PDA

View Full Version : Santa Cruz County S.O. & CCW permit


Santa Cruz Armory
08-06-2008, 9:45 AM
So I called the SCSO about how to go about obtaining the application and what steps are needed for their process.

I called the records division and when I told the lady that answered "I'm interested in getting info on how to obtain a concealed weapons permit", you could hear the lack of enthusiasm and the (yeah right) tone in her voice. She said the the CSI division handles CCW (is that normal?) and she transferred me. Of course there was no answer and i was sent to voice jail. I wasn't going to leave a message...

So then I got to thinking, what were they going to ask me? and was I prepared to answer questions at that moment? So does anyone know what type of questions I should be asking or what they are likely to ask of me?

Of course I think my GC is sufficient, but then again, I think shall issue is my right. If you guys have ideas or comments, throw 'em out there.

zcktomcat
08-06-2008, 11:21 AM
I read an article in the SC Good Times a really long time ago in which they interviewed the sheriff and from what I remember, he prided himself in not giving very many out. Plus if you look at the statistics http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/ccwissuances2007.pdf Santa Cruz ranks pretty low in number of permits given every year.

megavolt121
08-06-2008, 12:36 PM
Do you guys think any of the people listed by those Animal Rights terrorists have a solid GC statement now, especially after the firebombings in SC?

bwiese
08-06-2008, 2:37 PM
Don't call.
Send a letter, get all responses in writing.

CCWFacts
08-06-2008, 4:39 PM
I called the records division and when I told the lady that answered "I'm interested in getting info on how to obtain a concealed weapons permit", you could hear the lack of enthusiasm and the (yeah right) tone in her voice. She said the the CSI division handles CCW (is that normal?) and she transferred me. Of course there was no answer and i was sent to voice jail. I wasn't going to leave a message...

You won't get issued, and obviously no one there is going to help you. If you send them a letter saying, "please send me a CCW app", they'll send it to you. You can complete the app, complete the required training, send them a check, etc, and they'll deny you.

As BW said, do everything in writing. Phone calls are pointless.

So then I got to thinking, what were they going to ask me? and was I prepared to answer questions at that moment? So does anyone know what type of questions I should be asking or what they are likely to ask of me?

They won't need to ask you anything. I guess they'll interview you where they go over your good cause. The interview is just a formality; obviously you will be denied.

Of course I think my GC is sufficient, but then again, I think shall issue is my right. If you guys have ideas or comments, throw 'em out there.

My guess is the only GCs that are accepted in Santa Cruz are:


"I'm a reserve deputy"
"I'm an important government official"
"I'm civilian staff at the SO"
"I'm an important elected official"
"I'm a billionaire with good political connections"
"I'm a judge"
"I'm a DA"


You need to get politically active there. Make sure you're an NRA member. Get involved in the upcoming 2010 sheriffs race and replace your current loser.

More productive than applying and getting denied would be to start doing Public Records Act requests on their CCW files. I'm sure there is plenty of embarrassment and misconduct in those files, and I'm sure there are some permits that would be hilarious (for us, not for them) if they were leaked to the press.

Do you guys think any of the people listed by those Animal Rights terrorists have a solid GC statement now, especially after the firebombings in SC?

No. Santa Cruz will never issue to ordinary people until they are forced to by courts.

FEDUPWBS
08-06-2008, 4:48 PM
:bull****:

swhatb
08-06-2008, 9:53 PM
bwise is right

Glock22Fan
08-07-2008, 7:25 AM
Suggest that you do not do any PRAR's unless you are prepared to follow through with a lawsuit. Evaluating the files requires a certain degree of expertise beyond 'hey, his GC is not as good as mine' and doing so will place the department on notice, which might deprive a serious applicant of much needed evidence. Often it is not just the GC that we find that is of evidential value but the sequence of issuance, and missing or waived documents.

Whatever you decide to do, you must, as stated above, do everything in writing.

Santa Cruz Armory
08-07-2008, 8:02 AM
Suggest that you do not do any PRAR's unless you are prepared to follow through with a lawsuit. Evaluating the files requires a certain degree of expertise beyond 'hey, his GC is not as good as mine' and doing so will place the department on notice, which might deprive a serious applicant of much needed evidence. Often it is not just the GC that we find that is of evidential value but the sequence of issuance, and missing or waived documents.

Whatever you decide to do, you must, as stated above, do everything in writing.

So why would my request be so damaging? No, I don't have the extra $$ for a lawsuit... But I feel I'm etitled to see any documents that would support my case. So only experts are allowed to challenge the system? Are you willing to take up the fight for me? And what makes you think that the right to protect myself, family and property makes me not a "serious applicant"?

I appreciate all the above posters info. and I only called to get info on the application process, but some of your comments....hmm? :rolleyes:

I hate to have a "I'm doing it all for me" attitude, but isn't that where the changes start?

Glock22Fan
08-07-2008, 8:29 AM
No offense meant, and I'm not saying you have no right to do this. Just suggesting that going into it half-cocked (and I'm not saying that you were) is like throwing mud into the swimming hole - messes things up for other people.

If you are fine with that, that's up to you.

CCWFacts
08-07-2008, 9:13 AM
Suggest that you do not do any PRAR's unless you are prepared to follow through with a lawsuit. Evaluating the files requires a certain degree of expertise beyond 'hey, his GC is not as good as mine' and doing so will place the department on notice, which might deprive a serious applicant of much needed evidence. Often it is not just the GC that we find that is of evidential value but the sequence of issuance, and missing or waived documents.

Some people pop into the forums wanting to apply (like this person) as a form of protest or an expression of anger. I would say that filing PRARs is a lot more effective form of being angry than applying for a CCW which will be denied.

When you file a PRAR you do a few things:


You make the sheriff nervous
You let him know that his CCW program is getting attention, and he almost certainly does not want attention in that area
You very likely uncover some particularly embarrassing permits, like when Sylvester Stallone's permit was uncovered, etc


In contrast, when you apply and get denied (as is inevitable in Santa Cruz) you accomplish:


You lose $300 or whatever
The sheriff doesn't care
Oh and you now have a denial on your record. It might not hurt, but it certainly can't help.

Glock22Fan
08-07-2008, 9:37 AM
Well, this is a free country, and you are entitled to your opinions, no matter how ill-founded they are.

CCWFacts
08-07-2008, 10:46 AM
Well, this is a free country, and you are entitled to your opinions, no matter how ill-founded they are.

Well, for someone who doesn't have solid GC, and / or doesn't have the money to pursue any legal action, what can that person do as a protest? People are applying for CCWs as a form of protest, and my point is, that's less effective, and more expensive, than doing PRARs. I think doing a protest CCW application is a mis-direction of energy; at least doing PRARs is fun and will reveal some amusing local embarrassments.

For someone without strong GC, and without money for legal action (even $1,000 is too much for many people), and who is angry, what should that person do, beyond sending $35 to the NRA every year? By the way, "without strong GC and without money for legal action" describes a very large number of people, probably 95% of the people who ask about CCWs.

GuyW
08-07-2008, 10:56 AM
So only experts are allowed to challenge the system?

The point is that often, only the "experts" are successful in challenging and BEATING the system, and others mucking about may make that more difficult or impossible.

In this case, what leads you to think that a non-issuing Sheriff is going to roll over and give you a permit, just because you looked thru the (incomplete) materials he provided, and then tell him, "Hey! you issued to a smuck with no good cause!"??

xrMike
08-07-2008, 11:09 AM
They're called public records for a reason.

I guess only "experts" and "lawyers" should be able to make FOIA requests too?

Glock22Fan
08-07-2008, 11:22 AM
They're called public records for a reason.

I guess only "experts" and "lawyers" should be able to make FOIA requests too?

No, but experts may get a lot more out of them than you do.

CCWFacts
08-07-2008, 11:30 AM
The point is that often, only the "experts" are successful in challenging and BEATING the system, and others mucking about may make that more difficult or impossible.

In this case, what leads ou to think that a non-issuing Sheriff is going to roll over and give you a permit, just because you looked thru the (incomplete) materials he provided, and then tell him, "Hey! you issued to a smuck with no good cause!"??

The people applying in these "protest applications" are not going to get permits no matter what. They're just pi$$ed and applying out of anger and frustration. Some of them also start OCing out of anger and frustration. They're not going to "beat the system". I'm merely advising them, they can achieve more with their anger by doing a PRAR than by doing an app. When they do an app, the people handling it snicker and drop it in the trash (figuratively). When doing a PRAR, the people receiving it sweat and the person who gets back the PRAR results gets to laugh at some of the embarrassing applications. Oh and the PRAR is cheaper.

In other words, there's someone who is frustrated and angry and determined to do something to make a point about CCW. From what I can see, the three options that people come up with are:


Apply for a CCW as a "protest application", even though it will certainly be denied
Open unloaded carry
File PRARs


People usually think of #1, and some think of #2, but I think #3 is less problematic and more effective than #1 or #2.

Look at the results of doing a PRAR for Rambo's CCW (http://blog.riflegear.com/articles/the-hypocrisy-of-sylvester-stallone.aspx). It accomplished something (got mentioned on radio, got a lot of people to see what a hypocrite the guy is). It didn't cost more than a few dollars. Doing that accomplished a lot more than a "protest application" to Sheriff Baca, which the Sheriff would just laugh at.

Who knows what kind of hilarity might be lurking in the Santa Cruz CCW files. It's a weird town, so it could be some really weird stuff.

GuyW
08-07-2008, 11:43 AM
They're called public records for a reason.

I guess only "experts" and "lawyers" should be able to make FOIA requests too?

What evidence do you have that all CA goverment agencies, without lawyer and/or Court intervention, comply with the laws and provide all requested docs?

Ans: none.

Oh, yeah...one more point: they're called "experts" for a reason...

Glock22Fan
08-07-2008, 11:47 AM
When doing a PRAR, the people receiving it sweat

Unless you look as if you know what you are doing, you gotta be joking, right?

xrMike
08-07-2008, 11:55 AM
Oh, yeah...one more point: they're called "experts" for a reason...You seeking to deny the public information that rightfully belongs to them is, in my mind, no different from the sheriffs who think THEY'RE the experts in deciding who should/should not get a CCW.

In one instance, you've decided that YOU are the expert. In the other, they have decided THEY are.

I don't see much difference between the two of you.

You both want to deny me something that by rights is already mine (or should be).

Glock22Fan
08-07-2008, 11:59 AM
Seeking to deny the public information that rightfully belongs to them is, in my mind, no different from the sherrifs who think THEY'RE the experts in deciding who should/should not get a CCW.

Nobody I know if is trying to deny anyone the right to public information. Just saying that getting this information can be gone about in two ways, the informed and knowledgable way, or by blundering around in the dark getting a partial incomplete picture. The latter is counterproductive to our cause.

Oh yes, and TBJ is not keeping this lnowledge to itself. Anyone able to spend time in the sheriff's offices in San Diego is welcome to become a volunteer member of TBJ to examine the records there. All training given free!

GuyW
08-07-2008, 12:08 PM
You seeking to deny the public information that rightfully belongs to them is, in my mind, no different from the sheriffs who think THEY'RE the experts in deciding who should/should not get a CCW.

In one instance, you've decided that YOU are the expert. In the other, they have decided THEY are.

I don't see much difference between the two of you.

You both want to deny me something that by rights is already mine (or should be).

I didn't deny you anything, pal.

I pointed out why you will probably fail...

xrMike
08-07-2008, 12:20 PM
I pointed out why you will probably fail...It's better to speak only for yourself in situations (or threads) like this.

CCWFacts
08-07-2008, 12:31 PM
Unless you look as if you know what you are doing, you gotta be joking, right?

Not at all. Remember, the purpose of this is not to get a CCW, because that's not going to happen for many of these types of applicants (people who are angry, want to do something, but don't have solid GC or the money or either). Look at the Rambo PRAR. All he did was send a simple letter saying (basically) "give me Rambo's CCW app". It didn't take any special expertise. They obviously sweated a little because they initially claimed it didn't exist. It took a follow-up letter.

The result was someone channeled his anger into something productive, the issuing authority was a bit embarrassed, and it raised awareness for many people.

There probably aren't any celebrity CCWs as high-profile as Rambo's in Santa Cruz, but there probably are some local high-profile people and it probably would raise awareness.

GuyW
08-07-2008, 12:41 PM
It's better to speak only for yourself in situations (or threads) like this.

I clearly was speaking for myself, when I wrote about your impending failure...

But if you have the time, skills and $$ to accomplish something, knock yourself out...

I can cook crow....

What many seem to fail to acknowledge, is that PRARs are _routinely_ denied or the process abused in CA to the point of irrelevancy....such that even the legislature closes "loopholes" on a fairly regular basis.

Bottom line, if you don't have a good poker gameface, or money for an attorney to file a lawsuit - the government can virtually ignore your PRAR at will and without consequence...

surfinguru
08-07-2008, 3:25 PM
New guy here so say what you will about that, but what are those of us living in Santa Cruz to do then besides wait for the 2010 election and hope we get a better candidate? Personally, I really dislike our local politics and vote against the liberal establishment. However, I absolutely love the area itself (great weather, surfing hiking, biking, etc.) which is why I choose to stay. I would like nothing more than to be able to CCW (since it should be interpreted as a 2A right). We've been seeing more and more of the riff-raff from Salinas making a presence for a while now. (read MS13 gangs, etc.)

All I'm getting from this thread so far is sit down, like what you're given and shut up? Instead of slamming this guy, why not offer up some positive moves he/we can use?

I posted in another thread somewhere else that quoted our dear SO's "What to do in an event of a robbery" that basically says, don't fight the perp, lay down and be a victim. No thanks. My family and I refuse to lay down for anyone. If public opinion can be swayed or at least peaked in regards to protecting one's self by investigating the CCW's that are given out and the SO's disposition against the majority of requestors, then why not make the effort and get it some much needed attention?

Python2
08-07-2008, 3:42 PM
What many seem to fail to acknowledge, is that PRARs are _routinely_ denied or .........
Bottom line, if you don't have a good poker gameface, or money for an attorney to file a lawsuit - the government can virtually ignore your PRAR at will and without consequence...

I can certainly attest to your statement. It happened to me in the Bay Area:mad: Hell, I even copied the county counsel. They probably would have responded if I followed it up, but I did'nt.

Glock22Fan
08-07-2008, 4:05 PM
New guy here so say what you will about that, but what are those of us living in Santa Cruz to do then besides wait for the 2010 election and hope we get a better candidate? Personally, I really dislike our local politics and vote against the liberal establishment. However, I absolutely love the area itself (great weather, surfing hiking, biking, etc.) which is why I choose to stay. I would like nothing more than to be able to CCW (since it should be interpreted as a 2A right). We've been seeing more and more of the riff-raff from Salinas making a presence for a while now. (read MS13 gangs, etc.)

All I'm getting from this thread so far is sit down, like what you're given and shut up? Instead of slamming this guy, why not offer up some positive moves he/we can use?

I posted in another thread somewhere else that quoted our dear SO's "What to do in an event of a robbery" that basically says, don't fight the perp, lay down and be a victim. No thanks. My family and I refuse to lay down for anyone. If public opinion can be swayed or at least peaked in regards to protecting one's self by investigating the CCW's that are given out and the SO's disposition against the majority of requestors, then why not make the effort and get it some much needed attention?

OK, as you are apparently new to this forum, I'll give you some background Cliff's Notes.

There is a group called Team Billy Jack, TBJ, led by a P.I. with over twenty years experience doing this kind of PRAR. Recently, about a year or so ago, he decided to take on those chiefs/sheriffs who are abusing the CCW permit system on behalf of people who should, but can't, get a CCW.

We have lawsuits already out in federal court against Santa Maria and Torrance (see our website, below) for more details). We also have cases close to filing in San Diego , San Jose and a number of other cities/counties. We only take on first-rate clients who we think can get a CCW if the system works as it should*.

Taking Santa Maria as an example, with only six CCW's issued, it took something like three weeks on and off-site investigation before we uncovered all(?) the skeletons in the woodwork.

These cases are based on equal protection and the precedents of Salute v. Pitchess and Guillory v. Gates (also on our website). Many chiefs and sheriffs ignore these rulings, it is our intent to teach them that this cannot be.

Once these cases start falling, then chiefs and sheriffs will have to rethink zero issue, or issue only to judges and the sheriff's buddies. It is our intent to keep this up until every CLSO is operating a fair and equitable CCW policy.

We're not asking anyone to simply sit back and wait for an election to fix things. If your sheriff/chief is operating a zero or near zero issuance policy, then he or she is soon going to feel the heat of lawsuits directed at others with those policies.

In the meantime, random ill-informed and ill-directed PRARs are merely going to make the water murky, give the sheriff time to think about cleaning out his files and generally do nothing positive except allow the filer to vent some anger. Anyone who thinks a sheriff is going to quake in his boots as a result of a PRAR whose writer makes it clear he/she doesn't really know what they are asking for is naive, to be kind about it.

Contrary to popular belief, the CLEOS do not 'sweat' when they receive a PRA. In many cases the misconduct is so institutionalized that they are unaware they are doing it. Most of them haven't read Guillory v. Gates or Salute v. Pitchess. Most of them think that their discretion is without limits, that it is OK to give CCW's to their buddies, and Sly, and that actor just out of rehab who invited him to a party of celebrities.

The first time you try a PRAR, you'll get a brush off letter from the sheriff's department. If you follow this up, the sheriff will usually get their counseller to write a letter baffling you with 53 legal reasons why they just can't give you that information - including the gem that they destroy all applications immediately, they aren't allowed to show you anything personal, it's too much work to prepare the files for inspection and and they don't keep statistics (yes I have actually got such a letter in my files). You need to know exactly what they have, exactly which pages you are entitled to see and you have to ask for it by name. They probably don't know exactly what you are entitled to either, so they will try to give you nothing.

What can you do? Well, you could (if you have a good Good Cause) and are prepared to follow through in Federal Court, talk with us about fighting directly. Or, volunteer to help TBJ with an area near you that we are currently investigating. That way you'll learn what to look for in a PRAR and perhaps it will make more sense then for you to do your own.

Otherwise, join the NRA if you haven't already, contribute to CalGuns, write to your legislators, write to the papers.

But hey, if anyone wants instant gratification with negative results, be my guest.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Yes, if you want TBJ to go to court with you, it will cost (perhaps less than you think). However, we also offer advice short of that, and all that advice is free.

surfinguru
08-07-2008, 4:43 PM
Glock22Fan, thank you for the well thought out and succinct summarization. Now if only this post was back on page one. :)

There's so much information to read and so many unscrupulous CLEO's out there it's amazing. I'm glad to hear that there is work being done in Santa Clara as that's only a quick 30-40 drive from me. I'd be interested in possibly doing some volunteer work for that situation. Can you PM any details?

Thanks!

CCWFacts
08-07-2008, 5:24 PM
In the meantime, random ill-informed and ill-directed PRARs are merely going to make the water murky, give the sheriff time to think about cleaning out his files

Ok, that is true, and the one reason not to do it.

Anyone who thinks a sheriff is going to quake in his boots as a result of a PRAR whose writer makes it clear he/she doesn't really know what they are asking for is naive, to be kind about it.

I didn't say anyone was going to quake in his boots, but certainly, there are minor embarrassments lurking in there, especially in a whacky town like Santa Cruz.

I still think that "applying out of anger" is pointless.

I guess there are other constructive things to do like getting nvolved in sheriffs' races, and especially, take your non-shooting friends shooting and explain to them how CCW works in the rest of the country.

Santa Cruz Armory
08-07-2008, 7:02 PM
Some people pop into the forums wanting to apply (like this person) as a form of protest or an expression of anger. I would say that filing PRARs is a lot more effective form of being angry than applying for a CCW which will be denied.

Ok... first, I'm not "popping" into and out of the forum. I think my post count and my join date shows that. I've been a honest, productive, active member since 2006. I'm definitely not applying out of anger or protest. I'm rather cool headed and think that I honestly deserve a CCW.

I'm a local government employee that believes that shall issue should be law. I have had threats and tauntings from some of the people that I have had to contact about legal matters... Some of these people happen to live in my neighborhood! (I've contacted the SO regarding these incidents)

I also collect firearms and do travel through Watsonville, Salinas, Hollister and a host of other gang ridden areas where I'm sure some of the more unsavory folks would love to take possession of the firearms that I carry around. Even driving out to some of the areas I shoot is asking for trouble as people know what you're doing out there and know your most likely carrying firearms and ammo. When you're 50 miles from civilization it's easy to become a victim.

I think that becoming knowledgeable about the intricacies of the CCW process in great! I love a challenge! But here's the catch, I'm a senior, high ranking officer in a local fire department (chief level) and I think that my application just might get a second look... also, how would it look to have essentially a county employee challenging the County Sheriff in a public battle of wits?? That wouldn't make my employer too happy...;)

I'm all for doing records request but I don't know the right things to ask for or the right things to look for.

Does TBJ want to take on Santa Cruz County or educate me??

So now ya see my position?

Respectively,

RD

Santa Cruz Armory
08-07-2008, 7:43 PM
I read an article in the SC Good Times a really long time ago in which they interviewed the sheriff and from what I remember, he prided himself in not giving very many out. Plus if you look at the statistics http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/ccwissuances2007.pdf Santa Cruz ranks pretty low in number of permits given every year.

If that chart is actually the amount of permits issued each year, then its an average of almost 32 per year. That's not too bad for a county of this size.

Guntech
08-07-2008, 7:46 PM
I read an article in the SC Good Times a really long time ago in which they interviewed the sheriff and from what I remember, he prided himself in not giving very many out. Plus if you look at the statistics http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/ccwissuances2007.pdf Santa Cruz ranks pretty low in number of permits given every year.

They dont want you guys to have guns on you with all those pot farms, Damn I'm moving to shasta!

Guntech
08-07-2008, 7:50 PM
Ok... first, I'm not "popping" into and out of the forum. I think my post count and my join date shows that. I've been a honest, productive, active member since 2006. I'm definitely not applying out of anger or protest. I'm rather cool headed and think that I honestly deserve a CCW.

I'm a local government employee that believes that shall issue should be law. I have had threats and tauntings from some of the people that I have had to contact about legal matters... Some of these people happen to live in my neighborhood! (I've contacted the SO regarding these incidents)

I also collect firearms and do travel through Watsonville, Salinas, Hollister and a host of other gang ridden areas where I'm sure some of the more unsavory folks would love to take possession of the firearms that I carry around. Even driving out to some of the areas I shoot is asking for trouble as people know what you're doing out there and know your most likely carrying firearms and ammo. When you're 50 miles from civilization it's easy to become a victim.

I think that becoming knowledgeable about the intricacies of the CCW process in great! I love a challenge! But here's the catch, I'm a senior, high ranking officer in a local fire department (chief level) and I think that my application just might get a second look... also, how would it look to have essentially a county employee challenging the County Sheriff in a public battle of wits?? That wouldn't make my employer too happy...;)

I'm all for doing records request but I don't know the right things to ask for or the right things to look for.

Does TBJ want to take on Santa Cruz County or educate me??

So now ya see my position?

Respectively,

RD

First off you wouldn't be able to carry it in Salinas, because that is Monterey county and CCW is only good for your county here in CA.

CCWFacts
08-07-2008, 7:54 PM
Ok... first, I'm not "popping" into and out of the forum. I think my post count and my join date shows that. I've been a honest, productive, active member since 2006. I'm definitely not applying out of anger or protest. I'm rather cool headed and think that I honestly deserve a CCW.

Ok, I shouldn't have implied that you are. I was making a generalization, without being aware of your situation; there definitely are quite a few people who apply as a form of protest, and I think it's not a useful thing to do.

I'm all for doing records request but I don't know the right things to ask for or the right things to look for.

In your case, given that you work for local government, my advice (take it or don't take it) is, you don't want to get into a fight with your local government. I assume it won't do anything to help your career if you sue your sheriff. I know, it shouldn't matter, you should be able to get fair treatment and address issues in court without worrying about your career, blah blah blah, but I wouldn't count on it working that way in reality. If you have connections over there, use them and apply based on what they say. If they don't issue you, keep in mind the relative values of fighting for a permit (which you might not get, even after a protracted legal fight) vs. your career.

Btw:

First off you wouldn't be able to carry it in Salinas, because that is Monterey county and CCW is only good for your county here in CA.

WRONG! Normally CCWs issued here are valid state-wide. Issuing authorities can (if they decide to) put on additional restrictions, such as "only in a certain county", but that is not commonly done these days, from what I can tell.

Santa Cruz Armory
08-07-2008, 8:38 PM
First off you wouldn't be able to carry it in Salinas, because that is Monterey county and CCW is only good for your county here in CA.


As far as I've heard, this an extreme rarity. Please see post above.

Guntech
08-07-2008, 8:42 PM
O really my Sheriffs are a bunch of liars!

Shotgun Man
08-07-2008, 8:48 PM
I'm a senior, high ranking officer in a local fire department (chief level)RD

Can't you declare yourself an arson investigator and then CCW on and off-duty? Or at least being an arson investigator is good cause.

Santa Cruz Armory
08-07-2008, 8:49 PM
O really my Sheriffs are a bunch of liars!

LOL! I think so...:rolleyes:

tango-52
08-07-2008, 8:50 PM
O really my Sheriffs are a bunch of liars!
If they told you they were only good in the county of issuance, then they were, in fact, incorrect in their statements. Benefit of the doubt on whether they were lying to you on purpose. :cool:

Santa Cruz Armory
08-07-2008, 8:50 PM
Can't you declare yourself an arson investigator and then CCW on and off-duty? Or at least being an arson investigator is good cause.

I'm working on that. I am an arson investigator as well... I investigate all types of fires. Arson just happens to be one of them.

CCWFacts
08-07-2008, 8:50 PM
O really my Sheriffs are a bunch of liars!

This is part of what I call "denial-by-run-around", or DBRA, which is endemic in our CCW system. They put out misinformation about how the system works, who they issue to, etc, to discourage people from applying. In this case, "they're only good in this county" discourages you from applying. They'll make up anything to discourage people from making an attempt.

Now, it may be that the sheriff puts a restriction on such that the ones he issues are valid only in-county. They can do that. Maybe he issues some with that restriction, some without. But maybe he tells people that they are "all" restricted like that, to discourage applying. Who knows. You could only find out by doing a PRAR, and few people do that, and they also routinely ignore PRARs.

They have no motive to have transparency about this, at any level, and every motive to discourage people from even learning about what's going on, what the law is, etc.

NiteQwill
08-07-2008, 9:18 PM
First off you wouldn't be able to carry it in Salinas, because that is Monterey county and CCW is only good for your county here in CA.

:confused: CA CCWs are valid throughout the WHOLE state, regardless of where it was issued.

Glock22Fan
08-07-2008, 9:25 PM
:confused: CA CCWs are valid throughout the WHOLE state, regardless of where it was issued.

Unless, as stated above, the issuing authority puts some restriction of their own on it. Most don't. Bakersfield was notorious for this, which is why most Bakersfied inhabitants apply direct to Kern County.

gunsmith
08-07-2008, 11:48 PM
As a Chief level F.D officer, it should be easier for you to get L.E status and
carry then the crud we citizens must put up with.

Its firearms apartheid, it illustrates how racist and corrupt so called progressives really are.

oaklander
08-07-2008, 11:56 PM
I've scanned this thread and thought I would offer some information that may be of use.

PRAR's are easy to do, and can be done via email. They have to reply. Sometimes you need to put pressure on them to get results.

I did one to the Oakland PD, and was able to find out that GC in Oakland is something along the lines of "must be at significantly greater risk than the average citizen."

I will be applying for CCW in Oakland. My good cause relates to my firearms-related law practice. If they deny it, I have the resources available to fight the denial.

Glock22Fan
08-08-2008, 6:45 AM
PRAR's are easy to do, and can be done via email.

But emails can be sent by anyone, giving the chief or sheriff plausible deniability. If I knew your email address, I could send you an email appearing to come from anyone at all, the Sheriff, George Bush, you name it. You would have no way of proving whether it was real or a fake. As an attorney, Oaklander, would you prefer to go to court with a dossier full of emails or one full of a paper trail of signed letters on departmental letterheads?

truthseeker
08-08-2008, 7:20 AM
If all the records are FOIA material then why don't the lawyers/organizations that have applied for and obtained this information post it on a website for ALL to see?

Glock22Fan
08-08-2008, 8:40 AM
If all the records are FOIA material then why don't the lawyers/organizations that have applied for and obtained this information post it on a website for ALL to see?

1) Because that takes work to get it in a readable format, work, especially by lawyers, costs money and there is no paying client.

2) Because a large number of us feel that personal data about CCW's should not be publicized, unless it's obviously someone in the public eye.

TBJ does post a lot of information about the PRARs it does - we posted a lot of information about the CCW's at Santa Maria, and a lot of the information we have gathered about other jurisdictions, but some information is (in the interests of the lawsuits) best kept quiet in advance of the lawsuit.

CCWFacts
08-08-2008, 9:00 AM
2) Because a large number of us feel that personal data about CCW's should not be publicized, unless it's obviously someone in the public eye.

I've seen all the Santa Maria CCW app files and there's way too much information in there. Home addresses, credit card receipts, medical records, etc. Some parts of it are ok to publish, like the fact that that preacher there has a CCW (his photo on his church website has an obvious "bulge" on it!), but most of this stuff shouldn't be published.

Yet another reason why even people who "got theirs" should push for shall-issue. If we had shall-issue, all these records could and should be sealed.

Glock22Fan
08-08-2008, 9:08 AM
Billy Jack asked me to add this. To take Billy Jack up on his suggestion that you could assist TBJ and learn how to "do" your own sheriff, send an email to clueseau@dslextreme.com telling him exactly where you live.

I covered this extensively at the on both calguns and at caccw. Disclosure of CCW files on the Internet do not serve any purpose other than satisfy a vicarious need. Their value is in state or federal court. We can pretty much tell you what is in the files prior to seeing them. Was Rambo shocked and annoyed when his GC and permit were posted?

If you think you will get a thrill out of seeing someone else's file,then do so. If you want to do something constructive assist TBJ on a PRAR of your Chief or Sheriff. Learn first hand how to do a PRA and make constructive use of the Intel contained therein.

And, there is no FOIA at the state level. It is called the PRA. California Government Code, Section 6250.

Sincerely, Billy Jack

oaklander
08-08-2008, 11:49 AM
Sorry for the confusion, I meant that the request can be done via email. It can also be done via phone, or simply by stopping by the office that holds the records.

The results of the request are usually paper copies of documents.

I've never had any problems using email to request documents.

What you are saying, I think, is that a chief or a sheriff could deny having ever received your email. That's why you CC people higher up the chain.

Below is one that I recently did. There's no secret to these, and others are free to use my language. Note that I cc'ed the mayor's office, Sergeant Poirier's boss, the district attorney's office, and the office in Oakland that is responsible for the Sunshine Ordinance.

When I used to do these to Alison at BOF, I used to CC her boss, but it isn't required, since she responds to these now without me having to do it.

Dear Sergeant Poirier,

We spoke on the phone last week regarding CCW issuance in Oakland. As you may recall, I am an attorney, and I am interested in obtaining a CCW (concealed carry weapons permit).

Thank you again for the information, it was very useful. According to our conversation, you have been tasked with creating/implementing the OPD's CCW issuance policy.

Therefore, pursuant to the California Public Records Act, the Brown Act, and the Oakland Sunshine Ordinance, I am requesting that you provide me with the following:

(As used below, YOU and YOUR refers to The Oakland Police Department, and the City of Oakland.)

1. Any and all emails, meeting minutes, memoranda, notes, writings, letters, and/or other documents that contain, concern, refer or relate to YOUR CCW policy.

2. Any and all emails, meeting minutes, memoranda, notes, writings, letters, and/or other documents that contain, concern, refer or relate to THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT CCW policy.

3. Any and all communications between YOU and "Lexipol LLC" that, concern, refer or relate to CCW issuance.

4. Any and all communications between YOU and the general public that, concern, refer or relate to CCW issuance.

5. Any and all communications between YOU and THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARMENT that concern, refer or relate to CCW issuance.

6. Any and all communications between YOU and other police departments and/or cities that that concern, refer or relate to CCW issuance.

7. Any and all non-privileged communications between YOU and the Oakland City Attorneys Office that that concern, refer or relate to CCW issuance.

8. Any and all of YOUR policies and procedures used by YOU to grant CCW permits, whether or not these policies are complete, or finished.

The time span for the above is "all documents dating back three years from the date of this letter."

Examples of the above would include, but are not limited to, emails and memoranda to and from YOU and YOUR superiors and subordinates concerning Oakland's CCW policy, all good cause statements that have been submitted to YOU, all CCW applications that have been submitted to YOU, examples of good cause statements that have been given to you by the Alameda County Sheriff's Department, etc. . .

As you know, there are only a few narrow statutorily defined exceptions to the PRAR, and documents that otherwise contain disclosable information must be redacted (not withheld). Furthermore, there are substantial statutory penalties for refusing to honor a PRAR request. Additionally, I am aware that there is an "official City of Oakland form" for making these requests, but since that form is not required by the PRA, and thus I will not be using it. As you know, requests can be make in writing, orally over the phone, or orally in person, and there is no requirement that such requests use any particular form.

Pursuant to the PRA, I will expect a reply within 10 days, and I will naturally pay copying costs for the documents that you provide to me.

I look forward to your expected cooperation.

Most sincerely,



But emails can be sent by anyone, giving the chief or sheriff plausible deniability. If I knew your email address, I could send you an email appearing to come from anyone at all, the Sheriff, George Bush, you name it. You would have no way of proving whether it was real or a fake. As an attorney, Oaklander, would you prefer to go to court with a dossier full of emails or one full of a paper trail of signed letters on departmental letterheads?

oaklander
08-08-2008, 11:55 AM
After I submitted this, he replied that CCW applications were exempt from disclosure. Of course, this is wrong, and he was simply mis-informed.

Therefore I sent the below letter, and he called me on my cell phone 5 minutes later. I got what I was looking for.

I've redacted certain portions.

Sergeant Poirier:

On April 29, 2008 I submitted a Public Records Act request (PRAR) to you, pursuant to Government Code Section 6250, et seq.. It is attached to this email as Exhibit 1. That PRAR requests numerous documents related to the Oakland Police Department (OPD) and its policies and procedures with respect to concealed carry weapon (CCW) issuance.

You replied within the mandated 10 days, and I subsequently picked up some documents from your office on May 14, 2008.

Unfortunately, you did not supply me with all the documents that I requested. While I requested numerous specific documents (see Ex. 1), you only supplied me with a total of six documents, which are attached to this email as Exhibit 2.

As you may know from our previous conversations, I have certain clients who are interested in obtaining CCWs, and in a related matter, I am doing research on whether the OPD follows state law with respect to the issuance of CCWs. There is some speculation that the OPD only issues CCWs to "friends of the department" and to people to whom it is "politically expedient." This appears to be evidenced by the very low numbers of CCWs in Oakland (under six, I am told).

Consequently, my request covered, inter alia, the following:

"4. Any and all communications between YOU and the general public that, concern, refer or relate to CCW issuance."

See Ex. 1.

This clearly includes any and all CCW applications, and your responses to those applications.

Instead of responding to my request, you only supplied me with one partial CCW application from someone who you told me was affiliated with the OPD (in other words, a "friend of the department.") Not only that, but that application does not contain the "good cause" statement.

[redacted]

Consequently, I require the following ("you" refers to you and the City of Oakland and any city employee or department):

1. ALL CCW APPLICATIONS THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL INCLUDING "GOOD CAUSE" STATEMENTS GOING BACK FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS FROM TODAY'S DATE.

2. ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO AND FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ABOUT THEIR CCW APPLICATIONS GOING BACK FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS FROM TODAY'S DATE

3. ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO AND FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ABOUT THEIR CCW PERMITS GOING BACK FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS FROM TODAY'S DATE

Furthermore, I require all documents that are referenced in my previous PRAR (attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference). It is not reasonable to think that the entire City of Oakland only has six documents that are responsive to my numerous detailed and explicit requests. In fact, as mentioned above, [redacted].

Hence, I require [redacted] ALL additional documents that are responsive to my above requests and the requests contained in Exhibit 1.

Please be advised that pursuant to Code Sections 6258, and 6259, I am entitled to institute legal proceedings against the City of Oakland to obtain these documents. If I win the City will be required under the Code to pay my legal fees and costs, which may be substantial. Furthermore, to win under the statute, I do not need an order granting me "all" of the documents I am seeking. An order from the court granting me even one additional document could be considered a win under the Code, and would thus trigger an award of attorney's fees.

Furthermore, as you must know, there is a case right on point with respect to PRARs and CCWs. That California Supreme Court case is CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646. Decided in 1986, it is well-settled law, and holds that good cause statements, including the names and addresses of applicants, are discoverable under a PRA.

"Without the applications which accompany the licenses and which set forth the reasons why a license is necessary, the public cannot judge whether the sheriff has properly exercised his discretion in issuing the licenses."

Ibid.

To the extent that your actions may have subjected the City of Oakland to legal liability, I am forwarding this email to the appropriate attorneys that the City Attorney's Office. I am also forwarding it to your supervisor, the Chief of Police, and to the Public Safety Director at the Mayor's office.

Furthermore, please be advised that by this letter, I am not waiving my concurrent rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to seek further damages.

oaklander
08-08-2008, 12:00 PM
For the record, Sergeant Poirier is a genuinely nice guy, and was just misinformed regarding the PRAR law and case law. He actually gave me the documents I requested free of charge (i.e., did not charge for copying).

Again, there is absolutely no magic to doing PRAR's. I do them all the time, and they are easy.

I've laid out the language in my previous posts, and anyone is welcome to use it.

If anyone out there needs help with a 2A-related PRAR, please see me. I will help you free of charge.

I'm known for being able to get documents that other people have had trouble getting.

:)

CCWFacts
08-08-2008, 12:10 PM
Thanks Oaklander. It's great that you are doing that. Thanks for showing your pursuit of this. I hope you do end up getting an Oakland CCW. They really really should start issuing them to business owners and the general public. Your Bolshevik mayor there isn't ever going to handle the crime situation. He's too busy flying around the world meeting with his comrades in other countries, and negotiating with (appeasing) gangs in Oakland, to be able to do anything about crime there.

oaklander
08-08-2008, 12:14 PM
Yes, most welcome!!!

:D

Of all the cities in California, Oakland probably needs CCW's the most. If more law-abiding citizens were armed, crime would go down exponentially.

Thanks Oaklander. It's great that you are doing that. Thanks for showing your pursuit of this. I hope you do end up getting an Oakland CCW. They really really should start issuing them to business owners and the general public. Your Bolshevik mayor there isn't ever going to handle the crime situation. He's too busy flying around the world meeting with his comrades in other countries, and negotiating with gangs in Oakland, to be able to do anything about crime there.

CCWFacts
08-08-2008, 12:27 PM
And by the way, speaking of embarrassment in CCW files, Oakland has already had a small dose of that with Jacques Barzaghi's CCW permit. But that was a few years ago. I wonder which gang members, etc, may have CCWs there now?

I still see value in people doing PRARs. Yes there's a risk that it will motivate some sheriff or chief to have a late night office date with a shredder, but that's a risk even if an experienced legal team does the PRARs.

CCWFacts
08-08-2008, 1:59 PM
For the record, Sergeant Poirier is a genuinely nice guy, and was just misinformed regarding the PRAR law and case law. He actually gave me the documents I requested free of charge (i.e., did not charge for copying).

I'm not surprised. Many of the lower-level (working, non-political) cops in Oakland probably feel the same way about CCW that we feel. It's the guys at the top, who are in political positions, who are the problem. I've heard quite a few stories of Oakland cops telling people, "you can't get a CCW but you should carry anyway."

Paladin
08-13-2008, 4:45 PM
New guy here so say what you will about that, but what are those of us living in Santa Cruz to do then besides wait for the 2010 election and hope we get a better candidate? ***

All I'm getting from this thread so far is sit down, like what you're given and shut up? Instead of slamming this guy, why not offer up some positive moves he/we can use?See my "16 things YOU CAN DO" sig line link for suggestions.

I posted in another thread somewhere else that quoted our dear SO's "What to do in an event of a robbery" that basically says, don't fight the perp, lay down and be a victim. No thanks. My family and I refuse to lay down for anyone.You should have asked them what advice they have for a woman if someone attempts to rape her. If they say "just lay down and be a victim", get the LEO's name and rank and be sure to tell your local National Organization of Women's chapter and the local newspaper, TV station and radio what that officer said. :D Then, just sit back and watch what happens! :popcorn: ;)

ETA: Everyone: Feel free to add my "things YOU CAN DO" to your sig line too.