PDA

View Full Version : A note on 12050 license strategy


hoffmang
01-09-2011, 12:35 AM
There are some carry permit "proponents" who wish to point out (http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/index.php?title=chiefs_of_police_do_issue_ccw_s&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1) to gun owners that there are more issuing authorities for carry permits than the 58 sheriffs. I'll simply make a snide remark in retaliation for the snide remarks made by same that CGF has no personal and individual monetary interest in getting you your permit like said proponents since we're all volunteers and many "proponents" are not... volunteer...

However, it is a very true statement that some municipal police departments may be a better source for your 12050 license than your sheriff in certain edge areas. CGF has decided to focus on obtaining compliance from the 58 sheriffs for the following reasons:

1. There are only 58. I've heard a couple of different numbers for Muni PDs in California that range from the 200's to the 400's.

2. Muni PDs can "elect (g)." This means that if you put them in a corner they can all of sudden turn around and abdicate issuance to the sheriff.

3. The law implies that the county sheriff is the final authority - partially because of #2 above.

4. Salute v. Pitchess means that the Sheriff doesn't get a choice and can't play games like #2 above.

CGF is in the fight to get everyone who is not prohibited and who wants one a 12050 permit at the least. "Proponents" have gone on the record saying that populous states like California can't have shall issue because it would be "bad." Proponents have never answered how Michigan, Texas, Florida, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, etc. etc. who have shall issue laws are "bad" because anyone who wants a carry permit can get one. That silence is deafening. :gene:

Because CGF is a community funded organization with limited time and limited budget (and no paid staff other than the lawyers whose bills we pay) we decided to focus on the biggest bang for the donors' buck. The initiatives we've promoted are to get 58 Sheriffs to first have their policies and procedures not be unlawful. Second to have them comply with the Constitution. "Proponents" don't like that because it ends the gravy train that "proponents" make lots of money off of. It was sad for buggy whip manufacturers too. However, "proponents" have gotten far fewer people 12050 licenses than CGF has in solely Sacramento County. "Proponents" have done some good things, but they haven't been and continue to not be focused on the greater good - especially if the greater good can't make them a buck.

Bottom line - if you have heightened cause you may need to look past your sheriff to your muni if it's applicable.

"Proponents" recommendations are sadly littered with some smart things and some amazingly juvenile comments that lack gravitas... A word that proponents may not have been correctly taught on the reservation (which they are using as a silly fiction, but which leaves them open to such derision.)

-Gene

Munk
01-09-2011, 2:16 AM
Hearing explainations of any of the background workings is always interesting.

Thanks for keeping up the good fight, even when those who call themselves "allies" take little snide stabs at CGN.

I look forward to donating.... as soon as I have some kind of income donate.

FailedAngrMgmt
01-09-2011, 2:52 AM
i'll take the 58 counties issuing over no one issuing any day, thanks again Gene for all you do. Just donated again for LA.

41M
01-09-2011, 5:09 AM
Though I undertand the value of focusing on one area (the Sheriffs, in this case). I believe you are missing the point of some proponents regarding Police Chiefs. For example, in the city where I maintain a residence a former Police Chief entered into an agreement with other area Police Chiefs that the San Diego County Sheriff would be the sole issuing authority. When that election was made the city population was probably less than 50,000, however, today the city is approaching a population 200,000. Today much of that population lives, works, and shops within the city. The Police Chief should take back the authority by withdrawing from the agreement and issue permits.

spencerhut
01-09-2011, 5:51 AM
41M, Gene's strategy is dead on, as usual. Stick around a while and you will find over time that Gene and the rest of the Calguns, NRA and CRPA team fighting for our rights on our behalf have a very well thought out plan of attack for nearly every action they take. You can quibble, but like so many others I've seen in the last several years, you will find they have indeed done what will have the most positive impact for the greatest number of us.

Scarecrow Repair
01-09-2011, 6:04 AM
The Police Chief should take back the authority by withdrawing from the agreement and issue permits.

Reread points 2,3,4. If they can "take back" the authority as freely as you suggest, they can also let go just as easily as soon as someone tries to take advantage of that. The police chiefs can't prevent you from going to the sheriff right from the start. Reread point 1 and decide whether to spend money on 58 hard targets, or several hundred slippery targets who can duck back into their foxholes as easily as they can pop up to lure you into wasting money on a useless target.

OleCuss
01-09-2011, 7:31 AM
Another point? If you go through your PD and get your CCW and then your PD decides to assign CCW responsibility to the sheriff - you get to pay for another LiveScan. If you got your CCW through the sheriff and the PD takes back the responsibility - you get to pay for another LiveScan.

CGF is showing strategic brilliance in concentrating on the sheriff departments. If they had unlimited funding/resources it might make sense to work on police departments, but in the real world their strategy is absolutely right.

CSDGuy
01-09-2011, 8:24 AM
Another point? If you go through your PD and get your CCW and then your PD decides to assign CCW responsibility to the sheriff - you get to pay for another LiveScan. If you got your CCW through the sheriff and the PD takes back the responsibility - you get to pay for another LiveScan.

CGF is showing strategic brilliance in concentrating on the sheriff departments. If they had unlimited funding/resources it might make sense to work on police departments, but in the real world their strategy is absolutely right.
You still go through the Sheriff. To do otherwise would be insane. Why? You're a renewal applicant (lower cost) through the Sheriff, even if your Local PD now issues. If you apply through your Local PD, you're a new applicant, with all associated costs. Make sense?

trautert
01-09-2011, 8:31 AM
While I appreciate the background reasoning, my favorite part was visualizing the "proponent" whose silly fiction gets to me like nails on a chalk board.

:)

OleCuss
01-09-2011, 9:55 AM
You still go through the Sheriff. To do otherwise would be insane. Why? You're a renewal applicant (lower cost) through the Sheriff, even if your Local PD now issues. If you apply through your Local PD, you're a new applicant, with all associated costs. Make sense?

I think you're making my argument. Leave the police departments alone and stick with the sheriffs if you possibly can.

Crom
01-09-2011, 9:59 AM
Though I undertand the value of focusing on one area (the Sheriffs, in this case). I believe you are missing the point of some proponents regarding Police Chiefs. For example, in the city where I maintain a residence a former Police Chief entered into an agreement with other area Police Chiefs that the San Diego County Sheriff would be the sole issuing authority. When that election was made the city population was probably less than 50,000, however, today the city is approaching a population 200,000. Today much of that population lives, works, and shops within the city. The Police Chief should take back the authority by withdrawing from the agreement and issue permits.

I thought about this too. It's a nice thought, but it's probably an impossibility in San Diego at this point. You would need the Police Chief to be very pro 2A, and second there would need to be a budget to fund the overhead to process and issue the applications. There would also most likely be political fallout between the Sheriff Gore and the police chief and maybe the city. Also you have the city council to worry about, they can pass a resolution to block and bind the police chief. When you factor all this in you see what a big mess it becomes.

A much simpler approach is what CGF is doing in that get all 58 county sheriffs into statutory compliance and wait for a right-to carry case to win in the federal courts.

Window_Seat
01-09-2011, 10:20 AM
I think you're making my argument. Leave the police departments alone and stick with the sheriffs if you possibly can....
A much simpler approach is what CGF is doing in that get all 58 county sheriffs into statutory compliance and wait for a right-to carry case to win in the federal courts.

In other words, let's all "go eat a sandwich and take a nap", and then wake up in about :twoweeks:

Erik.

Cokebottle
01-09-2011, 10:42 AM
Another point? If you go through your PD and get your CCW and then your PD decides to assign CCW responsibility to the sheriff - you get to pay for another LiveScan. If you got your CCW through the sheriff and the PD takes back the responsibility - you get to pay for another LiveScan.
How so?

In my city, the PD has not elected (g), but they do not issue to citizens.
Their agreement with the SBCSO is that they defer to the county, but reserve the right to issue.
It's one extra step for residents of Chino, who simply "apply" with the PD and receive a letter of denial without prejudice.

Cokebottle
01-09-2011, 10:43 AM
While I appreciate the background reasoning, my favorite part was visualizing the "proponent" whose silly fiction gets to me like nails on a chalk board.

:)
IBBJ



Wait... that doesn't look right :D

thefinger
01-09-2011, 10:57 AM
I like how BillyJack calls this a "NRA wannabe" site, when in reality the CGF makes the NRA look like a bunch of pansies.

CGF has shown that it is unafraid, smart, and extremely effective. I, like many others, have a safe full of scary black rifles and a CCW license due to the efforts of the CGF

While CGF liberates a million people in Sac County, BillyJack says things like "let's not push the issue" and "no sense in rocking the boat."

wildhawker
01-09-2011, 11:09 AM
Cokebottle, if there is no (g) agreement, the city must accept the application. "Reserve the right" is a term if art for "we disregard the Equal Protection clause".

Cokebottle
01-09-2011, 11:43 AM
Cokebottle, if there is no (g) agreement, the city must accept the application. "Reserve the right" is a term if art for "we disregard the Equal Protection clause".
I'm not saying they won't accept the application, but they won't approve it.
In practice, you simply express an interest in getting a CCW (even through email or a phone call) and the city returns a denial w/o P letter that is then taken to the county.
The county SO does require this letter before accepting an application from a resident of a non-contract city.

xenophobe
01-09-2011, 11:51 AM
Though I undertand the value of focusing on one area (the Sheriffs, in this case). I believe you are missing the point of some proponents regarding Police Chiefs. For example, in the city where I maintain a residence a former Police Chief entered into an agreement with other area Police Chiefs that the San Diego County Sheriff would be the sole issuing authority. When that election was made the city population was probably less than 50,000, however, today the city is approaching a population 200,000. Today much of that population lives, works, and shops within the city. The Police Chief should take back the authority by withdrawing from the agreement and issue permits.

CGF can only do so much. If this is something you really believe should be done, try finding a local group of residents who feel the same as you do and work with CGF for advice and try to get it done yourself.

CGF can't do everything for everyone. If they can't focus on it internally, there is nothing wrong with you trying to start your own action group.

But then, you'd actually have to do something other than complain. :rolleyes:

Paladin
01-09-2011, 11:55 AM
I have to say that I agree w/everything in the OP.

Just as the allies leap-frogged over irrelevant islands during the Pacific Campaign in WW II, so CGF is wise to skip most CoPs/PDs.

When someone isn't accomplishing much, if they are a "small man" they'll attack those who are accomplishing things in a vain attempt to remain relevant. Sadly, that is the case here too, Gene.

And speaking of things irrelevant: there is an old saying in politics not to stop to kick every barking dog -- keep focused & keep moving forward.

FirstFlight
01-09-2011, 12:08 PM
I have learned, in my time on The Net, that if you follow Gene and the CGF, you can't go wrong!

wildhawker
01-09-2011, 12:12 PM
Cokebottle, what you're saying is that we need to teach the SO about how this is supposed to work.

People can definitely work with their cities using similar tactics if they wish. However, sometimes the presence of an actively-litigating non-profit and lawyers makes a which letter otherwise would be ignored into a real topic of conversation.

Cokebottle
01-09-2011, 12:15 PM
Cokebottle, what you're saying is that we need to teach the SO about how this is supposed to work.
I agree, but for the time being, that particular step is neither a stumbling block nor overly burdensome.

The first thing we need to "fix" in my county is the reference requirements and "neighborhood check".
Those are the only two things preventing me from applying, since Hoops is as close to shall-issue as you'll find in California.

RobG
01-09-2011, 12:29 PM
I look at it this way; I am more impressed at the CGF liberating entire counties in regards to ccw's than helping obtain one ccw for someone willing/able to pay for such help. The road to virtual shall issue will be paved by taking down entire counties/sheriffs, not by individual ccw issuance.

Cokebottle
01-09-2011, 1:27 PM
I look at it this way; I am more impressed at the CGF liberating entire counties in regards to ccw's than helping obtain one ccw for someone willing/able to pay for such help. The road to virtual shall issue will be paved by taking down entire counties/sheriffs, not by individual ccw issuance.
Absolutely, which is why it doesn't bother me that my county may not be high on the priority list.
We need to go after Baca, Hutchens, Gore, and others who are not only imposing hurdles, but effectively making it impossible for "Joe Average" to obtain a CCW.

1JimMarch
01-09-2011, 8:47 PM
Gene is absolutely correct and is handling business the way it should be handled.

There's only one circumstance in which working at the city level makes sense. And that's if a majority of the city council is known to be pro-RKBA and pro-CCW.

In that event, the town can pass local ordinances that control the actions of the police chief. IN THEORY, the town can order the chief to do shall-issue and not "declare G".

Again: it won't work without an ordinance restricting the chief's choices.

Will this ever happen? Doubtful. But we should know our local politics and know if the conditions for this appear to be in place. CGF cannot be all-knowing in every town and work such conditions!

quiet-wyatt
01-09-2011, 8:58 PM
I have learned, in my time on The Net, that if you follow Gene and the CGF, you can't go wrong!

+1...

taperxz
01-09-2011, 9:15 PM
I blame Gene, Brandon, Bill, Gray, Kes, and everyone else for screwing up this whole strategy!! I think they should have known better!

Damned them for putting out a superior product with well thought out ideas!

wildhawker
01-09-2011, 9:30 PM
Thanks to all the supporters, donors, and volunteers. We couldn't do it without you.

trashman
01-09-2011, 9:35 PM
Folks, just another example CGF's well-thought and well-planned strategy: these folks ARE the "smartest guys in the room" and we are really lucky to have them working on our behalf.

--Neill

NiteQwill
01-09-2011, 9:48 PM
gravitas... damn, I nearly spit out my dinner reading that... ;) :D