PDA

View Full Version : What is the procedure for obtaining a CCW in Sacramento County?


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cobrafreak
06-02-2010, 10:12 AM
Do I need some sort of proof of training? If so, where do I go for it? Hoping Bret Daniels gets elected Sheriff of Sac County.

This thread made it to over 1800 posts!
Please go to this post: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=352779
in the Calguns CCW Information Forum for further information.
12/15/2010

ponderosa
06-02-2010, 10:16 AM
found this:

http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/counties/sacramento.html

Glock22Fan
06-02-2010, 10:24 AM
found this:

http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/counties/sacramento.html

As far as I know this is still up to date, but it is some time since I collated that page. Please let me know if there's anything that's been updated, or needs to be updated.

Thanks

N6ATF
06-02-2010, 10:26 AM
You sue.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness

wildhawker
06-02-2010, 10:52 AM
You sue.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness

Try applying first.

gotgunz
06-02-2010, 11:01 AM
Move out of Sacramento County.....

paul0660
06-02-2010, 11:10 AM
http://www.sacsheriff.com/forms/documents/ccw_app_letter.pdf

You need a really good cause. Some people on http://www.calccw.com/ have recently been approved. Generally, your idea of your good cause should not be posted publicly, get an expert like Billy Jack or CCWinstructor to review it via email or PM.

wildhawker
06-02-2010, 11:13 AM
Try:

http://www.sacsheriff.com/forms/documents/ccw_app_letter.pdf
http://www.sacsheriff.com/forms/documents/ccw_process.pdf
http://www.sacsheriff.com/forms/documents/ccw_app.pdf

N6ATF
06-02-2010, 2:13 PM
Try applying first.

If it was a matter of apply and obtain, why sue? :rolleyes:

CSDGuy
06-02-2010, 2:14 PM
Wildhawker has posted all 3 things that Sheriff McGinness wants you to read. FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE outlined. I've heard of several CCW's being issued in Sacramento County in the past few months, so they ARE issuing them.

CSDGuy
06-02-2010, 2:15 PM
If it was a matter of apply and obtain, why sue? :rolleyes:
Standing, if you are denied and decide to sue.

Lateralus
06-02-2010, 5:22 PM
It is my *personal* perception that Sykes has John McGinness relaxing momentarily on CCW restrictions as a CYA maneuver. Go ahead and apply. You fill out the form, then call April to schedule an appointment. Some Thursday in the future, you will go in for an oral interview. Bring the form and a $20 MO. You will then be contacted by a Detective, then you will receive a written denial or permit in the mail. Cannot hurt to try.

thebronze
06-02-2010, 6:11 PM
Is Sac County one of the counties that makes you pay up front and then keeps your money if they deny you?

wildhawker
06-02-2010, 6:16 PM
Is Sac County one of the counties that makes you pay up front and then keeps your money if they deny you?

I doubt any of the 58 counties will be collecting beyond those limits allowed by law in the not too distant future...

hoffmang
06-02-2010, 7:19 PM
Please apply. If you do not succeed, please contact someone from CGF.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
06-02-2010, 7:34 PM
Is Sac County one of the counties that makes you pay up front and then keeps your money if they deny you?

Actually no, they only ask for $20 up front. I question the additional funds beyond the $95 DOJ Background check requirement.

Lone_Gunman
06-02-2010, 7:53 PM
Please apply. If you do not succeed, please contact someone from CGF.

-Gene

Are you saying we should apply with "self defense" or something close to that at this time or was that just for the OP? I'm also in Sac County and want a CCW.

haveyourmile
06-02-2010, 9:58 PM
Are you saying we should apply with "self defense" or something close to that at this time or was that just for the OP? I'm also in Sac County and want a CCW.

Ditto this.

I've heard if you are denied it can hurt your chances of getting a CCW in the future. If that is true, I would rather just wait until my odds are better...

wildhawker
06-02-2010, 10:03 PM
Are you saying we should apply with "self defense" or something close to that at this time

Yes.

Ditto this.

I've heard if you are denied it can hurt your chances of getting a CCW in the future. If that is true, I would rather just wait until my odds are better...

Denials for reasons other than prohibited person status triggers will not be an issue post-McDonald and really isn't one right now.

dantodd
06-02-2010, 10:03 PM
Ditto this.

I've heard if you are denied it can hurt your chances of getting a CCW in the future. If that is true, I would rather just wait until my odds are better...

Applying and being denied for lack of "good cause" will not hurt your case. You will either be issued or you will not. If not you have the option to sue or wait for resolution of Sykes. If we get a positive outcome from Sykes then the good cause requirement will be removed and your previous denial will be irrelevant.

But, a denied application will help Sykes because the Sheriff will have to account for why people are being denied. What happens currently is they tell people to not apply because they will get denied and it's expensive etc. This tactic keeps people from applying and therefore artificially inflates their granted:denied permits ratio.

dantodd
06-02-2010, 10:05 PM
Yes.

Is this recommended only for Sacto county or all counties? I would very much like to apply in San Mateo county if it is so advised (and the $1M insurance policy is no longer required.)

wildhawker
06-02-2010, 10:15 PM
Is this recommended only for Sacto county or all counties? I would very much like to apply in San Mateo county if it is so advised (and the $1M insurance policy is no longer required.)

My comments were directed at Lone_Gunman and residents of Sacramento County; you will very likely soon find the liability insurance no longer a prerequisite to CCW in SMCo.

Lone_Gunman
06-02-2010, 10:19 PM
Awesome. I will get rolling on this.

santacruzstefan
06-02-2010, 10:25 PM
What about in Santa Cruz? This might be the most liberal county per capita of all, and if I remember the CCW map, we were a red zone. Should I get some kind of training before I apply, might that better my chances?

What about listing various crimes that have occurred recently (for example, there have been a number of high-profile stabbings and shootings here in town) either on the form or during the interview, as a reason to bolster the self-defense argument? What about bringing up the UOC ban, saying that CCW is the only option now?

dantodd
06-02-2010, 10:25 PM
My comments were directed at Lone_Gunman and residents of Sacramento County; you will very likely soon find the liability insurance no longer a prerequisite to CCW in SMCo.

I'm quite sure that our friend from the North will be taking care of that requirement in San Mateo Co. It doesn't hurt that some of the CGF board members are also San Mateo County residents. Just somewhat interested as I have recently had some events happen that may be considered good cause, or maybe not. Similar, though not exactly, like the events that Kevin T. had.

Lone_Gunman
06-02-2010, 10:35 PM
According to one of the PDFs wildhawker posted the CCW permit states the weapon is not allowed within 1000 feet of a school. What is that BS? I live in a school zone and there is a school that I have to drive past on my way to work. How are we supposed to CCW with that restriction?

haveyourmile
06-02-2010, 10:57 PM
According to one of the PDFs wildhawker posted the CCW permit states the weapon is not allowed within 1000 feet of a school. What is that BS? I live in a school zone and there is a school that I have to drive past on my way to work. How are we supposed to CCW with that restriction?

Yeah that seems like a ridiculous restriction, especially considering how many effing schools there are in Sacramento.

Thanks for the advice, guys. I will be filling out my paperwork tomorrow, I just will need some help with my good cause statement. I know there are a few people on here that will review statements once written, can someone refresh my memory on who those people are?

Also, do I take the CCW course and THEN apply or do I apply and then take the CCW course? This may be a stupid question but I'd rather not pay for the course if I get denied, money is pretty tight for me right now

CSDGuy
06-02-2010, 11:07 PM
I've also heard that the 1000' restriction isn't enforced that much... but it does give the Sheriff something relatively easy upon which to revoke your CCW if you get out of line...

unusedusername
06-02-2010, 11:17 PM
I've been waiting for the call for San Mateo county residents to apply with "self defense"...

Is now the time, or keep waiting?

Uriah02
06-02-2010, 11:32 PM
A few months ago Sheriff McGinness went on record saying he'd issue more CCWs in light of budget cuts. I would imagine he's willing to issue a few more in light of the election in the coming months. Bret Daniels is by FAR the most CCW friendly candidate on the ballot, I wish I lived in Sac county to vote for him.

Bret Daniels
06-02-2010, 11:58 PM
A few months ago Sheriff McGinness went on record saying he'd issue more CCWs in light of budget cuts. I would imagine he's willing to issue a few more in light of the election in the coming months. Bret Daniels is by FAR the most CCW friendly candidate on the ballot, I wish I lived in Sac county to vote for him.

Thanks for the support! I wish you lived here too but in the meantime, please tell your friends and family!!!

Gray Peterson
06-02-2010, 11:59 PM
I'm quite sure that our friend from the North will be taking care of that requirement in San Mateo Co. It doesn't hurt that some of the CGF board members are also San Mateo County residents. Just somewhat interested as I have recently had some events happen that may be considered good cause, or maybe not. Similar, though not exactly, like the events that Kevin T. had.

It's being worked on actively as we speak. Funny thing is that San Mateo's packet they give out to applicants were promulgated in the mid to late 1990's, before AB2022's requirements went into effect. Looks like former AG Dan Lungren was too busy to tell the counties the whole story of AB2022, rather than just telling them that the licenses are in effect for 2 years.

I am in contact with 5 counties, and one of them was so resistant to just giving me the application when I asked that I had to use my rights under the Public Records Act to request them. Hint: It's not the City and County of San Francisco, and it's not Los Angeles County either.

Gray Peterson
06-03-2010, 12:18 AM
I've been waiting for the call for San Mateo county residents to apply with "self defense"...

Is now the time, or keep waiting?

Keep waiting for now. At the moment, I'm working on getting the county sheriffs to fully comply with both current statutory law and Salute v. Pitchess. I can't work on all 58 sheriffs at the same time, obviously, so I'm "county-hopping" and dealing with a few at a time. Almost all of the counties I have been cooperative, except one.

Lone_Gunman
06-18-2010, 9:44 PM
Bump for this thread 'cause I'm gonna fill out my app this weekend.

Gray Peterson
06-18-2010, 10:39 PM
Yeah that seems like a ridiculous restriction, especially considering how many effing schools there are in Sacramento.

Thanks for the advice, guys. I will be filling out my paperwork tomorrow, I just will need some help with my good cause statement. I know there are a few people on here that will review statements once written, can someone refresh my memory on who those people are?

Also, do I take the CCW course and THEN apply or do I apply and then take the CCW course? This may be a stupid question but I'd rather not pay for the course if I get denied, money is pretty tight for me right now

You apply and then once you're approved, then you go to training. Btw, folks, if you apply now, and for some reason you are denied, if Sykes goes our way, you can think of the possibilities of what might happen at that point.

If you are denied, contact CGF. It's $20, folks. Just $20 is what you risk. As the bumper sticker says, "Just Do It".

One more thing, folks, the 1000 foot restriction does NOT invalidate your license to carry. Penal Code 626.9 only contemplates your license to carry status, not any restrictions on the license itself.

bigcalidave
06-19-2010, 12:07 PM
Gray supposedly they print a 1000ft school zone restriction on the permit in sac county. I don't know how they can, but that really invalidates the license.

CSDGuy
06-19-2010, 12:14 PM
Gray: that 1,000 foot restriction is actually printed on the CCW. The language used is something to the effect that "this license is invalid within 1,000 feet" of a school. I live in Sacramento County, and I have a couple friends here that have Sacramento CCW's.

Gray Peterson
06-19-2010, 12:38 PM
Gray: that 1,000 foot restriction is actually printed on the CCW. The language used is something to the effect that "this license is invalid within 1,000 feet" of a school. I live in Sacramento County, and I have a couple friends here that have Sacramento CCW's.

Gray supposedly they print a 1000ft school zone restriction on the permit in sac county. I don't know how they can, but that really invalidates the license.



The language on the restrictions DO NOT MATTER. They are not binding in terms of criminal law violations. All that can do is trigger a possible revocation, which is unlikely given the current legal circumstances between CGF/Sykes plaintiffs and the Sheriff's Office.

Apply, folks.

CSDGuy
06-19-2010, 12:43 PM
Oh, I am applying...

bigcalidave
06-19-2010, 1:51 PM
I'm absolutely not telling anyone to not apply, but how do the restrictions not matter?

(b)A license may include any reasonable restrictions or conditions which the issuing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which the person may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(c)Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be indicated on any license issued.


How is the license with that restriction valid while breaking that restriction? If you believe the restrictions have no legal merit, would then ANY restriction on the permits be invalid?

Is there some collection of the restrictions by county? I'll start, Shasta county has 0. It's irritating to think that even when license is issued in other counties they have to think about where to use it.

hoffmang
06-19-2010, 3:17 PM
What would they charge you for exactly?

The fact that you have a 12050 License exempts you from the Federal GFSZ act. It also exempts you from the California GFSZ act. PC 626.9 says:

(l)This section does not apply to ... a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4...

If you violate the restrictions on your license you can lose your license pre McDonald. It's not at all clear they can yank your license post McDonald (and you have to be caught concealing in a school zone which means you aren't concealing...)

However, this will get taken care of as a second order concern to people getting permits in the first place. Go get one.

-Gene

CSDGuy
06-19-2010, 3:36 PM
What would they charge you for exactly?

The fact that you have a 12050 License exempts you from the Federal GFSZ act. It also exempts you from the California GFSZ act. PC 626.9 says:

(l)This section does not apply to ... a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4...
If you violate the restrictions on your license you can lose your license pre McDonald. It's not at all clear they can yank your license post McDonald (and you have to be caught concealing in a school zone which means you aren't concealing...)

However, this will get taken care of as a second order concern to people getting permits in the first place. Go get one.

-Gene If your CCW has a restriction on it that makes the License not valid within the 1000' of a school, then how can it be valid for the purposes of 626.9? If a Sheriff can put time/place/manner restrictions on the License, your CCW is only valid under those circumstances.

That's probably the thinking...

westsiderippa
06-19-2010, 4:10 PM
What about in Santa Cruz? This might be the most liberal county per capita of all, and if I remember the CCW map, we were a red zone. Should I get some kind of training before I apply, might that better my chances?

What about listing various crimes that have occurred recently (for example, there have been a number of high-profile stabbings and shootings here in town) either on the form or during the interview, as a reason to bolster the self-defense argument? What about bringing up the UOC ban, saying that CCW is the only option now?

not to get off topic by switching counties here but i would realy like to know more about santa cruz county. i have been under the impression like others to continue to wait as a deny could hinder you in the future. i know this thread has been directed at sac county but is this drive to apply aimed at all red counties. by applying are we simply make a stance for the future.

haveyourmile
06-19-2010, 5:39 PM
I don't have a very good CCW weapon right now but would like to at least get the ball rolling. If I apply with my current weapon (CZ75BD) and qualify, when I get a smaller more concealable weapon, can I just qualify with that and get it added on? Would it be a hassle or is it easy? Thanks

Fjold
06-19-2010, 6:47 PM
not to get off topic by switching counties here but i would realy like to know more about santa cruz county. i have been under the impression like others to continue to wait as a deny could hinder you in the future. i know this thread has been directed at sac county but is this drive to apply aimed at all red counties. by applying are we simply make a stance for the future.

People always assume that. The application has the question on it "Have you ever been denied a permt?" People assume that it's a negative to answer "Yes" but what it really is, is a question to determine if you have already been determined to be not of good character or a have disqualifying reason.

hoffmang
06-19-2010, 7:30 PM
If your CCW has a restriction on it that makes the License not valid within the 1000' of a school, then how can it be valid for the purposes of 626.9? If a Sheriff can put time/place/manner restrictions on the License, your CCW is only valid under those circumstances.

That's probably the thinking...

And under a post McDonald analysis, the County would have to explain why the restriction passes intermediate or strict scrutiny - a challenge I don't expect them to be able to easily surmount. Also, not abiding by your restrictions does not make the permit invalid until it is revoked.

-Gene

yellowfin
06-19-2010, 8:52 PM
Ooh, I like that! There's a lot of much needed destruction needing to be done to NY's rather notorious permit restriction practice.

1rubicon
06-20-2010, 2:03 PM
It is my *personal* perception that Sykes has John McGinness relaxing momentarily on CCW restrictions as a CYA maneuver. Go ahead and apply. You fill out the form, then call April to schedule an appointment. Some Thursday in the future, you will go in for an oral interview. Bring the form and a $20 MO. You will then be contacted by a Detective, then you will receive a written denial or permit in the mail. Cannot hurt to try.

Go ahead and call to make the appointment. The person never seems to never answer the phone or clear the mail box so you cant leave a message.My neighbor has been tring tro get an appointment for a couple months now.

bigcalidave
06-20-2010, 2:24 PM
And under a post McDonald analysis, the County would have to explain why the restriction passes intermediate or strict scrutiny - a challenge I don't expect them to be able to easily surmount. Also, not abiding by your restrictions does not make the permit invalid until it is revoked.

-Gene

Gene currently there are a lot of people who have had CCWs for a while in this PRE Mcdonald land. Are you suggesting that the restrictions printed on a license can only result in the revocation of a license?? If the license is stated to be not valid in certain "time, place, manner, and circumstances" wouldn't they be able to charge you with violating pc 12031 and pc 12025 if you were to ignore those restrictions?

Gray Peterson
06-20-2010, 2:36 PM
Gene currently there are a lot of people who have had CCWs for a while in this PRE Mcdonald land. Are you suggesting that the restrictions printed on a license can only result in the revocation of a license?? If the license is stated to be not valid in certain "time, place, manner, and circumstances" wouldn't they be able to charge you with violating pc 12031 and pc 12025 if you were to ignore those restrictions?

That's exactly what he said, and a statement doesn't mean actuality.

Gray Peterson
06-20-2010, 2:37 PM
Go ahead and call to make the appointment. The person never seems to never answer the phone or clear the mail box so you cant leave a message.My neighbor has been tring tro get an appointment for a couple months now.

Then have them apply by filling out the app and send it into them Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested.

thebronze
06-20-2010, 4:13 PM
Then have them apply by filling out the app and send it into them Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested.

My understanding is that it has to be turned in in person.

Mstrty
06-20-2010, 4:22 PM
Gene currently there are a lot of people who have had CCWs for a while in this PRE Mcdonald land. Are you suggesting that the restrictions printed on a license can only result in the revocation of a license?? If the license is stated to be not valid in certain "time, place, manner, and circumstances" wouldn't they be able to charge you with violating pc 12031 and pc 12025 if you were to ignore those restrictions?

Oh you can bet your bippie that a DA could run you broke trying to make something stick. Who wants to volunteer to be our test case. Any other takers?

I think I would want a waiver from my lawyer offering free representation before I attempted defying sheriff restrictions. Doesnt the PC also state the sheriff can put any restriction they see fit?
A sample of a ridiculous restriction would be "CCW only valid if wearing an I love McGinness sticker on my back.
Now, invalid if not wearing the sticker?
Id like to hear more arguments on this.

wildhawker
06-20-2010, 5:12 PM
Thebronze, have them put that in writing. Also, I often utilize signed and dated "documents as attached or under separate cover" letters of transmittal for hand-delivered documents (many of which become evidence in litigation/arbitration); takes about 30 seconds to draft and print.

hoffmang
06-20-2010, 8:38 PM
Oh you can bet your bippie that a DA could run you broke trying to make something stick. Who wants to volunteer to be our test case. Any other takers?


I wonder if there is any organization (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/) that defends gun owners free of charge when a DA tries to criminalize behavior that is perfectly legal?

I'm amused at the fear of the CCW issuers in this thread. You have a valid 12050 license and post McDonald the issuer has to justify his restriction on your right to bear arms. Remember that criminal charges are beyond a reasonable doubt...

Anyone in Sac should apply and not spend a lot of time worrying about what the sheriff puts on an otherwise granted 12050 license.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
06-20-2010, 9:33 PM
Let me sum this up for everyone. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the idea of the restrictions invalidate the license on the spot, everyone in Sacramento County should apply for a CCW if they're not otherwise ineligible. By applying, you are helping the Sykes case, and you are helping increase the CCW population of the state in general. Can I make this any more clearer?

haveyourmile
06-21-2010, 12:29 AM
I have filled out all my paperwork and have my statement all written up. I have called the number provided and as someone else pointed out the voicemail box is ALWAYS full and no one ever picks up. On the CCW process form on the Sacramento Sherriff website, it says you must call the number to make an appointment. Is this their genius way of not having to issue permits? Someone said send it certified mail, but it clearly states on the website you must call to make an appointment. I'm not sure my information would be looked at if I send it certified mail. Do you suggest I do so anyways?

http://www.sacsheriff.com/forms/documents/ccw_app_letter.pdf

Gray Peterson
06-21-2010, 1:05 AM
I have filled out all my paperwork and have my statement all written up. I have called the number provided and as someone else pointed out the voicemail box is ALWAYS full and no one ever picks up. On the CCW process form on the Sacramento Sherriff website, it says you must call the number to make an appointment. Is this their genius way of not having to issue permits? Someone said send it certified mail, but it clearly states on the website you must call to make an appointment. I'm not sure my information would be looked at if I send it certified mail. Do you suggest I do so anyways?

http://www.sacsheriff.com/forms/documents/ccw_app_letter.pdf

I've sent an email to Ms. Wong asking her if there's a problem.

wildhawker
06-21-2010, 6:32 AM
Government can't simply ignore written correspondence sent certified/ret. receipt. Your letter should document that you, in good faith, contacted them in their preferred manner (telephone) to no avail, that their voicemail box has consistently been full over the course of x days and unable to take additional messages; give them your return phone number, include the app if need be and send the letter.

Billy Jack
06-21-2010, 6:45 AM
Government can't simply ignore written correspondence sent certified/ret. receipt. Your letter should document that you, in good faith, contacted them in their preferred manner (telephone) to no avail, that their voicemail box has consistently been full over the course of x days and unable to take additional messages; give them your return phone number, include the app if need be and send the letter.

I agree fully. Memorialize all contacts and attempts at contact. Phone calls only when required and those are documented as well. You send a Certified letter and it goes into their public correspondence or your applicant file or both and they will retain it for at least 3 years. In the case of a CCW file, if they issue, all correspondence will exist as long as the file is active.

People like me get paid to crawl all over those files and what we discover is sometimes quite enlightening.

You would not have Case Law like Salute v Pitchess and Guillory v Gates without all those nice documents and real interesting comments on some.

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'



www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

chrisw
06-21-2010, 8:48 AM
haveyourmile- she will answer the phone eventually. Sometimes right away, sometimes it will take all day, but on the occasions i've called i've always gotten through.

I have filled out all my paperwork and have my statement all written up. I have called the number provided and as someone else pointed out the voicemail box is ALWAYS full and no one ever picks up. On the CCW process form on the Sacramento Sherriff website, it says you must call the number to make an appointment. Is this their genius way of not having to issue permits? Someone said send it certified mail, but it clearly states on the website you must call to make an appointment. I'm not sure my information would be looked at if I send it certified mail. Do you suggest I do so anyways?

http://www.sacsheriff.com/forms/documents/ccw_app_letter.pdf

haveyourmile
06-21-2010, 10:11 AM
haveyourmile- she will answer the phone eventually. Sometimes right away, sometimes it will take all day, but on the occasions i've called i've always gotten through.

Aright I guess I'll keep trying. Thanks

Untamed1972
06-21-2010, 1:35 PM
Just noticed this on the San Diego Sheriff's CCW webpage. Does that mean they are considering apps for self-defense, or are they speaking more in terms of like "I have been threatened by a stalker" kinda personal protection?

http://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw.html

"Good cause is an individual issue; however, if applying for business purposes, proof that you are a legitimate and fully credentialed business will be required as well as having to demonstrate that good cause for carrying a firearm exist.

If you want to apply strictly for personal protection; the required documentation will be discussed at the time of the initial first interview, additional documentation may be requested."

I am curious because my brother related a story to me last night about how he met someone just last week that has an SD county CCW that he's had for 3 yrs and he is for all intents and purposes just a regular joe. The guy told him he just applied and jumped thru all the hoops and got approved. Unfortunately my brother didn't know enough to ask him what his "good cause" was.

haveyourmile
06-21-2010, 1:55 PM
Been trying to get through all day again today. Still nothing. Voicemail is still full. I've been trying for days and days. This is getting REALLY frustrating. Everything is all filled out I just need a damn appointment!

Sleepy1988
06-21-2010, 2:09 PM
I think the first step would be to donate at least $5,000 to a major candidate's political campaign.

:( :mad:

Gray Peterson
06-21-2010, 2:39 PM
I think the first step would be to donate at least $5,000 to a major candidate's political campaign.

:( :mad:

That's not true with Sacramento County.

wildhawker
06-21-2010, 2:40 PM
Have, spend the $3 on the letter and let us know if you don't get a response. At some point banging your head on the wall ceases to be the wall's fault.

haveyourmile
06-21-2010, 2:54 PM
Have, spend the $3 on the letter and let us know if you don't get a response. At some point banging your head on the wall ceases to be the wall's fault.

HAHA. Okay. Well I'll go ahead and do that today, then. I know multiple people have suggested it, I just know on the website they were very specific about making an appointment.

Should I include something with the packet that says I'm mailing it in because I couldn't get through on the phone? I REALLY don't want to be turned away because I "didn't follow directions"


Edit: Nevermind. Saw your piece about including a letter about attempting to contact via telephone to no avail. Thanks for the assistance, I'll keep you posted.

Gray Peterson
06-21-2010, 3:00 PM
OK everyone, stop beating your head against a wall. Send a letter certified mail with return receipt requested to the following address:

Amber M. Wong, Sr. SRS
Special Investigations/Intelligence Bureau
711 G Street, Room 306
Sacramento, CA 95814

Send this in the body of a formal letter:

"Ms. Wong,

I have made repeated attempts to contact you but your voice mail is constantly full and I am never able to reach you. Per Salute v. Pitchess, the sheriff's office is required to process my application upon receipt of it by your office.

If you have any questions, please feel free to send me a letter, or email me at example@example.com (your email address).

With regards,

Your Name".

Untamed1972
06-21-2010, 3:14 PM
Is it possible to just walk into the office and request to make an appointment in person?

jb7706
06-21-2010, 3:14 PM
Been trying to get through all day again today. Still nothing. Voicemail is still full. I've been trying for days and days. This is getting REALLY frustrating. Everything is all filled out I just need a damn appointment!

Patience, perseverance and persistence is required.

It took me 2 weeks of calling to get on the phone with her. Once I got the appointment to submit an app it was 3 1/2 weeks out. It will reportedly be another 3-4 weeks after application submission to get the phone interview done. Dunno how long is takes to get approval/denial, but I'm personally not expecting that to be done in less than another 3-4 weeks from the phone interview, though they have 90 days from submission of app or 30 days after DOJ background results, whatever is later to get back to you. Anecdotal research I have done indicates that from application submission to permit in hand is about 6 months if all goes well.

EDIT:
Or do what the experts above who responded while I was writing this advise. They know far better than me.

haveyourmile
06-21-2010, 3:39 PM
Aright. Everything was sent priority mail with a delivery confirmation slip. It easy easy as pie and cost was less than $6 to get it sent out. I put the check in along with my statement and a letter where I used Grays wording about her not picking up. Hopefully I'll hear soon. I sent it from downtown so I would imagine she'd receive it tomorrow.

Thanks for all the help.

JB - Good luck to you!

jb7706
06-21-2010, 9:35 PM
JB - Good luck to you!

To you as well. Maybe we will be in the same training class once approved. Keep me informed of your progress, eh?

BobB35
06-22-2010, 5:59 AM
FYI - at the end of McGuniess Monday on 1530 yesterday, the sheriff all but said apply for CCW. He sees in the future they will be issued more and more often. I know he is a Lame Duck and actions speak louder than words, but I was quite taken aback by this change in his stance. Prior, he would talk the talk be then weasel out...very interesting....

Gray Peterson
06-22-2010, 7:59 AM
FYI - at the end of McGuniess Monday on 1530 yesterday, the sheriff all but said apply for CCW. He sees in the future they will be issued more and more often. I know he is a Lame Duck and actions speak louder than words, but I was quite taken aback by this change in his stance. Prior, he would talk the talk be then weasel out...very interesting....

Is it a call in show? If it is, ask him why his investigator is not answering her phone..

Gray Peterson
06-22-2010, 1:31 PM
All,

If you're going to send in your packet certified mail return receipt requested, please private message me, or just private message me if you're interested in applying. I need to send you an email address to schedule an appointment. Do not be concerned that you "wasted your money", you did not. You're starting a countdown clock anyway.

Mstrty
06-22-2010, 4:25 PM
FYI I called the number today.1st time trying. I got the voicemail is full part of the recording and I did nothing I pressed nothing. It said if you dont have a touch tone phone please stay on the line and someone will be with you shortly.
2 seconds later Amber Wong answered the phone. My call was placed at 3:30 today.

So maybe that is the ticket, just dial the number and wait for it to assume your handsfree and it routes you to the operator. Being my firsts try I was flabbergasted it turned out to be the person we all want. She took my request I added the date and time to my calendar and I hung up. Just dumb luck or are you guys loosing it?

jb7706
06-22-2010, 5:17 PM
Just dumb luck or are you guys loosing it?

Just good luck Ty. Congrats on making thru the first try. I can document no less than 11 times over 2 weeks before I got her on the phone. Finally had to trade email with her to get an appointment. I did the whole wait for an operator thing too, it just goes back to her VM. About how far out is your appointment?

Mstrty
06-22-2010, 5:36 PM
About how far out is your appointment?

just under 30 days.

truthseeker
06-22-2010, 6:43 PM
"Anyone in Sac should apply and not spend a lot of time worrying about what the sheriff puts on an otherwise granted 12050 license.

-Gene"

So I should apply for one even if I am going to use the good cause statement of "for the protection of my life and my family" and I know it will be denied?

Toolbox X
06-22-2010, 6:57 PM
I would not recommend mailing your application. Amber goes over the application with you when you turn it in to make sure it is filled out correctly.

haveyourmile
06-22-2010, 7:49 PM
I would not recommend mailing your application. Amber goes over the application with you when you turn it in to make sure it is filled out correctly.

Ugh. I'm so frustrated over so much conflicting advice. I went ahead and mailed it yesterday but I'm feeling really unsure about the whole thing.

jb7706
06-22-2010, 9:03 PM
Ugh. I'm so frustrated over so much conflicting advice. I went ahead and mailed it yesterday but I'm feeling really unsure about the whole thing.

I would not sweat it, one way or another we will all get there sooner or later. I have a feeling in my bones. :D

Gray Peterson
06-22-2010, 9:28 PM
Ugh. I'm so frustrated over so much conflicting advice. I went ahead and mailed it yesterday but I'm feeling really unsure about the whole thing.

I sent you a PM. Chill. :) Btw, also, follow the advice of the person by refusing to press a number and wait for the operator. That's a terrible phone system, btw.

Lone_Gunman
06-22-2010, 9:56 PM
Gray,
Did Amber ever return that email you sent asking her why she wasn't picking up the phone?

Gray Peterson
06-22-2010, 10:03 PM
I think it's a malfunction in the phone system. Just do not dial 1 and it'll dial an operator and she should pick up. If you still can't get it, just PM me please.

wildhawker
06-22-2010, 10:08 PM
Truth: Yes, please.

Gray Peterson
06-22-2010, 10:22 PM
Truth: Yes, please.

Concur, and truth, check your PM's.

truthseeker
06-22-2010, 11:07 PM
Thanks! I replied to your PM.

truthseeker
06-23-2010, 6:01 AM
I am going to start my application today, however I have a question about

"Proof that the person applying has completed, at least, a 16-hour course of training including instruction on firearm safety and the law regarding the permissible use of a firearm"

Do I have to complete this class BEFORE I apply?

Will my DD214 suffice or do I have to take a class at one of the places listed on the application process paper?

Also, what does the class cover?

And finally what positions/distances/scores does one have to shoot for qualifications?

Thanks!

Lone_Gunman
06-23-2010, 6:08 AM
You don't have to take the class until after you are approved. I don't know how much it costs or what it covers 'cause I haven't been approved yet.

haveyourmile
06-23-2010, 10:08 AM
Here is the reply from Amber.

Good Morning,

Unfortunately Applications can not be accepted via mail. Once received it will be sent back to you. The next available appointment I have for you to turn it in would be Thurs July 22nd at 0930am. Would you like me to schedule you for this?

~Amber

Gray Peterson
06-23-2010, 10:18 AM
Here is the reply from Amber.

Go ahead and schedule the appointment.

haveyourmile
06-23-2010, 10:22 AM
Go ahead and schedule the appointment.

I did. I replied as soon as I got it and the appointment is scheduled. Seems like a lot of hoops to jump through but I'm glad my appointment is finally made and it's less than a month out!

So I make the appointment and turn in the application. What happens next? Whats the time frame on all of this like?

jb7706
06-23-2010, 11:04 AM
I did. I replied as soon as I got it and the appointment is scheduled. Seems like a lot of hoops to jump through but I'm glad my appointment is finally made and it's less than a month out!

So I make the appointment and turn in the application. What happens next? Whats the time frame on all of this like?

Below is based on my conversations with other successful applicants that have recently gone through the process.

It will reportedly be another 3-4 weeks after application submission to get the phone interview done. Dunno how long is takes to get approval/denial, but I'm personally not expecting that to be done in less than another 3-4 weeks from the phone interview, though they have 90 days from submission of app or 30 days after DOJ background results, whatever is later to get back to you. Anecdotal research I have done indicates that from application submission to permit in hand is about 6 months if all goes well.

haveyourmile
06-23-2010, 12:33 PM
Below is based on my conversations with other successful applicants that have recently gone through the process.

Aright thanks. Good to know an estimated waiting time.

Anyone know what qualification with your weapon is like?

jb7706
06-23-2010, 1:06 PM
Aright thanks. Good to know an estimated waiting time.

Anyone know what qualification with your weapon is like?

All stages are fired after drawing from concealment from what I understand.

Range Qualification
Objective: individual shall pass firearm qualification based on his or her demonstrated use
of weapon-

A. Course of fire
Stage 1. 15 yards 6 rounds in 30 seconds
(standing position)

Stage 2. 7 yards 11 rounds in 45 seconds
includes 2 reloads) (load 6, 6 and 2)
6 standing position
8 kneeling position

Stage 3. 7 yards 12 rounds in 25 seconds
(includes reloads) (load 6 and 6)
6 strong hand unsupported
(reload and then switch hands)
6 weak hand unsupported

Stage 4 7 yards 6 rounds in 10 seconds (any position)

Stage 5 5 yards 6 rounds
*3 rounds in 4 seconds (2 stages)

Stage 6 3 yards 6 rounds
2 rounds in 3 seconds (3 stages)

B. Scoring:
1. Silhouette targets shall he used. A 5 point score shall he granted for each
round discharged in head or body kill area.
2. Each individual shall qualify with an 80% score (200 out 250 points) on the scoring segments
3. Each individual shall be informed whether his or her score passed or failed.

Mstrty
06-23-2010, 2:40 PM
Last year Both of my 2 children, myself and my wife took a NRA basic pistol course. It was 2 full days 16+hours first day was all class and 2nd was all range. The instructor told us at the time it was a valid course for California CCW requirements. Upon completion he told us we should all go out and get a CCW licence. Truth or FUD and if true what is the expiration date of the certificate ?

wildhawker
06-23-2010, 2:41 PM
Here is the reply from Amber.

We'll address this separately; please proceed as per Gray's instructions.

Untamed1972
06-23-2010, 2:44 PM
So per some statements made in another thread: Are requiring reference letters legal or not?

Been trying to get clarification on that statement but to no avail.

jb7706
06-23-2010, 2:50 PM
Last year Both of my 2 children, myself and my wife took a NRA basic pistol course. It was 2 full days 16+hours first day was all class and 2nd was all range. The instructor told us at the time it was a valid course for California CCW requirements. Upon completion he told us we should all go out and get a CCW licence. Truth or FUD and if true what is the expiration date of the certificate ?

(E) (i) For new license applicants, the course of training may be
any course acceptable to the licensing authority, shall not exceed 16
hours, and shall include instruction on at least firearm safety and
the law regarding the permissible use of a firearm. Notwithstanding
this clause, the licensing authority may require a community college
course certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and
Training, up to a maximum of 24 hours, but only if required uniformly
of all license applicants without exception.

There is nothing in the NRA Basic Pistol class that covers "law regarding the permissible use of a firearm" so I'm guessing not. The application specifies that you must take the course at one of the 6 authorized locations. I also know NRA certified pistol instructors that still had to take the CCW class at one of the 6 approved locations. I'm pretty sure your handgun cert would count as "other training" on your app but does not really get you anything more than one attaboy.

CSDGuy
06-23-2010, 3:00 PM
If your class was at one of the six approved vendors and was for CCW... you'd be fine. Otherwise, no, that training would not be valid.

Gray Peterson
06-23-2010, 3:00 PM
So per some statements made in another thread: Are requiring reference letters legal or not?

Been trying to get clarification on that statement but to no avail.

No they are not. See Penal Code 12051, no other forms may be required.

Billy Jack
06-23-2010, 3:11 PM
No they are not. See Penal Code 12051, no other forms may be required.

Humble Brave must take exception to your conclusion. The letters of character go towards vetting the applicant for 'character' ala background investigation. Some departments contact the letter writers.

If you think a Federal Judge will throw out that department requirement I have some Obama approved windmills I would like you to tilt at. Yes, you may be accompanied by your faithful sidekick and his donkey.

Letters of character are an investigative tool just as would be the requirement of a letter from an employer. Brave has been on this path before.

Brave love to read.

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Gray Peterson
06-23-2010, 3:46 PM
Humble Brave must take exception to your conclusion. The letters of character go towards vetting the applicant for 'character' ala background investigation. Some departments contact the letter writers.

If you think a Federal Judge will throw out that department requirement I have some Obama approved windmills I would like you to tilt at. Yes, you may be accompanied by your faithful sidekick and his donkey.

Letters of character are an investigative tool just as would be the requirement of a letter from an employer. Brave has been on this path before.

Brave love to read.

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'



Has nothing at all to do with a federal judge, it's more of a state law question than anything else at this point. I understand that the application itself has three references inside of it, but why should the sheriff be able to force YOU to do the leg work of getting the letters when they get paid the $20 to process your app for good cause? This was discussed in great detail in Connecticut, where they have "proper cause" and moral character provisions as well. Their BFPE (Board of Firearms Permit Examiners) went into great detail as to why "Character Reference" letters were worthless because you would self select the people you trust the most to write you a reference letter.

If you're employer is not included in the good cause (such as doing executive protection work), or it's one of the 90 day temporary CCW's, why would a letter from an employer have anything to do with your good cause or good moral character? Do you realize that even bringing up guns in the workplace can result in a job termination because of the bare fear that the employee *might* carry a gun or have the legal capability of doing so? My company, for example, absolutely FORBIDS any supervisors or management from writing a letter in the form that you talk about.

These are more logistics questions rather than legal questions. I may question their ability to do so under state law, but even if it was legal, it seems like a bit of a dodge and a logistics nightmare, and the character reference letter requirements has been abused in the forms of requirements that the people be from within the county, or in an extreme case (Imperial County), required to be from a certain class of people.

It's also slightly off topic for this thread (sorry Untamed) as Sacramento does not require letters of character reference.

Billy Jack
06-23-2010, 4:04 PM
Has nothing at all to do with a federal judge, it's more of a state law question than anything else at this point. I understand that the application itself has three references inside of it, but why should the sheriff be able to force YOU to do the leg work of getting the letters when they get paid the $20 to process your app for good cause? This was discussed in great detail in Connecticut, where they have "proper cause" and moral character provisions as well. Their BFPE (Board of Firearms Permit Examiners) went into great detail as to why "Character Reference" letters were worthless because you would self select the people you trust the most to write you a reference letter.

If you're employer is not included in the good cause (such as doing executive protection work), or it's one of the 90 day temporary CCW's, why would a letter from an employer have anything to do with your good cause or good moral character? Do you realize that even bringing up guns in the workplace can result in a job termination because of the bare fear that the employee *might* carry a gun or have the legal capability of doing so? My company, for example, absolutely FORBIDS any supervisors or management from writing a letter in the form that you talk about.

These are more logistics questions rather than legal questions. I may question their ability to do so under state law, but even if it was legal, it seems like a bit of a dodge and a logistics nightmare, and the character reference letter requirements has been abused in the forms of requirements that the people be from within the county, or in an extreme case (Imperial County), required to be from a certain class of people.

It's also slightly off topic for this thread (sorry Untamed) as Sacramento does not require letters of character reference.

What other states do is not relevant to this discussion. Why waste time and resources on minutia? I do not care if it is a state or Federal issue, an attorney would not waste their time on it nor would a Judge be amused to have it as an issue in their court.

Let it go my friend. All the department has to do is explain it is necessary for the investigative process and your are out the door. Been doing CCW issues for over 25 years and I have real world, practical experience, not armchair theory. In simple words, I know what works and I know what are foolish wastes of time and resources. 'A man's got to know their limitations' Dirty Harry Calahan
This Brave will not address this matter further.

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

1rubicon
06-23-2010, 4:10 PM
Then have them apply by filling out the app and send it into them Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested.

you have to call between certain hours on thursday if I remember right and make an appointment to bring it in.

haveyourmile
06-23-2010, 4:15 PM
you have to call between certain hours on thursday if I remember right and make an appointment to bring it in.

Where is it stated that you have to call between certain hours on Thursday? Sounds like FUD

Gray Peterson
06-23-2010, 4:19 PM
you have to call between certain hours on thursday if I remember right and make an appointment to bring it in.


:fud:

If anyone is having difficulty calling through a day, please PM me and I'll share with you a contact method.

NorCalMama
06-23-2010, 9:34 PM
Where did you get that info and what size silhouettes are they?

All stages are fired after drawing from concealment from what I understand.

Range Qualification
Objective: individual shall pass firearm qualification based on his or her demonstrated use
of weapon-

A. Course of fire
Stage 1. 15 yards 6 rounds in 30 seconds
(standing position)

Stage 2. 7 yards 11 rounds in 45 seconds
includes 2 reloads) (load 6, 6 and 2)
6 standing position
8 kneeling position

Stage 3. 7 yards 12 rounds in 25 seconds
(includes reloads) (load 6 and 6)
6 strong hand unsupported
(reload and then switch hands)
6 weak hand unsupported

Stage 4 7 yards 6 rounds in 10 seconds (any position)

Stage 5 5 yards 6 rounds
*3 rounds in 4 seconds (2 stages)

Stage 6 3 yards 6 rounds
2 rounds in 3 seconds (3 stages)

B. Scoring:
1. Silhouette targets shall he used. A 5 point score shall he granted for each
round discharged in head or body kill area.
2. Each individual shall qualify with an 80% score (200 out 250 points) on the scoring segments
3. Each individual shall be informed whether his or her score passed or failed.

1JimMarch
06-23-2010, 9:43 PM
Right now, the unofficial requirement is that you have a photograph of the sheriff or a high-ranking member of the brass with all of the following:

* The board game "twister".

* A jug of crisco[tm].

* A sheep, goat or male chimpanzee.

Post-McDonald, we'll see...

Gray Peterson
06-23-2010, 10:32 PM
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Dude, where's the puke smiley?

Besides, the above is :fud: , though not without it's causes in the Glen Craig/Lou Blanas era.

The rest of you:

If you're a resident of Sacramento County, please contact me via PM and I will give you instructions on what you need to do and WHY.

Thanks,

Gray

383green
06-23-2010, 10:41 PM
:eek::eek::eek::eek:

Dude, where's the puke smiley?

Here you go: :puke:

I like this one better, though:

http://www.dictailgate.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/puke_pumpkin.jpg

Lateralus
06-24-2010, 12:03 AM
Since I recently went through the process, here is my .02 on what happens after submitting application to Amber:

Be nice to Amber. She is a great person.

About 10 - 14 days after, a Detective will call you to go over some details. In my case, he asked:


Have I ever been arrested
How long have I lived at my current address
How long have I owned a handgun
Was I around guns growing up
Was I a member of the Armed Forces
Go over good cause statement


He then told me that they meet as a committee to review the applications and choose then to either approve or deny the CCW. A letter will be mailed to you in about 2 weeks after the phone interview.

Again, there were no up front costs after the $20 filing fee. Make sure to come with a written Good Cause Statement. If you have several traffic violations (Like me!), don't go to the DMV. Go to the Courthouse (Sac one is the Carol Miller Center on Folsom/Bicentennial Circle). They can print up all the information you need and then some. The clerk helping me did this at no cost.

Good Luck everyone. Hopefully McDonald puts an end to this crap.

1JimMarch
06-24-2010, 12:28 AM
Look, I was joking and that was in bad taste.

However.

If it was me, I'd wait until McDonald to apply. Five friggin' days, guys. Seriously. Apply the day McDonald comes down. That will send an unmistakable "don't screw with me" message without you saying a word.

haveyourmile
06-24-2010, 12:30 AM
Since I recently went through the process, here is my .02 on what happens after submitting application to Amber:

Be nice to Amber. She is a great person.

About 10 - 14 days after, a Detective will call you to go over some details. In my case, he asked:


Have I ever been arrested
How long have I lived at my current address
How long have I owned a handgun
Was I around guns growing up
Was I a member of the Armed Forces
Go over good cause statement


He then told me that they meet as a committee to review the applications and choose then to either approve or deny the CCW. A letter will be mailed to you in about 2 weeks after the phone interview.

Again, there were no up front costs after the $20 filing fee. Make sure to come with a written Good Cause Statement. If you have several traffic violations (Like me!), don't go to the DMV. Go to the Courthouse (Sac one is the Carol Miller Center on Folsom/Bicentennial Circle). They can print up all the information you need and then some. The clerk helping me did this at no cost.

Good Luck everyone. Hopefully McDonald puts an end to this crap.

Did you get approved then?

thebronze
06-24-2010, 4:44 AM
Since I recently went through the process, here is my .02 on what happens after submitting application to Amber:

Be nice to Amber. She is a great person.

About 10 - 14 days after, a Detective will call you to go over some details. In my case, he asked:


Have I ever been arrested
How long have I lived at my current address
How long have I owned a handgun
Was I around guns growing up
Was I a member of the Armed Forces
Go over good cause statement


He then told me that they meet as a committee to review the applications and choose then to either approve or deny the CCW. A letter will be mailed to you in about 2 weeks after the phone interview.

Again, there were no up front costs after the $20 filing fee. Make sure to come with a written Good Cause Statement. If you have several traffic violations (Like me!), don't go to the DMV. Go to the Courthouse (Sac one is the Carol Miller Center on Folsom/Bicentennial Circle). They can print up all the information you need and then some. The clerk helping me did this at no cost.

Good Luck everyone. Hopefully McDonald puts an end to this crap.

Can you explain what this is about?

Untamed1972
06-24-2010, 7:06 AM
It's also slightly off topic for this thread (sorry Untamed) as Sacramento does not require letters of character reference.

I apologize for getting slightly off topic. I tried to get clarification on the issue in the other thread, started a thread in the CCW forum, and vie PM as well. So I did try several other avenues first. Thank you for the clarification.

Gray Peterson
06-24-2010, 8:03 AM
I apologize for getting slightly off topic. I tried to get clarification on the issue in the other thread, started a thread in the CCW forum, and vie PM as well. So I did try several other avenues first. Thank you for the clarification.

Guess you didn't get my PM's..

jb7706
06-24-2010, 8:06 AM
Where did you get that info and what size silhouettes are they?

This info came from the CCW manual that is issued to students at one of the approved training companies. That page was provided to me by a Sac County CCW holder that I know. You can also find it online at one of the approved training company web sites. I believe the target is the standard B-27.

383green
06-24-2010, 8:07 AM
Guess you didn't get my PM's..

I think that email notifications are broken at the moment.

Gray Peterson
06-24-2010, 8:14 AM
Look, I was joking and that was in bad taste.

However.

If it was me, I'd wait until McDonald to apply. Five friggin' days, guys. Seriously. Apply the day McDonald comes down. That will send an unmistakable "don't screw with me" message without you saying a word.

No, no waiting. As they're requiring appointments timing doesn't matter.

Untamed1972
06-24-2010, 9:26 AM
Guess you didn't get my PM's..

No sir. I did not :( I did not receive any PMs from you and I just went and double checked. Hmm....wonder where they went? Well thank you for responding, sorry I didn't get them.

thebronze
06-24-2010, 9:30 AM
Guess you didn't get my PM's..

I sent you a PM this morning, as well...

Lateralus
06-24-2010, 12:15 PM
Did you get approved then?

My letter is on the way.

Can you explain what this is about?

Part of the application has you list all of your traffic violations. They want citation number, date, violations, issuing agency, court docket, and outcome. Good luck finding that info without some assistance; I did not want my application rejected on a technicality.

haveyourmile
06-24-2010, 1:36 PM
My letter is on the way.



Part of the application has you list all of your traffic violations. They want citation number, date, violations, issuing agency, court docket, and outcome. Good luck finding that info without some assistance; I did not want my application rejected on a technicality.

Awesome, keep us posted! Did you use self defense or did you have some sort of "good cause"?

mtptwo
06-24-2010, 1:43 PM
My letter is on the way.


May I ask what was your good cause statement?

jb7706
06-24-2010, 3:28 PM
May I ask what was your good cause statement?

It's generally frowned upon to discuss GC statements in public forums. Reasoning is that once a permit is issues with a statement then a bunch of guys copy it then the LEA starts rejecting all of those applications.

It has to be accurate, I read it on the Internet.:D

Gray Peterson
06-24-2010, 3:43 PM
It's generally frowned upon to discuss GC statements in public forums. Reasoning is that once a permit is issues with a statement then a bunch of guys copy it then the LEA starts rejecting all of those applications.

It has to be accurate, I read it on the Internet.:D

All,

Unless your good cause statement is stupidly simple (self defense or personal protection), you should not post a good cause statement online for any reason. If there is anyone here who is reading this thread, who wants to apply but is afraid of doing so, please PM me. I'll give you the information you need to succeed. Got it?

1JimMarch
06-24-2010, 4:41 PM
I'm afraid I have to agree. I saw a REALLY bad scene happen on the old packing.org forums...a guy discussed too much details and a "witch-hunt" started because some didn't believe what he was saying. (He wasn't lying it turns out.) They ended up calling his bosses and damn near got him fired.

Some people lose all concept of basic morality and sanity just because they're behind a keyboard and use a "screen name".

thebronze
06-26-2010, 9:06 AM
All,

Unless your good cause statement is stupidly simple (self defense or personal protection), you should not post a good cause statement online for any reason. If there is anyone here who is reading this thread, who wants to apply but is afraid of doing so, please PM me. I'll give you the information you need to succeed. Got it?

Gray, I've sent you two PM's regarding this and haven't heard back from you. Just curious, did you not get them or you didn't want to respond?

Edited to add: Thanks for the reply, Gray!

Mstrty
06-27-2010, 12:44 PM
I'm afraid I have to agree. I saw a REALLY bad scene happen on the old packing.org forums...a guy discussed too much details and a "witch-hunt" started because some didn't believe what he was saying. (He wasn't lying it turns out.) They ended up calling his bosses and damn near got him fired.

Some people lose all concept of basic morality and sanity just because they're behind a keyboard and use a "screen name".

Oh How I agree. Screen names make anonymous statements virtually worthless. What part of your statement is causing you to hide behind a screen name? If you want any credibility take credit!

My name is Ty Hamby and I approve this message:D:eek:

thebronze
06-27-2010, 1:14 PM
Oh How I agree. Screen names make anonymous statements virtually worthless. What part of your statement is causing you to hide behind a screen name? If you want any credibility take credit!

My name is Ty Hamby and I approve this message:D:eek:

You're a braver man than I, Ty!

dantodd
06-27-2010, 2:49 PM
You're a braver man than I, Ty!

There have been a lot of people lately who have started to publicly "decloak" in these forums. I think it is an excellent trend. I know that some cannot because their livelihood might be at risk if their employers found out they are politically active but for the majority of us "decloaking" brings credibility and accountability.

Bret Daniels
06-28-2010, 9:29 AM
Based on McDonald, I believe all you should need to do is apply and put the words "Self defense as granted by the US Supreme Court" and you should get your CCW.

Glock22Fan
06-28-2010, 12:00 PM
Based on McDonald, I believe all you should need to do is apply and put the words "Self defense as granted by the US Supreme Court" and you should get your CCW.

Hoo Rah!

haveyourmile
06-28-2010, 2:01 PM
Based on McDonald, I believe all you should need to do is apply and put the words "Self defense as granted by the US Supreme Court" and you should get your CCW.

I'm not sure it's gonna be that easy...

But I suppose we shall see

wildhawker
06-28-2010, 2:14 PM
I'm not sure it's gonna be that easy...

But I suppose we shall see

Actually, it should be (and surely will be).

Good cause = self defense.

Glock22Fan
06-28-2010, 2:29 PM
Based on McDonald, I believe all you should need to do is apply and put the words "Self defense as granted by the US Supreme Court" and you should get your CCW.

I said Hoo Rah before I realized that (being so distant from this race) that Bret Daniels came in a distant third, and therefore this is not the wonderful news I had thought it was.

Maybe you should think of asking Kestryll if you can change your screen name, Bret? Nice try, perhaps, but you simply aren't the Sheriff, as your name implies.

haveyourmile
06-28-2010, 2:31 PM
Actually, it should be (and surely will be).

Good cause = self defense.

My understanding was that we will have to wait for things to get to that point. I'm not saying it won't get there eventually, but I have a hard time believing every single person in every CA county will be issued a CCW using self defense if they simply applied.

wildhawker
06-28-2010, 2:37 PM
My understanding was that we will have to wait for things to get to that point. I'm not saying it won't get there eventually, but I have a hard time believing every single person in every CA county will be issued a CCW using self defense if they simply applied.

You're missing my point.

I'm not talking about California *right now*, I'm speaking to something a bit closer to your application.

Bret Daniels
06-28-2010, 2:39 PM
I said Hoo Rah before I realized that (being so distant from this race) that Bret Daniels came in a distant third, and therefore this is not the wonderful news I had thought it was.

Maybe you should think of asking Kestryll if you can change your screen name, Bret? Nice try, perhaps, but you simply aren't the Sheriff, as your name implies.

Sorry for the confusion buddy. I just got back into posting again since the election and will try to get the name changed.

Glock22Fan
06-28-2010, 2:41 PM
Sorry for the confusion buddy. I just got back into posting again since the election and will try to get the name changed.

No problem. I'm sure Kestryll will consider that to be a reasonable request.

Bret Daniels
06-28-2010, 3:02 PM
No problem. I'm sure Kestryll will consider that to be a reasonable request.

Thanks, request has been sent.

Bret Daniels
06-28-2010, 3:05 PM
Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinniss just on the radio saying McDonald does nothing to change CA law or issuing CCW's. Seems to me the case should invalidate PC 12031 at a minimum and make all states "Shall Issue".

Mstrty
06-28-2010, 3:07 PM
Thanks, request has been sent.

You will always be the Sheriff we need:D:

Bret does have a point. Do I need to amend my GC letter? I have a good SD argument. Do I dare mention the SCOTUS decision in my GC letter?

Mstrty
06-28-2010, 3:14 PM
Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinniss just on the radio saying McDonald does nothing to change CA law or issuing CCW's. Seems to me the case should invalidate PC 12031 at a minimum and make all states "Shall Issue".

If banning open carry goes through and gets signed into law then you might be right. At that point we will only have one method of carrying per SCOTUS rulling and that is concealed carry.

wildhawker
06-28-2010, 3:15 PM
"I am interested in a concealed carry permit so as to exercise my Second Amendment right of self defense."

Mstrty
06-28-2010, 3:18 PM
"I am interested in a concealed carry permit so as to exercise my Second Amendment right of self defense."

Are you implying we tear up our self defense good cause letter and go with this? or is this sarcasm in light of todays ruling?

haveyourmile
06-28-2010, 3:36 PM
I'm sticking to my self defense statement. I'm sick of getting 9 million different answers from everyone on here. I'm getting frustrated because I'm really not sure who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't

Glock22Fan
06-28-2010, 3:53 PM
Thanks, request has been sent.


And, apparently approved.

Let's hope that one day you can be reinstalled as "Sheriff Bret Damiels."

Good luck.

Gray Peterson
06-28-2010, 3:58 PM
You're not getting 9 million answers. Have you gotten a response from Amber?

ArmedCitizen
06-28-2010, 5:19 PM
Please apply for one. Given today's events, you should base your statement of good cause on a simple statement: You want one for Self Defense.

I have a CCW. I received it from the Sac County Sheriff this year. Keep it simple and you can get one too.

AC

obeygiant
06-28-2010, 8:08 PM
Are you implying we tear up our self defense good cause letter and go with this? or is this sarcasm in light of todays ruling?

I think it is pretty safe to say, YES to the good cause and no to the sarcasm.

Lone_Gunman
06-29-2010, 7:26 PM
Got my appointment set today! Just over 30 days out. :)

dantodd
06-29-2010, 7:34 PM
I'm getting frustrated because I'm really not sure who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't

That can be frustrating.

For the "official" CGF line look toward hoffmang, wildhawker and bwiese. You can also PM them if you would like to ask a question directly, they are quite approachable. There are also other CGF board members here such as TheQuark, you can usually identify them by their sig line.

Billy Jack and Glock22Fan have a TON of experience in helping people navigate the traditional CCW waters. They have often offered to help with an initial application for free. If you get rejected and choose to use their services to appeal it isn't free but I have only heard good things about their batting average.

The rest are volunteers at some level or another. Gray is doing a lot of work with CGF on the CCW compliance right now so he's a good contact who can give you the straight scoop.

As for the rest, you'll have to read peoples' posts here and other places and make up your own mind on who to rely upon and who to read "for entertainment purposes only."

Glock22Fan
06-29-2010, 8:57 PM
Billy Jack and Glock22Fan have a TON of experience in helping people navigate the traditional CCW waters. They have often offered to help with an initial application for free. If you get rejected and choose to use their services to appeal it isn't free but I have only heard good things about their batting average.

Thank you, Dan, much appreciated. We will indeed always help an initial applicant for free, right through to the denial of any appeal (should that turn out to be the case). Some people don't like it when we tell them they are wasting their time, but we can usually help improve the chances of people who have a reasonable possibility of success and the willingness to take our advice. Money doesn't enter into it unless and until it is necessary to involve attorneys or do investigative work into the department's files.

We do ask that applicants study the pages on our site, particularly those under "Getting Started" before asking us for help. An informed applicant is a prepared applicant.

thebronze
06-29-2010, 9:12 PM
Thank you, Dan, much appreciated. We will indeed always help an initial applicant for free, right through to the denial of any appeal (should that turn out to be the case). Some people don't like it when we tell them they are wasting their time, but we can usually help improve the chances of people who have a reasonable possibility of success and the willingness to take our advice. Money doesn't enter into it unless and until it is necessary to involve attorneys or do investigative work into the department's files.

We do ask that applicants study the pages on our site, particularly those under "Getting Started" before asking us for help. An informed applicant is a prepared applicant.

But good luck getting a reply from these guys (TBJ) when you actually do try to get a hold of them...

hoffmang
06-29-2010, 9:29 PM
Folks should feel comfortable applying with a well written self defense based good cause statement.

-Gene

jb7706
06-29-2010, 9:55 PM
But good luck getting a reply from these guys (TBJ) when you actually do try to get a hold of them...

My experience has been very positive with them. They have been helpful and responsive to my requests for assistance. No trouble at all in fact.

Cal-Tac
06-29-2010, 11:34 PM
Scott Jones says unless you are excluded for certain reasons like drug / alcohol abuse or history of violence, he will consider Sacto County to be a shall issue county as long as training requirements and so forth are met.

Sacramento Black Rifle is supposed to be hosting a forum with Jones where residents can ask the candidate direcly. Check with them for details.

CSDGuy
06-29-2010, 11:55 PM
Scott Jones isn't the Sheriff yet. McGinness is. Do you know if the requirements for a Sacramento CCW have actually changed?

Gray Peterson
06-30-2010, 12:01 AM
Scott Jones isn't the Sheriff yet. McGinness is. Do you know if the requirements for a Sacramento CCW have actually changed?

The answer to this question is yes.

derek@thepackingrat.net
06-30-2010, 12:15 PM
I was able to contact Amber with Gray's assistance. Thank you, Gray. I have an appointment set for August 5th.

Glock22Fan
06-30-2010, 12:24 PM
But good luck getting a reply from these guys (TBJ) when you actually do try to get a hold of them...

Unless we are away from our desks, we try to reply to every contact same day during the week, and within 48 hours at the weekend. Sometimes enquirers actually get two replies (one from BJ, one from me) and mostly the reply is within two hours during working hours.

For enquiries deserving a more complex answer, BJ will often reply with his telephone number and an invitation to call for discussions.

I'm not saying that people haven't slipped through the crack, but as far as I can tell it doesn't happen often.

thebronze
06-30-2010, 1:26 PM
Unless we are away from our desks, we try to reply to every contact same day during the week, and within 48 hours at the weekend. Sometimes enquirers actually get two replies (one from BJ, one from me) and mostly the reply is within two hours during working hours.

For enquiries deserving a more complex answer, BJ will often reply with his telephone number and an invitation to call for discussions.

I'm not saying that people haven't slipped through the crack, but as far as I can tell it doesn't happen often.

Pffft! The one/only time I try to get a hold of you guys and it conveniently "slipped through the cracks".

But that's okay, based on the stuff I've read about the TBJ entity, I don't want a call anyway.

Mstrty
06-30-2010, 2:14 PM
I had a friend tell me he believes Sacramento County has a 5 gun per permit restriction. Is this true?

Gray Peterson
06-30-2010, 2:38 PM
I had a friend tell me he believes Sacramento County has a 5 gun per permit restriction. Is this true?

Don't know. Not really important at this time. What I would like to know is if they're requiring VOLREG of guns.

thebronze
06-30-2010, 2:44 PM
I had a friend tell me he believes Sacramento County has a 5 gun per permit restriction. Is this true?

The State of California CCW card (that Sac Co uses) only has lines for 5 guns (IIRC).

mtptwo
06-30-2010, 3:19 PM
I had a friend tell me he believes Sacramento County has a 5 gun per permit restriction. Is this true?

I took the training a few years back for sh*ts and giggles and they allowed me to qualify with 3 guns only, which would be listed on my CCW if I ever got one. Not sure if there is an actual limit to the number, but I am pretty sure that any that are on the permit, need to be qualified with during training.

wildhawker
06-30-2010, 3:24 PM
Don't know. Not really important at this time. What I would like to know is if they're requiring VOLREG of guns.

This. If ANY jurisdiction requires registration of a CCW firearm, please immediately contact us.

Glock22Fan
06-30-2010, 3:40 PM
Pffft! The one/only time I try to get a hold of you guys and it conveniently "slipped through the cracks".

But that's okay, based on the stuff I've read about the TBJ entity, I don't want a call anyway.

Don't know why you think it was convenient for us to ignore you; we don't work like that unless you were rude and antagonistic to start with.

And if you have now decided that it's a good job we didn't reply as, apparently, you now think our advice is worthless, then please stop continously moaning about it every time you see us mentioned in this and other threads.

Gray Peterson
06-30-2010, 3:51 PM
Pffft! The one/only time I try to get a hold of you guys and it conveniently "slipped through the cracks".

I can't speak to the fairness of this comment. I have missed PM's and emails and completely spaced. Until you actually pay them for investigative and legal representation, they have reason to want your business. Me, I'm doing it for free.

But that's okay, based on the stuff I've read about the TBJ entity, I don't want a call anyway.

If you're in Sacramento, considering events here, you don't need to. Just follow the advice that you were PM'd.

Glock22Fan
06-30-2010, 4:11 PM
I can't speak to the fairness of this comment. I have missed PM's and emails and completely spaced. Until you actually pay them for investigative and legal representation, they have reason to want your business. Me, I'm doing it for free.

Actually, I don't think that we've ever had a paying client through any web forum, unless they have approached us without disclosing their origin. Subject to that comment, we think that 100% of our paying clients come either by recommendation or through our website. We are the top listed non-advertising Google website for "California concealed firearm permits" (and similar phrases) and were so within a few weeks of opening. Advice offered here is considered to be pro-bono.

And I've personally never had a cent out of anyone for it whatsoever. I'm in it to forward the movement.

Gray Peterson
06-30-2010, 4:27 PM
Actually, I don't think that we've ever had a paying client through any web forum, unless they have approached us without disclosing their origin. Subject to that comment, we think that 100% of our paying clients come either by recommendation or through our website. We are the top listed non-advertising Google website for "California concealed firearm permits" (and similar phrases) and were so within a few weeks of opening. Advice offered here is considered to be pro-bono.

And I've personally never had a cent out of anyone for it whatsoever. I'm in it to forward the movement.

Want to point out here I was more responding to the comment the bronze made about "slipping through the cracks". I was pointing out why it is not in the best interest of TBJ to forget emails, considering the continual accusations of "TBJ just being in it for the money", which we both know that's not really true. It's just that TBJ's baliwick is geared toward existing California case law, unless this has changed since McDonald.

thebronze
06-30-2010, 7:17 PM
Don't know why you think it was convenient for us to ignore you; we don't work like that unless you were rude and antagonistic to start with.

And if you have now decided that it's a good job we didn't reply as, apparently, you now think our advice is worthless, then please stop continously moaning about it every time you see us mentioned in this and other threads.

I wasn't moaning. I was letting people know that you guys talk a good game, but you're short on delivery. You're constantly telling people "email me/us", "contact me/us" and when I did, you guys ignored my email.

That's not moaning, my friend. That's letting people know the deal.

Shenaniguns
06-30-2010, 7:20 PM
My letter is on the way.



Part of the application has you list all of your traffic violations. They want citation number, date, violations, issuing agency, court docket, and outcome. Good luck finding that info without some assistance; I did not want my application rejected on a technicality.


How far back?

Cpl. Haas
06-30-2010, 7:22 PM
How far back?

5 years for traffic violations.

Shenaniguns
06-30-2010, 7:26 PM
5 years for traffic violations.

Excellent! :D

haveyourmile
06-30-2010, 9:23 PM
I emailed Billy Jack and got a reply from him within a few hours. I can't begin to know if it was like that for everyone but I got a quick and thorough reply. Perhaps you just got sent to the spam folder on accident? Or they meant to reply later and they forgot? I know I've forgotten to reply to emails before...it does happen. YMMV

Glock22Fan
06-30-2010, 9:53 PM
I wasn't moaning. I was letting people know that you guys talk a good game, but you're short on delivery. You're constantly telling people "email me/us", "contact me/us" and when I did, you guys ignored my email.

That's not moaning, my friend. That's letting people know the deal.

We did not ignore it, that implies deliberate action. The only way we ignore people is if, after us replying once, your next email indicates you are indeed an idiot. As 7x57 says, some people get upset by that.

If we missed you the first time that was exceptional and accidental, and I have already apologized. Get a life and put it behind you.

thebronze
06-30-2010, 10:03 PM
We did not ignore it, that implies deliberate action. The only way we ignore people is if, after us replying once, your next email indicates you are indeed an idiot. As 7x57 says, some people get upset by that.

If we missed you the first time that was exceptional and accidental, and I have already apologized. Get a life and put it behind you.

I didn't get a reply from you, thus you ignored it. Deliberate or not.

And no, I don't think I will.

N6ATF
06-30-2010, 10:30 PM
http://www.jojoplace.org/smilies/Whaambulance.gif

Did somebody call for a whaambulance?

No read-receipt? Email didn't get delivered or read. Welcome to the internet.

Lone_Gunman
07-01-2010, 5:11 AM
I heard they moved the office where you drop off the app. Anyone have the new location? I suppose I could get ahold of Amber again but it may be faster to just ask someone here if they know.

Glock22Fan
07-01-2010, 7:27 AM
I didn't get a reply from you, thus you ignored it. Deliberate or not.

And no, I don't think I will.


Emails get lost. They get put in junk mail folders.

They might get accidently overlooked if there's a whole slew of other emails and junk mails around them. Bad office practice perhaps, but, hey, this is a voluntary effort. We didn't, and don't, actually owe you any attention whatsoever.

None of these are the same as "ignored", which implies that we considered your email and deliberately decided that you did not deserve a reply.

That never happened. There is no reason whatsoever why it should have happened.

You are taking a personal slight over something that never happened and suggesting stringly to other people, without any justification, that it will happen to them as well. You ignore my apologies.

Grow up and get a pair. Stop sulking in the corner of the schoolyard. "Mommy, Johnny ignored me! Bah-hoo!" How childish.

Jeremy K.
07-01-2010, 7:48 AM
I heard they moved the office where you drop off the app. Anyone have the new location? I suppose I could get ahold of Amber again but it may be faster to just ask someone here if they know.

Per my phone conversation with her yesterday, you still check-in at the front dest at 711 G Street and she will come down and get you.

Bizcuits
07-01-2010, 9:19 AM
This thread was very informative and educational. Thank you to those who contributed their experience and knowledge.

Lone_Gunman
07-01-2010, 9:27 AM
Awesome. Thanks Jeremy.

bigcalidave
07-01-2010, 9:40 AM
Glock22 and TBJ have always responded fairly, lets drop the accusations since it is pretty obvious that sometimes messages get missed. I get so many PMs I can't keep up either.

As for the CCW permit, there are lines for 3 weapons, which is the only reason I can find for any county to restrict it to 3 weapons. This restriction bothers me a lot, I hope the future can implement a change to that. What does it matter which guns I carry? I like the Utah permit, much more professional. It's absurd that CA still hands out the rice paper permits.

I haven't heard of a Sheriff requiring registered guns. Is that really an issue somewhere?

wildhawker
07-01-2010, 9:49 AM
I haven't heard of a Sheriff requiring registered guns. Is that really an issue somewhere?

Yes, but not for long.

jb7706
07-01-2010, 9:57 AM
As for the CCW permit, there are lines for 3 weapons, which is the only reason I can find for any county to restrict it to 3 weapons. This restriction bothers me a lot, I hope the future can implement a change to that. What does it matter which guns I carry? I like the Utah permit, much more professional. It's absurd that CA still hands out the rice paper permits.

I haven't heard of a Sheriff requiring registered guns. Is that really an issue somewhere?

The app has space for three guns, and it does state to use additional pages to add more if needed. Seems silly to restrict ti to particular guns. I could see an argument to qualify with revolvers or semiautomatics, but it's a weak one.

I have read in posts here and elsewhere that the Sheriff of some counties does verify that the gun listed is registered to the applicant, but those are of unknown age/reliability. I don't have links to them either, but will see if I can dig them up.

Glock22Fan
07-01-2010, 10:02 AM
The app has space for three guns, and it does state to use additional pages to add more if needed. Seems silly to restrict ti to particular guns. I could see an argument to qualify with revolvers or semiautomatics, but it's a weak one.

I have read in posts here and elsewhere that the Sheriff of some counties does verify that the gun listed is registered to the applicant, but those are of unknown age/reliability. I don't have links to them either, but will see if I can dig them up.

^^^ This ^^^

Python2
07-01-2010, 11:17 AM
I haven't heard of a Sheriff requiring registered guns. Is that really an issue somewhere?

In the Calif. application, I was required to list serial numbers. Whether they check it or not, I have no idea. But somehow I noticed when I took my interview, the Lt was holding a piece of paper that appear to list guns and serial numbers that I suspect were all mine:o .
Nevada do not list serial numbers just type and model.

Glock22Fan
07-01-2010, 11:29 AM
snip

Nevada do not list serial numbers just type and model.

Type and model for semi-autos, just the words "Revolvers Authorized" if you have qualified with any wheel gun.

No Spin
07-01-2010, 12:16 PM
John McGinness has had over 3 years to change the policy. Scott Jones the self admitted "Chief of Staff" to McGinness wrote the current policy. Now I hear they are making it easier to get a CCW. Im a firm believer in Shall Issue. Changing you policy to get votes is offensive and dishonest.

The best predictor of the future, is the past...dont lie to us know Jones and think we are too dumb to figure it out...we have enough of that at the Federal and State level.

wildhawker
07-01-2010, 12:19 PM
No Spin,

Go apply using some variant of self-defense as good cause. Yes, it means you have to ignore political minutiae and rhetoric and actually submit your application.

If you're denied, PM or email me.

dantodd
07-01-2010, 12:34 PM
The best predictor of the future, is the past...dont lie to us know Jones and think we are too dumb to figure it out...we have enough of that at the Federal and State level.

I believe if you read through this thread you will see that some of the posters here have recently been approved. Perhaps you are looking too far into the past for your purposes. It only costs $20 to try. It's a lot less hassle than getting on here to complain.

N6ATF
07-01-2010, 1:03 PM
"Every penny is sacred and shall not be paid without a 100% guarantee it will not go to waste!" :rolleyes:

Python2
07-01-2010, 1:13 PM
. It only costs $20 to try. It's a lot less hassle than getting on here to complain.

Not even that, there are counties that will take your application without shelling out a penny until you are approved. I should know, been through it.

Python2
07-01-2010, 1:17 PM
Type and model for semi-autos, just the words "Revolvers Authorized" if you have qualified with any wheel gun.
Yes. Thanks for further clarification.

Gray Peterson
07-01-2010, 1:17 PM
John McGinness has had over 3 years to change the policy. Scott Jones the self admitted "Chief of Staff" to McGinness wrote the current policy. Now I hear they are making it easier to get a CCW. Im a firm believer in Shall Issue. Changing you policy to get votes is offensive and dishonest.

The best predictor of the future, is the past...dont lie to us know Jones and think we are too dumb to figure it out...we have enough of that at the Federal and State level.

Let's see....first post in the forum, an attack on Scott Jones. Hmm...

Do you wish to be more educated on the legal situation surrounding this policy change or are you more interested in attacking Scott Jones? PM me if you feel like learning the truth. Personally, I don't care which one of the candidates win, but you need to realize that the reason for the policy change has absolutely nothing to do with the 2010 election.

jb7706
07-01-2010, 2:00 PM
Not even that, there are counties that will take your application without shelling out a penny until you are approved. I should know, been through it.

However Sacramento County is not one of them. They want your $20 up front. That said a box of retail ammo costs more than that. Other than the irritation of dealing with all the hoops what's to lose?

thebronze
07-01-2010, 2:14 PM
Let's see....first post in the forum, an attack on Scott Jones. Hmm...

Do you wish to be more educated on the legal situation surrounding this policy change or are you more interested in attacking Scott Jones? PM me if you feel like learning the truth. Personally, I don't care which one of the candidates win, but you need to realize that the reason for the policy change has absolutely nothing to do with the 2010 election.

Then what is the reason?

Regarding Sacramento CCW's there seems to be a lot vague statements and innuendo by people supposedly "in the know", about why X should be done vs. Y being done. Why not give people the information they're asking for? If there's a reason for not telling us (pending litigation, etc.) then just tell us that.

Why is it so hard for people to just be honest about things?

jb7706
07-01-2010, 2:23 PM
If there's a reason for not telling us (pending litigation, etc.) then just tell us that.

Read Sykes (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness), then think about for a bit. Is it worth posting tactical information in a public forum?

dantodd
07-01-2010, 2:27 PM
Then what is the reason?

Regarding Sacramento CCW's there seems to be a lot vague statements and innuendo by people supposedly "in the know", about why X should be done vs. Y being done. Why not give people the information they're asking for? If there's a reason for not telling us (pending litigation, etc.) then just tell us that.

Why is it so hard for people to just be honest about things?

It can sometimes be frustrating to fall in behind a leader, or group of leaders. If you cannot take the leadership's word that now is a good time to apply and you fear wasting the $20 and half hour of your time to fill in the application so that you might have the ability to defend yourself then move along.

There is a reason the CGF is regarded as leaders, it is because they have proven themselves and earned that title. If they are saying now is a good time to apply then, if you live in Sacto, you should apply.

Sometimes you will learn more from reading between the lines than by being a belligerent literalist.

Untamed1972
07-01-2010, 2:41 PM
The app has space for three guns, and it does state to use additional pages to add more if needed. Seems silly to restrict ti to particular guns. I could see an argument to qualify with revolvers or semiautomatics, but it's a weak one.

I have read in posts here and elsewhere that the Sheriff of some counties does verify that the gun listed is registered to the applicant, but those are of unknown age/reliability. I don't have links to them either, but will see if I can dig them up.


If you go read thru some of the posting in Gray Petersons statutory compliance threads there were soem counties requiring this and other things like you had to submit your guns to the Dept's armor to be inspected you had to have the ammo you are going to carry approved and a buch of other really insane crap. All requirements I'm sure the friends of the sheriff who actually get approved have waived for them. I thought San Diego had the registration requirement too, but I went back and checked their webpage and it's not there.

Although I'm inclined to think if you claimed to be a CA resident since before registration started and you're listing a gun that is newer than when registration began and it's not registered it might raise some eyebrows about how you got it? Or if you moved to CA after registration started then legally you should have registered your guns within 60days. So if you're thinking about listing an unregistered gun on your permit make sure you have a legal reason why it's not registered. Which would pretty much mean it was a gun you legally owned in CA before registration was enacted.

You wouldn't want to have you permit denied because of suspected hankypanky with how you aquire your guns.

Glock22Fan
07-01-2010, 2:53 PM
Let's try to put this to bed.

You are fine having a gun registered to your spouse on your CCW.

Unless you have some really deep-seated resistance to registering your firearms (I guess you have bought nothing legally the last many years) why not spend the $19 (I believe) registering them? It doesn't take long, it really isn't a hassle and it could solve problems.

hoffmang
07-01-2010, 8:24 PM
Unless you have some really deep-seated resistance to registering your firearms (I guess you have bought nothing legally the last many years) why not spend the $19 (I believe) registering them? It doesn't take long, it really isn't a hassle and it could solve problems.

As a practical matter, I agree. However issuing agencies need to follow the law and that requirement is contrary to the Penal Code specifically.

If they hold us to the letter of the law...

-Gene

Glock22Fan
07-01-2010, 8:34 PM
As a practical matter, I agree. However issuing agencies need to follow the law and that requirement is contrary to the Penal Code specifically.

If they hold us to the letter of the law...

-Gene

I agree in principle, but, as you say, there is always the practical aspect; some principles should be stuck to, but sometimes it is easier, and nothing really lost, to go with the flow.

Gray Peterson
07-01-2010, 11:00 PM
Let's try to put this to bed.

You are fine having a gun registered to your spouse on your CCW.

Unless you have some really deep-seated resistance to registering your firearms (I guess you have bought nothing legally the last many years) why not spend the $19 (I believe) registering them? It doesn't take long, it really isn't a hassle and it could solve problems.

Penal Code 12054(d) and Government Code 53071. GC specifically, as a county cannot require you to VOLREG your guns, neither can they require it for you in specific.

hoffmang
07-01-2010, 11:12 PM
I agree in principle, but, as you say, there is always the practical aspect; some principles should be stuck to, but sometimes it is easier, and nothing really lost, to go with the flow.

Yes. Individuals shouldn't rock that boat. Organizations however...

-Gene

No Spin
07-02-2010, 7:07 PM
Let's see....first post in the forum, an attack on Scott Jones. Hmm...

Do you wish to be more educated on the legal situation surrounding this policy change or are you more interested in attacking Scott Jones? PM me if you feel like learning the truth. Personally, I don't care which one of the candidates win, but you need to realize that the reason for the policy change has absolutely nothing to do with the 2010 election.

Yea, first post, SO. Is this forum exclusively for self-proclaimed experts as yourself? Can I have your permission to be on here?

Living in SAC I have a vested interest in this race, the current policy and whether its being used to secure votes...being from WA whats yours?

John McGinness lied to this community when he got elected by stating his "new" liberal CCW issue policy. He lied, and beat Bret Daniels who takes this issue to heart and doesnt just vomit-out the views we want to hear.

Scott Jones is and has been McGinness's Legal Advisor who wrote and supported the restrictive policy. Heck, he was Blanas's too.

Before Jones announced his bid for Sheriff, Sacramento had issued maybe 500CCW's over 8 years and McGinness and Jones actually revoked some because the holders "had money" and didnt want the political heat.

Now Jones is running for Sheriff and him and McGinness are handing CCW's out like candy...so, in your own words...Hmmmm. Dont be nieve and put the Koolaid down my friend. And, I am very interested in attacking Jones because we are TIRED of being lied to in SAC by local, so called supporters of Shall Issue...

Im sure you will attack me because this is just my second post and the fact that Im not a Veteran like YOU...so much for the 1st Ammendment, or do I need to educate my self on the Freedom of Speech too.

So, lets hear it. What was the "LEGAL" decision that made McGinness and Jones change thier policy decision on issuing more CCW's...Im Waiting:eek:

CSDGuy
07-02-2010, 7:28 PM
Yea, first post, SO. Is this forum exclusively for self-proclaimed experts as yourself? Can I have your permission to be on here?

Living in SAC I have a vested interest in this race, the current policy and whether its being used to secure votes...being from WA whats yours?

John McGinness lied to this community when he got elected by stating his "new" liberal CCW issue policy. He lied, and beat Bret Daniels who takes this issue to heart and doesnt just vomit-out the views we want to hear.

Scott Jones is and has been McGinness's Legal Advisor who wrote and supported the restrictive policy. Heck, he was Blanas's too.

Before Jones announced his bid for Sheriff, Sacramento had issued maybe 500CCW's over 8 years and McGinness and Jones actually revoked some because the holders "had money" and didnt want the political heat.

Now Jones is running for Sheriff and him and McGinness are handing CCW's out like candy...so, in your own words...Hmmmm. Dont be nieve and put the Koolaid down my friend. And, I am very interested in attacking Jones because we are TIRED of being lied to in SAC by local, so called supporters of Shall Issue...

Im sure you will attack me because this is just my second post and the fact that Im not a Veteran like YOU...so much for the 1st Ammendment, or do I need to educate my self on the Freedom of Speech too.

So, lets hear it. What was the "LEGAL" decision that made McGinness and Jones change thier policy decision on issuing more CCW's...Im Waiting:eek:
No Spin... you DO need to educate yourself on 1A matters and privately owned forums... like this one. You have no 1A rights here. Why? This site is NOT owned by the government. Let me ask you this... do you think that Cooper will he be any better? He wants to find a way to pass the issue off to the DOJ. Oh, and the CCW policy? It's been in place since Sheriff Craig... or longer. Blanas and McGinness didn't change things... wonder why??? I doubt it had much to do their own personal beliefs or that of their Legal Advisor... and more to the reason why Sheriff McGinness specifically brought up the CCW issue during last Summer's budget mess...

No Spin
07-02-2010, 7:49 PM
No Spin... you DO need to educate yourself on 1A matters and privately owned forums... like this one. You have no 1A rights here. Why? This site is NOT owned by the government. Let me ask you this... do you think that Cooper will he be any better? He wants to find a way to pass the issue off to the DOJ. Oh, and the CCW policy? It's been in place since Sheriff Craig... or longer. Blanas and McGinness didn't change things... wonder why??? I doubt it had much to do their own personal beliefs or that of their Legal Advisor... and more to the reason why Sheriff McGinness specifically brought up the CCW issue during last Summer's budget mess...

OK, scratch my First Ammendment rights on a technicality, haha. My point is that pompous and nieve attacks on my FIRST POST on local politics from someone 1000 miles away are silly and hold no merit.

Now, you want to turn this into a JONES VS COOPER race. Let me respond from my FIRST post, however ROOKIE "ya'll mite thunk it mea bee":

The best indicator of the future is history...Hence.

Craig + Blanas + McGinness + Jones = Same Ole Same Ole...the maths pretty easy....

As far as Cooper, dont know. But, I do know his stated policy here is more complex than just "passing it to DOJ". Its uniformity to more CCW flexible Counties in the State and he doesnt lie to get a vote. Secondly, at least Cooper is a Cop, Jones, a lawyer.

And yes, he was Blanas's Legal Advisor and continues to be McGinness's.
And yes, he wrote the current policy to protect McGinness, not us. What do you think Legal Advisors do.

And yes, in the last 8 months more CCW's have been issued...whats changed. A "LEGAL" issue or an election...still waiting for that response...

Or, maybe he's treating us like fools to get elected...go ahead and be led down that road my friend, I wont be.

Kestryll
07-02-2010, 7:59 PM
Can I have your permission to be on here?
You need mine to be here and to post, if you'd like to lose that permission keep trolling.

Living in SAC I have a vested interest in this race, the current policy and whether its being used to secure votes...being from WA whats yours?

I'd say you're being a bit disingenuous there wouldn't you?

Perhaps your interest is a bit more than just as a resident, what with the Sacramento Sheriff's Dept. IP address and all...

I'm not that fond of those who use deception to further their agenda.

dantodd
07-02-2010, 8:03 PM
Perhaps your interest is a bit more than just as a resident, what with the Sacramento Sheriff's Dept. IP address and all...


Ooops. I suspect that's the last we'll hear from No Spin....

I can see a PRAR being done on this.

truthseeker
07-02-2010, 8:04 PM
I'd say you're being a bit disingenuous there wouldn't you?

Perhaps your interest is a bit more than just as a resident, what with the Sacramento Sheriff's Dept. IP address and all...

I'm not that fond of those who use deception to further their agenda.

HA HA!! BUSTED!!!:D

I guess "No Spin" is a computer newb that didn't know that IP info is easy to obtain!

No Spin
07-02-2010, 8:12 PM
HAHA!! BUSTED!!!:D

Not Busted at ALL!

The facts are the facts gentlemen and I will continue to post. If it offends you thats something we will have to work through.

The truth is the absolute defense....It must have struck a cord. If you would like I will use a different IP Address, but the facts will remain the same...stick to the issues its too important for the big picture...that is if the CCW issue is what your REALLY concerned about.

chrisw
07-02-2010, 8:18 PM
So.... the big picture is?

Not Busted at ALL!

The facts are the facts gentlemen and I will continue to post. If it offends you thats something we will have to work through.

The truth is the absolute defense....It must have struck a cord. If you would like I will use a different IP Address, but the facts will remain the same...stick to the issues its too important for the big picture...that is if the CCW issue is what your REALLY concerned about.

Kestryll
07-02-2010, 8:19 PM
Not Busted at ALL!

The facts are the facts gentlemen and I will continue to post. If it offends you thats something we will have to work through.

The truth is the absolute defense....It must have struck a cord. If you would like I will use a different IP Address, but the facts will remain the same...stick to the issues its too important for the big picture...that is if the CCW issue is what your REALLY concerned about.

You came on here with an agenda, claimed that your interest was as a resident when you work for Sac Sheriff and now you wish to hide behind the claim that facts are facts.

I don't care one way or the other what your opinion is on Sac Sheriff, CCW or whatever, I am however intrigued that you come here presenting a false presentation of yourself and your agenda.

if you want to play with facts, you misrepresented yourself to bias the discussion and to hide your agenda.
That makes the one known FACT in all of this to be that you lied.

bwiese
07-02-2010, 8:22 PM
For those with curiosity, let's just say Sykes is starting to have "practical resonance".

truthseeker
07-02-2010, 8:35 PM
Not Busted at ALL!

The facts are the facts gentlemen and I will continue to post. If it offends you thats something we will have to work through.

The truth is the absolute defense....It must have struck a cord. If you would like I will use a different IP Address, but the facts will remain the same...stick to the issues its too important for the big picture...that is if the CCW issue is what your REALLY concerned about.

In all honesty, I couldnt care less what your issues are, because I feel the same way as Kestryll does about you posting as a "resident" however you were obviously trying to conceal the fact that you are connected with the Sac County Sheriffs office in some way.

That makes anything you post lose credibility IMO.

wildhawker
07-02-2010, 8:36 PM
No Spin,

Assume the courts side with our argument and force issuance- can you articulate what substantive effect the Sheriff has on the CCW issue?

6172crew
07-02-2010, 8:53 PM
For those with curiousity, let's just say Sykes is starting to have "practical resonance".
http://fitnr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/larry-the-cable-guy-git-r-done-300x214.jpg

Fjold
07-02-2010, 8:56 PM
You came on here with an agenda, claimed that your interest was as a resident when you work for Sac Sheriff and now you wish to hide behind the claim that facts are facts.

I don't care one way or the other what your opinion is on Sac Sheriff, CCW or whatever, I am however intrigued that you come here presenting a false presentation of yourself and your agenda.

if you want to play with facts, you misrepresented yourself to bias the discussion and to hide your agenda.
That makes the one known FACT in all of this to be that you lied.



I was going to stop reading this thread because of all the whining but this new wrinkle intrigues me also. Aren't "No Spin" and "lying" mutually exclusive?


I'm also wondering if No Spin will ever learn to spell "naive" correctly since he loves to us the word so much.

rmasold
07-02-2010, 9:45 PM
Have any of you on the thread actually aplied for a Sac County CCW in the last 6-9 months? I have and know several people who have applied and received the Sac County CCW under McGinness. My experience is that it has become much easier than it was under Blanas but don't expect to receive one if you have a criminal record or record of domestic violence. I believe DUI is also an excluding factor. It took about 6 weeks tho...

rmasold
07-02-2010, 9:48 PM
I posted this a couple of days ago I hope this helps..

From Scott Jones
"My position on CCW issuance has never changed throughout this campaign, and is that "personal safety" is a sufficient justification for the issuance of a CCW, absent compelling reasons to the contrary. Such compelling reasons would be limited, but might include a history of drug or alcohol abuse, or a history of violence. Effectively, this will change the paradigm from an applicant having to prove a need, to the applicant starting with a premise of issuance unless there is a legal prohibition or compelling reason for non-issuance. As Sheriff McGinness' chief of staff for the last two years, i have watched the CCW Committee carry out HIS standard, and I can say with certainty that I will issue a greater percentage of CCW permits when I am Sheriff."

"It is not the lawful CCW holders that concern me--there has never been anyone shot in Sacramento County by someone with a CCW permit . It is the criminals who prey upon the innocent and who are carrying weapons illegally that cause me concern. Further, my oath of office is to provide public safety to the best of MY (not necessarily the Sheriff's Department's) ability; the less the Sheriff's Department is able to provide protection, the more I feel OBLIGATED to see to it that law abiding folks have the means to protect themselves."

obeygiant
07-02-2010, 9:55 PM
Not Busted at ALL!

The facts are the facts gentlemen and I will continue to post. If it offends you thats something we will have to work through.

The truth is the absolute defense....It must have struck a cord. If you would like I will use a different IP Address, but the facts will remain the same...stick to the issues its too important for the big picture...that is if the CCW issue is what your REALLY concerned about.

Let's talk about the truth shall we? Care to come clean and provide your badge#,your real name and the department Sacramento Sheriff's office or should we just get that by PRAR?

I'm pretty sure that at the beginning of your employment with SCSO that you agreed to a policy which prevents you from acting on behalf of the SCSO in any official or public capacity without prior authorization.

dantodd
07-02-2010, 10:16 PM
If you would like I will use a different IP Address, but the facts will remain the same...

Sounds like some poor IT guy at the SO will be making overtime tonight. I wonder what the login for the next poster will be.

BTW: LEO are welcome here. We are a very "big tent" organization. We do have the occasional member who really has a hard on for all cops but that is certainly the exception, not the rule. All we ask is that you not try and be decietful. You might want to post in the LEO forum we have here too it might help you to see that not all LEO feel the need to defend bad policy, especially when it is likely going to be found unconstitutional as well. It might help you understand that armed citizens are generall not a threat to a just government or law enforcement.

N6ATF
07-02-2010, 10:21 PM
Are we missing the forest for the trees, here? Ban, purge, move on...

Glock22Fan
07-02-2010, 10:23 PM
No Spin => Attitude fail.

jb7706
07-02-2010, 10:54 PM
No Spin => Attitude fail.

At least he has company, and I'm not pointing at you.

SixPointEight
07-02-2010, 11:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone_Gunman View Post
Are you saying we should apply with "self defense" or something close to that at this time

Yes.



With that said, I'll begin filling out the app I printed out tomorrow in the morning.

Should I literally write my good cause as "self defense" or should I write it a little more complexly and in more words?

Mstrty
07-03-2010, 7:50 PM
With that said, I'll begin filling out the app I printed out tomorrow in the morning.

Should I literally write my good cause as "self defense" or should I write it a little more complexly and in more words?

Keep it short as possible. I had mine hacked up cause it was too long. Less than a full page if possible. I wouldnt just write "self defence". Self defence why?

Glock22Fan
07-03-2010, 8:10 PM
With that said, I'll begin filling out the app I printed out tomorrow in the morning.

Should I literally write my good cause as "self defense" or should I write it a little more complexly and in more words?

It can do no harm, unless you just want to make a political statement, to spell out a reasonable Good Cause as Ty suggests, if you have one. His other advice is good as well.

Two paragraphs is usually sufficient, maybe three. If possible, leave out the "avid shooter" and similar elective activities.

thebronze
07-03-2010, 11:08 PM
I'd say you're being a bit disingenuous there wouldn't you?

Perhaps your interest is a bit more than just as a resident, what with the Sacramento Sheriff's Dept. IP address and all...

I'm not that fond of those who use deception to further their agenda.

So what if he works for SSD? That doesn't negate what he said. How is he being deceptive because he works for SSD? Who cares where he works?
Where do you work? What's your name and title where you work (since you asked him that)?

Am I being deceptive too, because I work for the State of California and sometimes post from work, also?

wildhawker
07-03-2010, 11:10 PM
Campaigning on public time is a no-no.

thebronze
07-03-2010, 11:26 PM
Campaigning on public time is a no-no.

It didn't sound to me like he was campaigning at all. It sounded like a rank-and-file person from SSD saying information that he's privy to, by virtue
of being employed by SSD (which BTW, jibes exactly with what I know from having worked there).

Even if he was (which he wasn't), that's for his employer to decide, not someone on a gun-board.

wildhawker
07-03-2010, 11:53 PM
Apparently you seem to think that the public are without standing to raise the issue with the employer. Needless to say, even the appearance of campaigning could pose a serious problem for them.

Gray Peterson
07-04-2010, 12:57 AM
So what if he works for SSD? That doesn't negate what he said. How is he being deceptive because he works for SSD? Who cares where he works?
Where do you work? What's your name and title where you work (since you asked him that)?

Am I being deceptive too, because I work for the State of California and sometimes post from work, also?

He was intentionally bomb throwing in the thread with just his first post and involving political and elections issues and mixing that up with the CCW issue unnecessarily.

With his second post, he then attacked me because I live two states north of here (as if the civil liberties of Americans isn't an interest to constitutionally literate people nationwide).

Think of it this way: If you worked Department of Justice's Bureau of Firearms, and your first posts were to attack your superiors for loosening up a policy to allow the issuance of assault weapons licenses, and then you attack other members of a forum questioning why all of the sudden you post a contrary statement that is opposite of the common understanding of the forum (along with a bunch of attacks on your fellow co-workers), and when taken to task and asked if you want to hear the real reason, you personally attack the person asking the question, especially when the facts stated get in the way of a rant?

It's called being an agent provocatuer, with an apparent slant against Scott Jones (perhaps a Cooper supporter?). He is also suggesting that the people going through the application process (encouraged by this thread) have an apparent lack of integrity, that they'll vote for Jones because he's on the "committee which approves CCW's". Except there's just one problem with this: The Sheriff can delegate tasks but he cannot delegate responsibility. Committee or no, the buck stops with who is sitting in the current sheriff's chair. The committee is extra-legal, and if they deny someone a license, it won't be the committee in the hotseat, it'll be the sheriff himself.

Bronze, if you're part of the DMV or some other division of the Department of Justice not relating to guns or some other state governmental agency, and even if you post an invective and do personal attacks and you get banned from a firearms forum, no one is going to care.

But when a Sheriff's office employee, an employee of an office which is currently being sued by CGF for refusing to issue licenses for personal protection, starts attacking (on the forum that CGF is associated with by it's very name) an indication of a loosening policy as "pure politics" and that "he'll screw gun owners after the elections just like John McGuinness did" completely misses and misunderstands the point. Considering Sykes is about making sheriff elections completely unimportant.....

That being said, when you're part of an agency, which in the past has played the role of g-d in approving or denying CCW's, start stirring up **** and walking into this forum like he owns the place, the first thing thought of is "agent provocatuer", which he likely is. That to me crosses the line into "Yes, he should get outed as a Sacramento Sheriff's employee". Hell, for all we know it could be McGuinness himself.

Would you expect privacy if you were a DMV drivers licensing clerk, you then go into a driving forum from work and start attacking your co-workers at DMV (without identifying yourself as a DMV employee and pretending to be just an observer of behavior as a visitor) and then start attacking others who question your motives especially since you're so new to the forum? Would you expect the forum owner to keep your secret when you're trolling their forum when your IP address resolves to dmv.ca.gov?

It would be less serious if it were just "my co-worker likes to pick his nose" situation, rather than the serious life or death circumstances which can occur from a denial of a CCW. It's time that all employees of the Sacramento Sheriffs Office understand that when the man up top is denying people's fundamental rights, they should tread lightly with the people they're oppressing while collecting a paycheck from them (both as tax payers and from the County of Sacramento's treasury, which comes from the tax payer).

obeygiant
07-04-2010, 12:57 AM
So what if he works for SSD? That doesn't negate what he said. How is he being deceptive because he works for SSD? Who cares where he works?
Where do you work? What's your name and title where you work (since you asked him that)?

Am I being deceptive too, because I work for the State of California and sometimes post from work, also?

Kestryll didn't ask for his name and title, I did. The issue is not so much where he works but rather the fact that he was posting under the guise of being joe citizen when in fact he is a part of the department. Also, to clear up any other misconceptions, this is a LEO friendly community and I personally would welcome anyone from the various LEA's.

thebronze
07-04-2010, 9:34 AM
Kestryll didn't ask for his name and title, I did. The issue is not so much where he works but rather the fact that he was posting under the guise of being joe citizen when in fact he is a part of the department. Also, to clear up any other misconceptions, this is a LEO friendly community and I personally would welcome anyone from the various LEA's.


Then I'm sure you'd have no problem telling everyone your name and where you work and your title there, right?

There sure is a lot of hypocrisy on CalGuns...

wildhawker
07-04-2010, 9:36 AM
Thebronze, you do acknowledge the difference between a public and private industry employee, right?

obeygiant
07-04-2010, 9:43 AM
Then I'm sure you'd have no problem telling everyone your name and where you work and your title there, right?

There sure is a lot of hypocrisy on CalGuns...

My name and profession are already on this board,just do a search for "CRPA" or better yet wait for you next issue of The Firing Line to be delivered to your doorstep. You are still missing the issue though.

Glock22Fan
07-04-2010, 9:47 AM
Then I'm sure you'd have no problem telling everyone your name and where you work and your title there, right?

There sure is a lot of hypocrisy on CalGuns...

There is a big difference between ObeyGiant and No Spin. ObeyGiant didn't come in here pretending to be someone he was not and pushing a biased agenda as if he were a disinterested bystander.

Furthermore, even before Kestryl revealed the origin of the posts, No Spin came over as a belligerant, unnecessarily rude poster with a bad attitude.

thebronze
07-04-2010, 11:20 AM
There is a big difference between ObeyGiant and No Spin. ObeyGiant didn't come in here pretending to be someone he was not and pushing a biased agenda as if he were a disinterested bystander.

Furthermore, even before Kestryl revealed the origin of the posts, No Spin came over as a belligerant, unnecessarily rude poster with a bad attitude.

We'll have to disagree on that. I don't see how he was pretending to be anything he wasn't. If he would've come on and said "I work for SSD and here's what I think..." would that have made you feel better?

So now everyone that posts on here has to state where they work and who they are, so we can make sure they have no personal agenda or bias or make sure they're not posting on company time?

That's ridiculous. EVERYONE on this board has an agenda AND a bias.

I'm done arguing about this. It's stupid.

N6ATF
07-04-2010, 11:29 AM
We'll have to disagree on that. I don't see how he was pretending to be anything he wasn't. If he would've come on and said "I work for SSD and here's what I think..." would that have made you feel better?

So now everyone that posts on here has to state where they work and who they are, so we can make sure they have no personal agenda or bias or make sure they're not posting on company time?

That's ridiculous. EVERYONE on this board has an agenda AND a bias.

I'm done arguing about this. It's stupid.

Indeed. What about GOVERNMENT does not get through your skull? :banghead:

thebronze
07-04-2010, 12:01 PM
Indeed. What about GOVERNMENT does not get through your skull? :banghead:


Ohhh Scary! The GOVERNMENT is baaaaaaad!

Spare me.

obeygiant
07-04-2010, 2:07 PM
I'm done arguing about this. It's stupid.

At least we can agree on that^^

thebronze
07-04-2010, 2:26 PM
At least we can agree on that^^

:cheers2: