PDA

View Full Version : CCW: 'Good Moral Character' & Past Arrests ***NEW Title***


supersonic
10-27-2010, 3:30 PM
EDIT: scroll down for more info (starting @ post #4), this thread is about possible snafus regarding CCW denial regarding 'good moral character' & past arrests (with/without disposition).

jcardona1
10-27-2010, 4:41 PM
Jsust send Scott a PM. He replied right away with no problems.

dantodd
10-27-2010, 5:49 PM
The way this post was put out as a public complaint about the process or results of getting a sacramento ccw but then refusing to discuss the apparent problem is incredibly troubling and could be seen as an attack on the work Brandon and Gray are doing. If you have a problem spill the beans or quit spreading FUD. All you are doing is creating fear, uncertainty and doubt in people that we need to apply. This is reminiscent of the scare tactics and secrecy that used to surround writing a good cause statement.

supersonic
10-27-2010, 6:42 PM
The way this post was put out as a public complaint about the process or results of getting a sacramento ccw but then refusing to discuss the apparent problem is incredibly troubling and could be seen as an attack on the work Brandon and Gray are doing. If you have a problem spill the beans or quit spreading FUD. All you are doing is creating fear, uncertainty and doubt in people that we need to apply. This is reminiscent of the scare tactics and secrecy that used to surround writing a good cause statement.

I'm sorry, but you know nothing of which you speak. It was a simple question, with a request for an answer in the form of PM's. It wasn't a "public complaint" and it isn't "spreading FUD" by any stretch of the imagination. An "attack on the work Brandon and Gray are doing?" Please.;)

If this about the process, we should be sharing the information for the betterment of the community.

Okay, if this will help the cause and you feel this is beneficial I will tell people this: if you have a prior arrest, no matter how long ago & what the outcome, you will be asked to pretty much detail it twice. First at the preliminary interview; then at the phone interview. I know of at least ONE person who was then denied for GC. That person appealed (because the GC was 'self defense' and the applicant has NO prior convictions & is not a prohibited person in ANY way), and in the second denial, the SSD 'changed' their reason. Now it was "prior criminal history" due to a non-conviction/expunged arrest over FIFTEEN YEARS ago. - Needless to say, when perusing Ca. CCW threads and seeing permit holders already having N.D.'s, one becomes a bit frustrated. Not to mention they have to continue CCW'ing "on their OWN terms" with that burden still there.

dantodd
10-27-2010, 6:53 PM
Thanks for posting the warning. I'm sure there are a number of people this could effect. Be sure to document this with Brandon. Right now any arrest probably falls in moral character discretion. Having good plaintiffs lined up when the time comes to address these denials (post "Sykes") will be valuable.

762cavalier
10-27-2010, 9:41 PM
Thanks for actually letting us know. This is the exact reason I have put off applying for a CCW. In my 20s is was pretty rowdy and have a few misdemeanors on my record. Now in my 40s I am a fairly responsible citizen, but am worried that my past will still cause problems.

thebronze
10-27-2010, 10:27 PM
Thanks for actually letting us know. This is the exact reason I have put off applying for a CCW. In my 20s is was pretty rowdy and have a few misdemeanors on my record. Now in my 40s I am a fairly responsible citizen, but am worried that my past will still cause problems.


You'll never know unless you go through the process. 20 years is a long time. Give it a try.

edwardm
10-28-2010, 12:02 AM
Thanks for posting the warning. I'm sure there are a number of people this could effect. Be sure to document this with Brandon. Right now any arrest probably falls in moral character discretion. Having good plaintiffs lined up when the time comes to address these denials (post "Sykes") will be valuable.

That's easy. Find a lawyer in good standing with the state bar, who has a 'colorful'-but-not-prohibiting past (there are plenty, I'm sure Chuck or Don won't have ANY problem finding plaintiffs.) And from that pool, I'm sure you can find your 'angel' plaintiff, or 10.

Then get the sheriff to explain how the bar's determination of good moral character conflicts with their own departmental determination of good moral character. All the shark-in-suit humor aside, it should be an interesting squirm session.

putput
10-28-2010, 8:01 AM
This is disappointing but not unexpected. If not Sacramento then another county for sure. I'm sure the powers that be have accounted for this and hopefully it will not mean another court action. It's pretty typical of government to have some previous power limited only to flex some other power aggressively.

Davidwhitewolf
10-28-2010, 9:18 AM
Hmm. Thank you very much to the OP for his clarification of the issue. I was booked some years ago for a defensive shooting that was legally justified but could have ended very badly as it involved a mistake on my part -- however, the DA never pressed charges, and there was no civil suit either. Good to know this might come up again.

ETA: Actually now I wonder if I was actually arrested. I went down to the station and was tested for GSR, then went home. I suppose I need to call the department to find out.

nicki
10-28-2010, 10:13 AM
The police have access to any law enforcement inter actions.

Something you need to understand about arrests. You are innocent until proven guilty.
That being said how you answer a question if you have past arrests could sink you.

There are people who don't get convicted because of lack of evidence or because the DA choose not to pursue things, then their are people who are factually innocent.

The reality is arrests records raise flags and they go for juvenile records also, so if you were a JD, be preparred to deal with it.

Now many of you are concerned about youthful indiscretion, but consider this. Not all police officers were saints either before becoming LEOs.

The 1st interview they screen your app, the 2nd one they go over it after they review it and check if you lied.

Don't lie on application.

Nicki

supersonic
10-28-2010, 10:18 AM
Your original title was cryptic, and therefore absolutely FUD. Stating that you wish you hadn't done something provides fear and doubt, not saying what the problem was, is uncertainty.

I'm sorry, but you have just 'created' something out of thin air: Show anyone here where I "Stated" that "I" wish "I" hadn't done something. Nothing was "stated." Only a question was asked. No "FUD" spreading, no "cryptic" language. You read into it what you wanted to. No matter what your response may be at this point, you openly "rearranged" history here to tried to make a point that doesn't exist. I changed the title and went against better judgement in reporting what I knew. Yet, you still needed to pry your "FUD" statement in by twisting the original wording. You were late to the party. Get over it.;)

EDIT: Another thing you "invented" was that there was a "problem" that I wasn't revealing. Go back and read the original post more carefully before piling on after the fact.

rromeo
10-28-2010, 10:26 AM
I'm sorry, but you have just 'created' something out of thin air: Show anyone here where I "Stated" that "I" wish "I" hadn't done something. No matter what your response may be at this point, you have openly "rearranged" history here to try to make a point that doesn't exist. And, you did it after the fact to get your ".02 worth." I changed the title and went against better judgement in reporting what I knew. Yet, you still needed to pry your "FUD" statement in by twisting the original wording. You were late to the party. Get over it.;)
Pardon me, asking others if they regretted applying, not yourself. Even so, asking somebody else if the had regrets about something high profile, yet keeping private your reasons for asking, is still by the book FUD. I now take back when I thanked you for providing some info.

supersonic
10-28-2010, 10:34 AM
Hmm. Thank you very much to the OP for his clarification of the issue. I was booked some years ago for a defensive shooting that was legally justified but could have ended very badly as it involved a mistake on my part -- however, the DA never pressed charges, and there was no civil suit either. Good to know this might come up again.

ETA: Actually now I wonder if I was actually arrested. I went down to the station and was tested for GSR, then went home. I suppose I need to call the department to find out.

You are very welcome! I am very happy to see that there are some people out there who are benefiting from my report. At first, I wanted to keep the issue private, and I thought by asking a simple question about other's feelings regarding CCW if they had any regrets, that I would be able to gain some insight via PM as to what others were doing. Others meaning "others in a similar situation." In hindsight, though, it was just easier to put it out there. And again, if this gives more insight (or helps) as to this whole "new" Sacramento CCW 'shall issue' trend, then by god that is only a "win" if you ask me!:)

Pardon me, asking others if they regretted applying, not yourself. Even so, asking somebody else if the had regrets about something high profile, yet keeping private your reasons for asking, is still by the book FUD. I now take back when I thanked you for providing some info.

Okay, you are officially pardoned. As far as 'taking back' a thank you, that's quite all right, as I have already received many more thanks about this than I would have ever imagined. By folks that didn't feel the "need" to 'school me' after I had already done the right thing. That kind of dogpiling is not only counter-productive, but childish. Hell, dantodd was man enough to post again with only positive comment. He leads by example.:)

SgtDinosaur
10-28-2010, 12:59 PM
OK, this is what I was afraid of.....that an arrest record with no conviction could screw up my CCW application some day. It shouldn't because I am not a prohibited person and can pass a background check, but I am hearing here that it may. My attorney told me the arrest didn't mean jack when the charges were dropped, but it sounds like maybe in some cases he was wrong. Am I reading this right?

Gray Peterson
10-28-2010, 1:08 PM
OK, this is what I was afraid of.....that an arrest record with no conviction could screw up my CCW application some day. It shouldn't because I am not a prohibited person and can pass a background check, but I am hearing here that it may. My attorney told me the arrest didn't mean jack when the charges were dropped, but it sounds like maybe in some cases he was wrong. Am I reading this right?

Under Business and Professions Code 461, arrests should not be considered for any sort of license, state or local.

supersonic
10-28-2010, 1:17 PM
Well, as it stands right now, the SSD can pretty much do whatever they want. My God, if they can deny one person and then change their reason when appealed, that's a pretty aggressive show of power! And this is a person that has already been granted a FFL03 and been granted a COE after already passing the livescan (required for FFL03 COE)!!!!! ABSURD??? You guys tell me.

dantodd
10-28-2010, 1:44 PM
Well, as it stands right now, the SSD can pretty much do whatever they want. My God, if they can deny one person and then change their reason when appealed, that's a pretty aggressive show of power! And this is a person that has already been granted a FFL03 and been granted a COE after already passing the livescan (required for FFL03 COE)!!!!! ABSURD??? You guys tell me.

I understand your frustration. There are a ton of similarly offensive laws and/or expressions of discretion on behalf of sheriffs.

Unfortunately Brandon can't fix every issue all at once. As Gene says, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You can rest assured that the "good moral character" abuses are not being dropped but getting the rest of the counties to go "shall issue" takes precedence at the moment. Remember that defining "good moral character" as "not a prohibited person" is part of the prayer for relief in Roberts (nee Sykes)

dantodd
10-28-2010, 2:37 PM
stix, that has been hashed over and over. No reason to hammer him any further.

edwardm
10-28-2010, 3:23 PM
The reality is arrests records raise flags and they go for juvenile records also, so if you were a JD, be preparred to deal with it.

Now many of you are concerned about youthful indiscretion, but consider this. Not all police officers were saints either before becoming LEOs.

Don't lie on application.

Nicki

This is actually a good compound point. Don't lie, and more to the point, be forthcoming and candid. Even if you're NOT trying to hide something, looking like you're hiding something is a Big Red Flag - worse than the previous offenses in many ways.

And yes, not all LEOs were saintly, good and pure prior to being LEOs. Unfortunately, the legislature screwed a number of non-prohibited folks with some changes to the Government Code a few years back. Used to be if you had a 17(b) reduction you could still be sworn LEO. As of (need to check) 2006, anything finally adjudged a misdemeanor via 17(b) from that date forward prohibits you from a career in law enforcement. I guess the state decided it could only afford Angels and Saints on the force.

Librarian
10-28-2010, 3:27 PM
I believe I have trimmed this back to the meat.

Carry on.

supersonic
10-28-2010, 4:02 PM
Hmm. Thank you very much to the OP for his clarification of the issue. I was booked some years ago for a defensive shooting that was legally justified but could have ended very badly as it involved a mistake on my part -- however, the DA never pressed charges, and there was no civil suit either. Good to know this might come up again.

ETA: Actually now I wonder if I was actually arrested. I went down to the station and was tested for GSR, then went home. I suppose I need to call the department to find out.

Like others have said, any interaction with LE will be discovered during the background check/livescan. The other issue is that, along with 'past criminal history/arrests,' there is a very specific interview question regarding "arrests OR incidents involving firearms." This one is very important to remember. Even if you were only arrested once(or had a major LE incident - as this one clearly was for you), and it involved firearms in any way, you still must answer those 2 separate questions with a "yes." Two separate questions involving (possible) arrests/LE incidents and firearms. See what I'm getting at here? Things can always be seen differently by these people when it suits them, for whatever reasons. Even if the 'reasoning' is unreasonable by your & my standards (and by about 100% of the logically adept public!) Anyway, you are a very lucky person as it is: you somehow avoided the civil suit!!!!!! - Believe you me, you really dodged a bullet there, my friend! (pun definitely intended:p)....Maybe that good luck will work in your favor when getting your CCW squared. Break a leg.:thumbsup:

supersonic
10-28-2010, 4:11 PM
This is actually a good compound point. Don't lie, and more to the point, be forthcoming and candid. Even if you're NOT trying to hide something, looking like you're hiding something is a Big Red Flag - worse than the previous offenses in many ways.

And yes, not all LEOs were saintly, good and pure prior to being LEOs. Unfortunately, the legislature screwed a number of non-prohibited folks with some changes to the Government Code a few years back. Used to be if you had a 17(b) reduction you could still be sworn LEO. As of (need to check) 2006, anything finally adjudged a misdemeanor via 17(b) from that date forward prohibits you from a career in LE. I guess the state decided it could only afford Angels, Saints, and those who simply were never caught on the force.

I felt a little 'clarification' was in order. I guess the "angels & saints" are the ones who go on to be the truly straight, honest cops. The ones who 'got away with it' may be a different story all together.;)

thebronze
10-28-2010, 5:09 PM
I believe I have trimmed this back to the meat.

Carry on.


Why not just delete the whole thread, since whatever the OP was talking about to begin with, is gone too?

I have no effing idea what this thread is even about, since his original information isn't there.

Lame use of the delete key...

Librarian
10-28-2010, 5:22 PM
Why not just delete the whole thread, since whatever the OP was talking about to begin with, is gone too?

I have no effing idea what this thread is even about, since his original information isn't there.

Lame use of the delete key...

See post 4. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=5200456&postcount=4) With that, the thread gained some content, as worthy of discussion as many.

supersonic
10-28-2010, 5:24 PM
Why not just delete the whole thread, since whatever the OP was talking about to begin with, is gone too?

I have no effing idea what this thread is even about, since his original information isn't there.

Lame use of the delete key...

I went ahead and changed the title again & I clarified a bit more in the 1st post.;)

edwardm
10-28-2010, 5:45 PM
I felt a little 'clarification' was in order. I guess the "angels & saints" are the ones who go on to be the truly straight, honest cops. The ones who 'got away with it' may be a different story all together.;)

For completeness (though not wholly relevant, it does go to issues of moral character), I found the relevant piece of code:

Government Code Section 1029:

1029. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), (c), or (d), each
of the following persons is disqualified from holding office as a
peace officer or being employed as a peace officer of the state,
county, city, city and county or other political subdivision, whether
with or without compensation, and is disqualified from any office or
employment by the state, county, city, city and county or other
political subdivision, whether with or without compensation, which
confers upon the holder or employee the powers and duties of a peace
officer:
(1) Any person who has been convicted of a felony.
(2) Any person who has been convicted of any offense in any other
jurisdiction which would have been a felony if committed in this
state.
(3) Any person who, after January 1, 2004, has been convicted of a
crime based upon a verdict or finding of guilt of a felony by the
trier of fact, or upon the entry of a plea of guilty or nolo
contendere to a felony. This paragraph shall apply regardless of
whether, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 17 of the Penal Code,
the court declares the offense to be a misdemeanor or the offense
becomes a misdemeanor by operation of law.

There are, of course, some drug diversion exceptions further down (surprised? I'm not).

So, there are very likely LEOs out there who, by the standards imposed on non-LEOs for a CCW, do not "technically" meet the definition of good moral character.

It's an avenue, but not a very useful one, for attack. State police powers are a b*tch.

supersonic
10-29-2010, 3:49 PM
You'll never know unless you go through the process. 20 years is a long time. Give it a try.

I don't know about that. Obviously, 15 years wasn't long enough. What do you suppose the amount of time is that must pass before you are of 'good moral character' again? Hell, I have been raising my son on my own since he was five (that's almost 13 years now) and I think the fact that he has never been in any trouble and is well-adjusted means that 'whoever raised him' must have had pretty friggin' damn great moral character the whole time!!!!!!

dantodd
10-29-2010, 9:55 PM
It would seem that that only prohibits people with felonies and "wobblers" from being a cop, you could have a history with misdemeanor convictions as long as the crime was not one which could be a felony.

I would say that as long as you are up front about it and your issue wasn't a felony or wobbler it's worth the $20 to see if they will approve your app. If they don't approve your app let CGF know along with as much detail as you are comfortable with them knowing about the conviction and when the time comes to deal with "good moral character" they'll know about your case and will notify you if your case will be helpful in attacking the policies of the sheriff.

For completeness (though not wholly relevant, it does go to issues of moral character), I found the relevant piece of code:

Government Code Section 1029:

1029. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), (c), or (d), each
of the following persons is disqualified from holding office as a
peace officer or being employed as a peace officer of the state,
county, city, city and county or other political subdivision, whether
with or without compensation, and is disqualified from any office or
employment by the state, county, city, city and county or other
political subdivision, whether with or without compensation, which
confers upon the holder or employee the powers and duties of a peace
officer:
(1) Any person who has been convicted of a felony.
(2) Any person who has been convicted of any offense in any other
jurisdiction which would have been a felony if committed in this
state.
(3) Any person who, after January 1, 2004, has been convicted of a
crime based upon a verdict or finding of guilt of a felony by the
trier of fact, or upon the entry of a plea of guilty or nolo
contendere to a felony. This paragraph shall apply regardless of
whether, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 17 of the Penal Code,
the court declares the offense to be a misdemeanor or the offense
becomes a misdemeanor by operation of law.

edwardm
10-30-2010, 3:09 AM
The point was, good moral character becomes a moving target which is, I think, fundamentally wrong.

The standard should be "not a prohibited person, get the permit" - whether an old offense is a misdemeanor outright or a wobbler-misdemeanor should mean nothing. If it does mean something in a 'shall-issue' world, then it primarily means SO's and PD's are legislating for the folks in Sacramento.

It would seem that that only prohibits people with felonies and "wobblers" from being a cop, you could have a history with misdemeanor convictions as long as the crime was not one which could be a felony.

I would say that as long as you are up front about it and your issue wasn't a felony or wobbler it's worth the $20 to see if they will approve your app. If they don't approve your app let CGF know along with as much detail as you are comfortable with them knowing about the conviction and when the time comes to deal with "good moral character" they'll know about your case and will notify you if your case will be helpful in attacking the policies of the sheriff.

supersonic
10-30-2010, 6:45 AM
It would seem that that only prohibits people with felonies and "wobblers" from being a cop, you could have a history with misdemeanor convictions as long as the crime was not one which could be a felony.

I would say that as long as you are up front about it and your issue wasn't a felony or wobbler it's worth the $20 to see if they will approve your app. If they don't approve your app let CGF know along with as much detail as you are comfortable with them knowing about the conviction and when the time comes to deal with "good moral character" they'll know about your case and will notify you if your case will be helpful in attacking the policies of the sheriff.


What, exactly, is a "wobbler?":confused:

edwardm
10-30-2010, 7:16 AM
What, exactly, is a "wobbler?":confused:

That's the non-technical term for an alternate felony-misdemeanor. It is an offense that can be charged as and punished as either a felony or a misdemeanor. Grand theft comes to mind - that may be charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor and punished in state prison or county jail.

489. Grand theft is punishable as follows:
(a) When the grand theft involves the theft of a firearm, by
imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, 2, or 3 years.
(b) In all other cases, by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year or in the state prison.

See the "or" I bolded in (b)? That makes grand theft in most cases a "wobbler". See above, (a), how it specifies only a state prison term for theft of a firearm? That right there makes theft of a firearm a straight felony - irreducible to a misdemeanor, even after the fact.

sighere
10-30-2010, 7:30 AM
Ok, so:
1. I'm an attorney
2. I have a "non-arrest" (officially bumped down to a detention) for something "colorful" (sorry guys, not discussing details on this one)
3. Good standing with the state bar
4. Waiting for my denial from L.A. county.

Let me be clear (doh! sounding presidential here!), this issue will come to the fore because when I'm denied, and my appeal is denied, I'm not stopping there....

supersonic
10-30-2010, 8:03 AM
Ok, so:
1. I'm an attorney
2. I have a "non-arrest" (officially bumped down to a detention) for something "colorful" (sorry guys, not discussing details on this one)
3. Good standing with the state bar
4. Waiting for my denial from L.A. county.

Let me be clear (doh! sounding presidential here!), this issue will come to the fore because when I'm denied, and my appeal is denied, I'm not stopping there....

Bumped down to a "detention?" Wow, that's a new one for me! I didn't know the law actually made a distinction between 'arrested' and 'cuffed & stuffed' in the wording. Hmmm. Anyway, the record will still show that you were detained (cuffed & taken into custody) and it will still be seen in the eyes of the sheriff's committee as criminal history. Either way, I'll be waiting enthusiastically to see how this pans out for you. Good luck.:thumbsup: