My CCW was denied

[E Pluribus Unum]

I knew this was going to happen. They did not even want me to fill out the app. The lady at the front desk said "They are very rarely given".

I am purely discusted. I know the Sheriff will give me a permit but I expect more from my police department as a resident.

I wonder how I can get a list of people that have been issued CCWs.

They had no way for me to submit my "Just cause". It was a mandatory oral interview where I STATED my just cause. Its not really possible to see what other's just causes were.

[wellerjohn]

What just cause did you use?:rolleyes:

[thegratenate]

That is part of the process, now you can go to the county and get your permit issued. It doesn't matter what your personal good cause is, very few cities will issue, and by not issuing they are deferring to the county.

Now take your denial letter and apply to the county.

[Billy Jack]

http://www.chrisronk.net/pics/ccw-no-c.JPG



I knew this was going to happen. They did not even want me to fill out the app. The lady at the front desk said "They are very rarely given".

I am purely discusted. I know Kern County Sheriff will give me a permit but I expect more from my police department as a resident.

I wonder how I can get a list of people that have been issued CCWs.

They had no way for me to submit my "Just cause". It was a mandatory oral interview where I STATED my just cause. Its not really possible to see what other's just causes were.

I do not want to go 'lawyer' on you but there is no such thing as 'just cause' in the Penal Code. You have a denial letter from your primary department which you should not have posted here and which I highly recommend you remove immediately. Policy in many counties where the Sheriff is liberal with regard to CCW issuance is to have you first apply to your local department and obtain a letter of denial. You are now free to apply to the SO for a CCW. This is a courtesy and professional consideration extended to local Chiefs. This is the case in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties and it may be the same in Kern as well. Sheriff Youngblood is a fair Sheriff and you will be treated fairly.

I would not go on a public forum, posting your denial letter with your first name displayed and badmouth your primary department. You are sending the wrong message to Kern County when you apply there. Additionally referring to 'Good Cause' as 'just cause' displays a rather basic lack of understanding of 12050PC, another bad message to the the SO.

When a person applies for a CCW they are being judged on Good Cause, Moral Character and judgment. Be really careful about posting in such a manner that that calls these traits into question. By your actions and statements you may have already irrevocably shot yourself in the foot.

Billy Jack

[CitaDeL]

The only good cause you really need is articulated in the Constitution... it is "necessary for a free State".

I suppose you could go to the Kern county authorities for permission, but I think I would be inclined to keep a copy of that letter in my wallet while openly carrying. When confronted by police, I would pull the letter out stating that the police gave me no other alternative when they denied permission to conceal.

This gives the issuing authority two choices- issue licenses to exclude the probability of getting reports of 'armed subject" or change their contact policy for those that are peacable open carriers.

[tango-52]

Kern County Sheriff does issue. This was just your first step. And as far as discretion and good judgement goes, Billy Jack is correct. Ask Kestryll to delete this entire thread. Don't screw yourself like others have done by getting indignant and self-righteous. This isn't a crusade, it is a process. Good luck.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Actually, Kern County doesn't make you go through the "get denied by the first guy, then come see us" game anymoe. Everyone can apply straight to the county now. I think the OP just likes to make a point.

[Pronghorn]

Go through the county.

ETA: I went through Shafter PD. They are very pro CCW, and any just cause will work.

[Big O]

This gives the issuing authority two choices- issue licenses to exclude the probability of getting reports of 'armed subject" or change their contact policy for those that are peacable open carriers.
No, there is still a third choice. They can change the open carry law.

The only good cause you really need is articulated in the Constitution... it is "necessary for a free State".
However canny and slick comeback, I think they've proven that regardless of what the constitution says, it is not necessary for a "free state." That argument will take you nowhere anymore. Perhaps Heller will change that.

[bohoki]

good cause for the issuance of a permit is obviously

so i can comply with the law while carrying a concealed pistol

funny they don't really artiulate why you feel the need to carry the gun

just why you want the permit

its a subtile difference but words are very important in law

hmm i wonder if this reason would fly

when traveling to and from a firing range i often transport $10,000 dollars worth of firearms and accessories including registered assault weapons and need to keep them out of the hands of criminals,if i cannot carry a loaded pistol i have no way of preventing them from falling into the wrong hands

[CCWFacts]

The lady at the front desk said "They are very rarely given".

That's probably true... with Bakerfield PD. You should apply to the county. Kern County issues thousands of them.

[Whitesmoke]

There is a verbal agreement between the BPD and the KCSD that city residents can just apply to the County.

The reason being that the Police chief is not an elected official....and the city doesn't want the liability. The County Sheriff is an elected official and has to answer to the citizens of kern county for his actions. If you want to be sheriff of this county....then you better be willing to issue them or you will never get elected.

[ibanezfoo]

When they deny these things, will they also give you a signed guarantee that they will be wherever you need precisely when you need them to take down whoever is robbing/attacking/raping you?

-Bryan

[thedrickel]

Get a grip man, you live in Kern County. Apply to the Sheriff and STFU.

[Scotty]

I used to shoot with the Chief of Police in a nearby city. He's pro-gun, pro-CCW. BUT he won't issue in his city. He passes the buck over the the County Sheriff who will issue. That was city policy.

[GuyW]

Does Bakersfield PD issue to anybody??

[CCWFacts]

The reason being that the Police chief is not an elected official....and the city doesn't want the liability.

I must leap in here and make a point. THERE IS NO LIABILITY FOR ISSUING, so long as issuance is in accordance with the law. California's government code gives sweeping immunity to public officials acting within the scope of their duties. The chief could issue a permit to someone who then goes on a rampage and shoots up a preschool, and the chief has no liability for that, just like if someone gets a drivers license and goes on a hit-and-run rampage, the DMV and the state have no liability for it.

As for the advice: don't get into a huff with Bakersfield PD. Take down this denial letter. It's hosted from your personal website and it's obvious who you are. You posted your resume and full name and everything.

Then apply to Kern County and get issued like everyone else.

[Knauga]

Kern is by and far the number one issuer of CCW's in this state. You could have already been packing (legally) if you had gone to the Sheriff to begin with.

[E Pluribus Unum]

Kern is by and far the number one issuer of CCW's in this state. You could have already been packing (legally) if you had gone to the Sheriff to begin with.

I went to the Sheriff about a year ago; they told me "Apply in the city because you are a city resident".

As for the people who think I should pull this letter, I appreciate the concern but I doubt it will matter.

I am sending a letter to the BPD telling them I plan to open carry. I refuse to be a victim; if they wont issue me a CCW then I will carry openly and we'll see how they like "them apples."

[Diabolus]

It seems things have changed in the past year. I would do as suggested earlier and apply with Kern County.

[CCWFacts]

I am sending a letter to the BPD telling them I plan to open carry. I refuse to be a victim; if they wont issue me a CCW then I will carry openly and we'll see how they like "them apples."

Don't do it. Please, take down the letter from your website, don't send any letters about open carry, and go ahead and apply to the sheriff. You're in Kern County. Kern County has issued more permits than any other county in the state.

Don't get into a huff. If you start open carrying or having a public row with the police chief, you will doom your chances of ever getting a CCW.

[Ironchef]

Agreed. At least try the county application before going 'OC Anal' on them.

BTW, how much did it cost to apply for the CCW at BPD? ANd how much will it cost to try again at KCSO? It's like $500 in Contra Costa.

[pnkssbtz]

Please explain, without mystical hand gestures, why public disclosure of a CCW denial is bad?

If you guys read what he posted, there is some interesting information, such as that his "good cause" (quite splitting hairs, good cause /just case same difference, and you know it) was given orally not written so there ARE NO RECORDS OF IT.

[tango-52]

Please explain, without mystical hand gestures, why public disclosure of a CCW denial is bad?

If you guys read what he posted, there is some interesting information, such as that his "good cause" (quite splitting hairs, good cause /just case same difference, and you know it) was given orally not written so there ARE NO RECORDS OF IT.

To come onto a public web site and rant, rave, threaten to OC anyway, posting his denial letter, etc. could be seen as a significant lack of restraint and good judgement. This could be used to say that the applicant lacks the prudence to stay in control of his emotions, and therefore cannot be trusted with the privelege of carrying a concealed firearm. It has happened before. ;)

[AKman]

I knew this was going to happen. They did not even want me to fill out the app. The lady at the front desk said "They are very rarely given".

I am purely discusted. I know Kern County Sheriff will give me a permit but I expect more from my police department as a resident.

I wonder how I can get a list of people that have been issued CCWs.

They had no way for me to submit my "Just cause". It was a mandatory oral interview where I STATED my just cause. Its not really possible to see what other's just causes were.


This has denial written over it, not to mention a bunch of the other pics on your MySpace page:

http://a607.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/105/l_eaa528ecb6217b8cc9c05b63e9d6f206.jpg

Your "favorite riding spot" also has lawbreaker written all over it. And the picture of you in your jammies and orange belt is almost too much to take. While you might feel a CCW is your right, it helps to play the game and leave no doubt as to your character.

[pnkssbtz]

To come onto a public web site and rant, rave, threaten to OC anyway, posting his denial letter, etc. could be seen as a significant lack of restraint and good judgement. This could be used to say that the applicant lacks the prudence to stay in control of his emotions, and therefore cannot be trusted with the privelege of carrying a concealed firearm. It has happened before. ;)

1.) This is not a rant or a rave. If you believe such, I would like to direct you to maddox.xmission.org for REAL RANTS & RAVES

2.) If he is legally allowed to OC, how exactly is excercising one's legal rights "threatening"?

3.) How is public disclosure of a denial letter, with information alleging malfeasance on the part of the denying agency (oral interview vs. written records) a "significant lack of restraint"?

4.) How is public disclosure and dissemination of information show lack of "restraint and poor judgment." His disclosure is clearly within his first amendment rights. Are you saying that exercising of one's constitutionally granted rights is "poor judgment?"



I'm sorry, but you did not answer my questions. None of the answers you've given seem reasonable, as they are all contingent on the fact that legally exercising one's rights is bad.

[JALLEN]

1.)

4.) How is public disclosure and dissemination of information show lack of "restraint and poor judgment." His disclosure is clearly within his first amendment rights. Are you saying that exercising of one's constitutionally granted rights is "poor judgment?"



Speech may be "free" but it is not always without cost.

The Old Rancher always taught that life is hard when you're an *******. This may be one of those situations.

[team06]

I have seen time and time again, people telling others not to post their good cause statement, turned down letters, and other such things. I have also seen others lately posting a collection or GC statements here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=106640

It is interesting to me that it is sometimes ok, sometimes not ok on this board to do almost the same things...
Don't get me wrong, I am thankful that a place such as this exists, if for no other reason than for the exchange of new information.
I have never heard a good reason for not posting these things, except for the sake of annonimity.

team06

[bwiese]

Adding drama to a process where a drama-free situation usually leads to favorable results is not the brightest idea.

CCW processes in that county are generally far better than, say dealing with the Brady-run DOJ FD. Furthermore, there are folks posting here who are absolute friggin' experts and 'know how things go' and what behaviors lead to favorable results. Those folks should be listened to.

[tango-52]

1.) This is not a rant or a rave. If you believe such, I would like to direct you to maddox.xmission.org for REAL RANTS & RAVES

2.) If he is legally allowed to OC, how exactly is excercising one's legal rights "threatening"?

3.) How is public disclosure of a denial letter, with information alleging malfeasance on the part of the denying agency (oral interview vs. written records).

4.) How is public disclosure and dissemination of information show lack of "restraint and poor judgment." His disclosure is clearly within his first amendment rights. Are you saying that exercising of one's constitutionally granted rights is "poor judgment?"



I'm sorry, but you did not answer my questions. None of the answers you've given seem reasonable, as they are all contingent on the fact that legally exercising one's rights is bad.


1. He has been directed on how to get his CCW from the Sheriff, who issues readily. Many county Sheriffs require that you be denied by your city first. He could have done that and been discrete (concealed means concealed). Instead, he came here to express his displeasure in having to follow standard procedure. Boo Hoo. At least he lives in a county that issues readily. He needs to get over it and move on. Unless, of course, his real purpose is other than receiving a CCW, and is, instead, trying to make a political statement.

2. The way he presented how he was going to inform the City is easy to interpret as a threat. Paraphrasing - "Since you wouldn't give me a CCW, I'm going to parade around town OCing, annoying people, and causing you grief."

3. What malfeasance? Most departments don't want the Good Cause section filled in because they fill it in during the interview or keep it as part of their investigation notes.

4. Public disclosure of personal correspondence is not being discrete. He is totally within his constitutional rights to say and do any darn fool thing he wants, as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on others. However, his behavior will be considered by those with discretionary power over CCWs.

CCW in California is a privelege, not a right (yet). In order to be trusted with that privelege, one must demonstrate an ability to be discrete and comply with societal norms and standards. I get the impression that compliance with societal norms and standards does not interest you. Fair enough. Just don't complain when you are denied those priveleges. :cool:

[GuyW]

To come onto a public web site and rant, rave, threaten to OC anyway, posting his denial letter, etc. could be seen as a significant lack of restraint and good judgement. This could be used to say that the applicant lacks the prudence to stay in control of his emotions, and therefore cannot be trusted with the privelege of carrying a concealed firearm. It has happened before. ;)

Oooh - how challengable THAT line of "thought" would be in a lawsuit...talk about jumping to conclusions with no facts...

[yellowfin]

This could be used to say that the applicant lacks the prudence to stay in control of his emotions, and therefore cannot be trusted with the privelege of carrying a concealed firearm. It has happened before. ;) Hence why the ability of an LE entity to say who can and can't carry is in dire need of removal. Concealed carry is a human right, the right to survive and thrive as a living human being against threats in your surroundings without molestation by others of different beliefs or inclinations. It is what the founders referred to as a natural right. It is sadly not recognized as such because we have people in power who have no interest in the rights of the common people whatsoever and too large a percentage of the population sees no wrong in it. The notion that it's a privelege is one that's repeated and upheld by precedent but it is no more true because it's been said a million times or by sufficiently powerful people than if the same people said styrofoam can be cooked and eaten as filet mignon.

It is disturbing that people here do not assert carry rights as natural rights and that departure from recognition of such rights is in any way normal. If everyone you know is missing a couple toes from accidents at work does that make having 8 or 7 toes the "real" complete number just because that's what your experience says and that's what you see where you are?

[tango-52]

Oooh - how challengable THAT line of "thought" would be in a lawsuit...talk about jumping to conclusions with no facts...

Actually, all that would be needed would be to get copies of his various web site(s) postings. Remember, it is a "discretionary" permit. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying what reality is. Do I want Shall Issue, where the Sheriff would have to prove a valid reason to deny him? Of course. Is that our reality in California? No. Deal with reality, not wishes.

[CCWFacts]

Oooh - how challengable THAT line of "thought" would be in a lawsuit...talk about jumping to conclusions with no facts...

This isn't about lawsuits.

99% of CCW applicants just want their CCWs and do not want to sue. "It's challengeable in court" may be true but it's irrelevant to 99% of applicants. Bakersfield PD and Kern County can deny him based on his attitude and so on, and what's he going to do about it? From looking at his website, I don't think he has the resources to go to legal war with either of these government entities. If they don't issue to him by their own volition, he's not getting a permit.

Actually, all that would be needed would be to get copies of his various web site(s) postings. Remember, it is a "discretionary" permit. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying what reality is. Do I want Shall Issue, where the Sheriff would have to prove a valid reason to deny him? Of course. Is that our reality in California? No. Deal with reality, not wishes.

Exactly.

[IGOTDIRT4U]

That is part of the process, now you can go to the county and get your permit issued. It doesn't matter what your personal good cause is, very few cities will issue, and by not issuing they are deferring to the county.

Now take your denial letter and apply to the county.

This is true. It is standard procedure for cities that have declared "G" to deny you so you are free to apply at the County. As to the oral interview, that is legal and accepted practice. As to seeing the other GC's, no, it must be yours, and yours alone. Merely trying to see what others wrote as GC so you can mimic those efforts WILL NOT get you a permit.

[IGOTDIRT4U]

I went to the Sheriff about a year ago; they told me "Apply in the city because you are a city resident".

As for the people who think I should pull this letter, I appreciate the concern but I doubt it will matter.

I am sending a letter to the BPD telling them I plan to open carry. I refuse to be a victim; if they wont issue me a CCW then I will carry openly and we'll see how they like "them apples."

You have got to be kidding. You have the ability to get a CCW from the County, like so many others have already in your County, but you would rather have a "Stick it to the man" attitude and end up with legal bills you most likely can afford??? Wow! Darwinism at work.

[GuyW]

This is true. It is standard procedure for cities that have declared "G" to deny you so you are free to apply at the County.


Is this Kansas, Toto?

...If a city has declared "G", it has no legal business saying anything else about CCWs....it is out of the game....no authority...

[IGOTDIRT4U]

Is this Kansas, Toto?

...If a city has declared "G", it has no legal business saying anything else about CCWs....it is out of the game....no authority...

Witty, or lack of, comments aside, yes, correct, my poor editting (it's been a long 24 hours). Cities that have declared "G" will automatically refer you on to the proper agency (most likely scenario is that they do not even let you apply and explain that they have a MOA with the County). For cities that do not issue, for their own reasons, will deny you so you can then proceed to the proper agency, in Kern Counties case, to the SO.

[99sparks]

Is this Kansas, Toto?

...If a city has declared "G", it has no legal business saying anything else about CCWs....it is out of the game....no authority...

Kansas??? Kansas is much more reasonable about issue. No it is not Kansas. Toto has one!:)

[GuyW]

Toto has one!:)

Toto's totin'?

Who'da guessed??

[tombinghamthegreat]

As for the people who think I should pull this letter, I appreciate the concern but I doubt it will matter.

I am sending a letter to the BPD telling them I plan to open carry. I refuse to be a victim; if they wont issue me a CCW then I will carry openly and we'll see how they like "them apples."

Remember once you send the letter there is no turning back and word the letter carefully. Make sure you understand the OC laws and carry on. They will not like "them apples" but then again where does the police/government get the right to infringe on our rights? The answer is simple to those who those who understand the that our rights are unalienable, they must be defended from enemies foriegn and domestic.

[pnkssbtz]

1. He has been directed on how to get his CCW from the Sheriff, who issues readily. Many county Sheriffs require that you be denied by your city first. He could have done that and been discrete (concealed means concealed). Instead, he came here to express his displeasure in having to follow standard procedure. Boo Hoo. At least he lives in a county that issues readily. He needs to get over it and move on. Unless, of course, his real purpose is other than receiving a CCW, and is, instead, trying to make a political statement.

2. The way he presented how he was going to inform the City is easy to interpret as a threat. Paraphrasing - "Since you wouldn't give me a CCW, I'm going to parade around town OCing, annoying people, and causing you grief."

3. What malfeasance? Most departments don't want the Good Cause section filled in because they fill it in during the interview or keep it as part of their investigation notes.

4. Public disclosure of personal correspondence is not being discrete. He is totally within his constitutional rights to say and do any darn fool thing he wants, as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on others. However, his behavior will be considered by those with discretionary power over CCWs.

CCW in California is a privelege, not a right (yet). In order to be trusted with that privelege, one must demonstrate an ability to be discrete and comply with societal norms and standards. I get the impression that compliance with societal norms and standards does not interest you. Fair enough. Just don't complain when you are denied those priveleges. :cool:
While you have technically responded to my points, I still do not see a credible response to them.

1.) Again, how is commenting and expressing one's opinion or making a political statement wrong? Since you feel it is. Have you ever express discontent with an issue here publicly on the board? If so, would that not make you a hypocrite for saying such things as:"Instead, he came here to express his displeasure in having to follow standard procedure. Boo Hoo. At least he lives in a county that issues readily. He needs to get over it and move on. Unless, of course, his real purpose is other than receiving a CCW, and is, instead, trying to make a political statement.'

2.) Please elaborate how "parading around town OC'ing" is "threatening". Again, are you saying that exercising legal rights and privileges is considered threatening? (Your paraphrasing to include "grief" and "annoy" is quite disingenuous.)

3.) "Most departments..." that is a fallacy (appeal to Tradition/Majority). Just because "most departments" do something, does not make it right. But it is quite evident that by not including the ability to answer on the written application the good cause the inequality and lack of equal protection cannot be disclosed via a public records request (because there is no such written record). This is where my accusation of malfeasance comes into play. This is the government, with an official application. To intentionally refuse to document critical elements of an application is the very definition of malfeasance.

4.) "Discretion" or, in this case privacy is the sole decision of EPU. Since as a government agency, their documents are not considered "private". If EPU wishes to disclose them publicly that is his discretion. I still fail to see how the publication of this denial letter seriously raises any concerns as towards any lack of discretion considering it contains no information other than that he was denied for insufficient lack of cause. (Of which I will note there is no written documentation of his lack of cause so no means by which to verify equal protection and consistency and fairness).

Further, many people have stated that public disclosure of what constitutes "good cause" is not prudent because if the criteria or examples of good cause are publicly known, then people could "falsely" use these examples as their own to apply. With the end results being that LEO's would be even more stricter when faced with the conjectured overwhelming duplicity of the applicants.

To that I say:

"Doctors have been caught using poisons, and those who falsely assume the name of philosopher have occasionally been detected in the gravest crimes. Let us give up eating, it often makes us ill; let us never go inside houses, for sometimes they collapse on their occupants; let never a sword be forged for a soldier, since it might be used by a robber." - Marcus Fabius Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, II, xvi (first century AD).

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction." - an excerpt from Cesare Beccaria's "On Crimes and Punishment"


Anyone who makes such an argument does so from a false position. Are not applicants supposed to provide verification of their good cause? So would not mere regurgitation be insufficient? Are all persons who use this information to realize that they legitimately have grounds for "good cause" then guilty of perjury if they use knowledge of past applicants before they apply, despite providing credible support for their claims?

And to those who claim that each department has different standards, and as such, this warrants complete lack of divulging of such information is also quite disingenuous. As the previous argument claims, each "Good Cause" must be "unique" (ignoring the fact that two jewelers who carry diamonds could have identical grounds and good causes), they would be merely examples of good causes, of which the ultimate decision of merit is to be decided by the individual.

But no, oh no. We are not to ever publicly disclose such information because... well I still fail to see any credible reason.



The excuses are nothing but F.U.D.

[bwiese]

Damn, this is a train-wreck.

The OP is just *asking* for the county not to give a permit.

Just think: is one more likely to get a permit when he appears to be way different (i.e., 'sore thumb') than typical successful applicants?


Kinda reminds me of a old friend with whom I went to high school. Very bright guy, got a math degree. Ends up underemployed for last decade or so (partly due to avoidance of programming, but still there were opportunities)... why?

Because on one job, he called OSHA when the restroom was outta TP.

I'm not kidding.

He hasn't been fully employed since then. Somewhere, somehow, it seems every co with whom he's ever subsequently interviewed (at least in biotech industry) got wind of this.

[tango-52]

pnkssbtz:

Apparently, you like to argue for the sake of the argument. Personally, I don't give a hoot. I thought he actually wanted to get his CCW, and I was trying to help him out. If this is, instead, a Great Strike against the Evil Oppressive MAN, then good luck with that. But don't be surprised when the discretionary permit is not issued.

[Shotgun Man]

[QUOTE]1296652I am sending a letter to the BPD telling them I plan to open carry. I refuse to be a victim; if they wont issue me a CCW then I will carry openly and we'll see how they like "them apples."

Can we see the letter?

[pnkssbtz]

pnkssbtz:

Apparently, you like to argue for the sake of the argument. Personally, I don't give a hoot. I thought he actually wanted to get his CCW, and I was trying to help him out. If this is, instead, a Great Strike against the Evil Oppressive MAN, then good luck with that. But don't be surprised when the discretionary permit is not issued.
Ah, now we have come to the point where such arguments as ad hominem are being used. I would like to politely request that you please address my arguments and to refrain from commenting about my person.


I was simply asking why public disclosure of a denial letter containing no information as to the good cause statement used, other than it was found to be insufficient (whatever it was) is considered a "lack" of discretion.

I made no statements as to whether or not this would further his ability to acquire a permit, I merely questioned the hypocrisy and or fallacy of several statements and common arguments presented here.

[Whitesmoke]

I must leap in here and make a point. THERE IS NO LIABILITY FOR ISSUING, so long as issuance is in accordance with the law. California's government code gives sweeping immunity to public officials acting within the scope of their duties. The chief could issue a permit to someone who then goes on a rampage and shoots up a preschool, and the chief has no liability for that, just like if someone gets a drivers license and goes on a hit-and-run rampage, the DMV and the state have no liability for it.


Your right....what I should have said was the city doesn't want the "political liability".

I'm just thankful I live in a county that issues more CCW's than any other county in the state. Every person that I know with a clear record that has applied here in kern county has recieved their CCW.....I have over 40 friends and friendly acquaintances that I can name off the top of my head that have recieved one.

[E Pluribus Unum]

Can we see the letter?

I have not written one. I don't know what to do about it.

I wrote this post at 3:00AM 20 seconds after opening the letter. I can and will apply at the county and I will receive a permit. That is not the point.

I guess I did not post the whole story. I have been having issues with my druggy ex girlfriend threatening me with a firearm. I have called 911 to no avail. They have told me that she can call me and threaten me from across town and that is not a "credible threat" that she basically has to be at my house or at my work with a gun for it to be credible. I cannot document the fact that she has ever hit me so there is no domestic violence protection order possibility. I am basically SOL until she shows up with a gun. The last time I called 911 it was on a Saturday and because it was not a "credible threat" it got low priority and it took them over 24 hours to even call me back to see if I still needed help.

I own a business and despite the looks of my website I do carry large amounts of valued computer equipment with me and I could easily fall victim to her, or a thief. I just feel that the law is unable to protect me and in those circumstances I should be given the tools to protect myself.

It has taken them 45 days to get back to me, it will take another 30-45 days to get a permit from the Sheriff. It is just so very frustrating trying to be a law-abiding citizen and jump through all the hoops when I know any day there could be someone waiting for me at my vehicle or outside a restaurant.

It is so very frustrating that I cannot rely on my local police department to protect and serve me.

[tango-52]

EPU,

Please PM me. You have a number of options.

[pnkssbtz]

I have not written one. I don't know what to do about it.

I wrote this post at 3:00AM 20 seconds after opening the letter. I can and will apply at the county and I will receive a permit. That is not the point.

I guess I did not post the whole story. I have been having issues with my druggy ex girlfriend threatening me with a firearm. I have called 911 to no avail. They have told me that she can call me and threaten me from across town and that is not a "credible threat" that she basically has to be at my house or at my work with a gun for it to be credible. I cannot document the fact that she has ever hit me so there is no domestic violence protection order possibility. I am basically SOL until she shows up with a gun. The last time I called 911 it was on a Saturday and because it was not a "credible threat" it got low priority and it took them over 24 hours to even call me back to see if I still needed help.

I own a business and despite the looks of my website I do carry large amounts of valued computer equipment with me and I could easily fall victim to her, or a thief. I just feel that the law is unable to protect me and in those circumstances I should be given the tools to protect myself.

It has taken them 45 days to get back to me, it will take another 30-45 days to get a permit from the Sheriff. It is just so very frustrating trying to be a law-abiding citizen and jump through all the hoops when I know any day there could be someone waiting for me at my vehicle or outside a restaurant.

It is so very frustrating that I cannot rely on my local police department to protect and serve me.

The threat must convey "imminency". Saying merely "I will kick your butt." is not enough. If one were to say "I will kick your butt right now" or "Tomorrow morning" or "as soon as I hang up and drive over there" would be different situations.

[E Pluribus Unum]

The threat must convey "imminency". Saying merely "I will kick your butt." is not enough. If one were to say "I will kick your butt right now" or "Tomorrow morning" or "as soon as I hang up and drive over there" would be different situations.

That is what they say. I guess "I'm going to kill you" or "I'm going to shoot you in the face" is not a "credible threat".

It is horse crap. She has broken into my house, taken my stuff, showed up at my clients. Because she has never threatened to shoot me while holding a gun, and the only other time she does so is on the phone, it cannot be recorded and I am just SOL. The last time I called 911 when I saw her outside my house it took the police 30 minutes to get there.

BPD is spread so thin and there is so much crime in the city, their only purpose would be to mop up the blood and write a report.

I do not blame them for the lack of response; it is expecting too much for them to protect everyone all of the time. When they take my own tools to defend myself away from me, THAT is where I get upset.

[CCWFacts]

I guess I did not post the whole story. I have been having issues with my druggy ex girlfriend threatening me with a firearm. I have called 911 to no avail. They have told me that she can call me and threaten me from across town and that is not a "credible threat" that she basically has to be at my house or at my work with a gun for it to be credible.

That's right. They get calls all the time.

It has taken them 45 days to get back to me, it will take another 30-45 days to get a permit from the Sheriff. It is just so very frustrating trying to be a law-abiding citizen and jump through all the hoops when I know any day there could be someone waiting for me at my vehicle or outside a restaurant.

It is so very frustrating that I cannot rely on my local police department to protect and serve me.

Welcome to reality. The police have no duty to protect you. In your location in particular, distances are long; if they can show up at your location within 10 minutes of a call, that's fast.

As for being annoyed about having to wait a couple of months for a permit, that's also reality. There are only two states where you can CCW without waiting for a permit, and California isn't one of them. There are a handful of states where you can loaded open carry without a permit, and California isn't one of them.

You are very very lucky to be living in this state's county with the largest number of issued permits. Kern is very CCW friendly. Just don't screw yourself up failing their attitude test.

[GuyW]

This isn't about lawsuits.

99% of CCW applicants just want their CCWs and do not want to sue. "It's challengeable in court" may be true but it's irrelevant to 99% of applicants. Bakersfield PD and Kern County can deny him based on his attitude and so on, and what's he going to do about it? From looking at his website, I don't think he has the resources to go to legal war with either of these government entities. If they don't issue to him by their own volition, he's not getting a permit.


Baloney - Bakersfield PD obviously needs a visit from TBJ...

[CCWFacts]

Baloney - Bakersfield PD obviously needs a visit from TBJ...

Anyone who is a resident of Kern County and who can't get a CCW one way or another, probably shouldn't be carrying a gun.

If Bakersfield PD doesn't want to issue, but Bakersfield residents have an easy time at Kern, I don't see what the problem is. Aren't there more important things to do in life than sue departments where people can easily get permits by just going to their sheriff? More important things, like suing Chief Fong? Chief Fong should be fairly easy because the files that need to be reviewed are so few. There's only a dozen permits out in SF and they are in gross violation of Salute v. Pitchess by only issuing to certain government officials.

[RomanDad]

Damn, this is a train-wreck.

The OP is just *asking* for the county not to give a permit.

Just think: is one more likely to get a permit when he appears to be way different (i.e., 'sore thumb') than typical successful applicants?


Kinda reminds me of a old friend with whom I went to high school. Very bright guy, got a math degree. Ends up underemployed for last decade or so (partly due to avoidance of programming, but still there were opportunities)... why?

Because on one job, he called OSHA when the restroom was outta TP.

I'm not kidding.

He hasn't been fully employed since then. Somewhere, somehow, it seems every co with whom he's ever subsequently interviewed (at least in biotech industry) got wind of this.
:iagree:

I suggest the OP take up Salmon Fishing.... A little time with the Salmon and a river has two effects... It calms the soul, and it teaches that swimming upstream is bad for your health.


Something seems strange here.... Like theres a part of the story were not hearing? Does the OP have a history with the Sheriff that would indicate its unlikely they'll issue the permit? Otherwise, why all the histrionics? A, "Damn!!! I applied to get a CCW to my city and they said no, so now I have to go apply over there where they just about always say yes... What a PITA!" would have sufficed. I mean, its an inconvenience, but it doesn't warrant all this. Unless its a preemptive strike because he knows he isnt going to get it from them either?

[GuyW]

Equal treatment under the law.

Why should the Bakersfield CoP be allowed to violate the law with impunity, while at the same time Santa Maria's and Torrance's CoP are hating life??


Anyone who is a resident of Kern County and who can't get a CCW one way or another, probably shouldn't be carrying a gun.

If Bakersfield PD doesn't want to issue, but Bakersfield residents have an easy time at Kern, I don't see what the problem is. Aren't there more important things to do in life than sue departments where people can easily get permits by just going to their sheriff? More important things, like suing Chief Fong? Chief Fong should be fairly easy because the files that need to be reviewed are so few. There's only a dozen permits out in SF and they are in gross violation of Salute v. Pitchess by only issuing to certain government officials.

[CCWFacts]

Why should the Bakersfield CoP be allowed to violate the law with impunity, while at the same time Santa Maria's and Torrance's CoP are hating life??

Because the actions of the CoPs of SM and Torrance are resulting in their residents having no way of getting CCWs, while residents of Bakersfield have no trouble getting them?

[yellowfin]

Witty, or lack of, comments aside, yes, correct, my poor editting (it's been a long 24 hours). Cities that have declared "G" will automatically refer you on to the proper agency (most likely scenario is that they do not even let you apply and explain that they have a MOA with the County). For cities that do not issue, for their own reasons, will deny you so you can then proceed to the proper agency, in Kern Counties case, to the SO.
Have any cities been convinced to undeclare "G" (must be nothing but a G thang, baby...) by us? They're passing up loads of money and potential reason for their citizens to like them a lot better. It would be a major perk to get people to move from one nearby city to another. By the way, I gather there was a case of a city deliberately going shall issue to raise money from people in the surrounding areas, but then the hoplophobes stomped on it. What was that again, and can we get whatever measure they passed against it rolled back?

[E Pluribus Unum]

Something seems strange here.... Like theres a part of the story were not hearing? Does the OP have a history with the Sheriff that would indicate its unlikely they'll issue the permit? Otherwise, why all the histrionics? A, "Damn!!! I applied to get a CCW to my city and they said no, so now I have to go apply over there where they just about always say yes... What a PITA!" would have sufficed. I mean, its an inconvenience, but it doesn't warrant all this. Unless its a preemptive strike because he knows he isnt going to get it from them either?

You are missing the point. The CCW is really moot. It is the idea that local PDs have no clue what it means to "protect and serve". Until they can respond to every 911 call within 5 minutes they have no business even having a traffic enforcement division. Take the RADAR gun out of that biker's hand and let him respond to the scene where someone is threatening the life of another.

[Piper]

To come onto a public web site and rant, rave, threaten to OC anyway, posting his denial letter, etc. could be seen as a significant lack of restraint and good judgement. This could be used to say that the applicant lacks the prudence to stay in control of his emotions, and therefore cannot be trusted with the privelege of carrying a concealed firearm. It has happened before. ;)

Police departments already say that citizens can't be trusted, because they require GC's beyond what the law requires and then there's still less than a 50/50 chance that they will issue. So suggesting that posting this letter will cause that, really doesn't make sense. As for "threatening" to OC, sending a letter to a PD saying that a person intends to carry a firearm within the limits of the law doesn't sound like a threat to me.

If a PD doesn't like a law that's inconvenient to them, they will do what they can by using half truths and the citizens ignorance to work around it. 12026 says that a citizen can OC within a cities limits so long as there is no ordinance prohibiting it.

Having said all of that, I would suggest maintaining a low profile until his CCW is approved from KCSO. The reason behind this is because CLEO's talk to each other when it's convenient, and this just might be one of those times when they choose to compare notes. Of course, that's up to the OP how he wants to pursue this.

I might also add before I forget, anybody can do anything without a CCW. The only difference is the extent of the violations of law they commit beyond 12025 and 12031. So, if a person is a total whack job, a rapist, robber, or for that matter intent on commiting any other violent crime, denying them a CCW isn't going to stop them from commiting crimes. However, issueing CCW's to law abiding citizens, regardless of their GC might just save a cops life. Alienating law abiding citizens by flat denying CCW's IMO isn't good community relations.

[CitaDeL]

No, there is still a third choice. They can change the open carry law.


However canny and slick comeback, I think they've proven that regardless of what the constitution says, it is not necessary for a "free state." That argument will take you nowhere anymore. Perhaps Heller will change that.

There is no "open carry law". And local authorities have no power to prohibit possession or transportation as pre-emption in the California Constitution places the full scope of regulation into the California legislatures venue. Since San Fransisco's "Proposition H" was struck down, I deem a wholesale ban on openly carried unloaded firearms extremely unlikely.

I think that 'good cause' is an affront to the second amendment- I was merely pointing out that if officials want a reason, they should consult the supreme law of the land. Why do you need a reason to carry a gun? Is there not enough bad news about people being beat up,murdered, robbed and raped that we need to find another more compelling reason to be armed? Examine this through the Bill of Rights-- Do you need good cause to assert your right to speak your peace? Worship your God? Do you need a good cause to keep your property and papers private? You dont have anything to hide do you? Tell you what-- give me a good enough reason, and I will give you permission to share your opinion with others, go to church, and I promise not to snoop in your papers or seize your property. Sound fair?

This is what I have been attempting to illustrate for some time now...If you have to ask permission or give up something in exchange for doing what is natural and beneficial, it is ceases to be a right and converts you from being a free citizen into a subject of the government.

E Pluribus can go to Kern County and apply for a license to carry concealed, and he may very well get it- I dont fault him in that one bit, however if he or others do acquire this privilege, they should be fully aware of what this exchange means. It is not the the action of a free man, but the submission of a 'serf' to the 'lord' overseeing them- and the privilege is by no means, permanent or irrevocable as the right was intended.

I applaud E Pluribus in this rather conspicuous struggle- it is evidence to me, that obeying our need for liberty is at odds with what authorities would compel us to obey. At least he is not blindly accepting the process as many would, exchanging rights for a peice of paper without a thought to the ramifications.

[bohoki]

i heard somewhere that you can carry a long arm concealed

since they are technically unconcealable

[cbn620]

E_Pluribus, you seem to be a pretty smart guy. Tap your phone line and record your phone calls. If you can record enough of this crap she's sending your way, at the very least you could demonstrate some kind of aggravated harassment with some sort of malicious intent, even if you can't legally say she's threatened you.

[E Pluribus Unum]

E_Pluribus, you seem to be a pretty smart guy. Tap your phone line and record your phone calls. If you can record enough of this crap she's sending your way, at the very least you could demonstrate some kind of aggravated harassment with some sort of malicious intent, even if you can't legally say she's threatened you.

The mere tapping of a phone line without disclosure is a misdemeanor in California. If I present it to police as evidense of her misdemeanor, it is also evidense of mine.

[gimebakmybulits]

The mere tapping of a phone line without disclosure is a misdemeanor in California. If I present it to police as evidense of her misdemeanor, it is also evidense of mine.

go getcha one of these
http://www.dynametric.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=24

and record to your hearts content

[E Pluribus Unum]

go getcha one of these
http://www.dynametric.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=24

and record to your hearts content

Now that is funny.....

You think she is going to be stupid enough to threaten me with BEEPS on the phone line?

That is cute... :) I thought of going down to Walmart and buying a very cheap answering machine that doesn't stop recording when the receiver is picked up. As she starts to leave a message on the recorder, I pick up and it continues to record.... this is legal....

Problem is I don't have a home phone; it is all cell phone. I would have to forward my cell to the house.

[cbn620]

Eek, I had no idea that was against the law. I've done it to my own line before.

Okay, now I know what not to do.

[E Pluribus Unum]

Eek, I had no idea that was against the law. I've done it to my own line before.

Okay, now I know what not to do.

Yeah, it kinda sucks....

A few years ago there was a case where a daughter was being rebellious and sneaking out. Daddy was recording the phone conversations to find out where she was sneaking out to. Mommy and daddy get into a fight about it, police are called. Daddy goes to jail for illegal wire tapping his own phone line.


The key is that recording is illegal in areas with a "expectation of privacy".

This means dressing rooms, bathrooms, bedrooms, telephone conversations.... et cetera....

In public its fair game. You can record all you want without declaring it.

[gimebakmybulits]

Now that is funny.....

You think she is going to be stupid enough to threaten me with BEEPS on the phone line?

That is cute... :) I thought of going down to Walmart and buying a very cheap answering machine that doesn't stop recording when the receiver is picked up. As she starts to leave a message on the recorder, I pick up and it continues to record.... this is legal....

Problem is I don't have a home phone; it is all cell phone. I would have to forward my cell to the house.

There is a little screw on the side, turn that puppy down till you can just barely hear it on the recorder. You will have to have a regular old phone though with a wired handset. PM me if you want to try one and I’ll throw one in the mail.

[GuyW]

i heard somewhere that you can carry a long arm concealed

since they are technically unconcealable

Nah - I really, really, don't think so.

Penal Code 12050 talks about, "a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person".

My opinion is that the last phrase is to allow a CCW permit to carry a legal 26" long pistol-grip shotgun concealed (beware of men in dusters or trench coats...).

Anyway, if a long gun IS concealed, IMHO, it is PROOF that it IS a "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person".

[CCWFacts]

Nah - I really, really, don't think so.

Penal Code 12050 talks about, "a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person".

My opinion is that the last phrase is to allow a CCW permit to carry a legal 26" long pistol-grip shotgun concealed (beware of men in dusters or trench coats...).

Actually... for someone who needs a loaded long arm in a vehicle, getting it on the CCW is the way to go, and one of the many exceptionally great things about CA's CCW law is that it does allow long arms to be added. I think that Mr. McCloud of the Santa Maria case is someone who need a long-arm (AR-15) on his CCW, so he can have it loaded in the vehicle when he arrives if he is called.

Also, there are AR-15 discreet bags (http://www.cavalryarms.com/DRB.html). Someone doing discreet security at an event might want a bag like that and a long arm on a CCW.