PDA

View Full Version : Any effects if denied CCW?


Swiss
06-16-2010, 8:52 AM
I'm an upstanding citizen in my community and will be applying for a CCW to make a political point to my elected representatives. I expect to be denied even though I live in a high-crime city and my good cause is that I walk home at night from BART.

Before I get the ball rolling, are there any effects of being denied a CCW that I should know about? Is the denial retained in a record that might affect other aspects of my life?

Thanks.

paul0660
06-16-2010, 9:02 AM
The application will ask you if you have ever been denied. The effect of that on future applications won't be much if the reason for denial is a jurisidiction that is virtually no-issue.

manuelcardenas77
06-16-2010, 9:12 AM
Good luck!! Being serious....

bodger
06-16-2010, 9:19 AM
That's a question that I've seen on CG before. As Paul0660said, the general consensus from those who know is that a denial from an agency that is known to be "No Issue" doesn't affect future applications.

If I recall,Billy Jack is an advocate of applying even in areas where they don't issue. I think the logic is that the more people that apply, the more momentum there is to the CCW movement. Numbers tend to get politician's attention, especially when suits are being filed.

But I don't realy know much about it. I live in Los Angeles, there's not a snowball's chance I would get a CCW. I'll wait and see if McDonald changes anything. Or more accurately, the cases that will be filed if McDonald goes our way.

fred40
06-16-2010, 9:30 AM
Let's just say Swiss applies and gets denied. He lives in a high crime area. One day (hopefully never) he gets jumped and badly beaten on his way home. Can he sue for getting denied his ccw?

Billy Jack
06-16-2010, 9:31 AM
That's a question that I've seen on CG before. As Paul0660said, the general consensus from those who know is that a denial from an agency that is known to be "No Issue" doesn't affect future applications.

If I recall,Billy Jack is an advocate of applying even in areas where they don't issue. I think the logic is that the more people that apply, the more momentum there is to the CCW movement. Numbers tend to get politician's attention, especially when suits are being filed.

But I don't realy know much about it. I live in Los Angeles, there's not a snowball's chance I would get a CCW. I'll wait and see if McDonald changes anything. Or more accurately, the cases that will be filed if McDonald goes our way.

During the course of pre trial Discovery or trial Discovery, we routinely examine the denied files. We are allowed to raise legal issues about those who were denied and those that were issued that have the same GC. If the only difference is a political, financial or social connection with the Sheriff that would violate the 14th Amendment as it would demonstrate that the Sheriff is using additional, illegal criteria for issuance.

Every denial in the file becomes potential evidence in a 14th Amendment lawsuit, so applying and being denied does not affect the applicant in a negative manner and it can help the cause. In the Federal suits I have worked on we review the denials and contact the applicants. Some are invited to join the suit if they can enhance the case. This is normally at no cost to them. This of course, varies by case.

Any questions, visit our website and communicate with us.

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'


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

Billy Jack
06-16-2010, 9:35 AM
Let's just say Swiss applies and gets denied. He lives in a high crime area. One day (hopefully never) he gets jumped and badly beaten on his way home. Can he sue for getting denied his ccw?

That has been answered here countless times. NO! Law enforcement is under no obligation to protect anyone.

Billy Jack

yellowfin
06-16-2010, 9:45 AM
More specifically, there's a point of 12050 directly shielding them from liability for non-issuance. That should be challenged as unconscionable after McDonald, or maybe after Sykes.

Blackhawk556
06-16-2010, 9:53 AM
i feel like applying then, if i get denied then so what

yellowfin
06-16-2010, 9:58 AM
Well, one thing I know from the insurance biz is that if you're applying to be appointed with a company often times they will ask you if you've ever been denied a license of any kind by a state or local government, and it's a black mark on you if the answer is "yes".

Billy Jack
06-16-2010, 10:02 AM
More specifically, there's a point of 12050 directly shielding them from liability for non-issuance. That should be challenged as unconscionable after McDonald, or maybe after Sykes.

You can make a wish list for SCOTUS, but you would have to have a victim willing to litigate this case law and the resources to do so. If you have about $500,000.00 - $1,000,000.00, I will help you seek a client.

Just kidding as I hope you were. We have bigger fish to fry right now. Besides SCOTUS selects which cases it will hear and taking a case that far takes on average 2-5 years. It can take 1-2 years to get a Circuit Court to hear a case. Been there, done that.

You folks need to stop reinventing the wheel and do a little more reading on the sites and existing case law.

This Brave has spoken.

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'


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

Billy Jack
06-16-2010, 10:06 AM
Well, one thing I know from the insurance biz is that if you're applying to be appointed with a company often times they will ask you if you've ever been denied a license of any kind by a state or local government, and it's a black mark on you if the answer is "yes".

Insurance law and rules are somewhat different from those dealing with a government agency. Apples and oranges, now let's not confuse the readers. We should all strive to post information that is on point and not go off the topic.

Billy Jack

yellowfin
06-16-2010, 10:10 AM
The OP asked if there were any ways it could affect him in other life aspects, and that is potentially one of them IF that's his present or future career field.

Gray Peterson
06-16-2010, 10:10 AM
More specifically, there's a point of 12050 directly shielding them from liability for non-issuance. That should be challenged as unconscionable after McDonald, or maybe after Sykes.

It's not PC12050 that shields them from liability. It is government code 818.4 and government code 821.2 that does so.

The only liability that a sheriff/chief of police can get is from DENYING an application for a license, which can trigger a 42USC1983 violation.

That being said, do not apply in a dark red county (CoCo), or bother contacting them about their illegalities or anything of the sort at this time, unless you are working with TBJ, NRA/CRPA LAP, CGF, or myself.

Python2
06-16-2010, 10:17 AM
I'm an upstanding citizen in my community and will be applying for a CCW to make a political point to my elected representatives. I expect to be denied even though I live in a high-crime city and my good cause is that I walk home at night from BART.

Before I get the ball rolling, are there any effects of being denied a CCW that I should know about? Is the denial retained in a record that might affect other aspects of my life?

Thanks.

It depends, speaking from experience, was denied in one county, moved and issued from another county. Just be honest.

yellowfin
06-16-2010, 10:19 AM
Is CA a one party consent state?

mtptwo
06-16-2010, 10:21 AM
Some counties claim that they will deny you one if you have ever been denied in the past for any reason. I believe that Yolo used to be like this, but considering the process changes depending on who is sheriff at the time, it may not be the case now.

Gray Peterson
06-16-2010, 10:23 AM
Some counties claim that they will deny you one if you have ever been denied in the past for any reason. I believe that Yolo used to be like this, but considering the process changes depending on who is sheriff at the time, it may not be the case now.

This is unlawful.

Glock22Fan
06-16-2010, 10:31 AM
Any questions, visit our website and communicate with us.

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'



Seems like Billy Jack has edited his website out of his signature line.

Here it is. (http://www.CaliforniaConcealedCarry.com) And again, as always,in my signature line.

Gray Peterson
06-16-2010, 10:32 AM
That being said, do not apply in a dark red county (like CoCo), or bother contacting them about their illegalities or anything of the sort at this time, unless you are working with TBJ, NRA/CRPA LAP, CGF, or myself.

ElkHunterSL
06-16-2010, 10:47 AM
I lvie in Los Angeles and I am applying. I agree with Billy Jack, apply even if you have no chance.

I'm not a lawyer but I believe it to be UnConstitutional to be denied a CCW that is good for the whole State yet denial is decided by County and I'm ready to take on this fight.

Billy Jack
06-16-2010, 11:25 AM
That being said, do not apply in a dark red county (like CoCo), or bother contacting them about their illegalities or anything of the sort at this time, unless you are working with TBJ, NRA/CRPA LAP, CGF, or myself.



I agree fully with Gray. Contacting any department that is violating the law in issuance and telling them about it is not going to work. Same for telling their County Counsel about it. The exceptions are procedural issues like fees collected contrary to law or exceeding the 90 day notification requirement.

I want to state once again that every time a qualified applicant with GC as good as people already issued applies and is denied, it makes a record that can later be used in Federal court when someone else files a suit. You do not all have to sue but those that need a CCW need to apply and 'make the record'.

I am not at liberty to tell you what I find in Discovery but I can say much of it is of probative value. I am restricted by Attorney and Client and Investigator privilege as well as Protective Orders that at this stage in my career I am not about to violate.

Get out there and apply!

Billy Jack



www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Billy Jack
06-16-2010, 11:27 AM
I lvie in Los Angeles and I am applying. I agree with Billy Jack, apply even if you have no chance.

I'm not a lawyer but I believe it to be UnConstitutional to be denied a CCW that is good for the whole State yet denial is decided by County and I'm ready to take on this fight.

Not unconstitutional to deny you or anyone. It is how you were considered, vetted and processed in relation to other 'like situated' applicants.

Billy Jack

spegull03
06-16-2010, 11:29 AM
Would Sacramento be one of the said "dark red counties?"

paul0660
06-16-2010, 11:38 AM
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w162/paul0660/ca_ccw_map-big.png

Gray Peterson
06-16-2010, 12:08 PM
Would Sacramento be one of the said "dark red counties?"

If you live in Sacramento, there is a very specific situation there where that advice is not applicable, so if you live there, please apply. Do not be discouraged by the app itself, apply.

spegull03
06-16-2010, 12:22 PM
Thanks for the information. I was thinking I would apply with the current sheriff on his way out, since they might be a little more lax. I have no "good cause" other than personal defence so I expect to be denied.

If I am denied, maybe the next sheriff would be understanding of the reasons for denial.

Gray Peterson
06-16-2010, 12:26 PM
I agree fully with Gray. Contacting any department that is violating the law in issuance and telling them about it is not going to work. Same for telling their County Counsel about it. The exceptions are procedural issues like fees collected contrary to law or exceeding the 90 day notification requirement.


Just to clarify, is refusal to process an application if one is a resident of a city with it's own PD considered a procedural issue?

Gray Peterson
06-16-2010, 12:30 PM
Thanks for the information. I was thinking I would apply with the current sheriff on his way out, since they might be a little more lax. I have no "good cause" other than personal defence so I expect to be denied.

If I am denied, maybe the next sheriff would be understanding of the reasons for denial.

Let me make this more crystal clear:

Stop worrying about denials. Denials cannot be used against you in a future application for a CCW, as this would violate Salute v. Pitchess. I know a few counties consider it a mark against you but they will be fixed as a matter of procedure.

Untamed1972
06-16-2010, 12:35 PM
The main thing that keeps me from applying is (other then not having anything likely to be considered "good cause", just an average joe, with an average job), is the background investigation. Not that I have anything bad in my background, but having had to submit to background checks for other things in the past anything past a fingerprint check and running a criminal history check is just more intrusion then I'm willing to submit to at this time. If UT can issue me a permit w/o ever even meeting me in person, there is no reason/need for CA to need to pry into every corner of my personal life.

Billy Jack
06-16-2010, 12:37 PM
Just to clarify, is refusal to process an application if one is a resident of a city with it's own PD considered a procedural issue?

You and I seem to be on the same page more often than not. Almost 400 police departments and most have policies. Some simply refuse to 'exercise their discretion' which courts have already found to be an abuse of that discretion. Los Angeles County for instance has almost 50 cities and none have declared 12050 (G) PC. Most cities are just sitting there waiting to be sued. They have shallow pockets even in good times. Can you imagine multiple suits against cities all over the state? According to the CCW Map there are only a handful of departments screaming to be sued.

McDonald will be an element of future 14th Amendment suits but in of itself will not solve California's problems.

We need to talk sometime. E-mail our site and I will give you a phone number.

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Billy Jack
06-16-2010, 12:42 PM
The main thing that keeps me from applying is (other then not having anything likely to be considered "good cause", just an average joe, with an average job), is the background investigation. Not that I have anything bad in my background, but having had to submit to background checks for other things in the past anything past a fingerprint check and running a criminal history check is just more intrusion then I'm willing to submit to at this time. If UT can issue me a permit w/o ever even meeting me in person, there is no reason/need for CA to need to pry into every corner of my personal life.

If Unicorns were to have your CCW affixed to their horn, you will still be subjected to a background (vetted) for a CCW even if the state were Shall Issue. By the way, Unicorns will walk the Earth and fill my flagon with their tears before California goes Shall Issue.

Why this fascination with mythical creatures?

Billy Jack



www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

bwiese
06-16-2010, 12:49 PM
By the way, Unicorns will walk the Earth and fill my flagon with their tears before California goes Shall Issue.


True - but in time a reasonably well-written statement citing 'personal protection' will end up being
sufficient good cause that will require issuance and will result in near de facto "effectively shall issue".

John Sukey
06-16-2010, 12:53 PM
Or you could just do like all the gang bangers, don't bother to tell them you are carrying.

Too bad you can't move to Arizona, in about a month we won't need a licence to carry concealed.

I do have a current one and "no problema' getting it.

Come to think of it, Doesn't Babs Boxer have a CCW? But then she is one of the "elite" not the common folk.

Gray Peterson
06-16-2010, 12:56 PM
Or you could just do like all the gang bangers, don't bother to tell them you are carrying.

Too bad you can't move to Arizona, in about a month we won't need a licence to carry concealed.

I do have a current one and "no problema' getting it.

Come to think of it, Doesn't Babs Boxer have a CCW? But then she is one of the "elite" not the common folk.

Which County?

Gray Peterson
06-16-2010, 12:59 PM
The main thing that keeps me from applying is (other then not having anything likely to be considered "good cause", just an average joe, with an average job), is the background investigation. Not that I have anything bad in my background, but having had to submit to background checks for other things in the past anything past a fingerprint check and running a criminal history check is just more intrusion then I'm willing to submit to at this time. If UT can issue me a permit w/o ever even meeting me in person, there is no reason/need for CA to need to pry into every corner of my personal life.

Which county are you in? You can PM me if you don't feel comfortable asking publicly.

Window_Seat
06-16-2010, 1:58 PM
If Unicorns were to have your CCW affixed to their horn, you will still be subjected to a background (vetted) for a CCW even if the state were Shall Issue. By the way, Unicorns will walk the Earth and fill my flagon with their tears before California goes Shall Issue.

Why this fascination with mythical creatures?

Billy Jack

www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

True - but in time a reasonably well-written statement citing 'personal protection' will end up being
sufficient good cause that will require issuance and will result in near de facto "effectively shall issue".

+1 ^^ And (for now), I would support this, but what will bind Sheriffs & CLEOs to accept GC as being defined as SP besides the courts? Will the Legislature ultimately be forced to pass something, or will there have to be an actual court order for all LEAs? What about agencies that have no public access to CCW applications?

The only problem I have is that Sheriffs & CLEOs will likely "think" that it's alright to have 2 or more "types" of permits, one the size of a credit card (for the specially distinguished elite), and the other being the mass of an unabridged dictionary (for you and me).

I addressed this, and so did others in previous threads, and some of the knowledgeable counsel and litigants have stated it can't be done because of significant EP issues, but I still think they will try to get away with it and feel like it's no skin off their teeth for doing it.

Erik.

Billy Jack
06-16-2010, 2:07 PM
+1 ^^ And (for now), I would support this, but what will bind Sheriffs & CLEOs to accept GC as being defined as SP besides the courts? Will the Legislature ultimately be forced to pass something, or will there have to be an actual court order for all LEAs? What about agencies that have no public access to CCW applications?

The only problem I have is that Sheriffs & CLEOs will likely "think" that it's alright to have 2 or more "types" of permits, one the size of a credit card (for the specially distinguished elite), and the other being the mass of an unabridged dictionary (for you and me).

I addressed this, and so did others in previous threads, and some of the knowledgeable counsel and litigants have stated it can't be done because of significant EP issues, but I still think they will try to get away with it and feel like it's no skin off their teeth for doing it.

Erik.



Sounds like the debate over the Arizona law. LEOS, do, can and will violate the CCW laws. That is why we have Federal courts. As a Senior Member I would expect you to know about Salute v Pitchess, for the departments that will not provide a Policy and DOJ Application. Do not scare the little people.

As to the appearance of the CCW's they are required to use the DOJ form.

I simply do not share your concerns. I am involved with CCW investigations and litigation on a weekly basis and the issues you are raising are being addressed all over the state. I would love to sit in on the next law enforcement administrators conference. I am sure my name will be used in vain many times. Hey, their problem not mine.

Stop being so pessimistic, Billy Jack is on the case and he does not take prisoners.

Billy Jack



www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Untamed1972
06-16-2010, 2:19 PM
If Unicorns were to have your CCW affixed to their horn, you will still be subjected to a background (vetted) for a CCW even if the state were Shall Issue. By the way, Unicorns will walk the Earth and fill my flagon with their tears before California goes Shall Issue.

Why this fascination with mythical creatures?

Billy Jack



www.californiaconcealedcarry.com


I realize that, that's why I said I'm fine with a fingerprint check and NCIC/FBI criminal history check....pretty much what I had to submit to for my UT permit. I'm talking about the more intrusive investigations that are conducted by counties looking for any minute excuse to give you the boot. I dont want them talking to their neighbors, I dont want to submit reference letters, or checking my credit or anything else.

Doheny
06-16-2010, 2:22 PM
If you ever apply to be a police officer, you'll be asked on the standard POST application if you've ever been denied for a CCW.

bigcalidave
06-16-2010, 2:29 PM
Billy Jack I'm glad you are getting a lot more involved HERE recently! Thank you! Maybe your encouragement can get more members applying for CCW permits, where many just sit idly by without trying.

Untamed1972
06-16-2010, 2:35 PM
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w162/paul0660/ca_ccw_map-big.png

I'm always amazed at this map and how it basically appears that most of CA is pretty pro-CCW. Perhaps what we need to do is push more folks in those green counties to apply and hopefully get issued so that we can start to show the great disparity in how issuing is done. Or maybe I just need to move to a green county! (Or maybe just move to AZ)

CC'd in AZ all last weekend with my UT permit. It was nice to feel like a "respected citizen".

Billy Jack
06-16-2010, 2:46 PM
Billy Jack I'm glad you are getting a lot more involved HERE recently! Thank you! Maybe your encouragement can get more members applying for CCW permits, where many just sit idly by without trying.

Thanks for the attaboy. Brave has been busy new CCW cases and traveling up and down the state doing hands on PRARS. Many more Sheriffs are essentially Shall Issue than people are aware. They can not say so as it would violate state law. They expect applicants to be big boys and girls and to do their 'due diligence' about the departments policies.

My team and I will assist any serious applicant that is willing to do their homework. Good things are in the wind, I can smell it.

Billy Jack



www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Btown
06-16-2010, 3:04 PM
If you ever apply to be a police officer, you'll be asked on the standard POST application if you've ever been denied for a CCW.

THat's one of the reasons I ain't applying now. I'm security - unarmed now, but hopefully my career track will include armed security and I even hope the right to carry while off duty. I dno't want that NO on my record and I would suggest you don't get it on your record neither.

Walking home from bart is a p*ss poor excuse to carry..infact it is no excuse at all IMO. I would not do it, and anybody who tells you to go ahead and get that NO is just haning you out to dry.

ElkHunterSL
06-16-2010, 3:08 PM
Don't see how being denied a CCW because your Sheriff or Police Chief is anti-CCW will stop anyone from being hired as an officer if they mark "Yes, I was denied a CCW".

This is the problem with Cali..too many passive people allowing our politicians to infringe on our rights.

Gray Peterson
06-16-2010, 3:24 PM
THat's one of the reasons I ain't applying now. I'm security - unarmed now, but hopefully my career track will include armed security and I even hope the right to carry while off duty. I dno't want that NO on my record and I would suggest you don't get it on your record neither.

Walking home from bart is a p*ss poor excuse to carry..infact it is no excuse at all IMO. I would not do it, and anybody who tells you to go ahead and get that NO is just haning you out to dry.

BSIS checks for CCW good cause denials??

Window_Seat
06-16-2010, 3:42 PM
As a Senior Member I would expect you to know about Salute v Pitchess, for the departments that will not provide a Policy and DOJ Application. Do not scare the little people.

Billy Jack



www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Then why is it that Alameda County requires one to file a PRAR for an application? Is it because they are scared of the little people? Know the famous Thomas Jefferson quote: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." One should be able to pick up an application on their website under "forms & publications". Otherwise, to have to fill out an "application" for an application is circumventing the law (eg: Yeah, we now know who you are, and we'll send you your "application", but we've got your denial letter already drafted).

I know about Salute v. Pitchess, but do you know about Sykes v. McGinness? If departments can still violate Salute, then what will stop them after Sykes?

Explain please, how it is that the Imperial County Sheriff thinks it's alright to require their CCW requesting residents to know 2 Peace Officers active within Imperial County???? Is this an example of Sheriff's thumbing their noses because most people (like myself) don't have sufficient good cause to apply?

What's happening here is that the Sheriffs & CLEOs are refusing to comply with the law because they know how long it takes for the process to go through the court system (see Sykes v. McGinness below). Once an order has been issued, they continue to thumb their noses in a different way. It continues until someone is thrown behind bars, and that will happen when that unicorn begins to cook Beef Wellington inside of Hell's Kitchen.

Erik.

Gray Peterson
06-16-2010, 4:56 PM
Then why is it that Alameda County requires one to file a PRAR for an application? Is it because they are scared of the little people? Know the famous Thomas Jefferson quote: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." One should be able to pick up an application on their website under "forms & publications". Otherwise, to have to fill out an "application" for an application is circumventing the law (eg: Yeah, we now know who you are, and we'll send you your "application", but we've got your denial letter already drafted).

Being addressed.

I know about Salute v. Pitchess, but do you know about Sykes v. McGinness? If departments can still violate Salute, then what will stop them after Sykes?

The federal system of preliminary injunctions work completely different in terms of violations of constitutional right. Gene has repeatedly explained what would happen if the sheriffs violate a positive Sykes ruling.

Explain please, how it is that the Imperial County Sheriff thinks it's alright to require their CCW requesting residents to know 2 Peace Officers active within Imperial County???? Is this an example of Sheriff's thumbing their noses because most people (like myself) don't have sufficient good cause to apply?

No, because people are not willing to hit the sheriff with a summons to force them to comply with the letter of the law and Salute. Your good cause in this case DOESN'T MATTER. The problem is that, again, people won't sue the Sheriff over their statutory compliance merely because, and no one at this point was willing to "tangle with their sheriff", and they seem to think that the sheriffs deputies will be stopping their car and busting out a tail-light with a nightstick will occur.

Luckily, Imperial County is 1,300 miles away from me.

What's happening here is that the Sheriffs & CLEOs are refusing to comply with the law because they know how long it takes for the process to go through the court system (see Sykes v. McGinness below). Once an order has been issued, they continue to thumb their noses in a different way. It continues until someone is thrown behind bars, and that will happen when that unicorn begins to cook Beef Wellington inside of Hell's Kitchen.

Erik.

I can't agree with most of the statement above. The problem is that people are easily discouraged and intimidated by the process of standing up for your statutory rights.

"What good is forcing them to legally comply with the state law if they'll still deny me for lack of good cause"?

The problem is that nobody is seeing that forcing them to comply with the forms and fees requirements actually helps your good cause and gets them to loosen up.

One of the county CCW coordinators flat out asked me (this is one of the "no issue to regular citizens" counties, btw):

Coordinator: "We spend a lot of county resources and time to investigate an individual good cause and good moral character, are you saying that we can only charge $20 at this point?"

Me: "Yes. The legislature made that choice to essentially stop situations where people were having their money taken in entirety and getting denied for lack of good cause. You certainly could choose to use the resources beyond $20 per applicant, but the problem with that is that then you'll have questions about the sheriff's departments financial considerations in such a situation (the questions coming from both citizens and the Board of Supervisors) especially considering the constraints that Salute and the Penal Code have on your department. Name checks via LEDS/NCIC and the DMV database (just to an initial check for criminal convictions and reckless driving and such) are pretty much instant, and you can go by what the application says about themselves.

"You can certainly do a "preliminary approval" on the good cause/good moral character just from using 30 minutes of time (I've heard that the hourly rate for the person doing CCW processing is about 25/hour or so...). If you choose to send out cars, call up employers (who 90 percent of the time will tell you that they don't want to talk to you about their employee and hang up), that'll cost the county money for each application and given the current budgetary situation, it may make more sense to just accept it for what it is and approve it, and improve your budgetary numbers for the fiscal year."

Holding counties purely to the law as passed in 1998 helps us, even in the dark red counties, and gets them to rethink their situation (though there are two to three counties that would fight "to the very end").

mtptwo
06-16-2010, 5:35 PM
Thanks for the information. I was thinking I would apply with the current sheriff on his way out, since they might be a little more lax. I have no "good cause" other than personal defence so I expect to be denied.

If I am denied, maybe the next sheriff would be understanding of the reasons for denial.

In the same boat here. I'll apply once Jones is in and find out if he is a lying politician with you.

Gray Peterson
06-16-2010, 5:52 PM
In the same boat here. I'll apply once Jones is in and find out if he is a lying politician with you.


Why bother waiting? Just apply now, you'll actually have a property/liberty interest in the license under Wisconsin Board of Regents v. Roth, and Ederlyi v. O'Brien case which stated that there was no liberty/property interest in the license only applies to INITIAL applications, not renewals.

Swiss
06-16-2010, 6:14 PM
THat's one of the reasons I ain't applying now. I'm security - unarmed now, but hopefully my career track will include armed security and I even hope the right to carry while off duty. I dno't want that NO on my record and I would suggest you don't get it on your record neither.

Walking home from bart is a p*ss poor excuse to carry..infact it is no excuse at all IMO. I would not do it, and anybody who tells you to go ahead and get that NO is just haning you out to dry.

So you don't think walking home from BART, at night, in Richmond or the Fruitvale area (Oakland) is a safety concern?

A little more info: I met with my Assemblymember to discuss 2A issues and current bills, including the inability for regular folks to obtain CCWs. She maintained that CCWs are indeed granted in urban areas and she indicated that the scenario above seemed like a good cause to her. We agreed to perform a test where I would apply and meet with her again to discuss the results. Assuming I'm denied, it's a springboard to talk about standardizing and relaxing the good cause determination.

In addition to my good cause I'm a pretty upstanding citizen. I have a clean record, am active in my neighborhood council, and serve on a city commission. In short, a good candidate for a "regular joe" application.

I intend to be completely above board with my local PD about this exercise so that everyone knows what it's really about. Let all proper procedures be followed, the chips fall where they may, and then we'll see what needs fixing.

Comments?

Billy Jack
06-16-2010, 6:25 PM
So you don't think walking home from BART, at night, in Richmond or the Fruitvale area (Oakland) is a safety concern?

A little more info: I met with my Assemblymember to discuss 2A issues and current bills, including the inability for regular folks to obtain CCWs. She maintained that CCWs are indeed granted in urban areas and she indicated that the scenario above seemed like a good cause to her. We agreed to perform a test where I would apply and meet with her again to discuss the results. Assuming I'm denied, it's a springboard to talk about standardizing and relaxing the good cause determination.

In addition to my good cause I'm a pretty upstanding citizen. I have a clean record, am active in my neighborhood council, and serve on a city commission. In short, a good candidate for a "regular joe" application.

I intend to be completely above board with my local PD about this exercise so that everyone knows what it's really about. Let all proper procedures be followed, the chips fall where they may, and then we'll see what needs fixing.

Comments?

I assume you will not be informing them you are applying to test the system and expect to be denied? There is a protocol we have developed over 25 plus years assisting applicants. If you want to 'make a record' of your application there are things you have to do. You can go to our site, do your mandatory homework reading and then contact us. We expect anyone who contacts us to be conversant with 12050 PC, Salute v Pitchess, CBS v Block, Guillory v Gates and AG Opinion on GC. These are things you must do prior to even contacting the PD or SO.

Want to play applicant, do so as professionally as possible. Do not be a 'Gorski'.

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'

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


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Swiss
06-16-2010, 6:42 PM
Thanks BJ. Reading the AG Opinion on GC already makes me wonder if the proposed GC is sufficient. One could argue that I should drive, take a cab, or have my wife pick me up as "alternative means of security". Even though I have my reasons for walking: saves money, for the exercise, and because people on the streets deters crime.

Window_Seat
06-16-2010, 7:16 PM
Gray, here comes $100.00! Anyone else up for $100.00 to Gray's case?:thumbsup:

Erik.

plan-b
06-16-2010, 7:18 PM
I don't know (Billy) Jack, but I like him.

Doheny
06-16-2010, 7:18 PM
Don't see how being denied a CCW because your Sheriff or Police Chief is anti-CCW will stop anyone from being hired as an officer if they mark "Yes, I was denied a CCW".

Nobody said it would prevent anyone from getting hired. What it does is give the background investigator one more road to go down...why you feel you needed to carry, why you were denied; was it just because the CLEO doesn't issue, or did the issuing agency find something the background investigator should know about.

.

Gray Peterson
06-16-2010, 7:29 PM
Nobody said it would prevent anyone from getting hired. What it does is give the background investigator one more road to go down...why you feel you needed to carry, why you were denied; was it just because the CLEO doesn't issue, or did the issuing agency find something the background investigator should know about.

.

A CCW gives you an exemption from the Handgun Safety Certificate requirement. Could be as simple as just that. Also, if you tell them "denied due to lack of good cause", it's a matter of lack of good cause, not that you have bad moral character.

-Gray

adrenalinemedic
06-16-2010, 7:43 PM
Some counties claim that they will deny you one if you have ever been denied in the past for any reason. I believe that Yolo used to be like this, but considering the process changes depending on who is sheriff at the time, it may not be the case now.

This is unlawful.

From the Placer County website on Concealed Weapon Permits http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/Sheriff/Saveatrip/ConcealedWeaponPermit.aspx under 'CCW Applicant Procedure.'

http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/Sheriff/Saveatrip/~/media/srf/Cwp/CCWCriteriav2.ashx

Directly from the above link:

California State Law (Penal Code Section 12050) specifies the criteria for issuing a CCW license. The requirements are as follows:

Considerations for Denial: The following are automatic reasons for the non-issuance of a CCW permit:

- Applicant was previously denied a license to carry a concealed weapon.

Gray Peterson
06-16-2010, 7:50 PM
From the Placer County website on Concealed Weapon Permits http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/Sheriff/Saveatrip/ConcealedWeaponPermit.aspx under 'CCW Applicant Procedure.'

http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/Sheriff/Saveatrip/~/media/srf/Cwp/CCWCriteriav2.ashx (http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/Sheriff/Saveatrip/%7E/media/srf/Cwp/CCWCriteriav2.ashx)

Directly from the above link:

California State Law (Penal Code Section 12050) specifies the criteria for issuing a CCW license. The requirements are as follows:

Considerations for Denial: The following are automatic reasons for the non-issuance of a CCW permit:

- Applicant was previously denied a license to carry a concealed weapon.

As far as I know, Placer County is the only one with this policy. It is still unlawful and illegal. Do not use unlawful policy by a rural county sheriff as a reason not to apply. You only perpetuate the effectiveness of these kinds of scare tactics about denials for lack of good cause meaning something (it doesn't).

adrenalinemedic
06-16-2010, 7:59 PM
As far as I know, Placer County is the only one with this policy. It is still unlawful and illegal. Do not use unlawful policy by a rural county sheriff as a reason not to apply. You only perpetuate the effectiveness of these kinds of scare tactics about denials for lack of good cause meaning something (it doesn't).

Say I apply, and am denied, what is my recourse? Realistically? I don't have the resources to sue the Sheriff, and unfortunately, he gets to pick who carries in his county.

I'm open to suggestions though, especially if they help the cause.

Gray Peterson
06-16-2010, 7:59 PM
Nobody said it would prevent anyone from getting hired. What it does is give the background investigator one more road to go down...why you feel you needed to carry, why you were denied; was it just because the CLEO doesn't issue, or did the issuing agency find something the background investigator should know about.

.

Then he'll call the issuing authority and ask why. It's his JOB to find out that information, he'll call the issuing authority and they'll find it out it was for lack of good cause and things end there. California is a may-issue state, every law enforcement officer knows this, and should understand.

Every county's situation is different, and yes, I did ask for a hold on applying to the "dark red" counties unless you're working with a group like TBJ/CRPANRALAP/CGF (save Sacramento County, that's a situation where every "personal protection" good cause application is going to actually help).

Cops make up less than one half of one percent of our population, if that. I'm sorry if your personal situation with that makes you so fearful about getting through that process that you're worried that a CCW denial will cause an entrance denial. I guess the quality of law enforcement being assertive and forceful isn't respected anymore....

Gray Peterson
06-16-2010, 8:00 PM
Say I apply, and am denied, what is my recourse? Realistically? I don't have the resources to sue the Sheriff, and unfortunately, he gets to pick who carries in his county.

I'm open to suggestions though, especially if they help the cause.

If you don't mind, can you PM me the county and/or city that you live in please, or publicly post it?

adrenalinemedic
06-16-2010, 8:03 PM
Sorry, it made sense to me that I'm posting from Placer County.

Upon reading my posts, I could see how that might not be so obvious ;)

Gray Peterson
06-16-2010, 8:17 PM
Sorry, it made sense to me that I'm posting from Placer County.

Upon reading my posts, I could see how that might not be so obvious ;)

NorCal is not all that small of an area.

I'll see if I can review Placer's policy in full and contact the sheriff. He seems like a reasonable fellow from what I've read, and I can articulate to him the problem that he's causing.

adrenalinemedic
06-16-2010, 8:21 PM
You're absolutely right. And yeah, Bonner is by a lot of accounts a good guy. But I'm hesitant to take a crack at it, if I can only take one.

Thanks for looking into it!

Gray Peterson
06-16-2010, 9:37 PM
Placer County has been contacted.

Doheny
06-16-2010, 11:42 PM
Then he'll call the issuing authority and ask why. It's his JOB to find out that information, he'll call the issuing authority and they'll find it out it was for lack of good cause and things end there. California is a may-issue state, every law enforcement officer knows this, and should understand.

Cops make up less than one half of one percent of our population, if that. I'm sorry if your personal situation with that makes you so fearful about getting through that process that you're worried that a CCW denial will cause an entrance denial. I guess the quality of law enforcement being assertive and forceful isn't respected anymore....

Huh? You come on the scene here as if you know what you're talking about, but I'm not sure that's the case. I never made any mention of my personal situation or being fearful of anything.

I just mentioned what's on the standard application. And yes, the BG investigator will call and find out why. It's not as simple as CA being a may-issue state, otherwise the question would not be on the application in the first place.

gunsandrockets
06-17-2010, 12:35 AM
Hmm...

Assuming a favorable outcome in McDonald v. Chicago, would it make sense to conduct a co-ordinated and statewide mass application for CCW permits? Perhaps in aid of a legal challenge to the CCW law? How many people are likely join such an effort?

Gray Peterson
06-17-2010, 12:44 AM
Huh? You come on the scene here as if you know what you're talking about, but I'm not sure that's the case. I never made any mention of my personal situation or being fearful of anything.

I just mentioned what's on the standard application. And yes, the BG investigator will call and find out why. It's not as simple as CA being a may-issue state, otherwise the question would not be on the application in the first place.

You obviously know about POST so I made an assumption, btown then quoted your post in this thread posted about being armed security, and made a big deal over a denial, and somehow that translated into you saying what btown said in terms of POST and mixed the two up.

Mea Culpa. This is why I shouldn't be drinking so much caffeine. Got a little too wired. :p

Gray Peterson
06-17-2010, 12:46 AM
Hmm...

Assuming a favorable outcome in McDonald v. Chicago, would it make sense to conduct a co-ordinated and statewide mass application for CCW permits? Perhaps in aid of a legal challenge to the CCW law? How many people are likely join such an effort?

If there is one, then it'll likely be Gene@CGF announcing it and doing the coordination for it.

Window_Seat
06-17-2010, 1:58 AM
Hmm...

Assuming a favorable outcome in McDonald v. Chicago, would it make sense to conduct a co-ordinated and statewide mass application for CCW permits? Perhaps in aid of a legal challenge to the CCW law? How many people are likely join such an effort?

I hate to quote my own thread, but this is one that calls for giving the answer in that form.

How long after McDonald do we start applying for CCWs? (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=305303)

For a really good answer to the question, read post #20 in that thread.

Erik.

Billy Jack
06-17-2010, 8:06 AM
I hate to quote my own thread, but this is one that calls for giving the answer in that form.

How long after McDonald do we start applying for CCWs? (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=305303)

For a really good answer to the question, read post #20 in that thread.

Erik.

Unless you are in a WWII Audie Murphy movie and want to throw yourself on a grenade to save your platoon, you will do nothing after McDonald comes down. Let the professionals have an opportunity to review it and determine how they will proceed. There are many cases on hold and I would suggest you Braves stand down after it comes down. You will see a sign in the form of a burning bush or a bearded holy man with stone tablets.

We shall all take a breath and let the legal experts do what they do.

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'

www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Glock22Fan
06-17-2010, 8:16 AM
Huh? You come on the scene here as if you know what you're talking about, but I'm not sure that's the case. I never made any mention of my personal situation or being fearful of anything.



I'll take Gray's knowledge over yours any day (from what I've read posted by both of you).

And, if you are not fearful of anything, you do not, under Californian law, qualify for a CCW anyway.

Untamed1972
06-17-2010, 8:34 AM
I just mentioned what's on the standard application. And yes, the BG investigator will call and find out why. It's not as simple as CA being a may-issue state, otherwise the question would not be on the application in the first place.


A BG investigator may also be interested in WHY you applied for a CCW. Is it because you had credible or not so credible threats against you? Did you do something stupid to bring the threats on yourself? Are you just looking to feel like a badarse? And since you got denied that you're know looking for the next easiest way to carry a gun and feel like a badarse?

Plus since you submitted background info and documentation they're likely gonna go look at the stuff you submitted and see if it matches what you submitted in your application/BG packet for the PD as a check on you're integrity/honesty. So there are plenty of reasons they'd wanna look at that stuff, if for nothing else why reinvestigate stuff that's already been looked at?

So although the denial, even for lack of GC might not disqualifiy you, perhaps the reason you applied in the first place will.

Gray Peterson
06-17-2010, 9:45 AM
A BG investigator may also be interested in WHY you applied for a CCW. Is it because you had credible or not so credible threats against you? Did you do something stupid to bring the threats on yourself? Are you just looking to feel like a badarse? And since you got denied that you're know looking for the next easiest way to carry a gun and feel like a badarse?

Plus since you submitted background info and documentation they're likely gonna go look at the stuff you submitted and see if it matches what you submitted in your application/BG packet for the PD as a check on you're integrity/honesty. So there are plenty of reasons they'd wanna look at that stuff, if for nothing else why reinvestigate stuff that's already been looked at?

So although the denial, even for lack of GC might not disqualifiy you, perhaps the reason you applied in the first place will.

You see, this is the explanation I was looking for. But also remember this: Most people will not become law enforcement officers or even have an interest in law enforcement.

What I'd like to see is an answer to the question to "btown" who said he was unarmed security and he wants to become armed security and was concerned a CCW denial would cause a problem. Does the BSIS Armed Security Application have this question? Is this a potential cause of denial for the armed security license?

Knauga
06-17-2010, 10:32 AM
Thanks BJ. Reading the AG Opinion on GC already makes me wonder if the proposed GC is sufficient. One could argue that I should drive, take a cab, or have my wife pick me up as "alternative means of security". Even though I have my reasons for walking: saves money, for the exercise, and because people on the streets deters crime.

The problem with the stated good cause is that it is not something that puts you at higher risk than the average citizen. The current AG opinion really sucks, but fortunately where the AG has given us lemons, those in charge have given us the opportunity to make lemonade by having the system consisting of arrogant politicians and bureaucrats who constantly violate their own stated policies in order to reward cronies and contributors. Working with somebody like TBJ and following his/their advice, you might find that the Sheriff or chief of police has issued for that same (or very similar) good cause to a buddy and now you have a case if and when they do deny you. Arrogant people are rarely smart in the way they display their arrogance and often don't even bother to hide it well.

If you live in a "red area" you should definitely proceed with caution and with the help from somebody like BJ or Gray. If you live in a green area, I suggest you talk to people in your area who have gone through the process and then apply. I live in VERY green San Bernardino County and I still come across people all of the time who think that they live in LA County (figuratively speaking), don't have a chance and don't bother to apply. Heck, *I* felt that way for a number of years until somebody encouraged and helped me through the process. The more CCW's issued to law abiding folks in this state, the easier it will be to break down the wall, the better off we'll all be in this state (at a minimum because there will be more CCW's out there).

creekside
06-17-2010, 11:24 AM
What I'd like to see is an answer to the question to "btown" who said he was unarmed security and he wants to become armed security and was concerned a CCW denial would cause a problem. Does the BSIS Armed Security Application have this question? Is this a potential cause of denial for the armed security license?

No, the BSIS firearms permit application does not ask about CCW denials. The DOJ check with the firearms permit application is eligibility only, based on the results of a criminal background check. I believe that it includes mental health eligibility to possess a firearm as well, which most employer criminal backgrounds can't get at.

http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/fireperm.pdf

http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/firearms_qualification.pdf

I don't think a private security employer would have any way to find out whether someone had applied for a CCW. Further, I don't see how that would negatively affect an applicant for an armed position in any way.

I do know that the CCW privilege, if issued, does not override the ability of the employer to control what employees do and do not carry on duty. I know of an armed guard with CCW who was fired for carrying a second concealed firearm on duty, against post orders to the contrary. (Rumor had it that he had bragged that it was a 'drop gun' and he was removed from the post that same day, and fired within the week.)

An issued CCW would help with executive protection employment. However I do not know how most agencies would look at a "good cause" CCW statement related solely to employment prospects.

Untamed1972
06-17-2010, 11:50 AM
An issued CCW would help with executive protection employment. However I do not know how most agencies would look at a "good cause" CCW statement related solely to employment prospects.


They dont....that's why most of the armed EP guards in this state are either retired LEOs or off-duty/moonlighting LEOs.

Giving CCWs out freely to everyone would cut into their lucrative little side-gigs.

ned946
06-17-2010, 1:41 PM
That has been answered here countless times. NO! Law enforcement is under no obligation to protect anyone.

Billy Jack

Who is responsible for my protection?
If it is ME then either:
1. It is not unreasonable to be able to defend myself by a means equal to the aggressor who confronts me AND cannot because I have been denied by regulation from doing so (my safety then becomes their liability) OR
2. Law enforcement is obligated to protect me.

OR

3. Regulation is dictating that my only right it to DIE since they disallow me from protecting myself AND they are not obligated to protect me.

stix213
06-17-2010, 2:08 PM
Hmm...

Assuming a favorable outcome in McDonald v. Chicago, would it make sense to conduct a co-ordinated and statewide mass application for CCW permits? Perhaps in aid of a legal challenge to the CCW law? How many people are likely join such an effort?

I plan on applying after I see how the chips fall post McDonald personally. My good cause is I work in San Francisco and get routinely harassed by the homeless while going to and from my office, verbally and more. I sometimes have to work late, on occasion to midnight which makes the situation worse when I leave. Less than a year ago a homeless man knifed another man to death less than 50 feet from the entrance to my office for no real reason at only 11pm in the middle of the week. The only reason that wasn't me is I went home at 9pm that day I guess.

I expect to be denied though since I live in Sonoma County.

On an unrelated side note, just wanted to say crime is completely out of control in SF right now. In the last 2 years I have been the victim a hit and run while walking in a crosswalk, grabbed by some drug addict who wanted to hug somebody, was surrounded once by 3 individuals who demanded money (I got away), and have been threatened repeatedly by different individuals simply because I don't smoke so didn't have any cigarettes to give them. In addition, I commonly see homeless men sleeping on the sidewalk at 2pm with a stack of 20 ipods in sealed boxes next to them and not even the police seem to care.

Gray Peterson
06-17-2010, 2:27 PM
I plan on applying after I see how the chips fall post McDonald personally. My good cause is I work in San Francisco and get routinely harassed by the homeless while going to and from my office, verbally and more. I sometimes have to work late, on occasion to midnight which makes the situation worse when I leave. Less than a year ago a homeless man knifed another man to death less than 50 feet from the entrance to my office for no real reason at only 11pm in the middle of the week. The only reason that wasn't me is I went home at 9pm that day I guess.

I expect to be denied though since I live in Sonoma County.

On an unrelated side note, just wanted to say crime is completely out of control in SF right now. In the last 2 years I have been the victim a hit and run while walking in a crosswalk, grabbed by some drug addict who wanted to hug somebody, was surrounded once by 3 individuals who demanded money (I got away), and have been threatened repeatedly by different individuals simply because I don't smoke so didn't have any cigarettes to give them. In addition, I commonly see homeless men sleeping on the sidewalk at 2pm with a stack of 20 ipods in sealed boxes next to them and not even the police seem to care.

Can I ask that you wait until we fix the issues with Sonoma County? We're making good progress with statutory compliance with the other counties and Sonoma has some issues we can attack.

stix213
06-17-2010, 2:36 PM
Can I ask that you wait until we fix the issues with Sonoma County? We're making good progress with statutory compliance with the other counties and Sonoma has some issues we can attack.

Awesome :)

FreedomMom
06-17-2010, 4:44 PM
So, how's San Diego looking? It seemed like everyone was hoping to see LaSuer pass out CCW's like candy, guess that's not happening now. Any hope for SD?

Glock22Fan
06-17-2010, 7:16 PM
Who is responsible for my protection?
If it is ME then either:
1. It is not unreasonable to be able to defend myself by a means equal to the aggressor who confronts me AND cannot because I have been denied by regulation from doing so (my safety then becomes their liability) OR
2. Law enforcement is obligated to protect me.

OR

3. Regulation is dictating that my only right it to DIE since they disallow me from protecting myself AND they are not obligated to protect me.

Welcome to California!

N6ATF
06-17-2010, 7:29 PM
Who is responsible for my protection?
If it is ME then either:
1. It is not unreasonable to be able to defend myself by a means equal to the aggressor who confronts me AND cannot because I have been denied by regulation from doing so (my safety then becomes their liability) OR
2. Law enforcement is obligated to protect me.

OR

3. Regulation is dictating that my only right it to DIE since they disallow me from protecting myself AND they are not obligated to protect me.

You're already ahead of the curve when you realize that the .gov does everything in its power to make you dead!

stan
06-21-2010, 7:31 PM
If you live in a "red area" you should definitely proceed with caution and with the help from somebody like BJ or Gray.

unless someone like BJ won't talk to you. then you're SOL! :rolleyes:

Vinnie
06-24-2010, 3:40 PM
I agree with posts throughout this thread that many of us should go ahead and apply for CCW. I am not an attorney, and certainly do not offer legal advice, but it seems to me like it has to be done.

During the OC Sheriff's election race,Sandra Hutchens apparently stated that she approved 90 percent of applications for concealed weapons permits! :confused:

Here is link to OC Register article:
Sheriff in spotlight for concealed weapons permits (http://totalbuzz.ocregister.com/2010/02/24/hutchens-in-spotlight-over-concealed-weapons-permits/30745/)
February 24th, 2010

> Could it be that she may be telling the truth?

> Could it be that we all knew we would be denied, so we didn't bother to apply... thereby giving Hutchens her appearance of high percentage issuance?

Thoughts Anyone?

...

Brianguy
06-24-2010, 3:50 PM
I agree with posts throughout this thread that many of us should go ahead and apply for CCW. I am not an attorney, and certainly do not offer legal advice, but it seems to me like it has to be done.

During the OC Sheriff's election race,Sandra Hutchens apparently stated that she approved 90 percent of applications for concealed weapons permits! :confused:

Here is link to OC Register article:
Sheriff in spotlight for concealed weapons permits (http://totalbuzz.ocregister.com/2010/02/24/hutchens-in-spotlight-over-concealed-weapons-permits/30745/)
February 24th, 2010

> Could it be that she may be telling the truth?

> Could it be that we all knew we would be denied, so we didn't bother to apply... thereby giving Hutchens her appearance of high percentage issuance?

Thoughts Anyone?

...
90%?! I better send in my app today!

Etoshan
06-26-2010, 8:41 AM
The original question in this thread is: "Are there any effects of being denied a CCW that I should know about?"

I can think of two.
1: You will be surrendering your fingerprints to a bureaucracy without being charged with a crime (or are You?).
2: You will be applying to a corporation (county or state) for permission to exercise your right of self defense therefore surrendering that right for the "privilege" of "CCW".

Is it not the application itself that is the problem? Or, is the minutia of how to apply, when and where to apply all we have left?

Gray Peterson
06-26-2010, 10:20 AM
The original question in this thread is: "Are there any effects of being denied a CCW that I should know about?"

I can think of two.
1: You will be surrendering your fingerprints to a bureaucracy without being charged with a crime (or are You?).

To be fair, if the process is followed correctly to the letter of the law, you shouldn't be LiveScanned if your "good cause/good moral character" is not approved by the local issuing authority.

2: You will be applying to a corporation (county or state) for permission to exercise your right of self defense therefore surrendering that right for the "privilege" of "CCW".

I would be 100 percent in agreement with this statement if PC12031, PC626.9, and the various forms of PC171's did not exist. There would be no Sykes or Peruta as California would be able to carry a openly loaded firearm without issues with the law (the private population is a different situation).

Not ever in our nation's history, save perhaps the 5 year period between the 14th amendment being ratified in 1868 and the Slaughterhouse Cases in 1873, has the right to keep and bear arms been required to be respected by any level of government by the courts.

I urge you to read the following link, and try to understand what our legal teams (Gura, Kilmer, Davis, Michel, Monroe) are attempting to do.

The Road to Brown (http://www.newsreel.org/transcripts/roadtob.htm)

TITLE: 4. THE STRATEGY UNFOLDS

NARRATOR: Houston was ready now to take on Jim Crow. Only one thing was missing. Houston needed an organization linked to the black community, an organization capable of broadening the attack on Jim Crow. That organization would be the NAACP.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People had been founded in 1909 in a response to the rising tide of racial violence. Charles Houston was appointed Special Counsel in 1934. It was now almost forty years since the Plessy "separate but equal" decision legalized segregation. Most people accepted Jim Crow as a permanent part of American life. But Houston had spotted a weakness in Jim Crow Law. In a report to the NAACP national committee, Houston outlined a long-term strategy for overturning segregation. The battle, he believed, could be won if fought in the schools. Houston wrote: "Discrimination in education is symbolic of all the more drastic discriminations which Negroes suffer in American life… The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment furnishes the key to ending separate schools."

Houston proposed a two-stage attack on segregation and the Plessy decision. Rather than challenge the "separate but equal" principle directly, Houston would first file precedent cases demanding that black schools be made absolutely equal to white schools. Only then would he attack the principle of separateness itself.

Neither Heller nor even McDonald is our Brown v. Board of Education. Think of them as the first cases filed by Charles Houston in the 1930's. Our Brown is years off. Perhaps it'll come in the form of a challenging to licensing and fee charges for carry itself? Or a challenge to Robert-Roos? I don't know yet, since I'm not a litigation strategist or lawyer by trade.

Is it not the application itself that is the problem? Or, is the minutia of how to apply, when and where to apply all we have left?

It's a nice rhetorical question, but not a practical question. We need to challenge the idea of denial due to good cause/good moral character (Sykes) first, then challenge the applications questions, and then challenge the fee requirements, and then the licensing requirement itself. If you go out of turn on these sort of things when challenging them, you'll lose in front of a federal judge.

thebronze
06-26-2010, 10:51 AM
unless someone like BJ won't talk to you. then you're SOL! :rolleyes:

+ 1,000 on that!

Etoshan
06-26-2010, 10:08 PM
It's a nice rhetorical question, but not a practical question. We need to challenge the idea of denial due to good cause/good moral character (Sykes) first, then challenge the applications questions, and then challenge the fee requirements, and then the licensing requirement itself. If you go out of turn on these sort of things when challenging them, you'll lose in front of a federal judge.

I'm talking about rights as spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Your talking about privileges that may or may not be handed out by corporations (counties and states). This is exactly what my signature below is all about.

Gray Peterson
06-26-2010, 10:31 PM
It's a nice rhetorical question, but not a practical question. We need to challenge the idea of denial due to good cause/good moral character (Sykes) first, then challenge the applications questions, and then challenge the fee requirements, and then the licensing requirement itself. If you go out of turn on these sort of things when challenging them, you'll lose in front of a federal judge.

I'm talking about rights as spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Your talking about privileges that may or may not be handed out by corporations (counties and states). This is exactly what my signature below is all about.

Except privilege means something different to us than it does to you. Remember, the P of PorI in the 14th amendment is 'privilege'.

Your signature from Noam Chomsky seems to imply that we are somehow compliant sheep for temporarily complying with the current process, that this is a setup of the "system" (of government bureaucrats who couldn't manage themselves out of a wet paper bag). What is your direct criticism of the Houston method? Stop speaking in riddles and quotes from others and actually spell out what you're trying to say.

dantodd
06-27-2010, 2:03 AM
It's a nice rhetorical question, but not a practical question. We need to challenge the idea of denial due to good cause/good moral character (Sykes) first, then challenge the applications questions, and then challenge the fee requirements, and then the licensing requirement itself. If you go out of turn on these sort of things when challenging them, you'll lose in front of a federal judge.


You couldn't be more wrong. What Gray is doing right NOW is ensuring that the application process in the various counties is compliant with Cal PC BEFORE Sykes is decided. This means that within days of Sykes being decided in our favor hundreds, or thousands, of CalGunners and apply across the state. If we waited until Sykes was decided before working on the application process, fee requirements etc. it would be months after Sykes before some of our members would even be able to GET an application in some jurisdictions.

Gray Peterson
06-27-2010, 9:33 AM
You couldn't be more wrong. What Gray is doing right NOW is ensuring that the application process in the various counties is compliant with Cal PC BEFORE Sykes is decided. This means that within days of Sykes being decided in our favor hundreds, or thousands, of CalGunners and apply across the state. If we waited until Sykes was decided before working on the application process, fee requirements etc. it would be months after Sykes before some of our members would even be able to GET an application in some jurisdictions.

You're quoting me, not Etoshan. Try again?

Standard
06-27-2010, 9:59 AM
I applied in Stanislaus county where the sheriff said he would issue for personal protection, but from speaking to the investigator, it was obvious he didn't think people like me should have CCWs. I'm expecting to be denied, and I sure hope it doesn't affect my chances later on :(

ElkHunterSL
06-27-2010, 11:45 AM
I'm still not sure why folks are soo hung up on being denied by an Anti-CCW Sheriff will somehow prevent them in the future from getting a CCW. If a Sheriff is Anti-CCW and well known to be Anti-CCW (Mr. Baca) then when you apply in the future I'm sure that will be seen at and not made an issue of.