PDA

View Full Version : CCW in San Francisco? How many?


dantodd
10-20-2009, 6:14 PM
Deleted.

Billy Jack
10-20-2009, 6:20 PM
If you have a valid reason I will assist you. If it is for vicarious reasons.........

Use e-mail address that appears below. Keep communication brief or provide a phone number. SFPD is in transition.

Billy Jack

abillyjack@gmail.com
aclueseau@yahoo.com

'When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law........just a fight for survival!'

dantodd
10-20-2009, 6:34 PM
email inbound.

yellowfin
10-20-2009, 8:30 PM
I believe the current San Francisco CCW holders are MHC Pelosi, then the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Clark Kent.

hoffmang
10-20-2009, 8:35 PM
SF Sheriff told Mr. Gorski in his recent case that there was one and only one valid permit.

-Gene

bodger
10-20-2009, 8:51 PM
SF Sheriff told Mr. Gorski in his recent case that there was one and only one valid permit.

-Gene



That is utterly disgusting.

One permit for a city of that size. I wonder who that lucky person is whose life is more valuable than so many others and has been given the priviledge of defending themselves.

Boxer
10-20-2009, 8:57 PM
Pulled from CalCCW

in 1999 only two CCWs were issued.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/ccwissuances2007.pdf

Purple K
10-20-2009, 9:00 PM
At one time Dianne Feinstien had an SF CCW. Not sure if she's the ONE.

Boxer
10-20-2009, 9:01 PM
At one time Dianne Feinstien had an SF CCW. Not sure if she's the ONE.

My understanding is that she had a CCW for two different firearms and changed it to one. She can carry, but not you or me. Oh, her body guard also has a CCW.

QuarterBoreGunner
10-20-2009, 9:10 PM
SF Sheriff told Mr. Gorski in his recent case that there was one and only one valid permit. Perhaps only one issued by his office; but what about SFPD?

hoffmang
10-20-2009, 10:09 PM
SFPD letter is on page 42 of this PDF: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/gov.uscourts.cand.220115.1.1.pdf

-Gene

natasha69
10-20-2009, 10:20 PM
SF Sheriff told Mr. Gorski in his recent case that there was one and only one valid permit.

-Gene

Feinstein has one.

BigDogatPlay
10-20-2009, 10:36 PM
My understanding is that she had a CCW for two different firearms and changed it to one. She can carry, but not you or me. Oh, her body guard also has a CCW.

She no longer has a CCW so I've heard. Back when she was mayor and the city ran it's very first symbolic gun turn in she held a press conference and "turned in the first gun". What was found out later, to her embarrassment, was that was not her only gun and it certainly wasn't the one on her CCW permit. If she has one now it's could be through SF, Marin or Santa Cruz county as she owns homes in all three.

SFPD used to grant permits to their reserve officers. I knew a guy at one time who was a reserve and had a permit issued by SFPD.

dfletcher
10-20-2009, 10:38 PM
Feinstein has one.

I don't believe she does anymore. As an aside, the private contract guards who patrol her Presidio area community area were going to stopped going armed - evidently the HOA wanted to cut costs. Ms Feinstein was one of the residents who said she didn't want that done, she wants the armed service to continue.

dantodd
10-20-2009, 10:40 PM
SFPD letter is on page 42 of this PDF: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/gov.uscourts.cand.220115.1.1.pdf

-Gene

Thanks Gene, I'll forward to the interested parties.

hoffmang
10-20-2009, 11:37 PM
Thanks Gene, I'll forward to the interested parties.

I'd strip that one page out and send it. No need to highlight other issues...

-Gene

dantodd
10-20-2009, 11:38 PM
I'd strip that one page out and send it. No need to highlight other issues...

-Gene

Good point. He'd make a better investigator than lawyer.

Sheepdog1968
10-20-2009, 11:56 PM
Does one stand a better chance to get a CCW if prepared by an attorney? Are the odds better in San Mateo county? I would be willing to pay an attorney to prepare an application if it increased the odds.

My understanding is that all of those in federal congress have been deputized and can carry and don't need state issued CCW's. I could be wrong but just wanted to pass this along in case someone knows more.

dantodd
10-21-2009, 12:24 AM
Does one stand a better chance to get a CCW if prepared by an attorney? Are the odds better in San Mateo county? I would be willing to pay an attorney to prepare an application if it increased the odds.

It couldn't hurt, Don Kilmer is close and can probably point you in the right direction. I am in San Mateo county as well but haven't applied.


My understanding is that all of those in federal congress have been deputized and can carry and don't need state issued CCW's. I could be wrong but just wanted to pass this along in case someone knows more.

I was just reviewing this issue. The DOJ believes it is unconstitutional to do so but it is quite possible it is still going on....

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/depmar.htm

gotgunz
10-21-2009, 1:12 AM
The person mentioned in that letter as having a ccw issued by sfpd must be a judge to be afforded a 3 year ccw.

Gray Peterson
10-21-2009, 2:14 AM
The only person to have been issued a license by SFPD is retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert L. Menist.

More on this person here:

http://www.lincolnalumni.com/WallofFame/robertmenist.html

press1280
10-21-2009, 3:15 AM
From his bio it looks like he's a "somebody" with a lot of wealth and influence. Not a surprise I guess.

I thought SF would at least issue to private security and armored car drivers? Are those companies simply located outside SF and granted CCWs from another county?

artherd
10-21-2009, 3:23 AM
The person mentioned in that letter as having a ccw issued by sfpd must be a judge to be afforded a 3 year ccw.

Could be that it was first-issued 3 years ago and renewed continuously.

Gray Peterson
10-21-2009, 4:02 AM
Could be that it was first-issued 3 years ago and renewed continuously.

I put in a public records request to the Sunshine Act POC for SFPD in regards to CCW's.

dantodd
10-21-2009, 7:38 AM
I put in a public records request to the Sunshine Act POC for SFPD in regards to CCW's.

Do you happen to have one pending with the Sheriff's Office too?

BigDogatPlay
10-21-2009, 10:36 AM
I think I smell something burning....... :svengo:

doughboy334
10-21-2009, 10:37 AM
The only person to have been issued a license by SFPD is retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert L. Menist.

More on this person here:

http://www.lincolnalumni.com/WallofFame/robertmenist.html

Off topic, but I had the pleasure of meeting this man at the SF VA when I worked there over the summer as a student clerk! We were both in the canteen line and I struck up a convo bc he was in Army PTs and he was back from a run. Talked about all the cool running paths etc. in the city. I remember being amazed, I think he said he ran 7 miles that morning.

dantodd
10-21-2009, 10:47 AM
Off topic, but I had the pleasure of meeting this man at the SF VA when I worked there over the summer as a student clerk! We were both in the canteen line and I struck up a convo bc he was in Army PTs and he was back from a run. Talked about all the cool running paths etc. in the city. I remember being amazed, I think he said he ran 7 miles that morning.

He does sound like a real patriot, his father was also a Maj. General and WWII veteran, just the kind of family the nation needs more of. (Of course we are making an assumption in thinking this is the same man as the CCW holder)

gotgunz
10-21-2009, 11:50 AM
Could be that it was first-issued 3 years ago and renewed continuously.

No, ccw's for you and I are valid for 2 years. 3 year permits are specifically, as outlined in 12050pc, for judges & magistrates only.

If this guy is not a judge I would be questioning how he was issued a 3 year permit by the SFPD.

Edit to add:

(C) A license issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of
paragraph (1) is valid for any period of time not to exceed three
years from the date of the license if the license is issued to any of
the following individuals:
(i) A judge of a California court of record.
(ii) A full-time court commissioner of a California court of
record.
(iii) A judge of a federal court.
(iv) A magistrate of a federal court.

I smell a fish.

Sheepdog1968
10-21-2009, 12:44 PM
Thanks for the info re attorney. I will follow up in the near future. Also thanks for follow up re fed congress and DOJ.

Gray Peterson
10-21-2009, 1:13 PM
No, ccw's for you and I are valid for 2 years. 3 year permits are specifically, as outlined in 12050pc, for judges & magistrates only.

If this guy is not a judge I would be questioning how he was issued a 3 year permit by the SFPD.

Edit to add:

(C) A license issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of
paragraph (1) is valid for any period of time not to exceed three
years from the date of the license if the license is issued to any of
the following individuals:
(i) A judge of a California court of record.
(ii) A full-time court commissioner of a California court of
record.
(iii) A judge of a federal court.
(iv) A magistrate of a federal court.

I smell a fish.

Why do you think I have a PRA request in? I'll post the results as soon as I get them, and update this posting.

artherd
10-21-2009, 2:14 PM
No, ccw's for you and I are valid for 2 years. 3 year permits are specifically, as outlined in 12050pc, for judges & magistrates only.

If this guy is not a judge I would be questioning how he was issued a 3 year permit by the SFPD.

Hmmm... as you outline in the PC, the criteria for a 3-year permit are indeed very narrow and are court affiliated. This is getting interesting.

Let's be a little careful here and make sure we don't f- things up for a friend.

gotgunz
10-21-2009, 3:35 PM
Why do you think I have a PRA request in?

Because you have alot of free time on your hands?

I mean you are in Washington state, according to your profile. And as as a non-resident of California you would not be able to get a ccw here anyways? So yes, I am curious as to why somebody in another state would even bother with a pra request regarding something they can't get in a place they don't live.

Don't mean to stray here but correct me if I am not seeing the bigger picture as how it relates to Californians.

I am curious to see what you come up with though.

hoffmang
10-21-2009, 10:08 PM
Don't mean to stray here but correct me if I am not seeing the bigger picture as how it relates to Californians.

Gray personally cleaned up WA laws. He has lots of friends and family here and works actively behind the scenes with CGF and Pink Pistols. He was here for the first Nordyke panel but couldn't make the second for example.

Don't worry if you didn't know that because its not always advertised.

-Gene

gotgunz
10-21-2009, 11:18 PM
Gray personally cleaned up WA laws. He has lots of friends and family here and works actively behind the scenes with CGF and Pink Pistols. He was here for the first Nordyke panel but couldn't make the second for example.

Don't worry if you didn't know that because its not always advertised.

-Gene

Gotcha! :oops:

artherd
10-22-2009, 12:25 AM
Because you have alot of free time on your hands?

I mean you are in Washington state, according to your profile. And as as a non-resident of California you would not be able to get a ccw here anyways? So yes, I am curious as to why somebody in another state would even bother with a pra request regarding something they can't get in a place they don't live.

Don't mean to stray here but correct me if I am not seeing the bigger picture as how it relates to Californians.

I am curious to see what you come up with though.

I am always astonished at the short-sightedness assumed of others. Do you think I broke the concept of OLLs for my own benefit? I had my ARs. I went public (and ended up spending nearly 100 grand altogether.) to insure that YOU can have one too.

Gray does good things - because they're the right thing to do. Not nessecarily because he can benefit directly from it.

Gray Peterson
10-22-2009, 2:05 AM
Because you have alot of free time on your hands?

Free time? What's that? :D

I mean you are in Washington state, according to your profile. And as as a non-resident of California you would not be able to get a ccw here anyways? So yes, I am curious as to why somebody in another state would even bother with a pra request regarding something they can't get in a place they don't live.

Don't mean to stray here but correct me if I am not seeing the bigger picture as how it relates to Californians.

Gene and Ben answered pretty well for me, but I think this deserves a personal answer. A little bit of history here:

I went to the Nordyke 3 judge panel back on January 15th, 2009 to hear Don Kilmer argue the case. I went to a dinner afterwards, and all of us were introducing ourselves and where we were from. With the exception of Don Kates, who was a former California resident who currently lives up in SW Washington State, I was the only out of stater who attended the hearing (AFAIK).

I got asked pretty point blank why I was involved in California gun issues when I live two states away. Can't remember if the question was asked in a joking manner or if it was asked in a "WTF are you doing here" manner.

A few things:

1) Ben is right. It's just the right thing to do, regardless of whether or not I personally benefit. Sometimes personal benefit is a good thing, though, because it gives on a solid focus to the person who does the work. I'll explain a little more later.

2) The court cases in federal court down in California will have an influence in the states that I have an extensive gun rights activism influence in, specifically Oregon and Washington. For example, up here in the Seattle area, we have a moran of a lame duck Mayor by the name of Greg Nickels who decided that he was going to turn wide swaths of public parks and such into "private property" and that he was going to trespass gun owners from the property.

He thinks somehow that a mayor can treat gun owners in a manner different from where if the mayor was a christian and he had banned those who are wearing pagan symbols openly from park and forcibly trespass them from the property. Both the right to religious freedom/expression and the RKBA is a fundamental enumerated right protected under the Bill of Rights, and by our state constitution. If our state courts fail to protect our civil rights adequately under state law and state constitution, gun owners up here (via SAF, who have repeatedly threatened to sue Nickels if he pulled this crap) may have to find recourse in federal court if our state courts fail us. Since the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals encompasses 11 states, including Washington State, California gun rights litigation has an effect on me and millions of gun owners in the Northwest.

Nordyke is perfect to address this issue. If the fairgrounds is found not to be a sensitive area, then a park cannot be.

3) Incorporation, along with the Sykes case, can influence Oregon as well, which has a may-issue CCW licensing system for contiguous state residents, which acts as a "super LOC" license statewide which preempts all local ordinances that effect loaded carry.

4) Read Sykes (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/Sykes-v-McGinness-Complaint-2009-05-09.pdf) a little closer, especially involving plaintiff Andrew Witham, and the fourth claim of relief (Right to Travel). If you can't deny someone who's newly moved into a county a carry permit due to their right to travel, then you can't deny someone who is a traveler from out of state either who chooses to apply at the most convenient place for them, whether it be a border county or a place of common travel for flying into. I won't lie to you: I want a license issued under PC12050 so I can carry a handgun for personal protection during my travels in California. That is a major goal of mine, and I will not lie on residency or do a second residence in California just to do this. Even If I do secure said license, I have even more reason to be involved in the activism in California due to my travels to visit my friends there, my PC12050 license, and so on. There's still a state AWB/high cap mag ban that's just begging to be struck down, and I'm sick and tired of having to check my car six ways to sunday just to be sure I didn't leave 12 round mag somewhere in some nook in my car before starting my drive south.

5) If we rebuild the "gun owner" culture in California, and in places like NY, NJ, MD, IL, DC, HI, and MA (IA may be about to tip over), then we will have completely destroyed the "gun control" culture in this country. I want it to where in 15 years if a politician calls for gun control on a public podium, they will be booed and told to come up with a real solution for crime problems. We'll be able to stop Washington Ceasefire and such up here too.

6) As a gay man, who is part of a larger GLBT community, I'm sick and tired of stuff like this (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/01/01/state/n091840S52.DTL) happening in California. I have very serious doubts that something like that could happen in Washington or Oregon, and I am very angry that my brothers and sisters in said community are being gang raped, butchered, and beaten by thugs who think that beating up a gay man or raping a lesbian is some sort of badge of courage. The only badges they should have is having to hold one for a booking photo, or a toe tag in the county morgue.


I am curious to see what you come up with though.

I'm curious, too. I'm not in the business of screwing over Maj. Gen. Menist here. However, there is NOTHING wrong with seeing if the CCW is issued properly and within the law. If they improperly issued him a three year license, then he could be carrying illegally and he possibly wouldn't be none the wiser. I consider it doing him a favor. I believe that the worst that may happen is that they'll send him a letter asking him to come into the PD and ask him to renew since they issued a three-year license in error.

In the unlikely event that they do screw him over, then he'll have to join the fight with the rest of us.

gotgunz
10-22-2009, 2:33 AM
I am always astonished at the short-sightedness assumed of others. Do you think I broke the concept of OLLs for my own benefit? I had my ARs. I went public (and ended up spending nearly 100 grand altogether.) to insure that YOU can have one too.

How short sighted could I possibly be? I bought more than one OLL! :rolleyes:


Gray does good things - because they're the right thing to do. Not nessecarily because he can benefit directly from it.

I was informed of that in a much nicer manner already and acknowledged that with:

"Gotcha! :oops: "

Forgive me if I am not an overly trusting fellow and tend to question things that look out of place.

artherd
10-22-2009, 2:50 AM
Forgive me if I am not an overly trusting fellow and tend to question things that look out of place.

Forgive me if I bristle at the suggestion that good men must be corrupt because their motives don't resonate on a selfish level :)

gotgunz
10-22-2009, 2:58 AM
I never suggested that anybody (other than politicians) was corrupt.

That is quite an extreme assumption don't you think? :eek:

I have been straightened out relating to his activism and motives and will elect to take the high road on this one pending further outcome.

Gray Peterson
10-22-2009, 3:17 AM
I never suggested that anybody (other than politicians) was corrupt.

That is quite an extreme assumption don't you think? :eek:

I have been straightened out relating to his activism and motives and will elect to take the high road on this one pending further outcome.

I have no issue with anyone who may not know the whole score and ask a "Hey, wait a minute, why are you involved?".

When someone from out of state involves themselves in the affairs of another state, there's always the ever so slight possibility that something can occur in the negative against the residents of said state that is being involved in, and said out of stater doesn't have to live with the day to day consequences of their decisions save their own conscience and the amount of disdain they will receive.

There is, however, some advantages to having someone outside of California do, how shall we say, certain types of "wetwork". One thing that especially occurred in the 1980's and 1990's was that some people involved in the gun rights movement, who made the most noise, were targeted for harassment and frame jobs by associates of a nasty anti-gun police chief or sheriff. This is difficult to pull off if you have a "team" or an individual from out of state who has "some" connections to the state but doesn't live day to day there.

7x57
10-22-2009, 8:47 AM
Forgive me if I am not an overly trusting fellow and tend to question things that look out of place.

While this horse appears to be already well dead, I'm going to expand on something Gray already mentioned.

1. One of the things I dislike about California (in fact it's an urban CA thing) is the instinctive belief that it's all about California, and there isn't anyone else out there. At least until you get to NY, anyway. What happens here affects a lot more people than the inhabitants of SF, LA, and SD. Nothing should have appeared out of place. Washington is part of the 9th Circuit, and thus benefits or suffers from whatever precedents we (or Gary Gorski :eek: ) establish here.

IOW: since CGF's legal strategy revolves around dragging CA into federal, not state court, everybody in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Marianas is "local."

2. CGF is aggressive and far-seeing enough to be coordinating with other lawsuits elsewhere, so in fact what I said above applies almost as strongly to the entire country. What do you think happens to the remaining ten non-RTC states if the SAF/CGF strategy gets Incorporation and shall-issue against DC and CA? They will be just about out of places to hide. In fact, those cases send several armored divisions charging straight at the NY Sullivan Law, the original Infringement on the right to bear in the US and at least symbolically the most important thing to take down outside of stuff we cannot touch for the foreseeable future.

3. Basically we should have a "NATO doctrine" mindset anyway--an attack on one is an attack on all.

4. The more people from out of state know about CGN and CGF, the more we've started changing the national perception that California gun owners are do-nothing sheep. We want other people here participating, as Gray does.

And that all is true even without knowing anything about Gray's efforts on our behalf as well as his.

7x57

Glock22Fan
10-22-2009, 8:59 AM
I would like to thank Gray for his help, and only wish we had ten thousand more like him.

JagerTroop
10-22-2009, 9:13 AM
...Do you think I broke the concept of OLLs for my own benefit? I had my ARs. I went public (and ended up spending nearly 100 grand altogether.) to insure that YOU can have one too...

(I don't mean to disrupt this thread) I, for one, am very appreciative of the efforts and sacrifices that have been made on our(average Joes) behalf. I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way. All of the efforts/accomplishments made by CGF and Associates are deserving of praise
:King:

Knauga
10-22-2009, 9:52 AM
No, ccw's for you and I are valid for 2 years. 3 year permits are specifically, as outlined in 12050pc, for judges & magistrates only.

If this guy is not a judge I would be questioning how he was issued a 3 year permit by the SFPD.

Edit to add:

(C) A license issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of
paragraph (1) is valid for any period of time not to exceed three
years from the date of the license if the license is issued to any of
the following individuals:
(i) A judge of a California court of record.
(ii) A full-time court commissioner of a California court of
record.
(iii) A judge of a federal court.
(iv) A magistrate of a federal court.

I smell a fish.

While the PC is clear on time frames, issuing agencies might not be.

I know a person who is a retired reserve with LASD and they issue him a 3 year CCW (not a 2 year standard or 4 year reserve). Of course when he moved to San Bernardino County, he went down to change his address with them and the clerk told him that she didn't think they could do that... and then used white out on his CCW and typed in his new address (instead of typing up a new CCW).

Nobody in their office that actually deals with CCW's seems to understand how they work or why they would continue to be able renewing his CCW even though he no longer lived inside the county, but just gives him grief and ends up doing it without understanding or following the law. While they are right to renew his CCW they are completely wrong in how they do it. It is the problem when you allow each department to be their own private fiefdom.

BigDogatPlay
10-22-2009, 10:51 AM
1. One of the things I dislike about California (in fact it's an urban CA thing) is the instinctive belief that it's all about California, and there isn't anyone else out there. At least until you get to NY, anyway.

^^^ This ^^^

NY, NJ, IL etc.

Yes we are a California focused organization. But we are in the same boat with every other man and woman in the nation who chooses to lawfully obtain and own a firearm... even the Zumboites as I've taken to thinking of them. There are people out there in every state and city who hate us and would take pleasure in disarming us, sullying and demonizing us at every turn, and destroying the most fundemental right of free people in a free society... the right to defend ourselves.

The sooner that all of us perceive that far bigger picture... like the Nordyke fight helping to set in motion the alignment of the stars that gets us to McDonald (local implications feeding national ones), the sooner we come to grips with the notion that the fight for gun rights in Washington, New York or Illinois is the exact same fight as it is in California, the sooner we pull all the oars in synch and in the same direction, the sooner we will win.

I share Gray's dream... I want a situation where a legislator who introduces some new infringement to be laughed out of the body in which he sits. I want settled law. I want decisions like Crucikshank, Miller and Slaughter-House thrown on the ash heap of judicial thought where they belong.

We can get there... but it's going to take more than just us Californians to make it happen.

wildhawker
10-23-2009, 9:38 AM
Isn't this the understatement of the day. Thanks, Gray, for all your hard work.

I would like to thank Gray for his help, and only wish we had ten thousand more like him.

hoffmang
10-23-2009, 7:30 PM
In fact, those cases send several armored divisions charging straight at the NY Sullivan Law, the original Infringement on the right to bear in the US and at least symbolically the most important thing to take down outside of stuff we cannot touch for the foreseeable future.


It's funny you should mention that. I was sitting in Grand Central Station today thinking exactly that thought. :31:

-Gene

artherd
10-23-2009, 9:34 PM
Gun Rights in CA is a National, dare I say Global, Human Rights issue.

dantodd
10-23-2009, 9:46 PM
Gun Rights in CA is a National, dare I say Global, Human Rights issue.

I was thinking about this earlier today strangely enough. If the Second Amendment is as critical to the success of our republic as the founders believed it would be are we not obligated to propagate the RKBA as much as any other aspect of our society? Is it really acceptable to proselytize the rest of the world and try to get to accept a representative republic and recognize the freedoms of the minorities and the supremacy of the individual over the state but not also demand the individuals be given the tools to keep the state in check? It would seem foolhearty to try and "reform" totalitarian regimes if the brand of representative governance they end up with cannot be checked by the people themselves. I believe this is also the primary problem with France and much of Europe; they have, in many ways, adopted much of the good from the American Experiment but the rights of the people to keep and bear arms has not been protected. This has brought about consequences like the almost constant monitoring of citizens in the U.K. by CCTV. While we exported some of the great aspects of this Noble Experiment the "American Spirit" was never adopted and without a taste of that self-reliant "rugged individualism" we couldn't quite get enough of what makes America great out to the rest of the world. I fear we are also losing these attributes here at home.

gunsmith
10-24-2009, 2:57 PM
It's funny you should mention that. I was sitting in Grand Central Station today thinking exactly that thought. :31:

-Gene


It really burns me to no end that I can carry in Vegas, Dallas, Miami etc but can't in my home town or adopted home town of SF.

I can't wait for the day.

Gray Peterson
11-22-2009, 10:04 PM
Update: San Francisco PD has sent me a copy of Mr. Menist' license, redacted. It is actually a 2 year license, and admitted to me that they gave the wrong expiration dates and start times to Gorski during their communications with him before the Pizzo case was filed.

They are also refusing to disclose ANY of his application at all, not just Section 7 of the Application which has been wrongfully and commonly claimed as an exemption from CBS v. Block. Efforts are being made to rectify this situation, which I cannot disclose at this time.

wildhawker
11-22-2009, 10:38 PM
Heh, who's hiding what.

Nice work Gray.

Update: San Francisco PD has sent me a copy of Mr. Menist' license, redacted. It is actually a 2 year license, and admitted to me that they gave the wrong expiration dates and start times to Gorski during their communications with him before the Pizzo case was filed.

They are also refusing to disclose ANY of his application at all, not just Section 7 of the Application which has been wrongfully and commonly claimed as an exemption from CBS v. Block. Efforts are being made to rectify this situation, which I cannot disclose at this time.

gunsmith
11-23-2009, 12:06 AM
Update: San Francisco PD has sent me a copy of Mr. Menist' license, redacted. It is actually a 2 year license, and admitted to me that they gave the wrong expiration dates and start times to Gorski during their communications with him before the Pizzo case was filed.

They are also refusing to disclose ANY of his application at all, not just Section 7 of the Application which has been wrongfully and commonly claimed as an exemption from CBS v. Block. Efforts are being made to rectify this situation, which I cannot disclose at this time.

this could be interesting
!! thanks !!