PDA

View Full Version : Riverside County Sheriff issues CCW Permits


coolusername2007
01-20-2010, 8:50 PM
I attended a community forum tonight where Riverside County Sheriff Sniff discussed the issue of relaxing CCW permits to residents. According to him, last year there were a little over 100 applications, of which all but a couple were approved (which means a 98+% approval rating). Sheriff Sniff indicated the relaxing of CCW permit issuance is because the state is releasing 40K+ prisoners.

I wanted to post this message because this is news to me that the Sheriff is issuing permits in this county. The only real "data" I had to go on was this map. Which leads to the question of when was this map created and how often does it get revised/updated? Maybe a revision is in order.

radioman
01-20-2010, 9:17 PM
the image was to small to read, but I doff my hat to sheriff Snuiff.

1JimMarch
01-20-2010, 9:32 PM
Yeah. What happens when a black dude walks in?

"Color" me skeptical.


































(Yeah, I know, BAD pun...but I'm otherwise quite serious.)

tallic68
01-20-2010, 9:46 PM
after the county supervisor meeting in november he said there was nothing wrong with his issuance. why the change? any more specifics?

coolusername2007
01-20-2010, 9:47 PM
Sorry the pic is so small. Can't figure out how include in the message without attaching. The "insert image" button is asking for a URL, not browse. Anyway, I got the image from the here http://www.calccw.com/Forums/county-faq/7158-county-map-california-ccw-issuance.html

I too am skeptical, but there's only one way to find out for sure.

383green
01-20-2010, 9:47 PM
The 98% approval rate doesn't necessarily mean much when the published "good cause" criteria make is clear that few people should bother trying to apply. I'll be impressed if and when Sniff declares that a desire for self defense against an unspecified threat will be considered good cause.

As I recall, there was a recent county supervisor's meeting in which a resolution was passed which asked the sheriff to treat self defense against an unspecified threat as good cause, but the sheriff department's statement indicated that they thought the current good cause criteria were just fine, and they wouldn't be changing them.

383green
01-20-2010, 9:49 PM
Sorry the pic is so small. Can't figure out how include in the message without attaching. The "insert image" button is asking for a URL, not browse. Anyway, I got the image from the here http://www.calccw.com/Forums/county-faq/7158-county-map-california-ccw-issuance.html

Here's the image:

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/clownburner/OCCCWS/ca_ccw_map-big.png

coolusername2007
01-20-2010, 9:49 PM
after the county supervisor meeting in november he said there was nothing wrong with his issuance. why the change? any more specifics?

Don't know. No more specifics, but I'll assume its because he was issuing them all last year (at least according to his statements). Maybe word hasn't gotten out to the regular folks.

383green
01-20-2010, 9:51 PM
So, based on Sniff's statements, the 98% statistic and this map, I suspect that it all means that Riverside has a 98% CCW issuance rate for people with special connections, and others are turned away early in the application process without being counted.

coolusername2007
01-20-2010, 9:57 PM
The 98% approval rate doesn't necessarily mean much when the published "good cause" criteria make is clear that few people should bother trying to apply. I'll be impressed if and when Sniff declares that a desire for self defense against an unspecified threat will be considered good cause.

As I recall, there was a recent county supervisor's meeting in which a resolution was passed which asked the sheriff to treat self defense against an unspecified threat as good cause, but the sheriff department's statement indicated that they thought the current good cause criteria were just fine, and they wouldn't be changing them.

Thanks for that. Just remembered, he did say Jeff Stone, who he made very clear he is good friends friends with, talked with him prior moving forward with the resolution. Seems like they are on the same page. Someone did ask about a self defense being good cause, to which Sniff replied something along the lines of "among other things" (not a direct quote). Sniff also said depending how you articulate your good cause argument would affect your application. Which to me seemed like you have to "sell" them on the idea.

383green
01-20-2010, 10:05 PM
Keep in mind that the resolution is non-binding. Sniff is free to ignore it if he wishes, and his department's statement(s) seemed to indicate that he will ignore it.

I'd love to think that I'd have a chance of getting a CCW here in Riverside County, but so far I haven't seen any credible information which leads me to think it's worth trying to apply.

As far as I know, the published good cause criteria still more or less add up to having solid police report documentation of your murder, and/or showing up at the interview with a person who promises to kill you (slight exaggeration there ;)).

If there's any credible information that points to a policy change, other than vague handwaving and regurgitation of a meaningless statistic (i.e., "98% of people who aren't turned away at the front desk [because they're well-known contributors] are issued CCWs"), I'd sure like to see it!

coolusername2007
01-20-2010, 10:12 PM
Thanks again. You're making me remember more. Sniff did say, with some emphasis, that you do not have to first be victim in order to demonstrate good cause.

Maybe a few of us should test the system and see what happens. I much prefer open carry, but don't mind a CCW either. I don't know what all is involved but will look into it.

383green
01-20-2010, 10:15 PM
I'm too swamped with stuff to try it right now, but if you investigate any more, please share the details here! I would consider any kind of legal loaded carry to be a big win at this point.

7x57
01-20-2010, 10:17 PM
Thanks again. You're making me remember more. Sniff did say, with some emphasis, that you do not have to first be victim in order to demonstrate good cause.


And could he say that without fear of contradiction because nobody ever lived through what he regarded as good cause to call him a liar?

7x57

coolusername2007
01-20-2010, 10:17 PM
Also just remembered that Sniff said he came out against AB962 and is working to get it repealed. I have not seen any public comments that are evidence to this fact, but that is what he said at the meeting.

H Paul Payne
01-20-2010, 10:22 PM
Also just remembered that Sniff said he came out against AB92 and is working to get it repealed. I have not seen any public comments that are evidence to this fact, but that is what he said at the meeting.

It is absolutely true! Sheriff Sniff has helped the NRA with our legislative efforts a great deal, and is continuing to do so.

FYI, you can consider this as a public comment that he is telling the truth about opposing AB962.

Feel free to contact me directly, if you want details. But I won't go into on-going strategy and/or tactics.

Paul

TurboS600
01-20-2010, 10:43 PM
I'd like to know more about the public forum that you attended. How did you find out about it? Where was it at? Why did you post it here after the fact? :mad:

I spoke at the Board meeting in November and was there when the resolution (non-binding) was passed. I would have liked to have been present at a public function attended by Sheriff Sniff. He has given two interviews since the resolution was passed indicating that his policy had not changed. It is still posted on the RSD website that personal protection is not GC. You still must show police reports/restraining orders to get the permit for personal protection. :rolleyes:

http://www.riversidesheriff.org/info/CCW-RSO.pdf

From the RSD website application (page 4): VALID DEATH THREATS OR HARRASSMENT ARE THE ONLY CRITERIA WHERE ISSUANCE OF A CCW PERMIT WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION. THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF DOES NOT ISSUE PERMITS TO “PROVIDE A FEELING OF SAFETY” OR TO ALLEVIATE A “FEAR OF VICTIMIZATION”.

Can't help but feel that most of the applicants are "pre-screened" or discouraged early in the process if they are applying for personal protection. That could be why they have such a high approval rate.

However, I don't want to disparage the folks working in the CCW unit. When I got my permit they were VERY accommodating at the CCW unit. I truly felt that the Deputy that I dealt with in the office when I turned in the app and also the instructor in the CCW class were pro-gun and pro-CCW. They were very professional and helped guide me through the process. I just don't know how much of this optimism can be spread to Undersheriff Hill, who is the one who will be SIGNING the permit.

In my heart of hearts I believe that they want to help guide you through the process. My GC was rock solid so I don't know first hand how difficult it would be if you could articulate a really good GC for personal protection. If they would issue for PP, I wish they would just come out and say it. I just don't think that there is a "liability" to the county as Undersheriff Hill stated at the BoS meeting in November. I have never seen any decisions in a court of law against a municipality for a CCW shooting where they were held liable for the actions of the permittee. You also agree to hold harmless and indemnify the issuer when you turn in the application.

So I just don't see where anything has changed within the department. When I hear of someone applying and getting a permit for PP, I will believe it. Until then...

bigcalidave
01-20-2010, 10:44 PM
Go apply guys !! Get them a nice flood of calgunners applying and posting their success here! What are you scared of?

7x57
01-20-2010, 10:49 PM
It is absolutely true! Sheriff Sniff has helped the NRA with our legislative efforts a great deal, and is continuing to do so.


What is so sad is that at the same time he isn't, so far as we know, issuing for personal protection.

This reminds me of a recent conversation with a man who wants to run for public office. Rock-solid fiscal conservative. Also former LASD and thinks the department's issuance policy is A-OK. :(

7x57

HCz
01-20-2010, 11:06 PM
I'd have to go with TurboS600 and 383green's skepticism. For me the best reason is self defense and that is already discouraged, if not out right prohibited, in the packet.

As someone mentioned already, it could be that it is a pre-screened group. Many years ago (Sniff was in) when I called RCSO for CCW packet, I got reply along the lines of 'your cause doesn't seem to be good enough, but nothing says we can't send you the packet.'

Unless I am really convinced that it's likely that my good cause of self-defense is accepted, I don't see why I need a 'denied' record for my CCW application. (Although most likely I will get CCW from other states)

383green
01-20-2010, 11:13 PM
I should make a disclaimer regarding my skepticism: I haven't had any personal contact with the RCSO regarding CCW, and I haven't been personally present at any of these various meetings. My skepticism is based on what I've heard secondhand here at CGN, plus my natural skepticism for any politician's noncommittal statements. Now, if Sheriff Sniff really is changing policies and the news just hasn't quite solidified or filtered out yet, then I would dearly love to be proven wrong!

H Paul Payne
01-21-2010, 12:02 AM
What is so sad is that at the same time he isn't, so far as we know, issuing for personal protection.
7x57

Who is "we"???

Dustin, I know you and I have never seen you jump on the bandwagon without facts. Just because some people on the Internet THINK they know what the Sheriff will do, doesn't make it correct. They could be mistaken, you know?!?

Has any one of the people criticizing Sheriff Sniff's policy actually applied for a CCW permit and been denied? I doubt it. The reason I doubt it, is because a lot of members have told me that they did get permits issued from the RSO -- both from Sheriff Doyle (the previous sheriff) and Sheriff Sniff. Sniff has been there about 2 1/2 years if I remember correctly. And all this time I have watched people complain that the issuance policy is not good. But most people don't apply.

I learned a long time ago, "If you don't ask, you don't get."

For what its worth: I have noticed that many sheriffs who are our friends and support our issues (including CCW) must be subtle about how much they are our friends. I have been at NRA Meetings where people complained that they couldn't get a CCW permit, then when questioned, they admitted that they never even applied. At one such event in Kern County, the (NRA Life Member) sheriff was in the room and handed them both an application on the spot. BTW, they never submitted the forms. But they did continue to complain at future meetings.

Read into this whatever you want to.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Paul

vantec08
01-21-2010, 6:33 AM
yes 383 - -- the Riverside County Board of Supervisors handed Sniff a resolution because of the constituent calls and pressure they were getting. It took a nudge from the Board.

7x57
01-21-2010, 7:21 AM
Who is "we"???


Everyone who has ever read the CCW application instructions posted on the RCSD website, it seems, unless their English comprehension is exceedingly poor.


Dustin, I know you and I have never seen you jump on the bandwagon without facts.


Is a posted official policy not a fact? Do you argue that this very plain language is misleading (it is convenient to quote from a previous poster but I have verified is in the linked pdf)?


From the RSD website application (page 4): VALID DEATH THREATS OR HARRASSMENT ARE THE ONLY CRITERIA WHERE ISSUANCE OF A CCW PERMIT WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION. THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF DOES NOT ISSUE PERMITS TO “PROVIDE A FEELING OF SAFETY” OR TO ALLEVIATE A “FEAR OF VICTIMIZATION”.


What part of 'THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF DOES NOT ISSUE PERMITS TO “PROVIDE A FEELING OF SAFETY” OR TO ALLEVIATE A “FEAR OF VICTIMIZATION”' is not in English? If it is a mistake they repeat it on page 10, for example:


The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department does not issue permits to “Provide a feeling of safety” or to alleviate a “Fear of victimization”.


Admittedly I only read English and don't have a secret decoder ring, but I don't find any ambiguity in that. DOES NOT ISSUE seems adequately clear. VALID DEATH THREATS OR HARRASSMENT ARE THE ONLY CRITERIA appears to be quite intelligible to us ordinary folk.


Just because some people on the Internet THINK they know what the Sheriff will do, doesn't make it correct. They could be mistaken, you know?!?


Does that include those responsible for writing the CCW application with the sheriff's name below the letterhead? The latter quoted section of the application instructions is signed two paragraphs after the "does not issue" reiteration:


Sincerely,
STANLEY SNIFF, SHERIFF / CORONER


So it is your contention that the official Riverside SD CCW application instructions tells an actual lie about whose instructions "DOES NOT ISSUE" faithfully reports?

It apparently also includes those who pursue the matter further than just looking at the application, since we have a first-hand report of how the affair proceeds:

Many years ago (Sniff was in) when I called RCSO for CCW packet, I got reply along the lines of 'your cause doesn't seem to be good enough, but nothing says we can't send you the packet.'


So we have gatekeeping right over the phone that is consistent with the plain words of the packet and inconsistent with a policy of issuing for personal protection.


Has any one of the people criticizing Sheriff Sniff's policy actually applied for a CCW permit and been denied? I doubt it.


Me too. Why would anyone apply after reading the instructions? They go OUT OF THEIR WAY to make sure you don't bother, so how could it be any other way?


The reason I doubt it, is because a lot of members have told me that they did get permits issued from the RSO -- both from Sheriff Doyle (the previous sheriff) and Sheriff Sniff. Sniff has been there about 2 1/2 years if I remember correctly.


There are only two possibilities: (1) they were able to document VALID DEATH THREATS OR HARRASSMENT, or (2) the official CCW application instructions tells an actual lie. I don't live in Riverside and so this is a somewhat academic exercise for me, but I would be very interested in knowing if any of them received a CCW for personal protection without documented threats or harassment.


And all this time I have watched people complain that the issuance policy is not good. But most people don't apply.


That seems to be the inevitable result of the text attributed to Sheriff Stanley Sniff personally, yes.


For what its worth: I have noticed that many sheriffs who are our friends and support our issues (including CCW) must be subtle about how much they are our friends.


As a matter of politics I understand that for police chiefs--they answer to a city council. I do not for sheriffs, who are constitutional officers answering only to the voters and who appear to lose elections in California about as often as MSNBC runs an adoring story about Sarah Palin. But whatever the case, we can only deal with the information we have.


I have been at NRA Meetings where people complained that they couldn't get a CCW permit, then when questioned, they admitted that they never even applied. At one such event in Kern County, the (NRA Life Member) sheriff was in the room and handed them both an application on the spot. BTW, they never submitted the forms. But they did continue to complain at future meetings.


I heard that story from Ed Worley at a meeting we both attended, though not how it turned out. Kern is not comparable. The application form (http://www.kernsheriff.com/misc/FormsApps/Documents/CCW%20Application.pdf) nowhere says the department does not issue for personal protection, and the map already posted lists Kern as issuing for personal protection, meaning that by whatever process the map is compiled there is likely actual citizen experience that Kern issues for personal protection (that involves me making assumptions about the information on which the map is based--since everyone here appears to rely on its accuracy if you believe it to be inaccurate we'd all really like to know).


Read into this whatever you want to.

Just my $0.02 worth.


I'm quite aware you are privy to a great deal of information most of us cannot access, and that could easily be taken as a hint for someone to give it a try. It would make a lot of sense for a few Riversiders to put together an effort to have a few squeaky-clean individuals submit perfect applications (Billy Jack has repeatedly offered his team's free help in composing an application, and I would suggest that this be done) and see what happens. It would be reasonable to take sheriff Sniff at his reported word:

Sheriff Sniff indicated the relaxing of CCW permit issuance is because the state is releasing 40K+ prisoners.


and test whether that means that the CCW application instructions no longer reflect department policy. This


When I got my permit they were VERY accommodating at the CCW unit. I truly felt that the Deputy that I dealt with in the office when I turned in the app and also the instructor in the CCW class were pro-gun and pro-CCW. They were very professional and helped guide me through the process.

suggests it won't be a terribly unpleasant experiment, at least, and this

Just remembered, he did say Jeff Stone, who he made very clear he is good friends friends with, talked with him prior moving forward with the resolution. Seems like they are on the same page.

offers some cause for hope, though this

Someone did ask about a self defense being good cause, to which Sniff replied something along the lines of "among other things" (not a direct quote). Sniff also said depending how you articulate your good cause argument would affect your application. Which to me seemed like you have to "sell" them on the idea.

is somewhat ambiguous and at least indicates that any initial trial balloons should be carefully vetted to be perfect and squeaky-clean. But that's obvious anyway.

But hope aside, contra your argument it is not reasonable to suggest that the very plain words of the RCSD CCW application do not constitute evidence of the RCSD CCW policy. It may be wrong, but it is a priori reasonable to assume that the official description is the official policy and people not privy to whatever confidential information you possess but cannot make public are justified in doing so.

BTW, if it is true that at least some SD personnel believe there is county liability for the actions of CCW holders as reported (I don't know whether first-hand or not):


I just don't think that there is a "liability" to the county as Undersheriff Hill stated at the BoS meeting in November.

then that is something you are in a position to help with. People in a position to know with both CalNRA and CGF have indicated that this is not correct--I seem to recall Joel Friedman telling a story involving himself and you, so I have reason to think you have informed various CLEs that this is not the case in the past. If an effort was mounted to get in some "perfect" applications vetted by experts in to RCSD, and if theories of liability are an obstacle, would you be ready to help with educating the department about liability as appropriate by whatever front or back channels seem most effective?

7x57

Billy Jack
01-21-2010, 7:30 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, you never get 100% of anything. Sheriff Sniff has a very fair policy and TBJ members have assisted many with their applications and I do not recall any denials amongst those that followed our instructions.

The process in comprehensive and the interview, with two Deputies is relaxed and fair. If you are denied, you may appeal to Command Staff.

Like being at a social function and really wanting to meet that special person. If you sit there long enough you will talk yourself out of it.

'Person who stand by water, saying it is too deep will never know unless jump in.' Billy Jack

'You gotta stop letting other people make decisions for you.' Bob Dylan

Seriously, has the man in The Hat ever given you warm Buffalo Chips?

Billy Jack
Patriot


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

7x57
01-21-2010, 7:59 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, you never get 100% of anything. Sheriff Sniff has a very fair policy


"Fair" is somewhat ambiguous; arguably LAPD has a "fair" policy as well in that everyone is denied equally. :D


and TBJ members have assisted many with their applications and I do not recall any denials amongst those that followed our instructions.


That *is* better evidence than anything posted so far, but just to be rigorously clear does that include people whose only Good Cause was "personal protection" (worded however)?


Seriously, has the man in The Hat ever given you warm Buffalo Chips?


Not that I'm aware of. If, as it seems you imply, that includes "personal protection" applications, then I would strongly suggest taking Billy Jack at his word. I would guess there are a few Riverside Calgunners who would like to have a CCW and re-write the issuance policy map at the same time.

Too bad I don't live in Riverside so this is just "keyboard kommando" stuff for me. :rolleyes:

7x57

Knauga
01-21-2010, 8:54 AM
There are many people out there that are happy just to complain about a process of which they have no knowledge. It hurts NOTHING to apply and be denied "for lack of good cause". That will not hurt you if you ever apply in a jurisdiction that issues or if through some miracle this state becomes "shall issue". Being denied for cause is another story, but that is something completely foreseeable.

I was afraid of applying in my county thinking I had no chance, that you had to be connected, that the system was rigged. Until I actually did some research, talked to folks who knew the system and even then up until my interview did I think they were just going to chase me out telling me I was nuts to want to carry a gun. I have friends in the area that won't believe me when I tell them that they should apply, they tell me that they will just get denied, the system is rigged, its too much trouble... I can't MAKE them apply, but I can say that I don't want to hear their griping if they won't.

In jurisdictions that traditionally do not issue, I would say talk to somebody like TBJ so that you can at least have your ducks in a row. When it comes to jurisdictions that are traditionally more likely to issue, talk to those who have been through the process and apply.

coolusername2007
01-21-2010, 9:30 AM
I'd like to know more about the public forum that you attended. How did you find out about it? Where was it at? Why did you post it here after the fact? :mad:

Can't help but feel that most of the applicants are "pre-screened" or discouraged early in the process if they are applying for personal protection. That could be why they have such a high approval rate.



The forum was held in Temecula. I heard about it from a friend. Did a quick Google search to confirm and found this article. http://www.myvalleynews.com/story/44710/

In the article, 4 topics of discussion are listed. Items 2 and 4 weren't discussed due to time. Item 3 took the vast majority of the time.

Who or what is TBJ? I will don't mind running a trial balloon to test the system, and will talk with them to get any inside scoop they can offer.

7x57
01-21-2010, 10:15 AM
Who or what is TBJ? I will don't mind running a trial balloon to test the system, and will talk with them to get any inside scoop they can offer.

I'm going to give a long answer because I find it frustrating that people don't take Billy Jack up on what he offers to do for free.

TBJ is Team Billy Jack. Billy Jack is Preston Guillory's nom de guerre, also styling himself "the man in the hat" in his post, who is the only person I know of who has a track record of successfully suing California CLE's for CCW issuance *under existing California law*. Some people here get all exercised because he is working with the existing law, not changing it, and that this is a business for him, but frankly I regard that as misplaced. CGF/NRA/CRPA are the legal hammers to use against the laws themselves, but at the same time it's nice to slam some sheriff's fingers in some doors if they cannot even stay within the extremely minimal requirements California puts on their discretion. Stupid people won't win suing LAPD to force issuance under certain circumstances, and LAPD is under a court order with Billy Jack's name on it, so I think we can assume TBJ knows their business.

What that means is that TBJ seems to have more experience than anyone else in this precise area, and they've repeatedly offered to help you for free up to the point at which you are denied--at that point, it costs money to pursue because lawyers cost money. But my suspicion is that the free help is as good as you can get and should definitely be taken advantage of. As a personal comment, I've met Billy Jack and while he doesn't give the impression that he suffers fools gladly, he does come across as a straight shooter <grin> and I take him at his word that if he offers free expert assistance for the first part of the process up until denial he will do precisely that.

What I would suggest is to make sure that someone with specific expertise like TBJ agrees you are squeaky-clean and don't have any background color that gives RCSD an excuse to deny on character grounds (no matter whether it would be unfair or not--this is working within the plantation rules, not the Constitution's rules, remember?), and make sure you have a good cause statement that they agree is well worded. If you patiently say "yassuh" to everything our Plantation Masters in Sacramento insist on, I think it will be very very interesting to find out if personal protection will be sufficient cause to get you a CCW. More importantly, I bet a hundred people living in Riverside county who will give up after reading the application instructions and/or looking at the CCW issuance map would be interested for far more practical reasons.

7x57

Billy Jack
01-21-2010, 10:39 AM
7x57, did I meet you at a Tea Party in Alhambra?

Need to correct one thing, the LAPD case did occur while my case against OCSO was pending but it was not my case. It did set them up for future litigation for not complying with the Stipulated Settlement. The truth be known, most 'no issue' and 'dual issue' departments are vulnerable under the LAPD Settlement or Guillory v Gates.

All of the recent cases filed have taken slightly differing approaches. Some challenge the Constitutionality of 12050 PC while others are so vague in their Pleadings that I have no idea what they are attempting to do.

This is a good time to caution all to be wary of breaking out the champagne over dismissal of a Motion to Dismiss. The trial Judge can still flush the Plaintiffs case later on a subsequent Motion to Dismiss. All she did was protect the record, should either party later appeal a subsequent dismissal. Now I have some of you thoroughly confused.

I also agree that many CCW Applicants suffer from the 'Plantation Mentality'.


Billy Jack
Patriot


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

team5150
01-21-2010, 10:42 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, you never get 100% of anything. Sheriff Sniff has a very fair policy and TBJ members have assisted many with their applications and I do not recall any denials amongst those that followed our instructions.

The process in comprehensive and the interview, with two Deputies is relaxed and fair. If you are denied, you may appeal to Command Staff.

Like being at a social function and really wanting to meet that special person. If you sit there long enough you will talk yourself out of it.

'Person who stand by water, saying it is too deep will never know unless jump in.' Billy Jack

'You gotta stop letting other people make decisions for you.' Bob Dylan

Seriously, has the man in The Hat ever given you warm Buffalo Chips?

Billy Jack
Patriot


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

OK I'll put my actions where my rights are - or should be !

I live in Riverside and would be willing to apply just for the reason that I SHOULD be able to obtain a CCW - just like someone that lives 8 miles down the road in SB county!

Email is inbound to you Billy Jack - let's do this.

Humm - probably should change my log on that is the same as my email ! LOL

Billy Jack
01-21-2010, 10:58 AM
One should never use the word 'rights' at this time when referring to a CCW. Most Californians would be surprised to learn that a Drivers License is a privilege, just like a CCW. Yes, you can be denied a CDL for cause.

Phrasing is important when discussing a CCW as it displays a mind set. The two Deputies at RSO are skilled interviewers and if they detect an entitlement mentality you will have problems. I have to show my GC every two years and I know I do not have a Right to a CCW just because of my profession. Billy Jack is a realist.

Billy Jack
Patriot


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

team5150
01-21-2010, 11:06 AM
I wasn't meaning to show an attitude.

What I meant was 2nd amendment rights.

I am willing to apply for the CCW and appreciate all the guidance that you feel is necessary to be successful in obtaining it.

7x57
01-21-2010, 11:31 AM
7x57, did I meet you at a Tea Party in Alhambra?


Indeed. We sure did a good job of Not Providing Security for the Pasadena Patriots, didn't we? (Inside joke.)


Need to correct one thing, the LAPD case did occur while my case against OCSO was pending but it was not my case. It did set them up for future litigation for not complying with the Stipulated Settlement. The truth be known, most 'no issue' and 'dual issue' departments are vulnerable under the LAPD Settlement or Guillory v Gates.


I stand corrected--I thought the two were the same case. I suppose I should take more care with the details of cases that Can't Help Me Personally because I live on Baca's plantation (and so far as I could tell when I checked Pasadena defers issuance to the good sheriff--whether by actual MoU or by ignoring the issue I didn't determine). And while I am fond of sheriffs obeying the law and respecting the Right to Arms within their discretion, I don't have a lot of money to beat him with at the moment nor probably what even California would force him to regard as Good Cause, 'cuz I tend to stay out of trouble. I don't think your methods will work for me, and to be honest I sort of intend to stay out of the sorts of situations that would provide a sufficient crowbar.

We sure wouldn't want people who stay out of trouble to be armed. :rolleyes:


I also agree that many CCW Applicants suffer from the 'Plantation Mentality'.


So I infer. But if RCSD will issue to ordinary citizens it would be very nice to overcome that and get more CCWs out in the wild and the map corrected too.

When, as we hope and expect, McDonald casts the long shadow of the Constitution across Sacramento and they are screeching about the sky falling if Sykes succeeds and citizens can go abroad armed, and they trot out the argument that the experience of 40+ states doesn't matter because California is *different* (and urban California is different than rural California), I wonder whether there will come a point where it would be convenient for Gene or Paul or someone to be able to stand up and have the largest possible number of urban/suburban CCWs already out to give them the lie? There aren't too many opportunities to do that in CA thanks to the tireless efforts of our gun-hating legislators, but I would think that Riverside is better than Kern or San Bernardino in terms of demonstrating the lie.

7x57

7x57
01-21-2010, 11:43 AM
I wasn't meaning to show an attitude.

What I meant was 2nd amendment rights.


Billy Jack is telling you that while you may, as most everyone here believes, have an innate moral right to self defense, and in principle a Second Amendment right as well, in California you have NO enforceable legal one and that insisting on your rights to the SD is going to be very counterproductive. I wasn't speaking loosely when I said to say "yassuh" whenever the state says you should--Billy Jack's game is to do what can be done within the plantation rules as they stand now, and plantation masters don't like uppity slaves. Even if the Gura/SAF/CGF union army is only a few miles away in Richmond, you can still be flogged to death by the overseer for being uppity until your plantation is actually freed. So he's telling you not to do that. If it were me I'd try very hard to make sure I didn't mention the Second Amendment at all no matter what, and would have a very bland answer ready in case it is brought up (for all you know the interviewer will try to trick you into revealing your uppity opinions).


I am willing to apply for the CCW and appreciate all the guidance that you feel is necessary to be successful in obtaining it.

That's the attitude. I'm convinced that if you're willing to play by the state's rules you will get the right advice from Billy Jack, and if you're not then you'll have to wait for Sykes to emancipate you. Playing by those rules does not a whit of harm to our chances of breaking the plantation, and in the mean time it gets more armed citizens on the streets and, in some cases, gives law enforcement some early practice we hope they need a lot of in a little while. So I say go for it, follow TBJ's advice exactly, and feel free to think ugly thoughts about oppression and Infringement but keep your thoughts as closely guarded as a slave asking master for permission.

We can do a rude victory dance and moon the CCW unit after a complete Sykes win.

Well, OK, maybe we shouldn't do that. :eek:

7x57

sholling
01-21-2010, 11:44 AM
One should never use the word 'rights' at this time when referring to a CCW. Most Californians would be surprised to learn that a Drivers License is a privilege, just like a CCW. Yes, you can be denied a CDL for cause.

Phrasing is important when discussing a CCW as it displays a mind set. The two Deputies at RSO are skilled interviewers and if they detect an entitlement mentality you will have problems. I have to show my GC every two years and I know I do not have a Right to a CCW just because of my profession. Billy Jack is a realist.

Billy Jack
Patriot


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com
You have a right because you are an American. The sad fact that we have to be meek when asking to be allowed to exorcise our right to bear arms is as evil as having to contritely ask permission to vote and having conditions on how and when we may vote. Unfortunately it's something that we in the PRC have to live with for another year.

7x57
01-21-2010, 11:52 AM
The sad fact that we have to be meek when asking to be allowed to exorcise our right to bear arms is as evil as having to contritely ask permission to vote and having conditions on how and when we may vote.


Picky point of order: at no time do we wish to exorcise our Right to Arms! It may seem like a picky point, but given your avatar I'd hate to think you might actually be able to cast it right out. ;)


Unfortunately it's something that we in the PRC have to live with for another year.

Indeed. That's the point--when you're at the back of the bus you still have the human need to be safe, and from our long-term point of view no one has ever suggested a credible downside to having as many armed law-abiding citizens on the streets as possible.

Hmm. Everyone is worried about having the refusal on their record even though all the knowledgeable people indicate that it is no handicap to later issuance. It is almost tempting to go through the process with LASD knowing I'd get denied just to lay that bugaboo to rest, though it would be a fairly pointless way to throw away money. :p There is a saying about the horse learning to sing, but I am too much of a cynic to quite remember the point. ;)

7x57

Billy Jack
01-21-2010, 3:35 PM
7x57, e-mail me through our site. Want to talk with you about Pasadena PD.

Billy Jack
Patriot


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Tarn_Helm
01-21-2010, 5:10 PM
One should never use the word 'rights' at this time when referring to a CCW. Most Californians would be surprised to learn that a Drivers License is a privilege, just like a CCW. Yes, you can be denied a CDL for cause.

Phrasing is important when discussing a CCW as it displays a mind set. The two Deputies at RSO are skilled interviewers and if they detect an entitlement mentality you will have problems. I have to show my GC every two years and I know I do not have a Right to a CCW just because of my profession. Billy Jack is a realist.

Billy Jack
Patriot
www.californiaconcealedcarry.com
(highlighted above in red by Tarn Helm)

As of the time of this post, L.A. Sheriff's Dept. seems to agree with the sentiments highlighted above in red.

Click here to see this quote in the online pdf:
"Remember, it is a Privilege, not a right to carry a concealed weapon. (http://www.lasd.org/contact_us/inquiry/gen_pub_ccw_app.pdf)"

Here is the url: http://www.lasd.org/contact_us/inquiry/gen_pub_ccw_app.pdf
:eek:

CCWFacts
01-21-2010, 5:38 PM
Your and my opinion of whether it's a right or not is meaningless, because the reality is, it is not an enforcible right. That means you need to persuade the issuing authority to make a decision to issue to you. You have no way to enforce it, short of a lawsuit which rests on some much weaker legal ground than enforcement of protected rights. And going in with an "I have a right" attitude is very anti-persuasive. That's what Billy Jack is saying.

Perhaps later this year it will be an enforcible right, but not today.

jstotts
01-21-2010, 8:36 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, you never get 100% of anything. Sheriff Sniff has a very fair policy and TBJ members have assisted many with their applications and I do not recall any denials amongst those that followed our instructions.

The process in comprehensive and the interview, with two Deputies is relaxed and fair. If you are denied, you may appeal to Command Staff.

Like being at a social function and really wanting to meet that special person. If you sit there long enough you will talk yourself out of it.

'Person who stand by water, saying it is too deep will never know unless jump in.' Billy Jack

'You gotta stop letting other people make decisions for you.' Bob Dylan

Seriously, has the man in The Hat ever given you warm Buffalo Chips?

Billy Jack
Patriot


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

I recently moved into Riverside from Ohio and I was dissuaded from applying for a CCW because of the wording of the packet. Do you think I could e-mail you about my possible GC (or lack thereof)?

Billy Jack
01-21-2010, 8:44 PM
www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

jstotts, you have nothing to fear but fear itself. Send it over to us.

Billy Jack
Patriot

lumwilliam
01-21-2010, 10:02 PM
Hey guys - I have some hopefully good news regarding Riverside CCW permits. I was at the Escondido Republican Club meeting on Monday and County Supervisor Jeff Stone was in attendance. I asked him, now that the supervisors made their recommendation to the Riverside sheriff to be more 'liberal' in issuing their CCW's, how things had changed in the county. He responded "any law abiding citizen should be able to receive a concealed carry permit".

I told Stone that I had been reading on CalGuns that this didn't seem to be the case. He told me "tell any of them that if they have a hard time getting a CCW, to call and make an appointment with me. I will march down to the sheriff's office and make sure they get one".

Now keep in mind he is running for Senate in a highly conservative district, but this may be a great opportunity to get that CCW. Wish I lived in Riverside and not SD County!!! Hope to hear positive feedback from some of you that Stone is a man of his word before the Senate election rolls around!!

7x57
01-21-2010, 10:24 PM
I told Stone that I had been reading on CalGuns that this didn't seem to be the case. He told me "tell any of them that if they have a hard time getting a CCW, to call and make an appointment with me. I will march down to the sheriff's office and make sure they get one".


While I'm all for people getting CCWs, how pray tell would he do that? There is something strange about that. The sheriff is a constitutional officer who seems to answer to no one but God and the voters, and in California I'm none too sure about the voters.

7x57

coolusername2007
01-21-2010, 10:50 PM
I don't mind holding Stone to his words. It's about time our elected representatives started doing something really useful.

obeygiant
01-21-2010, 10:57 PM
Also just remembered that Sniff said he came out against AB962 and is working to get it repealed. I have not seen any public comments that are evidence to this fact, but that is what he said at the meeting.

It is absolutely true! Sheriff Sniff has helped the NRA with our legislative efforts a great deal, and is continuing to do so.

FYI, you can consider this as a public comment that he is telling the truth about opposing AB962.

Feel free to contact me directly, if you want details. But I won't go into on-going strategy and/or tactics.

Paul

Hey guys - I have some hopefully good news regarding Riverside CCW permits. I was at the Escondido Republican Club meeting on Monday and County Supervisor Jeff Stone was in attendance. I asked him, now that the supervisors made their recommendation to the Riverside sheriff to be more 'liberal' in issuing their CCW's, how things had changed in the county. He responded "any law abiding citizen should be able to receive a concealed carry permit".

I told Stone that I had been reading on CalGuns that this didn't seem to be the case. He told me "tell any of them that if they have a hard time getting a CCW, to call and make an appointment with me. I will march down to the sheriff's office and make sure they get one".

Now keep in mind he is running for Senate in a highly conservative district, but this may be a great opportunity to get that CCW. Wish I lived in Riverside and not SD County!!! Hope to hear positive feedback from some of you that Stone is a man of his word before the Senate election rolls around!!


This is very good news and I'm looking forward to seeing some members here get their ccw's.

Billy Jack
01-22-2010, 8:45 AM
All cities in Riverside County issue CCW's. I have been unable to identify any that delegate to the RSO.

You have more than one option unless you reside in unincorporated territory or a contract city.

I agree with 7x57, the Sheriff is an elected official. He does not advise members of the Board of Supervisors nor does he require their guidance in the performance of his duties.

Speaking for myself, if I were Sheriff and BOS Stone walked into my office with a denied CCW applicant in tow I would have Command Staff remove them. Using political influence to obtain a CCW is what you folks are always railing about and here you are quite willing to use it to benefit yourself.

We are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. Let's all try to remember that.

Billy Jack
Patriot


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

HCz
01-22-2010, 10:26 AM
All cities in Riverside County issue CCW's. I have been unable to identify any that delegate to the RSO.
So would that means whoever lives in Riverside city has to goto Riverside Police Department, and their CCW policy maybe different from that of county? I tried to look ar RPD website for CCW info, but seems like it is well hidden(or more likely I just suck at browsing)
http://www.rpdonline.org/

1923mack
01-22-2010, 10:41 AM
Stone's and Sniff's comments indicate that the Sheriff may be loosening their requirements for the CCW. As others have stated the web site does not reflect this. Are they going to issue more CCW's and just not publicize it? The fees for a denied CCW not not insignificant, but maybe they are approving more CCW's now.

CCWFacts
01-22-2010, 10:42 AM
Speaking for myself, if I were Sheriff and BOS Stone walked into my office with a denied CCW applicant in tow I would have Command Staff remove them. Using political influence to obtain a CCW is what you folks are always railing about and here you are quite willing to use it to benefit yourself.

That's not a correct statement of the situation. We rail against political influence in CCWs because we're being denied CCWs. We're happy to see politicians using whatever power they have to force authorities into a shall-issue practice because I and most people here believe that that is the correct type of CCW regime.

I'm hoping that the courts will force that sometime in the near future, but until that happens, individuals in this state must use whatever routes are available to give them access to potentially life-saving CCWs.

Billy Jack
01-22-2010, 10:44 AM
As far as I am aware, RSO does not require you to apply to your local PD an be denied. You have options. RPD does not post its policy but they will send you an applicant package or it can be picked up at HQ and perhaps the two sub-stations. Make a phone call and find out. They are friendly.

As to posting on the Internet, serious applicants will make the appropriate phone call or write a letter. The department is not strident but you must display a need. If your need is not that strong I would suggest the RSO instead. The hoops you have to jump through are for your safety and that of the public.

Serious applicants are always welcome. I am here to help, not to beat up on LE or applicants.

Billy Jack
Patriot


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Billy Jack
01-22-2010, 10:51 AM
I am afraid the courts will never order California to become Shall Issue. That is up to the legislature. As previously posted, we are a nation of laws. When a law is not followed we have a state and Federal court system for redress. I find it interesting how quickly some would forget or abandon that concept for self interest.

Any means as long as it satisfies your need?

Billy Jack

Glock22Fan
01-22-2010, 10:54 AM
That's not a correct statement of the situation. We rail against political influence in CCWs because we're being denied CCWs. We're happy to see politicians using whatever power they have to force authorities into a shall-issue practice because I and most people here believe that that is the correct type of CCW regime.

I'm hoping that the courts will force that sometime in the near future, but until that happens, individuals in this state must use whatever routes are available to give them access to potentially life-saving CCWs.

I think it depends upon how the politician uses his or her influence. If it is applied with a broad brush for all who ask for it, regardless of their status with that politican, then I see no problem. That appears to be the case here. If, though, it is only available to those who curry favor with the politician, then it is indeed bad and we should not support it.

So would that means whoever lives in Riverside city has to goto Riverside Police Department

This may be true for some cities in some counties, as a Sheriff may refuse to consider applications until the applicant has had a denial from their Police Chief. However, this is local county policy and not mandated by 12050. IIRC, this is not the Riverside Sheriff's policy. In general, a resident of a city with a Police Department that has not "declared G (http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/faq.html#f240)" has a choice whether to apply to the city PD or the county sheriff.

HCz
01-22-2010, 11:10 AM
Billy Jack and Glock 22Fan, thank you for clarification. I guess I got the impression from how Chino PD arranged with San Bernardino SD. :)

socal2310
01-22-2010, 11:18 AM
I am afraid the courts will never order California to become Shall Issue. That is up to the legislature. As previously posted, we are a nation of laws. When a law is not followed we have a state and Federal court system for redress. I find it interesting how quickly some would forget or abandon that concept for self interest.

Any means as long as it satisfies your need?

Billy Jack

The hope is that future rulings on the second amendment (which is a law, as in a legal constraint upon other laws right?) will guarantee our right to BEAR arms. At a minimum (though it would still smack of privilege) this would require a shall-issue permit process for either LOC or CCW. This in turn would require at least a more liberal interpretation of P.C. 12050 would it not?

Don't assume we are all on the same page regarding what we believe the law requires. Many (or possibly a majority) of us believe that those who wrote the fourteenth amendment expected the entire bill of rights to apply to every person in this country.

An order by the supreme court forcing states to provide a way for law-abiding citizens to carry a personal protection firearm is perfectly consistent with my understanding of the Constitution.

Ryan

Aegis
01-22-2010, 11:31 AM
I am afraid the courts will never order California to become Shall Issue. That is up to the legislature. As previously posted, we are a nation of laws. When a law is not followed we have a state and Federal court system for redress. I find it interesting how quickly some would forget or abandon that concept for self interest.

Any means as long as it satisfies your need?

Billy Jack

If they don't then it will be LOC. After incorporation and possibly other cases, the state cannot deny both.

Billy Jack
01-22-2010, 11:39 AM
In Colonial times people did not walk around with concealed firearms for a number of reasons. They were bulky and best carried outside the clothing. I doubt seriously they even envisioned a time when people would want to carry concealed. So, I must assume as I believe SCOTUS will, that it was their intent that citizens would be allowed to carry firearms on their person ready for use.

If SCOTUS affirms this Right, and I believe they will, you still have to overcome their observation that local authorities have the right to regulate the manner of carrying.

So it will be thrown back to the states to decide how they desire to regulate the right.

So I would not be rushing out to buy that concealed holster you may be lusting after.

If their decision incorporates Heller and I believe they will, you will face years of litigation on the state level to get Shall Issue.

As to loaded open carry. You can thank the Black Panthers for your loss. Prior to their invading the state Capitol with loaded firearms it was perfectly legal to carry loaded.

Amazing what you can learn with little reading or 36 years in the business of investigating Constitutional abuses.


Billy Jack
Patriot


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Aegis
01-22-2010, 11:59 AM
In Colonial times people did not walk around with concealed firearms for a number of reasons. They were bulky and best carried outside the clothing. I doubt seriously they even envisioned a time when people would want to carry concealed. So, I must assume as I believe SCOTUS will, that it was their intent that citizens would be allowed to carry firearms on their person ready for use.

If SCOTUS affirms this Right, and I believe they will, you still have to overcome their observation that local authorities have the right to regulate the manner of carrying.

So it will be thrown back to the states to decide how they desire to regulate the right.

So I would not be rushing out to buy that concealed holster you may be lusting after.

If their decision incorporates Heller and I believe they will, you will face years of litigation on the state level to get Shall Issue.

As to loaded open carry. You can thank the Black Panthers for your loss. Prior to their invading the state Capitol with loaded firearms it was perfectly legal to carry loaded.

Amazing what you can learn with little reading or 36 years in the business of investigating Constitutional abuses.


Billy Jack
Patriot


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

I agree Heller will be incorporated. After incorporation, the local authorities will be left with few options.

After incorporation, the officials can try to fight a losing battle in the courts. Most cities and counties do not have the money to take on this fight. If the officials wish to throw away millions of dollars in taxpayer funds fighting cases they know they can't win, then so be it.

I may be wrong, but I believe once we have incorporation things will fall into place. It may not be overnight, but it will happen sooner rather than later.

CCWFacts
01-22-2010, 12:29 PM
I am afraid the courts will never order California to become Shall Issue. That is up to the legislature.

Well, we're going to find out pretty soon. Palmer v. DC and Sykes will probably come to conclusions within the next 12 months. If we don't get shall-issue from them, then you're right, it will be up to the legislature, and I'm not optimistic that CA's legislature would ever pass it.

As previously posted, we are a nation of laws. When a law is not followed we have a state and Federal court system for redress. I find it interesting how quickly some would forget or abandon that concept for self interest.

Any means as long as it satisfies your need?

I wouldn't say "any means", but when it comes to self-defense, yes, it's reasonable to use all available avenues. While the courts have not yet made the right enforcible, I view it as a natural right, and it's reasonable for me to do everything I can to be able to exercise it. If someone has a friend on the city council who can talk to the police chief, and that gets him a permit, I can't tell him, "no, it would be unfair to do that, so you should remain unable to defend yourself so you can be fair to everyone else." That doesn't make sense to me.

Note that if we do get incorporation and a right to "bear" arms, states would have the option of allowing LOC or CCW, with or without permits, so four possible options they could pick from. I can't predict exactly which of the four California would go with initially.

lumwilliam
01-22-2010, 2:13 PM
While I'm all for people getting CCWs, how pray tell would he do that? There is something strange about that. The sheriff is a constitutional officer who seems to answer to no one but God and the voters, and in California I'm none too sure about the voters.

7x57

I went to the board's website. It says they are "the governing body of the county...that enacts ordinances and resolutions." That and 99 cents might get you a 42 ounce coke at McDonalds, but it sounds encouraging to me!

dantodd
01-22-2010, 3:13 PM
While I'm all for people getting CCWs, how pray tell would he do that? There is something strange about that. The sheriff is a constitutional officer who seems to answer to no one but God and the voters, and in California I'm none too sure about the voters.

7x57

It is the golden rule. The pols control the sheriff's budge.

socal2310
01-22-2010, 11:30 PM
It is the golden rule. The pols control the sheriff's budge.

Not hardly. The Sheriff is by necessity a politician in his own right and he is beholden to his constituency of which the board of supervisors is an inconsequential part. Like it or not, the Sheriff frequently has better name recognition in his county than anyone on the board of supervisors and virtually never has reason to fear the results of an election. Few incumbents in this state are as secure as County Sheriffs.

Ryan

Glock22Fan
01-23-2010, 9:35 AM
No need for hypothetical wonderings, we've seen in Orange County exactly how much control the BoS has over the sheriff.

dantodd
01-23-2010, 10:28 AM
I guess, as Billy Jack said, we could put an end to all the conjecture by simply having some of our Riverside County members apply. Everything else is spitting in the wind.

team5150
01-23-2010, 11:22 AM
I was ready to just that but being told that I can not mention "self defense", “provide a feeling of
safety” or alleviate a “fear of victimization” pretty much keeps anyone from applying that isn't on a hospital gurney from a beatdown - unlike OC and SB counties policies.

The $200+ fees are gone in 60 seconds if you try anything else. Maybe they should refund the fees if you are rejected. Then the application numbers would go way up giving a more realistic view of the interest in obtaining a CCW.

I am at a loss to understand this gun friendly sheriff that is so out of touch with the two counties that border him.

For me - 6 miles in either direction to OC or SB counties and I would be able to get a CCW.

7x57
01-23-2010, 12:28 PM
I am afraid the courts will never order California to become Shall Issue. That is up to the legislature. As previously posted, we are a nation of laws. When a law is not followed we have a state and Federal court system for redress. I find it interesting how quickly some would forget or abandon that concept for self interest.

Any means as long as it satisfies your need?

Billy Jack

The issue here doesn't seem to be what means are appropriate for self-interest, but a difference of belief in what the law actually says. I think there is no historical or legal question about the right that the Second Amendment is designed to protect, and that right includes the ability for law-abiding citizens to bear arms for self-defense. Changing that legally would require a constitutional amendment. I think you have a different view, which is fine, but the point is that those who are arguing for CCW issuance are doing so in the belief that this is simply restoring the rule of law, not doing an end run around it.

In the end it does not matter what our opinions are anyway; in the next few months the Supreme Court will rule on whether the 2A binds the states and soon both a DC and a California district court will rule on whether 'to bear' is a distinct verb from 'to keep' (as Heller already said it was explicitly, actually). So the difference of opinion is essentially over either what the true original meaning of the law is, or on what the courts will choose to enforce, or both. But this thread was practical, about dealing with California law as it exists, not what should be, and indeed that is your area of expertise.

People, let's not forget that until the union army reaches our plantation it still matters that people are safe and that we have as many law-abiding citizens proving that the "Wild West" allegations that have been proven wrong in some forty states already are a lie here too. That's not the most important front in the fight to restore the Second Amendment, but it seems worthwhile to me. And since I'm not too affected by Marxist ideology, I am not offended if Billy Jack gets paid to exercise his expertise, particularly since he constantly offers to shepherd good applicants for free up until they are denied and also to tell you whether you have decent chances of being accepted or not.

I wish we had a hundred people who could make money throwing sand in the faces of the anti-gun California system, because it would happen a lot more.

7x57

7x57
01-23-2010, 12:35 PM
I went to the board's website. It says they are "the governing body of the county...that enacts ordinances and resolutions." That and 99 cents might get you a 42 ounce coke at McDonalds, but it sounds encouraging to me!

So far as I know neither ordinance nor resolution has any authority over the sheriff whatsoever. I myself can pass ordinances and resolutions scribbled in crayon on toilet paper while sitting in state in my living room with a tinfoil crown and toilet-plunger sceptre, and it will have approximately the same effect on the sheriff. Wonderful thing, being an elected officer accountable only to voters.

Just FYI, you'll be happy to know that in our last series of royal proclamations issued from our, um, "throne" we came down strongly in favor of shall-issue CCW for Riverside County. ;)

7x57

7x57
01-23-2010, 12:48 PM
In Colonial times people did not walk around with concealed firearms for a number of reasons. They were bulky and best carried outside the clothing.

Billy Jack, I believe you are wrong as a matter of history. Not all flintlock pistols were the big cavalry affairs! For one thing, I seem to recall that sword-canes were quite popular. For another, I believe the tradition of pocket pistols extends back at least that far. For example, Wikipedia lists pepperboxes as being popular in America back into the 1830's; I assume they are not popular before that only because they require percussion ignition to be practical. It is quite easy to find examples of flintlock pocket pistols with Google, including such odd things as this non-firing replica of a London pistol from exactly our revolutionary period.

I also believe there is a book (which I have not read) by a reputable author who says that most of our anti-concealment legislation was a later development which was intended to break the cycle of revenge killings in places like Appalachia.

In any event, our legal experts appear to be trending toward the belief that the federal courts will permit permitting and prohibition of one mode of carry but will require non-discriminatory and non-obstructive means to carry loaded for self-defense. Whatever the historical validity of that, and I do not believe it would have satisfied the authors of the 2A, it would still be a huge sea change for California.

Indeed, if that fails we will not see legal loaded carry in California in the forseeable future. And I say now I will not willingly raise my children to become accustomed to subjugation in that event.

7x57

7x57
01-23-2010, 12:52 PM
Not hardly. The Sheriff is by necessity a politician in his own right and he is beholden to his constituency of which the board of supervisors is an inconsequential part. Like it or not, the Sheriff frequently has better name recognition in his county than anyone on the board of supervisors and virtually never has reason to fear the results of an election. Few incumbents in this state are as secure as County Sheriffs.

Ryan

I think dantodd was making a different point, which is that the BoS does control the Sheriff's budget. While true, and that can be a potent lever, I don't think it works well in practice in this case. The problem is that the sheriff has his own ways of communicating, and I doubt the BoS has the stomach to get into a fight where the sheriff tells everyone that the BoS is responsible for the crime problem. Worse, as the Sheriff is the chief jailer for the county, it is quite likely that he can simply start releasing criminals on his own authority and telling the citizens that he doesn't have the money to keep them, and if they don't like it they need to elect a different BoS.

Who do you think is going to win that fight?

7x57

socal2310
01-23-2010, 7:15 PM
Who do you think is going to win that fight?

7x57

No kidding.

By the way, that Chesterton quote is one of my favorites. He didn't have a coherent political philosophy, but he had a wonderful way of lampooning the shortcomings of most.

Ryan

davbog44
01-24-2010, 6:27 AM
Being fairly new around here, I will keep my comments on the 2A portions of this discussion to myself, but I am very interested in the OP's topic regarding what may or may not be a relaxing of CCW policy in Riverside County, where I live.

While I think it would be excellent for a few brave souls to test the waters, unfortunately, it costs several hundred dollars just to stick your toe in the water. I consider myself among those who have read through the application forms and come away discouraged, or at least not yet encouraged enough, in this economy, to gamble several hundred dollars on what seems like an almost certain, "No."

However, someone I know quite well is actually going to have an opportunity to speak with the Sheriff in the next couple of weeks, and based on the feedback I get from that, I might be one of the next to go ahead and give it a shot. If I do learn anything, I will share it here.

1923mack
01-28-2010, 12:01 PM
Davboy44; We look forward to your next post. Lets hope the Sheriff is listening to the Board of Supervisors and his web site is just slow to catch up!

Liberty1
01-28-2010, 12:20 PM
it costs several hundred dollars just to stick your toe in the water.

It is illegal to collect ALL the of the fee until you've been approved. PC 12054 only allows 20% of the fee to be collected at the time the application is submitted. The balance may then be collected only at issuance of the license.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=34246&forum_id=12&jump_to=624030#p624030

Python2
01-28-2010, 1:02 PM
.........it costs several hundred dollars just to stick your toe in the water. .....

That is not true, I paid nothing when I applied and got denied. I moved, applied, again paid nothing. When permit was ready, I was asked to bring my checkbook and pay the fee.:) Only difference, they want money order/cashiers check for DOJ's portion.

1923mack
02-03-2010, 6:52 AM
Read the Sheriffs web site. Pay 100% up front, and no refund if not approved.

Gray Peterson
02-03-2010, 11:10 AM
Stone's and Sniff's comments indicate that the Sheriff may be loosening their requirements for the CCW. As others have stated the web site does not reflect this. Are they going to issue more CCW's and just not publicize it? The fees for a denied CCW not not insignificant, but maybe they are approving more CCW's now.

Read the Sheriffs web site. Pay 100% up front, and no refund if not approved.

That's unlawful and illegal. This must be fixed. This "You must pay all the fees up front" has been illegal since 1999.

SDI
02-03-2010, 11:41 AM
Illegal doesn't stop them from making you fill out an extra info form besides the actual application either. Riverside County has you fill out another form which asks all kinds of personal questions. Guess what happens if you don't fill it out though?

Billy Jack
02-03-2010, 12:17 PM
I have dealt with the 'pre application' form with other departments and made it go away every time. They are not to allowed to ask you questions that are not relative to the license. In addition, the only Application that they can require you to complete is the DOJ one. Draft a nice professional letter to the Sheriff citing the section of 12050 PC that sets this forth and CC the County Counsel.

County Counsel will 'counsel' the Sheriff that the additional form is illegal. Do you believe they will allow the Sheriff to send you a letter saying his form is okay when statute says it not allowed? Do not let them trick you into paying the 'Poll Tax' either.

The County is large and County Counsel does not necessarily sign off on every form or document department heads create. Be a good person, take it upon yourself to correct this. I shall look for your post in the future that you have followed through.

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

SDI
02-03-2010, 12:23 PM
Billy Jack, while I agree with you, I feel that doing so would jeopardize my renewal.

Billy Jack
02-03-2010, 12:27 PM
12051 (C) An applicant shall not be required to complete any additional
application or form for a license, or to provide any information
other than that necessary to complete the standard application form
described in subparagraph (A), except to clarify or interpret
information provided by the applicant on the standard application
form.


Do not make me do all of your work for you. It would be of considerable help if all applicants and holders actually read the statutes.

Billy Jack

SDI
02-03-2010, 12:35 PM
I am not asking you to do any of my "work" for me. Just pointing out that RCSO is not following the law. And yes that is the PC I was referring to.
I also feel it would better if someone who's permit might not be in jeopardy would point this out to them.
We both know that they don't need a reason to not renew a permit. Just, your good cause doesn't meet our standards is enough.

dantodd
02-03-2010, 12:38 PM
I am not asking you to do any of my "work" for me. Just pointing out that RCSO is not following the law. And yes that is the PC I was referring to.
I also feel it would better if someone who's permit might not be in jeopardy would point this out to them.
We both know that they don't need a reason to not renew a permit. Just, your good cause doesn't meet our standards is enough.

If you are so dogged to get it changed and yet are unwilling to put your own permit on the line for it hire an attorney to pursue it. I'm sure Billy Jack can refer you to a good attorney.

SDI
02-03-2010, 12:47 PM
If you are so dogged to get it changed and yet are unwilling to put your own permit on the line for it hire an attorney to pursue it. I'm sure Billy Jack can refer you to a good attorney.

I am not so "dogged" to get anything changed and no, I will not put my permit on the line. That is what I have been trying to say.
Just pointing something out. You know, like trying to participate in this forum.

Sorry I even posted.

Billy Jack
02-03-2010, 12:48 PM
What are you folks afraid of? If your GC has not changed they will renew it. To deny it because you pointed out they were violating the law would not sit well with a Superior Court Judge.

Some departments like to require a psych test arbitrarily. Others have unrealistic shooting requirements. Applicants and holders have to get past 'Plantation Mentality'.

Enough said. Must saddle pony for trip to Reservation store. Squaw give me long list.

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Glock22Fan
02-03-2010, 1:24 PM
I am not so "dogged" to get anything changed and no, I will not put my permit on the line. That is what I have been trying to say.
Just pointing something out. You know, like trying to participate in this forum.

Sorry I even posted.

There are people that insist that the authorities toe the line and follow the statues, despite the fact that this might inconvenience themselves, and there are others that let the authorities ride roughshod over them.

On this forum, we usually call the latter group "sheeple."

SDI
02-03-2010, 1:31 PM
There are people that insist that the authorities toe the line and follow the statues, despite the fact that this might inconvenience themselves, and there are others that let the authorities ride roughshod over the,

On this forum, we usually call the latter group "sheeple."

Again I am sorry that I tried to participate. I have learned my lesson.
I pick my battles and this is not one of them.
Glock22Fan, I have read alot of your posts and had quite a bit of respect for you until this post.

Glock22Fan
02-03-2010, 1:38 PM
Again I am sorry that I tried to participate. I have learned my lesson.
I pick my battles and this is not one of them.
Glock22Fan, I have read alot of your posts and had quite a bit of respect for you until this post.

I am sorry you feel this way, but in my view there is nothing whatsoever that is inconsistent between my previous posts and this one you quote.

If you are not prepared to stand up and be counted, that is your choice, but you cannot have it both ways.

Billy Jack has been falsely arrested for stating his position. I know that Sheriff Baca hates me and might well retaliate if I step out of line. It's part of the price we pay for freedom.

SDI
02-03-2010, 1:51 PM
OK, I understand what you are saying, but if you or Billy Jack already knew about this, then based on what you say, why aren't you doing anything about it? I wasn't asking for help or telling anyone to do anything. Billy Jack started out by giving me a task to complete.

If you didn't know about this before, then you do now. Maybe you can CC me on your letter to the Sheriff. It doesn't mattter what county you live in, breaking the law is breaking the law right?

All of this aside, I really do appreciate yours and Billy Jacks efforts.

kcbrown
02-03-2010, 1:56 PM
There are people that insist that the authorities toe the line and follow the statues, despite the fact that this might inconvenience themselves, and there are others that let the authorities ride roughshod over them.

On this forum, we usually call the latter group "sheeple."

Of course, anything beyond writing the aforementioned letter involves spending thousands of dollars in unrecoverable legal fees, does it not?

If the SD in question is anything other than entirely above board, the CCW applicant will almost surely be forced to pursue the matter through legal action, because his CCW will be rejected by a less-than-above-board SD, no? And the evidence that this SD isn't exactly above board is the fact that it's willfully violating 12051.

So it's not sufficient to simply have sufficiently good cause -- one must also be sufficiently well endowed that one can part with several thousand dollars without it hurting too much.

Or am I missing something crucial here?

Also, I find it laughable that Billy Jack said "if your GC has not changed they will renew it" in the face of the existence of things like the shenanigans of OC Sheriff Hutchens. Of course, maybe I should be laughing at my own ignorance instead, for BJ has a lot of experience with this while I just have a perhaps overly cynical mind...

In any case, what would you have someone who can't afford the thousands in legal fees to pursue the renewal to its conclusion do when there's at least some chance that he'll get his renewal if he doesn't rock the boat?

Eat Dirt
02-03-2010, 2:06 PM
I just found this thread today
I've just spent 10 min. on some interesting reading

Thanks Guys

Glock22Fan
02-03-2010, 2:11 PM
In any case, what would you have someone who can't afford the thousands in legal fees to pursue the renewal to its conclusion do when there's at least some chance that he'll get his renewal if he doesn't rock the boat?


I'd say that that person should just quietly get on with it. Not everyone has the wherewithal (and i don't just mean money) to challenge these things. But, if you are not prepared to fight, then don't make a fuss about it. There's a saying, "Put your money where your mouth is" and another "put up or shut up."

Please note that it is not Team Billy Jack's place to write to sheriffs here, there and everywhere advising them where they are in breach of the laws. TBJ needs a client with standing, or any such letter will be ignored. If there is anyone planning to apply to RSD who wants TBJ to assist in clearing this up, then we would be glad to help.

In my view, however, a nice polite letter, sent recorded delivery and with a copy to the Counsel, saying that you understood that the requirement for an additional form was expressly forbidden by (quote the statute) should not jeopardize anyone's position.

What Billy Jack and I don't like, and we see it all too often, are those people who make a fuss that something is iniquitous, and that "someone" should do something about it, but aren't prepared to be that someone.

kcbrown
02-03-2010, 4:44 PM
I'd say that that person should just quietly get on with it. Not everyone has the wherewithal (and i don't just mean money) to challenge these things. But, if you are not prepared to fight, then don't make a fuss about it. There's a saying, "Put your money where your mouth is" and another "put up or shut up."


Yes, but those sayings generally refer to people who make bold claims, not people who are annoyed with a given situation and speak out against it.

By your standards, one shouldn't say anything about any situation that has an effect on that person but which that person has no meaningful control over or input into.

I vehemently disagree with that position.


Please note that it is not Team Billy Jack's place to write to sheriffs here, there and everywhere advising them where they are in breach of the laws.
It's odd that you say that, given that your signature says:

Note: TBJ and CaliforniaConcealedCarry.com uphold the law in every respect.
We insist that Sheriffs and Police Chiefs also so do.
Are we to conclude that TBJ insists that Sheriffs and Police Chiefs uphold the law only when TBJ happens to have a client with standing handy, or only when the failure to uphold the law affects TBJ directly?



TBJ needs a client with standing, or any such letter will be ignored. If there is anyone planning to apply to RSD who wants TBJ to assist in clearing this up, then we would be glad to help.
Yes, I'm sure you would, but only if the "anyone" in question can afford your services, no?

We all have to make a living and legal action is time consuming and detailed, so I certainly don't hold that against you. However, I feel it is somewhat disingenuous for you to insist that someone who is annoyed with the CCW situation be able to pay for your services or their equivalent (or, somehow, be capable of taking equivalent action) or remain silent.



In my view, however, a nice polite letter, sent recorded delivery and with a copy to the Counsel, saying that you understood that the requirement for an additional form was expressly forbidden by (quote the statute) should not jeopardize anyone's position.
No, it should not. But then, Sheriff Hutchens should not have rescinded so many CCWs, either.

We're dealing with, essentially, a corrupt system. Expecting reasonable results from such a system is a bit naive, don't you think?



What Billy Jack and I don't like, and we see it all too often, are those people who make a fuss that something is iniquitous, and that "someone" should do something about it, but aren't prepared to be that someone.There's a difference between wanting to do something about a situation and being able to do something about it. Be careful not to confuse the two. If you know SDI's specific situation and are making these comments based on them, fine. But if you don't, then it's unlikely that you know whether he is unable to take action here or is simply unwilling. Unless you've had out of band communications with him, then for all you know, his safety on the job may require that CCW permit he currently holds. His livelihood may depend on keeping it. It is possible for that to be the case and for him to simply be unable to afford to spend a few thousand dollars or more slugging it out with the RSD in court. Would you nonetheless insist that he remain silent about the impropriety of his CCW situation under those conditions? Or would you insist that he nonetheless jeopardize his CCW application, knowing that he's probably dealing with a corrupt system and that he could easily be unable to afford the proper legal response in the likely event that they act corrupt?


It's all well and good to insist that people fight the good fight when you're not being paid to do some of the fighting. But if you're being paid by someone else for the fight, the sacrifice is not yours, it's theirs. There is nothing wrong with being a hired gun. But don't start believing and acting like you have the moral high ground simply because those who hired you do.

For those cases where you (TBJ) do your work pro-bono or below cost, the above clearly doesn't apply and you do have standing to take the moral high ground. I know nothing about you so I have no idea if or how often you do that.


Hired gun or not, I'm glad you're on our side, even if you do have some eccentric notions of when one should speak up. :D

dantodd
02-03-2010, 4:49 PM
Are we to conclude that TBJ insists that Sheriffs and Police Chiefs uphold the law only when TBJ happens to have a client with standing handy, or only when the failure to uphold the law affects TBJ directly?

Yes, I'm sure you would, but only if the "anyone" in question can afford your services, no?


This is an issue I have had and posted about on numerous occasions. It is decidedly in TBJs rights to not give away their services. Expect nothing for free and give them nothing for free, that is the answer. If you feel someone is being convinced to give away their services to TBJ when you are confident there will be no reciprocity.

Here at CalGuns we are very used to everyone giving freely of their time and resources. CGF doesn't charge to file suits, write letters etc. Most attorneys DO NOT work like this. TBJ works much more like the rest of the world.

Glock22Fan
02-03-2010, 5:24 PM
If anyone wishes TBJ's help in preparing letters and taking the appropriate steps to challenge this unofficial form, then there would be no cost to do so. Not necessarily that situation, but we answer many emails each day and often hear that that has resulted in a CCW - all free from us. The paying cases are relatively few and far between, which is just as well when you consider that Billy Jack has spent 18 months studying Santa Clara (less than 100 CCW's issued) and even a "simple" case might take more than six months. If the person being guided is denied a CCW and again on appeal, and was an excellent candidate in all respects, and wishes to take the matter further, then TBJ would expect to get paid to take the case to court. Court fees and attorneys are rarely free and Billy Jack isn't running a charity. However, and I'm not empowered to discuss details, Billy Jack will make the process as painless as possible, and people might be surprised by the actual costs, usually far lower than people speculate.

Personally, and this is true for other volunteers on the team, I don't get a penny from TBJ's efforts, and we have assisted a lot of people to get going, helped them assess whether they have any possibility of a Good Cause, helped them refine it and guided them through the application process.

I'm not saying, as you seem to think, "By your standards, one shouldn't say anything about any situation that has an effect on that person but which that person has no meaningful control over or input into." Indeed, I grumble heartily about Baca's policies, which deny me any possibility of a CCW at present. But, I do put an awful lot of hours into fighting to help others get a CCW in their area. In the case we are discussing, the poster has far more chance of righting the situation he's discussing than I have of getting a CCW (as I am neither rich nor famous).

No, it should not. But then, Sheriff Hutchens should not have rescinded so many CCWs, either.

I agree, it is a risk. However, if SDI wants to help, perhaps he could pursuade some family member or friend, without a CCW to put at risk, to take this up for him?

Are we to conclude that TBJ insists that Sheriffs and Police Chiefs uphold the law only when TBJ happens to have a client with standing handy, or only when the failure to uphold the law affects TBJ directly?

To the extent that this is true, TBJ simply doesn't have enough volunteered time to go around looking for windmills that don't have clients outside them. If anyone wants to be a volunteer to sort out their own department, with our help, then I think I have made it clear that we would help them for free up to the time a lawsuit needed to be filed (supposing it came to that). Equally, if anyone wants to volunteer to become TBJ's volunteer in charge of seeking out bad practices across the whole state, sending off letters to counsels and CLEO's and trying to rectify these illegal practices, then please contact us and we will discuss this. Items that come to mind (apart from illegal forms) include illegal demands for residential periods before qualifying and SD's that exclude non-citizens.

Billy Jack
02-03-2010, 5:25 PM
Like to clear up some misinformation. TBJ does not charge a dime for its services unless an applicant is denied and chooses to take the department to court.

We have assisted 2 applicants through issuance under Sheriff Hutchens. She did not revoke CCW's. She did let many expire without renewals. Bragging on the Internet about CCW holder range dates and Sushi parties did not evoke confidence in many of the holders.

I know several CCW holders from various departments and we see each other at the range when qualifying. Turning it into a Frat Boyz club as I liked to call them was a bad idea. She will be Sheriff after the June election as incumbents are normally elected absent indictment or misconduct.

Away from the websites, CCW is not a hot button issue in Orange County.

My view of the world is very simple. You are either party of the problem or a part of the solution. I can not contact a Chief or Sheriff and 'call them out' on perceived or real misconduct unless I have legal standing. Like contacting the FAA and telling them about a perceived design flaw in a commercial airliner when you have no engineering or related background.

Besides it is not my problem, it is the posters problem. You have a leak in your plumbing, you do not tell your neighbor, you fix it!

And last and certainly not least, these departments will place as many burdens on applicants as they feel they can get away with because they know most are so happy to have them that they will put up with it. That folks is what is called a 'Plantation Mentality'.

If an applicant does not have a problem with their rights being violated, shut up and deal with it. If on the other hand you want to do something about it, I will help you with the wording of the letter. I correspond with public officials on a weekly basis. Sometimes by letter but also by phone. I have had personal conversations with Chief's, County Counsels, City Attorneys and so on. They know my name and what I have accomplished and they know they have nothing to lose by hearing me out and much to lose by not communicating with me.

My e-mail address is available to all via our site. If any of you have a desire to take action besides litigation and I can be of assistance contact me.

But please do not post that I do not want to fill out this form or that or I do not want to take the Psych test and so on. Much like Patton slapped the Pvt. who was bellyaching in the hospital next to wounded heroes, get your whining arse out of my presence. I am here to assist doers and people who understand the Founding Fathers did not need nor associate with weak sisters! If that were the case we would all be speaking with English accents.

Lead, follow or get the heck out of my way!

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

kcbrown
02-03-2010, 5:36 PM
ETA: I see from the messages that came up after I posted this that TBJ does, indeed, put their money where their mouth is to a substantial degree. I am heartened to hear this, as this gives them standing to say what they have said. Therefore, much of the below does not apply to TBJ, at least to nearly the degree that one might otherwise conclude from what I've written below.


This is an issue I have had and posted about on numerous occasions. It is decidedly in TBJs rights to not give away their services. Expect nothing for free and give them nothing for free, that is the answer. If you feel someone is being convinced to give away their services to TBJ when you are confident there will be no reciprocity.


I have absolutely no problem with TBJ charging for their services. It's a time-honored tradition, after all. :D

I have a problem with TBJ (or its representatives) claiming that the only people who are right to complain about the CCW situation are their clients (and those who are otherwise capable of being their clients). As if, somehow, the ability to pay TBJ somehow gives one the moral high ground.

It does not. Nor does TBJ's paid role.



Here at CalGuns we are very used to everyone giving freely of their time and resources. CGF doesn't charge to file suits, write letters etc. Most attorneys DO NOT work like this. TBJ works much more like the rest of the world.Some might say that's a problem with the rest of the world. I think it's clear that there is both room and necessity for both. But I think it's disingenuous, and perhaps even hypocritical, for someone who is paid to fight a given fight to proclaim that only those who are willing to and can afford to participate in that fight are the ones who have standing to speak against that which is being fought.

TBJ says "put your money where your mouth is". I invite TBJ to do precisely that -- to put their money where their mouth is, if they haven't already. Not their clients' money, theirs. If they do not, will not, and have not already, then their position is, indeed, hypocritical.

Billy Jack
02-03-2010, 5:53 PM
kcbrown,

You apparently lack a legal or investigative background. Both the legal team and I put thousands of dollars into each case. Do you believe I 'Beamed' myself to San Jose? Photocopies of public records are free? Hotels are free? Gas is free? Food and lodging, well I think you have the idea.

Who do you believe subsidizes an 18 month investigation? The uninformed questions posted here are appalling for their lack or insight. If you have ever had any services provided by an attorney or Licensed Private Investigator you know they are not free nor inexpensive.

I do not go to your place of employment and tell you not to charge for an oil change or extra cheese on that burger or deliver that pizza for free. So lets not surmise that I do not have my own money in each and every case.

Make Billy Jack want to go back to old ways and take a scalp or two, euphemistically of course.

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

kcbrown
02-03-2010, 6:07 PM
kcbrown,

You apparently lack a legal or investigative background. Both the legal team and I put thousands of dollars into each case. Do you believe I 'Beamed' myself to San Jose? Photocopies of public records are free? Hotels are free? Gas is free? Food and lodging, well I think you have the idea.

Who do you believe subsidizes an 18 month investigation? The uninformed questions posted here are appalling for their lack or insight. If you have ever had any services provided by an attorney or Licensed Private Investigator you know they are not free nor inexpensive.


I realize these things are expensive. The question is: are the above things an expense or an investment? Few people put that kind of time into something of that sort unless they expect a big payoff in the end. If this is something you do without any expectation of reward save for the victory itself and the consequences thereof, then that transforms you from a hired gun into a principled freedom fighter, and all of my prior objections fall by the wayside.

Believe me, I consider what you're doing to be extremely valuable regardless. Please do not think otherwise! My point here is that why one fights is as important as that one fights.



I do not go to your place of employment and tell you not to charge for an oil change or extra cheese on that burger or deliver that pizza for free. So lets not surmise that I do not have my own money in each and every case.
Fair enough. Only you know how much of any given case is your own investment and how much is the client's.



Make Billy Jack want to go back to old ways and take a scalp or two, euphemistically of course.
Sometimes the old ways are best. :43:

7x57
02-03-2010, 6:27 PM
Make Billy Jack want to go back to old ways and take a scalp or two, euphemistically of course.


Paleface want see brave count coup old way. Paleface have little list of scalps to suggest. :43:

7x57

7x57
02-03-2010, 6:33 PM
OK, this is getting a bit silly. I believe that all of "The Right People" get paid rather handsomely to defend a gunnie in a righteous case. I seem to recall that it's not uncommon for people to end up taking out a second mortgage for legal fees or something. Sure, some cases are different--we all know that Don Kilmer didn't put in ten years on Nordyke as part of his retirement plan. But then the old fashioned way is that you don't tell about your charity work either, so none of us really know about the extraordinary cases unless they become famous. What we do know is that in most cases, even when a good man is facing hard time for a bad case, it's still expensive. Not only that, but Billy Jack is a PI, not a lawyer, and so far as I know doesn't command the big bucks the lawyers do--including The Right People.

How is Billy Jack different than Chuck, Don, Jason, or the others?

As for sending letters to errant departments, has it ever occurred to you guys that The Right People aren't doing that either? Why? Because it's counterproductive to lob a few shells unless you're going to send in ground troops to back it up maybe?

7x57

dantodd
02-03-2010, 6:38 PM
How is Billy Jack different than Chuck, Don, Jason, or the others?


the primary way is that his cases are usually settled out of court to the satisfaction of his clients and therefore there is no case law created that the community overall can use to beat sheriff's over the head. Aside from that there is very little difference.

kcbrown
02-03-2010, 7:53 PM
We have assisted 2 applicants through issuance under Sheriff Hutchens. She did not revoke CCW's. She did let many expire without renewals.


Didn't she retroactively change the expiration date of those CCWs to accelerate their expiration?

In my book, that's the same thing as revocation: she intentionally took action against the CCWs in question in order to eliminate them.

Sgt Raven
02-03-2010, 8:11 PM
I think dantodd was making a different point, which is that the BoS does control the Sheriff's budget. While true, and that can be a potent lever, I don't think it works well in practice in this case. The problem is that the sheriff has his own ways of communicating, and I doubt the BoS has the stomach to get into a fight where the sheriff tells everyone that the BoS is responsible for the crime problem. Worse, as the Sheriff is the chief jailer for the county, it is quite likely that he can simply start releasing criminals on his own authority and telling the citizens that he doesn't have the money to keep them, and if they don't like it they need to elect a different BoS.

Who do you think is going to win that fight?

7x57

Well when Santa Clara County BoS and their SO got into that fight they took staffing the jail away from him and formed a Dept. of Corrections which severely cut the number of DSO's.

kcbrown
02-03-2010, 8:15 PM
OK, this is getting a bit silly. I believe that all of "The Right People" get paid rather handsomely to defend a gunnie in a righteous case.


But they are also putting their own uncompensated resources into the fight, right?

Since TBJ appears to be doing the same thing, that makes TBJ as good as "The Right People" in that regard, and all of the "hired gun" comments I made earlier are mostly inapplicable if not flat wrong.

That said, are "The Right People" also taking to task those who aren't willing or able to put up their resources to fight the CCW establishment, but who nevertheless complain about it?



As for sending letters to errant departments, has it ever occurred to you guys that The Right People aren't doing that either? Why? Because it's counterproductive to lob a few shells unless you're going to send in ground troops to back it up maybe?
I thought perhaps it was because it wouldn't accomplish a large enough payoff for the work. That is, the only thing it would do is cause the departments in question to transition from being blatantly corrupt to being subtlely corrupt. Individual CCW applications would still have to be fought for on an indivdual basis. Sending out the letters in question wouldn't have any real effect on the lay of the land. Much better to fight the game-changing fights than waste effort on fighting a corrupt, but distributed, system.

In SDI's case, he has a renewal coming up right now. If he wants to keep his CCW he has to take action faster than the current strategic plan allows. I find it difficult to fault him for taking the most conservative approach when dealing with a corrupt system. Even if he were willing to fight all the way to court, aren't we anticipating some game-changing shakeups in less than 6 months? It wouldn't surprise me in the least if any legal action that arose from SDI's case were to be stalled until at least then, after which it is almost certainly resources wasted.

In SDI's case, I guess the real question is: which has a higher probability of a favorable outcome without litigation: the course he's taking, or the one involving writing a letter pointing out the unlawfulness of RSD's approach?

Gray Peterson
02-03-2010, 9:08 PM
Why not have someone from out of county or out of state do the message to them?

7x57
02-03-2010, 9:30 PM
Since TBJ appears to be doing the same thing, that makes TBJ as good as "The Right People" in that regard,


That is my conclusion, mostly, though Billy Jack I think has a different view of what the ideal outcome would be. He seems quite adamant about the RKBA, but I think maybe he believes the right is a bit different than most of us do (judging from his blog, I don't think he regards CCW without any reason other than "just in case" as Protected). That said, he also appears to be focused entirely on the practical, so I may not be able to distinguish between things he thinks aren't Protected and things he just thinks are unattainable and so pointless to whine about.

What I mean is he isn't, so far as I can see, fighting the precise fight that most people here are focused on--meaning shall-issue for any law-abiding citizen, scrapping AW laws, the strictest scrutiny we can get for the RKBA, and so on. But he is certainly fighting *some* fight for the rule of law, and after all he is a PI. PIs don't make case history de novo, that's for lawyers with a mission. They surely can nail people for violating existing law though. He can't be faulted for doing what falls within his professional expertise.


That said, are "The Right People" also taking to task those who aren't willing or able to put up their resources to fight the CCW establishment, but who nevertheless complain about it?


Billy Jack has a rather, um, "colorful" style, and it rubs people the wrong way. In fact, it has rubbed me the wrong way, both what you are reacting to and also the attitude that "self-defense" isn't Good Cause. If you search you'll probably find me expressing irritation in that regard. That said, having met Billy Jack, I didn't talk different to him than I would have to any Calgunner and we got along just fine. If he thinks I'm over the top because I think carrying *is* the citizen's right, he tolerates it well enough. I just like his ftf persona better than his web persona, I guess, and so now I seem to complain a lot less about the web persona. Go figure.

I might as well note that I met Billy Jack because we both volunteered to do something unpaid because we believed in a certain cause that happened not to have a lot to do with the RKBA directly (though I'd say it did, indirectly), but did involve a certain notion of citizenship. It's his business really, but maybe you young guys (hey, I can play a geezer on the net!) won't remember that there used to be an ethic that said you never ever talk about favors or charity or volunteer work, because that would cheapen it. Billy Jack might follow that rule, whatever he does or does not do with his own time and money.

The dog I have in these discussions is that I think he lets drop plenty of things based on lots of hard-won experience, and I wish people would quit whining about the same old things and just learn whatever is useful. How does it help the RKBA to complain about things that won't change instead of learning everything possible?

I also think Billy Jack's web persona is mellowing a bit, and I'd like to encourage that. :D

7x57

Gray Peterson
02-03-2010, 11:58 PM
Since SDI is too personally effected by it due to his renewal being up, plus anyone in Riverside feeling like they can't rock the boat, I decided to send the following email to the CCW Unit Sgt, plus CC'd the County Counsel's office plus Supv. Jeff Stone:



Hello,

I came across your email after finding the following posted on your website:

http://www.riversidesheriff.org/info/CCW-RSO.pdf

On page 7, it seems to indicate that all fees must be paid up front and is non-refundable.

This seems to conflict with Penal Code 12054, which states:

12054. (a) Each applicant for a new license or for the renewal of a license shall pay at the time of filing his or her application a fee determined by the Department of Justice not to exceed the application processing costs of the Department of Justice for the direct costs of furnishing the report required by Section 12052. After the department establishes fees sufficient to reimburse the department for processing costs, fees charged shall increase at a rate not to exceed the legislatively approved annual cost-of-living adjustments for the department's budget. The officer receiving the application and the fee shall transmit the fee, with the fingerprints if required, to the Department of Justice. The licensing authority of any city, city and county, or county may charge an additional fee, in an amount equal to the actual costs for processing the application for a new license, excluding fingerprint and training costs, but in no case to exceed one hundred dollars ($100), and shall transmit the additional fee, if any, to the city, city and county, or county treasury. The first 20 percent of this additional local fee may be collected upon filing of the initial application. The balance of the fee shall be collected only upon issuance of the license

....

(d) Except as authorized pursuant to subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), no requirement, charge, assessment, fee, or condition that requires the payment of any additional funds by the applicant may be imposed by any licensing authority as a condition of the application for a license.
-----------------------------------------------

I checked with California Department of Justice. Here is the fee forms:

http://ag.ca.gov/fingerprints/forms/fees.pdf

Specifically, directed attention to License/Cert/Permit with Firearm, which shows as $38, not $100 as on the form.

So given the factors in the law itself, it appears that $20 how much that can be charged up front in a local fee, plus $38 for the state DOJ background check. Once a license is issued, you can demand for the additional $80 before giving a person the CCW.

I do understand that Sheriff Sniff has an abundance of discretion in the state statute to issue licenses under PC12050, but PC12054(d) contains an a clear statutory command to the Sheriff and you as his designated contact on this issue to not charge more as a condition of issuing a license.

I am hoping that this is just an error that the Sheriff's Department may not have realized, and hopefully will correct this matter forthwith with all due speed.

With regards,

Gray Peterson

CC: Katherine Lind, County Counsel, County of Riverside
CC: Sup. Jeff Stone, District 3, Riverside County Board of Supervisors

If they are going to loosen the restrictions supposedly and everyone's too afraid to challenge the illegal all front fee policy, I got nothing to lose here, I'm two states away. :)

Billy Jack
02-04-2010, 7:00 AM
A tip of my distinctive Hat to Gray Peterson for his e-mail to RSO, BOS and CC. For those of you that do not understand how the government code works, if anyone points out a perceived violation, dangerous intersection, tree branch blocking view of a stop sign, the appropriate city, county or state agency must do 'due diligence'. They must investigate and then report back to the complaining party that the complaint was unfounded or it was founded and what they are going to do to correct it.

This would also apply to noticing them that a 'pre application' application is not permitted under 12051 (c).

The Nazi's took control in Germany because they took on groups individually and the adage 'i do not have a dog in the race' took effect. When the 'rights' of any individual are denied, the rights of all are diminished. If I had a RSO CCW, I would challenge the illegal requirement in a nanosecond.

Society will always have more Sheep than Sheep Dogs, that is just the nature of things. Those of you who know my story know Billy Jack has never been willing to compromise his values and will never say: 'Thank you massa' for his CCW or anything else for that matter.

Someday when the Santa Clara Sheriff case is history, I shall share with you the conversation this Brave had with Command Staff about the parallel between SCSO corruption and what Sheriff Buford Pusser found when he attempted to clean up his county. It was frank and scary. Billy Jack's Client was present and heard this conversation. If any of you saw Walking Tall you just might understand the conversation I had with Command Staff. It was akin to going into the Lion's cage and pissing on their leg. Hey, it is what I do.

Got to go, I have 2000 pages of SCSO documents to evaluate and a report to write to Counsel.

You Braves have a nice day and do not let the White Eyes and Long Knives scare you. You have the Constitution on your side. As long as you believe in it, transgressors and interlopers can cause you no long term harm.

Do not mess with the man who wore the six pointed star and who now wears The Hat!

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Gray Peterson
02-04-2010, 9:11 AM
Got a response:

Mr. Peterson,
*
We are looking into the issues you discussed in your email.* I appreciate you taking the time to address these matters.
*
Robert G. Peebles, Lieutenant
Riverside Sheriff's Department
Sheriff's Administration

Billy Jack
02-04-2010, 9:30 AM
Thanks Gray. Were you threatened, made fun of or disrespected as a result of your seeking redress? I did not think so. We all need to remember, these people work for us.

It took a Patriot from outside California to correct a problem in Riverside County.

As to the person with the issue, I would have slapped him, and sent him back to the front. That is just me. Seriously, thank you for treading where others feared to venture. From prior experience, I expect you will hear from County Counsel that they are going to discontinue the form. A RSO CCW holders, and one in particular owes you a Guinness Stout.

Billy Jack



www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

SDI
02-04-2010, 9:44 AM
Thanks Gray. Were you threatened, made fun of or disrespected as a result of your seeking redress? I did not think so. We all need to remember, these people work for us.

It took a Patriot from outside California to correct a problem in Riverside County.

As to the person with the issue, I would have slapped him, and sent him back to the front. That is just me. Seriously, thank you for treading where others feared to venture. From prior experience, I expect you will hear from County Counsel that they are going to discontinue the form. A RSO CCW holders, and one in particular owes you a Guinness Stout.

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

BJ, you're too much.

It still doesn't address the non DOJ personal info worksheet that has to be filled out, only the fee issue.
Yes, I doubt if they will deny Gray a renewal, he doesn't even live here.

Gray, yes thank you. And if you ever need a letter sent to Washington State where it won't do me any harm, I would be happy to do so.
If you feel like it, BJ quoted the PC earlier in this thread about the unlawful form that is required.

Billy Jack, just wondering if are as good at Hapkido as in the movies?:D

Billy Jack
02-04-2010, 10:05 AM
SDI,Your answer appears below. The same California Government Code would apply to the Form. I am surprised he did not raise both issues. Anyway the outcome will be the same, County Counsel will make it go away as would a Superior Court Judge. Billy Jack always provides government opportunity to self correct then we go nuclear. Brave must get back to Santa Clara files. Damn pity I can not post what Brave see in front of him. Long Knives 'In the S***!'

Billy Jack
Patriot

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson

"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

'Billy Jack now uses the Constitution, 14th Amendment to do what he used to do with his hands and feet. Result is the same'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qswm7lHp7oY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKmJPnAGUJk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe5mD7BEBIY&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCTx_s6bGq4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOUzQ9Di6jQ&feature=related

7x57
02-04-2010, 10:45 AM
Billy Jack, just wondering if are as good at Hapkido as in the movies?:D

:rofl:

That could make the therapeutic scalp-hunting a whole new angle.

Go get 'em, Billy Jack, with or without wires to do the amazing aerial Kung-Fu.

7x57

Gray Peterson
02-04-2010, 10:54 AM
I sent a follow up email to Lt Peebles thanking him for responding to my email, and advised him that he should take this opportunity to look over the forms and make sure its in compliance with PC12051 among other laws.

The extra forms were not brought up to my attention, but now that it has, I hope it will get taken of.

I told him I will check weekly on them.

SDI
02-04-2010, 10:59 AM
Again, thanks. It really helps out those who are applying more than me. I already have mine.

Here is where we talked about it.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=261512&page=8

1923mack
02-04-2010, 11:01 AM
Mr Peterson;

Well done.

7x57
02-04-2010, 11:23 AM
I
I told him I will check weekly on them.

Did you say it in a deep, muffled voice with ominous music playing in the background? :D

"I find your lack of compliance...disturbing." :43:

7x57

wildhawker
02-04-2010, 11:27 AM
Billy Jack,

I've been crass to you in the past, and wish to publicly apologize. Thanks for your hard work. Next time this brave is near Billy Jack's reservation I'll bring firewater and peace pipe.

And I'm not sure if you intended for this to be a joke or not, but I found it humorous anyway. Take credit and the 5th for a good chuckle if it was unintentional.

Last edited by Billy Jack; 02-04-2010 at 11:06 AM.. Reason: spellinh

Billy Jack
02-04-2010, 11:41 AM
wildhawker, I shall leave the 'spellinh' error as it establishes I am fallible. Hope to be in San Jose in next 45 days to become involved in Sheriff election and renew my friendship with Command Staff and County Counsel.

Read my Moccasins. A Sheriff is a terrible thing to waste. Have Squaw chewing leather right now for new pair. Want to look good while in Bay Area.

Billy Jack



www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

wildhawker
02-04-2010, 12:04 PM
Let me know when you're up, I'll be glad to take TBJ to dinner, or at least drinks.

wildhawker, I shall leave the 'spellinh' error as it establishes I am fallible. Hope to be in San Jose in next 45 days to become involved in Sheriff election and renew my friendship with Command Staff and County Counsel.

Read my Moccasins. A Sheriff is a terrible thing to waste. Have Squaw chewing leather right now for new pair. Want to look good while in Bay Area.

Billy Jack



www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

bulgron
02-04-2010, 1:19 PM
wildhawker, I shall leave the 'spellinh' error as it establishes I am fallible. Hope to be in San Jose in next 45 days to become involved in Sheriff election and renew my friendship with Command Staff and County Counsel.

Read my Moccasins. A Sheriff is a terrible thing to waste. Have Squaw chewing leather right now for new pair. Want to look good while in Bay Area.

Billy Jack



www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Hmmm... Speaking as someone who is a resident of SCC, if you know of a candidate in that race who would be better than our current illustrious Sheriff (with or without the CCW issue), please let me know. I have friends who would like to know as well.

Please PM me if you don't want to make any public statements on this topic.

Gray Peterson
05-21-2010, 3:42 PM
All,

I just got off the phone with Lt. Robert Peebles, who is the head of the CCW unit (and signs the CCW licenses) for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department.

After about 3 months of trading emails back and forth about the fee policy of RCSO and it's lack of compliance with PC12054, I am pleased to announce, effective 5/24/2010, the Riverside County Sheriff's Office will accept CCW applications full in compliance with PC12054, and will no longer "front-load" fees. Here is how it will work:

1) Turn in a CCW application and payment for $20 (same payment methods as before, not sure what these are). If your good cause at this point is completely insufficient, your application will be denied (and you will not be out the 200+ as before).

2) You will be called for the interview (this was part of the process before), to clarify your good cause. Assuming your clear at this point, or you admit to be convicted of a DV Misdemeanor or a felony or something, you will be asked for a 95 dollar payment for the DOJ check. If it doesn't clear at that point (background check reveals you to be illegal to possess a firearm or possess a CCW), you are out just $105.

3) Once this clears, you can go get your training.

4) At this point, once everything is done, you bring in a payment of $80 once you're issued the license.

So folks, if you're afraid of losing hundreds of dollars in fees if you are denied for "lack of good cause", there is no longer a reason to be afraid of this fact. The new CCW-RSO.pdf policy manual with these changes is in the process of being posted and may be the middle of next week before it is posted, but I have been assured that starting Monday, the process above will be followed.

This is a result of a lot of research and a lot of work, and done with Gene Hoffman's assistance to me since he clarified some of the finer points of PC12054 for me (in terms of CPI increases for the DOJ fee).

If you think you have good cause but were afraid to apply due being afraid of losing a bunch of money due to up front fees, get your payment of $20 and apply now.

dantodd
05-21-2010, 3:58 PM
F-ing phenomenal job you have done on behalf of all Riverside County Residents. Thank you Gray, way up in Washington for doing this work.

SDI
05-21-2010, 5:13 PM
Wow, big thanks to you.
I know we had talked about this before, but did the subject of the illegal information form come up. As far as I know, people are still made to fill out a multi page info form besides the state application.
When I stopped in to talk to Dep. Aguirre a couple of months ago, I mentioned it to him and his partner, he was a little surprised to read the PC on that issue.

Gray Peterson
05-21-2010, 9:09 PM
Wow, big thanks to you.
I know we had talked about this before, but did the subject of the illegal information form come up. As far as I know, people are still made to fill out a multi page info form besides the state application.
When I stopped in to talk to Dep. Aguirre a couple of months ago, I mentioned it to him and his partner, he was a little surprised to read the PC on that issue.

Can you point out specifically which form you're talking about, including which page?

-Gray

Harley
05-21-2010, 10:27 PM
Thank you Gray!

SDI
05-22-2010, 6:14 AM
It is on RivCo letterhead. The title is CCW Interview Worksheet and is 3 pages long. I could scan it if you would like.
It asks alot of questions that go way past the states application. In the instructions for the state app it says

"The applicant shall not be required to complete any addititional application or form for a CCW license, or to provide any information other than that necessary to complete this standard application form except to clarify or interpret information provided herein (PC section 12051(a)(3)(C)).

Knauga
05-22-2010, 8:34 AM
It is on RivCo letterhead. The title is CCW Interview Worksheet and is 3 pages long. I could scan it if you would like.
It asks alot of questions that go way past the states application. In the instructions for the state app it says

"The applicant shall not be required to complete any addititional application or form for a CCW license, or to provide any information other than that necessary to complete this standard application form except to clarify or interpret information provided herein (PC section 12051(a)(3)(C)).

Sounds like a background investigators questionnaire. I had to fill one out for San Bernardino County. San Bernardino county also augments their CCW application to ask for additional information regarding employment and residence history.

robcoe
05-22-2010, 8:57 AM
Here's the image:

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/clownburner/OCCCWS/ca_ccw_map-big.png

Wow, kind of wish my offical residence was still in Tulare County

383green
05-22-2010, 9:04 AM
Does anybody know if there's a revised version of that map? I see that Riverside County is colored light red, but based on recent discussions here it seems like it should be yellow... possibly even with some green tint.

stitchnicklas
05-22-2010, 10:05 AM
all just a good reason to move to az,not permit required!!!!!!!!!

resonance
05-22-2010, 10:11 PM
all just a good reason to move to az,not permit required!!!!!!!!!

I agree!...The 2nd Amendment should be All the ccw needed!

No fees included!...I paid those in 1968, in the military, in southeast Asia...

Make honest citizens criminals for what they do with their weapons after they have commited a crime...not before!

Mike

SDI
05-26-2010, 6:34 AM
Can you point out specifically which form you're talking about, including which page?

-Gray

Here is a link to the application http://www.riversidesheriff.org/pdf/ccw-rso.pdf

Pages 33-35 of the pdf. Notice that they are not numbered and are not part of the state application. Last time I was in their office, I asked about it and they were unaware that they can't go further than what the state asks for.

I see the whole application from Riverside has been redone, so they must still think it is OK.

Billy Jack
05-26-2010, 9:09 AM
Here is a link to the application http://www.riversidesheriff.org/pdf/ccw-rso.pdf

Pages 33-35 of the pdf. Notice that they are not numbered and are not part of the state application. Last time I was in their office, I asked about it and they were unaware that they can't go further than what the state asks for.

I see the whole application from Riverside has been redone, so they must still think it is OK.

12050 PC requires all CCW Applications to be on a uniform application, the DOJ Application. Any additional forms or pre applications are not permitted. I have addressed this topic here before but here goes again. The department may not realize this in not allowed. A nice letter to Sheriff Sniff with a cc to County Counsel will work wonders. Brave has been doing CCW issues for over 25 years and this has always worked. Once you have memorialized the issue with both the Sheriff and County Counsel, they are required by law and policy to investigate your complaint and make corrections if appropriate. Braves have to remember that issuing CCW's is but a small part of a Sheriff's duties and this may have fallen through the cracks. Be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

Billy Jack
'The force is strong with this one'


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Gray Peterson
05-26-2010, 9:32 AM
Billy Jack,

I have a pretty good contact with the sheriffs office that I'm addressing these issues with.

383green
05-26-2010, 9:37 AM
I have a pretty contact with the sheriffs office that I'm addressing these issues with.

Is she single? :whistling:

Billy Jack
05-26-2010, 9:39 AM
Billy Jack,

I have a pretty contact with the sheriffs office that I'm addressing these issues with.

'A hand extended to assist is better received than a hand extended to confront'. Billy Jack

Carry on Gray Peterson.


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Glock22Fan
05-26-2010, 9:52 AM
I posted this Monday on a thread that then immediately died, please allow me to post it again in case people reading this thread missed it.

This is an email received this week from a Riverside client. I cannot reveal the client's Good Cause, but it was not of the "I can document risk of imminent death" type.

Hi BJ-


Just wanted to drop a line to say thank you for all your help. I got my CCW for Murrieta/Riverside County last week, and I've felt so much better knowing I can walk around with protection for myself and my family. Though I had my own valid reasons for carrying, you guys helped me push forward with the application and ease me through the process.


Keep up the good work!
--
Thanks,

Gray Peterson
05-26-2010, 10:06 AM
Is she single? :whistling:

That's what happens when you post using iphone.

jnojr
05-26-2010, 10:20 AM
All,

I just got off the phone with Lt. Robert Peebles, who is the head of the CCW unit (and signs the CCW licenses) for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department.

After about 3 months of trading emails back and forth about the fee policy of RCSO and it's lack of compliance with PC12054, I am pleased to announce, effective 5/24/2010, the Riverside County Sheriff's Office will accept CCW applications full in compliance with PC12054, and will no longer "front-load" fees. Here is how it will work:

1) Turn in a CCW application and payment for $20 (same payment methods as before, not sure what these are). If your good cause at this point is completely insufficient, your application will be denied (and you will not be out the 200+ as before).

2) You will be called for the interview (this was part of the process before), to clarify your good cause. Assuming your clear at this point, or you admit to be convicted of a DV Misdemeanor or a felony or something, you will be asked for a 95 dollar payment for the DOJ check. If it doesn't clear at that point (background check reveals you to be illegal to possess a firearm or possess a CCW), you are out just $105.

3) Once this clears, you can go get your training.

4) At this point, once everything is done, you bring in a payment of $80 once you're issued the license.

So folks, if you're afraid of losing hundreds of dollars in fees if you are denied for "lack of good cause", there is no longer a reason to be afraid of this fact. The new CCW-RSO.pdf policy manual with these changes is in the process of being posted and may be the middle of next week before it is posted, but I have been assured that starting Monday, the process above will be followed.

This is a result of a lot of research and a lot of work, and done with Gene Hoffman's assistance to me since he clarified some of the finer points of PC12054 for me (in terms of CPI increases for the DOJ fee).

If you think you have good cause but were afraid to apply due being afraid of losing a bunch of money due to up front fees, get your payment of $20 and apply now.

http://anuragbhatia.com/wp-content/uploads/thumbs-up.jpg

I hope we can get San Diego straightened out soon.

Gray Peterson
05-26-2010, 10:23 AM
'A hand extended to assist is better received than a hand extended to confront'. Billy Jack

Carry on Gray Peterson.


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

This is because I don't want what Riverside has. I don't reside there. I am separated from the county, two states away. I won't be able to get a license from any California county as a two year license, and most counties illegally refuse to issue 90 day county only employment licenses.

It takes that kind of detachment in order to make it not a threatening situation.

383green
05-26-2010, 10:27 AM
After talking to folks with firsthand knowledge and experience with RSO's CCW policies both in this forum and offline, I suspect that the skepticism I've expressed here before may be unfounded. I think I may try applying with RSO. I get the impression that it won't be a waste of my time, and my opinion of Sheriff Sniff has been going up lately.

SDI
05-26-2010, 11:14 AM
It takes that kind of detachment in order to make it not a threatening situation.

Agreed, and thanks for your help in this.

lawaia
05-26-2010, 11:34 AM
After talking to folks with firsthand knowledge and experience with RSO's CCW policies both in this forum and offline, I suspect that the skepticism I've expressed here before may be unfounded. I think I may try applying with RSO. I get the impression that it won't be a waste of my time, and my opinion of Sheriff Sniff has been going up lately.

:hurray: Good luck in your application!

This is because I don't want what Riverside has. I don't reside there. I am separated from the county, two states away. I won't be able to get a license from any California county as a two year license, and most counties illegally refuse to issue 90 day county only employment licenses.

It takes that kind of detachment in order to make it not a threatening situation.

I didn't realize from your earlier posts that you don't even live here! You, sir, deserve a HUGE kudos! Thank you again!

HCz
05-26-2010, 2:40 PM
Mr. Peterson,

Thank you very much for your work. This is an amazing work.

HCz

Gray Peterson
05-26-2010, 4:54 PM
All,

Additional good news. Pages 33-35 is being revised to be an "optional" form. No person will be required to fill out those pages in order to be considered for a Riverside CCW in accordance to PC12051. Though the form is being revised and you may still use the old packets, I have been assured that 33-35 is optional, and ONLY the state DOJ form will be required for consideration of CCW's.

There will be additional changes to the policy and website beyond the fee and form issues. I will announce those at the appropriate time.

383green
05-26-2010, 4:56 PM
That's good to hear, Gray! It's reassuring that RSO seems to be cooperative about correcting issues like this once they're made aware of them. Danged CA gun laws are complex and difficult to understand for everybody.

Gray Peterson
05-26-2010, 5:35 PM
That's good to hear, Gray! It's reassuring that RSO seems to be cooperative about correcting issues like this once they're made aware of them. Danged CA gun laws are complex and difficult to understand for everybody.

Not really. The only thing that's complex is the good cause and the good moral character provisions. Everything else is cake.

Gray Peterson
05-26-2010, 6:45 PM
So, based on Sniff's statements, the 98% statistic and this map, I suspect that it all means that Riverside has a 98% CCW issuance rate for people with special connections, and others are turned away early in the application process without being counted.

No, it's that people are refusing to apply for various different reasons. The chief among them is "I don't want to spend 200+ and have it denied for lack of good cause".

That is no longer happening. Start applying to his office with just the $20+ risk. If actually denying most of the applications, then that needs to reflected in the statistics. People are refusing to apply, period, and that's actually HURTING US as a group because people would rather snipe at something and complain than actually apply. Just $20, folks. That's all your risking.

Glock22Fan
05-26-2010, 7:05 PM
No, it's that people are refusing to apply for various different reasons. The chief among them is "I don't want to spend 200+ and have it denied for lack of good cause".

That is no longer happening. Start applying to his office with just the $20+ risk. If actually denying most of the applications, then that needs to reflected in the statistics. People are refusing to apply, period, and that's actually HURTING US as a group because people would rather snipe at something and complain than actually apply. Just $20, folks. That's all your risking.

As usual, TBJ is willing, at no charge, help you get your ducks in a row for this. We can't write your Good Cause for you, but we can advise what might fly and help you present it in its best light. Don't p.m. me, please, use the Contact Us page on our website (below). That way, Billy Jack gets a copy without me having to pass it on.

hoffman259
05-26-2010, 7:05 PM
I'm glad I found this thread. I recently moved to Riverside County after being in OC for a long time and was wondering his stance on CCW permits. I think I am going to be applying.

On a side note, i have seen some signs around town for another sheriff running, do we have any info on him and his stance on CCW.

cindynles
05-26-2010, 7:21 PM
No, it's that people are refusing to apply for various different reasons. The chief among them is "I don't want to spend 200+ and have it denied for lack of good cause".

That is no longer happening. Start applying to his office with just the $20+ risk. If actually denying most of the applications, then that needs to reflected in the statistics. People are refusing to apply, period, and that's actually HURTING US as a group because people would rather snipe at something and complain than actually apply. Just $20, folks. That's all your risking.

So just to clarify, anyone submitting an application should still have:

"Convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to life, or of great bodily harm to the applicant, his/her spouse, or dependent child, which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources, and which danger cannot be reasonably avoided by alternative measures, and which danger would be significantly mitigated by the applicant's carrying of a concealed firearm."

Sheriff Sniff has not gone the way of Kern County and will not issue for personal protection has he? Its great to see that progress is being made, but it doesn't really help most of us.

H Paul Payne
05-26-2010, 7:22 PM
On a side note, i have seen some signs around town for another sheriff running, do we have any info on him and his stance on CCW.

When Frank Robles was running (unsuccessfully) for Riverside County Sheriff in 1994 against Larry Smith and Paul Benoit, he was anti-CCW and somewhat anti-gun. In fact, he didn't get the NRA endorsement then. Paul Benoit did.

I am told that he now claims to be more pro-gun and somewhat pro-CCW.

NOPE!!! NOT BUYING IT!!!

As a long-time resident of Riverside County and an employee of the NRA, why would I want to change from the current sheriff who is good on the Second Amendment issue AND has EARNED the NRA endorsement???

My family and friends will be voting for the NRA endorsed candidate, Sheriff Stan Sniff!!! You should too!!!

Paul

Gray Peterson
05-26-2010, 7:45 PM
Here is a link to the application http://www.riversidesheriff.org/pdf/ccw-rso.pdf

Pages 33-35 of the pdf. Notice that they are not numbered and are not part of the state application. Last time I was in their office, I asked about it and they were unaware that they can't go further than what the state asks for.

I see the whole application from Riverside has been redone, so they must still think it is OK.

Issue is being fixed now.

SDI
05-26-2010, 9:03 PM
Issue is being fixed now.

Yes it is thanks to you. Got off the phone this afternoon with Sgt. Whiting about a separate issue and he told me about the all the changes. A couple of other surprises coming for Riverside residents.

383green
05-26-2010, 9:05 PM
A couple of other surprises coming for Riverside residents.

You now have my full attention!

SDI
05-26-2010, 9:08 PM
You might want to own 3 CCW guns :D

383green
05-26-2010, 9:11 PM
You might want to own 3 CCW guns :D

Excellent! Assuming I get approved, I'd like to include my full-size Colt M1991A1 on the permit just on principle, even though I'd have to gain a couple hundred pounds before it could be considered concealable. :D

dantodd
05-26-2010, 11:19 PM
Is she single? :whistling:

She? You don't know Gray very well do you? :D

lawaia
05-27-2010, 7:29 AM
You might want to own 3 CCW guns :D

Yeah, baby!:D

Glock22Fan
05-27-2010, 7:33 AM
She? You don't know Gray very well do you? :D

To be fair, Gray did originally say he had a pretty contact at Riverside.

Even my wife comments that some girls/women are pretty.

And I'm sure Mark knew that that wasn't really what Gray meant anyway.

:)

bosshog69
01-18-2012, 10:48 AM
All,

I just got off the phone with Lt. Robert Peebles, who is the head of the CCW unit (and signs the CCW licenses) for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department.

After about 3 months of trading emails back and forth about the fee policy of RCSO and it's lack of compliance with PC12054, I am pleased to announce, effective 5/24/2010, the Riverside County Sheriff's Office will accept CCW applications full in compliance with PC12054, and will no longer "front-load" fees. Here is how it will work:

1) Turn in a CCW application and payment for $20 (same payment methods as before, not sure what these are). If your good cause at this point is completely insufficient, your application will be denied (and you will not be out the 200+ as before).

2) You will be called for the interview (this was part of the process before), to clarify your good cause. Assuming your clear at this point, or you admit to be convicted of a DV Misdemeanor or a felony or something, you will be asked for a 95 dollar payment for the DOJ check. If it doesn't clear at that point (background check reveals you to be illegal to possess a firearm or possess a CCW), you are out just $105.

3) Once this clears, you can go get your training.

4) At this point, once everything is done, you bring in a payment of $80 once you're issued the license.

So folks, if you're afraid of losing hundreds of dollars in fees if you are denied for "lack of good cause", there is no longer a reason to be afraid of this fact. The new CCW-RSO.pdf policy manual with these changes is in the process of being posted and may be the middle of next week before it is posted, but I have been assured that starting Monday, the process above will be followed.

This is a result of a lot of research and a lot of work, and done with Gene Hoffman's assistance to me since he clarified some of the finer points of PC12054 for me (in terms of CPI increases for the DOJ fee).

If you think you have good cause but were afraid to apply due being afraid of losing a bunch of money due to up front fees, get your payment of $20 and apply now.
So i the deputy located at the Davis location in Riverside and he said that i must bring in two payments all in one swoop. I set up my interview however he said i need to bring a payment of $20 AND $95 and it all non refundable? That seems a little diffrent from what you are saying?

jpigeon
01-18-2012, 3:15 PM
Call the CCW unit. They chase as many people as they can away from the whole process...

wildhawker
01-18-2012, 4:22 PM
So i the deputy located at the Davis location in Riverside and he said that i must bring in two payments all in one swoop. I set up my interview however he said i need to bring a payment of $20 AND $95 and it all non refundable? That seems a little diffrent from what you are saying?

For everything you need to know, see www.calgunsfoundation.org/carry and http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/category/9-carry.html.

-Brandon

bosshog69
01-19-2012, 10:05 AM
I did, i called the phone number listed on the application 951.486.2856. The deputy answered as CCW unit! I'm not sure who is correct at this point.

Also are we required to fill out the extra 3 pages that are attached to the Riverside CCW application found on their site? Will we get pushback if we don't fill that out? http://www.riversidesheriff.org/firearms/ccw.asp