PDA

View Full Version : Alameda County Sheriff replies to me, and here is his reply:


Window_Seat
12-19-2009, 12:03 PM
I wrote to the Alameda County Sheriff (Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern) regarding the current policy of CCWs being issued. My letter can be found by doing a search.

Please (and respectfully), no derogatory remarks about Sheriff Ahern.

Here is the Sheriff's reply letter to me. I could not scan it to .pdf because my program is just stubborn, maybe it's because of Vista... :mad:


(510) 272-6878

December 10, 2009

My name
My address
My city , state & zip code

Dear Mr. *****

Thank you for your November 27, 2009, letter expressing your opinions about the issuance of concealed weapon permits.

My office has a written policy that outlines the application steps for citizens applying to the Alameda County Sheriff's Office for a Carry a Concealed Weapon (CCW) license. Our process meets all of the standards outlined in California Penal Code Sections 12050 through 12054.

Citizens who apply for licenses are screened on a case-by-case basis; they must complete steps in this process that include attending a firearms safety and qualification class, as well as other provisions.

I do not take this process lightly and also recognize qualified applicants' rights as outlined in the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. If you have other questions concerning this process, please contact Captain Donald Buchanan in the Internal Affairs Unit. Captain Buchanan can be reached at (510) 208-9800.

Sincerely,
The Sheriff's signature, etc.


As an interesting note, I did not mention the 2A in my letter to The Sheriff. I always refrain from doing that because IMO, it will be looked at as "what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand", and we don't need that kind of image at this point.

When he says "qualified applicants", I would like to know what his definition of "qualified" is. My response to that is simply "Hmmmm"...

Otherwise, it rubs off on me as more of a cover myself on this, and be PC rather than what the unwritten policy could be. Obviously no Sheriff/CLEO in their right mind is going to tell a citizen what the unwritten policy is if they can help it.

He does not mention anything about my request to him that he start issuing based on the "good cause of self defense and self protection". As far as I can tell, everything I write is simply "opinion" based according to his words.

Erik.

bodger
12-19-2009, 12:17 PM
I'm not familiar with Alameda County. Is it one of the counties that has the reputation for not considering self defense GC for a CCW?

I tried to find the CCW map, but failed. If someone has the link handy, please post.

HowardW56
12-19-2009, 12:41 PM
I wrote to the Alameda County Sheriff (Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern) regarding the current policy of CCWs being issued. My letter can be found by doing a search.

Please (and respectfully), no derogatory remarks about Sheriff Ahern.

Here is the Sheriff's reply letter to me. I could not scan it to .pdf because my program is just stubborn, maybe it's because of Vista... :mad:



As an interesting note, I did not mention the 2A in my letter to The Sheriff. I always refrain from doing that because IMO, it will be looked at as "what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand", and we don't need that kind of image at this point.

When he says "qualified applicants", I would like to know what his definition of "qualified" is. My response to that is simply "Hmmmm"...

Otherwise, it rubs off on me as more of a cover myself on this, and be PC rather than what the unwritten policy could be. Obviously no Sheriff/CLEO in their right mind is going to tell a citizen what the unwritten policy is if they can help it.

He does not mention anything about my request to him that he start issuing based on the "good cause of self defense and self protection". As far as I can tell, everything I write is simply "opinion" based according to his words.

Erik.

Did he provide a copy of the policy?

yellowfin
12-19-2009, 12:47 PM
I'm not familiar with Alameda County. Is it one of the counties that has the reputation for not considering self defense GC for a CCW? It's one of the "not you" counties. "We will issue to qualified applicants, but that's not you. Or you. Or you. Or you."

bodger
12-19-2009, 12:51 PM
It's one of the "not you" counties. "We will issue to qualified applicants, but that's not you. Or you. Or you. Or you."


Sounds about like Los Angeles then.
"Qualified applicants" like Sylvester Stallone and Ben Affleck, et. al. get a CCW, but the rank-and-file "you" can go pee up a rope.

Billy Jack
12-19-2009, 1:00 PM
All applicants are treated equal, it is just that some are treated more equal than others. Seems like we have an Amendment to the United States Constitution that says that is illegal.

Just kidding there. Reservation humor.

Alameda County issues to contributors, members of the Posse/Sheriff's Advisory Board or whatever they call the local booster club and let's not forget elected officials. If the Sheriff desires to dispute what I have posted he can e-mail me for my home address and name and then sue me. As a matter of fact I invite Sheriff Lee Baca, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck and any other law enforcement official who I accuse of the same thing to sue me for libel. Ah, the truth is a legal defense. In a libel suit I would be able to obtain all CCW files without cost and then sue the official for malicious prosecution.

A nice win, win situation for all. Folks, it is not going to happen.

But a Brave can have his dreams now can't he?


Billy Jack

RobG
12-19-2009, 1:08 PM
His reply is a joke. A typical politician meaning nothing while saying something:rolleyes:

The Director
12-19-2009, 2:19 PM
It's one of the "not you" counties. "We will issue to qualified applicants, but that's not you. Or you. Or you. Or you."

Zactly.

Rem222
12-19-2009, 4:21 PM
It's one of the "not you" counties. "We will issue to qualified applicants, but that's not you. Or you. Or you. Or you."

Or us in CoCo county..

CCWFacts
12-19-2009, 5:34 PM
Please (and respectfully), no derogatory remarks about Sheriff Ahern.

I have as much respect for him as he has for my right to defend my personal safety. He has none and therefore I have none. He's corrupt just like all the other urban-liberal sheriffs in this state. They all "pay to play" with CCWs. Sheriff Ahren doesn't care in the slightest if a woman gets raped while waiting for the bus, or if someone is mugged while walking home, or any of those things. All he cares about is making sure CCWs get to the right people who contribute to his various campaign funds and so on.

Oakland in particular is a catastrophe right now, and people there are dying for lack of access to CCWs, and Sheriff Ahren is perfectly fine with that. How can anyone respect that?

Paladin
12-19-2009, 10:12 PM
Alameda County issues to contributors, members of the Posse/Sheriff's Advisory Board or whatever they call the local booster club and let's not forget elected officials. If the Sheriff desires to dispute what I have posted he can e-mail me for my home address and name and then sue me. As a matter of fact I invite Sheriff Lee Baca, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck and any other law enforcement official who I accuse of the same thing to sue me for libel. Ah, the truth is a legal defense. In a libel suit I would be able to obtain all CCW files without cost and then sue the official for malicious prosecution.Sweet! :43:

Paladin
12-19-2009, 10:32 PM
Oakland in particular is a catastrophe right now, and people there are dying for lack of access to CCWs, and Sheriff Ahren is perfectly fine with that. How can anyone respect that?Last I heard, Oakland was issuing CCWs. But then again, they got a new CoP in Sept of 2009 so the policy may have changed yet again. Couldn't find ANY info re CCWs on their website: http://www.oaklandpolice.com/

The only mention of CCWs on Alameda Co. SO's website is on their Contact page where they list a phone number, no address. No, they do NOT have a .pdf of their CCW policy or application online. After all, you don't really expect Alameda County's SO to be as up-to-date as Shasta County's SO, now do you? :rolleyes:
http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/html/Sheriff/sh_forms.htm

For those who don't realize what a basket case Oakland has become, ck out SFGate's Oakland Murder Map and select for all the years available.
http://www.sfgate.com/maps/oaklandhomicides/

It would be interesting to find out what percentage of Oakland/Ala Co SO CCWs are issued to Oakland residents who live in the area between I-580 and I-880.

ETA: last time I checked, I also could not find ANY info. re. CCWs at SFSO (yes, they do issue CCWs even though they'll tell you a million times on the phone that they don't -- do a PRA request); SFPD (http://sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=869); San Mateo SO; or Santa Clara SO. But Shasta County's SO does have their CCW info online? Hello? What's wrong w/this picture? That's right, "liberal" and Democrat (rule of the people? -- Ha!) controlled SF and Silicon Valley are behind Shasta County re. online access and "open government." They want to keep "the people" in the dark as far as their right to get a CCW application and their right to have it reviewed and accepted or denied, and, if it should be denied, what options they then have.

As several posted above, the major urban sheriffs and chiefs are corrupt and don't give a rat's you-know-what about public safety or American's 2nd Amendment "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" (coming soon to the PRK). They are just a bunch of "politicians with guns & badges" who only care about getting and keeping money and power. Frankly, I hope TBJ (http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/) nails some of their tails to the wall for all the people who's lives have been ruined or lost because of our rates of violent crime are higher than they would be if they did accept self-defense as Good Cause and made the PRK virtually Shall Issue.

ETA2: I should remind you that the Oakland Murder Map is just that -- those who were shot/stabbed/beaten so bad that they ended up in a persistent vegetative state, permanent coma or paralyzed, etc are NOT included. Those who were seriously injured but recovered (include rape here) are NOT included. Those who were attacked and suffered only minor injuries are NOT included. Those who were attacked but escaped w/o injury are NOT included. IOW, the map shows only the tip of the iceberg of violent crime in Oakland. Imagine what that map would look like if you layered all of those other violent crimes on top of it for the past 3 years.

Mendo223
12-20-2009, 11:45 AM
wow very interesting thread. im not a fan of alameda county sherriffs, those bastards gave my car a ticket a few days ago for a totally BS parking infraction. i just moved out here, what a nice welcoming, during christmas too. what a bunch of money hungry bastards.

HowardW56
12-20-2009, 11:53 AM
wow very interesting thread. im not a fan of alameda county sherriffs, those bastards gave my car a ticket a few days ago for a totally BS parking infraction. i just moved out here, what a nice welcoming, during christmas too. what a bunch of money hungry bastards.

:laugh:

I'm sorry, but your slamming the entire sheriff's department because you got a parking ticket is over the top...

You got a parking ticket because they caught you parking ilegaly, does that make the entire department bad?

I think I am pretty safe stating that most of the members here do not like their policies regarding firearms, but that doesn't make the entire department bad...

CCWFacts
12-20-2009, 11:54 AM
I should remind you that the Oakland Murder Map is just that -- those who were shot/stabbed/beaten so bad that they ended up in a persistent vegetative state, permanent coma or paralyzed, etc are NOT included. Those who were seriously injured but recovered (include rape here) are NOT included. Those who were attacked and suffered only minor injuries are NOT included. Those who were attacked but escaped w/o injury are NOT included. IOW, the map shows only the tip of the iceberg of violent crime in Oakland. Imagine what that map would look like if you layered all of those other violent crimes on top of it for the past 3 years.

That is an EXCELLENT point which many people overlook.

Being in a persistent vegetative state, being severely disabled, having brain damage all don't count as murder, but personally, I would prefer to just be dead than have those things.

Today our emergency medical technology is so fantastic that many crimes which would have been murder 25 years ago are now "aggravated assault". The victims don't come out ok; their lives are destroyed. But they are still breathing so it doesn't count as murder!

Aggravated assault is the real statistic to look at, not the murder stat.

When they say something like, "In City X, murder has dropped 20% over the past 20 years!" that does not mean that crime has dropped in any way. It probably just means that emergency medical care has improved to the point that 20% of people who would have died 20 years ago can now be kept alive. Those lives might be awful, miserable lives, but they're still breathing so it doesn't count as murder.

OleCuss
12-20-2009, 1:41 PM
It might be worth pointing out (as I'm sure many have noticed) that the Sheriff's response was a form letter.

RedStripes
12-20-2009, 4:21 PM
What a useless tool of a sheriff. Just like here in LA if you aren't rich/famous you can piss off and die. He deserves no respect or protection from personal attacks because he shows his elitism and disdain from the public he should be serving and protecting.

vantec08
12-20-2009, 4:37 PM
Sheriffs and COPs exist to serve the political status quo, not the people, which includes the latest political whim and fancy. I would LOVE to see one of them post "we cannot protect you - - - personal protection is your responsibility. Contact officer so-and-so if you choose to carry a gun."

donger
12-20-2009, 8:02 PM
All applicants are treated equal, it is just that some are treated more equal than others. Seems like we have an Amendment to the United States Constitution that says that is illegal.

Just kidding there. Reservation humor.

Alameda County issues to contributors, members of the Posse/Sheriff's Advisory Board or whatever they call the local booster club and let's not forget elected officials. If the Sheriff desires to dispute what I have posted he can e-mail me for my home address and name and then sue me. As a matter of fact I invite Sheriff Lee Baca, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck and any other law enforcement official who I accuse of the same thing to sue me for libel. Ah, the truth is a legal defense. In a libel suit I would be able to obtain all CCW files without cost and then sue the official for malicious prosecution.

A nice win, win situation for all. Folks, it is not going to happen.

But a Brave can have his dreams now can't he?


Billy Jack


Good to see you back.

davescz
12-21-2009, 8:42 AM
The Sheriff has admitted that there is a written policy on Concel carry permits. Per California law, he must disclose that written policy if you request it via a California Public Records Request. He must produce the document you request within ten days I believe, or give you a reason why he cant. That is the law.

He has tipped his hand, and admitted that there is a written document. There is a very narrow set of reasons that he can use to avoid producing the written rules, Usually it is employee records that fall under this exemption. that should not be the case here.

so go ahead and file a Public Records Request for the written rules he uses. If he fails to comply he will end up in court and will have to explain why you cant have a written document that he has confirmed exists.


Now run with this thing and request that record, if you dont, please PM me and i will run with it. I have some time on my hands.

thanks




I wrote to the Alameda County Sheriff (Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern) regarding the current policy of CCWs being issued. My letter can be found by doing a search.

Please (and respectfully), no derogatory remarks about Sheriff Ahern.

Here is the Sheriff's reply letter to me. I could not scan it to .pdf because my program is just stubborn, maybe it's because of Vista... :mad:



As an interesting note, I did not mention the 2A in my letter to The Sheriff. I always refrain from doing that because IMO, it will be looked at as "what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand", and we don't need that kind of image at this point.

When he says "qualified applicants", I would like to know what his definition of "qualified" is. My response to that is simply "Hmmmm"...

Otherwise, it rubs off on me as more of a cover myself on this, and be PC rather than what the unwritten policy could be. Obviously no Sheriff/CLEO in their right mind is going to tell a citizen what the unwritten policy is if they can help it.

He does not mention anything about my request to him that he start issuing based on the "good cause of self defense and self protection". As far as I can tell, everything I write is simply "opinion" based according to his words.

Erik.

Billy Jack
12-21-2009, 8:53 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen,

As a matter of law, Salute v Pitchess, all departments are required to have a written CCW Policy and they are required to provide a copy to all that ask. A PRAR is not even required unless they decline to provide same.

We here at TBJ have most of the departments in the state. Sorry to say my collection does not include a copy of Alameda County SO. Just write them a nice Certified letter and I can almost guarantee you will receive one by return mail.

You folks have a tendency to make things more difficult than they need to be. If you do not receive a copy let me know here or at: www.californiaconcealedcarry.com and I will request a copy. I have NEVER been denied a copy from any department. Seems they do not desire to anger this Brave.

Billy Jack

Jerry1949
12-21-2009, 10:02 AM
Otherwise, it rubs off on me as more of a cover myself on this, and be PC rather than what the unwritten policy could be. Obviously no Sheriff/CLEO in their right mind is going to tell a citizen what the unwritten policy is if they can help it.



Erik.

I might disagree with JUST this portion of your post. Mimms (Fresno County Sheriff), did just that, last week.

stormy_clothing
12-21-2009, 10:49 AM
To the OP, What image ?

To stand up and say no you will not take away my rights ?

That's my image, no you cannot - if you want to dance around issues or whatever makes you comfortable ect, fine. But your not speaking for "we" your speaking for "you" please keep that in mind in the future.

SJgunguy24
12-21-2009, 11:12 AM
wow very interesting thread. im not a fan of alameda county sherriffs, those bastards gave my car a ticket a few days ago for a totally BS parking infraction. i just moved out here, what a nice welcoming, during christmas too. what a bunch of money hungry bastards.

Don't feel too bad, they took a gun from me that was legally carried on private property in a gang infested hood'. I was threated by a sargent and was told I would be thrown in jail for possession of hi cap mags.

I made a phone call and I got an apology and my gun back.

Paladin
12-26-2009, 6:10 AM
That is an EXCELLENT point which many people overlook.

Being in a persistent vegetative state, being severely disabled, having brain damage all don't count as murder, but personally, I would prefer to just be dead than have those things.

Today our emergency medical technology is so fantastic that many crimes which would have been murder 25 years ago are now "aggravated assault". The victims don't come out ok; their lives are destroyed. But they are still breathing so it doesn't count as murder!

Aggravated assault is the real statistic to look at, not the murder stat.I found what you're looking for!

See: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=253124

Hopefully, the guys behind that will produce maps for other major urban cities in the PRK.

Roadrunner
12-26-2009, 6:26 AM
The Stanislaus County Sheriff's policy (http://www.stanislaussheriff.com/forms/pdf/records/SCSD%20Policy%20for%20Permits%20to%20Carry%20Conce aled%20Weapons.pdf) isn't much better.

nicki
12-26-2009, 9:33 AM
Well it is nice that the sheriff recogiza the second amendment, guess he didn't read the memo that Nordyke is on hold for now.

Write him back and thank him for bringing up the 2A since you didn't, tell him why you were reading the bill of rights you ran into a thing called the 14th amendment.

For fun tell him you read the California Constitution and why you couldn't find a state equivalent to the 2A, you found something stronger regarding equal rights,

Art 1 sec 7b.


b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.


I would mention that unlike Gay Marriage(Prop 8), it doesn't say with the exception of CCW permits.

I would mention that you realize that the penal code and the state constitution are in conflict.

The reason the penal code is in conflict is because the law was racists in intent when written back in 1923 and the real purpose was to disarm Mexicans and Asians.

Tell him not to worry, after the 2A is incorporated, there is a nice Federal civil rights lawsuit and Sacramento and Yolo counties are the defendants.

Tell him it is a CCW discriminatory issue lawsuit and plantiffs are suing for violations of the 2A, 9th and 14th amendments.

Make sure that you mention that the attornies are "Alan Gura LLP, winning attorney Heller and soon to be MacDonald, and Don Kilmer LLP, attorney on Nordyke.

To really screw with his head, tell him that it is also a GAY RIGHTS lawsuit since "Sykes" is a "Lesbian" and she is the Sacramento Pink Pistol coordinator.

Certainly with "Hate Crimes", she had better "Good Cause" than the political cronies who got their gun permits.

Ask the sheriff if he would be interested in a informal sit down to revise Alameda's CCW poliices so that he can avoid expensive civil rights lawsuits.

Make sure you send a copy of any follow up letter to the Alameda county council. I am sure they are eagerly looking forward to more gun lawsuits.

Nicki

PressCheck
12-26-2009, 10:27 AM
I have a good buddy that has an unrestricted CCW form Alameda County, and he has NEVER donated a cent to, or belonged to any organization in the County. Go figure.

bodger
12-26-2009, 11:59 AM
I have a good buddy that has an unrestricted CCW form Alameda County, and he has NEVER donated a cent to, or belonged to any organization in the County. Go figure.


Do you happen to know what his Good Cause was based upon?

CalNRA
12-26-2009, 1:01 PM
Do you happen to know what his Good Cause was based upon?

ditto.

His good cause statement must be stellar.

bigfrank
12-26-2009, 2:54 PM
ditto.

His good cause statement must be stellar.

Maybe he is Don Perata???

Gryff
12-26-2009, 9:27 PM
wow very interesting thread. im not a fan of alameda county sherriffs, those bastards gave my car a ticket a few days ago for a totally BS parking infraction. i just moved out here, what a nice welcoming, during christmas too. what a bunch of money hungry bastards.

:D

I love how all the ASD meter maids here weigh 300lbs. and have "Crime Scene Technician" patches on their shoulders.

PressCheck
12-28-2009, 11:32 AM
Do you happen to know what his Good Cause was based upon?

No, but I can tell you that he's nobody special and not "connected."

Flopper
12-28-2009, 1:53 PM
No, but I can tell you that he's nobody special and not "connected."

OK, before somebody has to literally start pulling teeth:

Can you please ASK HIM what his good cause was and report back to a CGF board member? It is definitely NOT normal to get a CCW from Alameda County without being connected.

run8
12-28-2009, 3:54 PM
I'm sure they see it as a thinning of the gene pool.


Oakland in particular is a catastrophe right now, and people there are dying for lack of access to CCWs, and Sheriff Ahren is perfectly fine with that. How can anyone respect that?

CalNRA
03-31-2010, 3:18 AM
bumping an old thread. I wonder if the CCW holder was ever willing to share his good cause with CGF people?

TonyM
03-31-2010, 8:01 AM
bumping an old thread. I wonder if the CCW holder was ever willing to share his good cause with CGF people?

I'd like to know as well.

:gene:

Window_Seat
03-31-2010, 10:21 AM
I'm thinking you're asking about this post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3548790#post3548790), if so, I would also know who the Sheriff was, if it was Ahern, or another one from long ago.

Erik.

CalNRA
03-31-2010, 3:34 PM
I'm thinking you're asking about this post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3548790#post3548790), if so, I would also know who the Sheriff was, if it was Ahern, or another one from long ago.

Erik.

yep, that's the one.

Not everyday someone without connections gets a CCW from Alameda county.

Window_Seat
03-31-2010, 4:03 PM
It would be nice at the very least to know, even if this individual can't elaborate on the board, he could let Gene, Bill, Wildhawker, et all, individually rather than publicly, no?

Erik.

HondaMasterTech
03-31-2010, 4:34 PM
An assemblyman was present at the CCW forum at the Eldorado County Fairgrounds a while back. Presented was a letter from the attourney general which gave an "OPINION" on what should be regarded as "good cause". This "OPINION" has been accepted as gospel by many sherrifs and used as a scapegoat excuse to refuse applicants for any reason they want. It is complete crap because there is no penal code defining good cause, which in my opinion, is the problem. Not that many legislators would even be able to come up with an acceptable good cause, mind you.

CCWFacts
03-31-2010, 5:41 PM
An assemblyman was present at the CCW forum at the Eldorado County Fairgrounds a while back. Presented was a letter from the attourney general which gave an "OPINION" on what should be regarded as "good cause". This "OPINION" has been accepted as gospel by many sherrifs and used as a scapegoat excuse to refuse applicants for any reason they want.

I somehow doubt that they have even read the AG's opinion, written in 1977 (http://old.californiaccw.org/files/ag-1977-ccw-opinion.pdf). It is far out of date, having been written before the whole "shall issue" concept had even gotten started. That was written ~10 years before Florida became the first urban state to go shall-issue. It was written 30 years before the Heller decision. It was written 30 years before California's current AG signed a brief that argues that the 2A is an individual right.

The informal opinion itself talks more about "good character" than about good cause. It also talks a lot about the implications of Salute, namely, the issuing authority must evaluate each application individually, and can't do a blanket rejection.

Again, I doubt any of these sheriffs have even read it, and it's galling to me that they have the nerve to claim to rely on something which was never a policy document and is irrelevant to today's world.

thedrickel
03-31-2010, 6:30 PM
I wonder if Princess Anastasia, Queen of the Netherlands has gotten his CCW transferred over to Alameda County or the city of Oakland yet, since he moved there from SF a few months ago.

spddrcr
03-31-2010, 8:09 PM
I somehow doubt that they have even read the AG's opinion, written in 1977 (http://old.californiaccw.org/files/ag-1977-ccw-opinion.pdf). It is far out of date, having been written before the whole "shall issue" concept had even gotten started. That was written ~10 years before Florida became the first urban state to go shall-issue. It was written 30 years before the Heller decision. It was written 30 years before California's current AG signed a brief that argues that the 2A is an individual right.

The informal opinion itself talks more about "good character" than about good cause. It also talks a lot about the implications of Salute, namely, the issuing authority must evaluate each application individually, and can't do a blanket rejection.

Again, I doubt any of these sheriffs have even read it, and it's galling to me that they have the nerve to claim to rely on something which was never a policy document and is irrelevant to today's world.


more importantly it was written way before the gang and crime situation in CA had gotten to the point that it is now:rolleyes:

CalNRA
04-01-2010, 1:01 AM
I wonder if Princess Anastasia, Queen of the Netherlands has gotten his CCW transferred over to Alameda County or the city of Oakland yet, since he moved there from SF a few months ago.

:confused:

motorhead
04-01-2010, 8:32 AM
polite doublespeak.

xrMike
04-01-2010, 9:23 AM
His reply is a joke. A typical politician meaning nothing while saying something:rolleyes:That's how I read it too -- moving his lips but saying nothing of substance, and giving no answers.

Billy Jack
04-01-2010, 9:38 AM
I somehow doubt that they have even read the AG's opinion, written in 1977 (http://old.californiaccw.org/files/ag-1977-ccw-opinion.pdf). It is far out of date, having been written before the whole "shall issue" concept had even gotten started. That was written ~10 years before Florida became the first urban state to go shall-issue. It was written 30 years before the Heller decision. It was written 30 years before California's current AG signed a brief that argues that the 2A is an individual right.

The informal opinion itself talks more about "good character" than about good cause. It also talks a lot about the implications of Salute, namely, the issuing authority must evaluate each application individually, and can't do a blanket rejection.

Again, I doubt any of these sheriffs have even read it, and it's galling to me that they have the nerve to claim to rely on something which was never a policy document and is irrelevant to today's world.


Until the Legislature defines Good Cause, the AG Opinion is all Judges have to fall back on. It is actually helpful in many lawsuits when the departments use it and the holders, friends, supporters and in the case of Sheriffs, contributors do not satisfy the standard.

Short of posters 'wet dream' of Shall Issue, you should push for a definition of 'Good Cause' via legislation. Sheriffs may oppose Shall Issue but they may support a definition of Good Cause as it would reduce litigation. This could be a stop gap until when and if California gets Shall Issue.

As many of you are aware, you will immediately get Shall Issue, the day after SCOTUS publishes the McDonald Opinion. I would not wait on completing that DOJ Application. This Brave does not always post what you want to hear but I post reality. Except when I am pulling your leg of course, and I always let you know when I am and I just did.

Billy Jack



www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

HondaMasterTech
04-01-2010, 6:00 PM
I would fear a Californian legislative definition of "Good Cause". With heads shoved THAT far up thier arses, I don't see legislation giving "Good Cause" to anyone.

Wild Squid
04-01-2010, 6:27 PM
Being a cop or sheriff is all about power. I can't think of any other reason a cop becomes a cop. Sure they all say they want to make a difference in their communities. But you need power and a gun to do that. And sheriffs that issue CCW's on a shall issue basis live in areas where they would be voted out if they didn't. So they have to abide by what the people want. But too may people that live in more urban and city areas don't want anything to do with guns, and they think you shouldn't either. Everyone is on a me first mentality. No one gives a rats ***** about the next guy or what happens to them. That is what society has become. And well, I can't say I'm any different. Hell, if I were Sheriff I may be just like them, who knows, the more power you have the better you feel.

CalNRA
06-14-2010, 12:57 AM
No, but I can tell you that he's nobody special and not "connected."

once again, bump. :D

Did you have any luck asking your friend to share some insight on the GC?

WokMaster1
06-14-2010, 6:44 AM
AG's opinion, eh? Wonder if JB would write an updated opinion in our favor after Heller & McD?

JB-Norcal
06-14-2010, 7:10 AM
:(Being a cop or sheriff is all about power. I can't think of any other reason a cop becomes a cop. Sure they all say they want to make a difference in their communities. But you need power and a gun to do that. And sheriffs that issue CCW's on a shall issue basis live in areas where they would be voted out if they didn't. So they have to abide by what the people want. But too may people that live in more urban and city areas don't want anything to do with guns, and they think you shouldn't either. Everyone is on a me first mentality. No one gives a rats ***** about the next guy or what happens to them. That is what society has become. And well, I can't say I'm any different. Hell, if I were Sheriff I may be just like them, who knows, the more power you have the better you feel.

That's a pretty sad outlook.

Barabas
06-14-2010, 7:29 AM
I agree. That is a sad outlook. A good friend who lives in Stockton went through Academy not because he was power hungry, but because he was privilege hungry. He wanted the privilege to purchase high capacity magazines, pistols off the roster, and to build an AW without hassle.

Becoming a police officer was the surest route to accomplish his goal. I won't share any further details, as I don't want to jeopardize his standing, but he has a strong work ethic and I'm sure he would make a fine, law-minded, officer with no delusions of grandeur.

Barkoff
06-14-2010, 7:41 AM
Having them quote law means nothing, when they say "I believe in your right", that is hope.

abusalim81
06-14-2010, 1:42 PM
Not surprised at all!

Sunday
06-14-2010, 1:52 PM
During my interview for my CCW I said this procedure other that being firearm qualified and an understanding of self defense laws, I told the Sheriff that the CCW process is stepping on my 2nd amendment rights and my attorney said is was cheaper to play by the rules etc. The Sheriff handed me back the application and I thought to myself opps???? Then he looked me in the eye and said write down what you just said and I did and handed the form back to the Sheriff ,he read the added writing and said" as far as I am concerned you got the permit if the FBI check is good" We have a good sheriff up here.

Sunday
06-14-2010, 1:56 PM
:(

That's a pretty sad outlook.

Pretty much overall I will agree with you but I have meet and also had some dealings with some honorable leos .Though mostly Sherrifs or Deputies, They must come from a different mold than most all police officers.

CSDGuy
06-14-2010, 2:43 PM
During my interview for my CCW I said this procedure other that being firearm qualified and an understanding of self defense laws, I told the Sheriff that the CCW process is stepping on my 2nd amendment rights and my attorney said is was cheaper to play by the rules etc. The Sheriff handed me back the application and I thought to myself opps???? Then he looked me in the eye and said write down what you just said and I did and handed the form back to the Sheriff ,he read the added writing and said" as far as I am concerned you got the permit if the FBI check is good" We have a good sheriff up here.
From what I've heard about your Sheriff, he appears to be VERY pro-2A.

jdberger
06-14-2010, 9:49 PM
I wonder if Princess xxx has gotten his CCW transferred over to Alameda County or the city of Oakland yet, since he moved there from SF a few months ago.

I'm pretty sure that the Princess was interested in a little bit of anonymnity (despite the whole story buried in archives). :rolleyes:

shellyzsweet
06-14-2010, 10:58 PM
If you have other questions concerning this process, please contact Captain Donald Buchanan in the Internal Affairs Unit. Captain Buchanan can be reached at (510) 208-9800.



This line really bothers me.....rather than say something like "if you have further questions we will happily answer them" or "contact this person in our dept for further inquires"......he gives you an IA number....almost like saying "if you don't like it, just TRY and bust me on it! Here is the phone number! Go ahead!"

-maybe its just me....but thats how I read that end line

Gray Peterson
06-14-2010, 11:19 PM
This line really bothers me.....rather than say something like "if you have further questions we will happily answer them" or "contact this person in our dept for further inquires"......he gives you an IA number....almost like saying "if you don't like it, just TRY and bust me on it! Here is the phone number! Go ahead!"

-maybe its just me....but thats how I read that end line

Not really. I have their entire application sheet, and there are a bunch of illegalities in terms of state statutory compliance.

Watch this thread for further updates.

Window_Seat
06-14-2010, 11:31 PM
Not really. I have their entire application sheet, and there are a bunch of illegalities in terms of state statutory compliance.

Watch this thread for further updates.

Interesting, I looked for their application online, but nothing. Can you post it here, or do you need time?

Erik.

Gray Peterson
06-14-2010, 11:56 PM
Interesting, I looked for their application online, but nothing. Can you post it here, or do you need time?

Erik.

There is some backend stuff with Alameda County I need to take care of first. I do NOT recommend applying to Alameda at this time, there are so many illegalities and it's pretty clear that no regular citizen can get a license to carry from them.

Let's just say this: I had to file a PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST to get a damned license application packet

Myself, and two other very well known members of this forum are working on it. I ask that you DO NOT contact Alameda about CCW's at this time, even post-McDonald, until you are given the clear from me to go ahead.

press1280
06-15-2010, 12:46 AM
There is some backend stuff with Alameda County I need to take care of first. I do NOT recommend applying to Alameda at this time, there are so many illegalities and it's pretty clear that no regular citizen can get a license to carry from them.

Let's just say this: I had to file a PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST to get a damned license application packet.

See Kellogg v. City of Gary IN. They have to make the applications accessible. A PRAR is really pushing it.

CalNRA
06-15-2010, 4:52 AM
There is some backend stuff with Alameda County I need to take care of first. I do NOT recommend applying to Alameda at this time, there are so many illegalities and it's pretty clear that no regular citizen can get a license to carry from them.

Let's just say this: I had to file a PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST to get a damned license application packet.

do they still require the psych test and the million dollar insurance policy? Last time I was asking I was told those were required just to apply.

Gray Peterson
06-15-2010, 7:14 AM
do they still require the psych test and the million dollar insurance policy? Last time I was asking I was told those were required just to apply.

Yes to both. One of them is unlawful, the other is not.

-Gray

Billy Jack
06-15-2010, 7:30 AM
See Kellogg v. City of Gary IN. They have to make the applications accessible. A PRAR is really pushing it.

California Government Code, commencing with Section 6250 and Salute v Pitchess makes it clear, all who ask for a CCW Application and policy must be provided same. A PRAR is not necessary. If I encountered that attitude I would file a Writ of Mandamus to get their attention. The reluctance to litigate by potential applicants has slowed the process to a crawl.

Put their feet in the fire people!

Billy Jack


"We got the law here Billy Jack" Mr. Posner "When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law..........just a fight for survival!" Billy Jack 1973

Gray Peterson
06-15-2010, 7:30 AM
See Kellogg v. City of Gary IN. They have to make the applications accessible. A PRAR is really pushing it.

Kellogg is a state case in Indiana, and not directly applicable.

Window_Seat
06-15-2010, 9:07 AM
Thanks Gray, and good work!

I will definitely not be applying post McDonald, until being given the green light (I voted the 3rd option weeks ago, just because I was hungry for Togo's and knew that I would need that nap afterward). Having to file a PRAR just to get the application might be due to them not even having applications at the time, and they likely had to fabricate one, so they could have been caught off guard with your request.

Erik.

Untamed1972
06-15-2010, 10:24 AM
"I do not take this process lightly and also recognize qualified applicants' rights as outlined in the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution."


Since when does a person need to be "qualified" to exercise constitutional rights? So he's saying only qualified people have a right to exercise the 2A?

Barabas
06-15-2010, 10:40 AM
Gun control is inherently classist/racist. The roster and reluctance to issue CCW in urban centers is proof enough. The fact that blinders are being worn to shield themselves from cognitive dissonance does not change its basis.

Forcing a citizen to play a game where the rules are secret is despicable. We need to remove immunity from prosecution and force transparency.

Gray Peterson
06-15-2010, 5:00 PM
Since when does a person need to be "qualified" to exercise constitutional rights? So he's saying only qualified people have a right to exercise the 2A?

It's nice that he so believes in 2A. Shouldn't he comply with state law first before maknig such platitudes? Heh.

Paladin
06-16-2010, 8:23 PM
There is some backend stuff with Alameda County I need to take care of first. I do NOT recommend applying to Alameda at this time, there are so many illegalities and it's pretty clear that no regular citizen can get a license to carry from them.

Let's just say this: I had to file a PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST to get a damned license application packet

Myself, and two other very well known members of this forum are working on it. I ask that you DO NOT contact Alameda about CCW's at this time, even post-McDonald, until you are given the clear from me to go ahead.I hope that you give the "go ahead" pretty soon after McDonald. Today I caught part of a radio news story that said that Oakland will have to lay off 200 LEOs, IIRC, starting in July due to budget cutbacks. It said that starting pay for OPD LEOs was $71k to 91k. ETA: Correction: according to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/inoakland/detail?&entry_id=65895 it sounds like the 200 LEOs may be laid off on 24 June, before the new fiscal year begins on 1 July.

I went to the OPD website (http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/OPD/index.htm), and could not find anything re. CCWs, whether they issue or "declared G" and handed issuing to Ala Co SO.

Oakland w/200 fewer LEOs: now that makes for sufficient GC in my book! http://oakland.crimespotting.org/

dantodd
06-16-2010, 8:27 PM
Oakland w/200 fewer LEOs: now that makes for sufficient GC in my book! http://oakland.crimespotting.org/

Only 4 murders this week. Must be a little slow.

advocatusdiaboli
06-16-2010, 8:54 PM
as well as other provisions.

That's political speak for "my own personal criteria which are never divulged but can be otherwise influenced if you know how".

advocatusdiaboli
06-16-2010, 8:55 PM
Since when does a person need to be "qualified" to exercise constitutional rights? So he's saying only qualified people have a right to exercise the 2A?

Good point. I wonder if he can point to the qualification specifics in the Constitution as I have no recollection of any.

Paladin
06-16-2010, 9:49 PM
Only 4 murders this week. Must be a little slow.
I think it's because many people are watching the World Cup soccer games.

Either way, Oakland vigorously defended its reputation vis-a-vis SF. SF didn't have a single murder in the same time period. A shutout! http://sanfrancisco.crimespotting.org/

CalNRA
06-16-2010, 11:02 PM
I think it's because many people are watching the World Cup soccer games.



ahem, Celtics...Lakers...ring a bell?

Frisco3Gun
01-08-2014, 11:47 PM
New to the forum (at least as far as posting goes). Wanted to know if anyone has any updates on Sheriff Ahern in Alameda.

lazyworm
01-08-2014, 11:58 PM
Holy ancient thread...

Frisco3Gun, try this link http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/2014/01/calguns-foundation-publishes-2012-2013-california-handgun-carry-license-reports/

Frisco3Gun
01-09-2014, 12:31 AM
Thanks for the quick response!

Saw that post when it first came out and gladly threw a few bones to the CGF (even a college student can muster up dough to protect civil liberties).

I just didn't know what to make of it. Are ye telling me to wait this one out? I actually have residence in both San Francisco and Alameda counties, but figured the ACSO would be a little easier than cracking SFPD policies.

For the record, I am a first time applicant with a clean background. I am in the process of writing a good-cause statement.

I just really don't want to throw a few hundred dollars at this just to get the no-go. Essentially, I want to do it once by doing it right, and very much appreciate any help I can get on here!

Paladin
01-09-2014, 7:44 AM
Thanks for the quick response!

Saw that post when it first came out and gladly threw a few bones to the CGF (even a college student can muster up dough to protect civil liberties).

I just didn't know what to make of it. Are ye telling me to wait this one out? I actually have residence in both San Francisco and Alameda counties, but figured the ACSO would be a little easier than cracking SFPD policies.

For the record, I am a first time applicant with a clean background. I am in the process of writing a good-cause statement. <snip>

I just really don't want to throw a few hundred dollars at this just to get the no-go. Essentially, I want to do it once by doing it right, and very much appreciate any help I can get on here!Where you live is CRITICAL!!! After that comes your Good Cause.

Ala Co SO would be better than either SFSO or SFPD.

The best place to ask re. the latest info. on Ala. Co SO issuance policy/experiences is at:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=352738
Unless Ahern has recently "seen the light" re. CCWs, save your time, money, and effort for your studies.... :(

Go thru the this thread for some ideas that MAY help you:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=876454
If you work odd (non-commute) hours, Vallejo/Benecia in Solano Co may work for you. You may want to rent there for two years since we may have as many as 3 Carry Cases in front of SCOTUS next term (2014-2015). If we win one or more of those, Ala. & SF may liberalize their issuance.

bruss01
01-09-2014, 8:50 AM
When he says "qualified applicants", I would like to know what his definition of "qualified" is. My response to that is simply "Hmmmm"...


My guess on what "qualified" means...

It means there is a written policy, and the process of screening applicants against that policy is called qualification. If you pass the qualification process, you become "qualified", as in, you receive the Sheriff's office stamp of approval to get your CCW. No doubt that process will require a designated class which you will have to pass or "qualify" which is an entirely different meaning of the term.

If you were hoping that military qualification (passed training) or hunter safety class counted as making you "qualified" I don't think that's what it means at all.

Linny
01-09-2014, 10:54 AM
My family actually has very close ties with the Ahern family. My parents live up the street from his sister. My grandfather was a captain in Oakland PD for 30+ years and mentored Greg to get him ready for the Sheriff's Dept. It troubles me greatly and I will write to him and remind him that my grandfather was an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment.
-Linny I wrote to the Alameda County Sheriff (Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern) regarding the current policy of CCWs being issued. My letter can be found by doing a search.

Please (and respectfully), no derogatory remarks about Sheriff Ahern.

Here is the Sheriff's reply letter to me. I could not scan it to .pdf because my program is just stubborn, maybe it's because of Vista... :mad:



As an interesting note, I did not mention the 2A in my letter to The Sheriff. I always refrain from doing that because IMO, it will be looked at as "what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand", and we don't need that kind of image at this point.

When he says "qualified applicants", I would like to know what his definition of "qualified" is. My response to that is simply "Hmmmm"...

Otherwise, it rubs off on me as more of a cover myself on this, and be PC rather than what the unwritten policy could be. Obviously no Sheriff/CLEO in their right mind is going to tell a citizen what the unwritten policy is if they can help it.

He does not mention anything about my request to him that he start issuing based on the "good cause of self defense and self protection". As far as I can tell, everything I write is simply "opinion" based according to his words.

Erik.

Paladin
01-09-2014, 11:50 AM
My family actually has very close ties with the Ahern family. My parents live up the street from his sister. My grandfather was a captain in Oakland PD for 30+ years and mentored Greg to get him ready for the Sheriff's Dept. It troubles me greatly and I will write to him and remind him that my grandfather was an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment.
-Linny
Here's his general statement re. CCWs:
https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/admin_ia_ccw.php

Look at his CCW Policy criteria for "Good Cause":
https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/forms/ACSO%20CCW%20Policy.pdf

Page 2

Good Cause for Issuance

The applicant must establish that there is good cause for the Sheriff to issue a CCW license. The Sheriff has determined, on the basis of experience and judgment, good cause to issue a CCW license to Alameda County residents will exist only in conditions of necessity. Therefore, applicants should be able to supply credible evidence of the following:

1. There is a documented, presently existing, clear and present danger to life, or great bodily harm to the applicant and/or his or her spouse, domestic partner, or dependents.

2. The danger of harm is specific to the applicant, or his or her immediate family, and is not generally shared by other similarly situated members of the public.

3. Existing law enforcement resources cannot adequately address the danger of harm.

4. The danger of harm cannot reasonably be avoided by alternative measures.

5. Licensing the applicant to carry a concealed weapon is significantly likely to reduce the danger of harm.

Compare that to the 120+ examples of CCWers saving lives linked in my sig line. Out of 120+, only a handful would have passed muster with Ahern.... All the others would have been left unarmed. :mad:

John Galt
01-09-2014, 12:21 PM
When is Ahern up for reelection?

malfunction
01-09-2014, 12:48 PM
Good Cause for Issuance

The applicant must establish that there is good cause for the Sheriff to issue a CCW license. The Sheriff has determined, on the basis of experience and judgment, good cause to issue a CCW license to Alameda County residents will exist only in conditions of necessity. Therefore, applicants should be able to supply credible evidence of the following:

1. There is a documented, presently existing, clear and present danger to life, or great bodily harm to the applicant and/or his or her spouse, domestic partner, or dependents.

2. The danger of harm is specific to the applicant, or his or her immediate family, and is not generally shared by other similarly situated members of the public.

3. Existing law enforcement resources cannot adequately address the danger of harm.

4. The danger of harm cannot reasonably be avoided by alternative measures.

5. Licensing the applicant to carry a concealed weapon is significantly likely to reduce the danger of harm. [/I]

Yep, it's just horrible. He is under no legal compulsion to protect the public, we know that, however he evidently does consider it his duty to prevent us doing it ourselves. Nice :mad:

Linny
01-09-2014, 2:58 PM
letter mailed

fizux
01-11-2014, 6:54 AM
New to the forum (at least as far as posting goes). Wanted to know if anyone has any updates on Sheriff Ahern in Alameda.
Holy necropost, Batman!

Welcome to CGN -- I'm sure you'll find a lot of useful info here.

Compared to the prior administration, things in AlaCo have improved quite a bit under the current Sheriff. Unfortunately, that improvement is probably not enough to be of value to you before a CA carry case is decided. Rest assured; however, that AlaCo will be far less resistive to a favorable carry decision than places like SF.

In the meanwhile, focus on your studies and get involved in the upcoming elections. The political process is eventually where the public policy fight needs to go.

Swagman00
01-11-2014, 8:05 AM
This is the reason I have had the final straw with Alameda County.

I'll be moving to San Joaquin the first chance I get and keep my fingers crossed.

Hopalong
01-11-2014, 11:55 AM
The Sheriff is an elected politician.

His letter to you is political spin, with the doublespeak and wiggle room

That he thinks he needs, to get re-elected.

It's really quite that simple. Period.

This sheriff, as do all sheriffs, look to the way the political wind is blowing in their county, First.

Then, and only then, do they come up with their very subjective policy.

The 2nd amendment is nice (talk about throwing a dog a bone in the letter), debate is nice, logic and reason are nice...

However, they have absolutely nothing to do, in this state, as to whether a LTC is issued or not.

This is simply, Pure Politics.

MagnusT
01-18-2014, 3:50 AM
If the measure of a sheriff can be determined by the conduct of his deputies then Sheriff Ahern is a world class a-hole. This perception is only reinforced through my interactions with ACSO internal affairs. However, I find his conduct and that overall of his department to be par for the course under the current political regime of Communifornia.

I found this thread by accident while looking in to Ahern for unrelated matters. After reading through the three pages it struck me that the entire pursuit of a CCW is not only counter-productive but entirely insane. It just a big scam. The US Constitution (which supplements the California Constitution) already says what rights the government may not infringe, and that is the peoples' right to bear arms [FULL STOP]. Articles 9 and 10 of the Bill of Right and Article I, Section 24 of the California Constitution further reinforce the prohibitions against government abrogation of the unalienable rights of the people.

It's my opinion that the focus needs to be on the enforcement and punishment of people accused of carrying a concealed weapon. First of all, how is that a crime? Yes, I understand we have a criminal element in society, but it's really easy to weed out the bad guys from the good. If someone with a clean record and with no malice aforethought carries a gun on his person that isn't necessarily visible, is that a crime? Is that wrong? Is society somehow injured by that act? I believe the answer is plainly obvious.

How about people just stand up for their rights? The way the penal codes are currently written, just having a weapon "concealed", regardless of intent, is a crime. How does that even pass constitutional muster? The most fundamental element of a crime is intent. Also, as written, the code makes no reference to locale, so technically a cop can arrest you in your own home for having a concealed weapon. And with the general amnesia of Article IV of the Bill of Rights and Article I Section 13 of the California Constitution expressed by many ignorant cops these days, don't be surprised to hear of such arrests.

Seems to me people have been chasing after the wrong goose this entire time. Attack the assumption of criminal intent and go after the punishments for carrying a concealed weapon rather than worry about getting some stupid piece of paper or the permission of a politician with a badge to enjoy a God-given right. If you don't think like a statist then confusing and befuddling them becomes easy.

sarabellum
01-18-2014, 12:16 PM
It took Ahern a long time to get back to you, 5 years.

Dvrjon
01-18-2014, 5:55 PM
It took Ahern a long time to get back to you, 5 years.

I submit that you may not be clear on what has happened here and who the various correspondents are......:oji:

You may want to read Post #1.

Cheers.

JR

Wang Lung
01-18-2014, 8:32 PM
letter mailed

Thanks Linny.

sarabellum
01-20-2014, 12:33 PM
I submit that you may not be clear on what has happened here and who the various correspondents are......:oji:

You may want to read Post #1.

Cheers.

JR

December 10, 2009. Ahern must be busy or the mail is slower than usual.