PDA

View Full Version : CGF FORCES SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF HENNESSEY TO ADOPT CARRY LICENSE POLICY


wildhawker
07-05-2011, 6:01 PM
Policy Review Now Underway

San Carlos, CA (Tuesday, July 5, 2011) – After a litigation threat from the Calguns Foundation, San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey has adopted a policy for firearm carry license (“CCW”) applications.

As part of its ongoing Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative, The Calguns Foundation sent San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey a letter demanding that he immediately bring the firearm carry license application acceptance, processing, and evaluation policies of his department into compliance with California law.

“As a direct result of our letter, San Franciscans now have a path to apply for a permit to exercise their fundamental right of self defense,” notes Gene Hoffman, Chairman of CGF. “We look forward to assisting San Francisco residents to that end by publishing on our website copies of approved ‘good cause’ statements, the Sheriff’s policy, DOJ standard application, a ‘CCW Application Flowchart’, and other valuable tools and information.”

The new policy is being reviewed for requirements and practices that violate the law. “While we’re pleased that Sheriff Hennessey chose to produce a policy rather than spend taxpayers' money to defend an indefensible position, it’s perplexing that he created such an onerous carry license program that practically begs for further scrutiny and possibly litigation,” said Brandon Combs, a director of CGF and leader of the Sunshine Initiative.

Calguns Foundation provided a copy of their Model Carry License Policy, downloadable here (http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/category/9-carry.html), to San Francisco Sheriff Hennessey and the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office. The CGF Model Policy reflects the process and procedures found in state law and comports with constitutional principles. San Francisco, however, chose to largely ignore CGF’s offer of assistance and create its own policy.

“We’re taking a very hard look at policies that burden the carry license application process with unlawful or unconstitutional provisions,” stated Gene Hoffman. “We expect that some sheriffs will dig in their heels and refuse to comply with the law. Those sheriffs should expect to be taken to court.”

A copy of the San Francisco carry license policy is available for download here (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/downloads/documents/SanFrancisco.pdf). More information on Calguns Foundation’s Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative can be found at www.gotcarry.org. For more information on other Second Amendment-related litigation and educational efforts, please visit www.calgunsfoundation.org.

___

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization which serves its members by providing Second Amendment-related education, strategic litigation and the defense of innocent California gun owners from improper or malicious prosecution. The Calguns Foundation seeks to inform government and protect the rights of individuals to acquire, own, and lawfully use firearms in California.

Contact:
Gene Hoffman
650-275-1015
hoffmang@calgunsfoundation.org

Experimentalist
07-05-2011, 6:03 PM
It's fun to watch the cogs slowly drop into place. Great stuff.

Saigon1965
07-05-2011, 6:07 PM
Come on Alameda -

RobG
07-05-2011, 6:08 PM
Wow, he folded (somewhat) fairly quickly. Lets see if he actually issues to commoners. The GC statements should be interesting; you know, all 4 or 5 of them:rolleyes:

HowardW56
07-05-2011, 6:11 PM
That policy is GARBAGE......

$1,722.00 for the training & qualification?????

Are they on DRUGS?

Total fees for initial permit $2,067.00


Which lawyer will be handling this lawsuit?

G60
07-05-2011, 6:12 PM
Wow! $1722 training & qualification fee!

Who's got the keys to the steamroller?! I almost spit my sun drop out reading that!

Miclip
07-05-2011, 6:12 PM
4. Proof of US citizenship

Surely that's an error?

Tripper
07-05-2011, 6:16 PM
If their charging that kind of fee I'm sure cgf is not done with them

Gray Peterson
07-05-2011, 6:17 PM
Surely that's an error?

No, they fully intend to enforce a US Citizen only requirement.

Paladin
07-05-2011, 6:18 PM
What's w/the Licensee shall give a copy of his SF CCW license to the CCW licensing authority of the city and county in which he resides? Is that in re. to a business based (90 day) CCW?

Hmm, "A psychological evaluation shall be required . . . ." I wonder if that is/was true for EVERY current CCW issued by Hennessey? :p :D :43:

Dittos w/the $1M "personal liability insurance policy" requirement.

What do they mean re. carrying your "DOJ license" along w/your CCW permit?

Funny how they only allow .38 Spl for revolvers when .357 MAGNUM (Oooo! :eek: :rolleyes:) was standard issue back in the day.

And I just LOVE that $1722.00 fee for "Firearms Training Testing & Qualification".

They state that "Most fees are set by federal statutory rates". Don't they mean CA statutory rates?

Joe
07-05-2011, 6:18 PM
great job cgf!

Wernher von Browning
07-05-2011, 6:19 PM
Surely that's an error?

Whoa. Epic Constitutional fail.

Mute
07-05-2011, 6:20 PM
Wow! Maybe there is still hope for L.A. County.

Wernher von Browning
07-05-2011, 6:23 PM
No, they fully intend to enforce a US Citizen only requirement.

That won't survive any court challenge. Discriminatory. While we're at it, let's not issue CCW to anybody whose name begins with Mc, ends with -ski, drives an imported car, or who uses a rainbow flag as their avatar :rolleyes:

Gray Peterson
07-05-2011, 6:23 PM
I wish I had four hands...so I can give this policy...FOUR THUMBS DOWN.

Ding126
07-05-2011, 6:24 PM
Winning.......duh

DiscoBayJoe
07-05-2011, 6:24 PM
$1722.00 is only a few days of parking a nice dinner in SF, so this is a bargain! :S

Paladin
07-05-2011, 6:25 PM
That policy is GARBAGE......

$1,722.00 for the training & qualification?????

Are they on DRUGS?

Total fees for initial permit $2,067.00


Which lawyer will be handling this lawsuit?
HW56, you are mistaken: that's $1,722.00 for "Firearms Training Testing & Qualification".

The actual mandatory 24 hour POST certified training is a separate expense that you pay some 3rd party.

This $1,722.00 fee is to test that the training you got was sufficient and to see if you pass SFSD's CCW qualifications. IOW, this is for the, what, 30 minutes you're at their range demonstrating safe gun handling and running their course of fire.

wazdat
07-05-2011, 6:28 PM
What a crock...

Bend 'em over.

Miclip
07-05-2011, 6:32 PM
No, they fully intend to enforce a US Citizen only requirement.

Those permanent residents are a shifty bunch anyways... fancy entering a country legally, it's outrageous! :shifty:

Paladin
07-05-2011, 6:32 PM
Policy Review Now Underway


Correction: "Policy Review Has Now Been Completed. CGF Will Sue the B******!" :43:

petey
07-05-2011, 6:33 PM
Proof of U.S. Citizenship?

I thought S.F. was a sanctuary city.:D

HowardW56
07-05-2011, 6:35 PM
HW56, you are mistaken: that's $1,722.00 for "Firearms Training Testing & Qualification".

The actual mandatory 24 hour POST certified training is a separate expense that you pay some 3rd party.

This $1,722.00 fee is to test that the training you got was sufficient and to see if you pass SFSD's CCW qualifications. IOW, this is for the, what, 30 minutes you're at their range demonstrating safe gun handling and running their course of fire.


Amazing, I missed that.....

dotalchemy
07-05-2011, 6:36 PM
Hm.

I'm not a citizen.

Apparently my rights aren't recognised by San Francisco.

Looks like I'll take that job in Utah after all...

nick
07-05-2011, 6:39 PM
Hmm, a letter of support from an employer on company letterhead?

notme92069
07-05-2011, 6:44 PM
Proof of U.S. Citizenship?

I thought S.F. was a sanctuary city.:D

Just more proof that gun control is racism

swift
07-05-2011, 6:48 PM
"Letter of Justification- You must submit a letter stating the reason(s) good cause exists for issuing a concealed weapons license along with supporting documentation."

Wouldn't the 'good cause' clause mean that the sheriff still won't need tp approve any ccw permits for the average civilian? Looks like the start of the next lawsuit...

Gray Peterson
07-05-2011, 6:50 PM
or who uses a rainbow flag as their avatar :rolleyes:

Oh please please please Sheriff, please do something that stupid. :43:

Under In Re Marriage Cases, "orientation is recognized as a suspect class for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution." Though Proposition 8 (Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution) exempted the designation of marriage from the equal protection provisions of the state constitution.

This would include:

Denying someone based on good moral character grounds on the basis of the military's enforcement of the pre-DADT provisions generating a general discharge rather than an honorable.

Denying someone based on good moral character grounds on the basis of their orientation, period. This occurred a lot in rural areas in the state up until the 1990's.

Not to bring all of the politics involving rainbow flags and such, but I know for a fact that sheriff's have in the past denied people because they feel like if they "tone down the gay" or "Closet themselves", they could avoid bashing and violence towards them.

Gray Peterson
07-05-2011, 6:50 PM
Hm.

I'm not a citizen.

Apparently my rights aren't recognised by San Francisco.

Looks like I'll take that job in Utah after all...

Do you live in San Francisco?

CitaDeL
07-05-2011, 6:50 PM
Hoorah! It is very satifying to see the reluctant agencies, slowly turn against their desires to submit to aptly applied force.

Skidmark
07-05-2011, 6:53 PM
Do you live in San Francisco?

94121 is a SF Zip code...

Kudos to CGF for making Hennessey move on this.

jcoenenberg
07-05-2011, 6:54 PM
San Joaquin county next. Getting one here is almost impossible

dotalchemy
07-05-2011, 6:55 PM
Do you live in San Francisco?

Yes, out near the Presidio.

warbird
07-05-2011, 6:57 PM
Has anyone asked the police chief/sheriff to justify those amounts when other counties are doing it for far less? How does he show that those totals comply with state and federal law. And what DOJ license? I am surprised CGF has not taken them to court already. In most counties a live scan fingerprint set is no more the $125. training from $90 to $200 by certified instructors. Application process not to exceed actual cost or $200 total from start to finish. And what about someone with a CCW from another county visiting SF? Are they going to have to apply for a temporary visa? (LOL)

notme92069
07-05-2011, 6:58 PM
Do you live in San Francisco?

Are you thinking dotalchemy v. hennessey?

dotalchemy
07-05-2011, 7:01 PM
Are you thinking dotalchemy v. hennessey?

Heh, yeah, because I can afford lawsuits.

If I could, I'd be on the phone to a lawyer now about this.

1JimMarch
07-05-2011, 7:03 PM
Sigh. OK, the citizens-only thing was banned in what, 1972?

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/rappard.txt

A Cali appellate court actually struck down part of what's now the CCW laws, by striking policies discriminatory against green-card-holders. In doing so they found a discriminatory purpose in the original 1924 law. Why this case isn't being cited in EVERY Cali CCW challenge is beyond me.

wildhawker
07-05-2011, 7:08 PM
As can be observed in the fees attachment to the policy, SF seems intent to make the firearm carry license unattainable by way of cost and condition burdens. Consider:

* State DOJ CCW background check fee $95 (paid to SF, forwarded to DOJ)
* Local fee $100 (paid to SF)
* Psychological assessment $150 (paid to practitioner)
* SF testing & qualification $1,722 (paid to SF)
* 3-day POST training ~$300 (paid to training provider)
* DOJ background check/clearance for POST training $32+19 (paid to DOJ)
* Live Scan Fingerprint operator fee ~$50 (paid to operator)
* $1Million insurance ~$500 (paid to insurance co.)
* Ammunition (~550 rounds) ~$250
* Travel, opportunity cost (time off from work, etc.)

Registration for PC 832 POST firearms courses are limited and usually take place at limited locations only a few times per year.

All for a *1 year* permit.

The policy is the Sheriff's attempt to quickly comply with Cal. Penal Code 12050, et seq., and avoid litigation. It will likely fail at both.

-Brandon

eaglemike
07-05-2011, 7:11 PM
Doesn't this guy see the writing on the wall?

Un-freaking-believable. What arrogance.

I don't think there's a big enough face-palm for this.

I'll be sending another donation soon.

I wish this guy could be on the other end of his policies.

jl123
07-05-2011, 7:12 PM
Heh, yeah, because I can afford lawsuits.

If I could, I'd be on the phone to a lawyer now about this.

I don't think you'd be the one paying for it.

safewaysecurity
07-05-2011, 7:18 PM
94121 is a SF Zip code...

Kudos to CGF for making Hennessey move on this.

Hey that was actually my old zip code.

Paladin
07-05-2011, 7:19 PM
Doesn't this guy see the writing on the wall?

Un-freaking-believable. What arrogance.

I don't think there's a big enough face-palm for this.

I'll be sending another donation soon.

I wish this guy could be on the other end of his policies.You may be getting your wish this fall.

IIRC, Hennessey is not a LEO, so he'll won't qualify under Bush's "retired LEOs are more equal than civilians" federal CCW law, right? Or will his "service" as sheriff somehow qualify him?

Or will he simply use "being SF's sheriff for decades, there's a lot of BGs who'd like to harm me -- give me a CA CCW" as his GC? (What CA sheriff would turn down a retired CA sheriff's CCW app? :rolleyes:)

trashman
07-05-2011, 7:24 PM
That's about what I expected....an attempt to price the permit out of the realm of reasonableness. At least it gets a good laugh.

I'm dying to hear what the Sheriff's rationale is for the personal liability coverage minimum.

--Neill

Librarian
07-05-2011, 7:41 PM
Let's see.

I believe we already know that phase 1, items 2, 3 and 4 are illegal - because the law says all that is required to apply is the app.
26175 (g) An applicant shall not be required to complete any additional
application or form for a license, or to provide any information
other than that necessary to complete the standard application form
described in subdivision (a), except to clarify or interpret
information provided by the applicant on the standard application
form.
Phase II - registration is not required.

Proof of residency IS required - if issuing will be on the basis of one's residency.

Proof of age? What age?

Reference letters?

Phase III 2 is OK, properly priced.
3? No authorization for that.
4?
Isn't it the case that no additional fees can be required... ah, yes -- 26190 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/26190.html) (g) Except as authorized pursuant to this section, 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.
Wouldn't be so bad if it were phase V, since the application part would be complete.

Pity. They didn't even try.

MKE
07-05-2011, 7:44 PM
Great to see CGF keeping Hennessey in check - to adopt and comply with a CCW policy. But good luck to the average SF citizen hoping to apply for a CCW. Those fees are an outrage and obviously intended to keep them from even applying; and that's not even a guarantee the applicant will be approved for a CCW permit.

Southwest Chuck
07-05-2011, 7:46 PM
No, they fully intend to enforce a US Citizen only requirement.

Bu ..bu....but aren't they a sanctuary city and all that??? :43:

wash
07-05-2011, 7:55 PM
This should be fun.

bigcalidave
07-05-2011, 7:56 PM
It's better than nothing, no 1911s ? There are a lot of issues with that policy! Looks like there is a lot of work still to do.

sfpcservice
07-05-2011, 7:59 PM
That policy is hillarious! CGF now has the document it needs to get to court over something worthwhile! Thanks Sheriff!

trashman
07-05-2011, 8:09 PM
Pity. They didn't even try.

Heh. My sense, based on a couple of conversations with other folks, is that the Sheriff could care less -- this is the minimum amount of effort required to put the process in detente long enough for him to retire and hand the football to his successor to grapple with.

--Neill

IrishPirate
07-05-2011, 8:11 PM
http://laceibamfi.org/files/2010/10/samuel-l-jackson-top-11-pulp-fiction.jpg
"and we shall strike down upon you with great vengence and furious anger, those who attempt to trample on our freedoms, AND YOU WILL KNOW OUR NAME IS THE CALGUNS FOUNDATION, WHEN WE LAY OUR VENGENCE UPON YOU!!!!!!"

mrdd
07-05-2011, 8:11 PM
So, non-residents of SF with a CCW can carry a 1911 in condition one, but residents are not coordinated enough to do so? How does that make any sense?

Anyone else notice that he is in effect creating his own "roster" for his subjects? Hilarity ensues!

Paul S
07-05-2011, 8:16 PM
Heh. My sense, based on a couple of conversations with other folks, is that the Sheriff could care less -- this is the minimum amount of effort required to put the process in detente long enough for him to retire and hand the football to his successor to grapple with.

--Neill

Ding...ding...ding
We have a winner.

This is exactly my take. He surely knows most if not all the requirements are needlessly onerous and would ultimately be tossed after litigation. But he cares not...by the time the slow wheels of justice turn...aided by liberal jurists in San Francisco who will put the issues and case on a slow track anyway...he'll he OUTTA HERE and the next guy will have to fight the fight. And I understand his successor is not exactly a prize catch.

Well done CGF..I love it when their feet get held to the fire. Carry on.

Monte
07-05-2011, 8:16 PM
That policy is hillarious! CGF now has the document it needs to get to court over something worthwhile! Thanks Sheriff!

It does kind of feel as though CGF handed him his own foot and asked him to stuff it into his mouth...and he complied.

uyoga
07-05-2011, 8:17 PM
Despite the Bleach, true colors are clearly showing through.

tankerman
07-05-2011, 8:22 PM
Lets see if he actually issues to commoners.
Did you read the policy and understand the stipulations?

Coded-Dude
07-05-2011, 8:28 PM
Doesn't this guy see the writing on the wall?

Un-freaking-believable. What arrogance.

I don't think there's a big enough face-palm for this.

I'll be sending another donation soon.

I wish this guy could be on the other end of his policies.


http://files.redux.com/images/46bfd0ef710cb088c2e9db8fbc64af87/raw

CaliforniaLiberal
07-05-2011, 8:29 PM
http://laceibamfi.org/files/2010/10/samuel-l-jackson-top-11-pulp-fiction.jpg
"and we shall strike down upon you with great vengence and furious anger, those who attempt to trample on our freedoms, AND YOU WILL KNOW OUR NAME IS THE CALGUNS FOUNDATION, WHEN WE LAY OUR VENGENCE UPON YOU!!!!!!"


Isn't this like a fast pitch right in the center of the strike zone, begging for CalGuns to hit one out of the park? Is he stupid of\r is he just dragging things out and delaying the inevitable? At what point will the City/County recognize that fighting this is a futile waste of scarce money?

Go Gettum CalGuns!!

Dreaded Claymore
07-05-2011, 8:43 PM
It does kind of feel as though CGF handed him his own foot and asked him to stuff it into his mouth...and he complied.

Quoted for very truth. Reading this policy prompted facepalm after facepalm from me, especially when he forbade M1911s, and anything but .38 Special in a revolver.

Well, he and the government of San Francisco will get what is coming to them:
http://laceibamfi.org/files/2010/10/samuel-l-jackson-top-11-pulp-fiction.jpg
"and we shall strike down upon you with great vengence and furious anger, those who attempt to trample on our freedoms, AND YOU WILL KNOW OUR NAME IS THE CALGUNS FOUNDATION, WHEN WE LAY OUR VENGENCE UPON YOU!!!!!!"

hoffmang
07-05-2011, 8:44 PM
It does kind of feel as though CGF handed him his own foot and asked him to stuff it into his mouth...and he complied.

Sometimes you'd think they were actually CGF infiltrators... :43:

-Gene

command_liner
07-05-2011, 8:45 PM
This is an opening bid in a political poker match. It is nonsense -- fluff.
The fees are outrageous on purpose. But recall that Gura mentioned fees
for enumerated rights in his pleadings in Heller. We already have a win in
Heller and a separate win (1966?) saying there can be no such fees.

The thing to do is for some qualified person to apply tomorrow, be turned
down, then get a section 1983 lawsuit in place against the sheriff before he
retires. Make it so he can never collect that pension. A win of that sort
would wake up the sheriffs.

Patrick Aherne
07-05-2011, 8:45 PM
The firearm type restrictions are basically the same as what I had when I was a deputy for SFSD. I don't think he will have problems defending that. The ridiculous $1722 qualifications charges will, hopefully, be viewed like a poll tax and ruled illegal. Miley, I th

scarville
07-05-2011, 8:58 PM
That policy is GARBAGE......

$1,722.00 for the training & qualification?????

Are they on DRUGS?

Total fees for initial permit $2,067.00

I reckon Sheriff Hennessy thinks the Bill of Rights is a country club and its protections are limited to the wealthy.

dantodd
07-05-2011, 9:07 PM
The firearm type restrictions are basically the same as what I had when I was a deputy for SFSD. I don't think he will have problems defending that. The ridiculous $1722 qualifications charges will, hopefully, be viewed like a poll tax and ruled illegal.

Sorry, as an employee you have to follow stupid rules or risk your job. He doesn't have the authority to make such limitations on others. A poll tax is only illegal because there was a constitutional amendment making it so. Let's hope this isn't treated in the same manner. Statutorily he is restricted in what he can extort for his permits.

Don't worry about "will he issue to ordinary residents" guys. That is not the goal here. The goal is to kill these illegal restrictions so that when he (or his successor) has no choice but to issue to all qualified applicants there won't be roadblocks to S.F. residents who want to apply.

unusedusername
07-05-2011, 9:12 PM
Make it so he can never collect that pension.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter...

How can winning a lawsuit against a Sheriff make it so that he/she can not collect the retirement pension that would apply to their position?

1JimMarch
07-05-2011, 9:17 PM
Why would anybody HERE, on Calguns, assume a cop like this (except he sorta isn't but we'll ignore that for now) has the ability to create brand new legislation?

Now let's ask another question. Is it possible for the SF DA's office to bust ANY SF resident who carries illegally but commits no other crime? (And assume the gun carried is registered with Cal-DOJ.)

Seriously, with an official policy like THIS floating around, that manages to violate so many different civil rights it's not funny?

hoffmang
07-05-2011, 9:31 PM
Enh. This was step one in a lulz fest. Picking on people who aren't used to being bullied is so much fun.

-Gene

ojisan
07-05-2011, 9:38 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/icebear713/smilies/evillaugh.gif

DRM6000
07-05-2011, 9:59 PM
:clap: give 'em hell!

Enh. This was step one in a lulz fest. Picking on people who aren't used to being bullied is so much fun.

-Gene

Phouty
07-05-2011, 10:15 PM
Even Cuban leader got strong opinion about Sheriff Hennessy policy.
http://www.affenclub.com/smilies/1101/FidelCastro2.gif

strongpoint
07-05-2011, 10:18 PM
Enh. This was step one in a lulz fest. Picking on people who aren't used to being bullied is so much fun.

-Gene

so what's the next step? and what's the timetable?

dantodd
07-05-2011, 10:22 PM
so what's the next step? and what's the timetable?

It is generally not recommended to reveal your strategy on an open forum that the opposition is known to read.

hoffmang
07-05-2011, 10:24 PM
so what's the next step? and what's the timetable?

Where and when we attack... we like to keep 58 counties guessing. Well, less than that - the compliant counties know who they are and know we'd ask nicely before hurting them.

-Gene

morfeeis
07-05-2011, 10:40 PM
Enh. This was step one in a lulz fest. Picking on people who aren't used to being bullied is so much fun.

-Gene
I'm not sure if there is a drug out there that can give you that same kind of "HI", the bigger the bully the bigger the wimp he becomes when he meets his better........

tonelar
07-05-2011, 11:01 PM
It's fun to watch the cogs slowly drop into place. Great stuff.

cogs turn other cogs or wheels
puzzle pieces drop into place

Icypu
07-05-2011, 11:02 PM
I don't know about the other things, but the actual description of the firing line tests make me wonder. It would be hard for me to shoot without using the sights with a time constraint with weak hand and single hand and score well. 15 yards isn't so bad but, still who could actually pass those requirements with 80% score. I doubt most average people could.

pitchbaby
07-05-2011, 11:12 PM
No, they fully intend to enforce a US Citizen only requirement.

That is completely messed up. Cause you know... foreigners always get a pass with criminals when they flash a foreign passport or a green card... SHEESH!

Cali-V
07-05-2011, 11:36 PM
Hennessey must have consulted with Iggy on this policy... WTF.. Strategically it's a CGF win/win/win...

Hey guys good showing...

FreedomIsNotFree
07-05-2011, 11:37 PM
Hennessey is essentially flipping a double bird to CGF and any SF County resident that would even contemplate seeking a CCW.

Hey Hennessey! Challenge accepted. Donation to CGF inbound.

tonelar
07-05-2011, 11:55 PM
Enh. This was step one in a lulz fest. Picking on people who aren't used to being bullied is so much fun.

-Gene

It's a pity Hennesy is this close to retiring... Is the SFSD also named in the suit?

HowardW56
07-06-2011, 4:19 AM
Enh. This was step one in a lulz fest. Picking on people who aren't used to being bullied is so much fun.

-Gene



:King:

NotEnufGarage
07-06-2011, 4:34 AM
Where and when we attack... we like to keep 58 counties guessing. Well, less than that - the compliant counties know who they are and know we'd ask nicely before hurting them.

-Gene

Please, make these guys squeal like little girls. The politicians in SF need to learn that, just as freedom is not free, neither is abridging freedom.

Kid Stanislaus
07-06-2011, 5:15 AM
Sometimes you'd think they were actually CGF infiltrators... :43:

-Gene

Now THERE'S a tasty little tidbit of information!!;)

Sutcliffe
07-06-2011, 5:29 AM
Other than lining his own pockets at my expense this tool has done nothing for the people he SWORE to protect. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.
The only true evil in this world is that of public officials who operate in this manner.
I doubt this guy will be around long enough for Calguns to *****slap him. But, somebody will be on the recieving end. I can't wait.

Goosebrown
07-06-2011, 5:40 AM
I quote from PsychGuy on another thread...

"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.""

If this is true how can they be requiring all this other stuff and at such great cost?

rrr70
07-06-2011, 5:50 AM
I don't know about the other things, but the actual description of the firing line tests make me wonder. It would be hard for me to shoot without using the sights with a time constraint with weak hand and single hand and score well. 15 yards isn't so bad but, still who could actually pass those requirements with 80% score. I doubt most average people could.

I wonder how many of his deputies can do that?

Cali-V
07-06-2011, 6:42 AM
So even with the restrictions, should SF County folks apply?
At least to complete Phase I, both US born and naturalized citizens?

Tripper
07-06-2011, 6:45 AM
I'm thinking someone should put some investigative reporters on them and see if their own officers and deputies can pass with the same standards being applied, including the sheriff, tested by an outside entity not law enforcement where standards would apply equally to all

Any that don't pass the course should be terminated immediately and not be eligible fir rehire, and city shall not be allowed to pay for their retaining.

Otherwise, all of the surrounding counties should swarm sf with their ccw's and show 1911's can actually be carried

HowardW56
07-06-2011, 6:48 AM
I quote from PsychGuy on another thread...

"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.""

If this is true how can they be requiring all this other stuff and at such great cost?

Because:

The law doesn't apply to them.
They don't ever want to issue CCW permits.
The policy is designed to deter applications, not facilitate permit issuance.
The policy won't change until they are forced to change it.

Tripper
07-06-2011, 6:56 AM
I agree with the following
So, non-residents of SF with a CCW can carry a 1911 in condition one, but residents are not coordinated enough to do so?

Tripper
07-06-2011, 6:57 AM
I just had to stab that one in

Crom
07-06-2011, 7:12 AM
I am very pleased that my automatic monthly donation of $10.00 is being used so skillfully in bringing about actual change. For those of you who are not donating automatically please consider doing so.

Peter.Steele
07-06-2011, 7:13 AM
I don't know about the other things, but the actual description of the firing line tests make me wonder. It would be hard for me to shoot without using the sights with a time constraint with weak hand and single hand and score well. 15 yards isn't so bad but, still who could actually pass those requirements with 80% score. I doubt most average people could.



Try it sometime with an unloaded DA pistol, in your home. You'd be surprised how long a time 4 seconds actually is. It's plenty of time to draw and fire two aimed rounds.

missiondude
07-06-2011, 7:20 AM
I don't know about the other things, but the actual description of the firing line tests make me wonder. It would be hard for me to shoot without using the sights with a time constraint with weak hand and single hand and score well. 15 yards isn't so bad but, still who could actually pass those requirements with 80% score. I doubt most average people could.

I did no see where you could not use your sights in the test description. The times given would allow for a crappy presentation and 1 full second to align the sights even at the close distances. The entire grey portion of the target counts the same 2 points, so I figure this test is easy to pass. The rest of the BS to get the permit not so much...

Anchors
07-06-2011, 7:30 AM
Wow...well it is a start.
I just don't get how every single state surrounding California is shall-issue for a nominal fee and they think there will be blood in the streets.
Like California is somehow different or special.

The requirements remind me of the process to become a police officer. They probably require that you be CS/pepper sprayed to get a CCW too.

Hm.

I'm not a citizen.

Apparently my rights aren't recognised by San Francisco.

Looks like I'll take that job in Utah after all...

Well, that is a first for them. haha.
How ironic that they support illegal immigration, but not even a legal immigrant's right to protect himself/herself.
Lovely.

Take the job in Utah anyway man!

Anchors
07-06-2011, 7:50 AM
My favorite page.
My additions in red.
My favorites are no round in the chamber and no 1911, but Paras are okay...they only make 1911.

AUTHORIZED HANDGUN LIST

Semi-Automatic Pistols Sounds like the Roos/Kasler scheme in reverse...

-Beretta
-Glock
-H&K
-Kahr
-ParaOrdinance THE ONLY HANDGUN PARA MAKES ARE 1911s...which aren't allowed!!!
-Ruger
-SigArms
-Smith & Weston [sic] What the hell is Smith & Weston?
-Springfield
-Walther

Chambered for: No .380 pocket pistols for anyone. I hope you like small Kahrs and Ruger LC9s...

-9x19 or 9mm Parabellum
-40 S&W
-45 ACP

Provided that:

-No single action semi-auto pistols of any kind (i.e. 1911 type) Seriously? or is it okay if it is a Para?
-No locked-and-cocked carry Then I'm better off carrying a knife...
-Pistol must have a firing pin safety or block
-Each firearm must be qualified with in order to carry it - no blanket qualifications
-Glock pistols must be fitted with a standard 5 pound connector and a standard 5 pound spring I'm going to have a lot of trouble finding a "standard" 5 pound connector when the stock one from Glock is 4.5 pounds...

Revolvers: Sounds like the Roos/Kasler scheme in reverse...

-Colt
-Ruger
-Smith & Wesson

Chambered for: Why?

.38 Special

tankarian
07-06-2011, 8:02 AM
Sometimes you'd think they were actually CGF infiltrators... :43:

-Gene

or simply...

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg18/scaled.php?server=18&filename=footxray8197447.jpg&res=medium

HisDivineShadow
07-06-2011, 8:06 AM
Enh. This was step one in a lulz fest. Picking on people who aren't used to being bullied is so much fun.

-Gene

When does Baca get his turn? :(

Anchors
07-06-2011, 8:32 AM
When does Baca get his turn? :(

After Hutchens ;)

or

:twoweeks:

nicki
07-06-2011, 8:37 AM
What are the typical penalties for criminals who are caught illegally carrying guns?

Seems to me that the costs to comply with the law far exceed the penalties given to those who we are trying to protect ourselves from.

It appears to me that maybe the LCAV may have written these policies.

tango-52
07-06-2011, 9:14 AM
My favorites are no round in the chamber and no 1911, but Paras are okay...they only make 1911.


But the ParaOrdnance I am carrying right now is a DAO. The Carry12.
Just FYI

ke6guj
07-06-2011, 9:21 AM
My favorite page.
My additions in red.
My favorites are no round in the chamber and no 1911, but Paras are okay...they only make 1911.

well. Para does make Double-action only 1911s, so maybe that is what they meant.

here's one, http://www.para-usa.com/new/product_pistol.php?id=13

edit: too slow, should have refreshed :D

bussda
07-06-2011, 9:34 AM
You guys are all missing the real point of the policy.

Look at how the application requirements mirror an application for a normal police officer.
Look at how the training requirements reflect officers training requirements, and annual requalification certification.
I think the allowed carry list is a copy of their officers allowed off duty carry.

This is not about restricting our rights. It is about forming an armed informal reserve with no expense to the city. :)

dantodd
07-06-2011, 9:39 AM
In my best Deliverance drawl... "gee sheriff you sure got a purtty policy..."

safewaysecurity
07-06-2011, 10:02 AM
Lol you can't carry cocked and locked.... why don't they do that with their officers?

rrr70
07-06-2011, 10:30 AM
Lol you can't carry cocked and locked.... why don't they do that with their officers?

If you go to 850 Bryant you'll see that sheriff deputies do not carry guns in the courtrooms. Only empty holsters.

bussda
07-06-2011, 10:38 AM
If you go to 850 Bryant you'll see that sheriff deputies do not carry guns in the courtrooms. Only empty holsters.

This tends to be standard policy for some courthouses.

strongpoint
07-06-2011, 10:48 AM
Where and when we attack... we like to keep 58 counties guessing. Well, less than that - the compliant counties know who they are and know we'd ask nicely before hurting them.

-Gene

my question was more like (per librarian's post #45) "when is CGF going to smack SFSD into modifying its CCW policy to one that's compliant with existing state law?"

Briancnelson
07-06-2011, 12:05 PM
You gotta fight these guys for every inch. We got an inch though. Next few inches coming soon I'm guessing.

wildhawker
07-06-2011, 12:12 PM
my question was more like (per librarian's post #45) "when is CGF going to smack SFSD into modifying its CCW policy to one that's compliant with existing state law?"

The answer is the same for both iterations of the question.

We do quite a bit of telegraphing here at CGN, but we [must] stop short of directly answering questions such as that you and others have posed.

-Brandon

spgripside
07-06-2011, 12:25 PM
The answer is the same for both iterations of the question.

We do quite a bit of telegraphing here at CGN, but we [must] stop short of directly answering questions such as that you and others have posed.

-Brandon

I trust the smackdown will come soon enough. Thanks to CGF for forcing Hennessey cough up this indefensible policy (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/downloads/documents/SanFrancisco.pdf). What a f'n joke.

Wernher von Browning
07-06-2011, 12:32 PM
We do quite a bit of telegraphing here at CGN, but we [must] stop short of directly answering questions such as that you and others have posed.


Well then! If they are reading this, let's give 'em something to worry about!

When's the smackdown coming? Why, in :twoweeks: of course!


Moahahahaha....

wash
07-06-2011, 12:50 PM
As much as I would like my county to be next, everyone needs to know that CGF has a plan and they will follow a pre-determined sequence of events unless some unforeseen outcome allows them to accelerate the process or change course.

Be aware that when CGF makes it to your county, they will be ready to win!

Cali-V
07-06-2011, 1:13 PM
Wondering how would one play this for beneficial media coverage?
There must be an angle...

PhalSe
07-06-2011, 1:14 PM
I didn't expect the policy they came up with to be acceptable but this is honestly astounding. I truly appreciate the time and effort CGF puts into these lawsuits and that progress is being made.

vincewarde
07-06-2011, 1:55 PM
Oh please please please Sheriff, please do something that stupid. :43:

Under In Re Marriage Cases, "orientation is recognized as a suspect class for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution." Though Proposition 8 (Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution) exempted the designation of marriage from the equal protection provisions of the state constitution.

This would include:

Denying someone based on good moral character grounds on the basis of the military's enforcement of the pre-DADT provisions generating a general discharge rather than an honorable.

Denying someone based on good moral character grounds on the basis of their orientation, period. This occurred a lot in rural areas in the state up until the 1990's.

Not to bring all of the politics involving rainbow flags and such, but I know for a fact that sheriff's have in the past denied people because they feel like if they "tone down the gay" or "Closet themselves", they could avoid bashing and violence towards them.

I could not agree more. Everyone should be entitled to self defense.

wildhawker
07-06-2011, 1:58 PM
Wondering how would one play this for beneficial media coverage?
There must be an angle...

Well, I wonder how much previous applicants/licensees paid and what that process looked like...

Patrick Aherne
07-06-2011, 2:01 PM
Making SF, the land of civil rights, except THAT "evil" 2nd amendment, comply and issue would be a HUGE moral victory and send a message to many other counties. Counties that have neither the resources, nor the ideaology of SF.

Rrr70: that qualification course is the off-duty course for deputies, so yes, every deputy who wants to carry am off duty pistol other than their issued G17 has to pass it.

CCWFacts
07-06-2011, 2:19 PM
That's cool! Their policy is packed full of fail and little else. It looks like it was drafted by a high school student. It's begging to go to court.

strongpoint
07-06-2011, 3:07 PM
The answer is the same for both iterations of the question.

We do quite a bit of telegraphing here at CGN, but we [must] stop short of directly answering questions such as that you and others have posed.

no, i get it. this is just my way of saying "it can't happen soon enough." thanks to all involved for getting us this far.

rips31
07-06-2011, 3:34 PM
my union has a candidate's forum for sf sheriff on monday, 11 july. maybe i should pose a couple of questions...

Heh. My sense, based on a couple of conversations with other folks, is that the Sheriff could care less -- this is the minimum amount of effort required to put the process in detente long enough for him to retire and hand the football to his successor to grapple with.

--Neill

stix213
07-06-2011, 3:46 PM
Is it normal to have to qualify doing a timed holster draw with your support hand?

Also a 25 yard qualification? Seems a bit far for a CCW qual to me, seeing that my local indoor range doesn't even go out that far.

Ratboy
07-06-2011, 3:50 PM
I was looking over those as well and wondering the same thing.

Gray Peterson
07-06-2011, 4:04 PM
my union has a candidate's forum for sf sheriff on monday, 11 july. maybe i should pose a couple of questions...

Be careful of the questions. I would avoid anything talking of good cause and good moral character. This is premature for numerous reasons.

hoffmang
07-06-2011, 4:10 PM
Is it normal to have to qualify doing a timed holster draw with your support hand?

Also a 25 yard qualification? Seems a bit far for a CCW qual to me, seeing that my local indoor range doesn't even go out that far.

25 yards is too far for civilians, but being able to shoot with support hand is good common sense. Denying your for being no good at that isn't ok though.

-Gene

yellowfin
07-06-2011, 8:29 PM
my union has a candidate's forum for sf sheriff on monday, 11 july. maybe i should pose a couple of questions...Ask them if they've ever tried to fit a telephone pole into a standard size rubber glove, because that's what it's going to be like for them when CGF and SAF stick the next lawsuit up their tailpipe if they keep up SF & Hennesey's nonsense.

BigDogatPlay
07-06-2011, 8:33 PM
If you go to 850 Bryant you'll see that sheriff deputies do not carry guns in the courtrooms. Only empty holsters.

Those are, typically, deputies who are having to move defendants in and out of custodial areas. The judge's assigned bailiffs are supposed to be armed at all times and not moving defendants.

That said... I doubt that the sheriff himself had anything to do with this. His staff counsel likely threw it together after a consult with Lexipol. Sheriff Hennesey is a lot of things, including an attorney, but while the work product is in his name I'm sure his direction left off at "make it hard for anyone to get one".

trashman
07-06-2011, 8:40 PM
my union has a candidate's forum for sf sheriff on monday, 11 july. maybe i should pose a couple of questions...

My advice would be to phrase the question(s) as neutrally as possible -- "what's your position on issuing concealed carry permits to citizens?...I understand a new policy has been written...any comments?"

The results will be spectacular, particularly if the candidate(s) think you're anti-gun.

--Neill

CC Gunsmithing
07-06-2011, 8:43 PM
Wait, the criminals still carry them for free?

trashman
07-06-2011, 8:47 PM
Is it normal to have to qualify doing a timed holster draw with your support hand?


When I qualified for a CCW in Virginia many years ago weak-hand fire (5 rounds) was a requirement of the training/demonstration course. It was at ~7 yards IIRC. Difficult and something I had not practiced beforehand (though at that distance it wasn't a problem).


Also a 25 yard qualification? Seems a bit far for a CCW qual to me, seeing that my local indoor range doesn't even go out that far.I'm happy to shoot at that distance though I'm bummed I can't use something with a decent crisp trigger pull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol) (per the policy).

I'm curious if (former SFPD Chief) Heather Fong qualified at that distance (http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-06-05/bay-area/17163409_1_fong-shooting-range-officers)...

--Neill

BigDogatPlay
07-06-2011, 8:49 PM
My advice would be to phrase the question(s) as neutrally as possible -- "what's your position on issuing concealed carry permits to citizens?...I understand a new policy has been written...any comments?"

The results will be spectacular, particularly if the candidate(s) think you're anti-gun.

--Neill

Considering that one of the candidates is current Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, whose position could likely be inferred, (http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-07-09/bay-area/17253546_1_package-of-gun-control-measures-firearms-full-board) I'm thinking phrasing the question that way, and running a recorder, could yield a bounty of sound bites.

rips31
07-06-2011, 10:03 PM
i was thinking more along the lines of what BigDog had in mind. a couple of well-placed questions from the 'right people' and a well-placed recording. :D

Be careful of the questions. I would avoid anything talking of good cause and good moral character. This is premature for numerous reasons.

FullMetalJacket
07-06-2011, 10:06 PM
25 yards is too far for civilians
If one was ever involved in a shooting at 25 yards (and probably much closer than that), one would probably be accused of not being in sufficiently imminent danger to warrant deadly force. 5-7 yards would be more than sufficient IMHO.

Paladin
07-06-2011, 10:12 PM
25 yards is too far for civilians, but being able to shoot with support hand is good common sense. Denying your for being no good at that isn't ok though.

-Gene
"Being able" or "being required"?

What will they do re. a veteran w/o one arm? Can't he/she get a SFSD CCW to defend themselves? :mad:

hoffmang
07-06-2011, 10:15 PM
If one was ever involved in a shooting at 25 yards (and probably much closer than that), one would probably be accused of not being in sufficiently imminent danger to warrant deadly force. 5-7 yards would be more than sufficient IMHO.
That's basically my point. Absent the active shooter in mall/church/public forum scenario, a civilian arms bearer shouldn't be shooting beyond about 25'. They should be withdrawing to cover and dialing 911 until or unless it's clear that it's an active shooter.
"Being able" or "being required"?

What will they do re. a veteran w/o one arm? Can't he/she get a SFSD CCW to defend themselves? :mad:

"Being able to" implies having both hands. I was specifically saying it really shouldn't even be required for those with full dexterity.

-Gene

Paladin
07-06-2011, 10:23 PM
"Being able to" implies having both hands. I was specifically saying it really shouldn't even be required for those with full dexterity.

-GeneI understood that. I was wondering what SFSD would do if faced w/a 1-armed applicant.

Southwest Chuck
07-06-2011, 10:38 PM
:D Sorry...Dup

Southwest Chuck
07-06-2011, 10:43 PM
I understood that. I was wondering what SFSD would do if faced w/a 1-armed man applicant.

Call Detective Gerard since he must be a "Fugitive" ? :D At least that's what Dr. Richard Kimble would do.

LiquidFlorian
07-06-2011, 11:32 PM
I think it was said before but these guidelines sound like what you would expect their deputies to go through, but with out the SD picking up the costs/absorbing it in house.

tonelar
07-06-2011, 11:58 PM
I'm curious if (former SFPD Chief) Heather Fong (http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-06-05/bay-area/17163409_1_fong-shooting-range-officers)qualified at that distance...

--Neill

Im so glad this P-O-S is no longer around.

DeanW66
07-07-2011, 1:58 AM
While it's not my county - GO GET-UM CGF!

I am very pleased that my automatic monthly donation of $10.00 is being used so skillfully in bringing about actual change. For those of you who are not donating automatically please consider doing so.

+1, follow the 2nd link in my signature for ideas on how.

wildhawker
07-07-2011, 2:12 AM
GO GET-UM CGF!

Funny you say that... :43:

Thanks to everyone for their kind words and support. Your contributions are going directly to this and other efforts like this one.

-Brandon

Anchors
07-07-2011, 3:34 AM
But the ParaOrdnance I am carrying right now is a DAO. The Carry12.
Just FYI

Ahh I see.

well. Para does make Double-action only 1911s, so maybe that is what they meant.

here's one, http://www.para-usa.com/new/product_pistol.php?id=13

edit: too slow, should have refreshed :D

Gotcha. I didn't know they made DAO 1911s.

Wondering how would one play this for beneficial media coverage?
There must be an angle...

Start your own media company?
Fox rarely did guns, only if a host was having an "op-ed" moment.
Even conservative AM radio hosts never talk about guns.
We're the only ones that care.
We are literally in a fight against a couple of antis and thousands of government employees.
There are more antis in government than in the Brady Campaign mailing list, I bet.

Kid Stanislaus
07-07-2011, 5:05 AM
Wait, the criminals still carry them for free?

Oh, you cynics!:eek:

Kenpo Joe
07-07-2011, 5:43 AM
25 yards is too far for civilians, but being able to shoot with support hand is good common sense. Denying your for being no good at that isn't ok though.

-Gene

I would also like to see someone with only one hand qualify on that course of file. ADA anyone.

Back on mute. :cool2:

Tripper
07-07-2011, 7:21 AM
Americans with disabilities act should trump that requirement easily

PCPerks
07-07-2011, 7:21 AM
That course of fire seems very familiar.... Like what I have to do all the time for my pistol qualification in the military. While it seems to some to be difficult, it's really not. With a days practice, anyone can pass it, especially if anywhere on the silhouette counts. I've seen lots of people who have zero experience with firearms spend a couple hours on the range and then pass the qualification test. Some even shooting qualifying expert.

So is this policy that is posted his "draft" policy, or his finalized policy? If it's his final and already published, there hopefully is going to be a lot more legal action coming.

YubaRiver
07-07-2011, 7:44 AM
All this talk of qualifying at distance, weak side, shooting for time etc seems wrong.

I am thinking the most vulnerable will be left out of being able to defend themselves.

A Grandma with arthritis or a bit of palsy
may not be a able to pull and take out some shooter at 25 yards,
but she very well may have the judgement AND need to use a pistol in
a "get off me" situation.

Paladin
07-07-2011, 1:14 PM
A copy of the San Francisco carry license policy is available for download here (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/downloads/documents/SanFrancisco.pdf).
Now why doesn't that link to the SF Sheriff's Department website??? :confused:
http://www.sfsheriff.com/home.htm

Oh, that's right, because the SFSD's website DOESN'T EVEN MENTION CCWs! ! ! :mad:

sully007
07-07-2011, 1:34 PM
H. Cause for Revocation of CCW License: The Sheriff has the right to revoke any license during the period of the license. Revocations include, but are not limited to any of the following or failure of the licensee to report any of the following:

11. the loss or theft of the firearm listed on the CCW.

So let me get this straight, you get your firearm stolen and because of no fault of your own, you now lose your CCW?

Is this legal????

ccmc
07-07-2011, 1:36 PM
My favorite page.
My additions in red.
My favorites are no round in the chamber and no 1911, but Paras are okay...they only make 1911.

AUTHORIZED HANDGUN LIST

Semi-Automatic Pistols Sounds like the Roos/Kasler scheme in reverse...

-Beretta
-Glock
-H&K
-Kahr
-ParaOrdinance THE ONLY HANDGUN PARA MAKES ARE 1911s...which aren't allowed!!!
-Ruger
-SigArms
-Smith & Weston [sic] What the hell is Smith & Weston?
-Springfield
-Walther

Chambered for: No .380 pocket pistols for anyone. I hope you like small Kahrs and Ruger LC9s...

-9x19 or 9mm Parabellum
-40 S&W
-45 ACP

Provided that:

-No single action semi-auto pistols of any kind (i.e. 1911 type) Seriously? or is it okay if it is a Para?
-No locked-and-cocked carry Then I'm better off carrying a knife...
-Pistol must have a firing pin safety or block
-Each firearm must be qualified with in order to carry it - no blanket qualifications
-Glock pistols must be fitted with a standard 5 pound connector and a standard 5 pound spring I'm going to have a lot of trouble finding a "standard" 5 pound connector when the stock one from Glock is 4.5 pounds...

Revolvers: Sounds like the Roos/Kasler scheme in reverse...

-Colt
-Ruger
-Smith & Wesson

Chambered for: Why?

.38 Special

Just out of curiosity - what are the duty weapons for SFPD and SFSO?

wildhawker
07-07-2011, 1:41 PM
Now why doesn't that link to the SF Sheriff's Department website??? :confused:
http://www.sfsheriff.com/home.htm

Oh, that's right, because the SFSD's website DOESN'T EVEN MENTION CCWs! ! ! :mad:

Priorities first, but yes.

Briancnelson
07-07-2011, 1:41 PM
I still just can't figure out the .38 special revolver thing. I guess someone there figures if we get bigger revolvers we'll be tempted to quote lines from Dirty Harry.

ldsnet
07-07-2011, 2:17 PM
This is where the legislature should step in and fix this miserable law.

But being they are a bunch of liberal nut cases, it would never make it out of committee. But EPIC proof that the local agencies are ABUSING the word and intent of the existing laws.

Too bad the 9th won't be of much help either in smacking the existing laws as unconstitutional.

Carry On CGF!!! Keep up the good fight. One day we may get there.

Bigtime1
07-07-2011, 2:31 PM
The clear and present danger in their good cause paragraph would be great comedy if the SFPD's own policies didn't create clear and present danger to the citizens. Just ask the Bologna family.

Kid Stanislaus
07-07-2011, 4:40 PM
H. Cause for Revocation of CCW License: The Sheriff has the right to revoke any license during the period of the license. Revocations include, but are not limited to any of the following or failure of the licensee to report any of the following:

11. the loss or theft of the firearm listed on the CCW.

So let me get this straight, you get your firearm stolen and because of no fault of your own, you now lose your CCW?

Is this legal????

Well MAYBE its through no fault of your own and MAYBE NOT!! Leave it hanging in a bathroom stall and who's fault is it when its stolen? Leave it in a car (easily broken into) and who's fault is it when its stolen? I don't mean to be blaming the victim here but EGADS! folks we have to take the responsibility for keeping the gun secure.

The Geologist
07-07-2011, 6:55 PM
Man, this Hennessey guy comes straight out of a comic book.

erik
07-07-2011, 7:03 PM
Try it sometime with an unloaded DA pistol, in your home. You'd be surprised how long a time 4 seconds actually is. It's plenty of time to draw and fire two aimed rounds.

It's an eternity. FrontSight's pistol course has draw from concealment at 25m, controlled pair to center of mass, at 3.4 seconds. SFSD's test has 3yd, 2 rounds, 4 seconds.

goober
07-07-2011, 7:08 PM
Man, this Hennessey guy comes straight out of a comic book.

nice Jim Kelly quote :D

mtn_QUIALLI&NR=1

sully007
07-07-2011, 9:18 PM
Well MAYBE its through no fault of your own and MAYBE NOT!! Leave it hanging in a bathroom stall and who's fault is it when its stolen? Leave it in a car (easily broken into) and who's fault is it when its stolen? I don't mean to be blaming the victim here but EGADS! folks we have to take the responsibility for keeping the gun secure.

Guns in safe, away on a trip. House broken into, safe stolen and broken into. How much more can you secure your guns?

Librarian
07-07-2011, 10:41 PM
Guns in safe, away on a trip. House broken into, safe stolen and broken into. How much more can you secure your guns?

Keep them on you, of course. Oh, wait ... :(

eaglemike
07-07-2011, 11:05 PM
Well MAYBE its through no fault of your own and MAYBE NOT!! Leave it hanging in a bathroom stall and who's fault is it when its stolen? Leave it in a car (easily broken into) and who's fault is it when its stolen? I don't mean to be blaming the victim here but EGADS! folks we have to take the responsibility for keeping the gun secure.
Of course, you realize you are describing the behavior of at least one LEO, right?
:)

Anchors
07-08-2011, 12:54 AM
Well MAYBE its through no fault of your own and MAYBE NOT!! Leave it hanging in a bathroom stall and who's fault is it when its stolen? Leave it in a car (easily broken into) and who's fault is it when its stolen? I don't mean to be blaming the victim here but EGADS! folks we have to take the responsibility for keeping the gun secure.

People make mistakes. And leaving a gun in your car is the only option sometimes, even in free states.
If I was in Arizona full-time, I would invest in a car safe just because a lot of places have "No Firearms" signs and if the establishment serves liquor then I can't take my carry gun in there.
Normally you can't take a gun in them anyway, but if you have a CCW then you can if they aren't posted.
I recently read on an AZ gun forum that the "No Firearms" signs only apply to alcoholic establishments though, so that might make it easier.

Keep them on you, of course. Oh, wait ... :(

Well, theoretically I could UOC my AK, AR, Garand, Mosin, and this new handgun at the same time...but somehow I don't think that would end very well for me. haha.

Kharn
07-08-2011, 1:43 AM
Just out of curiosity - what are the duty weapons for SFPD and SFSO?Para Ordnance makes a variety of DA pistols that just happen to look like a 1911

Paladin
09-08-2011, 4:55 PM
HW56, you are mistaken: that's $1,722.00 for "Firearms Training Testing & Qualification".

The actual mandatory 24 hour POST certified training is a separate expense that you pay some 3rd party.

This $1,722.00 fee is to test that the training you got was sufficient and to see if you pass SFSD's CCW qualifications. IOW, this is for the, what, 30 minutes you're at their range demonstrating safe gun handling and running their course of fire.
I was thinking about this while driving around this afternoon....

Now that Hennessey has a written policy, are current LTC holders "grandfathered in", or, legally, must they *have* gone thru these same requirements when they got theirs issued? If the latter, a forensic accounting may show that they did not pay $1,722.00 for "Firearms Training Testing & Qualification", opening Hennessey up to another 14th A EP attack.

Oh, and there's still NOTHING re LTCs (that I could see) on their website: http://www.sfsheriff.com/

wildhawker
09-08-2011, 10:11 PM
Any existing would be grandfathered. I do not think there are any current SF licensees.

There's no requirement that the policy/application be on the website, only that they publish one (e.g. create and make available to the public).

-Brandon

I was thinking about this while driving around this afternoon....

Now that Hennessey has a written policy, are current LTC holders "grandfathered in", or, legally, must they *have* gone thru these same requirements when they got theirs issued? If the latter, a forensic accounting may show that they did not pay $1,722.00 for "Firearms Training Testing & Qualification", opening Hennessey up to another 14th A EP attack.

Oh, and there's still NOTHING re LTCs (that I could see) on their website: http://www.sfsheriff.com/

dantodd
09-08-2011, 10:31 PM
His previous outstanding licensee has givencup hisnlicense or was he appointed a "deputy?’

wildhawker
09-09-2011, 1:49 AM
His previous outstanding licensee has givencup hisnlicense or was he appointed a "deputy?’

We'll see, but I suspect the licensee let it expire.