MSA Amendment 1 just passed: 1. Any use of groundwater from the Trust Lands SHALL be subject to regulation by the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority (GA). Prior to such use, the Tribe SHALL enter into an agreement with the GA that includes the Tribes agreement to: (i) abide by all regulations and fees adopted by the GA regarding the use of groundwater; and (ii) waive the Tribes sovereign immunity in favor of the GA and provide that any judicial or administrative action arising out of the regulation by the GA may be brought in California Superior Court and SHALL be governed by California law. My thought. I would have liked to see wording that prohibited them from drilling at all, and requiring them to tie into the IWVWD lines for water. The Amendment helped and should work, but I would encourage more specific wording. 

      3.  MARIJUANA: MSA Amendment 1: Para 2. The Trust Lands SHALL not be used for any commercial cannabis purposes. Even if the City of Ridgecrest lifts its commercial cannabis ban, the Trust Lands SHALL not be used for any commercial cannabis purposes.

      4.  COMPLIANCE WITH CITY ORDINANCES: MSA Para 2. The Tribe shall enact laws applicable to the Trust Lands and shall require that the Trust Lands be used and developed in a manner that complies with all applicable City general, specific and community plans, zoning ordinances….

      5.  PAYMENTS to CITY: Tribe will pay City Annual mitigation payments in the amount of $400,000 per year. Tribe will pay City $128,000 annually for municipal services. Tribe will purchase one Police vehicle in the amount of $80,000. Additionally, the Tribe is purchasing the land from the City.

      6.  EMPLOYMENT: Tribe estimates they will hire about 140 people. While the Tribe does maintain their sovereign rights to employing Tribe members, the Tribe estimates only about 20 employees will be from the Tribe. The rest would be filled from the local population.

      7.  GAMBLING AGE LIMIT: In response to the Cities request, the Tribe has agreed to set the gambling age at 21 and over.

I’ll close with this. This is a brief statement based on my own research and opinions of the whole project. The Constitution requires cities to treat any business applicants fairly and equally. They need to negotiate in good faith. Both sides have done that.

There exists a MSA agreement between the City and the Tribe. It is in effect for 20 years. Any violation or attempt to withdraw from the agreement will result in court action costing the parties hundreds of thousands of dollars. And years of litigation. The City should take no action that would result in this waste of funds.

And if the city did renege on the agreement, future businesses could see that and fear doing any negotiation with the city. Fearing that the City might just bow out at any time.

The casino is not a done deal. It still has to be approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. After that approval, then the State of California has to agree. Only after those two major hurdles are done, will it finally come back to the city to now actually control the project.

NOTE: Notice I used all caps often on the word “SHALL”. This is because the opposition has been stating often there are too many “MAYS” used in the contract, and not enough “SHALLS”. Well, I highlighted some of those in the above content.

Finally: I would appreciate hearing from you as to your thoughts or questions.

Let me know if you learned anything new from this paper.

Please call me at: 760-375-1004

E mail:

By coming to my store GUNS4US/ KZGN TV station located at 201 Panamint Ave, Ridgecrest

I respectfully ask for your vote and support.

Thomas Wiknich

City of Ridgecrest's Anti Sanctuary City vs. Sanctuary City Status


Three Position Papers are provided here - one follows after the other.

1) "Indian Wells Valley Water Issue"

2) "Casino in The City of Ridgecrest"

3) "City of Ridgecrest's Anti Sanctuary City vs. Sanctuary City Status"


My position on the City of Ridgecrest's Anti Sanctuary City vs. Sanctuary City Status

I SUPPORT a local government that cares about the rule of law—one that cares about protecting their citizens from criminals.

I SUPPORT the City of Ridgecrest to be an Anti-Sanctuary City.

I SUPPORT the Federal lawsuit against the State of CA Pro Sanctuary laws.

As I have promised, I am providing the people of Ridgecrest information and my opinions of serious issues the City of Ridgecrest is dealing with. One serious issue is the impact of Sacramento passing The State of CA Sanctuary City laws. I would encourage everyone to read this entire paper, as many will learn things they probably have not heard before.


On September 19, 2018, the City of Ridgecrest's City Council just barely passed Resolution #18-22  to join over 30 other cities and counties of California to support the Federal law suit against The State of CA Sanctuary State laws. It is now before the 9th Circuit Court. I suspect regardless of their decision, it will probably go on to the Supreme Court. The city's resolution was narrowly approved on a 3 to 2 vote. They narrowly approved adding the city to the Amicus Brief to support the rule of law. This resolution does not commit the city to any large legal fees. Or expose us to any huge law suits. All we did was vote to support the rule of law. 

The Ridgecrest City Council vote results were:

YES: Lindsey Stephens. Wallace Martin, Mike Mower
NO: Peggy Breeden, Eddie Thomas

First, I want to make sure everyone understands one thing. Sanctuary laws have NOTHING to do with border security. It is totally separate.


Second, sanctuary laws have everything to do liberal politicians protecting CRIMINAL illegal aliens. It is NOT about stopping the tearing apart of families. The sanctuary laws have CREATED the potential of families being torn apart because of the sanctuary laws.

But before I start to discuss these new laws impacts, here is a brief summary of the main three laws that affect everyone in California.


SUMMARY of three laws creating the sanctuary state/city:


    SB 54 now prevents law enforcement from: 1) telling federal agents when an immigrant will be released from jail or prison, or give them other “nonpublic” personal information other than the immigrant’s immigration status; and 2) prevents transfer immigrants directly into federal custody from local jails without a warrant from a judge for their arrest.

    AB 450: the workplace-raid law. Prohibits employers from cooperating with federal agents during workplace raids or audits. It prevents employers from letting ICE agent’s access to “nonpublic areas” of the workplace during raids or giving ICE agent’s access to employee records without a judicial warrant.

    AB 103: the detention review law. A law that requires the California attorney general to review any facility where immigrants are being detained by federal agents while waiting for an immigration court date or their deportation, including FEDERAL facilities.

Liberals believe these laws help protect illegal immigrants. But the truth is that the laws cause the unintended consequence of other illegal's being apprehended by ICE. If you read my details below, you’ll see that these laws, while some feel were well intended, actually affected many more than criminals.


I will discuss the impacts to:


1. Law and Order
2. Oath of Office for an elected official
3. Sanctuary law impacts.


     1. Law and Order. The law is the law. If you don’t like a law, there is a process to change it.
     2. Oath of Office. When law enforcement and elected officials take their oath of office, they swear they will support and defend the US and California Constitutions. ALL of the laws. Nowhere in the Constitution is it written we get to enforce the laws we agree with, and can ignore the laws we don’t agree with. For any officer, or elected official to enforce one law and ignore another law is a VIOLATION of their oath of office. The Federal government is the main agency to enforce immigration laws. And for a state or city to specifically pass a law that interferes with the Federal agent’s requirement to enforce laws, is totally unconstitutional.
     3. Sanctuary law impacts.  The only way I can describe this point is to use a real example. Location, Kern County Jail. BEFORE the sanctuary laws that PROHIBIT the county sheriff of cooperation with ICE agents, Kern County provided an office in the jail for ICE agents to have access to the “Prisoner” data base, so they could track CRIMINAL illegal aliens. So, when they did their time, and got released, then ICE would know about the release and be there to take the CRIMINAL in to custody and set them up for deportation. So they didn’t just get released into our community to make more of us victims of their criminal activity.
        Now, according to the new STATE laws the county can’t do that. So, now ICE has to find another way to find these CRIMINALS. So, what do they do? They now are forced out of the jail, or court, and they have to go into local communities to find these CRIMINALS for deportation. To do that they knock on doors looking for these criminals. What happens when that happens? They find other illegal aliens, other than the criminal ones. Since ICE cannot choose what laws they enforce, they now have a duty to pick up any person they discover is here illegally. The sanctuary law CAUSES this splitting up of families. If the law hadn’t prohibited law enforcement cooperation with ICE agents, other illegal’s would never have been discovered. Same thing happened in Oakland. Remember the liberal so called hero Mayor of Oakland warning the community of ICE sweeps? Well, the ICE sweep was coming because the sanctuary laws stopped ICE from working in the courts or with local law enforcement. So, they were being forced into the local community looking for the CRIMINALS. But when they found them, 80% of arrests were illegal criminals. 20% were arrests of other illegal aliens. Again, the sanctuary law caused those 20% of arrests. Not to mention how dangerous the warning was to ICE agents by telling criminals that ICE was coming, so they could run and hide. Or be prepared to fight law enforcement.


Now let me address the assertion that sanctuary laws really don’t affect the people of Ridgecrest. And that this action is meaningless or just symbolic. That can’t be further from the truth.


Since Federal agents are no longer picking up illegal CRIMINALS in Bakersfield, and deporting them, they are being released back into the community. And if they would normally reside here in Ridgecrest, they come back here. Again, this is about CRIMINALS being allowed back here to make more victims of their criminal activity, instead of being deported.


So, now our own police and sheriff deputies just wait for these criminals to break more laws, then arrest them again and put them in the system. In the meantime, more of the people have become victims. When are Sacramento and the liberals ever going to care about the victims of crime? Instead of just worrying about criminals?


This is why the City of Ridgecrest joined in support of the Federal law suit against the State of CA sanctuary laws. It’s about law and order. It’s about a society that cares about protecting us and the victims of criminal activity.


When you vote November 6th, make sure you know how your candidate of choice stands on sanctuary laws. It is not racist or bigoted to support the enforcement of the law. It has nothing to do with race. It only has to do with getting rid of criminals and providing safety to our citizens.


I SUPPORT a local government that cares about the rule of law—one that cares about protecting their citizens from criminals.
I SUPPORT the City of Ridgecrest to be an Anti-Sanctuary City.
I SUPPORT the Federal lawsuit against the State of CA Pro Sanctuary laws.


In the upcoming election, depending on who gets elected, the vote on this issue could change if there are any future city council votes.


As always, I’d like to hear your thoughts and ideas. Please contact me by the following methods:


By coming to my store GUNS4US/ KZGN TV station located at 201 Panamint Ave, Ridgecrest
Phone number 760-375-1004

I respectfully ask for your vote and support.

Thomas Wiknich

Información de contacto del candidato

¿Quién más se está postulando?

Comparta este sitio para ayudar a otras personas a investigar sus opciones para las votaciones.