PDA

View Full Version : Alameda -- APPLY to Get a Spot in Line


Pages : [1] 2 3

obeygiant
10-14-2010, 11:05 PM
UPDATE (2014 April 14):
Ala Co SO on their CCW voicemail (510-208-9890) now says they will accept and hold apps w/SD=GC pending the resolution of CA AG's efforts. CGNers in Alameda County may want to get their apps in to be at the head of the line....

Acc. to CGF's 2013 Carry License Statistics report, city PDs that issue CCWs in Ala Co incl. Hayward, Oakland, Piedmont, and Pleasanton. If you live in one of those cities, you may want to contact your PD to ask their policy re. accepting CCW apps and issuing CCW permits when "self-defense"/"personal protection" is the only Good Cause.

UPDATE (2014 April 27): Hayward claims not to issue CCWs.

Anyone who gets denied in Alameda Co (either by a city's PD or by the Sheriff's Office), and wants to fight it should read the following quote from my ("Paladin") post in the Monterey Co thread. (There they accept SD as GC, but push the GMC requirement.) The 14th Amendment Equal Protection applies to ALL aspects of the application process, not just GC and GMC.

So, they say SD = GC, but then push GMC through the roof and, it appears, make your RKBA subject to your neighbors', co-workers' and friends' ratification.... :facepalm: :mad:

If Bernal does NOT follow this same procedure with ALL CCW applicants (think political donors, "friends of the sheriff"/"posse" members, politicians, celebrities), he's open for a Guillory-type 14th A Equal Protection federal lawsuit, but for GMC rather than GC.

Hypothetically, let's say there's a world-famous film star (and director) who lives in (and was once the mayor of) Carmel-By-The-Sea, a city which, acc to CGF's 2013 survey, does not issue CCWs. We'll call him "Mr. E." Let's suppose Mr. E has a Monterey SO CCW. When it is/was time to renew, if the sheriff has the same policy for renewals that means his "background investigator" would have to go to Mr. E's neighbors (who, unlike his friends, may be hard-core antis), and "ask them if they would recommend [Mr. E] be issued a CCW permit." Not only would the same procedure have to be followed, but the same standard as to judging whether to issue or not be followed. IOW, let's say 1 of your neighbors says "Nyet!" when asked if you should get a CCW and because of that you are denied. If 1 of Mr. E's neighbors also said "No!" and yet was issued, that too is a 14th A Equal Protection violation.

UPDATE (2015 June 27): with SCOTUS declining to grant Jackson cert and Peruta having gone to an en banc panel of CA9, things at the moment look grim for CGNers in Ala Co. We should no longer assume the "Heller 5" will say our RKBA protected by the 2nd A "shall not be infringed." :mad:

We've got to adapt to this "new reality" until we get some reason to think otherwise. Thus, I've condensed and updated a previous thread of mine and made it into a new thread so that at least people who work in some parts of Ala Co can get CCWs.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=16522545

:chris:

Window_Seat
10-18-2010, 4:26 PM
Does this mean that it's safe to apply now?

Erik.

Barbarossa
10-18-2010, 5:07 PM
Does this mean that it's safe to apply now?

Erik.

I believe this thread is to discuss the carry policies of Sheriffs and status of CCW applications in Alameda County.


I'd be interested to see what good cause Sheriff Plumber issued for, as well as Ahern.

FYI, Dublin, CA L.E.O. are all contracted from the Alameda County Sheriff's office. (http://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/ADMIN/dublin.htm)

Window_Seat
10-18-2010, 5:26 PM
And just for info, in reading the policy statement of ALCO Sheriff, they require a $1 million liability insurance policy. This is obviously arbitrary, and so is this:

II. POLICY: The Sheriff's Office recognizes that there may be circumstances that justify the issuance of a concealed weapon license; however, it also recognizes the potential for the use of deadly force and the grave responsibility that goes with the granting of that privilege. Carrying a concealed weapon is a privilege, not a right. The issuance of a Concealed Weapon License is at the discretion of the Sheriff.

(EDITED):

This is the letter I wrote to Sheriff Ahern on November 27, 2009:
Dear Sheriff ...

Recently it has come to the attention of Law Enforcement Agencies and elected officials throughout the State of California that there has been an increase in discussions among city and county supervisors, and other top officials concerning the issuance of concealed weapon permits.

I am aware that currently in the state of California, according to section 12050 P.C.

The sheriff, ... upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying is a resident of the county, may issue ... a license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm ...

A license may include any reasonable restrictions or conditions which the issuing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, and circumstances under which the person may carry a concealed firearm.

In California, if one expresses in a statement of good cause that the person wishes to obtain a concealed weapon permit for the purpose of self defense & protection, he/she will very likely be denied because this cause is not considered good cause to many of the Chief Law Enforcement Officers and Sheriffs in California.

According to articles I have observed, Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness said he would consider issuing more concealed weapons permits, and that he has to be "open to the potential that there will be more people in need of the ability to protect themselves as individuals".

In Riverside County, Supervisor Jeff Stone has proposed the following as good cause for issuance of concealed weapons permits:

"With the State of California authorization for early release of up to 27,000 prisoners, a uniform policy for certification and issuance of a Concealed Weapon Permit should include the reason of "personal defense", in compliance with the State of California's "good cause" law, as a reason to carry a concealed weapon in Riverside County."

As a law abiding resident of the State of California who meets the criteria under section 12050, and with no history of moral turpitude, I am respectfully asking that you too begin issuing concealed weapons permits to citizens who meet this criteria, with the good cause that one wishes to obtain such permit for the purpose of personal defense and protection.

Sincerely,
My signature,
My name

This is the letter that Sheriff Ahern writes back to me. Note that he mentions the 2nd. I never mentioned anything about the 2nd in my letter to him:
(510) 272-6878

December 10, 2009

My name
My address
My city , state & zip code

Dear Mr. *****

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
The Sheriff's signature, etc.

Erik.

obeygiant
10-18-2010, 5:39 PM
Does this mean that it's safe to apply now?

Erik.
see wildhawker's response below:
Not yet, but we will be phasing in each county as their acceptable good cause statements are available, and also as the policy compliance portion corrects any deficiencies.

VictorFranko
10-18-2010, 5:41 PM
I went to boot camp in Alameda.
The title of this thread sent shivers down my spine........................

Citizen 14
10-18-2010, 5:51 PM
And just for info, in reading the policy statement of ALCO Sheriff, they require a $1 million liability insurance policy. This is obviously arbitrary,


I started looking into CCW in Alameda county a couple of weeks ago. When I saw this, I just about fell out of my chair!
It's just so aggravating and what makes it worse is the fact that some people think this is acceptable. :confused::mad:

Window_Seat
10-18-2010, 6:05 PM
Update in my original post: The letter I wrote to Sheriff Ahern is included above.

Erik.

Window_Seat
10-19-2010, 9:54 AM
Brandon, et all;

So here is the "Master Fee Schedule (http://www.newark.org/images/uploads/finance/pdfs/Master_Fee_Schedule_2010-11.pdf)" for the City of Newark (in Alameda County).

The fee for a CCW license (apparently this indicates that the city does issue, unless they defer to ACSO).


I. GENERAL FUND - POLICE
Q. PERMIT FEES

2.
a. New Permit 1,200
b. Annual Renewal 100

And I'll be looking around for an application or policy.

Either way, I think that 1200 is way too much, & arbitrary. This may fall into the category of "making the right prohibitively expensive". I wonder if they apply discounts for the "immortal". After skimming down for other fee costs, I didn't find anything lower than 500.00, other than the biggie permits which can run super high for stuff like development, building skyscrapers, that sort of thing; with the exception of fireworks & explosive permits which runs the same as a CCW in Newark, and even with that, I am told by Fireworks vendors on & around 07/04 that they pay upwards of 10,000 to the city, county & state for their 7 day stand to sell what the state, county & city tells them they can sell. This is why fireworks cost so damn much. And this is another issue I'd like to see us maybe someday (as a rather back burner priority) go after. Fireworks is part of our nations history, and it falls into the category of 1A, and possibly 2A (fire-works/arms maybe, or not?)?? Possible :gura: attack on arbitrary & prohibitive fireworks regulations?? No, not now (of course) Back to CCW issues...

And then there are penalties for this & that, and most don't even exceed 70.00 for parking, with the exception of parking in disabled, which runs anywhere from 200 & up.

I can't find a policy or application. PRAR anyone?

Erik.

RipVanWinkle
10-19-2010, 10:20 AM
CCW is not an urgent priority for me personally, although perhaps it should be to the extent that being CCW licensed would ameliorate any legal hazards arising from living within multiple, overlapping, GFSZ’s. However, even if the current “good cause” were simply a desire for personal protection I would not be applying for a CCW license under Sheriff Ahern’s policy. It’s just too cumbersome and expensive:

$244 Application Fee.
$150 Psych. Exam (minimum: could be more)
$50 Qualifying Range Fee.
$50 Estimated cost of ammo for qualifying.
$100 Estimated handgun safety course fee.
$1500 Estimated annual premium for $1M personal liability insurance.*
$200 Estimated incidental expenses.
$2294 TOTAL

*Based on a quote for a one person business without public access. In reality no agents want to write such a policy.

The insurance premium and the license renewal fee (unspecified) would be ongoing annual expenses to maintain the license, putting CCW out of the reach of most citizens of Alameda County. This strikes me as the equivalent of a poll tax of grandiose proportions for the exercise of what is legally a fundamental individual right. A business might be able to expense this kind of exorbitant cash outlay, but the majority of us are out of luck.

Window_Seat
10-19-2010, 10:32 AM
CCW is not an urgent priority for me personally, although perhaps it should be to the extent that being CCW licensed would ameliorate any legal hazards arising from living within multiple, overlapping, GFSZ’s. However, even if the current “good cause” were simply a desire for personal protection I would not be applying for a CCW license under Sheriff Ahern’s policy. It’s just too cumbersome and expensive:

$244 Application Fee.
$150 Psych. Exam (minimum: could be more)
$50 Qualifying Range Fee.
$50 Estimated cost of ammo for qualifying.
$100 Estimated handgun safety course fee.
$1500 Estimated annual premium for $1M personal liability insurance.*
$200 Estimated incidental expenses.
$2294 TOTAL

*Based on a quote for a one person business without public access. In reality no agents want to write such a policy.

The insurance premium and the license renewal fee (unspecified) would be ongoing annual expenses to maintain the license, putting CCW out of the reach of most citizens of Alameda County. This strikes me as the equivalent of a poll tax of grandiose proportions for the exercise of what is legally a fundamental individual right. A business might be able to expense this kind of exorbitant cash outlay, but the majority of us are out of luck.

This list being what it is, does not necessarily mean that it will be applied. Infact, it ultimately WON'T be applied, because it's an unconstitutional catch 22 on its face which will not pass muster in federal court, and the Sheriff knows it very well.

Here is a good reason why (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=347260).

Erik.

Barbarossa
10-19-2010, 11:54 AM
Quick google-ing brought up a few items from calccw.com

CCW issuance 1987 - 2006 (http://www.calccw.com/Forums/general-ccw-discussion/1451-ccws-alameda-co.html#post13862)

he (Ahern) is willing to allow a second gun, though a condition is that you need to score >90% at range qualification with your current gun. (http://www.calccw.com/Forums/general-ccw-discussion/13319-ccw-renewal-question.html#post180892)

Window_Seat
10-19-2010, 12:29 PM
Since Alameda County is obviously going to be quite a serious challenge, it would be much appreciated if as many folks as possible could get together and join in the Alameda County CCW Initiative Sponsorship (http://www.cgfstore.org/product/alameda-county-ccw-initiative-sponsorship).

Sponsorship donations for Alameda County are extremely important because they are going to impose lots and lots of resistance. The same goes for counties like Contra Costa (http://www.cgfstore.org/product/contra-costa-county-ccw-initiative-sponsorship), San Francisco (http://www.cgfstore.org/product/san-francisco-county-ccw-initiative-sponsorship), San Mateo (http://www.cgfstore.org/product/san-mateo-county-ccw-initiative-sponsorship), Los Angeles (http://www.cgfstore.org/product/calguns-foundation-sponsorship), Orange (http://www.cgfstore.org/product/orange-county-ccw-initiative-sponsorship), and other counties (http://www.cgfstore.org/) which are just as important for this agenda. This isn't going to be easy, but it will be made easier with this sponsorship support.

Excellent!

Just as an example, LA is asking $6,250 for their records alone. While those costs are a bit out of line, it goes to show how expensive sunshine will be.

As a target, it would be good to have 10 sponsorships and 1 or 2 vendor sponsorships per county to provide a base from which to relentlessly attack these policies.

If anyone is a member of another forum with similar interest in our rights, we'd be obliged if you'll help us get the word out.

Thanks again everyone!

-Brandon

Me? I have (so far) one sponsorship of ALCO, but that's not the only one. I'm pledging to make a monthly sponsorship donation (be it a general sponsorship, or one for a county) or maybe more often, but I can't do it alone!

Erik.

RipVanWinkle
10-19-2010, 1:31 PM
This list being what it is, does not necessarily mean that it will be applied. Infact, it ultimately WON'T be applied, because it's an unconstitutional catch 22 on its face which will not pass muster in federal court, and the Sheriff knows it very well.

Here is a good reason why (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=347260).

Erik.

Thanks, Erik, I read that thread.

In responding to your letter Sheriff Ahern informed you that his department had a policy, but he didn't say much more about it except that it involved safety and qualification classes. Your letter was urging him to accept "personal defense" as a "good cause" under his department's policy, but he really didn't say anything about this in his reply. My point was that even if he acceded to your request, and I could apply for and be assured of receiving a license, the other requirements of the policy in question are so expensive and difficult to fulfill that I and most others would be prevented from applying.

I certainly agree with you that Sheriff Ahern's policy is "an unconstitutional catch 22 on its face", but based on his response to your letter I'm not convinced how well he knows that.

The policy itself has a history of:

ISSUE DATE: March 1, 1996
REVISION DATE: February 6, 2007.

I wonder what the policy was prior to the revision in 2007. In any event the last revision predated the recent Supreme Court decisions making the right to keep and bear arms a fundamental right and incorporating it to the states. Do you think that his reference to the 2nd Amendment was made with these cases in mind? Is it reasonable to expect that a further revision of Sheriff Ahern's policy might be forthcoming short of legal action?:rolleyes:

Paladin
10-19-2010, 4:36 PM
Brandon, et all;

So here is the "Master Fee Schedule (http://www.newark.org/images/uploads/finance/pdfs/Master_Fee_Schedule_2010-11.pdf)" for the City of Newark (in Alameda County).
....I'm not Brandon and doubt whether I qualify as one of his et als, but I'll chip in.

Bottom line: Don't bother w/cities and police departments.

In another thread (somewhere), this past week I read that CGF is focusing on the 58 sheriffs and NOT CoPs/PDs because there are only 58 sheriffs and sheriffs MUST take applications from ANY resident of their country, regardless of whether the person resides in an incorporated city which has a PD that issues its own CCWs or not.

IIRC, they (it was a Right Person) said that they will eventually go after PDs w/illegal policies, but that is way down the line since PDs really are irrelevant. Who cares if a CoP won't readily issue a CCW when all the sheriffs are forced to?

RipVanWinkle
10-19-2010, 5:30 PM
Quick google-ing brought up a few items from calccw.com

CCW issuance 1987 - 2006 (http://www.calccw.com/Forums/general-ccw-discussion/1451-ccws-alameda-co.html#post13862)

he (Ahern) is willing to allow a second gun, though a condition is that you need to score >90% at range qualification with your current gun. (http://www.calccw.com/Forums/general-ccw-discussion/13319-ccw-renewal-question.html#post180892)

Interesting...

If Sheriff Ahern is willing to allow a second gun on a license then he must be doing so by violating his own written policy, which is very specific:

"Only ONE weapon will be authorized on the license and must be the same weapon used in the safety course and range qualification. Your firearm must be of .38 caliber or larger, two- to six-inch barrel revolver, or a pistol (semiautomatic), 9mm caliber or larger. A.41 or .44 magnum will not be authorized. Your weapon must be capable of a minimum of 5 shots."

Other ambiguities are in here. Does this rule out .380, which at 0.355 is the same "caliber" as 9 mm, although a less powerful cartridge? Probably. I guess .44 special and .45 ACP are O.K., mouse guns are out. What about .454 Cassull? This sort of incomplete exclusion of selected cartridges always results in placing the approval of the firearm at the whim of the sheriff.:(

Also why allow a second gun with a 90% on the current gun? Shouldn't you just have to qualify with the second one?

RipVanWinkle
10-19-2010, 7:13 PM
Excuse me for all the posts, but I’m just going through the Alameda Co. CCW Policy document and picking out things that really appear designed to make it overly difficult to get a license.

One thing that really bothers me is the psychological evaluation. Why should any citizen be directed to a psychologist who does evaluations for the Sheriff’s Department? I’m guessing that the department’s psychologist spends most of his/her time administering tests and interviews and evaluating candidates for hiring as officers, doing additional evaluations of existing personnel, counseling officers and whatever other services they might perform. One presumes that the validity of their tests and procedures is constantly updated by evaluating them with numerical measurements of job performance, although I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is not the case. It’s not as easy as it might sound.

Even if it is the case I see no reason to expect that the methods used in helping make hiring decisions for the department would transfer directly to making decisions about members of the general public seeking CCW licenses. Police officers are being selected for a specific job that includes use of firearms, but they are also being evaluated for a whole host of other characteristics that do not apply to members of the general public. In general, the proper deployment and use of firearms by the police is much broader and has a different focus than the use of a firearm for self defense by an individual citizen. The important question is: Have the methods used for making decisions about individuals seeking CCW licenses (presumably unique to that purpose) been validated by the same type of empirical studies that (one hopes) are employed in evaluating the methods applied to the selection of police officers?

I suspect that in many cases no adequate validation has been done in the testing of police officers, and I am almost certain that none exists for the case of CCW applicants. This conclusion is almost guaranteed given the many variations in procedures in the different departments. If this is correct then the psychological evaluation for CCW applicants should be eliminated. The details remain to be seen. Something tells me, “Dig Here!”

obeygiant
10-19-2010, 9:08 PM
Brandon, et all;

So here is the "Master Fee Schedule (http://www.newark.org/images/uploads/finance/pdfs/Master_Fee_Schedule_2010-11.pdf)" for the City of Newark (in Alameda County).

The fee for a CCW license (apparently this indicates that the city does issue, unless they defer to ACSO).

And I'll be looking around for an application or policy.

I can't find a policy or application. PRAR anyone?

Erik.

No need to PRAR them or any of the other counties as CGF has already done this. CGF currently has:


fee schedule
policy
forms
instructions
and anything else related to ccw.


that being said, your passion and enthusiasm will be put to good use.

Sick Boy
10-20-2010, 4:56 PM
Wow, this is getting exciting.

Hopefully they can knock down the fee though, I could buy a car for $2500.


Subscribed and patiently awaiting further news!

Ksmash01
10-20-2010, 6:05 PM
Question:

Is there a limit to how many times you can apply for a CCW?

RipVanWinkle
10-20-2010, 6:51 PM
Wow, this is getting exciting.

Hopefully they can knock down the fee though, I could buy a car for $2500.


Subscribed and patiently awaiting further news!

Well, the Sheriff only collects these fees:

$244 Application Fee.
$150 Psych. Exam (minimum: could be more)
$50 Qualifying Range Fee.

$444.00 total. But you have to provide the insurance, ammo for qualification, and I'm guessing a couple hundred more bucks driving around and various expenses by the time you're through. I'm sure the Sheriff would want a certificate of insurance to complete the application, so you'd have to pay the premium for that before you know if you'll be approved. If your application is denied, of course, you'll kiss it all goodbye. You could probably get something back by canceling the policy, but the insurance company would still keep a chunk for minimum earned premium, say, $500 or so. The whole thing is ridiculous. But I'm betting no agent would write that policy anyway based on experience. If you have homeowners insurance you might be covered under that. Otherwise you're SOL.

Sick Boy
10-20-2010, 7:04 PM
I know, I work in the insurance industry, completely ridiculous.


Hopefully that is something Gene and the crew can get kicked to the curb.

dantodd
10-21-2010, 12:34 AM
Well, the Sheriff only collects these fees:

$244 Application Fee.
$150 Psych. Exam (minimum: could be more)
$50 Qualifying Range Fee.

$444.00 total. But you have to provide the insurance, ammo for qualification, and I'm guessing a couple hundred more bucks driving around and various expenses by the time you're through.

I am pretty sure that statutorily the limits are:
$95 livescan/background/DOJ fee
$100 local fee
$150 Psych exam, only if ALL applicants are required to do so.
$undetermined training fee


The sheriff can ask for the $95 fee plus $20 of the local fee up front, the rest can't be collected until your application is approved.

The insurance requirement is against the law and every sheriff in CA now knows that. Once we get to the point of starting to apply in Alameda Gray will have taken care of most of these issues. I also highly doubt that ALL of the applicants will have been through a psych eval so it is most likely the case that you won't have to either.

Remember, applying and getting our CCWs is the last little piece of this whole initiative. Brandon and Gray are working hard to give us the greatest probability of being approved and then getting issued for the least cost possible and in accordance with all CA laws. Part of being willing to participate in this whole process is knowing that some of our CCWs will be held up or take slightly longer because they will be part of the clean-up process.

wildhawker
10-21-2010, 12:41 AM
Question:

Is there a limit to how many times you can apply for a CCW?

No, nor is there a "duration between applications" restriction, although the county has a limited time to respond. Please see the Flowchart and Guide (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/downloads/documents/CGF_Civilian_CCW_Guide.pdf) for more info.

Window_Seat
10-21-2010, 12:43 AM
(Edited to add first):

No, nor is there a "duration between applications" restriction, although the county has a limited time to respond. Please see the Flowchart and Guide (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/downloads/documents/CGF_Civilian_CCW_Guide.pdf) for more info.

And pay particular attention to notes relating to Salute v. Pitchess, especially on page 11 of the above link.

^Edited to add^
----------------------

And as far as the psych eval, I would think (or hope, I can hope, HOPE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!!) that this will also be thrown out quickly, or the Sheriff will be "compelled" not to require it. We have yet to find out if those who have been "awarded" were required to get a psych eval, no? Time will tell, and then the GC statements come in. Good questions & points above, keep 'em coming in!! :thumbsup:

Erik.

wildhawker
10-21-2010, 12:43 AM
Another fee that can be collected is the local fingerprinting fee, which cannot exceed the standard local cost for same; in other words, the SO cannot charge 2x for CCW fingerprinting what they would otherwise charge for the same service.

Training would be "actual cost", and must be uniformly required of all applicants.

wildhawker
10-21-2010, 12:46 AM
Paladin is exactly right.

I am sniffing around some cities throughout the state - and all in some counties - mainly to apply tactical "pain" and less because they matter in re CCW issuance. However, our focus is on making California "shall issue" and for the process to be accessible and unburdened with illegal policies.

-Brandon

I'm not Brandon and doubt whether I qualify as one of his et als, but I'll chip in.

Bottom line: Don't bother w/cities and police departments.

In another thread (somewhere), this past week I read that CGF is focusing on the 58 sheriffs and NOT CoPs/PDs because there are only 58 sheriffs and sheriffs MUST take applications from ANY resident of their country, regardless of whether the person resides in an incorporated city which has a PD that issues its own CCWs or not.

IIRC, they (it was a Right Person) said that they will eventually go after PDs w/illegal policies, but that is way down the line since PDs really are irrelevant. Who cares if a CoP won't readily issue a CCW when all the sheriffs are forced to?

Ksmash01
10-21-2010, 11:31 AM
No, nor is there a "duration between applications" restriction, although the county has a limited time to respond. Please see the Flowchart and Guide (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/downloads/documents/CGF_Civilian_CCW_Guide.pdf) for more info.

(Edited to add first):



And pay particular attention to notes relating to Salute v. Pitchess, especially on page 11 of the above link.

^Edited to add^
----------------------

And as far as the psych eval, I would think (or hope, I can hope, HOPE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!!) that this will also be thrown out quickly, or the Sheriff will be "compelled" not to require it. We have yet to find out if those who have been "awarded" were required to get a psych eval, no? Time will tell, and then the GC statements come in. Good questions & points above, keep 'em coming in!! :thumbsup:

Erik.

So not only is there a limit to how many applications that can be submitted, nor a duration between applications submitted, but the Sheriffs Dept.(licensing agency) has to go through each one individually per Salute v. Pitchess......

Interesting....

ETA: So what happens if the county doesn't answer within their allotted time?

Gray Peterson
10-22-2010, 11:42 AM
So not only is there a limit to how many applications that can be submitted, nor a duration between applications submitted, but the Sheriffs Dept.(licensing agency) has to go through each one individually per Salute v. Pitchess......

Interesting....

ETA: So what happens if the county doesn't answer within their allotted time?

The steamroller comes for them.

Rossi357
10-22-2010, 12:38 PM
CCW is not an urgent priority for me personally, although perhaps it should be to the extent that being CCW licensed would ameliorate any legal hazards arising from living within multiple, overlapping, GFSZ’s. However, even if the current “good cause” were simply a desire for personal protection I would not be applying for a CCW license under Sheriff Ahern’s policy. It’s just too cumbersome and expensive:

$244 Application Fee.
$150 Psych. Exam (minimum: could be more)
$50 Qualifying Range Fee.
$50 Estimated cost of ammo for qualifying.
$100 Estimated handgun safety course fee.
$1500 Estimated annual premium for $1M personal liability insurance.*
$200 Estimated incidental expenses.
$2294 TOTAL

*Based on a quote for a one person business without public access. In reality no agents want to write such a policy.

Interesting total there. As a Senior Citizen on Social Security, that's 2 mos income for me. Glad I don't live in that county.

Gray Peterson
10-23-2010, 8:53 AM
Just something I've learned from another "liability insurance" county is that A) An insurance policy like this doesn't actually exist and B) these liability insurance requiring sheriff's are not requiring it universally.

There may be case law involving insurance for use of a firearm in self defense inside of a home or business (the insurance company must cover it as it's considered an "accident), the same thing doesn't apply outside of the home.

Window_Seat
10-23-2010, 1:33 PM
The individual health care insurance mandate could fall under that category, but a Michigan Federal Judge just denied a MSJ for a plaintiff who was asking for a preliminary injunction against the mandate. Hopefully if it gets struck in the appeals court, or ultimately, SCOTUS, or the bill gets repealed after 11/02, we might use that. It's a mandatory insurance requirement for an individual for the purpose of exercising a fundamental right. We have the right to travel in Interstate Commerce, and exercising certain rights which are incorporated against the States & Localities must be protected. The individual health care coverage mandate part of ObamaCare is unconstitutional on its face.

(ETA):

Texas case could decide health care reform suit (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6943279.html)

Something we have been discussing at length here for quite a while, the first Federal GFSZ act which was thrown out by SCOTUS.

Erik.

Ksmash01
10-23-2010, 5:40 PM
The steamroller comes for them.

I bet I can make our sheriff feel like he's under a steamroller with about 1,000 CCW applications from ONE PERSON.....

Just say the word.......talk about inundated.....

RipVanWinkle
10-23-2010, 7:05 PM
Just something I've learned from another "liability insurance" county is that A) An insurance policy like this doesn't actually exist and B) these liability insurance requiring sheriff's are not requiring it universally.

The thrust of what I said in an earlier post was that no insurance agent could be found who would write such a policy. Sick Boy, who works in the insurance industry agrees with me. Let's keep it simple. Does any Calgunner, or anyone else, have such a policy? If so, who is the agent, and what is the annual premium?

:gene:

wildhawker
10-24-2010, 12:38 AM
My brother in law is our agent; he mentioned a $1MM UMB/GL policy as a possible rider to homeowners, and possibly as a stand-alone binder. I'll dig to see what the reality is. I haven't seen any requirement that had any particulars, just "$1MM liability".

bootcamp
10-24-2010, 8:39 AM
I sped read this thread but didn't find any "good meat" about whether or not it's ok to apply in Alameda county so let me just bluntly ask again. Should we continue to wait or should we put it in with a specific sheriff?

RipVanWinkle
10-24-2010, 8:48 AM
Just something I've learned from another "liability insurance" county is that A) An insurance policy like this doesn't actually exist and B) these liability insurance requiring sheriff's are not requiring it universally.


I’m just curious about this whole insurance issue because of my past experience with something similar. About twenty years ago I rented a small workshop space, about 600 square feet, and as a condition of the lease the landlord wanted me to have a $1M liability insurance policy covering my use of the space, and naming the landlord as additional insured. I initially approached the insurance agent who has handled my other insurance matters for decades, and he was stumped because, if I remember correctly, none of his insurance companies would write such a policy for a commercial space less than 1500 square feet, or something like that.

I approached the agent who wrote the insurance for the landlord, and he agreed to insure me based on 600 square feet, only because he wanted to keep the main business of the landlord, and he thought that providing reasonable insurance to the tenants would help him in that respect. So I got my $1M liability policy with an annual premium of something like $250. In the meantime the other tenants were running into the same problems I’d faced, others were just ignoring the insurance requirement or dragging their feet on the issue. When it eventually became clear that the landlord was serious about enforcing the insurance requirement in the lease, some of the other tenants asked me where I got my insurance and I directed them to the cooperative insurance agent.

Alas!, by that time the landlord’s insurance policies had come up for renewal, and the friendly agent had been dumped by the landlord for a competitor who undercut him on his quote. He was no longer interested in insuring the tenants based on their square footage, but was quoting them $1200-$1500 annual premiums like all the other agents. He did, however, keep insuring me at the original low rate because all the work had been done in writing the policy in the first place. The rest of the tenants either coughed up the higher rates or moved out. I just got lucky.

The point of this long cautionary tale is that insurance agents, or the companies they represent, generally have a minimum or cutoff level below which they are unwilling to write policies. For some of us, we get lucky or have ongoing relationships with insurance agents through homeownership or businesses whereby we could incorporate the CCW insurance or even expense the costs of the premiums. There are workarounds. Other possibilities are membership in a club or organization that could offer a group policy that might attract an insurer.

But consider a 23 year old male who’s got nothin’: probably got all his net worth in his guns and his motorscooter. I’ll bet there’s no “Gunslinger Liability Policy” out there for that guy, at any price (Gray’s condition A). Hence my curiosity and my question: Does any Calgunner, or anyone else, have such a policy? If so, who is the agent, and what is the annual premium? I’ll include Gray’s condition B as an additional question: How many current CCW licensees comply with the insurance requirement? I’d like to know the demographics of that group! Security and guard businesses, PI's?

:gene:

Window_Seat
10-24-2010, 11:30 AM
I sped read this thread but didn't find any "good meat" about whether or not it's ok to apply in Alameda county so let me just bluntly ask again. Should we continue to wait or should we put it in with a specific sheriff?I posted that question above:Does this mean that it's safe to apply now?see wildhawker's response below:Not yet, but we will be phasing in each county as their acceptable good cause statements are available, and also as the policy compliance portion corrects any deficiencies.

I assure you, we will know when it's time to begin applying, and they will advise when the time comes.

Erik.

Window_Seat
10-24-2010, 12:03 PM
And another easy resource for me to get my hands on a 1 million dollar policy is trucking insurance liability. I drive a Class 8 tractor trailer (semi), and each truck has to have a 1 million dollar liability insurance policy, so I would just take that in and say "Here's your "million dollar insurance". :D

I would imagine that such a policy wouldn't cover a person outside the truck while on "off duty time", or inside/outside the home. Your employer might have a policy like this, but one might have to be careful not to have the issuing authority go and call the insurance agent to ask questions, who in turn, calls the employer to ask questions about the applicant. :eek:

You might not have access to the policy info of your employer, but I would, because I'm mandated by federal regulations to have access to it to show proof of insurance, registration, etc.

I would attempt to, and obtain a notarized statement declaring that I have such a policy (after showing it to the NP), and show that statement, and if denied (a CCW), start making phone calls.

In my case, soon, I'll be purchasing my own Class 8 Truck, and becoming an "Owner Operator", and then I "must" have my own 1 million dollar liability insurance policy. I don't see why this wouldn't work, if in all unlikeliness, it's deemed to be constitutionally permissible by a Court(s).

Erik.

bootcamp
10-27-2010, 3:06 PM
I'm starting to foam at the mouth that this "may" actually be possible in Alameda county. Anything we can do to be ready? I'd like to be close to the "front" of the line when this opens up. Thanks CGF!

Gray Peterson
10-27-2010, 3:41 PM
But consider a 23 year old male who’s got nothin’: probably got all his net worth in his guns and his motorscooter. I’ll bet there’s no “Gunslinger Liability Policy” out there for that guy, at any price (Gray’s condition A). Hence my curiosity and my question: Does any Calgunner, or anyone else, have such a policy? If so, who is the agent, and what is the annual premium? I’ll include Gray’s condition B as an additional question: How many current CCW licensees comply with the insurance requirement? I’d like to know the demographics of that group! Security and guard businesses, PI's?

:gene:


Well, the rule of equal protection states that if you don't require it of one, you can't require it at all. Give you an example:

I had a conversation with another licensing authority which also (up until our conversation) required liability insurance. The guy had only been in the job a year so he had only dealt with renewal applicants (and presumably people who supposedly had liability insurance already). He had no idea if any of the applicants had liability insurance because they were generally renewed with the same good cause each time. He had never dealt with new applicants in his year of tenure, so he wasn't aware of a lot of the problems and reasons why people refuse to apply to his employer, until I gave them the full detail.

It was elucidating to him to say the least, and did make the difference. However, in the case of Alameda, they probably know full well that their policy is unlawful, whereas this particular person did not know that.

navyinrwanda
10-27-2010, 3:43 PM
I've had an umbrella liability insurance policy in place for several years. And I live in Alameda County.

Please contact me if I can be of any help.

Window_Seat
10-27-2010, 4:10 PM
Well, the rule of equal protection states that if you don't require it of one, you can't require it at all.
...

And this could likely cause issuing authorities, ESPECIALLY Alameda County to be really stubborn on releasing GC statements before caving into complying with such EP laws, no?

And a related question; if one Sheriff releases GC statements, will other Sheriff's Dept's be bound to release GC statements as well under EP or DP of law?

Erik.

Gray Peterson
10-27-2010, 5:02 PM
And this could likely cause issuing authorities, ESPECIALLY Alameda County to be really stubborn on releasing GC statements before caving into complying with such EP laws, no?

And a related question; if one Sheriff releases GC statements, will other Sheriff's Dept's be bound to release GC statements as well under EP or DP of law?

Erik.

No, but CBS v. Block already states that the records are public.

lazyworm
10-27-2010, 5:53 PM
I've had an umbrella liability insurance policy in place for several years. And I live in Alameda County.

Please contact me if I can be of any help.

Is this a general liability insurance policy or CCW specifc?

navyinrwanda
10-28-2010, 6:08 PM
Is this a general liability insurance policy or CCW specifc?
General.

I'd imagine that anything specific to CCW would very much be a custom policy.

Davidwhitewolf
10-29-2010, 11:50 AM
Yeah, the only custom policy I know of is here. (http://www.mmdbrokers.com/)It's great, and I intend to get it when I get my CCW whether or not I have an umbrella policy too, but unfortunately it's not $1 mil.

OTOH, if someone contacted the broker, I'll bet Lloyd's would be willing to up the total to $1 million (for a higher price, of course).

Window_Seat
10-29-2010, 11:58 AM
I am quite confident that the LIPR (liability insurance policy requirement) will be dropped soon, but the big thing I'm concerned about is Psych testing. If this is the same Psych testing that I had to go through when trying out for a Dispatcher position, it's quite brutal and then you get "interrogated" by the shrink later. Not a pleasant experience at all whatsoever... :( Brandon, Gray, others have anything to add on that note? And this is a requirement of other counties. The Psych testing is part of the process indicated on the CCW Flowchart, and indicates that it's either required of all applicants, or not required of all applicants, which tells me that it's Agency specific.

Erik.

oepirate
11-01-2010, 10:04 PM
Alameda is now funded. I stand ready for doing paperwork or going to knock on someones door to ask questions, or what ever is needed.

ForceofNations
11-02-2010, 4:08 PM
Alameda is now funded. I stand ready for doing paperwork or going to knock on someones door to ask questions, or what ever is needed.

I'm also in Alameda County, let me know if you need anything.

Gray Peterson
11-02-2010, 5:24 PM
Alameda is now funded. I stand ready for doing paperwork or going to knock on someones door to ask questions, or what ever is needed.

Please volunteer too. There's a thread floating out with the volunteer links with the name, zip code, and so on...

-Gray

Paladin
11-02-2010, 11:50 PM
Please volunteer too. There's a thread floating out with the volunteer links with the name, zip code, and so on...

-Gray
Here you guys go:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=353115

ForceofNations
11-03-2010, 10:10 AM
Here you guys go:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=353115

Done when the call first went out... Crossing my fingers this gets moving along in the next few months.

oepirate
11-08-2010, 3:24 PM
Late to respond, but yeah, volunteered on that one also.

Wherryj
11-12-2010, 11:16 AM
I wonder if anyone realizes that even with a "few" CCWs granted in this county, they are mostly, if not all, "connected" people.

I know one of those holding a CCW in Alameda county. Strangely he lives in Contra Costa, but chooses to do some "consulting" for a SWAT team in the county. He does NOTHING relating to firearms, so he has less actual firearms knowledge than I do (I know, he was a former partner of mine).

He has the CCW, and brags about if frequently, because he somehow got a mean-nothing consulting job with a local SWAT team. These types of CCWs inflate the already ludicrously low CCW numbers in this county.

I suspect that if these are taken out, there may be ZERO in Alameda?

Wherryj
11-12-2010, 11:22 AM
Please volunteer too. There's a thread floating out with the volunteer links with the name, zip code, and so on...

-Gray

I put my info in, but never received any sort of response. What does CGF need from voliunteers.

I can't get any significant financial donation past "the committee" (wife). My local hospital's takeover of my former practice has put us into a very deep financial hole. Only a few "discretionary" items are being allowed.

I can probably help with time.

sfpcservice
11-12-2010, 11:36 AM
I wonder if anyone realizes that even with a "few" CCWs granted in this county, they are mostly, if not all, "connected" people.

I know one of those holding a CCW in Alameda county. Strangely he lives in Contra Costa, but chooses to do some "consulting" for a SWAT team in the county. He does NOTHING relating to firearms, so he has less actual firearms knowledge than I do (I know, he was a former partner of mine).

He has the CCW, and brags about if frequently, because he somehow got a mean-nothing consulting job with a local SWAT team. These types of CCWs inflate the already ludicrously low CCW numbers in this county.

I suspect that if these are taken out, there may be ZERO in Alameda?


Unless the AC Sheriff renews his permit every 90 days or he is a Judge/Peace Officer then this permit was issued illegally.

dantodd
11-12-2010, 11:40 AM
I wonder if anyone realizes that even with a "few" CCWs granted in this county, they are mostly, if not all, "connected" people.

I know one of those holding a CCW in Alameda county. Strangely he lives in Contra Costa, but chooses to do some "consulting" for a SWAT team in the county. He does NOTHING relating to firearms, so he has less actual firearms knowledge than I do (I know, he was a former partner of mine).

He has the CCW, and brags about if frequently, because he somehow got a mean-nothing consulting job with a local SWAT team. These types of CCWs inflate the already ludicrously low CCW numbers in this county.

I suspect that if these are taken out, there may be ZERO in Alameda?

Unless he is a resident of Alameda county the only CCW they can issue to him is a 90 day permit and that is only good while in the county. It also requires his work be in Alameda county (though if he's consulting with SWAT, I suppose that is covered.) Additionally that 90 day permit must be paid for as a renewal every 90 days. I think it would be most helpful if you would PM or email the particulars to Brandon or Gray, it would make for a most interesting PRA, at the very least we'll know what name and information to look for when going through the large PRA dump that will eventually be forthcoming.

RipVanWinkle
11-16-2010, 10:02 PM
Unless he is a resident of Alameda county the only CCW they can issue to him is a 90 day permit and that is only good while in the county. It also requires his work be in Alameda county (though if he's consulting with SWAT, I suppose that is covered.) Additionally that 90 day permit must be paid for as a renewal every 90 days. I think it would be most helpful if you would PM or email the particulars to Brandon or Gray, it would make for a most interesting PRA, at the very least we'll know what name and information to look for when going through the large PRA dump that will eventually be forthcoming.

As long as we're on that topic, what about the fairly sizable ensemble of volunteers authorized by the sheriff to engage in activities, presumably on his behalf? Even by current standards the sheriff of Alameda County lists a very sizable group of individuals who may be presumed to submit to his authority, whether sworn peace officers or not. I'm referring, of course, to the folks listed under the purview of:

Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Services
Captain Dean Stavert
4985 Broder Boulevard
Dublin, California 94568
(925) 803-7800

http://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/CWS/oes.htm

Setting aside the sworn deputies under his supervision, and a relatively small navy, the sheriff also has a search and rescue force with canine augmentation:

http://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/images/SR2007.jpg

A dive team/"Navy SEALS" organization:

http://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/images/DiveTeam2008.jpg

An Air Force of sorts:

http://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/CWS/images/air_squadron2008.jpg

A Reserve Deputies program:

http://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/images/reserve_deputies2007.jpg

And, of course, a Sheriff's Posse, in case all else fails and someone needs to be cut off at the pass:

http://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/CWS/images/Posse/SAR-Posse%20071_small.jpg

Given the patterns of association that have developed in the departments of other county sheriffs, it would be remarkable if the individuals in these volunteer groups are not heavily represented among the sheriff's campaign contributors and recipients of his CCW permits. I don't quarrel with the claim that most of these volunteers perform valuable services in the county: nevertheless, it would be interesting to see which of them hold CCW permits, and of those, who among them are in fact residents of Alameda County.

Paladin
11-17-2010, 3:52 PM
Given the patterns of association that have developed in the departments of other county sheriffs, it would be remarkable if the individuals in these volunteer groups are not heavily represented among the sheriff's campaign contributors and recipients of his CCW permits. I don't quarrel with the claim that most of these volunteers perform valuable services in the county: nevertheless, it would be interesting to see which of them hold CCW permits, and of those, who among them are in fact residents of Alameda County. . . . and what are their "Good Causes" for issuance.

Paladin
11-24-2010, 1:27 AM
Since Alameda hasn't been bumped in awhile, I thought I'd post this:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_16688493?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1

East Bay cities ranked among most dangerous in U.S.

Bay City News Service

. . .

The annual survey by CQ Press . . . ranked Oakland as the fifth most dangerous city and Richmond sixth. Oakland's No. 5 ranking is an improvement over last year, when it ranked third.

Among other Bay Area cities, Vallejo was No. 33, Antioch was No. 91, Berkeley was No. 111, San Francisco was No. 130, San Jose was No. 237 and Santa Rosa was No. 242.

CQ Press said its crime rate rankings are based on six categories: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft.

*****

I hope the Right People factor in who TRULY NEEDS a CCW when deciding the priority of targets.

obeygiant
11-24-2010, 9:42 AM
Since Alameda hasn't been bumped in awhile, I thought I'd post this:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_16688493?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1

East Bay cities ranked among most dangerous in U.S.

Bay City News Service

. . .

The annual survey by CQ Press . . . ranked Oakland as the fifth most dangerous city and Richmond sixth. Oakland's No. 5 ranking is an improvement over last year, when it ranked third.

Among other Bay Area cities, Vallejo was No. 33, Antioch was No. 91, Berkeley was No. 111, San Francisco was No. 130, San Jose was No. 237 and Santa Rosa was No. 242.

CQ Press said its crime rate rankings are based on six categories: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft.

*****

I hope the Right People factor in who TRULY NEEDS a CCW when deciding the priority of targets.

The year is not over yet.

Kid Stanislaus
11-24-2010, 8:46 PM
Right you are obeygiant, Oakland still has a chance to move up a couple of notches!!

Paladin
11-26-2010, 5:09 AM
The year is not over yet.

Hmm. I didn't realize it until Kid came along w/a different interpretation, but your statement is ambiguous. I read it in the context of my entire post that you quoted, and read your statement to mean that there could be CGF movement on Alameda Co this year.

Kid read your statement in context of the part of my post you highlighted in red and came to the conclusion you thought there still was time before the end of the year for Oakland to raise its ranking as a violent city.

Which did you mean?

FWIW the linked article has a link to a .pdf of the rankings and it says the rankings are based upon FBI 2009 stats.

obeygiant
11-26-2010, 10:30 AM
Hmm. I didn't realize it until Kid came along w/a different interpretation, but your statement is ambiguous. I read it in the context of my entire post that you quoted, and read your statement to mean that there could be CGF movement on Alameda Co this year.

Kid read your statement in context of the part of my post you highlighted in red and came to the conclusion you thought there still was time before the end of the year for Oakland to raise its ranking as a violent city.

Which did you mean?

FWIW the linked article has a link to a .pdf of the rankings and it says the rankings are based upon FBI 2009 stats.

I should have been more clear, I was referring to the fact that there is still time for Oakland to jump ahead in the violent crime rankings.

obeygiant
12-04-2010, 12:52 AM
Part 1 of Alameda's GC Statements are now available Here (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/resources/ccw-initiative/89-alameda)

freonr22
12-04-2010, 1:11 AM
Obey, while reading some (only at page 17 so far) why does being a member of a Masonic lodge=good cause?

obeygiant
12-04-2010, 1:58 AM
Obey, while reading some (only at page 17 so far) why does being a member of a Masonic lodge=good cause?

It doesn't, I believe they were trying to demonstrate their good moral character by listing the organizations that they belong to and/or volunteer with.

Paladin
12-04-2010, 2:21 PM
Part 1 of Alameda's GC Statements are now available Here (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/resources/ccw-initiative/89-alameda)Hot Dang! :clap:

There goes my Saturday! Outta here 'till I'm done.

THANK YOU ALL AGAIN! ! ! :thumbsup:

wildhawker
12-04-2010, 2:34 PM
I strongly urge those in Alameda to remain patient as we might just have some additional instructions for volunteers... in two weeks soon.

dantodd
12-04-2010, 3:44 PM
I strongly urge those in Alameda to remain patient as we might just have some additional instructions for volunteers... in two weeks soon.

:gene:

obeygiant
12-04-2010, 10:16 PM
All of Alameda's GC statements are now available Here (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/resources/ccw-initiative/89-alameda)

hoffmang
12-04-2010, 11:22 PM
All of Alameda's GC statements are now available Here (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/resources/ccw-initiative/89-alameda)

Can I just point out that obeygiant rocks?!

-Gene

Paladin
12-04-2010, 11:54 PM
Can I just point out that obeygiant rocks?!

-Gene:thumbsup:

This is what I've been waiting for. Nothing against Sonoma or Solano, but this is when we start turning over the rocks and seeing abuses of discretion in the major urban Bay Area counties.

My eyes are spinning from skimming thru those .pdfs, but one thing stands out: business people who sometimes have to go into bad parts of town at odd hours. Q: How has Plummer/Ahern treated law-abiding citizens who live in those same bad parts of town? Do they get issued CCWs? :mad:

Now is when the entrenched "powers-that-be" start getting upset. This is when being able to carry a means of defending yourself & yours goes from being a privilege of the well-heeled and well-connected to a right in this state. :43:

wildhawker
12-05-2010, 12:48 AM
Can I just point out that obeygiant rocks?!

-Gene

Indeed! Ben Henslin is one of the guys consistently up at 2am helping other gun owners in all sorts of creative ways. His hard work pays major dividends for the community and we're damned lucky he's on our side.

-Brandon

safewaysecurity
12-05-2010, 12:54 AM
Why are so many of the same GC statements repeated? Like the masonic lodge guy I saw his paper in there like 4 times as well as a couple others.

wildhawker
12-05-2010, 12:55 AM
Why are so many of the same GC statements repeated? Like the masonic lodge guy I saw his paper in there like 4 times as well as a couple others.

Probably renewals - check the dates.

safewaysecurity
12-05-2010, 1:11 AM
I saw one statement that says something like " Sheriff Plummer I met and spoke with you at a Barbeque and you said if I could still qualify at the range I could get my CCW k thx " and used that as his GC... corruption. Oh and it also looks like the Chief Assistant District Attorney ... is a CCW holder. Don't know why you guys didn't censor his role but it's pretty interesting info.

Teacher Sp Ed
12-05-2010, 12:44 PM
As a school teacher, Notary Public and eligible for bar membership, and retired stock broker I have been printed and run through DOJ countless times. Plus combat wounded Veteran. I have passed numerous reviews for good moral character.

I would gladly volunteer to be part of the process for CCW application in Alameda.

Teacher Sp Ed
12-05-2010, 12:45 PM
P.S. also have current non resident licenses for Utah and Florida

obeygiant
12-05-2010, 1:04 PM
As a school teacher, Notary Public and eligible for bar membership, and retired stock broker I have been printed and run through DOJ countless times. Plus combat wounded Veteran. I have passed numerous reviews for good moral character.

I would gladly volunteer to be part of the process for CCW application in Alameda.

P.S. also have current non resident licenses for Utah and Florida

If you have not already done so, please register as a volunteer on CGF website Here (https://calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/volunteer-registration)

Teacher Sp Ed
12-05-2010, 5:30 PM
I have registered as a volunteer

wildhawker
12-05-2010, 5:36 PM
Excellent, Teacher Sp Ed; we'll be reaching out soon.

-Brandon

Window_Seat
12-05-2010, 6:09 PM
Part 3, page 53:

Having carried a weapon for 28 years, I think I need it for protection.

Applied for P.I. License, & passed test today, (11/14/07)

Hopes to work for an agency.

As far as renewal requests, are the good cause statements looked at just as strictly as new requests, or does the issuing authority generally give more leniency for the renewals?

Part 1, Page 9, the licensee mentions 9/11 as a factor:

2) Due to the numerous changes in security measure and the demand on Law Enforcement since 9/11 I have felt a need to increase my personal protection as well as my business protection

To sum my reason for a CCW is for self protction and the protection of my personal and business property which if in the wrong hands can create a problem especially for Law Enforcement.

The licensee goes on to mention this:

...I have been faced with a new line of customers from all races who basically present a new challenge for me in dealing with their needs and wants...

I would think that if a person submitting a GC letter that mentions race in any shape or form, would immediately be denied, especially with the tone above, no?

Erik.

wildhawker
12-05-2010, 6:54 PM
Renewals are only distinguished in the PC by the reduced fees, 4 hour minimum for training, and restrictions on some administrative components (fingerprints, psych testing, etc.).

That said, and something we'll be addressing, many sheriffs have their own version of a renewal. It does tend to favor existing license holders in that most renewals do not expressly challenge license holders to as-completely "re-justify" the license.

ForceofNations
12-05-2010, 11:15 PM
Well that was some fun reading. I'll be standing by...

Hank Dodge
12-06-2010, 3:02 PM
Wow...some of those reasons are pretty darn weak in my opinion. I only say this because I've been told that I would not be granted a permit with similar reasoning. This is only "hearsay" on my part though, I have not wanted to attempt the process only to have being denied on my record. I've been told by many folks that once denied it does not favor well for you on future attempts even in other locations.

I just read the first of those file folders. The ones in there with things like "I work late", "I carry cash", "I've got weapons" are all reasons that I was told would not make any difference to them. Now, "my uncles brother" does not own a gun shop or anything, but all those other things pretty much fit my situation.....

There is obviously something more to the approval process.

Window_Seat
12-06-2010, 7:05 PM
Another race situation, Part 2, page 50:

...The risk of personal harm is high at this time. Many of the tenants are of Asian, Hispanic and Middle-Eastern persuasion and deal only in cash. This is their nature of doing business. They do not pay in checks, nor will they deliver the rent to my offices. I have to go to them.
...

Interesting that some of the statements have situations where the mention of race comes in.

"Their", "They", and "Them" being defined as the Asian, Hispanic and Middle-Eastern tenants in the letter. Again (as I mentioned above), I would think that any mention of race as a factor for a request to be given a CCW license would be grounds for immediate denial, but I guess not. :eek:

Erik.

Blackhawk556
12-06-2010, 9:49 PM
:thumbsup:
My eyes are spinning from skimming thru those .pdfs, but one thing stands out: business people who sometimes have to go into bad parts of town at odd hours. Q: How has Plummer/Ahern treated law-abiding citizens who live:mad: in those same bad parts of town? Do they get issued CCWs?

Now is when the entrenched "powers-that-be" start getting upset. This is when being able to carry a means of defending yourself & yours goes from being a privilege of the well-heeled and well-connected to a right in this state. :43:

damn, that's true

i've never thought about that. I guess only the "money" people are worth protecting.

eville
12-06-2010, 10:41 PM
that guy at the Castro Valley gun shop has quite the extended family....

Paladin
12-06-2010, 10:53 PM
that guy at the Castro Valley gun shop has quite the extended family....
I went to one a few years ago, back after TBJ had gotten established, and spoke to a few people there about what they were hoping to do using Guillory and the 14th A and asked if I could leave a flier and my "business card fliers" for their customers. I was met w/a slightly hostile reaction, which surprised me, given the uniformly positive reactions I got at other east bay gun stores.

I think I now know why: the owner, his brother, and his nephew were all among the "more worthy to be defended than thou" elite (i.e., they got theirs from Plummer/Ahern and didn't want anybody rocking the boat).

I was going to visit that shop again, but this time w/CGF materials. I've decided to wait until there is a public announcement by CGF that Alameda is "Time to Apply" status.

wildhawker
12-07-2010, 12:23 AM
I love how "protection of goods" is both a carrot and a stick.

Also, how many of these "business purpose" permits are for 90 days?

Anyone want to guess?

Gray Peterson
12-07-2010, 1:08 AM
I love how "protection of goods" is both a carrot and a stick.

Also, how many of these "business purpose" permits are for 90 days?

Anyone want to guess?

I'd say 0, but all I see is the good cause sheets and not the other underlying information.

wildhawker
12-07-2010, 1:17 AM
I'd say 0

...and you would be correct.

dantodd
12-07-2010, 8:50 AM
What I didn't see is if any of those have "business use only" restrictions.

freedomtools
12-07-2010, 10:51 AM
I like the application on San Francisco District Attorney letterhead! (2nd doc, page 15) Good stuff. Too bad it wasn't in time for the elections.

Ms. Harris, I see that you are a strong supporter of your employees' rights to defend themselves. Does this reflect a greater desire to empower other Californians to defend themselves as well? How do you reconcile this with your statements regarding the Heller decision? http://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/News.asp?id=458

Gray Peterson
12-07-2010, 11:08 AM
I like the application on San Francisco District Attorney letterhead! (2nd doc, page 15) Good stuff. Too bad it wasn't in time for the elections.

Ms. Harris, I see that you are a strong supporter of your employees' rights to defend themselves. Does this reflect a greater desire to empower other Californians to defend themselves as well? How do you reconcile this with your statements regarding the Heller decision? http://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/News.asp?id=458

Do not email that to the DA's office. You're trying to score political points on someone just to make yourself feel better. Don't do it.

freedomtools
12-07-2010, 11:15 AM
Take it easy man, it was a joke. Not planning on talking with any DA's in any capacity. Not running for office or in any need of political points or particularly interested in feeling better. OK then, glad that's settled.

Window_Seat
12-07-2010, 12:17 PM
Part 3, page 93:

It is my understanding in my case that the Sheriff has waived proof of personal liability insurance.

I don't know if the Sheriff has waived further letters from me describing circumstances that justify the need to carry a concealed weapon. In the event he has not, I am requesting renewal because I am a Deputy District Attorney...

I would be interested to know if the Sheriff at the time (09/05/2009) actually DID waive proof of PLI and further letters (what letters? GC letters?)?? Anyone know how that might work for others in an EP (equal protection) situation?

Erik.

dantodd
12-07-2010, 3:13 PM
There are at least two other renewal applications that refer to insurance waivers.

wildhawker
12-07-2010, 3:42 PM
Do not take any action regarding this issue.

-Brandon

Part 3, page 93:

I would be interested to know if the Sheriff at the time (09/05/2009) actually DID waive proof of PLI and further letters (what letters? GC letters?)?? Anyone know how that might work for others in an EP (equal protection) situation?

Erik.

Barbarossa
12-07-2010, 4:06 PM
I strongly urge those in Alameda to remain patient as we might just have some additional instructions for volunteers... in two weeks soon.

:D

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_ExDKsKlG_P4/TOLXNMCEuJI/AAAAAAAACNk/Z0vC9cR_Z94/s288/2weeks.JPG

obeygiant
12-07-2010, 7:11 PM
:D

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_ExDKsKlG_P4/TOLXNMCEuJI/AAAAAAAACNk/Z0vC9cR_Z94/s288/2weeks.JPG

I'm not sure whether I should laugh or be insulted. :confused:

dantodd
12-07-2010, 7:47 PM
Who says you can't have both?

wilit
12-07-2010, 7:49 PM
I just read through the first PDF and found it interesting that significantly more than half of them involve "I do <insert activity> at night." So what? Because I work during the day or do my banking at noon, does that mean I have less of a reason to protect myself? Because it's light out, does that mean I'm going to be able to fight any better than at night? Pretty silly if you ask me.

Teacher Sp Ed
12-07-2010, 9:23 PM
Observation... having read through the entire file there seems to be a common thread and I am assuming that all that I read were granted. I could fashion a GC statement that accurately paraphrased the ones reviewed. But I think that I should wait...Someone tell me when would be the appropriate time to apply for the best group effect.

wildhawker
12-08-2010, 1:39 AM
Hold tight all...

Paladin
12-08-2010, 6:09 AM
Hold tight all...
NyC0X1z4J0U

:D

Davidwhitewolf
12-08-2010, 5:45 PM
What I didn't see is if any of those have "business use only" restrictions.

I didn't either, but about a third of the way through the first pdf there's a couple of 'em asking for the business restriction to be removed, with statements as to why.

ETA: On the business restriction waiver, I'm referring to the letter dated 11/17/08 and it's halfway through the first pdf file, not a third as I thought before.

He says,

A personal visit to a friend on a weekend can also quickly become a meeting with a potential client if they express some interest in one of my properties -- when someone does, I immediately try to show them a home. When showing and inspecting homes I often run into squatters. Is that work related? If so, I would have inevitably left my firearm at home because of the work restriction and the original "personal" nature of the visit to a friend.

Something as simple as a trip to the mall can quickly become an encounter with a person I have evicted -- this recently occurred....

If this fellow's work restriction was waived on these grounds, this an opening for us?

Davidwhitewolf
12-08-2010, 5:55 PM
General question: one of our employees approached me with a situation. His wife has a stalker in Georgia who in the past has come out to California (generally around the holidays) and threatened (online) to rape her and her daughters. The employee suspects from online activity that the stalker might be gearing up for another visit. The couple has had a restraining order against him in the past but it expired; they're going to look into getting another in place.

Aside from the other measures they're taking (they don't yet own a gun, for one thing, but are working on it) they're interested in the possibility of an Alameda CCW. I'm not sure they could afford the insurance requirement and/or app fees.

All that said, would it be wise/foolish for them to go through the Alameda CCW application process at this point in time? I'd hate to see them spend time/money on something so important if it's likely they'll be denied.

wildhawker
12-08-2010, 7:05 PM
They should definitely apply. The insurance is a non-issue (they should contact me if Alameda were to try and assert it), and I'm fairly certain that psych is a non-issue also.

With a TRO in place there is an exemption to 12031 they may consider.



A violation of this section is justifiable when a person who
possesses a firearm reasonably believes that he or she is in grave
danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current
restraining order issued by a court against another person or persons
who has or have been found to pose a threat to his or her life or
safety. This paragraph may not apply when the circumstances involve a
mutual restraining order issued pursuant to Division 10 (commencing
with Section 6200) of the Family Code absent a factual finding of a
specific threat to the person's life or safety. It is not the intent
of the Legislature to limit, restrict, or narrow the application of
current statutory or judicial authority to apply this or other
justifications to defendants charged with violating Section 12025 or
of committing other similar offenses.
Upon trial for violating this section, the trier of fact shall
determine whether the defendant was acting out of a reasonable belief
that he or she was in grave danger.

General question: one of our employees approached me with a situation. His wife has a stalker in Georgia who in the past has come out to California (generally around the holidays) and threatened (online) to rape her and her daughters. The employee suspects from online activity that the stalker might be gearing up for another visit. The couple has had a restraining order against him in the past but it expired; they're going to look into getting another in place.

Aside from the other measures they're taking (they don't yet own a gun, for one thing, but are working on it) they're interested in the possibility of an Alameda CCW. I'm not sure they could afford the insurance requirement and/or app fees.

All that said, would it be wise/foolish for them to go through the Alameda CCW application process at this point in time? I'd hate to see them spend time/money on something so important if it's likely they'll be denied.

Davidwhitewolf
12-08-2010, 11:25 PM
Many thanks!

Teacher Sp Ed
12-12-2010, 3:29 PM
Now that the opinion in Peruta issued is there any reason for not designing a good cause statement along the lines of business and personal safety that seems to be successful in Alameda County?

Window_Seat
12-12-2010, 3:58 PM
Now that the opinion in Peruta issued is there any reason for not designing a good cause statement along the lines of business and personal safety that seems to be successful in Alameda County?

Do not take any action regarding this issue.

-Brandon

Hold tight all...

And best of all...:

I strongly urge those in Alameda to remain patient as we might just have some additional instructions for volunteers... in two weeks soon.

Nuff said? :D

Erik.

Teacher Sp Ed
12-12-2010, 8:05 PM
Nothing better to do but wait. Going to go live the rest of my life, which is a good one.

Window_Seat
12-16-2010, 4:24 PM
BTT, just to let everyone know that I'm back at home to help out with the volunteer effort to take place.

Erik.

ForceofNations
12-23-2010, 7:45 PM
:twoweeks:down :twoweeks: to go

wildhawker
12-23-2010, 10:37 PM
Hold steady on the line. Waiting for a couple of other issues to move.

Window_Seat
12-24-2010, 3:08 PM
Hold steady on the line. Waiting for a couple of other issues to move.

I like the sound of that. :cool:

Erik.

ForceofNations
12-24-2010, 3:53 PM
I like the sound of that. :cool:

Erik.

+one

Paladin
12-24-2010, 10:27 PM
Hold steady on the line. Waiting for a couple of other issues to move.

So wildhawker's gone from saying "two weeks" to "two issues."

Is that progress? :confused: :D ;)

Window_Seat
12-24-2010, 10:31 PM
...
Is that progress? :confused: :D ;)

Considering that the said progress is far better than waiting for the opposite (Congress). :p

Erik.

Paladin
12-29-2010, 5:25 PM
Hold steady on the line. Waiting for a couple of other issues to move.

I just noticed my post count was 1880 (1881 w/this one). I'm in "Winchester territory": I've passed 1873, looking forward to 1892, and then 1894, and then . . .

Will I be able to get an Alameda issued CCW w/SD as GC before my post count breaks 2000 (my guess is around April)?

Window_Seat
01-09-2011, 11:09 AM
Tagged...

Been awful quiet, and maybe that's a good thing. :) Patient, I am, but still pacing B&F. Any updates?

Erik.

ForceofNations
01-10-2011, 9:22 PM
Tagged...

Been awful quiet, and maybe that's a good thing. :) Patient, I am, but still pacing B&F. Any updates?

Erik.

You got me all excited there for a minute... :no:

Davidwhitewolf
01-10-2011, 10:22 PM
Heh. "It's awful quiet."

[looks around]

"Yeah, too quiet."

Davidwhitewolf
01-10-2011, 10:24 PM
That is to say, calm before the storm!

wildhawker
01-10-2011, 10:37 PM
We have a number of issues being worked on in other counties which need to resolve prior to moving forward in Alameda at this point, though people similarly situated to those already approved should feel free to apply now.

edraven
01-24-2011, 8:34 PM
Can you talk about what those issues are yet?

wildhawker
01-24-2011, 9:15 PM
Can you talk about what those issues are yet?

It's important to secure the field before advancing to the next objective.

emcon5
02-08-2011, 2:38 PM
Amusing, from #2, pg19:

"What a pleasure it has been for my wife of 25 years and I to be part of you Honorary Sheriffs' Organization"

Surprised he didn't follow that statement with "wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more"

And some of these are pretty weak as far as "good cause" go, not that I have a problem with that:

To conform to the laws of the State of California, for personal Protection while driving alone at night for our business within the LA-East Bay area where I live and in other sparsely populated areas with in the state of California.

Sounds remarkably like "Self Defense"

Window_Seat
02-08-2011, 5:14 PM
Amusing, from #2, pg19:



Surprised he didn't follow that statement with "wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more"

And some of these are pretty weak as far as "good cause" go, not that I have a problem with that:



Sounds remarkably like "Self Defense"

The one that was most shocking to me was Part 2, page 50:

...The risk of personal harm is high at this time. Many of the tenants are of Asian, Hispanic and Middle-Eastern persuasion and deal only in cash. This is their nature of doing business. They do not pay in checks, nor will they deliver the rent to my offices. I have to go to them.
...

While not trying to seem as if I'm in broken record mode, I have to keep wondering what would happen if organizations like (and including) the NAACP were to catch wind of this. Would Al Sharpton have a heart attack, or would he keep his mouth shut to prevent the steerage living class from gaining more of an ability to carry as regular citizens?

While I wouldn't (now), I would love to call Sheriff Ahern on this, and I would do so in a respectful way, and would if it were appropriate for the cause.

Erik.

emcon5
02-08-2011, 8:51 PM
It is also interesting to note the number of people saying they need to carry because the have to visit a high crime area in Oakland/Richmond yet complete lack of approvals for those that live in the high crime areas.

Code7inOaktown
02-15-2011, 12:31 AM
It is also interesting to note the number of people saying they need to carry because the have to visit a high crime area in Oakland/Richmond yet complete lack of approvals for those that live in the high crime areas.

Yet more proof of how silly the may issue laws have been twisted. Those who live in the areas that actually need to be armed, cannot be armed. Ah well... Here's to the coming change.

rbetts
02-16-2011, 12:09 AM
All,

I just received 100 copies of "Concealed Carry Fundamentals". This is a great resource for you if you are preparing for, or just received your CCW. Alot of the info in it and it is even more than you receive in the local classes.

http://keyhousepress.com/sitebuilder/images/Concealed_Carry_Fundamentals_Cover_-_Small-359x359.jpg

They sell for the listed price of $26.95 and are well worth it! Being a recent recipient of a CCW approval and now preparing for class myself, this will make class more meaningful and well worth the $$.

Just my 2 cents

Available here http://www.goldenstatetactical.com/cocafu.html (Make sure to use CALGUNS in the coupon code for free shipping!)

mtsul
02-22-2011, 9:53 PM
Checking in here just moved trying to decide were to settle down in for awhile CoCoCo or almeada!! When are we going to be like solano I can't wait for it to be almost shall issue!!!

Sorry if the names are spelled wrong or anything else is spelled wromg I'm new to NorCal so I'm slowly learning the names, and I'm on my phone and it's a pain for me to go back and fix misspelled words

Window_Seat
03-13-2011, 1:30 PM
Question for Brandon/others:

For those GC Statements that were addressed to "then Sheriff Plumber", or a Sheriff who was pro-CCW, could those statements still be used when filing any action based on EP? Is there a possibility that there may be GC statements that haven't been revealed, especially addressing past Sheriffs who may have been pro-CCW?

Erik.

the_natterjack
03-31-2011, 9:59 PM
Well it's been a little slow. Where do we stand?

Brian

Window_Seat
04-01-2011, 2:20 PM
Well it's been a little slow. Where do we stand?

Brian

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say...

No news is good news... LITERALLY.

I believe (though, I could be speaking prematurely) that if we wait two weeks, we'll see something very significant.

Here's why (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=414530)

Erik.

sarabellum
04-11-2011, 3:00 PM
I am checking in a little late into this thread and the need for participants in the Alameda County CCW. If it is not too late, I would like to participate.

Paladin
04-13-2011, 6:41 AM
If anyone needs to see why so many of us say that the LEOs and BGs are armed, and that it is only the law-abiding who are disarmed, watch these two series of youtubes:

bYOPI29tytE

and

aPwOTqkZvwM

sarabellum
04-14-2011, 12:04 AM
What is the last tally as to the cost for the CCW application in Alameda County?

wildhawker
04-14-2011, 12:40 AM
What is the last tally as to the cost for the CCW application in Alameda County?

Costs are per the state standards, with only a local variance for the print rolling fees.

See: http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/file/24-carryappguide.html

sarabellum
04-14-2011, 2:50 PM
Costs are per the state standards, with only a local variance for the print rolling fees.

See: http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/file/24-carryappguide.html

Sounds good. If I'm not mistaken, the total is $470:
Initial application: $95
Local fee: $100
Fingerprints: $75
Training: $50
Psych exam: $150

If I've got it wrong, please advise. Thanks.

wildhawker
04-14-2011, 8:14 PM
Fingerprints are high, training may be a bit low, and the psych may not be required.

j-rod
04-18-2011, 6:36 PM
I have a very specific need to apply ASAP. Should I be denied I'm more than happy to work with you guys to make things move forward.

j-rod
04-18-2011, 6:39 PM
I should add that I'm here to help no matter the outcome of my app. I will be signing up as a volunteer asap

Dreaded Claymore
04-26-2011, 2:14 AM
If you have not already done so, please register as a volunteer on CGF website Here (https://calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/volunteer-registration)

How do I find out if I've registered as a volunteer? I think I might have already but I'm not sure, and I don't want to clog the system unnecessarily.

redrex
05-05-2011, 2:11 PM
I've seen the stories online about how Oakland by default does not grant CCW's I was just wondering if anyone on here has actually tried.

My thought and I'm certainly naive about this is that if California bans LOC and Oakland by their policy automatically denies CCW then is that not tantamount to giving me no access to "bear arms" and as such a clear infringement of my 2a rights?

odysseus
05-05-2011, 2:13 PM
Wouldn't you be routing that request via Alameda County Sheriff? Not that this probably changes the perspective too much right now.

redrex
05-08-2011, 9:45 PM
I wish. If you live in an incorporated area with a pop greater then a certain number that currently slips my mind, well then you need to apply with the police chief.

I tried applying with the sheriff and was told as much.

wildhawker
05-09-2011, 1:20 AM
I wish. If you live in an incorporated area with a pop greater then a certain number that currently slips my mind, well then you need to apply with the police chief.

I tried applying with the sheriff and was told as much.

The Sheriff's office is incorrect. Feel free to apply directly to them (as you're entitled under statute and Salute v. Pitchess) and let me know if they refuse to accept and process your application.

-Brandon

2Bear
05-09-2011, 1:31 AM
:popcorn:

redrex
05-09-2011, 1:20 PM
The Sheriff's office is incorrect. Feel free to apply directly to them (as you're entitled under statute and Salute v. Pitchess) and let me know if they refuse to accept and process your application.

-Brandon

Excellent, I'm going to give it a shot. I guess I got confused by Penal Code Section 12050(g). I thought it went both ways and upon re-reading it, clearly it does not.

I had called the Sheriff's office about applying and was told point blank that the Sheriff out of professional courtesy deffer to the Oakland Police chief. Hmmm, time for round two!

redrex
05-09-2011, 2:54 PM
Ok, Round two is over and here are the results...

I called this numbrer:
CCW LICENSE - CIVILIANS ONLY
(510) 208-9890

I spoke to a very nice and polite woman over there. She asked if I was a resident of Alameda county to which I said that I was. Then she asked what city. When I said Oakland she replied "Ok, this is where we stop the process. You will need to apply through the city of Oakland". This is the EXACT, word for word, response I was given last time. She seemed very prepared for this discussion.

I informed her that I had the right to apply with the sheriff as per Penal Code 12050. She replied that I can but I have to apply with Oakland first and that if I was rejected by Oakland that I could then apply with the sheriff.

I informed here that while 12050(g) did give the right of the police to deffer to the sheriff it did not work in reverse and she had to give me an application.

At this point she said that she was sorry but that is their policy and there were no exceptions, but that she would give me the name and number of someone over at Oakland who would be very responsive to my application. She did give me the name and number in Oakland.

I told her in a very polite manner that I'm sorry but I must insist on this point. The law is very clear and it is not, to my understanding, within the powers of the sheriff to refuse to accept an application or to automatically decline an application as per "Salute v. Pitchess".

She responded that she was familiar with both that ruling and the code but that there was a policy in place and while she was unsure of what ruling the policy was based on, she was sure that it was quite legal and that it is just the way they do things.

Then she went on to say that it is very hard to get a ccw in Alameda county. That I would have to pass a psyche test to see if I was mentally fit. And that I would have to pay for very expensive insurance coverage. That I would have to take a very long class and then pass a very, very hard test at the end. The way she stressed this was as if to say that if I applied to Oakland that I would not have to due any of that and that if I applied with them it would be like going through Seal training to get my ccw.

In the end I pointed out that regardless of their policy, state law said that I could apply and that I did indeed wish to exercise my right to do so. She said again that she could not and would not send me an application until I had applied and then been denied by the Oakland police dept.

At this point I asked to speak to a supervisor. She said that there was a Sgt that I could talk to but that she was not in today and I would have to call back on another
day. I thanked her for her time and her patience in this matter and told her that I hoped that I was not being rude as I was just trying to exercise my rights as I understood them to be.

After I hung up with her I immediately called the Sgt in Oakland that she refereed me to. The call went straight to voice-mail. I left my name and number and asked for a follow up call. I will continue to call her regarding this and I will also follow up with the Sgt at ACSO for further clarification.

I have not included the names of the people involved here as I do not feel it necessary to the issue at hand. I however have documented all of the conversations and names so far and if you feel that you need this information then pm me and I will be happy to share it with you.

Please stay tuned for more adventures of "Trying to get my CCW in Oakland". :)

odysseus
05-09-2011, 3:01 PM
She responded that she was familiar with both that ruling and the code but that there was a policy in place and while she was unsure of what ruling the policy was based on, she was sure that it was quite legal and that it is just the way they do things.

I see, a foggy idea for a rigid policy. Hmmm....

wildhawker
05-09-2011, 5:49 PM
Please email me your name and contact info to bcombs@calgunsfoundation.org. I'd like to give you a call this week before you proceed further.

-Brandon

Ok, Round two is over and here are the results...

I called this numbrer:
CCW LICENSE - CIVILIANS ONLY
(510) 208-9890

I spoke to a very nice and polite woman over there. She asked if I was a resident of Alameda county to which I said that I was. Then she asked what city. When I said Oakland she replied "Ok, this is where we stop the process. You will need to apply through the city of Oakland". This is the EXACT, word for word, response I was given last time. She seemed very prepared for this discussion.

I informed her that I had the right to apply with the sheriff as per Penal Code 12050. She replied that I can but I have to apply with Oakland first and that if I was rejected by Oakland that I could then apply with the sheriff.

I informed here that while 12050(g) did give the right of the police to deffer to the sheriff it did not work in reverse and she had to give me an application.

At this point she said that she was sorry but that is their policy and there were no exceptions, but that she would give me the name and number of someone over at Oakland who would be very responsive to my application. She did give me the name and number in Oakland.

I told her in a very polite manner that I'm sorry but I must insist on this point. The law is very clear and it is not, to my understanding, within the powers of the sheriff to refuse to accept an application or to automatically decline an application as per "Salute v. Pitchess".

She responded that she was familiar with both that ruling and the code but that there was a policy in place and while she was unsure of what ruling the policy was based on, she was sure that it was quite legal and that it is just the way they do things.

Then she went on to say that it is very hard to get a ccw in Alameda county. That I would have to pass a psyche test to see if I was mentally fit. And that I would have to pay for very expensive insurance coverage. That I would have to take a very long class and then pass a very, very hard test at the end. The way she stressed this was as if to say that if I applied to Oakland that I would not have to due any of that and that if I applied with them it would be like going through Seal training to get my ccw.

In the end I pointed out that regardless of their policy, state law said that I could apply and that I did indeed wish to exercise my right to do so. She said again that she could not and would not send me an application until I had applied and then been denied by the Oakland police dept.

At this point I asked to speak to a supervisor. She said that there was a Sgt that I could talk to but that she was not in today and I would have to call back on another
day. I thanked her for her time and her patience in this matter and told her that I hoped that I was not being rude as I was just trying to exercise my rights as I understood them to be.

After I hung up with her I immediately called the Sgt in Oakland that she refereed me to. The call went straight to voice-mail. I left my name and number and asked for a follow up call. I will continue to call her regarding this and I will also follow up with the Sgt at ACSO for further clarification.

I have not included the names of the people involved here as I do not feel it necessary to the issue at hand. I however have documented all of the conversations and names so far and if you feel that you need this information then pm me and I will be happy to share it with you.

Please stay tuned for more adventures of "Trying to get my CCW in Oakland". :)

bodger
05-09-2011, 6:05 PM
Ok, Round two is over and here are the results...

I called this numbrer:
CCW LICENSE - CIVILIANS ONLY
(510) 208-9890

I spoke to a very nice and polite woman over there. She asked if I was a resident of Alameda county to which I said that I was. Then she asked what city. When I said Oakland she replied "Ok, this is where we stop the process. You will need to apply through the city of Oakland". This is the EXACT, word for word, response I was given last time. She seemed very prepared for this discussion.

I informed her that I had the right to apply with the sheriff as per Penal Code 12050. She replied that I can but I have to apply with Oakland first and that if I was rejected by Oakland that I could then apply with the sheriff.

I informed here that while 12050(g) did give the right of the police to deffer to the sheriff it did not work in reverse and she had to give me an application.

At this point she said that she was sorry but that is their policy and there were no exceptions, but that she would give me the name and number of someone over at Oakland who would be very responsive to my application. She did give me the name and number in Oakland.

I told her in a very polite manner that I'm sorry but I must insist on this point. The law is very clear and it is not, to my understanding, within the powers of the sheriff to refuse to accept an application or to automatically decline an application as per "Salute v. Pitchess".

She responded that she was familiar with both that ruling and the code but that there was a policy in place and while she was unsure of what ruling the policy was based on, she was sure that it was quite legal and that it is just the way they do things.

Then she went on to say that it is very hard to get a ccw in Alameda county. That I would have to pass a psyche test to see if I was mentally fit. And that I would have to pay for very expensive insurance coverage. That I would have to take a very long class and then pass a very, very hard test at the end. The way she stressed this was as if to say that if I applied to Oakland that I would not have to due any of that and that if I applied with them it would be like going through Seal training to get my ccw.

In the end I pointed out that regardless of their policy, state law said that I could apply and that I did indeed wish to exercise my right to do so. She said again that she could not and would not send me an application until I had applied and then been denied by the Oakland police dept.

At this point I asked to speak to a supervisor. She said that there was a Sgt that I could talk to but that she was not in today and I would have to call back on another
day. I thanked her for her time and her patience in this matter and told her that I hoped that I was not being rude as I was just trying to exercise my rights as I understood them to be.

After I hung up with her I immediately called the Sgt in Oakland that she refereed me to. The call went straight to voice-mail. I left my name and number and asked for a follow up call. I will continue to call her regarding this and I will also follow up with the Sgt at ACSO for further clarification.

I have not included the names of the people involved here as I do not feel it necessary to the issue at hand. I however have documented all of the conversations and names so far and if you feel that you need this information then pm me and I will be happy to share it with you.

Please stay tuned for more adventures of "Trying to get my CCW in Oakland". :)

Is any of that area I made bold even remotely legal??
Gawd.

2Bear
05-09-2011, 6:15 PM
:popcorn: I knew I should've gotten a bigger popcorn for this one...

safewaysecurity
05-09-2011, 6:33 PM
This looks very interesting. They are not allowed to require psyche testing and insurance coverage from what I understand.

redrex
05-09-2011, 7:53 PM
According to this they can require a psyche test if they require it of all applicants. But it doesn't say anything about the insurance.

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/downloads/documents/CGF_Civilian_CCW_Guide.pdf

2Bear
05-09-2011, 9:04 PM
FWIW:

Liability insurance requirements for CCW is unlawful and illegal in California, and also not possible to get. The only explanation I have for the false existence is that they're not actually checking, or just taking someone's word for it in terms of homeowners/renters insurance.

wildhawker
05-10-2011, 1:45 AM
Insurance is definitely not a lawful requirement.

-Brandon

redrex
05-10-2011, 3:03 PM
I've called the ACSO CCW permit phone number 4 times today. Each time it has gone to voice mail.

No real thoughts on this so far. Just documenting it.

Kid Stanislaus
05-10-2011, 8:44 PM
"Ask me about the Modern Whig Party of California. Extreme Moderates at the Radical Center of common sense politics. http://www.cawhigparty.org/ "

WHAT?:confused:

redrex
05-10-2011, 9:38 PM
"Ask me about the Modern Whig Party of California. Extreme Moderates at the Radical Center of common sense politics. http://www.cawhigparty.org/ "

WHAT?:confused:

In today's bi-polar political world they would like you to believe that the only choices are at the extemes. That you are either on the far left or on the far right. And that only a few people who can't make up their minds are left as the "undecided". The MWP feels that the reverse is true, that most people are really somewhere near the center with only some diehards on the outer fringes. That's the part of our "Radicalness", the extreme moderate part comes from the belief that the answer to almost every issue can be determined with some common sense, middle of the road solutions.

If you want to know more you can PM me or we can start a thread in another forum.

707electrician
05-10-2011, 9:47 PM
The Sheriff's office is incorrect. Feel free to apply directly to them (as you're entitled under statute and Salute v. Pitchess) and let me know if they refuse to accept and process your application.

-Brandon

Go get 'em Brandon. Take them down

redrex
05-13-2011, 1:37 PM
It has now been over a week since I first called the ACSO. They are no long answering their phones in the CCW dept. I have called everyday, two to four times a day and always it goes to voice mail.

I shall update when the situation changes.

j-rod
05-13-2011, 4:58 PM
I'm looking to get a Alameda CCW as well. Same boat. I was just about to apply with the Sheriff when I caught the fine print about the 'apply with local PD first' policy. Finding no resources on the PD's website I was informed that should write a letter to the PD Chief. My letter has gone unanswered. I figure at this point I can go to the Sheriff with proof that I tried to play by their 'policy' and now it's time we play by the rules.

redrex
05-13-2011, 5:16 PM
How bad would it be if I were to call the anonymous tip line and tell them that their office is breaking the law?

wildhawker
05-13-2011, 5:41 PM
How bad would it be if I were to call the anonymous tip line and tell them that their office is breaking the law?

Ignore that step and proceed directly to personally delivering a completed application to Sgt. K. Martinez at the Sheriff's Office. I'd advise to call their regular number and inform them that the CCW line is going unanswered and that you want to submit the application ASAP, so you need to speak with Sgt. Martinez and schedule the appointment. FYI, their [unlawful] policy is here: http://calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/resources/ccw-initiative/89-alameda

Be prepared to pay no more than $20 in local fees, $95 for the background check, and their local print rolling fee *at the most*. You can only be required to complete and submit the Standard DOJ application, also at the weblink I posted above; their other forms are unlawful.

The Sheriff's Office is compelled to accept applications. We're here to help them remember that.

-Brandon

Kid Stanislaus
05-13-2011, 6:10 PM
The Sheriff's Office is compelled to accept applications. We're here to help them remember that. -Brandon

Yeah, I'll bet as soon as the applicant's back is turned it goes right into the round file!

Paladin
05-14-2011, 3:33 AM
In the end I pointed out that regardless of their policy, state law said that I could apply and that I did indeed wish to exercise my right to do so. She said again that she could not and would not send me an application until I had applied and then been denied by the Oakland police dept.Brandon, is the above of any special use?

OT: Are the pro-RKBA "fireworks" going to happen before or after the 4th of July?

Window_Seat
05-14-2011, 1:05 PM
Brandon, is this of any special use?

OT: Are the pro-RKBA "fireworks" going to happen before or after the 4th of July?

These developments are all extremely interesting... I (of course, and as I am again, in BR mode) am available as of the very second I'm asked, to go down to the ACSO to obtain the application and materials for a CCW, and apply when it's safe to do so. Not sure if I mentioned it to anyone, but I will drop everything (with the exception of job interviews and doctor appointments) and go apply, even if I'm out of town on something.

Erik.

Paladin
05-19-2011, 9:50 AM
Brandon, is the above of any special use?

OT: Are the pro-RKBA "fireworks" going to happen before or after the 4th of July?

Bump

redrex
05-20-2011, 2:11 PM
End of week check in. 5 up and 5 down. I've called at least twice a day sometimes 5 times a day. Usually it goes to voice mail now. I'd say 80% of the time. When they do pick up they no longer say "Public CCW line", they now say "Internal affairs". When questioned she says "Oh yeah we do ccw as well". I get the same song and dance. When I ask to speak to the supervisor she is never available.

I'm done with trying the phone. Next week I'll be going in person.

POLICESTATE
05-20-2011, 2:18 PM
End of week check in. 5 up and 5 down. I've called at least twice a day sometimes 5 times a day. Usually it goes to voice mail now. I'd say 80% of the time. When they do pick up they no longer say "Public CCW line", they now say "Internal affairs". When questioned she says "Oh yeah we do ccw as well". I get the same song and dance. When I ask to speak to the supervisor she is never available.

I'm done with trying the phone. Next week I'll be going in person.

Try not to get tasered.

thedrickel
05-20-2011, 2:33 PM
I would have gone in person looooooooooong ago.

wildhawker
05-20-2011, 2:42 PM
Bumping this up...

-Brandon

Ignore that step and proceed directly to personally delivering a completed application to Sgt. K. Martinez at the Sheriff's Office. I'd advise to call their regular number and inform them that the CCW line is going unanswered and that you want to submit the application ASAP, so you need to speak with Sgt. Martinez and schedule the appointment. FYI, their [unlawful] policy is here: http://calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/resources/ccw-initiative/89-alameda

Be prepared to pay no more than $20 in local fees, $95 for the background check, and their local print rolling fee *at the most*. You can only be required to complete and submit the Standard DOJ application, also at the weblink I posted above; their other forms are unlawful.

The Sheriff's Office is compelled to accept applications. We're here to help them remember that.

-Brandon

redrex
05-20-2011, 3:10 PM
I would have gone in person looooooooooong ago.

Ok, at what point do you feel this was constructive to this conversation?

Window_Seat
05-20-2011, 3:28 PM
Bumping this up...

-Brandon

Is this for everyone, or for one person similarly situated?

Erik.

wildhawker
05-22-2011, 5:10 PM
Is this for everyone, or for one person similarly situated?

Erik.

It's not quite a "run a fire drill", but not intended to be a limited comment, either.

Window_Seat
05-22-2011, 5:12 PM
It's not quite a "run a fire drill", but not intended to be a limited comment, either.

ISSTBM... :p

Erik.

Window_Seat
06-03-2011, 4:03 PM
At the risk of this dropping off, and I have a viable concern...

Can a DV victim (BF/GF type violence) in ALCO be "similarly situated"?

Can I have my friend get her into contact with me for this purpose?

Erik.

chris12
06-03-2011, 4:21 PM
I can't answer the similarly situated, but I know there are some carry exceptions with a restraining order that you might be able to use to help.

Paladin
06-07-2011, 8:33 AM
Reading about the death of Michelle Le (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=441444) got me wondering if Hayward PD (http://www.ci.hayward.ca.us/departments/police/spolice.shtm), still has illegal requirements for getting a CCW.

It looks like they've declared G and are no longer issuing, but rather referring applicants to the Alameda Co Sheriffs Office.

Below is their FAQs webpage re CCWs (http://user.govoutreach.com/hayward/faq.php?cid=11074). I've bolded a few points for emphasis.

Concealed Weapon Permit


The City of Hayward Police Department has adopted the practice of referring private person Concealed Weapon License applicants to the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office in accordance with Penal Code Section 12050(g). Carrying a concealed weapon by private citizens is a privilege, not a right and the issuance of such license is at the discretion of the Sheriff. The following are standards for the issuance of a Carry Concealed Weapons Licenses (CCW) by the Sheriff’s Office:

The applicant’s primary residence must be in Alameda County, unless applying for a 90-day employment license or as a reserve peace officer/custodial officer
The applicant must be of good moral character
The applicant must demonstrate that good cause exists for issuing a concealed weapon license

Applications for Concealed Weapon Licenses are processed in phases. Applicants must successfully complete each phase before proceeding to the next. The applicant must meet several other criteria before a permit would be issued, including:

complete a certified firearms safety course
submit proof of firearm registration
pass a firearms qualifications test
submit to a psychological examination at the applicant's expense
obtain and provide evidence liability insurance policy

For more information on Carry Concealed Weapon Licenses and the application process, please call the Alameda County Sheriff’s CCW Office at 510-208-9890.

SpectreCF
07-20-2011, 11:14 AM
Just wondering what the status is in regards to CCW is for Alameda? We have good cause statements available, but what are the implications to this? Does this just mean they have to honor an applicants good cause statement if it was already excepted previously?
And from what I have read here is seems that Alameda Sheriffs office is just Deep sixing/stonewalling everything, is this going to open up legal avenues for getting CCW issued?

Window_Seat
07-22-2011, 8:03 PM
Just wondering what the status is in regards to CCW is for Alameda? We have good cause statements available, but what are the implications to this? Does this just mean they have to honor an applicants good cause statement if it was already excepted previously?
And from what I have read here is seems that Alameda Sheriffs office is just Deep sixing/stonewalling everything, is this going to open up legal avenues for getting CCW issued?

It's been silent here for a while, but that can sometimes result in something loud. :gene::whistling:

Erik.

2Bear
07-22-2011, 8:32 PM
It's been silent here for a while, but that can sometimes result in something loud.


If I fire my carbide cannon towards you across the bay, tell me if you can hear it... :p

http://www.myscience8.com/weekly_calendars/week_25/images/carbide%20cannon.jpg

Standing by...

Window_Seat
07-22-2011, 9:57 PM
And I'll blow into my saxophone... :rofl:

Erik.

2Bear
07-22-2011, 10:38 PM
And I'll blow into my saxophone... :rofl:

Erik.

I'll be listening...

Bari, tenor or what? (I know it ain't no soprano...)

http://image.lyricspond.com/image/k/artist-kenny-g/album-at-lastthe-duets-album/cd-cover.jpg

If it's a bari do the foghorn!

Window_Seat
07-22-2011, 10:46 PM
I'll be listening...

Bari, tenor or what? (I know it ain't no soprano...)

http://image.lyricspond.com/image/k/artist-kenny-g/album-at-lastthe-duets-album/cd-cover.jpg

If it's a bari do the foghorn!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Boney_James.jpg

They'll call the cops, then I'll get a disorderly conduct... :p

Erik.

glocklover
09-19-2011, 8:11 PM
Any new info??? are we coming closer?

Mrbmw99
09-20-2011, 12:26 PM
I was wondering the same...

Window_Seat
09-20-2011, 1:19 PM
We'll certainly know when it's time, but ALCO is considered a red "hold out" county, and will be among the last of the counties to begin complying.

**EDIT**

It was a huge step for us to be able to get the known accepted good cause statements. If you haven't, check the good cause statements, and see how you are similarly situated (if you are).

Erik.

chremicon
12-27-2011, 9:28 PM
Any new chances or development in ALCO? I heard they might get rid of the liability insurance starting 2012. Is it still a "red hold out" county? Thinking about applying.

Gray Peterson
12-27-2011, 9:39 PM
Any new chances or development in ALCO? I heard they might get rid of the liability insurance starting 2012. Is it still a "red hold out" county? Thinking about applying.

What do you mean "might"? Liability insurance requirements are completely unlawful as of 1/1/2012.

Hank Dodge
12-28-2011, 9:21 AM
I spoke with a lady at ACSO over the phone about a month ago. She was nice enough and asked me a number of questions regarding just why I thought I needed a concealed weapon. After a bit of conversation, she agreed to send me out a packet with all the info. She also explained that there was some legal issues in the works that "might" have an effect on their current insurance and psychological testing requirements sometime in 2012. She did not say it directly, but she led me to think that I would be better off waiting to submit any paperwork to their office until whatever that legislation is was decided upon. Is it a fact at this point that after Jan 1, 2012 those items will no longer be required? If so, would it be smart to submit an application? I'm really reluctant due to all I've heard about the unending implications once you have been "denied" by an agency.

Librarian
12-28-2011, 10:54 AM
What do you mean "might"? Liability insurance requirements are completely unlawful as of 1/1/2012.

Is it a fact at this point that after Jan 1, 2012 those items will no longer be required? If so, would it be smart to submit an application?

I'm really reluctant due to all I've heard about the unending implications once you have been "denied" by an agency.

Immediately above your post was the answer to the insurance question.

It's the 28th. You can easily wait until Tuesday/Wednesday, but I wouldn't have high expectations about getting the LTC.

Being denied by a no-issue county should have no bearing on applications in more sensible places.

Being denied for cause, however, rather than the whim of the issuing agency, might be a reason for concern.

Gray Peterson
12-28-2011, 11:17 AM
I spoke with a lady at ACSO over the phone about a month ago. She was nice enough and asked me a number of questions regarding just why I thought I needed a concealed weapon. After a bit of conversation, she agreed to send me out a packet with all the info.

Agreed to send? No.

Window_Seat
12-28-2011, 11:26 AM
They would have to provide the application. One can pull it up on the CGF LTC site as well, or by going to post 1 and clicking on the right link.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, as of 01/01, the Sheriff has to provide cause as to why he denied you, and that doesn't mean saying "You were denied because your good cause was no good".

Erik.

Hank Dodge
12-28-2011, 12:09 PM
Immediately above your post was the answer to the insurance question.

It's the 28th. You can easily wait until Tuesday/Wednesday, but I wouldn't have high expectations about getting the LTC.

Being denied by a no-issue county should have no bearing on applications in more sensible places.

Being denied for cause, however, rather than the whim of the issuing agency, might be a reason for concern.


I didn't mean to be redundant in my question, I did read the above post but was still unclear. So, after Jan 1, 2012 the psychological testing, insurance, etc. will no longer be required of an applicant? That would leave it with just having a clean background (which I do have) and an acceptable probable cause (which I can mirror some of the existing ones listed fairly well, but I don't have any personal ties with ACSO or anyone else of influence).

I'm just in a position where I carry daily at work and need to disarm to legally travel back and forth each day. Personal protection aside, this puts me in a position where I always have a firearm in my vehicle and I would just feel much better about it if I had the ability to keep it on my person rather than leaving it unattended in the car where it could fall into the wrong hands. There has been too much activity in my immediate area lately that it has me concerned. I would certainly apply for a permit in an area of more consistent issuance; but here in Alameda County I have been unable to undergo the added expenses involved with all the added requirements they have imposed.

Librarian
12-28-2011, 12:58 PM
I didn't mean to be redundant in my question, I did read the above post but was still unclear. So, after Jan 1, 2012 the psychological testing, insurance, etc. will no longer be required of an applicant? That would leave it with just having a clean background (which I do have) and an acceptable probable cause (which I can mirror some of the existing ones listed fairly well, but I don't have any personal ties with ACSO or anyone else of influence).

I'm just in a position where I carry daily at work and need to disarm to legally travel back and forth each day. Personal protection aside, this puts me in a position where I always have a firearm in my vehicle and I would just feel much better about it if I had the ability to keep it on my person rather than leaving it unattended in the car where it could fall into the wrong hands. There has been too much activity in my immediate area lately that it has me concerned. I would certainly apply for a permit in an area of more consistent issuance; but here in Alameda County I have been unable to undergo the added expenses involved with all the added requirements they have imposed.

The psych testing was not addressed in any legislation that might change it; it's still something the issuing agency may require, but it is limited by statute to $150 cost (PC 26190 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/26190.html)), and they must require it of every applicant.

Sadly, there is no overt evidence that Alameda County is modifying its stance on issuing licenses; best guess is they will remain very difficult to get for some as yet unknown time into the future.

chremicon
12-29-2011, 10:27 PM
Its been decided. I'm turning in my application 1-1-2012. (or the first day their open)

Paladin
01-01-2012, 11:22 PM
Its been decided. I'm turning in my application 1-1-2012. (or the first day their open)
For some reason your decision reminded me of the first minute of ...

VQfF5fGPLYM

chremicon
01-07-2012, 1:17 AM
after 4mins and 24 secs, Im still confused on why this reminds you of my comment. haha.

Window_Seat
01-07-2012, 1:18 AM
after 4mins and 24 secs, Im still confused on why this reminds you of my comment. haha.

I'm confused why I keep feeling teased... :laugh:

Erik.

colossians323
01-24-2012, 4:27 PM
So after seeing oaklander refused, is anyone getting LTC or are we still just jumping through hoops in alco

Mrbmw99
01-24-2012, 5:38 PM
I'm curious to know if anyone is in the application process, and if they are willing to share their experience with ACSO.

chris12
01-25-2012, 6:35 PM
So after seeing oaklander refused, is anyone getting LTC or are we still just jumping through hoops in alco

I think he applied to Oakland not ALCO, not that ALCO is handing them out easily.

NewGuy1911
02-04-2012, 1:32 PM
Librarian,
The psych testing was not addressed in any legislation that might change it; it's still something the issuing agency may require, but it is limited by statute to $150 cost (PC 26190), and they must require it of every applicant.

Sadly, there is no overt evidence that Alameda County is modifying its stance on issuing licenses; best guess is they will remain very difficult to get for some as yet unknown time into the future.

Does everyone go through the psyc test?

AlwaysLearningCA
02-13-2012, 11:16 AM
I sent in my application 7+ months ago :facepalm:. I have had an interview, but nothing else. Anytime I ask for any update they just say it takes time.

Anyone familiar with what the definition of "it takes time" refers to in actual time with ALCO SO (i.e. anyone care to share how long it took for them or someone they know under Ahern).

Thanks.

Mrbmw99
02-13-2012, 10:59 PM
I spoke with Judy at ACSO two weeks ago. She said the process takes 6-12 months. I asked how SB610 plays into that (remember SB610 specifies 90 days), to which she acknowledged the new 2012 laws, but said it still takes 6-12 months for them. She mentioned the process is handled by employees whose primary role is other internal affair duties.

Keep us updated on your experiences!

BigMac
03-27-2012, 8:55 AM
I just had a customer get his ALCO CCW. He got it after 1.5 years.

His need statement involved him being the leader of his neighborhood watch.

1.5 years... dang!

Scream_4637
04-15-2012, 10:01 AM
I just had a customer get his ALCO CCW. He got it after 1.5 years.

His need statement involved him being the leader of his neighborhood watch.

1.5 years... dang!

I'm thinking that due to Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch good cause will no longer be accepted.

sigma6
05-05-2012, 5:57 PM
Is personal protection a valid GC for alameda county? I'm not even sure if its worth my time to attempt an LTC right now.

Paladin
05-05-2012, 9:54 PM
Is personal protection a valid GC for alameda county? I'm not even sure if its worth my time to attempt an LTC right now.

Watch the first minute of the War of the Worlds youtube I posted above (post #205). Ahern will be as influenced by a "self-defense"/personal protection GC statement as the aliens in that movie clip were by quoting Scripture....

Rather than waste your time, money, and effort on Ahern, donate just the money to Calguns Foundation. Oh, and join the NRA if you haven't already. See the quote of Gene Hoffman, Chairman of CGF, in my sig line below. You may want to ck out the other links in my sig line too.

highender
05-26-2012, 6:05 PM
and I wanted to apply for CCW.... here in Alameda County ("AlaMUDall " socialist republic.)

they gouge the law abiding citizens, but tons of Alameda residents and gangs and people who should NOT have even a straw to shoot spitballs are carrying ! ! ! I am upset.....

Paladin
05-26-2012, 10:44 PM
and I wanted to apply for CCW.... here in Alameda County ("AlaMUDall " socialist republic.)

they gouge the law abiding citizens, but tons of Alameda residents and gangs and people who should NOT have even a straw to shoot spitballs are carrying ! ! ! I am upset....."Take a number, pal!" ;) :D

Until SCOTUS weighs in on RKBA in public (aka "carry"), hopefully next year which means they'll probably publish their opinion June 2013, we should change the title of this thread from "Alameda -- Good Cause statements available" to "Alameda -- abandon all hope, ye who apply here"

Hank Dodge
05-27-2012, 10:02 PM
So.....The general concensus is just to not bother to apply here? I've not wanted to apply due to the fact that I don't wish to have a formal denial on my record. Is this sane reasoning? I'm beginning to wonder about it myself. There is no good reason why I should not be allowed to carry a firearm when I choose to do so. Would applying and being denied based on Ahern's unwillingness to issue permits hurt my chances in the future?

Window_Seat
05-27-2012, 10:33 PM
So.....The general concensus is just to not bother to apply here? I've not wanted to apply due to the fact that I don't wish to have a formal denial on my record. Is this sane reasoning? I'm beginning to wonder about it myself. There is no good reason why I should not be allowed to carry a firearm when I choose to do so. Would applying and being denied based on Ahern's unwillingness to issue permits hurt my chances in the future?

No, no, and no (and I had to be told that myself).

Erik.

Paladin
05-29-2012, 2:04 PM
So.....The general concensus is just to not bother to apply here? I've not wanted to apply due to the fact that I don't wish to have a formal denial on my record. Is this sane reasoning? I'm beginning to wonder about it myself. There is no good reason why I should not be allowed to carry a firearm when I choose to do so. Would applying and being denied based on Ahern's unwillingness to issue permits hurt my chances in the future?

Per my post a few posts above...
Rather than waste your time, money, and effort on Ahern, donate just the money to Calguns Foundation. Oh, and join the NRA if you haven't already. See the quote of Gene Hoffman, Chairman of CGF, in my sig line below. You may want to ck out the other links in my sig line too.

Paladin
08-18-2012, 2:32 PM
Alameda Co. Sheriff's Office has updated their website:
https://alamedacountysheriff.org/

Of course, no real info to help residents of Ala Co. who aren't thugs, friends/relatives of thugs, or LEOs....

Only mention re LTCs that I came across was a phone number for CCWs (for civilians), on their contact page.

Thr1llerrrr
08-19-2012, 11:44 AM
does anyone know what kind of proof of residence they require and will a cell phone bill work, i dont live alone here and my name is not on the lease or anything, also how long is the process of actually getting your ccw in alameda

thankyou

Cdrridg
03-26-2013, 11:53 AM
Just found this thread - interesting to see the progression.

My LTC took 10 months in Alameda County. I know the sheriff personally and he treats all the same - "I don't shuffle the deck for anyone". I do know he has put additional personnel on duty in IA to get through the applications faster.

I have to say the CA CCW process is very 'broken' in that it is far from standardized. The hoops that we have to jump through are OK by me. I like the reasoning that we need to be at least proficient and the class taught by the ACSO at the range is top notch (and you have to shoot annually to ensure proficiency). I am good with all of that - the issue I have is that each county has their own standards - it's ridiculous!

thedrickel
03-31-2013, 9:58 AM
Just found this thread - interesting to see the progression.

My LTC took 10 months in Alameda County. I know the sheriff personally and he treats all the same - "I don't shuffle the deck for anyone". I do know he has put additional personnel on duty in IA to get through the applications faster.

I have to say the CA CCW process is very 'broken' in that it is far from standardized. The hoops that we have to jump through are OK by me. I like the reasoning that we need to be at least proficient and the class taught by the ACSO at the range is top notch (and you have to shoot annually to ensure proficiency). I am good with all of that - the issue I have is that each county has their own standards - it's ridiculous!

Can you enlighten us as far as what the Sheriff considers sufficient good cause to issue a permit?

Window_Seat
03-31-2013, 1:48 PM
Just found this thread - interesting to see the progression.

My LTC took 10 months in Alameda County. I know the sheriff personally and he treats all the same - "I don't shuffle the deck for anyone". I do know he has put additional personnel on duty in IA to get through the applications faster.

I have to say the CA CCW process is very 'broken' in that it is far from standardized. The hoops that we have to jump through are OK by me. I like the reasoning that we need to be at least proficient and the class taught by the ACSO at the range is top notch (and you have to shoot annually to ensure proficiency). I am good with all of that - the issue I have is that each county has their own standards - it's ridiculous!

If (even by itself) 10 months is part of the "hoops that we have to jump through", that to me is NOT OK. I don't know the Sheriff personally, enough said about that part of the element.

The entire process is indeed broken, but whose fault is that? We could say it's the People's fault for voting these people in, but there is way more to it.

It's also NOT ok to approve a carry license for the reasons set forth in one of the parts of the ALCO good cause statements where the race card is dealt by an applicant, nor is it OK to approve because one is "connected" (which I can see in others).

There is a really good reason why litigation is necessary here, but then we have Richards, Peruta, Baker, Kachalsky, Peterson, Woollard, Osterweil, Piszczatoski and others I might have forgotten. I can't see being 0 for all that on cert grant. It's a matter of when we are able to count to 5, but the antis need to be careful what they wish for too.

Can you enlighten us as far as what the Sheriff considers sufficient good cause to issue a permit?

It's all in the good cause statements, and if you are "similarly situated" to any, you have sufficient cause, but that does NOT mean you'll be recommended or approved for a carry license. Read the statements carefully, and don't just read them once.

Since access to the statements is apparently down, here are all four parts attached:

Erik.

fawndog
05-31-2013, 9:09 AM
Alameda County CCW Policy, Good Cause statements, Guidelines & Forms can be found here (http://calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/resources/ccw-initiative/89-alameda)

Can someone please figure out if this link is broken ?

Paladin
06-06-2013, 1:16 PM
Ala Co SO now has CCW info online!
https://alamedacountysheriff.org/admin_ia_ccw.php

If you go to their home page and in the QUESTIONS column, under the "How Do I ...?" pulldown menu, there's "How do I obtain a CCW Permit?"
https://alamedacountysheriff.org/

Similarly, across the top of each page is a menu, incl "Quick Links." If you select that, a drop down menu includes "CCW Permits."

Of course, this does not mean that the process is not riddled w/violations of state law as well as our 2nd A RKBA....

Ahern ignores the fact that in virtually all of these 80 CCW incidents, the CCWers did NOT know they'd NEED (as opposed to WANT), to carry that day. Is Ahern just ignorant???
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=598875

Quickdraw559
06-10-2013, 6:24 PM
Has anyone been approved, lately?

readinglist
07-18-2013, 12:33 PM
Link to the good cause statements is broken. Any update?

Window_Seat
07-18-2013, 1:34 PM
Link to the good cause statements is broken. Any update?

See post #227.

Erik.

sarabellum
08-30-2013, 5:40 PM
Help me out folks. I read each post in this thread. Where do we stand on applying for a concealed carry permit? Is the process stagnant? I would like to apply for the license.

Paladin
09-01-2013, 7:21 PM
Help me out folks. I read each post in this thread. Where do we stand on applying for a concealed carry permit? Is the process stagnant? I would like to apply for the license.I haven't kept up w/things in Ala Co per se, but we Californians who want LTCs and live in anti counties (most major urban counties), are waiting for the 9th federal circuit court of appeals in SF to release their decision/opinion in the Peruta-Richards-Baker carry cases. The oral arguments were last Dec, so we're expecting the decision sometime in the next 6 months.

We're also hoping SCOTUS decides to take the Wollard (MD) carry case. Cert. has been requested, so hopefully by Oct 2nd we'll know if they'll take it (although they may decide to take it much later this coming term).

IIRC, if you compare the Good Cause statements that have resulted in getting an Ala Co CCW and you can truthfully state that you have the same/similar GC and you have time, money, and effort you can afford to waste, feel free to apply. You just may win the lottery.

For the rest of us whose only GC is "mere" self-defense/exercise our 2nd A RKBA: most of us are waiting for the fed cts to force issuance, assuming our side wins. We're hoping to win by next 4th of July, or at latest, by 2015 July 4th (SCOTUS' term ends at the end of ea June).

In the mean time, the antis/Dems in Sacto are trying to **** us w/gun control laws. Focus on opposing those and getting all of your friends, family, coworkers, shooting buddies, and church friends to also oppose them.

Wish I had better news.... :( In the mean time, go thru the links in my sig line to motivate/encourage you to stay in the fight. After all, as they said in Red Dawn (the original), we'll NEVER stop fighting for our RKBA because ... "We live here!" :chris:

thedrickel
09-01-2013, 7:37 PM
In other words . . . have you donated $20,000 to the sheriff's reelection campaign?

e90bmw
09-06-2013, 11:16 AM
I decided yesterday to take the plunge.
I'm in the process of gathering all documentation. They want ticket/accident information for the last five years. I have a ticket in Fremont and I don't have the information, so down to the courthouse.

We'll see at what phase they kill the application, but I plan to apply.
The procedure is on the website.
All they can do to me is tell me no.

I think I have a legit cause.
1. I was robbed at gunpoint by 2 guys. The bad guys have my ID, address and place of work. They stole cash and about $10K in jewelry.
2. I am a Notary Public and a Real Estate Broker and am often alone conducting business with people I do not know in areas that may not be safe.

The long process begins.
We shall see.......

sarabellum
09-09-2013, 11:53 AM
I decided yesterday to take the plunge.
I'm in the process of gathering all documentation. They want ticket/accident information for the last five years. I have a ticket in Fremont and I don't have the information, so down to the courthouse.

We'll see at what phase they kill the application, but I plan to apply.
The procedure is on the website.
All they can do to me is tell me no.

I think I have a legit cause.
1. I was robbed at gunpoint by 2 guys. The bad guys have my ID, address and place of work. They stole cash and about $10K in jewelry.
2. I am a Notary Public and a Real Estate Broker and am often alone conducting business with people I do not know in areas that may not be safe.

The long process begins.
We shall see.......

By all means, pay the money for the application if you feel Calguns foundation is going to file suit on your behalf in a mandamus action, including an administrative appeal if any, under CCP §1094.5. Otherwise, thedrickel is right- your application fee may become another donation. Stay strong.

Troop4Christ
11-20-2013, 10:05 AM
Since access to the statements is apparently down, here are all four parts attached:

Erik.

I'm not seeing any attachments.. am I missing something?

Paladin
11-21-2013, 9:56 AM
If anyone wants to organize to get more CCWers in Alameda, see:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=818852

JamesY
12-14-2013, 11:58 PM
Looks like the good cause links are down. Anyone know where I can find them?

Experimentalist
12-16-2013, 5:06 PM
I too would like to get ahold of the good cause statements for Alameda County.

Who can fix this?

Experimentalist
12-17-2013, 7:06 PM
Bump

Best sale
12-17-2013, 9:15 PM
Looks like the good cause links are down. Anyone know where I can find them?

seems this is what you looking for… I Tried to copy but not working so will re type here

Good Cause for Inssuance

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

1.There is a documented,presently existing,clear and present danger to life,or great bodily harm to the applicant and/or his or her spouse,domestic partner,or dependents.
2. The danger of harm is specific to the applicant,or his or her immediate family,and is not generally shared by other similarly situated members of the public.
3.Existing law enforcement resources cannot adequately address the danger of harm.
4.The danger of harm cannot reasonably be avoided by alternative measures.
5.Licensing the applicant to carry a concealed weapon is significantly likely to reduce the danger of harm.

While each of the above factors is considered in the decision-making process, the Sheriff makes a good cause determination based upon the totality of the circumstances presented in each individual case
__________________
you need to open the how to question on their website.

Experimentalist
12-18-2013, 7:08 PM
seems this is what you looking for… I Tried to copy but not working so will re type here...

Thanks, I appreciate your efforts Best sale.

I've been all over the Alameda County website, and am familiar with what you posted.

A couple years ago CGF did a FOIA to get the Good Cause statements for actual applications, that were approved in Alameda County.

This would be very helpful, as it gives one a sense of what will fly.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about (this version is for Solano County): http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=284894&d=1385862573

Experimentalist
12-25-2013, 5:16 PM
Bump

Paladin
01-06-2014, 11:45 PM
I just made a post in the CA 2nd Amendment Political Activism forum I thought you guys might be interested in.

I've been contacted via PMs by folks asking for the nearest location to their Bay Area workplace where they can get a CCW. This has also been the subject of more than a few threads. So I expanded upon one of my posts here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=12974509#post12974509
to use as a reference to save me time in replying. My most recent standard answer had been Solano Co, specifically the cities of Vallejo or Benecia. Why?

Vallejo is excellent for folks working in western CoCoCo: Rodeo, Pinole, San Pablo, El Cerrito, even down into Orinda and Berkeley (Alameda Co), depending upon traffic, time of day, and BART.

Benecia is excellent for people working in central CoCoCo: Martinez, Bay Point, Concord, Pleasant Hill, Clayton, and Walnut Creek.

Looking over google maps, I now see Rio Vista (also in Solano Co), is excellent for those working in eastern CoCoCo: Pittsburg east to Antioch, Oakley, Brentwood, and Discovery Bay.

So RIGHT NOW, pretty much anyone working in CoCoCo north of Moraga-Alamo can get a CCW and have a reasonable commute from Solano Co.

I looked at the map some more and realized if we could get San Joaquin Co to go "virtual Shall Issue" (i.e., liberally issue CCWs), people who work in San Leandro, San Lorenzo, Hayward, Union City, Fremont, Castro Valley, Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore (all in Alameda Co) (again, depending upon traffic, time of day, and BART), as well as people in southern CoCoCo (Alamo, Danville and San Ramon), could live in Tracy and get CCWs. It would also give people working in eastern CoCoCo another option for where to live to get a CCW: Stockton.

Naturally, liberalizing CCW issuance would also benefit the many San Joaquin Co. residents who live & work in that county.

Winning San Joaquin Co means most anyone working in any part of CoCoCo and most people working in most of Alameda Co can get a CCW if they are willing to commute. (A LOT of people are renters nowadays, so moving won't be as bad for them.)

Thus, I think CGNers working in southern & eastern Alameda Co and southern CoCoCo. should get involved with San Joaquin Co CGNers in the 2014 San Joaquin Co sheriff's race to win "virtual Shall Issue" for that county.

Fireof59
01-07-2014, 7:10 AM
Your Post gives someone (Me) with no knowledge of the area, places I can look at on a map!

VERY MUCH Appreciated!

Experimentalist
01-11-2014, 10:42 PM
I just made a post in the CA 2nd Amendment Political Activism forum I thought you guys might be interested in.

Great news Paladin, I'm glad to hear that the fight is making progress.

However, some of us are homeowners, and have no intention of moving in the foreseeable future.

I wonder if anyone could fix the link to the good cause statements for Alameda County?

I would very much appreciate it.

Paladin
01-12-2014, 12:31 AM
Great news Paladin, I'm glad to hear that the fight is making progress.

However, some of us are homeowners, and have no intention of moving in the foreseeable future.No big deal: put your excess in storage, rent an apt or house in Solano, get your CCW and rent out your house for 2 years. :chris: ;) It just depends upon how bad you want a CA CCW....

By that time Drake, Richards-Peruta, and/or Pantano should have been run by SCOTUS and, if we win (before 2015 July 01), PIs & TROs will be flying in the Bay Area and you can move back home.

Experimentalist
01-16-2014, 6:31 PM
Bump... waiting for Alameda County good cause link to be fixed.

It's been broken for about a year now.