PDA

View Full Version : Riverside County Sheriff candidate says he will issue CCW


Pvt. Cowboy
03-25-2010, 8:56 AM
Riverside County candidate for Sheriff Frank Robles announces he will issue carry permits to law abiding citizens if elected:

koJT8EebDLk

johnthomas
03-25-2010, 9:14 AM
I don't live in Riverside County. For the sake of the people, I hope this isn't a hollow promise. Too often politicians, even with good intentions could meet with strict opposition. If he is the final issuing authority, I guess if elected, it is a wait and see situation. This can't be the only criteria for voting for him. Like any good candidate, he should be beyond reproach. But then, when it comes to politicians........ I'll just say I don't trust anything they have to say. His record should speak for itself.

Roadrunner
03-25-2010, 9:21 AM
Riverside County candidate for Sheriff Frank Robles announces he will issue carry permits to law abiding citizens if elected:

koJT8EebDLk

That's really wonderful, but what hoops would a person have to jump through, and what kind of statement is acceptable as good cause? Saying that he will issue CCWs means nothing to me because even LAPD and LASD issues CCWs.

Pvt. Cowboy
03-25-2010, 9:37 AM
That's really wonderful, but what hoops would a person have to jump through, and what kind of statement is acceptable as good cause? Saying that he will issue CCWs means nothing to me because even LAPD and LASD issues CCWs.

He said nothing about 'good cause'. Listen to his first statement in the video.

What he's said in that video sounds about what I'd expected a SoCal sheriff whose jurisdiction includes a great deal of empty space to say: Okay, we'll give you the permit but you're going to have classroom training, a background check, a competency test, and then we're going to make you aware of the repercussions of CCW.

That sounds reasonable for a county Sheriff to say in a state where there's presently no 'shall issue' CCW rights.

Want me to guess as what hoops you might have to jump through? Here goes:


Pay a fee. Always the money first, isn't it? Let's call it $199 for 'processing'.
Background check: $35. Fingerprinting fee: $15. Photograph and laminated card: $10.
8 hours classroom instruction. This is a $149 fee.
A range qualification. Must qualify with every handgun you intend to put on the CCW card, ten rounds each gun at 5 yards. Hit the big black dot 4 times out of five.
CCW card good for four years, with a $99 renewal fee.


Quite a pile of fees to get your CCW in Riverside County, but I can tell you that there will be paper checks flying out of CalGunner's checkbooks so fast that the lady clerk behind the counter at the Riverside County Sheriff's Office will be in danger of receiving a paper cut.

glbtrottr
03-25-2010, 10:01 AM
I doubt Stan Sniff is retiring - he's a youngster, and he's taking a more liberal stand with CCW's as of most recent word...

Roadrunner
03-25-2010, 10:12 AM
He said nothing about 'good cause'. Listen to his first statement in the video.

What he's said in that video sounds about what I'd expected a SoCal sheriff whose jurisdiction includes a great deal of empty space to say: Okay, we'll give you the permit but you're going to have classroom training, a background check, a competency test, and then we're going to make you aware of the repercussions of CCW.

That sounds reasonable for a county Sheriff to say in a state where there's presently no 'shall issue' CCW rights.

Want me to guess as what hoops you might have to jump through? Here goes:


Pay a fee. Always the money first, isn't it? Let's call it $199 for 'processing'.
Background check: $35. Fingerprinting fee: $15. Photograph and laminated card: $10.
8 hours classroom instruction. This is a $149 fee.
A range qualification. Must qualify with every handgun you intend to put on the CCW card, ten rounds each gun at 5 yards. Hit the big black dot 4 times out of five.
CCW card good for four years, with a $99 renewal fee.


Quite a pile of fees to get your CCW in Riverside County, but I can tell you that there will be paper checks flying out of CalGunner's checkbooks so fast that the lady clerk behind the counter at the Riverside County Sheriff's Office will be in danger of receiving a paper cut.

Well, I guess I'll believe it when I see it.

johnthomas
03-25-2010, 1:22 PM
That is the best stimulus plan yet. Maybe there will be enough work for them to hire another clerk or two.

Glock22Fan
03-25-2010, 1:30 PM
He said nothing about 'good cause'. Listen to his first statement in the video.

What he's said in that video sounds about what I'd expected a SoCal sheriff whose jurisdiction includes a great deal of empty space to say: Okay, we'll give you the permit but you're going to have classroom training, a background check, a competency test, and then we're going to make you aware of the repercussions of CCW.

That sounds reasonable for a county Sheriff to say in a state where there's presently no 'shall issue' CCW rights.

Want me to guess as what hoops you might have to jump through? Here goes:


Pay a fee. Always the money first, isn't it? Let's call it $199 for 'processing'.
Background check: $35. Fingerprinting fee: $15. Photograph and laminated card: $10.
8 hours classroom instruction. This is a $149 fee.
A range qualification. Must qualify with every handgun you intend to put on the CCW card, ten rounds each gun at 5 yards. Hit the big black dot 4 times out of five.
CCW card good for four years, with a $99 renewal fee.

Quite a pile of fees to get your CCW in Riverside County, but I can tell you that there will be paper checks flying out of CalGunner's checkbooks so fast that the lady clerk behind the counter at the Riverside County Sheriff's Office will be in danger of receiving a paper cut.

He can't do this as PC12050 stands at present.

Gray Peterson
03-25-2010, 1:34 PM
Pay a fee. Always the money first, isn't it? Let's call it $199 for 'processing'.




This is unlawful and illegal. You can only charge $20 up front, period.

BunnySlayer
03-25-2010, 1:56 PM
What a politician up for election says= One thing
What a politician already in office does= another thing.

383green
03-25-2010, 2:13 PM
A couple of months ago the County Supervisors approved a resolution urging Stan Sniff to issue CCW to law abiding citizens. Maybe we're seeing the tide turn... slowly.

And as I recall, the Sheriff's Office's response indicated that they did not intend to change their issuance policy.

tedw
03-31-2010, 8:26 PM
I doubt Stan Sniff is retiring - he's a youngster, and he's taking a more liberal stand with CCW's as of most recent word...

I heard Sheriff Sniff speak at our local Republican Assembly. He said he would issue permits if the citizen had a "good reason".

By contrast Frank Robles said he will issue permits to law abidding citizens. He is an experienced police officer and fiscally responsible.

Gun owners in Riverside County ought to get behind Robles. He believes in the Constitution.

Aegis
03-31-2010, 9:23 PM
I heard Sheriff Sniff speak at our local Republican Assembly. He said he would issue permits if the citizen had a "good reason".

By contrast Frank Robles said he will issue permits to law abidding citizens. He is an experienced police officer and fiscally responsible.

Gun owners in Riverside County ought to get behind Robles. He believes in the Constitution.

"Good Reason" is the problem, it is discretionary. If Robles says he will give permits on a "shall issue" basis to law abiding citizens, he will get my vote.

tedw
04-03-2010, 4:44 AM
"Good Reason" is the problem, it is discretionary. If Robles says he will give permits on a "shall issue" basis to law abiding citizens, he will get my vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMyQyru_N8M

Here is the video of Sniff at the Republican Assembly. It is clear he does not think that citizens have a right to concealed weapon permits. He says he will issue them if the citizen has a "good reason", In other words, discretionary.

It should be clear who is the better candidate.

RSO PIO
04-05-2010, 1:35 PM
1. California State law requires Sheriffs and police chiefs to issue CCWs in CA only for "good cause". No law enforcement agency head can waive that requirement legally in this State.

2. The Constitution requires protection of Second Amendment rights, not CCWs - those two issues are separate and distinct.

3. The current Sheriff has liberalized what constitutes "good cause" within his jurisdiction since taking office in 2007, and that is common knowledge within Riverside County's shooting community and the NRA. CCWs are much easier to obtain from the Sheriff, but still require "good cause" for issuance pursuant to the State Penal Code.

I was also present at that same event you mention.

Dennis Gutierrez

Ron-Solo
04-05-2010, 1:53 PM
There's a lot of trash talking going on about the current Sheriff, but has anyone tried to get a CCW recently and been denied?

The Sheriff can't use the term "shall issue" because state law requires "good cause" to issue a permit. He can be liberal in his intrepretation of what constitutes good cause.

If you have applied for a CCW and been denied, please feel free to speak your mind. If you haven't bothered to apply, then you really can't provide any valuable insight on the process.

Ron-Solo
04-05-2010, 1:56 PM
This is unlawful and illegal. You can only charge $20 up front, period.

These figures were thrown out there by Pvt. Cowboy, not any official source.

Billy Jack
04-05-2010, 2:00 PM
1. California State law requires Sheriffs and police chiefs to issue CCWs in CA only for "good cause". No law enforcement agency head can waive that requirement legally in this State.

2. The Constitution requires protection of Second Amendment rights, not CCWs - those two issues are separate and distinct.

3. The current Sheriff has liberalized what constitutes "good cause" within his jurisdiction since taking office in 2007, and that is common knowledge within Riverside County's shooting community and the NRA. CCWs are much easier to obtain from the Sheriff, but still require "good cause" for issuance pursuant to the State Penal Code.

I was also present at that same event you mention.

Dennis Gutierrez

I have been aware of Sheriff Sniff's policy since he was appointed to complete Sheriff Doyle's term. The policy is fair and the personnel conducting the interviews are friendly and fair. I have helped several denied applicants with their appeals and all have been granted.

Under current law, you can not walk in and say 'self defense' or 'personal protection' and expect to be issued. CCW should never be your only reason for supporting a Sheriff. Any candidate for the office that says he will be 'shall issue' has just stated he intends to violate the law and is thus unfit for the office.

One's entire waking hours should not be about carrying a concealed firearm. If you feel you have the need, take the time to evaluate your situation and draft an intelligent reason why you should be allowed the privilege of carrying a concealed firearm.

I know what some are thinking, he has his from Sheriff Sniff and he is not objective. Nope. Mine is from another department in the same county. I actually like most aspects of Sheriff Sniff's policy better than my department.

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Aegis
04-05-2010, 2:05 PM
Because of the constitution, we do not need "good cause" to convince a politician that we have the right to defend ourselves. I don't care how liberal a LEOs policy is, unless it is shall issue to every law abiding citizen that applies for a CCW permit, it is unacceptable.

I have not applied for a CCW permit with the current Sheriff, because I heard that self defense is not an acceptable reason.

The upcoming decisions in the McDonald and Sykes case thereafter will show that the corrupt "may issue" system in CA is unconstitutional.

Billy Jack
04-05-2010, 2:17 PM
Because of the constitution, we do not need "good cause" to convince a politician that we have the right to defend ourselves. I don't care how liberal a LEOs policy is, unless it is shall issue to every law abiding citizen that applies for a CCW permit, it is unacceptable.

I have not applied for a CCW permit with the current Sheriff, because I heard that self defense is not an acceptable reason.

The upcoming decisions in the McDonald and Sykes case thereafter will show that the corrupt "may issue" system in CA is unconstitutional.

You have an interesting view of the Constitution. Unfortunately, it is not shared by the majority on SCOTUS and and Associate Justice Scalia in particular. You may want to read his observations in Heller as well as the questions he raised in the McDonald oral arguments.

First thing Brave learn from elders is just wanting something to be so, does not make it so. You can always send SCOTUS an Amicus Brief with your Points and Authorities on why the Constitution has no bearing on states control of CCW issuance. This Brave has been involved in this area of law for four decades and has some Gravitas.

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Aegis
04-05-2010, 3:16 PM
You have an interesting view of the Constitution. Unfortunately, it is not shared by the majority on SCOTUS and and Associate Justice Scalia in particular. You may want to read his observations in Heller as well as the questions he raised in the McDonald oral arguments.

First thing Brave learn from elders is just wanting something to be so, does not make it so. You can always send SCOTUS an Amicus Brief with your Points and Authorities on why the Constitution has no bearing on states control of CCW issuance. This Brave has been involved in this area of law for four decades and has some Gravitas.

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Yes, CCW may not be protected by the constitution, but the state/LEO soon cannot deny both LOC and CCW. One or the other has to be allowed. We all know LOC will probably not happen so CCW will most likely be the chosen method.

That aside, my point is that "may issue" is corrupt and unconstitutional since LOC is not permitted in populated areas. The bottom line is most law abiding people in CA are denied a constitutional right to defend themselves.

Ron-Solo
04-05-2010, 4:05 PM
With regard to McDonald and Sykes: Don't count your chickens until they hatch. Noting is a sure thing when it comes to the courts.

Aegis
04-05-2010, 4:10 PM
With regard to McDonald and Sykes: Don't count your chickens until they hatch. Noting is a sure thing when it comes to the courts.

Even many partisan anti-2A individuals believe that incorporation is going to happen. Very unlikely SCOUTS will rule the first amendment and other amendments apply to the states, but not the second amendment.

SVT-40
04-05-2010, 6:28 PM
I recently assisted a Riverside County resident who obtained his CCW from Riverside County. After completing the needed paper work, and going through the process he was successful and RSO issued him his CCW.

It was a relatively simple process. Very straight forward and professional with no hassles from RSO.

N6ATF
04-05-2010, 10:24 PM
I have been aware of Sheriff Sniff's policy since he was appointed to complete Sheriff Doyle's term. The policy is fair and the personnel conducting the interviews are friendly and fair. I have helped several denied applicants with their appeals and all have been granted.

Under current law, you can not walk in and say 'self defense' or 'personal protection' and expect to be issued. CCW should never be your only reason for supporting a Sheriff. Any candidate for the office that says he will be 'shall issue' has just stated he intends to violate the law and is thus unfit for the office.

Unconstitutionally applied state laws are just that. Either the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, or it isn't. And we're not just talking about the status of 2A incorporation, either. 12050 is being used to violate equal protection, and cruelly deny non-prohibited persons their right to continue living, unless they campaign contribute coughbribecough to some CLEOs.

Any sheriff, the most important constitutional officer in the country, who is shall issue to non-prohibited persons, is in absolute compliance with the only law that matters, whether all relevant parts of it are incorporated or not. 12050 being used as a tool of bribery, elitism and racism is preempted by more than just the 2A.

Gray Peterson
04-06-2010, 12:47 AM
You have an interesting view of the Constitution. Unfortunately, it is not shared by the majority on SCOTUS and and Associate Justice Scalia in particular. You may want to read his observations in Heller as well as the questions he raised in the McDonald oral arguments.


Yet you glossing over and overlooking the fact that PC12031 and PC626.9 prevents the bearing of functional firearms in public, and only a PC12050 license can fix that particular problem? Do you really think, given the strong indications in Heller and the McDonald oral arguments about concealed carry that the current system in California can survive? Every single case which Justice Scalia cited in terms of State Supreme Court precedent all mentioned the idea that a state cannot ban all carrying of arms under the 2nd amendment or their state analogues. They could ban concealed carry, but they couldn't ban all carry period.

Here are the case cites:

Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165 (1871)
Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154 (1840)
City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 485 P.2d 737 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971)
In re Application of McIntyre, 552 A.2d 500 (Del. Super. 1988)
In re Brickey, 70 P. 609 (Idaho 1902)
Kellogg v. City of Gary, 562 N.E.2d 685 (Ind. 1990)
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846)
State ex rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner, 377 S.E.2d 139 (W. Va. 1988)
State v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222 (N.C. 1921)
State v. Rosenthal, 55 A. 610 (Vt. 1903)
State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489 (1850)
State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616-17 (1840)

Not to mention this whopper:

Any candidate for the office that says he will be 'shall issue' has just stated he intends to violate the law and is thus unfit for the office.

That is total BS, and you know it. If 25 sheriffs in this state are issuing solely for self defense are "unfit for office", why hasn't the Brady Campaign sued them for issuing for personal protection? Why hasn't there been proceedings to remove from office these sheriffs who are issuing for personal protection or self defense if they are "unfit for office"? There wouldn't be, there never has been, and you engaging in these attacks against the pro-self defense sheriffs such as Mendocino County among others is scurrilous to say the least.

Billy Jack
04-06-2010, 7:47 AM
Yet you glossing over and overlooking the fact that PC12031 and PC626.9 prevents the bearing of functional firearms in public, and only a PC12050 license can fix that particular problem? Do you really think, given the strong indications in Heller and the McDonald oral arguments about concealed carry that the current system in California can survive? Every single case which Justice Scalia cited in terms of State Supreme Court precedent all mentioned the idea that a state cannot ban all carrying of arms under the 2nd amendment or their state analogues. They could ban concealed carry, but they couldn't ban all carry period.

Here are the case cites:

Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165 (1871)
Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154 (1840)
City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 485 P.2d 737 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971)
In re Application of McIntyre, 552 A.2d 500 (Del. Super. 1988)
In re Brickey, 70 P. 609 (Idaho 1902)
Kellogg v. City of Gary, 562 N.E.2d 685 (Ind. 1990)
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846)
State ex rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner, 377 S.E.2d 139 (W. Va. 1988)
State v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222 (N.C. 1921)
State v. Rosenthal, 55 A. 610 (Vt. 1903)
State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489 (1850)
State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616-17 (1840)

Not to mention this whopper:



That is total BS, and you know it. If 25 sheriffs in this state are issuing solely for self defense are "unfit for office", why hasn't the Brady Campaign sued them for issuing for personal protection? Why hasn't there been proceedings to remove from office these sheriffs who are issuing for personal protection or self defense if they are "unfit for office"? There wouldn't be, there never has been, and you engaging in these attacks against the pro-self defense sheriffs such as Mendocino County among others is scurrilous to say the least.

Internet posters love to cherry pick and misapply the law. Let me try one more time. I did not say I had a problem with 'Shall Issue' if that law were to be passed. The current law does not permit it. If a Chief or Sheriff announces they are Shall Issue, they are violating the law just as Sheriffs and chiefs who are 'no issue' or have dual policies are violating the law.

If you truly appreciate the Constitution you must understand it can not be twisted and bent to serve a particular purpose. What scares the Brady people is when you guys wrap yourselves in the Constitution or the American Flag and start essentially speaking in tongues about your God given right to do this or that with a firearm. Give it up my friend, reason and law must prevail. I will be sipping my hot Ovaltine when SCOTUS comes down and we can all see what will happen next. I would not be filling that DOJ Application out in advance though. You do not correct one violation of law by violating another law, think about it.

Besides, what will you have to post about if the state were to go Shall Issue? Your inability to list 10 or more firearms on your permit? The silly restrictions on laser sights? The unconstitutional restrictions on your carrying tracer rounds? I am far from a Brady person but many of you are just as crazy and strident in the opposite direction as they are. Just step back, take a deep breath and look at the image you put forth to LE. I have a great time every two years during and after my interview discussing with Command Staff why some of you scare them and will never be issued.

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Aegis
04-06-2010, 5:21 PM
There are those who have a vested interest in the current unconstitutional and discriminatory CA CCW system remaining in place. It may not be tomorrow, but soon, the "may issue" CCW system will be finished. The tide is turning.

H Paul Payne
04-08-2010, 2:05 PM
I have been suffering through some computer problems and did not see this topic until last night. As a long-time resident of Riverside County and Second Amendment activist for more than 22 years, I have chosen to voice my personal opinion herein. My comments on this topic are my own and do not officially represent the National Rifle Association or any of its sub-divisions, programs, or other employees.


Riverside County candidate for Sheriff Frank Robles announces he will issue carry permits to law abiding citizens if elected:
Wow! This is great news! It is also a 180 degree change of direction over his stated policy when he ran for Riverside County Sheriff in 1994 (I think that was the year).
....I hope this isn't a hollow promise. ........ I'll just say I don't trust anything they have to say. His record should speak for itself.
Since I've had experience with him in the past, I would have to agree with you.
Well, I guess I'll believe it when I see it.
Yep. That's my point too.
And as I recall, the Sheriff's Office's response indicated that they did not intend to change their issuance policy.
The current Sheriff's (Stan Sniff) policy is working out pretty well for a lot of people who want CCW permits. I hear that quite often from our members and others I come into contact with.
1. California State law requires Sheriffs and police chiefs to issue CCWs in CA only for "good cause". No law enforcement agency head can waive that requirement legally in this State.

2. The Constitution requires protection of Second Amendment rights, not CCWs - those two issues are separate and distinct.

3. The current Sheriff has liberalized what constitutes "good cause" within his jurisdiction since taking office in 2007, and that is common knowledge within Riverside County's shooting community and the NRA. CCWs are much easier to obtain from the Sheriff, but still require "good cause" for issuance pursuant to the State Penal Code.
Based upon what I've been told by lawyers, AND what I've personally witnessed; these are accurate statements.
There's a lot of trash talking going on about the current Sheriff, but has anyone tried to get a CCW recently and been denied?

The Sheriff can't use the term "shall issue" because state law requires "good cause" to issue a permit. He can be liberal in his intrepretation of what constitutes good cause.

If you have applied for a CCW and been denied, please feel free to speak your mind. If you haven't bothered to apply, then you really can't provide any valuable insight on the process.
Man. That is spot on!
I have been aware of Sheriff Sniff's policy since he was appointed to complete Sheriff Doyle's term. The policy is fair and the personnel conducting the interviews are friendly and fair.

Under current law, you can not walk in and say 'self defense' or 'personal protection' and expect to be issued. CCW should never be your only reason for supporting a Sheriff. Any candidate for the office that says he will be 'shall issue' has just stated he intends to violate the law and is thus unfit for the office.

If you feel you have the need, take the time to evaluate your situation and draft an intelligent reason why you should be allowed the privilege of carrying a concealed firearm.
Again, I'm in agreement!
It may not be tomorrow, but soon, the "may issue" CCW system will be finished.
Great! I can't wait. But until then, we will have to work with the system of laws that we have. Fortunately, our Sheriff in Riverside County is quite fair in regards to his CCW policies. He also lobbies for the protection of Second Amendment and supports NRA's efforts in the State Capitol.

I can't remember the last time we had an active shooter as the Sheriff in this county. But we have one currently.

Paul
P.S. -- Please remember that my comments on this topic are my own and do not officially represent the National Rifle Association or any of its sub-divisions, programs, or other employees.

tedw
04-20-2010, 3:58 PM
I have been suffering through some computer problems and did not see this topic until last night. As a long-time resident of Riverside County and Second Amendment activist for more than 22 years, I have chosen to voice my personal opinion herein. My comments on this topic are my own and do not officially represent the National Rifle Association or any of its sub-divisions, programs, or other employees.



Wow! This is great news! It is also a 180 degree change of direction over his stated policy when he ran for Riverside County Sheriff in 1994 (I think that was the year).

Since I've had experience with him in the past, I would have to agree with you.

Yep. That's my point too.

The current Sheriff's (Stan Sniff) policy is working out pretty well for a lot of people who want CCW permits. I hear that quite often from our members and others I come into contact with.

Based upon what I've been told by lawyers, AND what I've personally witnessed; these are accurate statements.

Man. That is spot on!

Again, I'm in agreement!

Great! I can't wait. But until then, we will have to work with the system of laws that we have. Fortunately, our Sheriff in Riverside County is quite fair in regards to his CCW policies. He also lobbies for the protection of Second Amendment and supports NRA's efforts in the State Capitol.

I can't remember the last time we had an active shooter as the Sheriff in this county. But we have one currently.

Paul
P.S. -- Please remember that my comments on this topic are my own and do not officially represent the National Rifle Association or any of its sub-divisions, programs, or other employees.

The following excerpt is from today's Californian. Its pretty clear who has the better policy on concealed carry policy:



Here is an excerpt from today?s Californian.


http://tiny.cc/i9pve

"Under state law, only a small number of people who have obtained permits from a sheriff or police chief may carry around a hidden weapon. Sniff has said he is very cautious about whom he issues permits to. Robles has said he would expand the availability of permits."


People in Riverside County actually have the ability to vote in their right to carry a concealed weapon in this Sheriff's election. Only they don?t know it.
*********
Mr. Sniff: I too am going to be very cautious about whom I issue a permit to be Sheriff in this election. And it wont be you.

Big Jake
04-20-2010, 4:31 PM
We will see!

BatBoy2 75
04-20-2010, 7:09 PM
I heard Sheriff Sniff speak at our local Republican Assembly. He said he would issue permits if the citizen had a "good reason".

By contrast Frank Robles said he will issue permits to law abidding citizens. He is an experienced police officer and fiscally responsible.

Gun owners in Riverside County ought to get behind Robles. He believes in the Constitution.

I called and talked with Frank Robles's campaign manager and Frank Robles. He told me he would issue CCW to any Riverside residents that could passed a background check etc.

Based on that conversation, I have donated money and soon my time to his election effort.

Sheriff Sniff is a hack. the guy doesn't even have a campaign website. He's banking on the fact that he's the current (appointed not elected) sheriff and people will blindly vote for the incumbent.

Sorry, I'm a one issue voter with this race. Sheriff Sniff does impress me with his comments regarding CCW. I don't give rats *** how active a shooter he is.

All you can do is vote for politician that comes closest to your views. If they lie etc, the answer is to hound them out of office.

tedw
04-20-2010, 9:06 PM
I have been suffering through some computer problems and did not see this topic until last night. As a long-time resident of Riverside County and Second Amendment activist for more than 22 years, I have chosen to voice my personal opinion herein. My comments on this topic are my own and do not officially represent the National Rifle Association or any of its sub-divisions, programs, or other employees.



Wow! This is great news! It is also a 180 degree change of direction over his stated policy when he ran for Riverside County Sheriff in 1994 (I think that was the year).

Since I've had experience with him in the past, I would have to agree with you.

Yep. That's my point too.

The current Sheriff's (Stan Sniff) policy is working out pretty well for a lot of people who want CCW permits. I hear that quite often from our members and others I come into contact with.

Based upon what I've been told by lawyers, AND what I've personally witnessed; these are accurate statements.

Man. That is spot on!

Again, I'm in agreement!

Great! I can't wait. But until then, we will have to work with the system of laws that we have. Fortunately, our Sheriff in Riverside County is quite fair in regards to his CCW policies. He also lobbies for the protection of Second Amendment and supports NRA's efforts in the State Capitol.

I can't remember the last time we had an active shooter as the Sheriff in this county. But we have one currently.

Paul
P.S. -- Please remember that my comments on this topic are my own and do not officially represent the National Rifle Association or any of its sub-divisions, programs, or other employees.

So what is the NRA policy in a case like this. Its clear that Robles has a better position on gun rights than Sniff. Does the NRA endorse somebody? If not, why not?

It seems to me they ought to support the candidate who is friendlier to gun rights.

tedw
04-20-2010, 9:07 PM
I called and talked with Frank Robles's campaign manager and Frank Robles. He told me he would issue CCW to any Riverside residents that could passed a background check etc.

Based on that conversation, I have donated money and soon my time to his election effort.

Sheriff Sniff is a hack. the guy doesn't even have a campaign website. He's banking on the fact that he's the current (appointed not elected) sheriff and people will blindly vote for the incumbent.

Sorry, I'm a one issue voter with this race. Sheriff Sniff does impress me with his comments regarding CCW. I don't give rats *** how active a shooter he is.

All you can do is vote for politician that comes closest to your views. If they lie etc, the answer is to hound them out of office.

I heard Robles speak at a Tea Party rally the other day. He mentioned the supervisors were supposed to call a special election but did not.

lawaia
04-20-2010, 9:15 PM
I called and talked with Frank Robles's campaign manager and Frank Robles. He told me he would issue CCW to any Riverside residents that could passed a background check etc.

Based on that conversation, I have donated money and soon my time to his election effort.

The following is cut directly from Frank Robles' campaign website.

"I am a strong supporter of The Second Amendment which protects our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I do not believe that only friends in high places should be allowed to have concealed weapon permits. As Sheriff I will support policy that affords all citizens in good standing (and who meet Department criteria) to have concealed weapon permits."

When you hear or read into something that as Sheriff, he will issue permits to those who simply apply and pass a background check, don't forget about the part of his stance that says you have to "meet department criteria." What is the department criteria? Notice that he does not expound on that statement? Every candidate can say that they will issue permits. They all actually do issue permits, but what are the actual requirements to meet? I don't think any of the candidates are speaking out with the full details.

Take this into consideration when deciding on your horse for the race.

I have just completed the application process under Sheriff Sniff, and have to say that I am more than pleased to this point. I am still waiting for approval, but I feel confident because of the feedback from the CCW unit staff.

I think Sheriff Sniff has a good policy on issuing permits, and at this point I am standing behind him for re-election!

SVT-40
04-21-2010, 12:28 AM
I called and talked with Frank Robles's campaign manager and Frank Robles. He told me he would issue CCW to any Riverside residents that could passed a background check etc.

Based on that conversation, I have donated money and soon my time to his election effort.

Sheriff Sniff is a hack. the guy doesn't even have a campaign website. He's banking on the fact that he's the current (appointed not elected) sheriff and people will blindly vote for the incumbent.

Sorry, I'm a one issue voter with this race. Sheriff Sniff does impress me with his comments regarding CCW. I don't give rats *** how active a shooter he is.

All you can do is vote for politician that comes closest to your views. If they lie etc, the answer is to hound them out of office.

Please tell us why you believe Sheriff Sniff is, as you say a "hack".

Just because Sniff does not have a web site does not mean anything.

Have you applied for a CCW permit in Riverside county?

Any Sheriff must obey the law and his own departments rules and policies. The Sheriff can have an impact on these rules and policies. But he cannot wholesale just throw out a well researched policy. Robles will still be bound by department policy just like the current Sheriff.

I know Sheriff Sniff. He is a good cop, and a very ethical person and not your typical political animal.

wolff
04-21-2010, 4:14 AM
So, If I live in a city that has a CLEO, must I apply for a CCW permit through him, or can I go to the County CLEO for the CCW application?

What's the rule?

tedw
04-21-2010, 8:49 AM
Please tell us why you believe Sheriff Sniff is, as you say a "hack".

Just because Sniff does not have a web site does not mean anything.

Have you applied for a CCW permit in Riverside county?

Any Sheriff must obey the law and his own departments rules and policies. The Sheriff can have an impact on these rules and policies. But he cannot wholesale just throw out a well researched policy. Robles will still be bound by department policy just like the current Sheriff.

I know Sheriff Sniff. He is a good cop, and a very ethical person and not your typical political animal.

The Sheriff has the authority to determine what "good cause" is to issue a permit.

Is it a "good cause" because you are a woman and travel roads in Riverside County at night? Is it good cause because you live in a crime ridden county?
I noticed two armed bank robberies lately in southwest Riverside County, and one in which the armed guard was shot. I think living in Riverside County is good cause to give an honest citizen a ccw. How about the releasing of violent offenders from jail early? Does that constitute good cause to give law abiding citizens a permit?

There is no doubt that the Sheriff can liberalize the policy. And he should do so as it is a Constitutional right anyway.

Sniff has an elitist attitude towards CCW's.

Vote yourself free

lawaia
04-21-2010, 9:01 AM
The Sheriff has the authority to determine what "good cause" is to issue a permit.

Is it a "good cause" because you are a woman and travel roads in Riverside County at night? Is it good cause because you live in a crime ridden county?
I noticed two armed bank robberies lately in southwest Riverside County, and one in which the armed guard was shot. I think living in Riverside County is good cause to give an honest citizen a ccw. How about the releasing of violent offenders from jail early? Does that constitute good cause to give law abiding citizens a permit?

There is no doubt that the Sheriff can liberalize the policy. And he should do so as it is a Constitutional right anyway.

Sniff has an elitist attitude towards CCW's.

Vote yourself free

Are you serious? Have you even tried to apply? I'd bet not.

I am in the process now (waiting for approval), and have seen absolutely zero evidence of an "elitist attitude" from Sniff's staff.

There seem to be quite a number of people spouting off about how impossible it is to get a permit, but not many (if any) of them have even attempted to apply.

Try applying and you may be pleasantly suprised!:)

Billy Jack
04-21-2010, 9:45 AM
I am posting about this again as I feel it important. I agree with Iawaia, Sheriff Sniff is not an elitist and he is fair. My team members have assisted numerous applicants to his department and not a one has been denied. He has to follow the law and he is not going to place them under your wiper blades at the mall.

Draft your Good Cause and provide a reason why you need a CCW. You will be treated fairly by CCW staff. Be honest and upfront and do not mention, God, 2nd Amendment and other weird things I have seen in GC statements. No one, repeat, no one, writer included has a 'right' to a CCW under current law. Get over it!

Billy Jack



www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

davbog44
04-21-2010, 10:09 AM
I am in a similar situation as lawaia. My application is in process right now, and my best guess at the moment is I will have an answer in the next couple of weeks.

I had previously heard, and read on gun boards, etc, that Riverside County was a tough place to get a CCW. Then I heard that things might be changing, and decided in early March to take the plunge.

Being that I am just a regular Joe, with no special connections, and regular Joe circumstances and GC, I feel that the answer I get will be a pretty good barometer of where the RCOSD is at currently with CCW.

FWIW, and at least in my experience so far, the CCW staff was courteous, professional and supportive. There was not even a hint of elitism nor was there an attitude.

As to whom to support in the Sheriff's race in June, we have a little time. There are a few of us around, here and next door at CalCCW, who have applications pending right now, and I think the results of those will offer a better guide than what gets said on the campaign trail.

SVT-40
04-21-2010, 5:46 PM
The Sheriff has the authority to determine what "good cause" is to issue a permit.

Is it a "good cause" because you are a woman and travel roads in Riverside County at night? Is it good cause because you live in a crime ridden county?
I noticed two armed bank robberies lately in southwest Riverside County, and one in which the armed guard was shot. I think living in Riverside County is good cause to give an honest citizen a ccw. How about the releasing of violent offenders from jail early? Does that constitute good cause to give law abiding citizens a permit?

There is no doubt that the Sheriff can liberalize the policy. And he should do so as it is a Constitutional right anyway.

Sniff has an elitist attitude towards CCW's.

Vote yourself free

Lots of name calling. But no substance.

Tedw, have you applied for a CCW permit in Riverside County? I bet not...

Please tell us exactly how Sheriff Sniff has A "elitist attitude towards CCW's".

Or do you mean he follows the law.

You may think the Sheriff can just snap his fingers and make that large a change in policy. But you are just plain ignorant as to exactly what goes into writing and changing policies such as this.

tedw
04-21-2010, 9:56 PM
Lots of name calling. But no substance.

Tedw, have you applied for a CCW permit in Riverside County? I bet not...

Please tell us exactly how Sheriff Sniff has A "elitist attitude towards CCW's".

Or do you mean he follows the law.

You may think the Sheriff can just snap his fingers and make that large a change in policy. But you are just plain ignorant as to exactly what goes into writing and changing policies such as this.

"Sniff has said he is very cautious about whom he issues permits to. Robles has said he would expand the availability of permits."

Every law abiding citizen should have the right to a concealed weapon permit.
To think otherwise is an elitist attitude.

Its very clear the policy can be liberalized. It is in many rural counties.


http://www.pe.com/localnews/rivcounty/stories/PE_News_Local_S_concealed04.3e6ce76.html

Riverside currently has issued 500 permits according to the article. What more do you need to know? How many millions are in riverside county.

Gray Peterson
04-21-2010, 10:14 PM
1. California State law requires Sheriffs and police chiefs to issue CCWs in CA only for "good cause". No law enforcement agency head can waive that requirement legally in this State.

2. The Constitution requires protection of Second Amendment rights, not CCWs - those two issues are separate and distinct.

3. The current Sheriff has liberalized what constitutes "good cause" within his jurisdiction since taking office in 2007, and that is common knowledge within Riverside County's shooting community and the NRA. CCWs are much easier to obtain from the Sheriff, but still require "good cause" for issuance pursuant to the State Penal Code.

That is total crap. The issue isn't about "CCW". People keep confusing these terms: CCW, concealed carry, carry, and PC12050 license. People keep using these interchangeably as of to bolster their argument. Let's keep this simple: The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms in case of confrontation with other persons. This is spelled out in Heller citing Justice Ginsburg in United States v. Muscellero and cited several state supreme court cases basically stating the same thing.

You cannot effectively bear arms in California without a license issued under PC12050 because of PC626.9 and PC12031. The idea that Sheriffs who are issuing to those for personal protection to allow them to "bear arms" are somehow violating "the law" is ridiculous. California State Law answers to the 14th amendment of the US constitution. Supremacy clause. To argue otherwise is to argue that sheriffs should be mindless automatons if the Legislature passes a state law which is clearly unconstitutional.

tedw
04-22-2010, 9:30 AM
That is total crap. The issue isn't about "CCW". People keep confusing these terms: CCW, concealed carry, carry, and PC12050 license. People keep using these interchangeably as of to bolster their argument. Let's keep this simple: The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms in case of confrontation with other persons. This is spelled out in Heller citing Justice Ginsburg in United States v. Muscellero and cited several state supreme court cases basically stating the same thing.

You cannot effectively bear arms in California without a license issued under PC12050 because of PC626.9 and PC12031. The idea that Sheriffs who are issuing to those for personal protection to allow them to "bear arms" are somehow violating "the law" is ridiculous. California State Law answers to the 14th amendment of the US constitution. Supremacy clause. To argue otherwise is to argue that sheriffs should be mindless automatons if the Legislature passes a state law which is clearly unconstitutional.

Thank you.

Its very odd to me that people who are for second amendment rights would not be supportive of a candidate who wants to liberalize the CCW process.


Odd indeed.

GuyW
04-22-2010, 10:21 AM
Please tell us exactly how Sheriff Sniff has A "elitist attitude towards CCW's".


For $64,000, I'll take a crack at that:

Instead of his current nebulous, ambiguous, hide-the-ball public statements, how about official public responses like,

"We have a formal CCW application process that conforms with state laws, but if you are a law-abiding resident of Riverside County you have nothing to fear and nothing to lose by applying for a CCW"

The ONLY purpose of nebulous statements, is to dissuade applicants, and probably to cover an unfair process.....OTHERWISE, WHY MAKE THE AMBIGUOUS STATEMENTS??

Yep, the BS meter is pegged at RSO...

[edited in: this is not to suggest that I think that plain statements such as "I issue for personal defense" are somehow illegal....]
.

SVT-40
04-22-2010, 10:41 PM
Tedw. You still did not answer the question . Have you applied for a CCW permit in Riverside county?

I'll bet not.

Did you read the entire article in the link you posted. Here is the real relevant information from the article.

" "We take it very seriously, because every time we do issue a permit it is a liability issue for the county," Undersheriff Valerie Hill told the supervisors.

Despite that, the department turns down very few applications. In 2009, it granted 95 requests and denied just two, according to spokeswoman Melissa Nieburger.


So two whole denials....in 2009. WOW that sure is a huge number of denials.

It sounds like just about everyone who applies get a CCW.


Post all the Opinions you want. But the facts speak for themselves.

two denials out of ninety seven applications.........You can't ask for a better approval rate!!!

Instead of whining and complaining because, "The evil Sheriff will not issue me a CCW". Why don't you actually go through the process!!!

LOW2000
04-22-2010, 10:58 PM
You know, something that would help so many of us are examples of good cause statements that work.

Many people may be qualified for a CCW under good cause, and may not even know it because they have never seen proper examples of good cause statements that work.

I have a C&R, frequently travel with firearms, have as a result of my profession, been involved with people attempting insurance fraud which I have helped investigate and deny their claims, I frequently travel late at night in a vehicle with no windows or doors, I frequently hike and camp alone and away from a timely response from local law enforcement.

Some or all of those reasons may or may not qualify me, but i am not apt to throw good money away if someone can tell me (obviously nothing is a certainty) if my good cause statements are in line with the RSO CCW issuance policy. If they are, I would be filling out my application immediately.

GuyW
04-22-2010, 11:07 PM
" "We take it very seriously, because every time we do issue a permit it is a liability issue for the county," Undersheriff Valerie Hill told the supervisors.



She's a liar - there is NO liablility for issuing CCWs.

Just another fact in the chain of facts that support the concept that the Riverside process is less than honest and transparent....



But the facts speak for themselves.


.

tedw
04-22-2010, 11:23 PM
Tedw. You still did not answer the question . Have you applied for a CCW permit in Riverside county?

I'll bet not.

Did you read the entire article in the link you posted. Here is the real relevant information form the article.

" "We take it very seriously, because every time we do issue a permit it is a liability issue for the county," Undersheriff Valerie Hill told the supervisors.

Despite that, the department turns down very few applications. In 2009, it granted 95 requests and denied just two, according to spokeswoman Melissa Nieburger.


So two whole denials....in 2009. WOW that sure is a huge number of denials.

It sounds like just about everyone who applies get a CCW.


Post all the Opinions you want. But the facts speak for themselves.

two denials out of ninety seven applications.........You can't ask for a better approval rate!!!

Instead of whining and complaining because, "The evil Sheriff will not issue me a CCW". Why don't you actually go through the process!!!

No, I haven't but its irrelevant to the issue.

I would suggest there are so few applications because peopel "think" they will be denied. After all, for many years it was the policy of the Riverside Sheriff not to issue concealed weapons permits to civilians.

I know because I took my ex-wife down to get one in 1981 (she drove the country roads at night) and was told by the deputy at the desk "We dont give those to civilians".

When I pointed out what the Constitution said I was told "that means the national guard"

Anyway, I'm not complaining. I'm just saying the better candidate for CCW is Frank Robles.

He also has more law enforcement experience and is more conservative fiscally.

Gray Peterson
04-22-2010, 11:53 PM
No, I haven't but its irrelevant to the issue.

I would suggest there are so few applications because peopel "think" they will be denied. After all, for many years it was the policy of the Riverside Sheriff not to issue concealed weapons permits to civilians.

I know because I took my ex-wife down to get one in 1981 (she drove the country roads at night) and was told by the deputy at the desk "We dont give those to civilians".

When I pointed out what the Constitution said I was told "that means the national guard"

Anyway, I'm not complaining. I'm just saying the better candidate for CCW is Frank Robles.

He also has more law enforcement experience and is more conservative fiscally.

5 Years before, Salute v. Pitchess was in the California Court of Appeals, requiring them to individually consider each application.

lawaia
04-23-2010, 8:53 AM
No, I haven't but its irrelevant to the issue.

I would suggest there are so few applications because peopel "think" they will be denied. After all, for many years it was the policy of the Riverside Sheriff not to issue concealed weapons permits to civilians.

I know because I took my ex-wife down to get one in 1981 (she drove the country roads at night) and was told by the deputy at the desk "We dont give those to civilians".

When I pointed out what the Constitution said I was told "that means the national guard"

Anyway, I'm not complaining. I'm just saying the better candidate for CCW is Frank Robles.

He also has more law enforcement experience and is more conservative fiscally.

Whether or not you have applied is relevant to the issue. You are making statements about a process and CCW staff that you are entirely unfamiliar with. Your experience in 1981 is completely irrelevant to the application process today. That was 29 years ago!

I believe there are so few applicants due to fear of being denied. This is why more people need to have faith in getting a CCW, and apply! There are people that are offering to give FREE help to those that are willing to apply. So come on people, get moving on this!:) Quit complaining and take action!

lawaia
04-23-2010, 8:58 AM
You know, something that would help so many of us are examples of good cause statements that work.

Many people may be qualified for a CCW under good cause, and may not even know it because they have never seen proper examples of good cause statements that work.

I have a C&R, frequently travel with firearms, have as a result of my profession, been involved with people attempting insurance fraud which I have helped investigate and deny their claims, I frequently travel late at night in a vehicle with no windows or doors, I frequently hike and camp alone and away from a timely response from local law enforcement.

Some or all of those reasons may or may not qualify me, but i am not apt to throw good money away if someone can tell me (obviously nothing is a certainty) if my good cause statements are in line with the RSO CCW issuance policy. If they are, I would be filling out my application immediately.

Sounds like you have already given thought to a reasonable Good Cause statement. Type it up and send it to Billy Jack for review. You can also send it to CCWInstructor over at calccw.com for his review. These guys are great, and very willing to help with review and fine-tuning of your GC statement. Best of all, their help is FREE!

I think you are on your way to a CCW permit!:)

SVT-40
04-23-2010, 3:15 PM
No, I haven't but its irrelevant to the issue.

I would suggest there are so few applications because peopel "think" they will be denied. After all, for many years it was the policy of the Riverside Sheriff not to issue concealed weapons permits to civilians.

I know because I took my ex-wife down to get one in 1981 (she drove the country roads at night) and was told by the deputy at the desk "We dont give those to civilians".

When I pointed out what the Constitution said I was told "that means the national guard"

Anyway, I'm not complaining. I'm just saying the better candidate for CCW is Frank Robles.

He also has more law enforcement experience and is more conservative fiscally.

Regarding the statement you made above, which I highlighted in bold.

This has nothing to do with Sheriff Sniff.

THE FACTS ARE in 2009 there were 97 applicants for CCW. Out of those applicants only TWO were denied.

This WAS under HIS administration.

What happened before Sniff was appointed Sheriff is irrelevant.

So facts speak louder than opinions. And the facts are under Sheriff Sniff in 2009 97% of applicants received their CCW permits.

Think about that figure ..........97 %

Isn't that what this thread is all about??

So don't whine that Sniff makes it hard to get a CCW permit when the facts clearly point the other way.

Gray Peterson
04-23-2010, 4:55 PM
THE FACTS ARE in 2009 there were 97 applicants for CCW. Out of those applicants only TWO were denied.


Why were they denied?

SVT-40
04-23-2010, 5:40 PM
Who knows it would not be public information.

lawaia
04-23-2010, 5:53 PM
Why were they denied?

Maybe there was something in their background that was discovered. Maybe they lied on their application. Maybe something like a restraining order prevented them from being eligible. What difference does it make? You're passing over the big picture of the beautiful beach to focus on a few grains of sand.

He said that 97% of applicants were approved. I think that's pretty darned good odds! We don't know that the few were denied for legitimate reasons or not, and we will never know unless one of them posts on here why they were denied.

The only way we can test the current standard is to apply. I have. Have you?:)

Gray Peterson
04-23-2010, 6:02 PM
Who knows it would not be public information.

Why would it not be public information?

LOW2000
04-23-2010, 8:48 PM
This is from the Riverside CCW application and i'm guessing where most people stop before feeling like they are essentially throwing away $200 down a rabbit hole:

ADDITIONAL ITEMS REQUIRED IF APPLYING STRICTLY
FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION.
Current police reports and I or other documentation supporting need, such as restraining orders or
other verifiable written statements.
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"."

383green
04-23-2010, 9:10 PM
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"."


This is precisely why I have not tried applying, and why I'm not at all encouraged by Sniff's noncommittal statements about issuance.

Shall I believe the people who post here "have you even tried applying?", or shall I believe RSO's published issuance guidelines? This is not meant to be a sarcastic question.

The facts as I see them and as I recall them:

1) A non-binding resolution was passed asking RSO to treat "personal protection" as a valid good cause.

2) In response to this, RSO stated that their current issuance policy was sufficient. Also, a statement was made falsely claiming that the RSO would face potential liability for issuance under "personal protection" good cause.

3) The official statistics show a very low denial rate... but then the application itself indicates that "personal protection" will not be considered adequate good cause without documented death threats or harassment, and this statistic probably doesn't include anybody who never applied in the first place because they didn't fit in the published criteria, or people who were turned away at the front desk or at any other point before their application process reached a point where it was counted in that statistic.

So, in all seriousness, should I believe RSO's published guidelines (and thus not bother applying), or should I believe the "did you even try applying" folks? I'm sure I could craft a good cause statement that's a lot better than "me afraid of zombies", but without having any documented history of death threats or harassment against me, is there any point in applying?

lawaia
04-23-2010, 9:47 PM
You are correct. Writing "I want a CCW permit for personal protection" as your GC will not get you a permit. But you have to realize that anyone that applies ultimately wants the permit purely for personal protection. You simply need to be able to articulate why you feel you need the protection.

I will say this again: THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO GREAT GUYS THAT ARE WILLING TO REVIEW YOUR GC FOR FREE! THEY WILL GIVE YOU A GOOD INDICATOR IF YOUR GC WILL PASS MUSTER, AND HELP YOU REVISE IT IF NECESSARY! HOW MUCH LOUDER DO I NEED TO YELL THIS?! :confused:

For God's sake, if you aren't even willing to take the first minute step toward apply for a permit, quit complaining! At least make a LITTLE effort, and maybe people will take you seriously!

Don't believe everything you read at face value, even if it is on a Gov website. Think of the OLL movement. There was a time when most people believed no one in CA would ever be able to own an AR type rifle again. Look at us now!:)

End rant.

383green
04-23-2010, 10:02 PM
Don't believe everything you read at face value, even if it is on a Gov website.

I don't think I've seen that particular statement made before in this context. So in other words, I should believe you, and I should not be dissuaded from applying despite the RSO's published policy stating that I don't qualify. Well, that gives me something to work with and something to think about.

lawaia
04-23-2010, 10:12 PM
I don't think I've seen that particular statement made before in this context. So in other words, I should believe you, and I should not be dissuaded from applying despite the RSO's published policy stating that I don't qualify. Well, that gives me something to work with and something to think about.

I'm telling you that you should not be completely dissuaded by the statement on the RCSO website. It may sound worse than it really is. Only you can decide if you feel it is worth a small risk to at least try.

I think you missed the most important part of my post. You know, the part in all caps where I am screaming at the top of my lungs. Read it again, and decide if you want to take action. I have given you tips about the first step to take. Remember, the only cost is a little of your time and effort.

Now, I am out of here to go on vacation. Will be back in a week. Already looking forward to reading on Calguns when I get back! :)

383green
04-23-2010, 10:20 PM
I think you missed the most important part of my post. You know, the part in all caps where I am screaming at the top of my lungs.

Oh, I didn't miss that part. It just didn't seem relevant under the assumption that my lack of a documented history of being murdered would be a show-stopper. ;)

If the real issuance policy isn't quite as strict as the published one, then it's worth my time to think about what sort of good cause I can articulate, and then trot it by the man in the hat if I think I've come up with something reasonable.

Gray Peterson
04-23-2010, 10:42 PM
This is from the Riverside CCW application and i'm guessing where most people stop before feeling like they are essentially throwing away $200 down a rabbit hole:

ADDITIONAL ITEMS REQUIRED IF APPLYING STRICTLY
FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION.
Current police reports and I or other documentation supporting need, such as restraining orders or
other verifiable written statements.
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"."

They shouldn't spend more than $20 for a permit application. It's no more than 20 percent of the state mandated fees.

SVT-40
04-23-2010, 10:59 PM
Why would it not be public information?

Because ALL the information in your application and the resulting "background investigation" are private.

Think about it....Would you apply if ALL your information including the reason for approval or denial was public???

GuyW
04-24-2010, 10:56 AM
Because ALL the information in your application and the resulting "background investigation" are private.


Wow - those must be phantom applications that Team Billy Jack and others obtain via PRARs and discovery orders....

.

LOW2000
04-24-2010, 6:53 PM
They shouldn't spend more than $20 for a permit application. It's no more than 20 percent of the state mandated fees.

Am I reading this incorrectly then?? :confused:


INITIAL APPLICATION FEES REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF
INTERVIEW.
You must either bring a MONEY ORDER OR CASmER'S CHECK made payable to
Riverside County Sheriff for $100.00. This cost covers administrative fees. Riverside County
Sheriff Department employees are exempt from this fee.
Depending on your CLASSIFICATION, you (everyone) must bring a second MONEY
ORDER OR CASHIER'S CHECK made payable to Riverside County Sheriff. This fees covers
State costs. The classification and fees are as follows:
Standard (Two-year) license $100.00
Judicial (Three-year) license $122.00
Reserve Deputy I Correctional Deputy (Four-year) $144.00
Fees are subject to change as allowed by law. They are processing fees, and as such, are NOT
REFUNDABLE regardless of the decision made on the application.

GuyW
04-24-2010, 6:56 PM
Am I reading this incorrectly then?? :confused:



No, this Sheriff who is purportedly a paragon of CCW issuance....violates the law....

...big f$%%^n' surprise...
.

tedw
04-24-2010, 7:36 PM
You are correct. Writing "I want a CCW permit for personal protection" as your GC will not get you a permit. But you have to realize that anyone that applies ultimately wants the permit purely for personal protection. You simply need to be able to articulate why you feel you need the protection.

I will say this again: THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO GREAT GUYS THAT ARE WILLING TO REVIEW YOUR GC FOR FREE! THEY WILL GIVE YOU A GOOD INDICATOR IF YOUR GC WILL PASS MUSTER, AND HELP YOU REVISE IT IF NECESSARY! HOW MUCH LOUDER DO I NEED TO YELL THIS?! :confused:

For God's sake, if you aren't even willing to take the first minute step toward apply for a permit, quit complaining! At least make a LITTLE effort, and maybe people will take you seriously!

Don't believe everything you read at face value, even if it is on a Gov website. Think of the OLL movement. There was a time when most people believed no one in CA would ever be able to own an AR type rifle again. Look at us now!:)

End rant.

I just returned from a talk given at Calvary Chapel in Murrieta by Frank Robles.

He reiterated that " Personal Protection" will be a good enough reason to issue a permit when he is Sheriff.

In addtion he believes there is "fat" at the upper levels of the Department and that 4 assistant Sheriffs positions can be eliminated saving quit a bit for the taxpayer. In short, he is more fiscally responsible.

I really don't understand why any second amendment advocate would not want an equally or more qualified Sheriff who will liberalize the CCW policy.

You have the opportunity to vote yourself freer.

BatBoy2 75
04-24-2010, 11:03 PM
Please tell us why you believe Sheriff Sniff is, as you say a "hack".

Just because Sniff does not have a web site does not mean anything.

Have you applied for a CCW permit in Riverside county?

Any Sheriff must obey the law and his own departments rules and policies. The Sheriff can have an impact on these rules and policies. But he cannot wholesale just throw out a well researched policy. Robles will still be bound by department policy just like the current Sheriff.

I know Sheriff Sniff. He is a good cop, and a very ethical person and not your typical political animal.


It matters that he doesn't have one. He has never stood for election as a sheriff. He was appointed to his position. Nothing wrong with that, but why no campaign site? You know, the easiest and fastest way to communicate with citizens. We live in an electronic age; it's the F'n norm to have website. You know, a place to solicit donations, sign up volunteers, and state your views.

In my opinion, he's banking on the fact he is the incumbent. That qualifies as a HACK move. This is what weasel political types do. Hacks hide their views, HACK politicians play it safe and bank on the fact he'll be listed as the current serving Sheriff, despite never being elected to that position.

I tried to contact both Robles and Sniff to ask them about their views on a couple of issues that matter to me.

I couldn't get ahold of Sniff, his campaign manager (if he has one), or any website that at least lists what he stands for.

Robles campaign manager called me back in 24 hrs and Robles called me back 2 hours after talking with his campaign manger. I don't know these guys, but they called me back to answer my questions. That's, in my opinion, the type of reaction I want from my representatives.

Do I expect that my representative to call me personally every time I or anyone else calls? No, but having worked for a couple of campaigns in my time, it's easy to have a staffer call a voter back to answer some easy questions.

Sorry, I don't run in the same social networks that you do. Maybe I'd have a different opinion. I doubt it, based on they way he's running his campaign, but maybe. Then again, I shouldn't have to know the RIGHT people to know what a candidate stands for.

Also, stop with your BS with "Have you applied for a CCW". It does matter a hill of beans. I'm not going to roll the dice and spend $100.00 for the chance that Sheriff Sniff thinks I have could cause.

Robles will be bound just like the Sheriff to the North of Riverside in San Bernardino that is known for issuing CCW. Last time I checked, San Bernardino is an easier county to obtain a CCW.

SVT-40
04-25-2010, 12:20 PM
Last time I checked, San Bernardino is an easier county to obtain a CCW.

Really? What is the percentage of approvals to denials in San Bernardino County? I bet you have no clue. So please tell us the figures. Since, according to you you have "checked".



In addition your criticism about Sniff not having a web site ect.... You know he is just a bit busy actually working as the Sheriff. His opponent has the luxury to be a full time candidate.

Vote as you will.

But to say Sheriff Sniff has not approved CCW's in significant numbers, and percentages is just flat in error.

BatBoy2 75
04-25-2010, 5:49 PM
Really? What is the percentage of approvals to denials in San Bernardino County? I bet you have no clue. So please tell us the figures. Since, according to you you have "checked".



In addition your criticism about Sniff not having a web site ect.... You know he is just a bit busy actually working as the Sheriff. His opponent has the luxury to be a full time candidate.

Vote as you will.

But to say Sheriff Sniff has not approved CCW's in significant numbers, and percentages is just flat in error.

LOL, at your "he doesn't have time!"

He's a F'n public servant and like any public servant in an electable position, he has to stand for election. This means he should be able to communicate what he stands for.

As far as I can see he's hasn't communicated anything to the residents of Riverside County. To any fair observer, he's trying coast his way to re-election. If he wants to be ELECTED to his position, he's going to have to do more than say "Hey I'm the current Sheriff" Sorry, to burst your bubble, but that's what Americans expect.

If he's your bud, vote for him. He's not my buddy and I have to go with what he communicates to the residents of Riverside. Which at this time is zero.

He's free not to say a damn thing and try to coast through the election. I'm free to not vote for him. Some of us have set the bar a bit higher for public servants.

SVT-40
04-25-2010, 11:15 PM
LOL, at your "he doesn't have time!"

He's a F'n public servant and like any public servant in an electable position, he has to stand for election. This means he should be able to communicate what he stands for.

As far as I can see he's hasn't communicated anything to the residents of Riverside County. To any fair observer, he's trying coast his way to re-election. If he wants to be ELECTED to his position, he's going to have to do more than say "Hey I'm the current Sheriff" Sorry, to burst your bubble, but that's what Americans expect.

If he's your bud, vote for him. He's not my buddy and I have to go with what he communicates to the residents of Riverside. Which at this time is zero.

He's free not to say a damn thing and try to coast through the election. I'm free to not vote for him. Some of us have set the bar a bit higher for public servants.

Like I said vote as you will...

What about that info you posted about it it being "easier" to obtain CCW's in San Bernardino county...

Or are you still checking?

How about some facts???

IWc
04-25-2010, 11:40 PM
LOL, at your "he doesn't have time!"

He's a F'n public servant and like any public servant in an electable position, he has to stand for election. This means he should be able to communicate what he stands for.

As far as I can see he's hasn't communicated anything to the residents of Riverside County. To any fair observer, he's trying coast his way to re-election. If he wants to be ELECTED to his position, he's going to have to do more than say "Hey I'm the current Sheriff" Sorry, to burst your bubble, but that's what Americans expect.

If he's your bud, vote for him. He's not my buddy and I have to go with what he communicates to the residents of Riverside. Which at this time is zero.

He's free not to say a damn thing and try to coast through the election. I'm free to not vote for him. Some of us have set the bar a bit higher for public servants.

:hammer:Please remind that Sheriff Sniff wasn't ELECTED and his posted signs today as "RE-ELECT":confused: Now you know who's a liar.:reddevil:

RSO PIO
04-26-2010, 11:16 AM
Please go to our web site and see our organization chart and see first hand how many positions we have. As oppose of what you have been told.

http://www.riversidesheriff.org/department/org.pdf


I just returned from a talk given at Calvary Chapel in Murrieta by Frank Robles.

He reiterated that " Personal Protection" will be a good enough reason to issue a permit when he is Sheriff.

In addtion he believes there is "fat" at the upper levels of the Department and that 4 assistant Sheriffs positions can be eliminated saving quit a bit for the taxpayer. In short, he is more fiscally responsible.

I really don't understand why any second amendment advocate would not want an equally or more qualified Sheriff who will liberalize the CCW policy.

You have the opportunity to vote yourself freer.

383green
04-26-2010, 11:36 AM
Please go to our web site and see our organization chart and see first hand how many positions we have. As oppose of what you have been told.

Thank you for sharing your org chart with us.

tedw
04-26-2010, 11:36 AM
Please go to our web site and see our organization chart and see first hand how many positions we have. As oppose of what you have been told.

http://www.riversidesheriff.org/department/org.pdf

Ok. I checked it out. I was told (if I remember correctly) that there are 4 undersheriff positions. That is what I see although one is listed as vacant. Robles is saying he will eliminate those positions and that it is "fat" at the top of the department.

Also, am I correct in assuming you are the public information officer for the department? RSO PIO?

If so, isn't the fact the Sheriff is saying "Re-elect Sniff" misleading to the voters?

In my book, it calls into question his integrity. Why doesn't he issue an apology for those kind of campaign tactics? I havent heard him say there is any thing wrong with it.

383green
04-26-2010, 11:47 AM
Ok. I checked it out. I was told (if I remember correctly) that there are 4 undersheriff positions. That is what I see although one is listed as vacant. Robles is saying he will eliminate those positions and that it is "fat" at the top of the department.


I'm not familiar with the responsibilities of an undersheriff vs. any other position in the organization, so it's hard for me to judge whether those positions are "fat" or not. I'd be interested in seeing comments along the lines of "these positions are unnecessary because of X" and/or "these positions are necessary because of Y" to shed some more light on the subject.

tedw
04-27-2010, 9:06 AM
I'm not familiar with the responsibilities of an undersheriff vs. any other position in the organization, so it's hard for me to judge whether those positions are "fat" or not. I'd be interested in seeing comments along the lines of "these positions are unnecessary because of X" and/or "these positions are necessary because of Y" to shed some more light on the subject.

Go ask him Friday in Riverside


Friday, April 30 from 10:00 A.M. - 11:30 A.M.
Friday Morning Club's guest speaker is
FRANK ROBLES
Candidate for RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF Frank will speak about issues facing the Riverside County Sheriff.


The Riverside County Sheriff also is Riverside's COUNTY CORONER and as "THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR".


Meeting location: Janet Goeske Senior Center, Room D, 5257 Sierra St. (at corner of Streeter), Riverside


Frank's campaign website http://www.robles4sheriff.com/


About Frank Robles

Frank Robles is running for Riverside County Sheriff because he believes his 38-year career in law enforcement and public management makes him the best candidate to ensure the most efficient use of our tax dollars and maintain the highest levels of protection for our neighborhoods.

While Frank retired from the Riverside Sheriff’s Department a year and a half ago, he believes the tough economic climate demands better leadership than the county’s current appointed interim sheriff. His record shows he will provide that leadership.

In December 2007, Chief Deputy Robles retired honorably from the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department with 38 years of law enforcement experience, including six years as chief of police in Desert Hot Springs.

Frank has unprecedented experience and depth of knowledge of every aspect of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department.

As chief deputy, Frank managed the Coroner/Public Administrator division and later ran the East County Field Operations division. His responsibilities there included overseeing the Hemet, Cabazon, Palm Desert, Indio, and Colorado River stations, as well as the search and rescue teams for the San Jacinto Mountains and Coachella Valley.

Frank has traveled the world in order to bring the most effective emergency response and crime prevention tools to Riverside County. In 2006, Chief Deputy Robles attended the International Gang Conference in El Salvador and in 2001 he traveled to New York after the 9/11 attacks to work with local, state and federal responders.

Frank has seen his share of time on the streets patrolling Riverside County. Frank managed field operations as a patrol officer at Riverside Station and fought drug dealers as a special operations officer. Frank was a liaison to the Pechanga Native American Tribe and has worked in the Field Training Officer program, canine unit, and volunteer forces unit, comprised of reserves, mounted posse, underwater dive team, explorers and chaplains.

Frank’s experience in corrections means he understands that letting criminals out of jail early is no way to balance a budget. As a lieutenant, Robles managed floor operations at the Robert Presley Detention Center and was second in command at the Southwest Detention Center.

Frank received his Bachelor of Arts Degree in Public Administration from University of Redlands. He is a graduate of St. Paul High School in Santa Fe Springs. His awards and certificates include:

* All California P.O.S.T. Certificates from Basic through Executive
* Manager of the Year - California State Coroners Association, 1999
* Leadership Award - National Latino Peace Officers Association, 2006

Over the years Frank Robles has been a member of numerous service clubs including, Optimists, Elks, Rotary, and Boys & Girls Club of America. Frank lives in Riverside, is married and has two grown daughters.

RSO PIO
04-27-2010, 9:50 AM
A few of factual items for this thread:

1. Sheriff Sniff is the incumbent and currently runs the department; he has staff, facilities, phones and email mechanisms that answer questions about all manner of things every single day via the official communication tools of a department that answers to 2.1 million citizens. Our dispatchers alone - and apart from our routine business operations - answer 1.5 million calls a year. People call him every single day in large volume. To say that someone cannot get answers to almost anything from the Sheriff or the Department is pretty ridiculous,

2. This Sheriff is most publicly accessible Sheriff we've had in a very long time. Most of us have a difficult time just keeping up.

3. The Sheriff has an official website www.riversidesheriff.org and it's very busy 24/7. Info on what's going on throughout the department and in our communities flows constantly at that site, as the department is very, very busy. I'm sure the sure that the Sheriff will have a specific and seperate campaign website when it is deemed appropriate by him.

4. The last time the Riverside County Sheriff's Department had 4 Assistant Sheriff's was under the FORMER administration in 2007. When Sheriff Sniff took office, he immediately reduced it to 3 and also eliminated the Executive Officer position as he regarded several of these positions as bloat. He also immediately grounded all "personal use" of official government vehicles on his first day in office, something that the previous administration had allowed, including previously for vacationing out of state. That act alone sent shockwaves throughout the department. Later during our budget reductions last summer, he reduced the number of Assistant Sheriff positions down to 1 for a bit, then back up to 2, just to keep deputies on the street. These points are all public record and reported on in the media. Since January 2010, we have operated with 2 Assistant Sheriffs - half of what it was when he took office.

5. The Sheriff Sniff's CCW policy is carried out every day by his staff.


People can say anything, but facts are the facts.


Dennis Gutierrez, RSO PIO

RSO PIO
04-27-2010, 9:52 AM
A few of factual items:

1. Sheriff Sniff is the incumbent and currently runs the department; he has staff, facilities, phones and email mechanisms that answer questions about all manner of things every single day via the official communication tools of a department that answers to 2.1 million citizens. Our dispatchers alone - and apart from our routine business operations - answer 1.5 million calls a year. People call him every single day in large volume. To say that someone cannot get answers to almost anything from the Sheriff or the Department is pretty ridiculous,

2. This Sheriff is most publicly accessible Sheriff we've had in a very long time. Most of us have a difficult time just keeping up.

3. The Sheriff has an official website www.riversidesheriff.org and it's very busy 24/7. Info on what's going on throughout the department and in our communities flows constantly at that site, as the department is very, very busy. I'm sure the sure that the Sheriff will have a specific and seperate campaign website when it is deemed appropriate by him.

4. The last time the Riverside County Sheriff's Department had 4 Assistant Sheriff's was under the FORMER administration in 2007. When Sheriff Sniff took office, he immediately reduced it to 3 and also eliminated the Executive Officer position as he regarded several of these positions as bloat. He also immediately grounded all "personal use" of official government vehicles on his first day in office, something that the previous administration had allowed, including previously for vacationing out of state. That act alone sent shockwaves throughout the department. Later during our budget reductions last summer, he reduced the number of Assistant Sheriff positions down to 1 for a bit, then back up to 2, just to keep deputies on the street. These points are all public record and reported on in the media. Since January 2010, we have operated with 2 Assistant Sheriffs - half of what it was when he took office.

5. The Sheriff Sniff's CCW policy is carried out every day by his staff.


People can say anything, but facts are the facts.


Dennis Gutierrez, RSO PIO



Ok. I checked it out. I was told (if I remember correctly) that there are 4 undersheriff positions. That is what I see although one is listed as vacant. Robles is saying he will eliminate those positions and that it is "fat" at the top of the department.

Also, am I correct in assuming you are the public information officer for the department? RSO PIO?

If so, isn't the fact the Sheriff is saying "Re-elect Sniff" misleading to the voters?

In my book, it calls into question his integrity. Why doesn't he issue an apology for those kind of campaign tactics? I havent heard him say there is any thing wrong with it.

Highoctaneman1
04-27-2010, 4:09 PM
my "good cause" is i'm surrounded by gun hating liberals that are as much of an American as I am.

If they don't take on the responsibility and burden of carry a firearm to protect their family and others from the dangerous criminals in this neighborhood, then by god I will do it for them.

I gave up 4 years of my life and a lot of my best friends to defend this country from its enemies, and i'm sure as hell not going to stop now.

I don't care how much you piss on the constitution and burn my beloved flag. If you are an American I will defend you until the day I die. All I ask is make my job easier! Let me LOC! let me Carry Concealed!

ARRRGGGG! SO FRUSTRATING.

In the mean time I will carry my knife and travel with my eyes open to the dangers around me. And I will weep for the victims of evil that could have been protected by my bullet.

Semper Fidelis
carry on.

Gray Peterson
04-27-2010, 6:21 PM
Mr. Gutierrez,

I wanted to thank you for posting that information, but I have a particular concern about CCW issuance that I have been working with Lt. ********** with, however you may shed a little bit of light on this.

When checking out the policies of the sheriff in regards to the issuance of PC12050 licenses, I noticed that there were a few irregularities and some unusual fees in it.

First is the fact that Sheriff's Office is asking for the entirety of the fees up front. This is preventing people from applying because they are very afraid that they will spend $200 or more for a license only to be denied for "lack of good cause". The provisions of PC12050 to PC12054 states specifically that a sheriff or police chief cannot charge more than 20 percent of the state mandated fee. The intention of the Legislature was to prevent people from "throwing money down a rat hole and never be issued a license".

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=12001-13000&file=12050-12054

Specifically:

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.
The licensing authority may charge an additional fee, not to exceed twenty-five dollars ($25), for processing the application for a license renewal, and shall transmit an additional fee, if any, to the city, city and county, or county treasury. These local fees may be increased at a rate not to exceed any increase in the California Consumer Price Index as compiled and reported by the California Department of Industrial Relations.
(b) In the case of an amended license pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 12050, the licensing authority of any city, city and county, or county may charge a fee, not to exceed ten dollars ($10), except that the fee may be increased at a rate not to exceed any increase in the California Consumer Price Index as compiled and reported by the California Department of Industrial Relations, for processing the amended license and shall transmit the fee to the city, city and county, or county treasury.
(c) If psychological testing on the initial application is required by the licensing authority, the license applicant shall be referred to a licensed psychologist used by the licensing authority for the psychological testing of its own employees. The applicant may
be charged for the actual cost of the testing in an amount not to exceed one hundred fifty dollars ($150). Additional psychological testing of an applicant seeking license renewal shall be required
only if there is compelling evidence to indicate that a test isnecessary. The cost to the applicant for this additional testing shall not exceed one hundred fifty dollars ($150).
(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.



This is a clear command of state statute. RSO may only charge 20 percent of the "additional local fee". The way this is typically delt with in counties which follow the law to the letter is that they charge the 20 percent of the additional local fee. Once your "good cause" is considered cleared, you pay the state fees, and then once you clear the background checks and everything comes back clean, you then pay the remaining 80 percent of the additional local fee once your license is issued.

Lt. ****** has taken a tremendous amount of time finding out information about the reason for all of the up front charges. Perhaps he needs additional manpower or assistance to get this review done as it's been ongoing for more than 2 months. If the point is to show Sheriff Sniff is fair in CCW issuance, he should follow the letter of the law.

Regards,

Gray Peterson

BatBoy2 75
04-27-2010, 8:12 PM
A few of factual items:

1. Sheriff Sniff is the incumbent and currently runs the department; he has staff, facilities, phones and email mechanisms that answer questions about all manner of things every single day via the official communication tools of a department that answers to 2.1 million citizens. Our dispatchers alone - and apart from our routine business operations - answer 1.5 million calls a year. People call him every single day in large volume. To say that someone cannot get answers to almost anything from the Sheriff or the Department is pretty ridiculous,

2. This Sheriff is most publicly accessible Sheriff we've had in a very long time. Most of us have a difficult time just keeping up.

3. The Sheriff has an official website www.riversidesheriff.org and it's very busy 24/7. Info on what's going on throughout the department and in our communities flows constantly at that site, as the department is very, very busy. I'm sure the sure that the Sheriff will have a specific and seperate campaign website when it is deemed appropriate by him.

4. The last time the Riverside County Sheriff's Department had 4 Assistant Sheriff's was under the FORMER administration in 2007. When Sheriff Sniff took office, he immediately reduced it to 3 and also eliminated the Executive Officer position as he regarded several of these positions as bloat. He also immediately grounded all "personal use" of official government vehicles on his first day in office, something that the previous administration had allowed, including previously for vacationing out of state. That act alone sent shockwaves throughout the department. Later during our budget reductions last summer, he reduced the number of Assistant Sheriff positions down to 1 for a bit, then back up to 2, just to keep deputies on the street. These points are all public record and reported on in the media. Since January 2010, we have operated with 2 Assistant Sheriffs - half of what it was when he took office.

5. The Sheriff Sniff's CCW policy is carried out every day by his staff.


People can say anything, but facts are the facts.


Dennis Gutierrez, RSO PIO

Please, do tell? How does a Riverside County resident get information regarding Sheriff Sniffs Campaign and his positions?

Are you suggesting that county employees are working for Sheriff Sniff's campaign during working hours, while being payed with public money, and using county facilities?

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining spokes hole.

Shotgun Man
04-27-2010, 8:28 PM
Is he any relation to Snuffy?

http://www.tegneseriemuseet.dk/emner/debeck2.gif

ETA: Oops. It's Snuffy Smith, not Sniff.

383green
04-27-2010, 8:30 PM
Come on, guys. Let's act our age. Calling somebody a "spokes hole" doesn't reflect well on us. Neither does making fun of somebody's name.

Gray Peterson
04-28-2010, 7:55 PM
Posted this over at the "Banning UOC....a good thing:

I am confronting the Riverside County Sheriffs Office on this very issue. The law basically says that they cannot collect more than 20 percent of the fee up front in terms of additional local fee beyond the state fees. Edward Peruta, in his suit against Sheriff Gore of San Diego County, got his fees refunded in federal court after one of his claims was that they collected the entire fee and denied him. Front-loading fees has been illegal since AB2022 was enacted in 1998.

They should not have the capability of charging you more than $20 before determining your good cause to be sufficient or insufficient. The above scenario you name has been illegal and unlawful for more than a decade, but no one is willing to "cause problems" with a chief or a sheriff where they live, which leaves guys like me who live two states away trying to clean up the mess that the citizens of their own county refuse to fix. I should not HAVE to do the job that the citizens of Riverside County refuse to confront the sheriff over, but I'm doing it anyway to prove a point.

Billy Jack and others say that Sheriff Sniff and Riverside County "does not play games" with applications (I'm paraphrasing not directly quoting). However I question the veracity of this since Riverside County continues to unlawfully front-load fees. Riverside County Sheriff has a responsibility to follow the law, so why was the sheriff violating the law? At least LA County, as odious as their policy is, only requires a payment of $10 or so to do a "good cause" pre-clearance (and will issue a written denial under state law), before they move on to fingerprinting and all the rest of it.

LOW2000
04-28-2010, 10:51 PM
Posted this over at the "Banning UOC....a good thing:

I am confronting the Riverside County Sheriffs Office on this very issue. The law basically says that they cannot collect more than 20 percent of the fee up front in terms of additional local fee beyond the state fees. Edward Peruta, in his suit against Sheriff Gore of San Diego County, got his fees refunded in federal court after one of his claims was that they collected the entire fee and denied him. Front-loading fees has been illegal since AB2022 was enacted in 1998.

They should not have the capability of charging you more than $20 before determining your good cause to be sufficient or insufficient. The above scenario you name has been illegal and unlawful for more than a decade, but no one is willing to "cause problems" with a chief or a sheriff where they live, which leaves guys like me who live two states away trying to clean up the mess that the citizens of their own county refuse to fix. I should not HAVE to do the job that the citizens of Riverside County refuse to confront the sheriff over, but I'm doing it anyway to prove a point.

Billy Jack and others say that Sheriff Sniff and Riverside County "does not play games" with applications (I'm paraphrasing not directly quoting). However I question the veracity of this since Riverside County continues to unlawfully front-load fees. Riverside County Sheriff has a responsibility to follow the law, so why was the sheriff violating the law? At least LA County, as odious as their policy is, only requires a payment of $10 or so to do a "good cause" pre-clearance (and will issue a written denial under state law), before they move on to fingerprinting and all the rest of it.

I'm willing to pay it all up front if that means I am to interpret that since I am paying full fees, that I have already been cleared for good cause.

Wishful thinking right? ;)

WhiteSands
04-29-2010, 12:28 AM
If one should not submit an app with Good Cause as being - self defense.

I guess I don't understand the purpose of a handgun.

Defense of others seems a liability for an issuing dept.

Gray Peterson
04-29-2010, 12:31 AM
I'm willing to pay it all up front if that means I am to interpret that since I am paying full fees, that I have already been cleared for good cause.

Wishful thinking right? ;)

You can file a claim with the county treasury for the stolen money. It's what Edward Peruta did in San Diego, and HE GOT HIS MONEY BACK.

Gray Peterson
05-21-2010, 4:41 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.

hayesman76
05-21-2010, 6:01 PM
:hammer:Please remind that Sheriff Sniff wasn't ELECTED and his posted signs today as "RE-ELECT":confused: Now you know who's a liar.:reddevil:

Wow that never occurred to me. If he was not actually elected for the office he now holds then to state "RE-ELECT ME!" on his campaign signs is extremely misleading, if not downright dishonest.

hayesman76
05-21-2010, 6:08 PM
:hammer:Please remind that Sheriff Sniff wasn't ELECTED and his posted signs today as "RE-ELECT":confused: Now you know who's a liar.:reddevil:

A few of factual items for this thread:
...
2. This Sheriff is most publicly accessible Sheriff we've had in a very long time. Most of us have a difficult time just keeping up.


He's so "publically accessible" that neither he nor his staff found the time to respond to my email last year in support of the issuance of CCW's to law-abiding citizens in Riverside County. But that was before his misleading "RE-election" [sic!] campaign began ...

KrunRSO
06-01-2010, 9:41 PM
Frank Robles is no good for Riverside County. Stran Sniff is a squared away leader and he is what is best for the county. Don't let empty promises sway you to vote for Frank Robles. Stan Sniff has done an outstanding job and deserves to be Sheriff four more years.

LOW2000
06-01-2010, 11:28 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.

Thank you for your hard work getting this straightened out Gray (and Gene), I will be getting my letters of good character and application ready for submission as soon as possible.

I would say that this new information may be worthy of its own thread so that people who haven't been following this are aware that they can now apply for an up-front fee of $20.

I will say however, that I do still have concern for my other CCW permits if this fails due to the "Have you ever been denied a permit by this or any other agency" coming back to bite me in the future, lets hope that it turns out to be no cause for concern.

Thanks again.

Gray Peterson
06-02-2010, 12:09 AM
Thank you for your hard work getting this straightened out Gray (and Gene), I will be getting my letters of good character and application ready for submission as soon as possible.

I would say that this new information may be worthy of its own thread so that people who haven't been following this are aware that they can now apply for an up-front fee of $20.

I will say however, that I do still have concern for my other CCW permits if this fails due to the "Have you ever been denied a permit by this or any other agency" coming back to bite me in the future, lets hope that it turns out to be no cause for concern.

Thanks again.

I have never had a situation where another state blinked at a denial of a carry license. I have a Connecticut license, when I renew or have to get a replacement, I will have to report that I was denied by the City and County of Denver and that the issue is currently under federal litigation.

There already is it's own thread. Let me see if I can dig it up.

Ah, here it is:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=303656

Glock22Fan
06-02-2010, 8:21 AM
Thank you for your hard work getting this straightened out Gray (and Gene), I will be getting my letters of good character and application ready for submission as soon as possible.

I would say that this new information may be worthy of its own thread so that people who haven't been following this are aware that they can now apply for an up-front fee of $20.

I will say however, that I do still have concern for my other CCW permits if this fails due to the "Have you ever been denied a permit by this or any other agency" coming back to bite me in the future, lets hope that it turns out to be no cause for concern.

Thanks again.

This keeps cropping up. Yes, it may happen, but if that is the only reason they have denied you, then you will have a good case for fighting it in court. Yes, this might cost money, but you should win. More likely they will look at the reason you were denied and decide if it is one you should be denied under their policy. I certainly would not expect it to be a problem with the Must Issue states, but if I was worried, I would put an explanation in a cover letter with the application (e.g. "Yes, I was denied by Los Angeles County, California, but their policy means that few applicants get isued.")

Billy Jack has several denials within California. His current CCW is not from one of the agencies that denied him and the denials were not an issue.

hoffman259
06-02-2010, 9:07 AM
Does a misdemeanor automatically disqualify an individual. What if it was in another state.

Glock22Fan
06-02-2010, 9:34 AM
Does a misdemeanor automatically disqualify an individual. What if it was in another state.

It would depend on what the misdemeanor was for and how long ago it was and, to be honest, the attitude of person judging the misdemeanor.

Basically, misdemeanors show lack of judgement. What it was for indicates the severity of this (was it just a simple lapse of judgement or was it a deliberate decision to flout the law) and how long ago indicates whether you have lead a blameless life since then and can be considered to be reformed.

So, the answer is no, it isn't automatic, but neither is it easy to forecast.

slobson
06-02-2010, 10:38 AM
I know Sheriff Sniff. He is a good cop, and a very ethical person and not your typical political animal.

putting his name on "re-elect Stan Sniff" signs when he has never been elected in the first place does not sound like the action of an ethical person; rather, sounds EXACTLY like politics as usual

SVT-40
06-02-2010, 11:33 AM
Please, if that's your only complaint life must be good in Riverside county.

Gray Peterson
06-02-2010, 11:42 AM
Everyone: The current document on the website has only been changed in regards to fee charges. None of the other stuff such as the forms have been changed yet, but that is in the works.

If you are going through the application process and the interviewer insists on you filing out the "optional forms", then please PM me who interviewed and I will follow up.

383green
06-02-2010, 11:42 AM
putting his name on "re-elect Stan Sniff" signs when he has never been elected in the first place does not sound like the action of an ethical person; rather, sounds EXACTLY like politics as usual

The phrase "Re-elect Stan Sniff" doesn't necessarily imply to all people that he was elected before in a general election. It's just as easily interpreted to mean "Elect Stan Sniff; he's the incumbent" or "Elect Stan Sniff to continue being the Sheriff", neither of which is an elegant campaign advertisement. If I was voting for an etymologist, then maybe I'd concern myself with such pedantic quibbling. For the office of county Sheriff, the ability to make infallibly obvious three-word statements on campaign signs isn't at the top of my list of desirable qualifications.

In any case, I don't think I've seen a single Stan Sniff sign in my daily travels, but I see Frank Robles signs plastered all over the place. If I was going to determine my votes based on irrelevant superficialities, maybe I'd vote for the guy who doesn't litter the landscape with garish campaign signs? :rolleyes:

Glock22Fan
06-02-2010, 1:23 PM
:iagree: I bet half the people there have never heard of Stan Sniff. Saying re-elect does indicate that he is the incumbent in a very short form, as Mark illustrates.

Being the incumbent is a strong point in his favor, incumbents usually get reelected.

IMHO, to quibble about this minor misuse of re-elect is being pedantic and clutching at straws.

383green
06-02-2010, 1:29 PM
I'd also like to point out that based on what I've heard about Sniff so far (some of which was told to me in confidence, so I won't repeat it here), I get the impression that he's been making positive (though not well-publicized) changes, and that Robles' backers are trying to install him to restore the old "politics as usual" that Sniff appears to have been eliminating.

slobson
06-02-2010, 5:09 PM
The phrase "Re-elect Stan Sniff" doesn't necessarily imply to all people that he was elected before in a general election. It's just as easily interpreted to mean "Elect Stan Sniff; he's the incumbent" or "Elect Stan Sniff to continue being the Sheriff", neither of which is an elegant campaign advertisement. If I was voting for an etymologist, then maybe I'd concern myself with such pedantic quibbling. For the office of county Sheriff, the ability to make infallibly obvious three-word statements on campaign signs isn't at the top of my list of desirable qualifications.

In any case, I don't think I've seen a single Stan Sniff sign in my daily travels, but I see Frank Robles signs plastered all over the place. If I was going to determine my votes based on irrelevant superficialities, maybe I'd vote for the guy who doesn't litter the landscape with garish campaign signs? :rolleyes:

it is through these little "irrelevant superficialities" that freedom in this country has been worn down over the years by dishonest politicians. if you are comfortable voting for someone that is so openly untruthful then go for it.

from dictionary.com, the legal definition of elect

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/re-elect
Main Entry: elect
Function: transitive verb
1 : to select by vote for an office, position, or membership

he was not selected by vote for his office, and misleading voters by urging them to re-elect him does not imply anything otherwise. this=boldfaced lie.

The personal attacks aren't necessary.

383green
06-02-2010, 5:31 PM
Oh, so I'm the one making personal attacks? :rolleyes: I'm not the one telling people to keep their opinions to their own damn selves, or suggesting that some people don't take their rights seriously, or directly calling people names such as "apologist".

I'm going to vote for the candidate who I believe is best suited for the office and who I believe will best support my rights. I have no reason to doubt that you will do the same, though we appear to have different opinions about who that will be.

wildhawker
06-02-2010, 5:35 PM
Let's see if we can simplify this:

NRA (even more, Paul Payne) says Sniff is GTG, A rated.
Gray Peterson says Sniff is reforming RSO CCW policy to reconcile with state laws (one of the few counties to do so anywhere in the state).

Sounds pretty good to my gun-advocate ears.

slobson
06-02-2010, 5:41 PM
I hate to be proverbial but it looks as if we're gonna have to agree to disagree, and I'm fairly certain neither of us will miss any sleep because of it :) if I'm oversensitive about verbiage the please excuse me, it can be a failing of mine to be a bit too literal

383green
06-02-2010, 7:44 PM
I hate to be proverbial but it looks as if we're gonna have to agree to disagree, and I'm fairly certain neither of us will miss any sleep because of it :) if I'm oversensitive about verbiage the please excuse me, it can be a failing of mine to be a bit too literal

As one literal-thinking, anal-retentive guy to another, I hope I didn't cast the stones too hard. ;)

Anyway, I'm voting for Sniff precisely because he seems to me to be the "not politics as usual" candidate. However, I formed that opinion based on non-publicized, behind-the-scenes stuff that I've learned about which changed my opinion of him significantly. If you happen to recall some of my earlier posts about Sniff and RSO CCW policies, I was quite critical of his (and his department's) public statements during/after that whole non-binding resolution thing. I can easily see how somebody who's been conditioned to be very cynical about anything a political candidate says (in other words, any rational, literate person!) could dislike the smell of Sniff based on what has been publicized here on CGN. It wasn't until I saw the various positive statements about his office from people who have personally dealt with it during Sniff's recent reign (not just heard about it through the rumor mill), and I also was made privy to some behind-the-scenes details, that my opinion swung around. I'd love to share what I've learned, but it was told to me in confidence, and this is a very public place here, so it'll just have to come to light later. I've come to believe that this is one of the very rare cases where my usual cynicism isn't warranted, and some of the things that Sniff has been criticized for (including by me) actually make sense and sound reasonable to me once framed in the right context (that context being the stuff which isn't being shouted from rooftops at this time for strategic reasons... and not for any nefarious purpose that I am aware of).

So, vote your conscience based on what you know. And if any well-respected, well-connected person offers to have an off-line conversation with you on this topic, I recommend taking them up on the offer. Things aren't always as they appear on the surface, and politics being the ugly thing that it is, even the (rare?) good guys can't always say everything they're thinking without shooting themselves in both feet... particularly if they aren't the (rare?) type who won't lie out both ends to tell you what they think you want to hear in a non-commital, easily-deniable way.

In closing, I'm not the type to apologize for anybody I think is evil. On the contrary, I'll be first in line to tie the verbal noose. If Sniff wins the election and then later developments make me believe that I've been misled, I won't be at all shy about admitting my mistake.

hoffman259
06-02-2010, 7:45 PM
Frank Robles was on AM590 this morning about 5:45 AM stating that he is pro 2nd Amendment and Pro CCW and anti open carry. He also stated that CCW permits are one of the largest areas that people want. What I am reading here is that he is the opposite of these statements. Who are we supposed to be backing for sheriff?

H Paul Payne
06-02-2010, 7:59 PM
Frank Robles was on AM590 this morning about 5:45 AM stating that he is pro 2nd Amendment and Pro CCW and anti open carry. He also stated that CCW permits are one of the largest areas that people want. What I am reading here is that he is the opposite of these statements. Who are we supposed to be backing for sheriff?
The NRA has endorsed Sheriff Sniff. See http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/State.aspx?y=2010&State=CA

And, as a long-time resident of Riverside County and a pro-Second Amendment activist for more than 22 years, I personally give Sheriff Sniff my endorsement.

Paul

383green
06-02-2010, 8:11 PM
Frank Robles was on AM590 this morning about 5:45 AM stating that he is pro 2nd Amendment and Pro CCW and anti open carry. He also stated that CCW permits are one of the largest areas that people want. What I am reading here is that he is the opposite of these statements. Who are we supposed to be backing for sheriff?

Personally, I am not aware of evidence that Robles is the opposite of those statements (if I've overlooked something, then somebody please pipe up!). My own reason for getting behind Sniff is that he seems to have been making positive changes in areas that I care about so far (including cleaning up messes left behind by previous Sheriffs), while Robles is an unknown quantity to me. I personally plan to vote for Sniff next week based on what I know today, but I don't have any particular reason to dread the possibility of Robles winning at this time. Heck, if Sykes goes the right way, then the whole debate over which candidate is more pro-CCW could be a moot point before long.

Disclaimer: I've had no personal contact with Sniff or his department. Everything I know is second-hand, but at least that's better than Nth-hand rumor mill fodder, I think.

Midnightblue 72
06-02-2010, 9:18 PM
Here is an article in the Calfiornian about the CCW stance on both candidates.

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/swcounty/article_60e5ef03-cb68-5720-b9a7-d0c0a324458d.html

REGION: Candidates duel over concealed weapon policy

One of the first things Frank Robles says he will do if elected sheriff next week is change Riverside County's policy for issuing permits to residents seeking to carry concealed weapons.

"One of the biggest complaints I get from citizens is that, if they are not connected, they cannot get a permit," Robles said in a recent interview.

The Riverside man also takes aim at the existing policy on his campaign website.

"I do not believe that only friends in high places should be allowed to have concealed weapon permits," Robles states on the site. "As sheriff I will support policy that affords all citizens in good standing, and who meet department criteria, to have concealed weapon permits."

Sheriff Stan Sniff sharply disputed the suggestion that the department under his leadership plays favorites.

"That's utterly false," Sniff said in a recent interview at his office. "It has nothing to do with friends of the sheriff or people in high places."

Sniff, 60, of Riverside, is seeking to be elected to a full, four-year term in the office. He was appointed to the post in September 2007 by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to fill a vacancy that opened when former Sheriff Bob Doyle left office for a state post.

Robles, 65, a former chief deputy in the department, is the only candidate making a bid to replace Sniff.

The election is Tuesday.

The Sheriff's Department operates on a $510 million budget and has 4,000 employees, including 2,200 sworn officers. Besides keeping the peace in the county's unincorporated communities, the agency patrols 15 cities, including Temecula, Menifee, Wildomar, Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake. It is California's second-largest county law enforcement agency.

One of the issues the candidates disagree on is how the county's top law enforcement officer should handle permits for toting around loaded, hidden handguns.

Robles said in an interview that the concealed weapon permit policy is the No. 2 issue in the race, after the challenge of balancing the department's budget in the face of falling revenue.

"We really need to start thinking outside the box," Robles said of the permit policy. "We've just been doing the same thing forever in law enforcement."

What the department has been doing is issuing permits to people in dangerous jobs, such as those that entail carrying around large sums of money, and to people whose lives have been threatened, Sniff has said.

Just being afraid is not a good enough reason for getting one.

According to Sheriff's Department literature, vague threats are not enough to warrant the issuance of a concealed weapon permit. Threats must be documented through restraining orders or other official means.

The literature states the "Riverside County sheriff does not issue permits to 'provide a feeling a safety' or to alleviate 'a fear of victimization.'"

A few more than 500 county residents possess the permits.

Last fall, Supervisor Jeff Stone of Temecula tried to make permits more widely available in the wake of Sacramento's proposal to release thousands of state inmates as a cost-saving strategy. Stone argued that people ought to be able to get them if the pending release or other developments frighten them.

The board adopted the nonbinding measure 3-1 in November. But Sniff, who occupies an elected post, largely ignored the measure and said he would not change the department's policy.

Robles said he wouldn't change everything.

People still would have to undergo background checks and demonstrate they can accurately shoot, as they must now, Robles said. But he said people should be able to obtain permits if, out of fear, they are seeking them for personal protection.

"I'm saying that is reason enough to get a permit," Robles said.

As for how he would define personal protection, Robles said he wasn't sure.

While Sniff has no plans to relax the policy, the sheriff said he is flexible in judging whether an applicant has demonstrated "good cause," the legal term for showing that one should be issued a permit.

Sniff said permits are available to people throughout the county of 2.1 million, not just folks who happen to know the sheriff.

"We don't make it a political issue," he said. "It's based on their own merit."

Sniff said it is important to remember a person need not obtain a permit for a concealed weapon to keep one at home or a business.

For information on the policy, see www.riversidesheriff.org/firearms/ccw.asp.

Call staff writer Dave Downey at 951-676-4315, ext. 2623.


Personal note, regardless of what Sheriff Sniff says about how the sheriff issues permits, 500 or so permits with a population of 2.5 million speaks volumes.

The majority of those permits were issued to members of the sheriff's department. Most of the permits were issued to Correctional Deputies who are non sworn jailers, the Corrections people perform the same duties as deputy sheriff's in the jails and are issued CCWs for protection since they are not peace officers under California POST and the penal code.

tedw
06-02-2010, 9:25 PM
Let's see if we can simplify this:

NRA (even more, Paul Payne) says Sniff is GTG, A rated.
Gray Peterson says Sniff is reforming RSO CCW policy to reconcile with state laws (one of the few counties to do so anywhere in the state).

Sounds pretty good to my gun-advocate ears.

The NRA can be wrong, and in this case they are. There is no question that Frank Robles is much friendlier to citizen gun rights than Stan Sniff. Here is a fairly balanced article on the issue. Riverside County residents have the opportunity to expand their liberty in this Sheriff's elections. They are fools if they don't do it.


http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/swcounty/article_60e5ef03-cb68-5720-b9a7-d0c0a324458d.html


One of the first things Frank Robles says he will do if elected sheriff next week is change Riverside County's policy for issuing permits to residents seeking to carry concealed weapons.
"One of the biggest complaints I get from citizens is that, if they are not connected, they cannot get a permit," Robles said in a recent interview.
The Riverside man also takes aim at the existing policy on his campaign website.
"I do not believe that only friends in high places should be allowed to have concealed weapon permits," Robles states on the site. "As sheriff I will support policy that affords all citizens in good standing, and who meet department criteria, to have concealed weapon permits."
Sheriff Stan Sniff sharply disputed the suggestion that the department under his leadership plays favorites.
"That's utterly false," Sniff said in a recent interview at his office. "It has nothing to do with friends of the sheriff or people in high places."
Sniff, 60, of Riverside, is seeking to be elected to a full, four-year term in the office. He was appointed to the post in September 2007 by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to fill a vacancy that opened when former Sheriff Bob Doyle left office for a state post.
Robles, 65, a former chief deputy in the department, is the only candidate making a bid to replace Sniff.
The election is Tuesday.
The Sheriff's Department operates on a $510 million budget and has 4,000 employees, including 2,200 sworn officers. Besides keeping the peace in the county's unincorporated communities, the agency patrols 15 cities, including Temecula, Menifee, Wildomar, Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake. It is California's second-largest county law enforcement agency.
One of the issues the candidates disagree on is how the county's top law enforcement officer should handle permits for toting around loaded, hidden handguns.
Robles said in an interview that the concealed weapon permit policy is the No. 2 issue in the race, after the challenge of balancing the department's budget in the face of falling revenue.
"We really need to start thinking outside the box," Robles said of the permit policy. "We've just been doing the same thing forever in law enforcement."
What the department has been doing is issuing permits to people in dangerous jobs, such as those that entail carrying around large sums of money, and to people whose lives have been threatened, Sniff has said.
Just being afraid is not a good enough reason for getting one.
According to Sheriff's Department literature, vague threats are not enough to warrant the issuance of a concealed weapon permit. Threats must be documented through restraining orders or other official means.
The literature states the "Riverside County sheriff does not issue permits to 'provide a feeling a safety' or to alleviate 'a fear of victimization.'"
A few more than 500 county residents possess the permits.
Last fall, Supervisor Jeff Stone of Temecula tried to make permits more widely available in the wake of Sacramento's proposal to release thousands of state inmates as a cost-saving strategy. Stone argued that people ought to be able to get them if the pending release or other developments frighten them.
The board adopted the nonbinding measure 3-1 in November. But Sniff, who occupies an elected post, largely ignored the measure and said he would not change the department's policy.
Robles said he wouldn't change everything.
People still would have to undergo background checks and demonstrate they can accurately shoot, as they must now, Robles said. But he said people should be able to obtain permits if, out of fear, they are seeking them for personal protection.
"I'm saying that is reason enough to get a permit," Robles said.
As for how he would define personal protection, Robles said he wasn't sure.
While Sniff has no plans to relax the policy, the sheriff said he is flexible in judging whether an applicant has demonstrated "good cause," the legal term for showing that one should be issued a permit.
Sniff said permits are available to people throughout the county of 2.1 million, not just folks who happen to know the sheriff.
"We don't make it a political issue," he said. "It's based on their own merit."
Sniff said it is important to remember a person need not obtain a permit for a concealed weapon to keep one at home or a business.

tedw
06-02-2010, 9:28 PM
Here is an article in the Calfiornian about the CCW stance on both candidates.

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/swcounty/article_60e5ef03-cb68-5720-b9a7-d0c0a324458d.html

REGION: Candidates duel over concealed weapon policy

One of the first things Frank Robles says he will do if elected sheriff next week is change Riverside County's policy for issuing permits to residents seeking to carry concealed weapons.

"One of the biggest complaints I get from citizens is that, if they are not connected, they cannot get a permit," Robles said in a recent interview.

The Riverside man also takes aim at the existing policy on his campaign website.

"I do not believe that only friends in high places should be allowed to have concealed weapon permits," Robles states on the site. "As sheriff I will support policy that affords all citizens in good standing, and who meet department criteria, to have concealed weapon permits."

Sheriff Stan Sniff sharply disputed the suggestion that the department under his leadership plays favorites.

"That's utterly false," Sniff said in a recent interview at his office. "It has nothing to do with friends of the sheriff or people in high places."

Sniff, 60, of Riverside, is seeking to be elected to a full, four-year term in the office. He was appointed to the post in September 2007 by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to fill a vacancy that opened when former Sheriff Bob Doyle left office for a state post.

Robles, 65, a former chief deputy in the department, is the only candidate making a bid to replace Sniff.

The election is Tuesday.

The Sheriff's Department operates on a $510 million budget and has 4,000 employees, including 2,200 sworn officers. Besides keeping the peace in the county's unincorporated communities, the agency patrols 15 cities, including Temecula, Menifee, Wildomar, Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake. It is California's second-largest county law enforcement agency.

One of the issues the candidates disagree on is how the county's top law enforcement officer should handle permits for toting around loaded, hidden handguns.

Robles said in an interview that the concealed weapon permit policy is the No. 2 issue in the race, after the challenge of balancing the department's budget in the face of falling revenue.

"We really need to start thinking outside the box," Robles said of the permit policy. "We've just been doing the same thing forever in law enforcement."

What the department has been doing is issuing permits to people in dangerous jobs, such as those that entail carrying around large sums of money, and to people whose lives have been threatened, Sniff has said.

Just being afraid is not a good enough reason for getting one.

According to Sheriff's Department literature, vague threats are not enough to warrant the issuance of a concealed weapon permit. Threats must be documented through restraining orders or other official means.

The literature states the "Riverside County sheriff does not issue permits to 'provide a feeling a safety' or to alleviate 'a fear of victimization.'"

A few more than 500 county residents possess the permits.

Last fall, Supervisor Jeff Stone of Temecula tried to make permits more widely available in the wake of Sacramento's proposal to release thousands of state inmates as a cost-saving strategy. Stone argued that people ought to be able to get them if the pending release or other developments frighten them.

The board adopted the nonbinding measure 3-1 in November. But Sniff, who occupies an elected post, largely ignored the measure and said he would not change the department's policy.

Robles said he wouldn't change everything.

People still would have to undergo background checks and demonstrate they can accurately shoot, as they must now, Robles said. But he said people should be able to obtain permits if, out of fear, they are seeking them for personal protection.

"I'm saying that is reason enough to get a permit," Robles said.

As for how he would define personal protection, Robles said he wasn't sure.

While Sniff has no plans to relax the policy, the sheriff said he is flexible in judging whether an applicant has demonstrated "good cause," the legal term for showing that one should be issued a permit.

Sniff said permits are available to people throughout the county of 2.1 million, not just folks who happen to know the sheriff.

"We don't make it a political issue," he said. "It's based on their own merit."

Sniff said it is important to remember a person need not obtain a permit for a concealed weapon to keep one at home or a business.

For information on the policy, see www.riversidesheriff.org/firearms/ccw.asp.

Call staff writer Dave Downey at 951-676-4315, ext. 2623.


Personal note, regardless of what Sheriff Sniff says about how the sheriff issues permits, 500 or so permits with a population of 2.5 million speaks volumes.

The majority of those permits were issued to members of the sheriff's department. Most of the permits were issued to Correctional Deputies who are non sworn jailers, the Corrections people perform the same duties as deputy sheriff's in the jails and are issued CCWs for protection since they are not peace officers under California POST and the penal code.

500 permits with a population of 2.5 million residents says it all. Elect Frank Robles.

LOW2000
06-02-2010, 9:35 PM
Everyone: The current document on the website has only been changed in regards to fee charges. None of the other stuff such as the forms have been changed yet, but that is in the works.

If you are going through the application process and the interviewer insists on you filing out the "optional forms", then please PM me who interviewed and I will follow up.

What are the optional forms that you are referring to? Does that include such things as the letters of recommendation, or are there documents presented for completion after you have submitted your application?

wildhawker
06-02-2010, 9:40 PM
Can you offer anything to support your position beyond a news article which provides none?

The NRA can be wrong, and in this case they are. There is no question that Frank Robles is much friendlier to citizen gun rights than Stan Sniff. Here is a fairly balanced article on the issue. Riverside County residents have the opportunity to expand their liberty in this Sheriff's elections. They are fools if they don't do it.

Gray Peterson
06-03-2010, 1:06 AM
What are the optional forms that you are referring to? Does that include such things as the letters of recommendation, or are there documents presented for completion after you have submitted your application?

I believe all of them with the exception of the CalDOJ form, however I am still waiting for clarifications from RCSO.

Gray Peterson
06-03-2010, 1:24 AM
The NRA can be wrong, and in this case they are. There is no question that Frank Robles is much friendlier to citizen gun rights than Stan Sniff. Here is a fairly balanced article on the issue. Riverside County residents have the opportunity to expand their liberty in this Sheriff's elections. They are fools if they don't do it.




Frank Robles ran on an anti-CCW platform back in the 1990's when he ran for sheriff back then. I don't trust the guy. I also point out that Frank Robles is/was also hooked up with Sheriff Robert Doyle, who was very anti-gun and anti-CCW.

Colonel Stanley Sniff fired by Sheriff Robert Doyle, lots of people questioning it (http://insideriverside.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/12/what_happened_t.html). Funny thing is that Frank Robles was very friendly to that old Doyle machine, which was very anti-gun.

The reason for the law application rate was because a bunch of people tried and failed to get licenses under Doyle. It has NOTHING to do with Sheriff Sniff's current issuance rate, and also, I fixed the old Doyle policy (which the current sheriffs office CCW unit was unaware of it's illegality) where they can charge up front all fees and you get denied.

I have never once heard of anyone in the last three years who has applied to Riverside County and has been denied who come from this board not due to some disqualifying conviction. If Sniff was being unduly restrictive and stingy on permits (which he isn't, judging by the experiences I've been told), the only way to expose that is for actually apply for a CCW, with good cause being something more than "personal protection/self defense". All you would be risking is $20, and denials in this environment means absolutely nothing, and the people at the RCSO CCW unit are quite friendly and professional. They are not Alameda or Los Angeles counties, where they treat everything like a state secret.

Glock22Fan
06-03-2010, 9:09 AM
I have never once heard of anyone in the last three years who has applied to Riverside County and has been denied who come from this board not due to some disqualifying conviction. If Sniff was being unduly restrictive and stingy on permits (which he isn't, judging by the experiences I've been told), the only way to expose that is for actually apply for a CCW, with good cause being something more than "personal protection/self defense". All you would be risking is $20, and denials in this environment means absolutely nothing, and the people at the RCSO CCW unit are quite friendly and professional. They are not Alameda or Los Angeles counties, where they treat everything like a state secret.


AFAIK, every client TBJ has helped with a Riverside application is either still in the process or has been granted a CCW. Reports back are that the staff are friendly and helpful.

dantodd
06-03-2010, 9:13 AM
AFAIK, every client TBJ has helped with a Riverside application is either still in the process or has been granted a CCW. Reports back are that the staff are friendly and helpful.

when you say "client" are you referring to people who you help with Good Cause statements or only those who have to go through the appeal process? I only ask out of prurient interest in whether they are responding favorably to well written GC or if they are only responding when pushed by a big dog.

lawaia
06-03-2010, 9:35 AM
One of the first things Frank Robles says he will do if elected sheriff next week is change Riverside County's policy for issuing permits to residents seeking to carry concealed weapons.

"One of the biggest complaints I get from citizens is that, if they are not connected, they cannot get a permit," Robles said in a recent interview.

The Riverside man also takes aim at the existing policy on his campaign website.

"I do not believe that only friends in high places should be allowed to have concealed weapon permits," Robles states on the site. "As sheriff I will support policy that affords all citizens in good standing, and who meet department criteria, to have concealed weapon permits."



Personal note, regardless of what Sheriff Sniff says about how the sheriff issues permits, 500 or so permits with a population of 2.5 million speaks volumes.

The majority of those permits were issued to members of the sheriff's department. Most of the permits were issued to Correctional Deputies who are non sworn jailers, the Corrections people perform the same duties as deputy sheriff's in the jails and are issued CCWs for protection since they are not peace officers under California POST and the penal code.

Robles is campaigning that he will change the CCW issuance policy. However, most people don't seem to realize that the existing policy is one that favors citizens getting their permit! Not a single person here has provided a shred of actual evidence that only connected people and peace officers can obtain their permits. Midnight, do you have evidence that the majority of permits were issued to members of the Sheriff's department, or are you making a blanket judgement without fact?

The argument that RC's issuance policy is a poor one based on the fact that only 500 permits are issued in RC is weak. It is an argument that seems to generally be made by people that have not actually applied. Is it possible that the reason only 500 permits exist is because people simply don't apply? Sniff's administration claims a 98% approval rate for those that actually apply. Seems like pretty good odds to me.

The NRA can be wrong, and in this case they are. There is no question that Frank Robles is much friendlier to citizen gun rights than Stan Sniff.

I do question how friendly Frank Robles is to our rights. Look at his track record and history. Look at the interview with him that is posted on calccw.com. Robles seems to want more restrictive requirements for CCW issuance than Sheriff Sniff. Read for yourself.

500 permits with a population of 2.5 million residents says it all. Elect Frank Robles.

Again, the "only 500 permits issued" is a very weak argument. Go apply for your permit.

Sheriff Sniff has proven by his actions that he is reforming the department in a positive way.

Glock22Fan
06-03-2010, 9:54 AM
when you say "client" are you referring to people who you help with Good Cause statements or only those who have to go through the appeal process? I only ask out of prurient interest in whether they are responding favorably to well written GC or if they are only responding when pushed by a big dog.

Clients include people who have been helped (at no cost) with their application. IIRC, none of our Riverside clients have needed to go to appeal.

There is no reason whatsoever (unless the client mentions it in interview) for any CoP or Sheriff's staff to know that TBJ has assisted the client, unless and until there is a lawsuit in progress for denial. Therefore all the successful applications I referred to aove were successful because the client was well prepared, had his or her ducks in a row and presented an acceptable Good Cause. No big dogs were invoked.

Gray Peterson
06-03-2010, 11:21 AM
when you say "client" are you referring to people who you help with Good Cause statements or only those who have to go through the appeal process? I only ask out of prurient interest in whether they are responding favorably to well written GC or if they are only responding when pushed by a big dog.

I can't speak for TBJ, but "responding favorably to well written good cause" would be the correct answer for the folks at Riverside County. I am actively working on the other Salute issues as well.

Billy Jack
06-03-2010, 11:57 AM
Brave hardly know where to start.

Current law does not make a CCW an entitlement. No one is guaranteed a CCW in any county in California. Anyone running for the office of Sheriff in any county on a platform of 'Shall Issue' is a FOOL! Do not vote for fools.

CCW issuance is not a major issue for voters who are not personally interested in it.

Under current law 'fair issue' is the goal.

Sheriff Sniff has made it quite clear that 98% of those who apply are issued. TBJ has made it quite clear that everyone we have assisted in Riverside County has been issued. All they want to hear is an articulated reason that they can concur with. They are not going to put them under your windshield wiper. If I am out in public with Squaw and there are people around me with CCW's I want to know they have been vetted, screened, tested and properly trained in when to draw and more importantly, when not to draw.

This Brave has been in public numerous times when things have gone sideways and a deadly force situation has unfolded in front of me. it goes with my profession. I like to call 911, I have it on speed dial on my phone in case I forget the number. (Reservation humor) The last thing I want to do is draw my firearm. When you post foolishly like an assailant is around every corner, carry back-up weapons, it scare issuing department.

I hope you all have my drift by this time. Sheriff Sniff has a fair policy and the Elders always say, 'if Treaty not broken, why fix it'?

In one sits around speculating about how scared they are to apply and how they do not want a denial, then perhaps you lack the prerequisites to be issued. Put that remote down, call or write RSO for an application. It does not get any simpler than that.

Billy Jack
'The force is strong with this one'


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

383green
06-03-2010, 12:07 PM
Put that remote down, call or write RSO for an application. It does not get any simpler than that.

I think you forgot the "wink, wink; nudge, nudge" part. ;)

Glock22Fan
06-03-2010, 12:13 PM
I think you forgot the "wink, wink; nudge, nudge" part. ;)

There is no "wink, wink; nudge, nudge" part.

383green
06-03-2010, 12:16 PM
There is no "wink, wink; nudge, nudge" part.

I stand corrected.

slobson
06-03-2010, 12:17 PM
Sheriff Sniff has made it quite clear that 98% of those who apply are issued.

as it's been said before, claiming a high rate of those that apply getting through the process successfully is meaningless unless put into context; EG if 100 people apply and 98 have contributed to sniff's political campaign/are acquaintances/business associates/etc then a 98% success rate does nothing to encourage those of us that fall outside that category


In one sits around speculating about how scared they are to apply and how they do not want a denial, then perhaps you lack the prerequisites to be issued.

Billy Jack
'The force is strong with this one'

really?
not speaking for others, the reason I have been apprehensive to apply is because I do not want a denial on my record in the future in the hopes that the system will be reformed and all murkiness and doubt will be gone, and concrete guidelines are established. it has nothing to do with fear, but rather a serious look at the issue that inspires caution. is it caution no longer a desirable trait when carrying?

I have read about you helping others to get their permit, and you seem very knowledgeable on the subject, as well as generous with your time. if you truly believe that a denial on an app would not be problematic in the near future then I think it would encourage calgunners in riverside (myself among them) to take advantage of your help immediately

slobson
06-03-2010, 12:22 PM
I have never once heard of anyone in the last three years who has applied to Riverside County and has been denied who come from this board not due to some disqualifying conviction. If Sniff was being unduly restrictive and stingy on permits (which he isn't, judging by the experiences I've been told), the only way to expose that is for actually apply for a CCW, with good cause being something more than "personal protection/self defense". All you would be risking is $20, and denials in this environment means absolutely nothing, and the people at the RCSO CCW unit are quite friendly and professional. They are not Alameda or Los Angeles counties, where they treat everything like a state secret.

So a denial on an application has no bearing on future applications? I only ask to clarify and ensure I'm reading this correctly. If this is the case I will need to amend my previous post

383green
06-03-2010, 12:25 PM
as it's been said before, claiming a high rate of those that apply getting through the process successfully is meaningless unless put into context; EG if 100 people apply and 98 have contributed to sniff's political campaign/are acquaintances/business associates/etc then a 98% success rate does nothing to encourage those of us that fall outside that category

I have raised that precise objection on Calguns more than once. I have been told in unambiguous terms by people with firsthand experience that things are not working that way under Sniff's watch (though they may well have under previous Sheriffs).


not speaking for others, the reason I have been apprehensive to apply is because I do not want a denial on my record in the future in the hopes that the system will be reformed and all murkiness and doubt will be gone, and concrete guidelines are established. it has nothing to do with fear, but rather a serious look at the issue that inspires caution. is it caution no longer a desirable trait when carrying?

Many people with firsthand experience getting multiple denials and multiple CCWs have stated that the denial will not be a problem, as long as it wasn't for causes that would have precluded issuance anyway (such as criminal history).

I have read about you helping others to get their permit, and you seem very knowledgeable on the subject, as well as generous with your time. if you truly believe that a denial on an app would not be problematic in the near future then I think it would encourage calgunners in riverside (myself among them) to take advantage of your help immediately

That encouragement to take advantage of TBJ's help sooner rather than later has been provided many times here... it's just that many of us (myself included) have been too danged dense to quit griping and take TBJ up on the offer.

I have recently talked offline to various people who have been personally involved with Sniff's CCW issuance policies. As a result of those conversations, I have decided that my previous complaints about Sniff and his department are likely to be entirely unfounded, that I will apply for a CCW in Riverside county soon (after I line up a few more ducks; in a matter of weeks or at most a couple of months), and that I will vote for Sniff in this election.

slobson
06-03-2010, 12:31 PM
I have raised that precise objection on Calguns more than once. I have been told in unambiguous terms by people with firsthand experience that things are not working that way under Sniff's watch (though they may well have under previous Sheriffs).

I thought it was you I remembered mentioning it before (damn cynic :rolleyes:)


That encouragement to take advantage of TBJ's help sooner rather than later has been provided many times here... it's just that many of us (myself included) have been too danged dense to quit griping and take TBJ up on the offer.

I have recently talked offline to various people who have been personally involved with Sniff's CCW issuance policies. As a result of those conversations, I have decided that my previous complaints about Sniff and his department are likely to be entirely unfounded, that I will apply for a CCW in Riverside county soon (after I line up a few more ducks; in a matter of weeks or at most a couple of months), and that I will vote for Sniff in this election.
Although I don't believe I have had quite as many conversations as you, I fear I have fallen into the same category (too dense/stubborn/skeptical) to just give it a go and see what happens. Time to man up it seems and give sniff a chance to prove me wrong, which I will relish and admit fully if the time comes

383green
06-03-2010, 12:34 PM
Excellent. And if it turns out that he's not as level as people say, then you and I can BBQ some crow together. :)

The thing about us cynics is that we're usually right... and that makes it so much harder to have a little bit of faith in the rare occasions where it's justified! ;)

Gray Peterson
06-03-2010, 12:35 PM
Brave hardly know where to start.

Current law does not make a CCW an entitlement. No one is guaranteed a CCW in any county in California. Anyone running for the office of Sheriff in any county on a platform of 'Shall Issue' is a FOOL! Do not vote for fools.

CCW issuance is not a major issue for voters who are not personally interested in it.

Under current law 'fair issue' is the goal.

Sheriff Sniff has made it quite clear that 98% of those who apply are issued. TBJ has made it quite clear that everyone we have assisted in Riverside County has been issued. All they want to hear is an articulated reason that they can concur with. They are not going to put them under your windshield wiper. If I am out in public with Squaw and there are people around me with CCW's I want to know they have been vetted, screened, tested and properly trained in when to draw and more importantly, when not to draw.

This Brave has been in public numerous times when things have gone sideways and a deadly force situation has unfolded in front of me. it goes with my profession. I like to call 911, I have it on speed dial on my phone in case I forget the number. (Reservation humor) The last thing I want to do is draw my firearm. When you post foolishly like an assailant is around every corner, carry back-up weapons, it scare issuing department.

I hope you all have my drift by this time. Sheriff Sniff has a fair policy and the Elders always say, 'if Treaty not broken, why fix it'?

In one sits around speculating about how scared they are to apply and how they do not want a denial, then perhaps you lack the prerequisites to be issued. Put that remote down, call or write RSO for an application. It does not get any simpler than that.

Billy Jack
'The force is strong with this one'


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

To be fair, Sheriff Sniff and the CCW Unit did unintentionally continue Doyle's policy of non-refundable total fees rather than complying with the clear mandates of state law, and there is still some posted policies on their website which violate Salute still, but I am told is being worked through.

There is no long term consequences in a may-issue state to a denial for lack of good cause. I only know of just ONE jurisdiction which considers any previous denial as a sole reason for denial, and it isn't in Southern California (once I find them, they will be put on my "list to fix").

Apply, folks. Read between the lines, take the state DOJ app and $20 and apply.

slobson
06-03-2010, 12:37 PM
Excellent. And if it turns out that he's not as level as people say, then you and I can BBQ some crow together. :)

The thing about us cynics is that we're usually right... and that makes it so much harder to have a little bit of faith in the rare occasions where it's justified! ;)

well here's hoping we can do our pistol cert together instead :cheers2:

Glock22Fan
06-03-2010, 12:58 PM
It is true that 98% issuance is not necessarily a good measure.

Sometimes it is achieved by the sheriff's department saying "You have no chance, go away" before people even get the application package.

There is no recent evidence that this is happening in Riverside.

However, FUD like this does discourage people, and keeps the overall applications down.

They are, it is true, operating a "May Issue" policy, as is required by California law. Their policy may be a little tighter than, say, Kern County.

However, their policy is a lot more reasonable than, say Los Angeles County - where you have to be rich or famous and your much abused victim of domestic violence cannot get a CCW even though there is a TRO against her ex.

Obviously, I cannot guarantee you a CCW in Riverside, but if your Good Cause is reasonable, you should apply. By reasonable, something as bald as "Personal Protection" probably will not fly. However, put some reasonable meat on it and it should. You do not have to prove that you have been beaten to death three times already.

By spreading the sort of FUD we get on this sort of thread, you are doing the "Denial by runaround" for the sheriff's department - hence the 90% acceptance becomes based on low numbers. The way to stop this is to get on and apply - assuming your Good Cause isn't just "personal Protection" without more flesh on it.

And, as Billy Jack has advised, fearing a denial should be a no-no. Again, I cannot guarantee it never happens, but I can tell you that a denial based on a denial would be illegal unless the original denial was clearly on sound grounds.

Seiously folks, how many times must we keep repeating all this? You have nothing to fear except fear itself.

Glock22Fan
06-03-2010, 1:06 PM
Although I don't believe I have had quite as many conversations as you, I fear I have fallen into the same category (too dense/stubborn/skeptical) to just give it a go and see what happens. Time to man up it seems and give sniff a chance to prove me wrong, which I will relish and admit fully if the time comes

Slobson, and anyone else in the same boat, feel free to run your Good Cause past us.

Either post it here (http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/feedback.html), or p.m. me to ask for our email addresses (don't sent Good Causes by p.m.)

I don't like putting email addresses in open posts as I get enough junk mail from spiders.

LOW2000
06-03-2010, 1:24 PM
I will say that TBJ responds promptly to email requests for help. The efficacy of that help remains to be seen for me personally as I have neither been approved nor denied at this point because I am waiting to see if I need to submit three letters of character reference as alluded to by GrayPeterson.

I understand that this has progressed far off topic, but does anyone have an example of an acceptable letter of character reference? Do I need some 250 word single spaced essay, or does a simple:

To whom it may concern,

I am providing this letter as a confirmation of good character for LOW2000 who is applying for a concealed carry permit from the Riverside County Sheriff's Department.

Sincerely,
Good Guy
1234 Main St. Anywhere, CA
951-123-4567

Glock22Fan
06-03-2010, 1:48 PM
I will say that TBJ responds promptly to email requests for help. The efficacy of that help remains to be seen for me personally as I have neither been approved nor denied at this point because I am waiting to see if I need to submit three letters of character reference as alluded to by GrayPeterson.

I understand that this has progressed far off topic, but does anyone have an example of an acceptable letter of character reference? Do I need some 250 word single spaced essay, or does a simple:

To whom it may concern,

I am providing this letter as a confirmation of good character for LOW2000 who is applying for a concealed carry permit from the Riverside County Sheriff's Department.

Sincerely,
Good Guy
1234 Main St. Anywhere, CA
951-123-4567

Low2000,

Have you received any obstructionism from the Riverside department? Any behavior other than polite business expectations?

As far as the letter is concerned, better to leave it to the people writing it. A suggested "form" letter usually looks just like one. Most people, told that you need a reference indicating your character, level headedness and ability to judge serious situations with due thought and consideration, will come up with something reasonable.

LOW2000
06-03-2010, 2:11 PM
Low2000,

Have you received any obstructionism from the Riverside department? Any behavior other than polite business expectations?

As far as the letter is concerned, better to leave it to the people writing it. A suggested "form" letter usually looks just like one. Most people, told that you need a reference indicating your character, level headedness and ability to judge serious situations with due thought and consideration, will come up with something reasonable.

No, however I have not interacted with the RSD with the exception of requesting information a year or 2 ago with regards to whom to send my copy of my C&R application to, and they were straightforward and helpful at that time. I have not submitted my application for my CA CCW at this time pending clarification on the above points, the removal of the upfront charges, and the requirement for character reference letters from my peers.

I HAVE gotten advice on how to refine my good cause statement and as soon as the above is clarified I will request 3 people to write character letters on my behalf. If the timeline for change regarding the additional forms is longer than a month or 2, I will likely move forward with my application regardless.

Glock22Fan
06-03-2010, 2:20 PM
OK, Low2000, I read "neither approved nor denied" to mean that your application was in process.


However, is there anyone else who has had dealings with Riverside SD regarding CCW's who has met obstructionism?

If the countywide answer is "No," then there is no justification in accusing them of being misleading with their "98% acceptance."

383green
06-03-2010, 3:14 PM
well here's hoping we can do our pistol cert together instead :cheers2:

That would be quite cool! One of the pistols that I'm hoping to get permitted to carry is sitting in quarantine at Turner's, waiting to be liberated next week. Another one that I've changed my mind about wanting to carry should be popping up in the classifieds section here within a few days, and I hope that it'll go to somebody who won't need to wait for Sykes to be able to carry it.


They are, it is true, operating a "May Issue" policy, as is required by California law. Their policy may be a little tighter than, say, Kern County.

The impression I have received (secondhand so far) is that under Sniff, the process has been changed from a corrupt and unfair process to a legal and fair one (with some details still being ironed out). It may still not be the process we want, and I'm still not guaranteed to get issued a CCW when I apply soon, but it sounds to me to be a significant improvement over the situation of just a couple years or so ago.



Slobson, and anyone else in the same boat, feel free to run your Good Cause past us.

I second that! I haven't officially dealt with TBJ yet, but I have unofficially discussed my good cause with Glock22Fan, and this was very helpful. Among other things, our conversation helped jog my memory about aspects of my good cause statement that I hadn't considered before, simply because I'm a generally law-abiding kind of guy so I'm not used to thinking in terms of things that make me a potential target of somebody who's up to no good. I'll certainly run my good cause by TBJ's official channel once I write up a clear articulation of it. We'll see how much of them English classes I done took back in school have stuck with me. :p

slobson
06-03-2010, 3:24 PM
OK, Low2000, I read "neither approved nor denied" to mean that your application was in process.


However, is there anyone else who has had dealings with Riverside SD regarding CCW's who has met obstructionism?

If the countywide answer is "No," then there is no justification in accusing them of being misleading with their "98% acceptance."

I for one did not mean to imply that the sheriff's office was being dishonest or misleading with their quote of 98% acceptance, I was simply stating that any figure of that type is useless absent proper context and qualification, that 98% acceptance does not necessarily = reasonable policy or ease of application. I have never had negative dealings with the county, and if it sounded that way in my posting then I apologize for the misunderstanding. I plan on taking you up on your offer of consultation concerning my good cause statement, thank you for your generosity

Glock22Fan
06-03-2010, 3:33 PM
I for one did not mean to imply that the sheriff's office was being dishonest or misleading with their quote of 98% acceptance, I was simply stating that any figure of that type is useless absent proper context and qualification, that 98% acceptance does not necessarily = reasonable policy or ease of application. I have never had negative dealings with the county, and if it sounded that way in my posting then I apologize for the misunderstanding. I plan on taking you up on your offer of consultation concerning my good cause statement, thank you for your generosity

I didn't read you as implying deliberate dishonesty or negative dealings, you raise a point which is very valid for many counties. Just trying to get at the truth and decide whether there's such a case to answer here.

Look forward to seeing your Good Cause.

Gray Peterson
06-03-2010, 3:43 PM
This is not to say that I would neccesarily disagree with a determination of TBJ's group, but if you want a second opinion, go ahead and shoot me an email, too.

-Gray

slobson
06-03-2010, 4:37 PM
I didn't read you as implying deliberate dishonesty or negative dealings, you raise a point which is very valid for many counties. Just trying to get at the truth and decide whether there's such a case to answer here.

Look forward to seeing your Good Cause.

thank you very much

This is not to say that I would neccesarily disagree with a determination of TBJ's group, but if you want a second opinion, go ahead and shoot me an email, too.

-Gray

and thank you as well, I will absolutely take advantage of the offer. the more qualified individuals I can get involved with my application the better. got the easy part done, now to research and writing! :smartass: