PDA

View Full Version : Shasta


Gray Peterson
10-15-2010, 12:12 AM
Shasta County CCW Policy, Guidelines and Forms can be found Here (http://calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/resources/ccw-initiative/133-shasta)

Update from Citadel on recent Shasta County changes:


The tangible wins beyond the issuance of a license are;
License fees due were paid only upon issuance of the license.(Per SB610)
Fees for LiveScan/DOJ having been previously paid, were not required for a subsequent re-application.(PC26185)
No documentation for proof of residency was provided or necessary.
Self-defense was accepted as 'good cause' - no other statement was necessary.

bigcalidave
10-18-2010, 7:01 PM
Not very difficult to get a CCW here, although the interview takes longer than it should, asking way too many questions and fishing for questionable stuff. Also, they won't let you put more than 3 guns on your license... I'd really like to see that restriction go away!

Everyone who lives in Shasta Co. has no excuse for not getting a CCW.

CitaDeL
10-18-2010, 7:13 PM
Not very difficult to get a CCW here, although the interview takes longer than it should, asking way too many questions and fishing for questionable stuff. Also, they won't let you put more than 3 guns on your license... I'd really like to see that restriction go away!

Everyone who lives in Shasta Co. has no excuse for not getting a CCW.

While you are correct in most cases it is not as difficult to get a license to carry concealed here, that in no way relieves the Shasta County Sheriff's office, the Redding Police Department and the Anderson Police of their obligation to follow the law.

There are certain things that the S.O. will need to change to maintain good standing with CGF and the people of Shasta County.

Everyone in Shasta County should be able to obtain and hold a license to carry, but unfortunately that isnt always the case.

stomper4x4
10-20-2010, 11:06 PM
"Everyone in Shasta County should be able to obtain and hold a license to carry"

I don't know, there are some people here that I would not want to have a gun at all, let alone concealed. ;)

I get your meaning though.

NocturnalDoc
10-21-2010, 3:27 AM
There are certain things that the S.O. will need to change to maintain good standing with CGF and the people of Shasta County.


I'll bite... what certain things need to change? Not trolling, just curious.

JBird33
10-21-2010, 5:27 AM
The three gun max on your permit, the one year proof of residency requirement, etc. all need to go away.

bigcalidave
10-22-2010, 2:30 PM
"Everyone in Shasta County should be able to obtain and hold a license to carry"

I don't know, there are some people here that I would not want to have a gun at all, let alone concealed. ;)

I get your meaning though.

This type of comment really bothers me. The people that you don't want to have a gun on them? They already do.

CitaDeL
10-24-2010, 7:19 PM
I'll bite... what certain things need to change? Not trolling, just curious.

I quote from the policy statement;

CRITERIA FOR APPLYING FOR A C.C.W. PERMIT IN SHASTA COUNTY


Must be 21 years of age or older.
Must be a United States Citizen.
Must be a permanent resident of Shasta County for a (Minimum of 1 year) prior to applying for your permit.


Then... there is the three weapon limit.

The age, citizenship, and residency requirements are not authorized by statute and should be challenged.

Rock6.3
11-08-2010, 8:21 PM
Since the Shasta County CCW application specifies that the information is public, what is taking so long to get the information posted on the CalGuns website?

obeygiant
11-08-2010, 9:05 PM
Since the Shasta County CCW application specifies that the information is public, what is taking so long to get the information posted on the CalGuns website?

Shasta county dragging their feet and using "budget cuts and lack of staff to process requests" as an excuse.

Rock6.3
11-18-2010, 9:52 PM
Please scan and post the response that was sent by the Shasta County Sheriffs office and we can begin to apply local pressure.

obeygiant
11-20-2010, 2:33 PM
Please scan and post the response that was sent by the Shasta County Sheriffs office and we can begin to apply local pressure.

Thank you for your willingness to step up to the plate. If you have signed up as a volunteer we will be sending out an email with very specific instructions on how to proceed when the time is right. I can assure you that there will be no hesitation when the time comes for us to begin applying pressure. :43:

Rock6.3
11-22-2010, 2:55 PM
If you have signed up as a volunteer

Sorry, I do not know how or where to perform that task. Can someone point me the right direction?

wildhawker
11-22-2010, 4:32 PM
www.calgunsfoundation.org/volunteer

Rock6.3
01-04-2011, 11:08 AM
Rumor: Shasta county will not accept your CCW Training Class unless it was completed within the two prior months of your CCW application date. If you wait more than 2 months after completing your class then you can expect to be instructed to take your class again.

This was reported as a recent policy change.

Note: I've contributed as a sponsor in hopes that it helps make Shasta County move along a bit faster.

Kid Stanislaus
01-04-2011, 11:46 PM
Good gravy, I thought Shasta Co. was all but "Shall Issue"! What needs to be done "faster"?

Rock6.3
01-05-2011, 9:44 AM
My comment regarding Shasta County/faster is in reference to their failure, thus far, to submit the CCW good cause statements that were requested by CalGuns.

CitaDeL
01-05-2011, 10:06 AM
Good gravy, I thought Shasta Co. was all but "Shall Issue"! What needs to be done "faster"?

There is no issuing agency in California to my knowledge that either fully respects the 2A or qualifies as a "shall issue" licensing agency. Shasta County is not excluded from the list of agencies that deserve the attention of the Calguns Foundation.

Kid Stanislaus
01-05-2011, 10:17 AM
There is no issuing agency in California to my knowledge that either fully respects the 2A or qualifies as a "shall issue" licensing agency. Shasta County is not excluded from the list of agencies that deserve the attention of the Calguns Foundation.

The operative phrase was "all but Shall Issue".

4D5auto
01-09-2011, 11:40 AM
I understand from Shasta Shooters, Sheriff Palmer was stopping in town for the Oregon CCW. Unfortunately, I didn't see my mail, as it was in the junk pile for some unknown reason.. Did this already happen and if so, does anyone know if he will re appear anytime soon?

Rock6.3
01-17-2011, 9:21 AM
This discussion is far too quiet....

wchutt
01-17-2011, 9:57 AM
While the Sheriff does want to Cover His A _ _ by making sure that he follows the letter of the law, and this may cause extra steps/time, the bottom line is he supports CCW's and we should, in turn, support him. Ask those in SoCal as to what it is like down there... A bit of patience and perseverance and as long as you are clean you will get the permit. Gone are the days of a quick chat with Pope. Now a laminated card would be nice.

Rock6.3
01-17-2011, 12:33 PM
While the Sheriff does want to Cover His A _ _ by making sure that he follows the letter of the law, and this may cause extra steps/time

Opinion or do you have access to information that is not visible to the rest of us?

CitaDeL
01-17-2011, 2:55 PM
While the Sheriff does want to Cover His A _ _ by making sure that he follows the letter of the law, and this may cause extra steps/time, the bottom line is he supports CCW's and we should, in turn, support him. Ask those in SoCal as to what it is like down there... A bit of patience and perseverance and as long as you are clean you will get the permit. Gone are the days of a quick chat with Pope. Now a laminated card would be nice.

The Sheriff is not needful to cover their ***, because they are not liable---- unless the Sheriff themself is guilty of a bad act.

Breaking the law a little is just as bad as breaking the law alot. It is however, much worse, to claim that they are extending the full benefit of the 2A under the pretense of authority, while punishing those with whom they disagree by using a license to carry as the means to control their actions.

I contend that such people are in violation of the Oath they took to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and are unworthy of the office they hold. The applies in southern California as well as it does right here in Shasta County.

Rock6.3
01-20-2011, 3:49 PM
While the Sheriff does want to Cover His A _ _ by making sure that he follows the letter of the law, and this may cause extra steps/time

WChutt: Is this your opinion or do you have access to information that is not visible to the rest of us?

Kid Stanislaus
01-20-2011, 9:24 PM
The Sheriff is not needful to cover their ***, because they are not liable---- unless the Sheriff themself is guilty of a bad act.

The sheriff has to cover his POLITICAL butt, otherwise the next guy in may not think CCW is such a great idea.

CitaDeL
01-22-2011, 12:26 AM
While the Sheriff does want to Cover His A _ _ by making sure that he follows the letter of the law, and this may cause extra steps/time, the bottom line is he supports CCW's and we should, in turn, support him. Ask those in SoCal as to what it is like down there... A bit of patience and perseverance and as long as you are clean you will get the permit. Gone are the days of a quick chat with Pope. Now a laminated card would be nice.

The sheriff has to cover his POLITICAL butt, otherwise the next guy in may not think CCW is such a great idea.

Quoted for your reading convenience. It seems to me that you are taking my response out of context.

While the Sheriff generally supports issuance, politics has no bearing on how he follows the law. An issuing agency cannot use licensing as a tool to compel performance or as a means of punishment for otherwise lawful activity.

Rock6.3
02-07-2011, 2:09 PM
Still looking for facts that are specific to Shasta County...

Rock6.3
02-16-2011, 12:03 PM
The silence is unbearable!

CitaDeL
02-16-2011, 1:33 PM
The silence is unbearable!

Agreed.

The interesting thing about Shasta County, is that it is the least expected battlefield in the war, because it is generally assumed that the Sheriff is '2A' friendly, will issue, and abides by the law. This may be in part be why there isnt alot of attention to the topic of CCW policy here.

Funny thing is, it's not going to stay that way if I have anything to do with it.

CitaDeL
02-22-2011, 11:01 AM
I have updated my sig line to include my sponsorship of the CCW initiative in Shasta County.

I have recently affirmed that Shasta County is not as 2A friendly as many purport and is not a 'shall issue' county.

VaderSpade
02-22-2011, 12:33 PM
I know the sheriff just well enough to get a pass on CCW, but probably not well enough to influence him toward shall issue. But if there is anything I can do to help I’ll try.

4D5auto
02-25-2011, 12:13 PM
Anyone know when a show near by this area, will have the Sheriff present? Sac maybe, Yuba City??

Rock6.3
02-26-2011, 2:09 PM
Anyone know when a show near by this area, will have the Sheriff present? Sac maybe, Yuba City??

Why would the Shasta County Sheriff go to a show in Sac or Yuba?

CitaDeL
02-26-2011, 2:16 PM
Anyone know when a show near by this area, will have the Sheriff present? Sac maybe, Yuba City??

Why would the Shasta County Sheriff go to a show in Sac or Yuba?

I think 4D5auto was attempting to find out when Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer would be making a return trip through the north state to make Oregon non-resident CHL's available to applicants. This would not be germain to the Shasta County issuance of LTC.

Rock6.3
03-01-2011, 8:22 AM
Back on topic, what's up with the Shasta County daylight project? (I see we now have two sponsors)

CitaDeL
03-03-2011, 6:10 PM
So- has the Sheriff's Office made any progress with providing the materials requested by CPRA?

wchutt
03-03-2011, 10:00 PM
Hey Rock, sorry for the post and run… It is my experience with past sheriffs and the current one that in the past it was a breeze to get a CCW, but now there is all the training/paperwork requirements. It is my opinion that the Sheriff takes it as a personal responsibility to follow the current laws concerning issuance of a CCW in Ca. Could be simply political CYA like KidS posted, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. What would lead you to believe he does not support CCW?
That said, I understand CitaDels point on upholding the Constitution, specifically the 2A that gives individuals RTKBA protection from the Feds and the 14A P or I clause that applies those same protections against the states. But, I have not heard of anyone who has been denied here that has a clean record.
Until the whole state has constitutional carry, or at least is “Shall Issue” I would like to see Shasta County follow Sacs lead and have self defense as a good cause and allow more guns on a plastic card instead of the paper form.

Rock6.3
03-04-2011, 1:42 PM
Wchutt, you asked "What would lead you to believe he (Shasta County Sheriff) does not support CCW?"

Reply: The lack of a response to the CalGuns request for information. Information which is listed as releasable on the Sheriff website.

Additionally I dislike the 3 gun limit.

wchutt
03-04-2011, 4:21 PM
I too dislike the three gun thing, dislike the paper permit even more. That the Sheriffs office is slow in responding to the request for the cause statements does not mean that he has not actually supported those who have requested permits.
If the sheriff’s office is issuing permits to those people who apply and have no hang-ups legally, I see that as supporting the right to carry. If there are cases where people have been denied ONLY because of inadequate good cause statements, that would change my opinion, but I have not heard of that being the case.

jeff76
03-07-2011, 10:24 AM
So I have been told that in my county "Shasta" that you have to take the training class prior to getting approved for your ccw is this legal?

jb7706
03-07-2011, 10:32 AM
So I have been told that in my county "Shasta" that you have to take the training class prior to getting approved for your ccw is this legal?

If true no it isn't, and this should really be posted in the 2A sub-forum.

CitaDeL
03-07-2011, 2:24 PM
So I have been told that in my county "Shasta" that you have to take the training class prior to getting approved for your ccw is this legal?

In my experience, the applicant is expected to submit their application, submit their training certificate, allow the S/O to inspect the weapons to be included on the license, pay the fees, be fingerprinted and get interviewed all on the same day.

They will not process an application by mail and will not provide a 'approved' or 'denied' determination without completing the whole process. It's 'legal' until someone tells them otherwise. I believe this violates Salute v Pitchess.

This is why it is still important to participate in the sunshine initiative in spite of the perception about Shasta County being a 'friendly' issuing authority.

Rock6.3
03-15-2011, 1:10 PM
another one week period of silence has elapsed.....

4D5auto
03-20-2011, 11:51 AM
Any local Vets been denied because of PTSD? No, not me or anyone I know, but a thought that popped in my mind.

Rock6.3
03-22-2011, 1:34 PM
another one week period of silence has elapsed.....

Yet another week has passed, still just silence since Jan 4, 2011.....

I'm beginning to feel like I wasted my money...

wildhawker
03-24-2011, 4:03 PM
Rock, we appreciate your support. Please understand that we have to attack these issues in a specific fashion and with the appropriate timing. There's tons of work behind the scenes preparing requests, demand letters, and litigation that will be published as soon as we can. If you truly feel like the Initiative is not valuable to our cause, I'll be glad to refund your money. However, I think that with some patience you'll find a lot to be excited about.

-Brandon

Paladin
03-24-2011, 6:22 PM
Yet another week has passed, still just silence since Jan 4, 2011.....

I'm beginning to feel like I wasted my money...Rock, while this doesn't apply directly to Shasta Co, you should be excited to read about our 3rd CCW federal lawsuit at:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=412790

You can be sure all the sheriffs in CA will be watching these lawsuits and, as wildhawker posted in that thread, start reviewing their policies lest they be next on CGF's federal lawsuit list.

Rock6.3
03-25-2011, 7:31 AM
Rock, we appreciate your support. Please understand that we have to attack these issues in a specific fashion and with the appropriate timing. There's tons of work behind the scenes preparing requests, demand letters, and litigation that will be published as soon as we can. If you truly feel like the Initiative is not valuable to our cause, I'll be glad to refund your money. However, I think that with some patience you'll find a lot to be excited about.

-Brandon

PM discussion underway. A refund has NOT been requested.

Rock6.3
04-06-2011, 7:32 AM
why do I hear crickets?

Rock6.3
04-08-2011, 8:47 AM
Private message sent (again).

Rock6.3
04-11-2011, 2:33 PM
Hello darkness my old friend.....

The sounds, of silence.

Rock6.3
04-14-2011, 10:32 AM
Shasta County Sheriff talks about CCW in Shasta County:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGFPy-7_cKM&playnext=1&list=PL93094AC97CFA175B

bigcalidave
04-15-2011, 1:41 AM
It's too bad Bosenko has no idea how much his policies violate state law on issuing. He even states in that video that right now they require the training class before the background check. Shasta needs the quick slap as much as any other counties. I tried to watch more of those videos but I can't handle it. Fact is, Bosenko and his deputies hold all the cards, and if they don't like anything about you, they won't issue. You want the CCW, you have to apply their way, pay for it their way, and deal with it their way. I hear about people getting CCWs in Butte county, without so much as a personal interview and no restrictions on the number of guns allowed on a permit. That is how it should be!

CitaDeL
04-15-2011, 8:03 AM
Shasta County Sheriff talks about CCW in Shasta County:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGFPy-7_cKM&playnext=1&list=PL93094AC97CFA175B

Un-effing-believable.

Thanks for posting the video here Rock.

wildhawker
04-16-2011, 10:12 PM
Patience is required. I have a "day job" and we have many wheels in motion. I'm sure that you'd prefer quality and applied strategy over premature motion with little effect.

BigBamBoo
04-17-2011, 9:13 AM
............

Rock6.3
04-19-2011, 9:32 AM
Patience is required. I have a "day job" and we have many wheels in motion. I'm sure that you'd prefer quality and applied strategy over premature motion with little effect.

I do not seek premature motions or little effect.
I have one of those 'day jobs' too.
Please do not take my requests for an update personally, I do not know you, nor do I have issues with you or any other individual here.

I seek a status report. Not daily or weekly, but once per quarter should not be an overwhelming responsibility when CGF has financial donors for this project.

Did the Sheriff provide the records? Did he evade the issue with legal tactics? Did he refuse the request?

wildhawker
04-19-2011, 10:30 AM
I do not seek premature motions or little effect.
I have one of those 'day jobs' too.
Please do not take my requests for an update personally, I do not know you, nor do I have issues with you or any other individual here.

I seek a status report. Not daily or weekly, but once per quarter should not be an overwhelming responsibility when CGF has financial donors for this project.

Did the Sheriff provide the records? Did he evade the issue with legal tactics? Did he refuse the request?

I'm going to respond this way: time is precious, and we have little of it. Remember that I'm running the Initiative - that's 58 counties and some cities - which is far more dynamic and involved than we can share, and also taking Hotline issues regularly, as well as researching various legal issues for litigation and crafting strategy. I also have time commitments for my role as a CRPA director, committee chair, and general-purpose member advocate (go ask the President and E.D. if there are any doubts). My clients actually expect me to produce for them (very similar to our strategic litigation, very involved and time-sensitive). My dogs think I don't exist but once a week on Saturday mornings, and my wife...

Can I commit to more [unnecessary] work? Absolutely not. Is this personal? That depends on where you take this conversation. Do understand that we care enough about this stuff to make your liberty a priority over even our own families at times (and in some cases, most times).

Back to Shasta. If you can be patient, we can and will apply our resources to ensuring the County's respect for our fundamental rights and state law. If you can't, then feel free to do whatever you think is best; we'll simply have to wait and see where that puts things.

-Brandon

HiRiseFMX
05-18-2011, 11:33 AM
I took my ccw course through NFI firearms academy here in Redding. the course was the easiest part of the process. After numerous attempts to go to the Shasta County Sheriffs office(i.e. Holidays, Lunchtime, days off, Fridays) I finally got in there on a day they were open. I felt that I would have a harder time then most, due to being younger then most applying for CCW's. After waiting for all the offenders to go through line, I finally reached the window. After a lengthy interview, the sheriff finally gave me permission and told me as long as my background check came up clean, I was good to go. I thought I wouldn't recieve confirmation or denial for months after listening to the older gentleman rant and rave about how his wife recieved her permit in 3 days and it had been 3 months with no response for him. Much to my suprise, my CCW arrived in a little less then 3 weeks time(nearly a month ago). I cant speak for everyone, but I figured I'd share my experience, especially since I felt my chances weren't the best.

HiRiseFMX
05-18-2011, 11:37 AM
I too, am not a fan of the 3 gun limit, especially the part where its $35 to switch guns if you want to change out one of the 3 you have listed.

Kid Stanislaus
05-18-2011, 7:15 PM
I too, am not a fan of the 3 gun limit, especially the part where its $35 to switch guns if you want to change out one of the 3 you have listed.

Is that legal? I'm think'n not.

CitaDeL
05-18-2011, 10:39 PM
Is that legal? I'm think'n not.


No, it's not legal. Amendments should cost no more than $10.00.

HiRiseFMX
05-19-2011, 11:00 AM
I must apologize, although I was originally told that would be the fee, it seems like Sheriff Bosenko stated otherwise during his Tea Party speech. However, in my defense, that was what I was originally told by the Sheriff's office because I have quite a few handguns and wasnt too fond of trying to pay that amount everytime I felt like carrying an "unlisted" handgun.

Decoligny
05-19-2011, 1:17 PM
No, it's not legal. Amendments should cost no more than $10.00.

PC 12054
(b) In the case of an amended license pursuant to subdivision (f)
of Section 12050, the licensing authority of any city, city and
county, or county may charge a fee, not to exceed ten dollars ($10),
except that the fee may be increased at a rate not to exceed any
increase in the California Consumer Price Index as compiled and
reported by the California Department of Industrial Relations, for
processing the amended license and shall transmit the fee to the
city, city and county, or county treasury.

Rock6.3
06-03-2011, 2:51 PM
We finally have a status report, dated June 2, 2011:

I can only think of one county we have data for and haven't posted yet (Santa Clara), which was held off pending the lawsuit. Those will be up very soon.

We will resolve CGF v. Ventura before going after any others since it directly bears on the exemptions claimed by the withholding agencies.

Wiki for the CGF V. Ventura: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Calguns_Foundation_v._Ventura_County

Discussion thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=440494&highlight=CGF+v.+Ventura

Next action: June 6, 2011

4D5auto
06-03-2011, 3:02 PM
PC 12054
(b) In the case of an amended license pursuant to subdivision (f)
of Section 12050, the licensing authority of any city, city and
county, or county may charge a fee, not to exceed ten dollars ($10),
except that the fee may be increased at a rate not to exceed any
increase in the California Consumer Price Index as compiled and
reported by the California Department of Industrial Relations, for
processing the amended license and shall transmit the fee to the
city, city and county, or county treasury.

I've always been told it was a $15.00 charge to drop a weapon and add. I too don't like the 3 gun rule, where some older permits have 5. Go figure.

wildhawker
06-03-2011, 3:36 PM
I've always been told it was a $15.00 charge to drop a weapon and add. I too don't like the 3 gun rule, where some older permits have 5. Go figure.

There is no statutory "3-gun rule"; in fact, the text and State forms suggest otherwise.

The $15 charge may be the $10 fee increased according to the Price Index.

Rock6.3
08-30-2011, 1:35 PM
Update: Shasta County Sheriff no longer limits CCW holders to 3 listed handguns. Additional handguns may be added by submitting a written request.

4D5auto
08-30-2011, 3:34 PM
Update: Shasta County Sheriff no longer limits CCW holders to 3 listed handguns. Additional handguns may be added by submitting a written request.

Where did you find that? What is to stop them from denying the addition of any more weapons, in writing or not?? If this is a change in policy, there is no reason to actually change it if they wish not to, if ya get my drift.. Now let's see how many really get added and what was really involved. I'm sure there will be stories to come!! When will CA get a clue as to what you can carry, like AZ, FL and now NV!

Rock6.3
08-30-2011, 3:59 PM
Where did you find that? What is to stop them from denying the addition of any more weapons, in writing or not?? If this is a change in policy, there is no reason to actually change it if they wish not to, if ya get my drift.. Now let's see how many really get added and what was really involved. I'm sure there will be stories to come!! When will CA get a clue as to what you can carry, like AZ, FL and now NV!

My source was an oral conversation with the Sheriff last night at a public meeting.

CitaDeL
01-04-2012, 2:44 PM
I would like to talk to those anticipating to apply to the Shasta County Sheriff for their initial license to carry in the immediate future. Please contact me via PM.

Don'tBlink
02-27-2012, 12:14 PM
Has any progress been made on the one year residency requirement? Is it legal per statutes?

CitaDeL
02-27-2012, 1:11 PM
Has any progress been made on the one year residency requirement? Is it legal per statutes?

No.

Currently, the Sheriff's published policy requires documentation as proof of residency and duration. They generally request utility bills to fulfill their requirement. This is not legal according to the statute governing licencing and a violation of the 14th amendment.

joker713
06-09-2012, 9:01 PM
Has any progress been made on the one year residency requirement? Is it legal per statutes?

No.

Currently, the Sheriff's published policy requires documentation as proof of residency and duration. They generally request utility bills to fulfill their requirement. This is not legal according to the statute governing licencing and a violation of the 14th amendment.

So, this directly applies to me, and am curious if anything is currently being done about this requirement.

I moved to Redding ~3 weeks ago and working in the service industry and leaving late at night with large amounts of money in my pocket makes me EXTREMELY uncomfortable.

I would very much so like to get my CCW but this year requirement is the only thing stopping me.

Also, I am currently renting a room from a family friend, so my proof of residence would be interesting circumstances as well. I have no utilities in my name and won't be in the near future. How would I be able to prove my residence. I do have a P.O. Box but was told that's not acceptable. Would a pay stub be acceptable? How about a cell phone bill? Renter's insurance?

I appreciate any response I can get and truly appreciate everything anyone involved has done to protect our rights. Thank you

CitaDeL
06-09-2012, 9:27 PM
So, this directly applies to me, and am curious if anything is currently being done about this requirement.

I moved to Redding ~3 weeks ago and working in the service industry and leaving late at night with large amounts of money in my pocket makes me EXTREMELY uncomfortable.

I would very much so like to get my CCW but this year requirement is the only thing stopping me.

Also, I am currently renting a room from a family friend, so my proof of residence would be interesting circumstances as well. I have no utilities in my name and won't be in the near future. How would I be able to prove my residence. I do have a P.O. Box but was told that's not acceptable. Would a pay stub be acceptable? How about a cell phone bill? Renter's insurance?

I appreciate any response I can get and truly appreciate everything anyone involved has done to protect our rights. Thank you

The staffers were trained (and to my most recent experience) still ask for utility bills for proof of residency.

The obvious problems with this are;

1) There is no statutory duration for which residency is established. (1 year, 1 month, or 1 week are utterly irrelevant and the Sheriff cannot impose this criteria. What matters is that this is where you have taken up your primary domicile. It could have been 10 minutes ago, for all the statute is concerned.)
2) The issuing agency may not require additional documentation besides the application to make a determination.

In order to move this ball forward, you would need to apply in person and get the S/O to memorialize the reason they are telling you no.

If you want to play the Sheriff's little game and 'prove' that you are a resident to his satisfaction, you could have your landlord write a letter detailing the date your rental agreement commenced. Since you have only been here 3 months he (read; his statutorily illiterate staff) will tell you that you are ineligible to be issued a licence and they will probably hand you back your application without drafting a letter detailing the reason you are being denied.

My recommendation is to talk with Wildhawker about what might be done to get the Sheriff to comply with the law. You are not the only one in Shasta who is having issues with non-compliance... most applicants just move through the Sheriffs cattle chutes, and do what is asked in their clearly unlawful policy statement but this is going to end one way or another.

CitaDeL
07-04-2012, 6:31 PM
http://www.redding.com/news/2012/jul/04/craig-lonquist-all-talk-no-action-151-its-way/

CitaDeL
07-15-2012, 9:33 AM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a250/FencesMakeGoodNeighbors/TomBosenkoLikesShallIssue.jpg

It's gratifying to know that Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko does read Calguns.net and supports 'shall issue in Sacramento County'.

It is extraordinarily ironic that in spite of this revelation, Sheriff Bosenko has failed to reform his carry license policies to conform with California law and furthermore supports 'shall issue' in another county while he and his staff impose super-statutorial qualifications and use unlimited discretion in the same manner one might expect a restrictive issuing agency to disqualify applicants.

One might give the benefit of the doubt to the Sheriff, if this was a mistake of being an unwitting or ignorant bureaucrat- but by reading Calguns, and having twice (to my knowledge) received correspondence detailing the impact of SB610 on carry licensing, it is less convincing to observers to accept that the Sheriff is not congnizant of the problem with their policies or their departments wrongdoing.

So a question remains. What will it take for Sheriff Bosenko to reform?

VaderSpade
07-15-2012, 10:18 AM
Thanks for staying on this.

4D5auto
07-15-2012, 12:34 PM
Has any progress been made on the one year residency requirement? Is it legal per statutes?


To bad CA can't be as simple as Nevada, your a resident of the state of NV when you claim to be.!

No, it's not legal. Amendments should cost no more than $10.00.

I recently changed a weapon on my permit, outside of renewal time and the cost was $10.00. Last time I did a change, has been at renewal time and there was no charge. If you're wanting to save a few dollars, wit till renewal time comes around for you.

CitaDeL
07-15-2012, 2:05 PM
To bad CA can't be as simple as Nevada, your a resident of the state of NV when you claim to be.!

It is that simple in California,... unless the issuing agency has made up some minimum duration requirement and demands proof.

CitaDeL
09-06-2012, 9:18 AM
I had the opportunity to question Sgt Aaron Maready on KCNR 1460am radio to see where he stood on carry licensing this morning. He indicated that he wanted to streamline the process, but confessed that he does support 'dicretionary issuance'.

If elected, I suspect that the 'new boss' is the same as the 'old boss'. His platform seems more centered on the jail and AB109 issues.

FB is here (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Aaron-Maready-for-Sheriff/180057825429198).

Audio for this mornings broadcast is here (http://www.kcnr1460.com/Show/archive/free_fire_radio). The interview doesnt begin until 1:10:00 and the pertinent portion related to LTC is at 1;19;40

4D5auto
09-06-2012, 3:12 PM
Sounds like more typical double talk!! "discretionary issue" What the hell is that? Must be more of the God complex from Law Enforcement.. If you're clean and meet state requirement, it should be a no brainer...Just more of the same on Infringement issues.. remember, the new boss will be like the old boss....

CitaDeL
09-06-2012, 7:27 PM
Sounds like more typical double talk!! "discretionary issue" What the hell is that? Must be more of the God complex from Law Enforcement.. If you're clean and meet state requirement, it should be a no brainer...Just more of the same on Infringement issues.. remember, the new boss will be like the old boss....

Precisely.

'Discretionary issue' is actually my descriptor. It more accurately describes 'may issue' in counties and jurisdictions where agencies do issue licenses to applicants, but look beyond good cause, good moral character (ie; the background check) and residency to deny.

If you listen to the audio, he says he supports the Constitutional right, but renegs and indicates that there must be some form of 'filter process' presumably to disqualify someone who is not a prohibited person and can lawfully own a firearm. He then reverses on that and states that if you can buy a gun, you should be able to carry it.

He either has not resolved the issue of rights vs privileges in his mind, or he was completely blindsided by the question and wasnt prepared to articulate it on live radio.

He will have to answer the question, "Can a fundemental right be filtered (administered/regulated, limited) by a government agent/agency?" If he believes it can be, then he does not believe the second amendment applies to carry licensing or the applicants for a LTC.

moleculo
11-30-2012, 4:58 PM
Update on Citadel's license progress: He has successfully obtained his LTC! According to the thread posted HERE (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=650232), it is now time to apply for licenses in Shasta county.

To quote Citadel from the other thread:


The tangible wins beyond the issuance of a license are;

License fees due were paid only upon issuance of the license.(Per SB610)
Fees for LiveScan/DOJ having been previously paid, were not required for a subsequent re-application.(PC26185)
No documentation for proof of residency was provided or necessary.
Self-defense was accepted as 'good cause' - no other statement was necessary.


Can we get a moderator to update the thread title and the first post to let people know that they should apply for licenses now?

Gray Peterson
11-30-2012, 7:09 PM
Update on Citadel's license progress: He has successfully obtained his LTC! According to the thread posted HERE (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=650232), it is now time to apply for licenses in Shasta county.

To quote Citadel from the other thread:



Can we get a moderator to update the thread title and the first post to let people know that they should apply for licenses now?

Done.

CitaDeL
11-30-2012, 8:15 PM
Update on Citadel's license progress: He has successfully obtained his LTC! According to the thread posted HERE (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=650232), it is now time to apply for licenses in Shasta county.

To quote Citadel from the other thread:

Can we get a moderator to update the thread title and the first post to let people know that they should apply for licenses now?

Done.

I would add that now is the time for license reform in Shasta County, since most residents are aware they can already apply and be issued a license under faulty and unlawful policies.

If anyone is unclear by what is meant or how one should apply for their initial license, prospective applicants should private message me or contact me through email. I will be happy to walk through the changes with those interested.

Shasta Frog
11-30-2012, 8:46 PM
I just received my permit from Shasta County and found it to be a fairly simple process. Took class, turned in app, had interview that day, received permit 42 days later. Nothing like some of the other counties I've been reading about.

HowardW56
11-30-2012, 9:28 PM
I would add that now is the time for license reform in Shasta County, since most residents are aware they can already apply and be issued a license under faulty and unlawful policies.

If anyone is unclear by what is meant or how one should apply for their initial license, prospective applicants should private message me or contact me through email. I will be happy to walk through the changes with those interested.

There are ongoing discussions between the Sheriff and CGF...

More news when it is available...

CitaDeL
11-30-2012, 9:56 PM
I just received my permit from Shasta County and found it to be a fairly simple process. Took class, turned in app, had interview that day, received permit 42 days later. Nothing like some of the other counties I've been reading about.

Good for you. I'm glad it didnt take very long for you to navigate the process.

It took me 295 days for me to recieve my license from the date I applied and interviewed. And my application was initially refused by his staff two weeks prior because I refused to provide proof of residency, my training certificate and submit all the fees up front. This of course, is all completely unlawful.

This may upset some licensees, but Sheriff Bosenko will have to adopt all the provisions of SB610 (which he has repeatedly indicated he supports) in order to conform to the law. While this reform is ongoing, he may as well clean up the rest of his published carry license policy to eliminate unlawful requirements and other curious citations from the policy statement he inherited from the prior administration (who stepped down into retirement like eight years ago).

The fact that Bosenko issues more liberally than many of his 57 counterparts does not make how he operates any less corrupt. He is still issues under a discretionary system designed to exclude individuals for any reason he wants.

That isnt how a 'shall issue' Sheriff operates. I remain hopeful that he is willing to move towards that objective.

Shasta Frog
11-30-2012, 10:50 PM
Oh wow you got some other stuff going on. I find it easier to just comply, even if it is "unlawful" Do it their way, get permit and move on. But I guess we all need something to keep fighting for.

CitaDeL
11-30-2012, 11:05 PM
Oh wow you got some other stuff going on. I find it easier to just comply, even if it is "unlawful" Do it their way, get permit and move on. But I guess we all need something to keep fighting for.

Correction. The Sheriff's Office has got some 'other stuff' going on. I applied according to statute and expected them to follow the law.

Shasta Frog
11-30-2012, 11:16 PM
Well whatever they got going on got me a permit a heck of a lot sooner than you. I have 60 years left at best on this planet and spending every waking minute picking apart the law just isnt on my to do list. But like I said, We all need something to fight for.

CitaDeL
12-03-2012, 11:17 AM
Well whatever they got going on got me a permit a heck of a lot sooner than you. I have 60 years left at best on this planet and spending every waking minute picking apart the law just isnt on my to do list. But like I said, We all need something to fight for.

That dismissive status quo bullsh*t might fly at CalCCW, but unlike those who want to stroke each other over small privileges, we come here to engage in real reform.

Personally, I cant think of a better spent life, than to hold statist authoritarians accountable to the very laws that they administer. Bosenko is no exclusion, regardless of how ever many licenses he issues.

CitaDeL
02-11-2013, 9:02 PM
Minor update.

Sheriff Bosenko was a guest host on KCNR 1460am this morning. Among the topics covered were gun control and carry licensing.

The show can be downloaded here (http://kcnr1460.com/media/podcasts/Free_Fire_Radio/Free_Fire_Radio_2013-02-11.mp3) or you can stream the February 11, 2013 podcast here (http://kcnr1460.com/Show/archive/free_fire_radio).

Sheriff Bosenko brings up gun control as a topic at 1:10.12. A question is posed through the internet chat room asking about the status of carry license policy reform. His response can be heard starting at 1:22.00.

In short, he indicates that a new policy will soon be released, updated on the website, and in the policy statement being handed out-- it appears to also be the subject of a meeting with 20+ 'CCW' instructors.

What is not evident, is why someone who supported SB610, has taken more than 14 months to engage in substative reform since the law was passed.

I will be sure to update with copies of any revised policies issued by the S/O.

Rock6.3
03-03-2013, 2:49 PM
Finally a Shasta County Sunshine Update posted today by Gene Hoffman (cliff notes version is no change since 2011, but soon....):

From http://calgunsfoundation.org/news-blog/blog/entry/sunshine-initiative-update.html

While we work to resolve the national question of the scope of the right to bear arms in public, the Initiative’s Compliance component would further go to address as much as possible in the 58 sheriffs’ carry license programs (from pre-application to issuance) so that, as soon as we did have a final decision from the Supremes (or a victory in the Ninth Circuit), people could apply en masse and would, it was hoped, not be stuck dealing with unlawful and burdensome local rules.

The Sunshine aspect of the Initiative had a two-part role: (1) it made the as-applied policies of all 58 sheriffs collectively exposed for the first time in history - telegraphing that Californians were very much interested in their rights, and (2) offering valuable insight to applicants and prospective applicants on “good cause” statements.

Since the Initiative took off in 2010, it has directly and positively affected carry throughout California in a number of ways.

/snip/.

In Shasta County, CGF worked with Sheriff Bosenko to update his office’s policies following the enactment of SB 610. These revised policies and procedures are in the Sheriff’s hands and, last we heard, were waiting on final approval before being officially put into place.

/snip/

We expect to continue our existing progress and expect to accelerate the changes we’re creating once the Supreme Court grants cert in a carry case and then beyond an opinion recognizing that the law abiding have a right to bear arms in public.

-Gene

CitaDeL
03-03-2013, 8:35 PM
Finally a Shasta County Sunshine Update posted today by Gene Hoffman (cliff notes version is no change since 2011, but soon....):

Well, it is proving to be relatively meaningless in the context that I am recieving first hand accounts of the Sheriffs office demanding payment in full and CCW training certification up front from recent applicants.

If his carry license policies have been revised, there is no indication in how they are processing applicants.

HowardW56
03-03-2013, 8:43 PM
Well, it is proving to be relatively meaningless in the context that I am recieving first hand accounts of the Sheriffs office demanding payment in full and CCW training certification up front from recent applicants.

If his carry license policies have been revised, there is no indication in how they are processing applicants.

The new policy is being finalized, nothing has changed yet....

CitaDeL
03-04-2013, 7:15 AM
The new policy is being finalized, nothing has changed yet....

Not to discount what you are saying Howard, but I will only believe that Sheriff Bosenko means to change policy when I see it distributed and followed.

I am looking at this through the lens of hearing him pledge his support for SB610 the spring before the law was passed, having watched his dept do nothing either before or after the law was enacted to prepare for compliance, having heard him on live radio claim his policies were in conformance to California law while at the same time I was denied the ability to apply, and watched more than a year expire since SB610 was enacted before a new claim of a reformed policy would be released.

I believe along with time, he has burned up all his credibility for the simple reason that it does not take nearly two years to emplement a policy for something he claimed to support. Were he as enthusiastic about SB610 as he should have been as a supporter, the policy would have been ready December 31, 2011. It hasn't shown up yet. History proves him a liar.

He is only gotten this far with the encouragement from CGF...and clearly the threat of litigation means something to him. Perhaps with more applicants being told they are to fork over their application fees and training certificate up front and demanding utility bills to prove residency there should be more application of stick and less carrot.

Unfortunately, with this level of stubborness, a mule of such a disposition is only fit for dog food or glue.

Rock6.3
03-05-2013, 2:18 PM
It would be nice to see Brandon follow up on this issue with Mr. Bosenko, and post a public status report here....

CitaDeL
03-05-2013, 8:58 PM
http://www.redding.com/news/2013/mar/05/sheriff-sets-new-concealed-carry-permit-process/

The sheriff's office will begin requiring an appointment for all applications, including renewals, March 11.

Acknowledging a large backlog of applications, the sheriff's office says applicants will have to submit the forms two weeks before their appointments for a new permit and one week for a renewal.

No indicator of any policy reforms and the policy statement posted on the website remains the same as it has since 2005.

So, in short, everyone has to have an appointment to have their rights violated with an unlawful policy.

CitaDeL
03-14-2013, 8:23 AM
http://www.redding.com/news/2013/mar/13/editorial-software-too-costly-for-the-sheriff-on/

The author of this editorial seems to think that upgrading software to share mugshots is more significant than the Sheriff's as unreformed carry license policy.

Bosenko is not bound by law to produce mugshots of all the as-yet-not-proven guilty arrestees... He is however in violation of California state law with his discretionary and unlawful policies and procedures.

The truth is, neither of these issues is a priority for him. While he may have indicated that reform was eminent- it was either the announcement of requiring a scheduled appointment (which is not meaningful reform), or he has lied once again to his constituents with no intention to conform with SB610... a law on the books for more than 15 months.

Rock6.3
03-26-2013, 3:02 PM
http://www.redding.com/news/2013/mar/13/editorial-software-too-costly-for-the-sheriff-on/

The author of this editorial seems to think that upgrading software to share mugshots is more significant than the Sheriff's as unreformed carry license policy.

Bosenko is not bound by law to produce mugshots of all the as-yet-not-proven guilty arrestees... He is however in violation of California state law with his discretionary and unlawful policies and procedures.

The truth is, neither of these issues is a priority for him. While he may have indicated that reform was eminent- it was either the announcement of requiring a scheduled appointment (which is not meaningful reform), or he has lied once again to his constituents with no intention to conform with SB610... a law on the books for more than 15 months.

And the sunshine initiative continues to promote silence........ :confused:

CitaDeL
03-28-2013, 11:03 AM
No indicator of any policy reforms and the policy statement posted on the website remains the same as it has since 2005.

http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/index/sheriff_index/sh_forms.aspx

The Sheriff's website has been updated to remove the current application policy statement and add the DOJ/BOF standard application. A hard copy obtained this morning reveals no substantive reforms to comply with the law.

I have added a scan of the hard copy that I picked up yesterday for viewers convenience. (Since you cannot get it from the Sheriff's website...)

jayfarley3
03-28-2013, 11:14 AM
Not sure if this is the appropriate place to ask this question. I am currently active duty military stationed in Solano County. Redding, CA is my home of record and still listed on my drivers license. Can I still apply for the Shasta County LTC?

CitaDeL
03-28-2013, 11:19 AM
Not sure if this is the appropriate place to ask this question. I am currently active duty military stationed in Solano County. Redding, CA is my home of record and still listed on my drivers license. Can I still apply for the Shasta County LTC?

Yes, if you maintain your residence in Shasta County you would apply to the Shasta County Sheriff.

jayfarley3
03-28-2013, 10:46 PM
Yes, if you maintain your residence in Shasta County you would apply to the Shasta County Sheriff.

Thanks for the prompt reply!

CitaDeL
04-02-2013, 9:06 AM
While there is no policy statement of any kind on the Shasta County website now, I was told that the Sheriff's staff is in the 'process' of revising it - a process that has to date, taken 16 months so far to accomplish since SB610 was enacted. (A task which has already been accomplished for the Sheriff, free of charge by the Calguns Foundation.)

Other reassurances;


The three gun limitation is dead.
The requirement to provide utility bills to prove residency has been eliminated. (Though there is a new insistence that one shall be required to provide a rental agreement or some other new proof of permanent residency in Shasta County... which is just another version of the unlawful demand for receipts and documentation.)
Training certification isnt required in advance.
Fees arent required in full- the 20% local fees are due at the time of application. (Only $105.00 is due at the time of submission.)
While an 18 year old can be armed and sent off to war in a foreign country, anyone under 21 isnt eligible to defend themselves in their county of residence unless they got a signature from a parent or guardian. (The suggestion of which, has to be one of the more silly and convoluted requirements- as parents or guardians have no rights to contract on behalf of another adult unless they have power of attorney.)
The citizenship requirement is eliminated.


So if these reforms are in fact now policy, how can applicants possibly know how they should apply or know if the Sheriff is in compliance to the law when they are not published by his office anywhere?

If these SB610 procedures are completely unknown to new and renewal applicants, is it reasonable to assume that applicants are performing according to the old (read unlawful) policy statement and being ignorant of the law are paying their fees up front, paying for training up front, submitting the training certificate up front and submitting utility bills as a means to prove residency?

Is it also reasonable to assume that absent any reformed policy, that legal resident aliens are forgoing applying for a license as they believe they are not eligible?

I believe it is disingenuous to claim that reforms have been made, without the necessary documentation of a clear policy being available to the public. If the public has no idea reforms were made, they don't exist.

CitaDeL
04-10-2013, 2:50 PM
There should be a significant update tomorrow. Stay tuned.

ETA; Looks like we are right back at :twoweeks:

CitaDeL
04-30-2013, 9:27 PM
The Shasta County Sheriffs website has been updated to include the revised carry license policy statement. After much waiting, it appears that the S/O has produced something that should have been adopted 16 months ago.

http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/Sheriff/Docs/CCW_Policy.pdf

It may take some time for me to digest this, and determine if the changes were substative and lawful.

In reviewing the policy I found one item particularly interesting.

Under 218.6.3 (g) the policy states;

"The issuance of a license by the Sheriff shall not entitle the holder to either a property or liberty interest as the issuance, amendment, or revocation of such license remains exclusively within the discretion of the Sheriff as set forth herein."

This wording was included because;

1) The Sheriff and the county counsel believe this will prevent them from being sued in the event that someone does have their license revoked for reasons other than good cause, good moral character, or residency. They are wrong.
2) The Sheriff is a stiff-necked, statist bureaucratic boob who feels that it is his duty to be the gatekeeper of liberty, deciding who is and isnt worthy to exercise an enumerated right. If anyone is unclear on this notion, it means that Sheriff Bosenko is not, and has never has been, a 'shall issue' Sheriff- and his published policy is a bold and clearly articulated confession of that.

The good news appears to be that many of the requirements of the past policy statement are gone. Applicants should not be asked for documentation substantiating residency or proof of training up front. The citizenship requirement is gone. The expectation to pay fees in full are gone. While the progress is notable, the delays in revising and emplementing conformance to California law... were typical of this adminstration.

CitaDeL
06-26-2013, 6:13 PM
In spite of the publication of this;

http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/Sheriff/Docs/CCW_Policy.pdf

It appears that my concerns about this;

Other reassurances;


The requirement to provide utility bills to prove residency has been eliminated. (Though there is a new insistence that one shall be required to provide a rental agreement or some other new proof of permanent residency in Shasta County... which is just another version of the unlawful demand for receipts and documentation.)


... have some foundation in reality. While there is no clause in the Shasta County S/O's published policy directly requesting an applicant to provide proof of residency, it has come to my attention that the Sheriff's office is insisting on supplemental documentation anyway.

It is unlawful for the Sheriff to refuse to process your application for a carry license if an applicant either cannot or will not provide documentation other than the completed application.

26175 (g) An applicant shall not be required to complete any additional application or form for a license, or to provide any information other than that necessary to complete the standard application form described in subdivision (a), except to clarify or interpret information provided by the applicant on the standard application form.

'Clarification' in this section as well as in Shasta's policy at 218.4.1 (a) parts 1 and 2 cannot be construed to mean that the S/O can demand utility bills, telephone bills, auto registration, boat registration, rental agreements, property tax statements, credit card receipts, or any other documentation that would satisfy their unlawful demand.

None of these things are 'necessary' to clarify or interpret information provided in your application. Your address is plain enough to understand and sufficient to complete your application.

CitaDeL
07-06-2013, 8:30 AM
Poll posted in the link below;


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=788846

joker713
07-20-2013, 1:05 AM
Any update on the current status in Shasta? I have lived here since May of last year but have no proof of residency. Renting a room from a family friend until November. I understand that it's not legal for them to ask for it but with out some backing I don't know how comfortable I would be bucking against the Sheriff's Office. Any help or advice is appreciated.

CitaDeL
07-20-2013, 7:31 AM
Any update on the current status in Shasta? I have lived here since May of last year but have no proof of residency. Renting a room from a family friend until November. I understand that it's not legal for them to ask for it but with out some backing I don't know how comfortable I would be bucking against the Sheriff's Office. Any help or advice is appreciated.

I gather that you have postponed, delayed, or forgone applying for a carry license because you are unable to fulfill an unlawful requirement that the Sheriff's office is imposing.

Think of it this way; When you buy a ticket at a movie theater, the theater owner can't require you to buy popcorn and a soda before he decides he will roll the film. By virtue of the fact they have sold you a movie ticket, they are obligated to let you view the film or refund your money.

It is the same when you apply for a carry license. When you submit your completed application with the portion of the fees that is due at the time, there are a series of obligations on the Sheriff that must be met, some of which must be completed within a specified legal time limit.

No application and fee? The Sheriff can ignore you in perpetuity.

Once you submit a completed application and fee, the Sheriff is first obligated to consider your application and to inform you of his determination in writing-[PS26202 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/26202.html)] in a specified timeframe of 90 days from the date of the initial application [PC26205 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/26205.html)]

In other words, it isn't you 'bucking' the Sheriff's office.... it is the other way around- it is them jerking you around.

I would recommend applying. If they demand proof of residency or anything else that is not required by statute, contact legal counsel. I like Jason Davis, and he has helped remind Sheriff Bosenko of these obligations before.

joker713
07-24-2013, 8:34 PM
Once I have completed my class I will be doing as suggested. Unfortunately, legal counsel is not something I would be able to afford at this time.

I gather that you have postponed, delayed, or forgone applying for a carry license because you are unable to fulfill an unlawful requirement that the Sheriff's office is imposing.

Think of it this way; When you buy a ticket at a movie theater, the theater owner can't require you to buy popcorn and a soda before he decides he will roll the film. By virtue of the fact they have sold you a movie ticket, they are obligated to let you view the film or refund your money.

It is the same when you apply for a carry license. When you submit your completed application with the portion of the fees that is due at the time, there are a series of obligations on the Sheriff that must be met, some of which must be completed within a specified legal time limit.

No application and fee? The Sheriff can ignore you in perpetuity.

Once you submit a completed application and fee, the Sheriff is first obligated to consider your application and to inform you of his determination in writing-[PS26202 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/26202.html)] in a specified timeframe of 90 days from the date of the initial application [PC26205 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/26205.html)]

In other words, it isn't you 'bucking' the Sheriff's office.... it is the other way around- it is them jerking you around.

I would recommend applying. If they demand proof of residency or anything else that is not required by statute, contact legal counsel. I like Jason Davis, and he has helped remind Sheriff Bosenko of these obligations before.

CitaDeL
07-24-2013, 10:16 PM
Once I have completed my class I will be doing as suggested. Unfortunately, legal counsel is not something I would be able to afford at this time.


Okay. But you were aware that you aren't required to obtain your training or certificate before you submitted your application AND received the determination on your application from the Sheriff---Right?

Or has the Shasta County Sheriff or his subordinates indicated otherwise?

joker713
07-25-2013, 9:48 PM
Okay. But you were aware that you aren't required to obtain your training or certificate before you submitted your application AND received the determination on your application from the Sheriff---Right?

Or has the Shasta County Sheriff or his subordinates indicated otherwise?

That was more for my own benefit of knowing it was done when I placed the application.

CitaDeL
07-25-2013, 10:15 PM
That was more for my own benefit of knowing it was done when I placed the application.

That doesn't improve your likelihood of being approved. The only problem I see in doing this, is that in the event you are denied, the education you receive and the money you spend may be wasted. There are reasons why legislation was enacted to reorder this process. I think circumventing the order does not benefit anyone.

joker713
07-28-2013, 11:17 PM
"GENERAL INFORMATION: Each new CCW applicant must demonstrate proof of residency. This can be satisfied in the form of a valid California Driver’s license and utility (electric/gas) receipts in the applicant’s name with the physical address shown (No PO Boxes). Originals of these and other documents must be present during the interview."

That's directly from the criteria, and I understand it's illegal for them to ask... So what is my response to negate this request when it comes during the interview?

joker713
07-28-2013, 11:23 PM
Also, under the application process it does make it sound as if they want the ccw class completed before your interview...

CitaDeL
07-29-2013, 2:41 AM
"GENERAL INFORMATION: Each new CCW applicant must demonstrate proof of residency. This can be satisfied in the form of a valid California Driverís license and utility (electric/gas) receipts in the applicantís name with the physical address shown (No PO Boxes). Originals of these and other documents must be present during the interview."

That's directly from the criteria, and I understand it's illegal for them to ask... So what is my response to negate this request when it comes during the interview?

Also, under the application process it does make it sound as if they want the ccw class completed before your interview...


This is the sheriffs official policy statement. It is largely compliant with California law in regards to the application for a concealed carry license.
http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/Sheriff/Docs/CCW_Policy.pdf

This is a memorandum dated April 23, 2013 that is not compliant to California law and contradicts current policy. It is electronic garbage that the S/O has forgotten to remove from the website after the final policy statement was released about a week later. http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/Sheriff/Docs/CCW_Application_Process.pdf

If the S/O insists that you provide proof of residency one can either cite the relevant penal code, or advise the interviewer that you intend to consult legal counsel (and then do so). This neither halts the application process, nor does it extend their timetable to issue a determination.

joker713
08-01-2013, 8:41 AM
For those that have been through the process recently... How long does it usually take to get an appointment? Or even a call back to set up the appointment?

joker713
08-10-2013, 9:51 AM
Shasta Sheriff's Office is requiring proof of residency as well as training certificate at interview. Nothing has changed

CitaDeL
08-11-2013, 9:26 AM
Shasta Sheriff's Office is requiring proof of residency as well as training certificate at interview. Nothing has changed

Shocking. And this is our "Constitutional", second amendment loving Sheriff.

Be sure to participate in the poll found in this link.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=788846

Shasta Frog
08-11-2013, 9:34 AM
For those that have been through the process recently... How long does it usually take to get an appointment? Or even a call back to set up the appointment?

I didn't have to make an appointment. I just walked in and waited in line. I thought the process was real simple and showing proof of residency didn't kill me lol.

CitaDeL
08-12-2013, 7:34 AM
I didn't have to make an appointment. I just walked in and waited in line. I thought the process was real simple and showing proof of residency didn't kill me lol.

That was previous to changes in the Sheriff's proceedure earlier this year. Applications and interviews are done only by appointment.

http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/index/sheriff_index/CCW_Info.aspx

We have changed our process for applying for a Carry Concealed Weapons Permit. For we now have an automated phone message for your convenience. The systems allows you to leave your information and a Record's clerk will call you back to set up your appointment. All new and renewals are done by appointments only. The Sheriff's Office hours for appointments are: Mondays and Tuesdays from 8:00am - 3:00pm


And while showing proof of residency didn't kill you, a peace officer stopping you without reasonable suspicion and seizing your property doesn't 'kill' people either, but their 4th amendment rights are no less violated. When they ask for proofs to a statement that is submitted under penalty of law, what they are really doing is conducting a search for evidence of a crime. Would you also offer up evidence against yourself during a traffic stop, just to make it go easier?

CitaDeL
08-22-2013, 4:24 PM
http://kcnr1460.com/media/podcasts/Free_Fire_Radio/Free_Fire_Radio_2013-08-21.mp3

Beginning of the segment with Sheriff Bosenko is at 1: 09: 54

If you listen to the whole segment, you can hear that he is anxious to cover specific information, even noting the shortness on time near the end of the program. When the host directs the interview towards military equipment, Sheriff Bosenko redirects the final moments of the program back to 'CCW' at 1: 52: 47, a topic which they had already covered.

He adds that applicants must show that they are permanent residents and that is part of the law.

Not really.

In fact, the issue of residency appears only in 26150(a)(3) (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/26150.html) (and 26155(a)(3) (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/26155.html) for city police chiefs) and the statute does not say that proof must be provided by the applicant. It also doesnt say anything about 'permanent' or 'permanancy' or indicate the duration an applicant must be a resident. In fact, the statute indicates that the applicant neednt be a resident AT ALL, provided the applicant spends a 'subtantial' amount of time when their employment or business is in the county of issuance.

After listening to the broadcast, I am convinced of two conclusions;

1) Sheriff Bosenko is campaigning for his office and using these broadcast opportunities to tout the issuance of nearly 5,000 carry licenses as a reason to re-elect him. I can tell you that if he actually supported the second amendment with a "Shall Issue" policy, unencumbered with a time-consuming interview process, that number would (and should) be more than three times that number. If 5,000 licenses is a reason to re-elect him, then the 16 months it took his office to reform his carry license policies to comply with SB610 is proportionately, a reason not to.

2) Sheriff Bosenko continues to abuse his discretion by maintaining requirements that are incongruous to California state law. Either he does not understand 26150(a)(3) or is knowingly imposing his discretion in spite of his understanding of the law.

Shasta Frog
08-22-2013, 4:41 PM
LOL, I just keep my nose clean and my mouth shut and never had any problems. I'm just one guy out of like 80,000+ in this area. I don't live in fear that the cops are out to get me. :hide:

CitaDeL
08-22-2013, 6:05 PM
LOL, I just keep my nose clean and my mouth shut and never had any problems. I'm just one guy out of like 80,000+ in this area. I don't live in fear that the cops are out to get me. :hide:

Please tell me what the **** that has to do with the Sheriff's carry license policy.

Shasta Frog
08-22-2013, 6:56 PM
Please tell me what the **** that has to do with the Sheriff's carry license policy.

LOL, Paranoid much? Its ok calm down your guns are fine. Proof of residency isn't going to kill you. :facepalm:

Sunday
08-22-2013, 7:11 PM
Shasta county dragging their feet and using "budget cuts and lack of staff to process requests" as an excuse.
the increase of applicants is swamping the Sheriffs office staff. 2002 you could walk in and get your ccw renewed and now you have to get an appointment. The Sheriff [Bosenko]is about as pro 2nd amendment as pro 2nd amendment can be. Yes the law must be followed.

Sunday
08-22-2013, 7:16 PM
To add Sheriff Bosenko is up for reelection next year. He is pro gun and would be the best person to have as the Sheriff. Sent $$$ to his reelection campaign.

CitaDeL
08-22-2013, 9:23 PM
LOL, Paranoid much? Its ok calm down your guns are fine. Proof of residency isn't going to kill you. :facepalm:

You must also take no issue with the TSA grundel grope and searches without your consent. The Sheriff's requirement is unlawful and applicants should not comply.

the increase of applicants is swamping the Sheriffs office staff. 2002 you could walk in and get your ccw renewed and now you have to get an appointment. The Sheriff [Bosenko]is about as pro 2nd amendment as pro 2nd amendment can be. Yes the law must be followed.

What if I told you that he has not only revoked carry licenses for 1st amendment reasons, but also denied for reasons other than residency, 'good cause' and 'good moral charcter'?

And in spite of his vocal support of SB610, failed to take substantive action to reform his policies to conform to state law without the pestering of his favorite 'constituent' and threat of litigation.

What if I told you that the appointment system is not due to a greater workload or a DOJ backlog, but to adhere to a policy to wring out every applicant through an interview process that would be wholly unnecessary if the Sheriff adopted a 'shall issue' policy for carry licenses?

Is that what a robust second amendment candidate should do? Does that sound as 'pro second amendment as pro second amendment can be'?

If so, your metric is biased, because it does not include Sheriffs like Glenn Palmer of Grant County, Oregon (who has no such requirements). Or any Sheriff from a shall issue state who either will not or cannot impose his discretion upon the licensing process.

I believe Sheriff Bosenko perpetuates a fraud upon his 2A constituents. It is a facade built upon membership with the NRA, support of the GOC and the pretense that issuing any licenses is an indicator of his belief in a fundemental right to keep and bear. His policies expose the reality of his statist roots- the second amendment is fine for only those with his blessing.

If you take exception to the Sheriff not conforming to the law, it is your obligation to advise him that requiring things that are unlawful isnt okay with you.

scoutcamper
10-15-2013, 1:13 PM
As an 18 year old who is manufacturing his own AR Pistol, as well as being family transferred a pistol, i am disappointed in our sherrif's decision not to issue CCW permits to 18 year olds, even though there is nothing in state law to prohibit this.

Does anyone else in Shasta county have experience with this?

CitaDeL
10-19-2013, 7:57 PM
As an 18 year old who is manufacturing his own AR Pistol, as well as being family transferred a pistol, i am disappointed in our sherrif's decision not to issue CCW permits to 18 year olds, even though there is nothing in state law to prohibit this.

Does anyone else in Shasta county have experience with this?

Has anyone been the target of the arbitrary application of the sheriff's unlimited discretion in Shasta County? Absolutely.

Paladin
02-05-2015, 11:49 PM
I went to their CCW webpage (http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/index/sheriff_index/CCW_Info.aspx) and their linked Criteria & Requirements .pdf has the below. What is clearly missing is any mention of either GC or GMC.


CRITERIA FOR APPLYING FOR A CCW PERMIT IN SHASTA COUNTY:
• Must be 21 years of age or older.
• Must be a permanent resident of Shasta County.
• If applicant served in the Armed Forces of the United States, they must provide a copy of
military records/discharge form (DD214) at the time of initial interview.
• You must bring the firearms you intend to put on your CCW permit to the Sheriff’s
Office, UNLOADED, magazines removed (No ammunition can be attached to the firearm) and placed in a lock box or locked gun case.(emphasis in original)

Has anyone applied in Shasta Co w/the SO since the Peruta decision last Feb (2014)? If so, how did it go? Are they issuing with mere "self-defense" as the GC statement?

scoutcamper
01-25-2016, 8:26 PM
Sorry for the zombie thread, but I thought I would post some info. I just made my appointment a few days ago, 2nd week of March was the first available appointment. NOTE: Shasta county only does interviews on Monday and Tuesday from 9-3, so not a wide window....

I was then told that after my interview it would be 60-90 days before my permit was issued.

Apparently the Shasta county sheriffs office is so backlogged with permits that someone just applying today is essentially 6 months out from a permit, assuming a perfect timeline. Seems to me that if they are that backed up its time to hire more people.

VaderSpade
01-25-2016, 8:42 PM
You must not be in the "good ol boy" network?
Someone that knows someone would be fast tracked.

scoutcamper
01-25-2016, 11:03 PM
You must not be in the "good ol boy" network?
Someone that knows someone would be fast tracked.

Apparently not, I am just average citizen, took the class, called for appointment next day, and got the timeline I laid out above from the person on the phone.