PDA

View Full Version : I Just Owned San Diego Sheriff's Office


PsychGuy274
03-25-2011, 11:29 PM
As some of you know San Diego has had the illegal requirement of requiring CCW applicants to provide three character references. After several months of emailing them about it, they finally changed it.

I thought this whole thing was going to be pointless, but this goes to show that a little persistence and knowledge of the law goes a long way!

Below are the emails we've sent back and forth.

This is the first email that I sent out on 12-24-10.

Hello,

I have been reviewing the 'Carry Concealed Weapon' licensing process for San Diego County and I recently noticed a problem. The problem is located on this website -> http://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw.html

Under the "documentation" subsection there are a list of three requirements. The last two are of concern to me.

(2) "Three character reference letters are required to assist in substantiating good moral character."
(3) "These letters must be written by local residents and contain a local address and phone number. Letters will not be accepted from any relatives. The writer must also acknowledge he or she understands the letter is for an application for a concealed weapons license."

Based on reading the Penal Code (specifically sections 12050-12054) I noticed that requiring an applicant to supply 'character references' is actually an illegal requirement.

12051(a)(3)(C) of the California Penal Code states, "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 subparagraph (A), except to clarify or interpret information provided by the applicant on the standard application form."

Additionally, 12054(d) of the California Penal Code states, "Except as authorized pursuant to subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), no requirement, charge, assessment, fee, or condition that requires the payment of any additional funds by the applicant may be imposed by any licensing authority as a condition of the application for a license."

I strongly recommend that you read through this document -> http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/downloads/documents/CGF_Civilian_CCW_Guide.pdf for further information on California's CCW issuance laws.

I would appreciate a return email when this matter has been taken care of.

Thank you very much for your time,

Concerned Citizen

Within a few hours I got this reply.

Good Afternoon,

I will forward your message to our License Division. If they desire any changes to the website content, I will be happy to take care of it for them. Thanks for writing.

I immediately replied. I know I got a little harsh on this next part, but I got really upset at the previous response.

I don't mean to sound brash, but to state, "If they desire," Implies that they have a choice; which they do not. This is not about a random, arbitrary rule that I personally disagree with; this is the law. And San Diego Sheriffs Department is a government run law enforcement agency. They are currently requiring something from applicants that is illegal.

I'm sorry, but they don't have a choice and what they "desire" to do is completely irrelevant; they have to change it.

I received this reply about an hour later.

In being brief I may have over-simplified my answer to you. It would have been more complete to say that I have forwarded your message to the License Division and to the Sheriff's Legal Advisor. They will have an opportunity to evaluate what you have submitted, and if they determine a change to policy or website content is warranted, I will be happy to make the change on the web. I don't doubt the sincerity of your opinion, but we rely on the legal advice of our legal counsel in setting or revising policy. Thanks again.

Fast forward three months. At this point I kind of forgot about it for a while. Yesterday I remembered it and checked out the website and noticed that they hadn't changed it. I decided to email them again.

Hello,

It has been three months to the day since our last correspondence and I am curious as to the progress of the changes to your policies. In reviewing the CCW application website I have noticed that the illegal requirement of having three character references has not been eliminated. While this greatly concerns me I understand that there must have been an oversight or there have been more important matters at hand. However, I feel that as a law enforcement agency, you must take every precaution to ensure that your guidelines and policies are within the law.

Please keep me updated on the ETA for the change of this illegal requirement of CCW applicants.

Sincerely,

Concerned Citizen

And I just got this reply back about 20 minutes ago.

The site has been edited to reflect the change in requirements.

I just checked their website and I can confirm that they indeed have changed it!

Sometimes I feel like I'm backed into a corner being a firearm owner in this state. But this has showed me that as long as you're persistent and have the proper knowledge behind you, you can influence those around you.

ChrisTKHarris
03-25-2011, 11:32 PM
Very cool! :)

Lone_Gunman
03-25-2011, 11:32 PM
Great job!

Outta Control
03-25-2011, 11:34 PM
Congrads.

Gray Peterson
03-25-2011, 11:34 PM
I just check their website and I can confirm that they indeed have changed it!

Sometimes I feel like I'm backed into a corner being a firearm owner in this state. But this has showed me that as long as you're persistent and have the proper knowledge behind you, you can influence those around you.

:King:

Liberty1
03-25-2011, 11:36 PM
Three cheers for you AND those who saw the light! ;)

PatriotnMore
03-25-2011, 11:36 PM
Nice job. That's how we make change, get involved and keep their feet to the fire.

Mr. Burns
03-25-2011, 11:40 PM
Good job!

wildhawker
03-25-2011, 11:40 PM
This is awesome! Well done!

RayDequina
03-25-2011, 11:41 PM
Me likey. Me likey a lot.

ZirconJohn
03-25-2011, 11:41 PM
Mannn... that is AWESOME!!!

Nice job :thumbsup:

llamatrnr
03-25-2011, 11:43 PM
WELL DONE!

Kerplow
03-25-2011, 11:46 PM
:thumbsup:!

Veggie
03-25-2011, 11:47 PM
Nicely done.

PsychGuy274
03-25-2011, 11:47 PM
OMG I feel so special right now :D

And please, feel free to use my emails as a guideline to modify to your liking and send to other agencies with similar illegal requirements. There's no reason this has to stop here!

peopleofthesun
03-25-2011, 11:49 PM
That is awesome! Good Job!

ale014
03-25-2011, 11:57 PM
OMG I feel so special right now :D

And please, feel free to use my emails as a guideline to modify to your liking and send to other agencies with similar illegal requirements. There's no reason this has to stop here!

don't mind if i do

Thanks for the effort!

'/pat on the back/

wildhawker
03-25-2011, 11:58 PM
OMG I feel so special right now :D

And please, feel free to use my emails as a guideline to modify to your liking and send to other agencies with similar illegal requirements. There's no reason this has to stop here!

This stuff takes real effort, and you're right that it shouldn't stop here. Call or write your licensing authority and inform them of what they *should* be doing. Use the flowchart and guide (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/downloads/documents/CGF_Civilian_CCW_Guide.pdf) at www.gotcarry.org for help navigating the convoluted code.

-Brandon

760practicalshooter
03-26-2011, 12:00 AM
:hurray::mnl:

Zak
03-26-2011, 12:00 AM
Very cool! One step at a time, I'm hoping we see shall-issue in San Diego County soon :D

domokun
03-26-2011, 12:06 AM
Bravo Zulu! Job well done sir! :thumbsup:

battleship
03-26-2011, 12:07 AM
Great job, i very much enjoyed reading your rebuttal to there first response.

How can they just make stuff up that is not to the law and insert it into legal protocall.

Its like changing the law just to be able to get an arrest on someone who would otherwise be not guilty, its just crazy.

oaklander
03-26-2011, 12:13 AM
Reading this thread makes me very happy!!!!

:D

If everyone in our society questioned authority this way, there would be many less problems. . . or as we call them - opportunities (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=391104). . .

PsychGuy274
03-26-2011, 12:13 AM
Great job, i very much enjoyed reading your rebuttal to there first response.

How can they just make stuff up that is not to the law and insert it into legal protocall.

Its like changing the law just to be able to get an arrest on someone who would otherwise be not guilty, its just crazy.

I wouldn't go that far.

I highly doubt their old policy was a deliberate attempt to break the law. A lot us on Calguns spend hours a day attempting to decode the California Penal Code. A lot of times we fail and/or come up short due to how complex it is because we're human. Those individuals that run law enforcement agencies are also human and are prone to the same inadequacies as us when attempting to decipher the penal code. After all, they did rectify the situation.

GOEX FFF
03-26-2011, 12:15 AM
Great Job! I feel a lot here contributes due to the substance of how you presented your facts to them… simple, clear and to the point, rather than some full out rant.

How one presents themselves goes well and above the rest.

Again, nice job and good on them as well, even if it did take another need for contact and three months later. :rolleyes:

Tallestsniper
03-26-2011, 12:19 AM
Good job buddy!

oaklander
03-26-2011, 12:19 AM
I tend to agree with this. There is a company that writes these for counties (I can't remember the name), and it is possible that this company may have accidentally inserted errors. Again, I don't know - but it is possible.

I highly doubt their old policy was a deliberate attempt to break the law.

battleship
03-26-2011, 12:24 AM
Well i dont know how they write laws but surely someone has the job of reviewing it once its written, proof read at least.

Oh yer, it was you.

69Mach1
03-26-2011, 12:26 AM
Wow, way to go.

wildhawker
03-26-2011, 12:33 AM
In the case of San Diego, and a few others, there is evidence it was intentional. Most are due to disinterested in the issue.

oaklander
03-26-2011, 12:38 AM
The issue is that each county can set its own "administrative policy." I don't know - but it appears that some counties may have paid a company to write these policies for them.

I really do not know more than that.

"Proof reading" is what happens after the lawyer "reviews" a document. It is usually done by a staff person.

Well i dont know how they write laws but surely someone has the job of reviewing it once its written, proof read at least.

Oh yer, it was you.

hornswaggled
03-26-2011, 12:38 AM
Very nice work!

I do not think this was an honest mistake on their part. This appears to be yet another way LEA are putting up barriers to entry in the hopes that interested parties will simply think it's too hard to apply for a CCW and give up. There is nothing honest about making up illegal requirements and seeing how long they can get away with it before someone like OP calls them out on it.

sdjetpilot
03-26-2011, 12:42 AM
Nice! One person CAN make a difference!

nick
03-26-2011, 12:44 AM
Good job.

As for it being unintentional, we aren't talking about typos here. It looks like an attempt to discourage the prospective applicants before they even apply. It's not like such tactics are very uncommon in this state.

Kid Stanislaus
03-26-2011, 12:48 AM
Sometimes you've just got to step into the batter's box and swing the bat. You did so in a admirable fashion!

B Strong
03-26-2011, 5:18 AM
Good job!

yakmon
03-26-2011, 5:52 AM
well done!

The Shadow
03-26-2011, 6:00 AM
This is great news, so now somebody needs to give the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department a smack down because they require 3 written references and four references that they personally contact. They only get away with this stuff when no one holds their feet to the fire and tells them that what they are doing is illegal.

GrizzlyGuy
03-26-2011, 6:31 AM
Good work! One man or woman can make a difference.

A while back I wrote my local police chief a letter asking him to fix an illegal aspect of their CCW policy and got positive results (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=5622939#post5622939). Our chief is actually pretty cool. He's going to be the guest chef at one of local restaurants (http://www.sierrasun.com/ARTICLE/20110325/COMMUNITY/110329942) and cook up some Decomposed Fried Oyster Po' Boy with Caper Remulade Sauce (among other dishes). I might have to drop by, pig out and threaten to withhold his tip unless he publishes the new policy. :43:

Hogstir
03-26-2011, 6:40 AM
I notice that the OC Sheriff has the same requirement of 3 letters of reference.

OleCuss
03-26-2011, 6:59 AM
I'd like to tell you what you did wrong - but I can't find anything wrong at all.

Even your tone was pretty much exactly what I think it should have been.

Beautifully done!

Soldier415
03-26-2011, 7:00 AM
Well done Sir!

mikaarce
03-26-2011, 7:01 AM
Now, if one person can do it, imagine what collective effort can do.

NotEnufGarage
03-26-2011, 7:24 AM
I notice that the OC Sheriff has the same requirement of 3 letters of reference.

Have you sent them an email or letter, yet?

Paladin
03-26-2011, 7:41 AM
This is a good example of why, last time I checked which was a few months ago, not a single Bay Area county sheriff's office had info re. CCWs on their websites. Fortunately, Kilmer points out in his complaint that Santa Clara Co had not posted their policy online. Thus, the judge may address that issue in their decision.

Speaking of which, you may have been lucky in your timing and inadvertently ridden the coattails of CGF. The Scocca lawsuit was filed on 18 March. It was announced by CGF on 24 March. Your follow up email was on 25 March. I wonder if they would have been so cooperative if you followed up on 17 March. Either way, good news.

craneman
03-26-2011, 7:41 AM
Well done, sir! PsychGuy, I would like to thank you as well for your efforts.

guns4life
03-26-2011, 7:48 AM
Well done, however the reference letters are not the biggest problem(or any real problem IMO). If somebody can do something about the required bank account statements showing cash deposits I would be excited...

Hogstir
03-26-2011, 7:49 AM
Just sent an email to the OC Sheriff concerning the same requirement.

They also require a copy of your DD214. Anyone know if this is legal since this is a requirement that people who did not serve are not required to fill?

Drivedabizness
03-26-2011, 8:03 AM
OP - great job! Tip o the hat, Sir!

Hogstir - can't answer the legalities of your question but would be interested in hearing more about what you find out. Your DD214 would show any offenses you committed while serving. (and even non-judicial punishments depending on the re-enlistment code practices of your branch)

greasemonkey
03-26-2011, 8:18 AM
Now, if one person can do it, imagine what collective effort can do.

Wheels are turning in my head right now :)

wizard101
03-26-2011, 8:27 AM
Link to said website showing "changes" or it did not happen.
Somebody has to be the skeptic. Enough lemmings around here.

G60
03-26-2011, 8:30 AM
Link to said website showing "changes" or it did not happen.
Somebody has to be the skeptic. Enough lemmings around here.

Pff.

jnojr
03-26-2011, 8:34 AM
While nice, nobody is getting a CCW from Gore that wasn't getting one before.

glockman19
03-26-2011, 8:41 AM
Great Job...Thanks

Nick1236
03-26-2011, 8:42 AM
Thats awesome! Good job

wizard101
03-26-2011, 8:43 AM
Not like they're gonna be handing out CCW's as if they are M & M's tomorrow..............

oaklander
03-26-2011, 8:47 AM
Have you applied for your CCW yet?

Not like they're gonna be handing out CCW's as if they are M & M's tomorrow..............

Low-Pressure
03-26-2011, 8:52 AM
That's awesome! :hurray:

Boo_Radley
03-26-2011, 9:04 AM
Excellent work, PsychGuy. How do I send you my CGF-like Paypal donation? :rolleyes:

Luieburger
03-26-2011, 9:04 AM
Wow! This is pretty impressive!

loather
03-26-2011, 9:11 AM
WIN

woodey
03-26-2011, 9:13 AM
:clap:

mrvash
03-26-2011, 9:30 AM
Bravo sir! hats off to you, good job.

oaklander
03-26-2011, 9:39 AM
Yes, as you know - this particular policy ("letters") appears to be somewhat attractive to some Sheriff's departments. I can understand the reasoning, but I disagree with it, since it's contrary to law - and ethically, I am supposed to support the laws as written, or reasonable interpretations of the laws as written.

For the reasons that we discussed, I can't really say more than this.

In the case of San Diego, and a few others, there is evidence it was intentional.

DougJ
03-26-2011, 9:44 AM
Awesome job!

http://ih2.redbubble.net/work.6834382.2.sticker,375x360.charlie-sheen-winning-t-shirt-blank-background-v1.png

goober
03-26-2011, 9:57 AM
good work!
one step at a time....

xXBigJoeXx
03-26-2011, 10:05 AM
Thank You!! Great Job :thumbsup: :party:

Legasat
03-26-2011, 10:15 AM
Well done Sir.

Your fellow San Dogs appreciate it!!!

N6ATF
03-26-2011, 10:22 AM
Good, but isn't it possible they only changed the website, and not their actual illegal policy?

PsychGuy274
03-26-2011, 10:25 AM
Now, if one person can do it, imagine what collective effort can do.

That what I said earlier. We need to attack things like this head on.

Well done, however the reference letters are not the biggest problem(or any real problem IMO). If somebody can do something about the required bank account statements showing cash deposits I would be excited...

It might not seem like that big of a deal, but you have to look beyond the actual change itself. A law enforcement agency was actively breaking the law. Most people here tend to be pessimistic (as am I) and believe that a single person can't change or influence those that are "above" us.

I mean, who am I? I'm just some college kid who likes guns and I got them to revise their policy. Chess, not checkers.

Link to said website showing "changes" or it did not happen.
Somebody has to be the skeptic. Enough lemmings around here.

Really? :rolleyes:

Have you tried going to the San Diego Sheriff's Office website and looking for yourself?

While nice, nobody is getting a CCW from Gore that wasn't getting one before.

Again, chess, not checkers. A win is a win, no matter how small it might seem.

Have you applied for your CCW yet?

Not yet, but I'm going to soon.

Not yet

PsychGuy274
03-26-2011, 10:27 AM
Good, but isn't it possible they only changed the website, and not their actual illegal policy?

I thought about that which is why I'm going to apply for my CCW soon. Then I'll know.

Acorn sting anyone? :D

k1dude
03-26-2011, 11:00 AM
Thank you for single handedly taking on the issue and affecting change. One big thumbs up from all CA gun owners to you!

vintagearms
03-26-2011, 11:01 AM
:clap:

wildhawker
03-26-2011, 11:16 AM
I thought about that which is why I'm going to apply for my CCW soon. Then I'll know.

Acorn sting anyone? :D

Do not record them at their office; keep things simple and avoid doing things for which you'll likely require expensive lawyers.

-Brandon

tomd1584
03-26-2011, 11:22 AM
very cool, thanks for your efforts.

PsychGuy274
03-26-2011, 11:39 AM
Do not record them at their office; keep things simple and avoid doing things for which you'll likely require expensive lawyers.

-Brandon

I know, but thanks for the heads up. It was supposed to be a joke. ;)

Monte
03-26-2011, 11:41 AM
That is absolutely awesome. Thank you, and fantastic job!

:King:

Monte
03-26-2011, 12:04 PM
Have you applied for your CCW yet?

Should we be applying in SD county now? I thought we were still waiting on good cause statements or something like that?

southernsnowshoe
03-26-2011, 12:17 PM
I just checked their website and I can confirm that they indeed have changed it!





This is EPIC!
I feel a shift in the universe......Lol.

even though I am about as qualified as any business owner can be under san diego county requirements, I would feel like a hypocrite to go through the CCW process now after getting into UOC.
Until san diego becomes shall issue, I will UOC.
For me I would love to see legal LOC, but hey any win is still a win, good work bro.

bomb_on_bus
03-26-2011, 12:33 PM
Good job!

Sounds like someone on the other end wasn't getting the message until you hammered them with it. I wonder how many others out there came across the same issue only to give up after their first try.

Glad you stayed persistent with it.

sfpcservice
03-26-2011, 12:42 PM
I tend to agree with this. There is a company that writes these for counties (I can't remember the name), and it is possible that this company may have accidentally inserted errors. Again, I don't know - but it is possible.

I beleive the company you reference may be lexipole. My city had a self-authored CCW policy that I received in the mail in response to a PRAR. Their response had taken so long that I got tired of waiting and went down to the PD office to have them print one up right there, which they did. The policy they printed was a brand spanking new lexipol policy! The one I received in the mail a couple days later was the old self-authored policy!

We got a new police chief around that time, so I'm guessing he realized the old policy may have been used by the old chief to issue in violation of the 14th. I'm guessing he realized this when my PRAR and request for an application came in and he promptly ordered one up from Lexipol so he could say "no one has been issued/denied unfairly under the "new" policy. They seemed very resistant to CCW, slow to respond to PRAR and didn't respond at all to voicemails. I ended up asking them to send me a denial letter because My SO wouldn't accept an application from a resident of a City unless they had gone through local PD 1st. I finally got my letter from PD denying my CCW and was granted one by my Sheriff.

One day I'd like to find out if my City Council members, their friends and or the city manager all had CCW's from the PD... But with my Sheriff deciding to give them out to most applicants and having a new Police Chief and a CCW I decided not to pursue it.

I did see one of my council-members in a coffee shop yesterday and was curious if he would have to pay for his coffee..... Which he did. :D

MrClamperSir
03-26-2011, 12:45 PM
Link to said website showing "changes" or it did not happen. Somebody has to be the skeptic. Enough lemmings around here.
Not like they're gonna be handing out CCW's as if they are M & M's tomorrow..............
:troll: Threadcrap somewhere else on the internet, NOT HERE!


To the OP, great job!

PsychGuy274
03-26-2011, 12:46 PM
This is EPIC!
I feel a shift in the universe......Lol.

even though I am about as qualified as any business owner can be under san diego county requirements, I would feel like a hypocrite to go through the CCW process now after getting into UOC.
Until san diego becomes shall issue, I will UOC.
For me I would love to see legal LOC, but hey any win is still a win, good work bro.

There's a thread that suggests applying for a CCW if you UOC. The denial could help you if something were to happen.

thatrogue
03-26-2011, 12:56 PM
Wheels are turning in my head right now :)

Maybe the CGF can organize us 60,000 strong against one sheriff at time. Just don't allow them to address any other issue on the non-emergency line than ours.

PsychGuy274
03-26-2011, 1:02 PM
Maybe the CGF can organize us 60,000 strong against one sheriff at time. Just don't allow them to address any other issue on the non-emergency line than ours.

lol, could you imagine? :43:

I'll keep this in mind and see if I can think of something.

wildhawker
03-26-2011, 1:05 PM
Guys, we have a volunteer database for a reason. Let's please not indiscriminately apply pressure en masse as it dilutes the effectiveness of our efforts. Tactical application of force is the key.

southernsnowshoe
03-26-2011, 1:05 PM
There's a thread that suggests applying for a CCW if you UOC. The denial could help you if something were to happen.



Yes, that makes sense.


I have heard stories of CCW holders in san diego, losing their license becouse the people who wrote the letters of reference, for whatever reason, later revoked their support. I guess this is reason enough to take away a CCW, without any investigation.

bwiese
03-26-2011, 1:22 PM
Good work.
Thank you!

goober
03-26-2011, 1:26 PM
Guys, we have a volunteer database for a reason. Let's please not indiscriminately apply pressure en masse as it dilutes the effectiveness of our efforts. Tactical application of force is the key.

THIS^

guys it might be best to check in with Brandon and the other folks overseeing the Sunshine Initiative before acting.
while the OP's efforts were successful and to be commended, what we DON'T need is a whole bunch of folks going off every which way or coordinating efforts that may derail or be contrary to those of the Initiative. let's work as a team, not a disorganized rabble.

modernchaos
03-26-2011, 2:19 PM
Congrats to OP, nice job, glad to see your efforts paid off.

Zdiddy
03-26-2011, 2:28 PM
Great job, my friend.

PsychGuy274
03-26-2011, 3:12 PM
Guys, we have a volunteer database for a reason. Let's please not indiscriminately apply pressure en masse as it dilutes the effectiveness of our efforts. Tactical application of force is the key.

Noted. Thanks.

Firemark
03-26-2011, 5:14 PM
Dont bother, I went in for my prescreening interview last month,(Feb 28th,2011) after spending some time crafting and developing my GC statement with professional help from ccwusa.org. I thought I had a good solid statement too, but the clerk told me flat out, and I have it on tape, "We cant give you a ccw, if we give you one then every other Firefighter will come in here and want one." That was the reason given why it would fail, not that my reasons for danger to myself or family, but because they dont want the door opened for others to get their ccw's

Then she went on to blather about liability and lack of documented threats, and its unsafe if we gave everyone a ccw. The fact that I regularly testify in court against criminals I encounter as a first responder didnt matter. She then told me I need a letter from my employer detailing the need for me to have a ccw AND 3 letters of reference from people who are not family. So, for just having changed the website looks like that info didnt make it down to the interviewers, they are still using the illegal requirements.

and before all you nay sayers start on the band wagon, I already have my Florida and Utah out of state permits, told her that too, still didnt matter. Sheriff Gore has to many liberal and democratic supporters pulling his strings. I recently saw Gore with the SDPD chief and Lori Saldana at a function together shaking hands and being very buddy buddy. There is an anti gun agenda and it is being controlled by elected and appointed peoples. Dont think anything short of a federal court order will change anything in this state.

PsychGuy274
03-26-2011, 5:39 PM
Then she went on to blather about liability and lack of documented threats, and its unsafe if we gave everyone a ccw. The fact that I regularly testify in court against criminals I encounter as a first responder didnt matter. She then told me I need a letter from my employer detailing the need for me to have a ccw AND 3 letters of reference from people who are not family. So, for just having changed the website looks like that info didnt make it down to the interviewers, they are still using the illegal requirements.


They changed it last night.

wentbig
03-26-2011, 6:13 PM
Psych274, " Let the dogs out "

JeepFreak
03-26-2011, 6:18 PM
Hell yeah man! Good Job!!
Billy

Noobie
03-26-2011, 6:22 PM
Thank you very much.

southernsnowshoe
03-26-2011, 6:28 PM
Dont bother, I went in for my prescreening interview last month,(Feb 28th,2011) after spending some time crafting and developing my GC statement with professional help from ccwusa.org. I thought I had a good solid statement too, but the clerk told me flat out, and I have it on tape, "We cant give you a ccw, if we give you one then every other Firefighter will come in here and want one." That was the reason given why it would fail, not that my reasons for danger to myself or family, but because they dont want the door opened for others to get their ccw's

Then she went on to blather about liability and lack of documented threats, and its unsafe if we gave everyone a ccw. The fact that I regularly testify in court against criminals I encounter as a first responder didnt matter. She then told me I need a letter from my employer detailing the need for me to have a ccw AND 3 letters of reference from people who are not family. So, for just having changed the website looks like that info didnt make it down to the interviewers, they are still using the illegal requirements.

and before all you nay sayers start on the band wagon, I already have my Florida and Utah out of state permits, told her that too, still didnt matter. Sheriff Gore has to many liberal and democratic supporters pulling his strings. I recently saw Gore with the SDPD chief and Lori Saldana at a function together shaking hands and being very buddy buddy. There is an anti gun agenda and it is being controlled by elected and appointed peoples. Dont think anything short of a federal court order will change anything in this state.


And there it is.
They are not wanting the legal issues that might arise from the 3 letter requirement, and at the same time they are not worried about having to really issue that many more permits because few citizens can still qualify under "good cause"



Yeah, and think for just a minute what that woman said, something like "we can't have every firefighter coming in here and expecting a CCW"................that is the logic of the people who work for us, the people who go out of their way to take from you your constitutional rights. Did she go on to explain why it would be a threat to public safety to let a fireman carry a gun?

And people have asked me why I won't apply....................I can see myself telling that woman to go fuc* herself, and telling Gore he should be tried for murder for Ruby Ridge. To jump through so many hoops, just for some overpaid piec* of shi* to tell me I have no 2nd amendment rights...............no thanks.

What the OP did here was a good thing, it is still going to take some form of financial loss for the county of san diego, or maybe the reversal of peruta, to change anything substantially.

Andy Taylor
03-26-2011, 6:42 PM
Good job!

Zomgie
03-26-2011, 6:53 PM
Every bit helps. Thank you, sir!

Fjold
03-26-2011, 7:40 PM
Outstanding Job!

safewaysecurity
03-26-2011, 7:49 PM
You could teach wildhawker a thing or two XD. Just teasing. Great job!

TurboChrisB
03-26-2011, 7:58 PM
Great job!

Quser.619
03-26-2011, 8:53 PM
Another fellow San Diegan, business owner that is grateful for the effort!

Crom
03-26-2011, 10:26 PM
Good job PsychGuy! They were on the wrong side of the law and they did not want to escalate the issue.

Firemark, you should insist they take the application and process it. Go through all the hoops regardless of their opinion.

keefbeef
03-26-2011, 11:05 PM
:rockon::punk:

chesterthehero
03-26-2011, 11:08 PM
good job!!

xmustanguyx
03-27-2011, 12:02 AM
Had to give you another round of congrats! You have more patience than me!

Firemark
03-27-2011, 8:53 AM
Firemark, you should insist they take the application and process it. Go through all the hoops regardless of their opinion.

Already talked to the Fire Chief, the department will not issue any letters, they do not want to get involved in the politics or but heads with Gore.

Its important to note, that I asked the Fire Chief in front of Sheriff Gore, in person during down time at a public event. Gore said nothing he just quietly walked away. So I will not have a letter from my employer stating any need, so they will flat out deny the application for being incomplete and not properly documented.

I dont want to pay money and insist they process it knowing it will be denied. I do not want ever have to fill out a future ccw application and have to answer yes to the question "have you ever been turned down for a ccw permit before."

I can appreciate everyones opinion to just send it in anyways, but they will not change their minds, they are set in their ways and will only change if forced by the courts or they get voted out of office.

wildhawker
03-27-2011, 9:38 AM
Firemark, I also think you might consider applying. Denials for reasons unrelated to prohibitions are meaningless.

Glock22Fan
03-27-2011, 9:42 AM
Well done!

D-Man
03-27-2011, 3:08 PM
I tend to agree with this. There is a company that writes these for counties (I can't remember the name), and it is possible that this company may have accidentally inserted errors. Again, I don't know - but it is possible.

It is Lexipol that writes the policy and letters for a lot of the local PD / SO in the state.

vinson
03-27-2011, 4:25 PM
Dude!!!!!!!!

southernsnowshoe
03-27-2011, 8:03 PM
Firemark, I also think you might consider applying. Denials for reasons unrelated to prohibitions are meaningless.


And he should subject himself to this degradation, why?
It is going to prove what? These people know better than you how you should live, why empower them? I would rather slam my penis in a car door than sit in front of a bureaucrat and beg for my constitutional right.

As far as I am concerned, UOC is a better option, carry it and rub it in their face.

jpigeon
03-27-2011, 9:48 PM
for he is a jolly good fellow

Bigbear
03-27-2011, 10:08 PM
Right on! Great work!

wildhawker
03-27-2011, 10:12 PM
You are offended at the suggestion that he attempt to acquire a license to carry a functional firearm (read: loaded), yet see nothing improper about your projection of values upon him and all readers?

Something tells me that you might just get your wish of slamming your own penis in a door.

-Brandon

And he should subject himself to this degradation, why?

It is going to prove what? These people know better than you how you should live, why empower them? I would rather slam my penis in a car door than sit in front of a bureaucrat and beg for my constitutional right.

As far as I am concerned, UOC is a better option, carry it and rub it in their face.

N6ATF
03-27-2011, 10:24 PM
And he should subject himself to this degradation, why?
It is going to prove what? These people know better than you how you should live, why empower them? I would rather slam my penis in a car door than sit in front of a bureaucrat and beg for my constitutional right.

As far as I am concerned, UOC is a better option, carry it and rub it in their face.

Either way, the .gov is going to be slamming your penis in a door. It may or may not be a car's.

Liberty1
03-27-2011, 10:31 PM
As far as I am concerned, UOC is a better option, carry it and rub it in their face.

Do you have a birth certificate, social security card, drivers license, any credential or license required by law for work? Do you comply with compulsory education laws in this state if you have children?

U in UOC is as much a acquiescence to authority as anything else. Carry LOC or CCW sans license, and I could respect your actions at least on a consistency basis.

southernsnowshoe
03-27-2011, 10:45 PM
You are offended at the suggestion that he attempt to acquire a license to carry a functional firearm (read: loaded), yet see nothing improper about your projection of values upon him and all readers?

Something tells me that you might just get your wish of slamming your own penis in a door.

-Brandon


I am letting him know I feel his pain.
I live in the same county, I have had alot of contact with all levels of government in this county.
As far as slamming doors, they want documented threats and/or cash business withdraw slips, I can show both.
So I guess brandon, that makes my life more valuable somehow? Is that how you see it? If I am approved under this currupt system, it is not becouse my life means a damn thing, its becouse I might have 20 or 30 grand in a bag to pay a customer, and in the eyes of san diego county, that is worth defending, the lives of its regular citizens are not. I won't be a hypocrite.

southernsnowshoe
03-27-2011, 11:00 PM
Do you have a birth certificate, social security card, drivers license, any credential or license required by law for work? Do you comply with compulsory education laws in this state if you have children?

U in UOC is as much a acquiescence to authority as anything else. Carry LOC or CCW sans license, and I could respect your actions at least on a consistency basis.

well I have never been denied a birth certificate, social security card, or a drivers license for lack of good cause, howabout you smart guy, have you?

maxwellca21
03-27-2011, 11:02 PM
OP, you must be bored.

wildhawker
03-27-2011, 11:07 PM
So, you refuse to arm yourself because of an expectation of guilt based solely on your exercise of a fundamental right while your comrades possibly could not?

No need to preach to me, southern, but I hope that you wouldn't discourage (or disparage) others because you seem to have forgotten that 1 is still > 0.

-Brandon

wildhawker
03-27-2011, 11:12 PM
OP, you must be bored.

If that's being "bored", then I hope many people are "bored" enough to step up and engage their elected and appointed officials.

"In the final analysis, rights in a Republic are protected by the people themselves. If civic virtu does not reside in the people - no constitution, no bill of rights, no legislative body and no court will be able to preserve our liberties.... Keep educating your neighbors and friends about the legacy of freedom that founded this nation and remind them what it takes to keep it free." --Don Kilmer

southernsnowshoe
03-27-2011, 11:30 PM
So, you refuse to arm yourself because of an expectation of guilt based solely on your exercise of a fundamental right while your comrades possibly could not?

No need to preach to me, southern, but I hope that you wouldn't discourage (or disparage) others because you seem to have forgotten that 1 is still > 0.

-Brandon



Really the whole process just turns my stomach, granted my exposure to the permit process has been limited, I have heard all of the stories, I have the forms, I have spoken briefly about it with my lawyer, and there it lays.
The last thing I would want to do is discourage anyone from trying to obtain a CCW, I just won't take any of these people's shi*, and I support this fireman, and I look forward to the day when we can all carry any damn way we want, just like that faraway, mystical place, arizona.

Citizen 14
03-27-2011, 11:59 PM
Good job OP. One step at a time!

wildhawker
03-28-2011, 12:14 AM
I think we probably agree more than we disagree, if we disagree at all. Until such time that we and others can be as free as those in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont, and (soon) Wyoming, let's continue to arm as many peaceful, law-abiding people as possible using every available vehicle.

-Brandon

Really the whole process just turns my stomach, granted my exposure to the permit process has been limited, I have heard all of the stories, I have the forms, I have spoken briefly about it with my lawyer, and there it lays.
The last thing I would want to do is discourage anyone from trying to obtain a CCW, I just won't take any of these people's shi*, and I support this fireman, and I look forward to the day when we can all carry any damn way we want, just like that faraway, mystical place, arizona.

oaklander
03-28-2011, 1:25 AM
I actually support many of the people who UOC for legitimate reasons. However, I do not think it is a good means of "protest."

It's overly phallic, and plays right into media stereotypes of gun owners. As does your post, once I got rid of the extra and meaningless words.

I would rather slam my penis in a car door [. . .] and rub it in their face.

southernsnowshoe
03-28-2011, 10:59 AM
I actually support many of the people who UOC for legitimate reasons. However, I do not think it is a good means of "protest."

It's overly phallic, and plays right into media stereotypes of gun owners. As does your post, once I got rid of the extra and meaningless words.


If you want to lecture someone about their words, lecture your kids. If you want something to bitc* at, go buy a dog.

I will speak my mind here (untill they throw me off) the same as I speak it anywhere else. you are nobody to decide if someone is carrying for "legitimate" reasons.

PsychGuy274
03-28-2011, 12:18 PM
OP, you must be bored.

At least I'm contributing to the community, unlike what you're doing by making troll posts. :rolleyes:

trevilli
03-28-2011, 12:36 PM
That you p0wn3d (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=p0wn3d) the SD Sheriff's office :D

All victories make me smile, no matter if they are large or small. How ironic that the Sheriff's office needs to be reminded that they too must follow the law.

Good job PG.

FERGUSON
03-28-2011, 12:41 PM
riverside has the same requirements in order to get the permit.....

PsychGuy274
03-28-2011, 12:42 PM
riverside has the same requirements in order to get the permit.....

I know, that's my next project ;)

trevilli
03-28-2011, 12:44 PM
Really the whole process just turns my stomach, granted my exposure to the permit process has been limited, I have heard all of the stories, I have the forms, I have spoken briefly about it with my lawyer, and there it lays.
The last thing I would want to do is discourage anyone from trying to obtain a CCW, I just won't take any of these people's shi*, and I support this fireman, and I look forward to the day when we can all carry any damn way we want, just like that faraway, mystical place, arizona.
I have similar thoughts southern. The whole idea of begging and pleading (by proving "good cause") in order to exercise a fundamental right makes me sick. It isn't a right if you have to ask permission. I don't think that analogies made to acquiring a social security card or driver's license hold, because those are not fundamental rights. I live in San Mateo county, and I refuse to try to come up with a good cause statement written in "lawyerese" to try to justify the exercising of my rights. I'm not in the same situation as you, i.e., I don't carry large sums of money, nor have I been specifically targeted. I have no "good cause" outside of wanting the ability to defend myself. My family lives in Ohio, and they have shall-issue, as opposed to constitutional carry, but I would take that in a heartbeat to the so called might (but probably won't) issue system we have here.

wildhawker
03-28-2011, 12:50 PM
Psych please don't yet move on SB. We have too many moving parts that can be upset by uncoordinated but well intentioned efforts. PM me your cell number.

PsychGuy274
03-28-2011, 12:52 PM
Got it. PM inbound.

southernsnowshoe
03-28-2011, 1:28 PM
I have similar thoughts southern. The whole idea of begging and pleading (by proving "good cause") in order to exercise a fundamental right makes me sick. It isn't a right if you have to ask permission..


And you know as well as I do that the whole "bank statements and cash deposits" part of "good cause" is just another way to get access to your financial information, its the biggest reason why I did not apply 15 years ago.

I run a legitimate business and always have, but what happens in my business is my business, and not that of the sherriffs dept.

trevilli
03-28-2011, 1:35 PM
And you know as well as I do that the
I run a legitimate business and always have, but what happens in my business is my business, and not that of the sherriffs dept.

I can't disagree with your sentiment. Not sure how it works in other states, but I know in Ohio at least, you aren't required to "list your CCW guns" on your application, nor do you have to range qualify. The only thing required is that you attend an approved course which covers the legal aspects of self defense (a condition I am not opposed to). After the classroom portion (totals 6 hours I think), the instructor wants to see you load and discharge your weapon. That's it. Again, the amount of restrictions placed on us here in California turns a supposed right into a groveling session before your duly elected sheriff.

guns4life
03-28-2011, 3:11 PM
And you know as well as I do that the whole "bank statements and cash deposits" part of "good cause" is just another way to get access to your financial information, its the biggest reason why I did not apply 15 years ago.

I run a legitimate business and always have, but what happens in my business is my business, and not that of the sherriffs dept.


That's where I have also drawn the line, I can't understand for the life of me why they would(realistically) need to see my bank account activity(within 30 days). :mad:

I jumped through the first hoop, but I'm not willing to play with a bank account to satisfy their "requirement".

J.D.Allen
03-28-2011, 3:20 PM
I know, that's my next project ;)

What about SD's neighbor to the east? Imperial county requires three letters also. Except they require that one of them be from a LEO who lives and works in Imperial County. No federal LEO's either. Has to be CHP, Sheriff, or Muni police.

I would do it myself but I have certain "sensitivities" I must be careful about.

PsychGuy274
03-28-2011, 3:36 PM
What about SD's neighbor to the east? Imperial county requires three letters also. Except they require that one of them be from a LEO who lives and works in Imperial County. No federal LEO's either. Has to be CHP, Sheriff, or Muni police.

I would do it myself but I have certain "sensitivities" I must be careful about.

I only have so many hands! :D

VAReact
03-28-2011, 4:47 PM
Inyo "requires" three letters of reference also...maybe I'll go to work on that...

Don29palms
03-28-2011, 6:46 PM
I really wish this could be taken care of for San Bernardino county and the rest of the state for that matter.

PsychGuy274
03-28-2011, 7:04 PM
I really wish this could be taken care of for San Bernardino county and the rest of the state for that matter.

Stand by for updates on San Bernardino.

greasemonkey
03-28-2011, 7:06 PM
I really wish this could be taken care of for San Bernardino county and the rest of the state for that matter.

Oh it will, just not by next week or anything. It takes a bit of strategery to overthrow decades of entrenched illegal policies by 58 different sheriffs, many of whom have grown accustomed to telling their subjects what they think the law is and getting very little resistance in return. Stay tuned to CGF's CCW Initiative, make sure you get involved and remain patient so you can be part of an epic process that will be discussed for quite some time.

N6ATF
03-29-2011, 12:27 AM
Oh it will, just not by next week or anything. It takes a bit of strategery to overthrow decades of entrenched illegal policies by 58 different sheriffs, many of whom have grown accustomed to telling their subjects what they think wish the law is and getting very little resistance in return.

Fixed.

funurdiesel
03-29-2011, 9:49 PM
Just sent an email to the OC Sheriff concerning the same requirement.


Please let us know of any response that you receive.
Thanks.

bcj128
03-30-2011, 12:43 AM
Good job.

As for it being unintentional, we aren't talking about typos here. It looks like an attempt to discourage the prospective applicants before they even apply. It's not like such tactics are very uncommon in this state.

I'll be honest, after working for a law enforcement agency for almost twenty years, I'll bet it wasn't maliciously intentional. It's likely sourced by someone in the upper echelons who worried about people having good moral character, who thought, "Hey, this is a great idea..." and just went with it, without researching it all the way through.

Being anti-gun, or uncomfortable with Shall Issue CCW is not just for politicians. There are MANY LEO Administrators who feel similarly. I would bet a large portion of the rank and file are more supportive.

oaklander
03-30-2011, 1:40 AM
There is some entertainment value in your posts. . .

You actually make me smile. I also enjoy going to the zoo and watching monkeys throw their feces at people. So, please - do continue to post.

p.s. - thanks PsychGuy274 for doing what you are doing. You will find that Brandon is well-versed in the matter, and is an excellent guide.

If you want to lecture someone about their words, lecture your kids. If you want something to bitc* at, go buy a dog.

I will speak my mind here (untill they throw me off) the same as I speak it anywhere else. you are nobody to decide if someone is carrying for "legitimate" reasons.

marcusrn
03-30-2011, 5:13 AM
Strong work psychguy!

Firemark!!! I sat next to you at the Peruta hearing. You're a big strong bad *** fireman! You broke my heart today when I read your post. If a big butch guy like you capitulates is there any hope for those of us who have less resolve and commitment? That thing about the "if your denied CCW the DOJ and sheriff will hold it against you in the future"is their only trick. How could it have worked on you? You can't carry at work anyway. The captain can't follow you around on his day off.

That was a close one for Gore, he almost lost that whole 90% issue stat.

The license div raison d'etra is to grant or deny applications but for the 17 years I've dealt with them they make it crystal clear to public that your application is better served in the garbage can.



Thank God for Calguns and the "tactical application of force" as Brandon stated.

greasemonkey
03-30-2011, 6:28 AM
If you want to lecture someone about their words, lecture your kids. If you want something to bitc* at, go buy a dog.

I will speak my mind here (untill they throw me off) the same as I speak it anywhere else. you are nobody to decide if someone is carrying for "legitimate" reasons.

I think you'll find that with having a lawyer & PR background, combined with a love for use of words in general, Oaklander has substantial credibility when he identifies childish and irrelevant wording; he said nothing of whether you should or should not be able to post your comments publicly, just the ineffective nature of your rambling. Carry on, if you wish.

oaklander
03-30-2011, 11:44 AM
Yes, I think the issue here as well is that SSS tends to come into threads, post what are essentially off-topic rants calling out several more established Calgunners, then gets indignant if he gets called out on it.

I would LOVE to debate him on the issues, but he simply does not want to even discuss the matter.

As I've said time and time again, I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH UOC. I think it's strategically bad in some cases, but heck - even Gene has stated that he's UOC'ed before (or will UOC, I forget the context). I think some people in the UOC movement do not understand that there are politics at work here, and that UOC is not a good idea all the time.

The "I'm right, and I get to do what I want" ethos is fine for most things - but for gun rights, even a single well-publicized arrest of someone UOC'ing can have bad effects, and can cost groups like CGF a lot of money if they decide to get involved and defend it. Groups like CGF, CRPA Foundation, etc. have their plates full - and since UOC is not strategically important - it becomes a kind of time/money suck on the overall movement.

I don't think anyone's explained it that clearly before, but I am hoping that people will understand the problem here. In California gun rights, if you are not with "us" - you are against "us."

We all need to play on the same teams, if we are to win. We can't have groups going off and doing things that have no strategic significance.

The Peruta case is an example. I believe that "UOC" was a factor in the Court's decision, and while I have not read the case, I understand that UOC was a BAD factor.

Thanks UOC'ers! See why we say these things?

LOL

:D

I think you'll find that with having a lawyer & PR background, combined with a love for use of words in general, Oaklander has substantial credibility when he identifies childish and irrelevant wording; he said nothing of whether you should or should not be able to post your comments publicly, just the ineffective nature of your rambling. Carry on, if you wish.

Glock22Fan
03-30-2011, 1:50 PM
I'll be honest, after working for a law enforcement agency for almost twenty years, I'll bet it wasn't maliciously intentional. It's likely sourced by someone in the upper echelons who worried about people having good moral character, who thought, "Hey, this is a great idea..." and just went with it, without researching it all the way through.

Being anti-gun, or uncomfortable with Shall Issue CCW is not just for politicians. There are MANY LEO Administrators who feel similarly. I would bet a large portion of the rank and file are more supportive.

Actually, as Billy Jack reminded me the other day, the reason so many agencies have these illegal policies, particularly the "three letters" one, is because the agencies are working directly from the LEXIPOL policy, designed specifically (or so it seems) to make it easy for agencies to deny CCW applications.

If you want to remove these restrictions one at a time, maybe it would be easier to attack the source directly.

At the very least, when writing to the agencies, point out that they are possibly following the now discredited Lexipol policy, now being rejected by so many agencies (such as San Diego and any others we've managed collectively to fix).

PsychGuy274
03-30-2011, 1:50 PM
Just came across this thread. The Riverside Sheriff's CCW application has the exact same requirement for three letters not from relatives etc. Page 3 item E...

http://www.riversidesheriff.org/pdf/ccw-rso.pdf

Is this the same issue? Any help here? How about a multi-contact campaign from Calguns?

H&K

Sheriff Sniff was elected last June in a campaign against Frank Robles. Robles was on tape stating he would establish a "shall issue" policy in Riverside County.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koJT8EebDLk

On the other hand Sniff states...

VALID DEATH THREATS OR HARRASSMENT ARE THE CRITERIA WHERE
ISSUANCE OF A CCW PERMIT WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR PERSONAL
PROTECTION. THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF DOES NOT ISSUE PERMITS
TO “PROVIDE A FEELING OF SAFETY” OR TO ALLEVIATE A “FEAR OF
VICTIMIZATION”.

Ironically the NRA conducted a mail campaign backing Sniff as a strong 2A supporter. WTF?! Truth be told, they should have backed Robles. What's going on here?

Rest assured that Riverside is being worked on.

oaklander
03-30-2011, 2:07 PM
I tend to agree with this, and I am not certain whether that issue is being worked on - but it needs to be worked on.

What we have is a private company that is apparently writing "bad" policies which do not comport with CA law. If true, that is wrong on so many levels. And, if true, it actually hurts their clients. . .

It would be interesting to see someone from LEX come in here and explain things to us.

Ironically, LEX means law in latin, as you know. . .

Actually, as Billy Jack reminded me the other day, the reason so many agencies have these illegal policies, particularly the "three letters" one, is because the agencies are working directly from the LEXIPOL policy, designed specifically (or so it seems) to make it easy for agencies to deny CCW applications.

If you want to remove these restrictions one at a time, maybe it would be easier to attack the source directly.

At the very least, when writing to the agencies, point out that they are possibly following the now discredited Lexipol policy, now being rejected by so many agencies (such as San Diego and any others we've managed collectively to fix).

jnojr
03-30-2011, 3:06 PM
Just came across this thread. The Riverside Sheriff's CCW application has the exact same requirement for three letters not from relatives etc. Page 3 item E...

http://www.riversidesheriff.org/pdf/ccw-rso.pdf

Is this the same issue? Any help here? How about a multi-contact campaign from Calguns?

H&K

Sheriff Sniff was elected last June in a campaign against Frank Robles. Robles was on tape stating he would establish a "shall issue" policy in Riverside County.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koJT8EebDLk

On the other hand Sniff states...

VALID DEATH THREATS OR HARRASSMENT ARE THE CRITERIA WHERE
ISSUANCE OF A CCW PERMIT WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR PERSONAL
PROTECTION. THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF DOES NOT ISSUE PERMITS
TO “PROVIDE A FEELING OF SAFETY” OR TO ALLEVIATE A “FEAR OF
VICTIMIZATION”.

Ironically the NRA conducted a mail campaign backing Sniff as a strong 2A supporter. WTF?! Truth be told, they should have backed Robles. What's going on here?

The NRA backs the candidate they think is going to win, not the one that has the best platform.

Uriah02
03-30-2011, 3:30 PM
Well done!

greasemonkey
03-30-2011, 3:44 PM
Jump on board, this is already underway, sign up with CGF to find out how you can volunteer in your county (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=370135) and see the Riverside County thread here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=352777).:D

Just came across this thread. The Riverside Sheriff's CCW application has the exact same requirement for three letters not from relatives etc. Page 3 item E...

http://www.riversidesheriff.org/pdf/ccw-rso.pdf

Is this the same issue? Any help here? How about a multi-contact campaign from Calguns?

southernsnowshoe
03-30-2011, 8:45 PM
I think you'll find that with having a lawyer & PR background, combined with a love for use of words in general, Oaklander has substantial credibility when he identifies childish and irrelevant wording; he said nothing of whether you should or should not be able to post your comments publicly, just the ineffective nature of your rambling. Carry on, if you wish.


Thanks for your permission dad.

southernsnowshoe
03-30-2011, 9:19 PM
Yes, I think the issue here as well is that SSS tends to come into threads, post what are essentially off-topic rants calling out several more established Calgunners, then gets indignant if he gets called out on it.

I would LOVE to debate him on the issues, but he simply does not want to even discuss the matter.

As I've said time and time again, I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH UOC. I think it's strategically bad in some cases, but heck - even Gene has stated that he's UOC'ed before (or will UOC, I forget the context). I think some people in the UOC movement do not understand that there are politics at work here, and that UOC is not a good idea all the time.

The "I'm right, and I get to do what I want" ethos is fine for most things - but for gun rights, even a single well-publicized arrest of someone UOC'ing can have bad effects, and can cost groups like CGF a lot of money if they decide to get involved and defend it. Groups like CGF, CRPA Foundation, etc. have their plates full - and since UOC is not strategically important - it becomes a kind of time/money suck on the overall movement.

I don't think anyone's explained it that clearly before, but I am hoping that people will understand the problem here. In California gun rights, if you are not with "us" - you are against "us."

We all need to play on the same teams, if we are to win. We can't have groups going off and doing things that have no strategic significance.

The Peruta case is an example. I believe that "UOC" was a factor in the Court's decision, and while I have not read the case, I understand that UOC was a BAD factor.

Thanks UOC'ers! See why we say these things?

LOL

:D

I did not say a damn thing to you in this thread and you want to scold me for my choice of words, who the hell are you? debate? debate what? debate the fact that you are a damn traitor for condemning anyone, under any circumstance for carrying a gun? no debate needed there.

oaklander
03-30-2011, 9:29 PM
I'm actually smiling right now. Just had a great dinner, and my wife and I are getting ready to sit down and watch "Top Shots" on the DVR.

One thing I learned a long time ago is to not take things personally. It might be something you should look into, since it appears that you are back to "slinging feces" again.

Living in a constant state of indignation and anger is not healthy, it creates stress, and wastes everyone's time.

:)

I am happy to explain to you why UOC is not always a good idea, but you are not willing to even discuss the matter. Rather, you again are getting angry again. Is it impossible for you to even discuss UOC without getting mad?

I did not say a damn thing to you in this thread and you want to scold me for my choice of words, who the hell are you? debate? debate what? debate the fact that you are a damn traitor for condemning anyone, under any circumstance for carrying a gun? no debate needed there.

Kestryll
03-30-2011, 9:34 PM
Okay, tone it down and keep it civil.

oaklander
03-30-2011, 9:37 PM
Will do, and my apologies to you and SSS, if my posts were out of line. . .

Okay, tone it down and keep it civil.

greasemonkey
03-30-2011, 9:43 PM
Perhaps I'm mistaken but it really seems like you did when you posted your thoughts onto a public forum, that makes the words of anyone rather available for debate to anyone else in public.

By the way, the thought of Oaklander being justifiably called a traitor is so distant from reality, I think I'll go have a sip of Kentucky's goodness and chuckle a few times about this one. Cheers. :D

I did not say a damn thing to you in this thread and you want to scold me for my choice of words, who the hell are you? debate? debate what? debate the fact that you are a damn traitor for condemning anyone, under any circumstance for carrying a gun? no debate needed there.

oaklander
03-30-2011, 9:46 PM
Cazadores on this end!

:D

WOOT! Calguns party time!

By the way, the thought of Oaklander being justifiably called a traitor is so distant from reality, I think I'll go have a sip of Kentucky's goodness and chuckle a few times about this one. Cheers. :D

PsychGuy274
03-30-2011, 9:47 PM
Southern - Knock it off

Oak - It's Top SHOT

Back on topic shall we?

oaklander
03-30-2011, 9:48 PM
Ooops, I will blame it on the Cazadores.

:D

Oak - It's Top SHOT

PsychGuy274
03-30-2011, 9:52 PM
Ooops, I will blame it on the Cazadores.

:D

You're new OFFICIAL title is Oaklander the Traitor!

N6ATF
03-30-2011, 9:55 PM
LMFAO!

southernsnowshoe
03-30-2011, 9:58 PM
I'm actually smiling right now.


I am happy to explain to you why UOC is not always a good idea, but you are not willing to even discuss the matter. Rather, you again are getting angry again. Is it impossible for you to even discuss UOC without getting mad?




Call me a monkey, and then offer me a legal clinic.

If the "us" is you then you can count me as against "us"

You don't need a law degree to fight for your guns, maybe I need to start my own group.

SunTzu88
03-30-2011, 10:00 PM
Great job! It's interesting that they "rely on the legal advice of our legal counsel in setting or revising policy". It's fairly evident that either counsel gave poor advice or were not consulted in the original policy.

oaklander
03-30-2011, 10:01 PM
LOL - .sig material!!!!!

:D

You're new OFFICIAL title is Oaklander the Traitor!

oaklander
03-30-2011, 10:06 PM
SSS, I did not call YOU a monkey. As I recall, I pointed out that your habit of defacing threads with off-topic missives is akin to what a monkey might do at a zoo.

I also do not recall offering you a legal clinic. I'm not even sure what a "legal clinic" is. What I would like is simple, if you post a position or viewpoint, then just be ready to stand behind it and back it up with logic.

That is all, nothing more.

I'm willing to talk to you about your position, and I'm even ready to change my mind, if you can offer a logical and rational basis for your position - BUT - if you are not willing to back up your arguments with logic, then you are disseminating nothing more than the verbal equivalent of graffiti.

Again, I'm trying to be as nice as I can to you, but your habit of getting all emotional on me is somewhat tiring (although very entertaining).

Let's not tee-off Kes here. He's already asked us to be nice. So, I promise I will be nice to you - but please - do the same in return.

Call me a monkey, and then offer me a legal clinic.

If the "us" is you then you can count me as against "us"

You don't need a law degree to fight for your guns, maybe I need to start my own group.

PsychGuy274
03-30-2011, 10:08 PM
Call me a monkey, and then offer me a legal clinic.

If the "us" is you then you can count me as against "us"

You don't need a law degree to fight for your guns, maybe I need to start my own group.

Even being an occasional UOCer myself, I'm going to recommend you take your point to a different thread. This just isn't the place for that type of conversation.

Great job! It's interesting that they "rely on the legal advice of our legal counsel in setting or revising policy". It's fairly evident that either counsel gave poor advice or were not consulted in the original policy.

I doubt they ever consulted them to begin with.

How convenient that they told me they needed to talk to their lawyers and when I emailed them again after three months (which I'm assuming they thought I abandoned this) and in less than 24 hours they changed it. :rolleyes:

subse7en
03-30-2011, 10:12 PM
Winning!

o0RedEyE0o
03-30-2011, 10:33 PM
That's awesome man, good job.
:King:

oaklander
03-30-2011, 10:56 PM
Winning!

WINNING!

http://oi52.tinypic.com/bimeyt.jpg

greasemonkey
03-31-2011, 6:29 AM
I love you son :)

Thanks for your permission dad.

HondaMasterTech
03-31-2011, 8:50 AM
What a great accomplishment! Now, they have less paperwork to ignore as they arbitrarily deny your license!

oaklander
03-31-2011, 10:08 AM
Fixed it for you.

I love you my son :)

That reminds me - I actually think these guys are cool:
http://www.gunsaint.com/default.asp

Saying that as a Southern Baptist.

southernsnowshoe
03-31-2011, 7:22 PM
I love you son :)


How much of that whiskey did you drink? lol

oaklander
03-31-2011, 8:49 PM
Actually glad you are back. Seriously, we are not bad people - we just tease a lot, and we like to debate things. I'm hoping that you didn't take anything I said as a personal insult - it's just the way people are - here. . .

Greasemonkey is a cool person as well, and I've met him in real life - real nice guy. . .

I think if you realize that there are *people* on the other end of the keyboard (and not just screen names), it may make it easier to "join" in the conversation here - rather than just "post."

How much of that whiskey did you drink? lol

Paul S
03-31-2011, 9:12 PM
Fixed it for you.



That reminds me - I actually think these guys are cool:
http://www.gunsaint.com/default.asp

Saying that as a Southern Baptist.

Hey Oak...nice catch...never knew about St. Gabriel Possenti.

Saying that as an Irish Catholic. :D

PsychGuy274
03-31-2011, 9:47 PM
Actually glad you are back. Seriously, we are not bad people - we just tease a lot, and we like to debate things. I'm hoping that you didn't take anything I said as a personal insult - it's just the way people are - here. . .

Greasemonkey is a cool person as well, and I've met him in real life - real nice guy. . .

I think if you realize that there are *people* on the other end of the keyboard (and not just screen names), it may make it easier to "join" in the conversation here - rather than just "post."

Ugh...please don't tell me I have to witness a 'group hug' moment. :D

southernsnowshoe
03-31-2011, 9:51 PM
Actually glad you are back. Seriously, we are not bad people - we just tease a lot, and we like to debate things. I'm hoping that you didn't take anything I said as a personal insult - it's just the way people are - here. . .

Greasemonkey is a cool person as well, and I've met him in real life - real nice guy. . .

I think if you realize that there are *people* on the other end of the keyboard (and not just screen names), it may make it easier to "join" in the conversation here - rather than just "post."


All true.
The focus should be saving/preserving our gun rights, not personal stuff.

JRob
04-01-2011, 1:48 AM
I hope the OP is comfortable with the possibility that he is now listed in a government database as a "subversive" for suggesting that the .gov follow the law...

BTW Good job

oaklander
04-01-2011, 11:46 PM
He will be at the bottom of a long list which would include all of CGF, and most of the folks here at CGN.

:D

I hope the OP is comfortable with the possibility that he is now listed in a government database as a "subversive" for suggesting that the .gov follow the law...

wildhawker
04-02-2011, 12:16 AM
He will be at the bottom of a long list which would include all of CGF, and most of the folks here at CGN.

:D

I know for a fact that I have been disinvited from every law enforcement agency in CA's Christmas party. If there ever was a list, there's "those ****ing *******s" at the top, which is a fun group to be formally associated with.

-Brandon

Librarian
04-02-2011, 12:21 AM
"those ****ing *******s"

New calling cards - 'Sheriff, one of "those ****ing *******s" to see you, sir... '

wildhawker
04-02-2011, 12:01 PM
New calling cards - 'Sheriff, one of "those ****ing *******s" to see you, sir... '

There have actually been occurrences along those lines...

oaklander
04-03-2011, 11:22 PM
LOL - at least you got invited in the first place!!!

I'm just kidding.

I think the reality is that we most certainly are at odds with some LE agencies (when they violate CA law), but we are actually on good terms with most of them. The reason that we are on good terms with MOST LE agencies has to do with the fact that "Calguns" (basically everyone here) works to educate people on how to follow the law.

Law enforcement tends to like that.

The Semi-auto rifle flow chart (http://calnra.com/cgi-bin/flowchart.cgi) is actually now being used to train LE officers in various parts of the state! That contains WIN! We also work to "fix" the law, when the law does not make sense - and progressive LE agencies appreciate that as well.

When certain LE agencies or officers start doing things which are not legal, then it's our turn to educate them. And I think that law-abiding LE agencies and officers appreciate our work in that arena. . .

THIS other flowchart (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/downloads/documents/CGF_Civilian_CCW_Guide.pdf) is cheaper for us than a filing fee, BUT - we have no problem affording a filing fee, etc. . .

:D

I know for a fact that I have been disinvited from every law enforcement agency in CA's Christmas party.

SparrowHanger
04-04-2011, 12:24 AM
As some of you know San Diego has had the illegal requirement of requiring CCW applicants to provide three character references. After several months of emailing them about it, they finally changed it.

On one had, kudos for your this BUT I wonder it the deletion of the references requirement is such a good thing considering that PC 12050(a)(1)(A) only permits the Sheriff to issue permits "upon proof of good character".

Hence the need for character reference letters to establish said proof. "Three character reference letters are required to assist in substantiating good moral character."

While on the one hand you can argue that good moral character can only be established by investigating the answers to the standard application, things such as the lack of arrests, but does that establish good moral character or merely the lack of bad moral character.

By removing character referrences from the application process you may be shooting yourself in the foot. I imagine that the arbitrary and capricious nature of a sheriff's right to determine good moral character is one of the itemes challenged or being challenged by CGF.

oaklander
04-04-2011, 1:11 AM
The various "requirements" to issue a CCW are much like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

If you posit that self defense is a basic right (and there's STRONG basis for this under McDonald), then you have to be super careful about "purity tests."

My feeling, coming at this from a common sense perspective, is this:

If you are law-abiding enough to have your "other" civil rights, then you are law-abiding enough to carry a gun, until you are proven otherwise.

We simply DO NOT see problems with shall issue. What I mean by that is that I have seen NOTHING to indicate that the scores of states that currently have "shall issue" experience ANY types of problems with permit holders.

If someone is aware of huge "CCW crime sprees" or "jumps in crime" in shall issue states, please post the data here for me to read. I can't find any.

In fact, data currently shows that CRIME GOES DOWN when CCW's GO UP. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

Think about it. . .

If you have a permit, and you are law-abiding (which is what you need to get a permit), then you aren't going to do anything to lose your permit.

Since you've only been posting here on CGN for 10 days, I'm not familiar with you. If you have connections to any Sheriff in the state, please do us the courtesy of letting us know, so that we can take your "opinion" with the requisite "grain of salt."

By removing character referrences from the application process you may be shooting yourself in the foot. I imagine that the arbitrary and capricious nature of a sheriff's right to determine good moral character is one of the itemes challenged or being challenged by CGF.

SparrowHanger
04-04-2011, 1:29 AM
I'm not familiar with you, although I think I know who you are. If you have connections to any Sheriff in the state, please do us the courtesy of letting us know, so that we can take your "opinion" with the requisite "grain of salt."
Please do take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I have no connection to any Sheriff in this or any other state, although Grandpa was a deputy back in Indiana when they had Dillinger in jail.

wildhawker
04-04-2011, 1:34 AM
There is no objective test for "good" moral character; the relevant statutes vest all discretionary authority to determine "good moral character" with the licensing authority.

A licensing authority may undertake a separate background check in addition to the DOJ "prohibited status" check (see, e.g. PC 12052); however, "Applications for licenses, applications for amendments to licenses, amendments to licenses, and licenses under this article shall be uniform throughout the state, upon forms to be prescribed by the Attorney General." (PC 12051(a)(3)(A).) Additional local forms are not "prescribed by the Attorney General".

Further, "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 subparagraph (A), except to clarify or interpret information provided by the applicant on the standard application form." (PC 12051(a)(3)(C).) "Character reference" letters are neither "clarifying" or useful in "interpreting" information represented on an application, and cannot reasonably be viewed as anything other than the unqualified testimony of a non-neutral party; the notion that one could be argued as some form of empirical character validation is ludicrous.

With respect to the distinction you make between "good moral character" and "lack of bad moral character", I argue that it's a distinction which can be made under current jurisprudence only to the extent that it is made equally for all similarly-situated applicants.

Removing character references does nothing but clarify the application and remove unlawful, burdensome, extraneous and unsubstantiated nonsense from the process; the lack of them is one step closer to respect for constitutional principles and state law for the respective licensing authority.

Discretionary good moral character is being challenged in our case Richards v. Prieto (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness).

-Brandon


On one had, kudos for your this BUT I wonder it the deletion of the references requirement is such a good thing considering that PC 12050(a)(1)(A) only permits the Sheriff to issue permits "upon proof of good character".

Hence the need for character reference letters to establish said proof.

While on the one hand you can argue that good moral character can only be established by investigating the answers to the standard application, things such as the lack of arrests, but does that establish good moral character or merely the lack of bad moral character.

By removing character referrences from the application process you may be shooting yourself in the foot. I imagine that the arbitrary and capricious nature of a sheriff's right to determine good moral character is one of the itemes challenged or being challenged by CGF.

oaklander
04-04-2011, 1:51 AM
Cool - yes - I had some relatives in LE too! When I write stuff here, it isn't from an anti-LE perspective. It's more from a "common sense" perspective.

What we are really trying to do is to get people to follow the law, as written - and it's "just common sense" that LE should follow the L.

Here's the map:

1) Legislature makes the "law," then;
2) Law Enforcement enforces the "Law," then if LE is "doing it wrong," we go to;
3) Judges, who say and write things that make #2 follow #1.

The laws in #1 are essentially chosen by us, since we are a democracy, and we vote the legislature in. The reason that laws in #1 generally "suck" here in California is that "popular-vote" democracies sometimes act "unconstitutional" because voted laws (i.e., laws passed by elected people) sometimes do not follow the Constitution/Other Laws.

It's a larger problem in CA than other states due to our diverse geographic makeup (most voters live in liberal areas, due to the way the economy works in CA).

Hope that explains things for people. What we are doing is not random, and the problem laws are not caused by random events. Gun rights folks in California are simply trying to get the state to follow the laws, both state and federal. What we are doing is actually a service to LE, since LE wants to enforce the "right" laws - and not laws that violate other laws (or the Constitution).

Please do take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I have no connection to any Sheriff in this or any other state, although Grandpa was a deputy back in Indiana when they had Dillinger in jail.

SparrowHanger
04-04-2011, 1:52 AM
Wildhawker, I agree with you that the statute may have a problem with a lack of standards to judge "good moral character", which is why I mentioned the arbitrary and capricious exercise of judgment by the Sheriff and I understand the sigificance of may and shall issue statutes. Nevertheless, I fail to see what good is done the cause of anyone wishing to obtain a permit by denying a department the proof of good moral character that must be shown. Thank you for mentioning Prieto. I thought descretionary issuance was challenged there but wasn't sure. You very well know, of course, the vast difference between the exercise of discretion pursuant to statutory standards is not considered arbitrary and capricious.

wildhawker
04-04-2011, 2:05 AM
Your flawed argument lies with the notion that the licensing authority requires additional "proof" of good moral character beyond the "non prohibited" status derived from the PC 12052 report. If the department's policy makes a distinction between "good" and "not bad", it has the sole duty of articulating that difference and applying their standard equally. Since no licensing authority does so [articulate such] to the best of my knowledge, I'm not sure I understand your concern.

Richards challenges the "good moral character" [and good cause] standards as an unconstitutional prior restraint. For more on this, see plaintiffs' counsel Alan Gura's Motion for Summary Judgment (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.54.1.pdf) and P&As in Opposition to Defendants' MSJ (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.65.0.pdf).

I'm sure you noted that my prior comments were focused solely on equal protection of the law under 14A - which is currently enforceable against governmental actors - not on any 2A theory which relies on a finding of the people's fundamental right to bear functional firearms outside the home.

-Brandon

p.s. Some licensing authorities may have standards for moral character separate from their carry license policy. Do you think that it would be politically or legally viable for licensing authorities to have a loose standard for their own armed employees but impossible standards for residents such that even instructors who train their employees cannot satisfy them?

Wildhawker, I agree with you that the statute may have a problem with a lack of standards to judge "good moral character", which is why I mentioned the arbitrary and capricious exercise of judgment by the Sheriff and I understand the sigificance of may and shall issue statutes. Nevertheless, I fail to see what good is done the cause of anyone wishing to obtain a permit by denying a department the proof of good moral character that must be shown. Thank you for mentioning Prieto. I thought descretionary issuance was challenged there but wasn't sure. You very well know, of course, the vast difference between the exercise of discretion pursuant to statutory standards is not considered arbitrary and capricious.

oaklander
04-04-2011, 2:05 AM
SparrowHanger,

You are lost in the details.

Do you not agree that self-defense is a right?

Do you not agree that law-abiding citizens should have that right?

You are getting caught up in minutia. Look at the facts and issues that WH and I are telling you. Think about it, please - - once you start denying some citizens certain rights, merely based on the "perception" of a third person, you run into all sorts of legal AND moral issues. . .

Your thinking is bureaucratic - i.e., follow the rules, all the time - even if they are wrong. And if you don't know something, just make up your own rule. Kind of like a semi-intelligent ROBOT.

You have no moral basis for your argument, and the intellectual basis is not even weak - it's totally non-existent.

NOT about you, but as an aside, I've noticed a lot of people who come into various 2A threads, and post all sorts of things that just do not even make sense. I'm amazed that these people can even figure out how to operate a motor vehicle, let alone vote. If we are making a public point that we are law-abiding and reasonable, it behooves us to argue the points here at a level which does not insult the intelligence of 4 year old.

Wildhawker, I agree with you that the statute may have a problem with a lack of standards to judge "good moral character", which is why I mentioned the arbitrary and capricious exercise of judgment by the Sheriff and I understand the sigificance of may and shall issue statutes. Nevertheless, I fail to see what good is done the cause of anyone wishing to obtain a permit by denying a department the proof of good moral character that must be shown. Thank you for mentioning Prieto. I thought descretionary issuance was challenged there but wasn't sure. You very well know, of course, the vast difference between the exercise of discretion pursuant to statutory standards is not considered arbitrary and capricious.

PsychGuy274
04-04-2011, 2:09 AM
Wildhawker, I agree with you that the statute may have a problem with a lack of standards to judge "good moral character", which is why I mentioned the arbitrary and capricious exercise of judgment by the Sheriff and I understand the sigificance of may and shall issue statutes. Nevertheless, I fail to see what good is done the cause of anyone wishing to obtain a permit by denying a department the proof of good moral character that must be shown. Thank you for mentioning Prieto. I thought descretionary issuance was challenged there but wasn't sure. You very well know, of course, the vast difference between the exercise of discretion pursuant to statutory standards is not considered arbitrary and capricious.

The thing is that "we're" not denying them anything. The law is denying them and they are ignoring it. As a law enforcement agency they need to take every precaution to ensure that they themselves are within the law.

I work for a law enforcement agency (non-sworn) and when I'm on duty I pay extra close attention to my actions to make sure to the best of my knowledge that I am within the law because I know what I'm a symbol of and what I am representing.

There's a difference between the idea of "I am the law" and "I represent the law."

oaklander
04-04-2011, 2:18 AM
There's a difference between the idea of "I am the law" and "I represent the law."

YES! That's the point that I've been trying to get across, and you did it in about 16 words. Winning!

:D

p.s. - here's an album cover from 1987, they were about 3 years late, IMHO.

http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/images/covers/anthrax-i-am-the-law(single).jpg

eaglemike
04-04-2011, 4:10 AM
Wildhawker, I agree with you that the statute may have a problem with a lack of standards to judge "good moral character", which is why I mentioned the arbitrary and capricious exercise of judgment by the Sheriff and I understand the sigificance of may and shall issue statutes. Nevertheless, I fail to see what good is done the cause of anyone wishing to obtain a permit by denying a department the proof of good moral character that must be shown. Thank you for mentioning Prieto. I thought descretionary issuance was challenged there but wasn't sure. You very well know, of course, the vast difference between the exercise of discretion pursuant to statutory standards is not considered arbitrary and capricious.
Emphasis added.
Ummm, I'm thinking there are a vast number of issues. Interpretation of good moral character is subjective. The law is supposed to be objective.

There might be a case made that a person might be judged by an issuing authority to "not be of good moral character" even without being convicted of a crime. Does this mean they should be denied the inherent right of self defense?

There might also be a case made that certain issuing authority/authorities themselves are not of good moral character. How does this fit in with their role in denying others the means to self defense?

VAReact
04-04-2011, 7:15 AM
"Good moral charachter"=not prohibited from owning a firearm -done!

greasemonkey
04-04-2011, 7:45 AM
Where exactly does one draw the line in order to not be arbitrary/capricious in establishing "good" moral character? If one is a "good enough citizen" to vote, to exercise free speech, to conduct interstate commerce, does one need to be "more good" to exercise the right to self defense? By your standard, how much "better" than the average citizen enjoying full civil rights does one need to be to exercise one of the fundamental ones??

Wildhawker, I agree with you that the statute may have a problem with a lack of standards to judge "good moral character", which is why I mentioned the arbitrary and capricious exercise of judgment by the Sheriff and I understand the sigificance of may and shall issue statutes. Nevertheless, I fail to see what good is done the cause of anyone wishing to obtain a permit by denying a department the proof of good moral character that must be shown. Thank you for mentioning Prieto. I thought descretionary issuance was challenged there but wasn't sure. You very well know, of course, the vast difference between the exercise of discretion pursuant to statutory standards is not considered arbitrary and capricious.

sd_shooter
05-10-2011, 6:44 AM
First of all, great job Psych! :D

I waded through the entire thread and I didn't see a single link to the Sheriff's CCW website. So I'll post it here for everyone to click:
http://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw.html

Now I have a new question - what about all the references to "additional documentation"? Can't we get rid of that, too?

All the points in bold:
The Sheriff’s Department may issue a concealed weapons license to law-abiding residents of San Diego County who comply with the provisions of Penal Code Section 12050. In accordance to PC12050 and subject to department procedure, any resident of San Diego County may submit an application to the San Diego Sheriff’s Licensing Division.

Each applicant will be interviewed by Licensing Division staff to determine initial eligibility. Applications accepted will be individually investigated to determine residency, moral character, and good cause. Applicants will be required to submit documentation to support and demonstrate their need.

To apply, you must complete all sections in the application, with the exception of the 3 signature areas. This is a two-part interview process.

Applications must be submitted to San Diego Sheriff’s Licensing Division office in person. We are located at:

9621 Ridgehaven Ct
San Diego, CA 92123
GOOGLE MAP
(858) 974-2020

The first part of your interview will determine your need and the required documentation. To schedule an appointment for your initial interview, call (858) 974-2020. Appointments are scheduled between the hours of 9:00am to 3:00pm, Monday through Friday. You will need to allow one hour for the interview. You will be given additional information and instructions to bring with you for your second interview.

Fee Schedule

The San Diego County Sheriff’s Department and the Department of Justice are both involved in the processing of this application, each agency requires certain fees. Fees will be collected at the end of your second interview.

INITIAL APPLICATION FEES

Cash or check made payable to the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department for $12.63. The remaining balance of $50.51 to be submitted at the time of issuance. Also submit a money order made payable to "Department of Justice" as shown below:

Department of Justice Fees

Standard 2-year license - $95.00
Judicial 3-year license - $117.00
Reserve Peace Officer 4-year license - $139.00


RENEWAL FEES

A single payment in the form of cash or check made payable to the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department shall be submitted for renewal of a CCW permit as shown below:

Standard 2-year license - $73.52
Judicial 3-year license - $95.52
Reserve Peace Officer 4-year license - $117.52

Fees are subject to change as allowed by law. They are processing fees and as such are not refundable regardless of the decision made on the application.

Documentation

All new applicants must demonstrate they are residents of San Diego County, have good cause and good moral character, pursuant to PC 12050.

Applicants must submit proof of residency in the form of two current, unpaid utility bills that list their name, service address and mailing address (or other similar type proof).

Good cause is an individual issue; however, if applying for business purposes, proof that you are a legitimate and fully credentialed business will be required as well as having to demonstrate that good cause for carrying a firearm exist.

If you want to apply strictly for personal protection; the required documentation will be discussed at the time of the initial first interview, additional documentation may be requested.

Valid California identification is also required.

Law Enforcement/Criminal Justice employees are exempt from certain requirements. Please call for information on this.

Other verifications will be requested on an individual basis. Residence verifications, proof of good cause and proof of training class are required with subsequent (renewal) applications.

If there are other questions, please call Sheriff’s License Division at (858) 974-2020.

Crom
05-10-2011, 10:37 AM
First of all, great job Psych! :D

I waded through the entire thread and I didn't see a single link to the Sheriff's CCW website. So I'll post it here for everyone to click:
http://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw.html

Now I have a new question - what about all the references to "additional documentation"? Can't we get rid of that, too?

All the points in bold:


All that crap about documentation and proving your need [good cause] for the privilege to carry a gun will not go away without a victory in the federal courts. At the present time, carry is a privilege and not a right in California. It's that simple.

buttcoco
06-14-2011, 9:58 PM
All that crap about documentation and proving your need [good cause] for the privilege to carry a gun will not go away without a victory in the federal courts. At the present time, carry is a privilege and not a right in California. It's that simple.

Thats sadly true, its a bad time when you realize that all the bad guys have all the guns and the good ones cant carry at all. I hope I'm still alive to see the day when or IF CA will become a free state.

bob7122
06-14-2011, 10:04 PM
how does it feel to be a bad ***?

Gray Peterson
06-14-2011, 10:14 PM
I hope I'm still alive to see the day when or IF CA will become a free state.

You whine too much. :chris: By July 1st of 2012 or July 1st of 2013, we will have carry nationwide.

bigwave92107
06-15-2011, 5:49 PM
You whine too much. :chris: By July 1st of 2012 or July 1st of 2013, we will have carry nationwide.

I like this.

PsychGuy274
06-16-2011, 3:09 PM
You whine too much. :chris: By July 1st of 2012 or July 1st of 2013, we will have carry nationwide.

You sound awfully confident about that. Do you know something that we don't? :43:

Untamed1972
06-16-2011, 3:25 PM
You whine too much. :chris: By July 1st of 2012 or July 1st of 2013, we will have carry nationwide.

Well lets hope it's July 2012......cuz by July 2013 the world will have ended :eek: and it wont matter anymore LOL

marcusrn
07-06-2011, 2:42 AM
Inshallah!