PDA

View Full Version : CGF Releases Updated Model Carry License Policy (10-5-2011)


wildhawker
10-05-2011, 12:47 PM
http://calgunsfoundation.org/blog/entry/cgf-releases-updated-model-carry-license-policy.html

CGF just released an update to our Model License to Carry (LTC) policy for adoption and use by licensing authorities. While it's an evolution of the policy, it incorporates some important features of the controlling Penal Code.

Look for some rather significant developments related to this policy to be announced very soon.

-Brandon

MatrixCPA
10-05-2011, 12:57 PM
:twoweeks:


amirite?

putput
10-05-2011, 1:24 PM
There's a whole lot of "WIN" in that document. Thanks for the hard work.

wildhawker
10-05-2011, 1:24 PM
:twoweeks:

amirite?

Likely sooner. :D :43:

-Brandon

dotalchemy
10-05-2011, 2:11 PM
I think I'll print it and hand deliver it to Mr. Hennessy...

chris12
10-05-2011, 2:26 PM
Significant developments sound good!!


I noticed a few small things:

Page 3, i, A & E; p4 iii, A & B; p5 d, i; p6 5, a & a, ii - the whole address should be highlighted (if not than at leas p6 5, a should have the XXXXX highlighted like the rest)

Page 3, i, G & H - Confusing wording "The applicant shall submit with the completed application payment...". On first read I thought I had to submit something with some future 'completed application payment'; not submit a payment with the completed application. To me it would be better as "The applicant shall submit payment with the completed application..."

Page 6, 4, a - X in minimum of X hours should be highlighted

Crom
10-05-2011, 2:29 PM
Brandon, This is a superb document! Very good. :)

I do have a question.

If an applicant was denied by the sheriffs office for lack of good cause, that applicant may reapply at any time by paying the 20% of local fees, and submitting a new application. (paraphrasing from Section (3)(a)(iii)(B) of the document)

So the applicant does not have to pay for the DOJ background check / live scan a second time? That fee is collected only once. Is that correct and is that is in the 12025 statute?

wildhawker
10-05-2011, 3:00 PM
Brandon, This is a superb document! Very good. :)

I do have a question.

If an applicant was denied by the sheriffs office for lack of good cause, that applicant may reapply at any time by paying the 20% of local fees, and submitting a new application. (paraphrasing from Section (3)(a)(iii)(B) of the document)

Under the Code, for re-applications (following denial, etc.) the applicant need only submit the fees and indicate that they wish to re-apply for a LTC. They cannot be compelled to submit the initial application form or provide fingerprints. See Penal Code Sec. 12052(b): "However, if the license applicant has previously applied to the same licensing authority for a license to carry firearms pursuant to Section 12050 and the applicant's fingerprints and fee have been previously forwarded to the Department of Justice. . . . no additional application form or fingerprints shall be required."

So the applicant does not have to pay for the DOJ background check / live scan a second time? That fee is collected only once. Is that correct and is that is in the 12025 statute?

Correct; once an applicant's fingerprints are taken by Live Scan and entered into the carry license system, the licensing authority attached to the Live Scan Request for Service (as entered into the system by the licensing authority) will simply be immediately notified by email/mail if any prohibiting conditions appear on the applicant/licensee's criminal file at DOJ (which includes sweeps of NICS, etc.). This was represented to me personally by the DOJ's Dep. Attorney General overseeing Firearms after they investigated this for us.

See Code Sec. 12052(b), above; see also, Sec. 12054(d).

wildhawker
10-05-2011, 3:05 PM
Thanks for the feedback; I'll look into re-wording that section and correcting the highlighting ASAP.

-Brandon

Significant developments sound good!!

I noticed a few small things:

Page 3, i, A & E; p4 iii, A & B; p5 d, i; p6 5, a & a, ii - the whole address should be highlighted (if not than at leas p6 5, a should have the XXXXX highlighted like the rest)

Page 3, i, G & H - Confusing wording "The applicant shall submit with the completed application payment...". On first read I thought I had to submit something with some future 'completed application payment'; not submit a payment with the completed application. To me it would be better as "The applicant shall submit payment with the completed application..."

Page 6, 4, a - X in minimum of X hours should be highlighted

CCWFacts
10-05-2011, 3:16 PM
Thanks for the feedback; I'll look into re-wording that section and correcting the highlighting ASAP.

One more very minor grammar thing:

Page 2: "For the purposes of this policy, good cause shall be deemed to exist if the applicant asserts theirhis right of “self defense”."

Also same problem on Page 4: "No later than 90 days prior to the expiration of theirhis license,"

"The applicant shall submit with the renewal request theirhis payment in the amount of $77.00"

Barbarossa
10-05-2011, 3:17 PM
what about her?

dotalchemy
10-05-2011, 3:19 PM
One more very minor grammar thing:

Page 2: "For the purposes of this policy, good cause shall be deemed to exist if the applicant asserts theirhis right of “self defense”."

Also same problem on Page 4: "No later than 90 days prior to the expiration of theirhis license,"

"The applicant shall submit with the renewal request theirhis payment in the amount of $77.00"

What?

Why?

Do legal documents not accept the existence of women?

Not being snarky here - legitimately curious why it must be masculine.

CCWFacts
10-05-2011, 3:23 PM
What?

Why?

Do legal documents not accept the existence of women?

Not being snarky here - legitimately curious why it must be masculine.

Short answer: "He" and "his" are not masculine, they are the masculine or neuter single third person pronoun. "Their" is plural, and cannot be used to refer to a singular noun, "the applicant" in this case. Note that "applicant" is a neuter noun, not a gendered noun.

Other Indo-European languages, like German ("das Mädchen") and Sanskrit ("satyam"), explicitly preserve and use a neuter gender. English has mostly lost the neuter gender and so uses "he" as the neuter singular pronoun.

Some legal documents insert "his or her" all over the place. Other legal documents include a clause that says "singular pronouns shall apply to male or female." See this article about the tortured use of "they" as a neuter singular pronoun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they). Few legal documents use "they" as a singular pronoun, because it's grammatically wrong and that could make a difference.

dotalchemy
10-05-2011, 3:26 PM
Short answer: "He" and "his" are not masculine, they are the masculine or neuter single third person pronoun. "Their" is plural, and cannot be used to refer to a singular noun, "the applicant" in this case.

Other Indo-European languages, like German and Sanskrit, explicitly preserve and use a neuter gender. English has mostly lost the neuter gender and so uses "he" as the neuter singular pronoun.

Thanks! I didn't know that!

Good answer :)

pitchbaby
10-05-2011, 4:07 PM
When you say "developments" might that mean we will get a list of counties that are willing to comply with this new written policy?

sreiter
10-05-2011, 4:50 PM
Short answer: "He" and "his" are not masculine, they are the masculine or neuter single third person pronoun. "Their" is plural, and cannot be used to refer to a singular noun, "the applicant" in this case. Note that "applicant" is a neuter noun, not a gendered noun.

Other Indo-European languages, like German ("das Mädchen") and Sanskrit ("satyam"), explicitly preserve and use a neuter gender. English has mostly lost the neuter gender and so uses "he" as the neuter singular pronoun.

Some legal documents insert "his or her" all over the place. Other legal documents include a clause that says "singular pronouns shall apply to male or female." See this article about the tortured use of "they" as a neuter singular pronoun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they). Few legal documents use "they" as a singular pronoun, because it's grammatically wrong and that could make a difference.

Actually incorrect. If you google their, there are a host of websites including the Oxford dictionary who say despite what your English eacher taught you, their is singular. It datesback to the 18th century

wildhawker
10-05-2011, 5:00 PM
When you say "developments" might that mean we will get a list of counties that are willing to comply with this new written policy?

:whistling: :inquis:

wilit
10-05-2011, 5:04 PM
Got my fingers crossed that Sheriff Moore (San Joaquin) is adopting this policy as I type. :)

wildhawker
10-05-2011, 5:11 PM
Got my fingers crossed that Sheriff Moore (San Joaquin) is adopting this policy as I type. :)

San Joaquin (SO, and county counsel's office) has been staring at this for a good while now.

-Brandon

taperxz
10-05-2011, 5:14 PM
Thanks Brandon! Great work as always.

HowardW56
10-05-2011, 5:17 PM
Brandon

The you and the rest of the good guys at CGF have obviously been very busy....

Thank you!


http://calgunsfoundation.org/blog/entry/cgf-releases-updated-model-carry-license-policy.html

CGF just released an update to our Model License to Carry (LTC) policy for adoption and use by licensing authorities. While it's an evolution of the policy, it incorporates some important features of the controlling Penal Code.

Look for some rather significant developments related to this policy to be announced very soon.

-Brandon

goober
10-05-2011, 5:27 PM
Good work, as always. Keep it up!

eville
10-05-2011, 5:40 PM
I hope alameda has commented on this.

ColdDeadHands1
10-05-2011, 5:46 PM
Got my fingers crossed that Sheriff Moore (San Joaquin) is adopting this policy as I type. :)

Sorry man, I'm pretty sure Brandon means that Santa Clara County will be announcing they are moving towards a shall issue policy and settling out of court on the Scocca v Smith case...:43:




Well, one can dream can't they?

wildhawker
10-05-2011, 5:46 PM
You would know!

(HowardW56 contributes a TON of hard work and time to a number of different CGF 'behind the scenes' operations.)

-Brandon

Brandon

The you and the rest of the good guys at CGF have obviously been very busy....

Thank you!

wilit
10-05-2011, 5:47 PM
San Joaquin (SO, and county counsel's office) has been staring at this for a good while now.

-Brandon

:thumbsup: That's a great step in the right direction. Thanks for everyone involved in helping with this!

ALSystems
10-05-2011, 7:40 PM
http://calgunsfoundation.org/blog/entry/cgf-releases-updated-model-carry-license-policy.html

CGF just released an update to our Model License to Carry (LTC) policy for adoption and use by licensing authorities. While it's an evolution of the policy, it incorporates some important features of the controlling Penal Code.

Look for some rather significant developments related to this policy to be announced very soon.

-Brandon
You will let us know which counties actually adopt this Model Carry License policy.

Probably more interesting will be the official reactions from counties that are unlikely to adopt this model policy

pitchbaby
10-05-2011, 7:46 PM
You will let us know which counties actually adopt this Model Carry License policy.

Probably more interesting will be the official reactions from counties that are unlikely to adopt this model policy

So... do I get to be a model "test case" Mr. Combs? HAHA

HowardW56
10-05-2011, 7:55 PM
You would know!

(HowardW56 contributes a TON of hard work and time to a number of different CGF 'behind the scenes' operations.)

-Brandon

Brandon...

I think my contrribution is minor in comparison to what you and others do...

But, thank you....

Paul S
10-05-2011, 7:59 PM
Actually incorrect. If you google their, there are a host of websites including the Oxford dictionary who say despite what your English eacher taught you, their is singular. It datesback to the 18th century

A web site is not a who. Who refers to a person. The proper word here is which. Sorry...couldn't resist. :D

Paladin
10-05-2011, 10:03 PM
3. a. ii. and iii. should be consistent w/each other, so both should have "by this Department" either underlined or not.

4. b. re. certified "firearms instructor" in last line: if that is the official title given by the DOJ, I think the first letter of each word should be capitalized. Related: in the rest of 4. you refer to "firearms trainer." If there is no difference between the two, you should be stick w/one or the other title/description, preferably the one the DOJ uses.

Good work! Can't wait to see it posted on sheriff's departments' websites throughout the state. :King:

DannyInSoCal
10-05-2011, 10:26 PM
Brandon...

I think my contrribution is minor in comparison to what you and others do...

But, thank you....

Ditto

hoffmang
10-05-2011, 10:55 PM
Brandon...

I think my contrribution is minor in comparison to what you and others do...

But, thank you....

No one should underestimate your contribution however.

-Gene

sreiter
10-05-2011, 11:05 PM
A web site is not a who. Who refers to a person. The proper word here is which. Sorry...couldn't resist. :D

Touché

wildhawker
10-06-2011, 12:05 AM
No one should underestimate your contribution however.

-Gene

This.

There are some very good people working hard to make things we all like to happen, such as:

* Tracking County responses

* Organizing/redacting good cause statements (http://calgunsfoundation.org/blog/entry/stanislaus-county-carry-license-records-for-cgfs-ltc-sunshine-initiative-2011-audit-just-showed-up.html)

* Researching, aggregating/analyzing information, and creating reports

This isn't voodoo, it's skill and hard work applied to vision; we are fortunate to have many volunteers who have more than earned a yard of Raging B!tch beer (http://bit.ly/q9Ac6v).

-Brandon

RiverRunner
10-06-2011, 9:00 AM
Is it too much to hope for Ventura county adopting this policy?

M. D. Van Norman
10-06-2011, 9:46 AM
Unless some diplomatic solution is in the offing, I assume that no county will adopt this policy without a court order. :(

jimmykan
10-06-2011, 10:22 AM
I just read it.

Is there a reason the licenses are still "may issue" and not "shall issue"?

green grunt
10-06-2011, 10:43 AM
sounds good.................so should I resubmit my request with Sheriff Moore after being denied over a year ago ?

wildhawker
10-06-2011, 10:44 AM
I just read it.

Is there a reason the licenses are still "may issue" and not "shall issue"?

1. Read 2(f) and (g) again.
2. Don't expect the majority of adopting counties to incorporate those, unedited.

-Brandon

hoffmang
10-06-2011, 8:33 PM
Is it too much to hope for Ventura county adopting this policy?
:whistling:
Unless some diplomatic solution is in the offing, I assume that no county will adopt this policy without a court order. :(
I'd be careful with that assumption. I think you could safely assume very few will adopt this unedited. If, however, you think about counties not willing to concede shall issue like Sac, those may very well adopt the rest.

That's kind of the point of the Sunshine Initiative. Get the procedures and policies clean and then all that's left is a minor tweak ordered by Federal Courts.

-Gene

M. D. Van Norman
10-06-2011, 8:53 PM
And they could just do the right thing now … but when does that ever happen? Your hope is as good as mine though. :D

lairdb
12-19-2011, 3:51 PM
(Popped over here rather than clutter the Ventura County thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=7694768&postcount=41) that prompts my question.)

IIRC (one of the reasons I'll never be admitted to practice: zero memory for cites) there is a decision somewhere that says that a blanket choice to not issue permits is failure to exercise discretion.

Isn't that a potential criticism of the Model Policy's blanket definitions of good character and good cause? ("...good cause shall be deemed to exist if the applicant asserts...")?

wildhawker
12-19-2011, 3:55 PM
(Popped over here rather than clutter the Ventura County thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=7694768&postcount=41) that prompts my question.)

IIRC (one of the reasons I'll never be admitted to practice: zero memory for cites) there is a decision somewhere that says that a blanket choice to not issue permits is failure to exercise discretion.

Isn't that a potential criticism of the Model Policy's blanket definitions of good character and good cause? ("...good cause shall be deemed to exist if the applicant asserts...")?

Our Model Policy language is attempting to institute (wherever it is adopted in toto) for what is effectively the relief we seek in our federal 2A case Richards v. Prieto, as well as articulating a process that comports with the statutes (both pre and post-SB 610).

Salute v. Pitchess made clear that licensing authorities cannot simply say "don't bother" or "don't bother unless you're of a particular pre-determined narrow subset group"; it does not mean that licensing authorities cannot establish a policy of de facto shall-issue (given applicants are not prohibited persons and are residents of the jurisdiction, or have business interests as defined in the Penal Code).

-Brandon

lairdb
12-19-2011, 4:17 PM
Our Model Policy language is attempting to institute (wherever it is adopted in toto) for what is effectively the relief we seek in our federal 2A case Richards v. Prieto, as well as articulating a process that comports with the statutes (both pre and post-SB 610).

Salute v. Pitchess made clear that licensing authorities cannot simply say "don't bother" or "don't bother unless you're of a particular pre-determined narrow subset group"; it does not mean that licensing authorities cannot establish a policy of de facto shall-issue (given applicants are not prohibited persons and are residents of the jurisdiction, or have business interests as defined in the Penal Code).

Yes, that's the one I was thinking of. From Salute v. Pitchess:

While a court cannot compel a public officer to exercise his discretion in any particular manner, it may direct him to exercise that discretion. [...] We regard the case at bench as involving a refusal of the sheriff to exercise the discretion given him by the statute.

Let's assume that a licencing authority adopts the Model Policy. Channeling FGG for a moment: The next day, LCAV files suit, on the grounds that by adopting a policy that contains "shall assume" language, the licencing authority is abdicating the exercise of discretion required under the statute.

wildhawker
12-19-2011, 4:25 PM
Let's assume that a licencing authority adopts the Model Policy. Channeling FGG for a moment: The next day, LCAV files suit, on the grounds that by adopting a policy that contains "shall assume" language, the licencing authority is abdicating the exercise of discretion required under the statute.

Their discretion, as would by applied under the Model, is not exclusionary except to the extent that it is compelled to be by state law.

-Brandon

goober
12-19-2011, 5:54 PM
Our Model Policy language is attempting to institute (wherever it is adopted in toto) for what is effectively the relief we seek in our federal 2A case Richards v. Prieto, as well as articulating a process that comports with the statutes (both pre and post-SB 610).

Salute v. Pitchess made clear that licensing authorities cannot simply say "don't bother" or "don't bother unless you're of a particular pre-determined narrow subset group"; it does not mean that licensing authorities cannot establish a policy of de facto shall-issue (given applicants are not prohibited persons and are residents of the jurisdiction, or have business interests as defined in the Penal Code).

-Brandon

Their discretion, as would by applied under the Model, is not exclusionary except to the extent that it is compelled to be by state law.

-Brandon

yep.
any attempt to call the Model Policy a blanket "YES" in an attempt to equate it with a blanket "NO" (declared unkosher by Salute v. Pitchess) fails, as the opportunity for discretion still exists under the CGF Model Policy.
but rather than some subjective, arbitrary form of "discretion", the Policy requires that rational, defensible criteria be used: namely the 2A and whether or not the applicant is a prohibited person.
as it should be.

Gray Peterson
12-19-2011, 6:58 PM
Yes, that's the one I was thinking of. From Salute v. Pitchess:


Let's assume that a licencing authority adopts the Model Policy. Channeling FGG for a moment: The next day, LCAV files suit, on the grounds that by adopting a policy that contains "shall assume" language, the licencing authority is abdicating the exercise of discretion required under the statute.

The readings of state appellate court case law on discretion say otherwise. LCAV would lose. Also, who would have standing to challenge?

dantodd
12-19-2011, 7:06 PM
Unless some diplomatic solution is in the offing, I assume that no county will adopt this policy without a court order. :(

:gene:

morrcarr67
12-19-2011, 7:08 PM
This is all good news.

Thanks Brandon, Gene and all the others for all your hard work.