PDA

View Full Version : Sacramento Sherrif [failure to perform] may be repealing "Shall Issue."


Pages : [1] 2

markm
02-02-2012, 10:40 AM
Hello All,

I heard a top-of-the-hour report at 10 AM on 1530 KFBK (Sacramento) that because the Sherrif has received up to 40 applications per week for CCW (LTC) permits, the Sherrif was suspending the acceptance of new LTC applications for the remainder of this year. The office is overloaded.

This is how a beaurocracy bans something. They incrementally delay the action, and slowly but surely, they change the policy.

Is Shall Issue dead in Sacramento County?

Could be.

markm

PS: I am 95% positive it was KFBK. If not, it was 1380 KSTZ.

Mesa Tactical
02-02-2012, 10:43 AM
It's not really shall issue if they can't process more than 40 applications a week. After all, how many firearms can an FFL sell in a week?

stix213
02-02-2012, 10:44 AM
"remainder of this year" is a pretty long time, being Feb and all.

markm
02-02-2012, 10:45 AM
It's not really shall issue if they can't process more than 40 applications a week. After all, how many firearms can an FFL sell in a week?

+1

nuff-said.

markm

bruss01
02-02-2012, 10:49 AM
I suspect that what you *may* have heard is that they are not setting any new appointments. I had heard in other posts that the schedule for 2012 is full through the end of this calendar year. I can understand not wanting to fill up the appointment book for 2013, 2014, etc. After all, if the world ends December 21st, anything after that will be a moot point, right? LOL.

I suspect that they will continue to process applications for folks that are already on the schedule.

It would be bad politics at this point to say they are refusing to grant any more permits because they are being swamped with applications.

OleCuss
02-02-2012, 10:52 AM
Wasn't there a legal agreement to accept and process the applications? I think they are going to need to allocate more resources or reduce the burden of handling the applications if they don't want to get hurt pretty badly. . .

But then, I don't have access to the precise language of the agreement. Depending on what it says I guess it is possible they might skate.

markm
02-02-2012, 10:53 AM
I suspect that what you *may* have heard is that they are not setting any new appointments. I had heard in other posts that the schedule for 2012 is full through the end of this calendar year. I can understand not wanting to fill up the appointment book for 2013, 2014, etc. After all, if the world ends December 21st, anything after that will be a moot point, right? LOL.

I suspect that they will continue to process applications for folks that are already on the schedule.

It would be bad politics at this point to say they are refusing to grant any more permits because they are being swamped with applications.

Hey Bruss01,

No, I heard the Sherrif's spokesman say that they are not accepting applications for the remainder of the year. I understand that my ears lie to me often; however, I think I got this one correct.

markm

Shoobee
02-02-2012, 11:06 AM
Personally I prefer Arizona's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Plain English.

The right to bear arms shall also not be infringed.

Here in The Peoples Republic of California, there seems to be an obsession with "papers."

Ubermcoupe
02-02-2012, 11:08 AM
Sounds like this is more for appointments than applications. :shrug:

Librarian
02-02-2012, 11:13 AM
Sheriff's web site says they have filled up all their appointments for 2012; one news source (forgot which) said something like 'even after tripling staff' to work on licenses.

gunhohulk
02-02-2012, 11:20 AM
I just scheduled the first open appointment available which was august first. So it looks like they aren't changing the policy, just not allocating the proper resources to make the application process swift and efficient. Hopefully that will change.

Maestro Pistolero
02-02-2012, 11:20 AM
Sheriff's web site says they have filled up all their appointments for 2012; one news source (forgot which) said something like 'even after tripling staff' to work on licenses.

If they had been issuing all along, they wouldn't have such a workload right now. They still have a legal obligation to process all the apps, as I understand it. In fairness, it doesn't seem like they are changing the criteria, so the title of the thread is misleading. They just aren't getting to the apps in a timely manner. The effect may be the same if you didn't make the 2012 list.

BobB35
02-02-2012, 11:21 AM
Wow at 40 per week that is almost 2100 in a year. To think that as little as 2 years ago there were only about 400 LTC in the whole county and the current occupant of the Sheriff's seat couldn't understand if there was a pent up demand for personal responsibility. Amazing demonstration of the competence of our government superiors.

As far as no longer accepting applications.

A right delayed is a right denied and since Yolo won the initial round I don't think Sac county will be very responsive to any lawsuit threats from CGF. Wow....sure hope something gets moving with the SCOTUS sometime this decade....:)

markm
02-02-2012, 11:22 AM
Sheriff's web site says they have filled up all their appointments for 2012; one news source (forgot which) said something like 'even after tripling staff' to work on licenses.

Hey Librarian,

How long does it take to review a Live Scan report, review the classroom training certificate, review the range certificate, and perform a quick interview to prove that the citizen, really is the law-abiding citizen in question?

Fifteen minutes? Or less.

The applicant performs the time consuming jobs.

School me, please!!! What am I missing.

markm

BobB35
02-02-2012, 11:23 AM
Anyone know if this is only for New or does it effect renewals and modification?

SouperMan
02-02-2012, 11:30 AM
Anyone know if this is only for New or does it effect renewals and modification?

Looking at the SSD website:

Unfortunately at this time our calendar for “New Concealed Weapons Permit Applications” is booked through the end of 2012. We are not yet accepting applications for 2013. Please continue to check the website for cancelled appointments.

Looks like it's for the newbies who are trying to make appointments in 2013.

Gray Peterson
02-02-2012, 11:37 AM
Anyone know if this is only for New or does it effect renewals and modification?

Only new...

RKV
02-02-2012, 11:40 AM
Time for a Writ of Mandamus?

Flopper
02-02-2012, 11:47 AM
Hey Librarian,

How long does it take to review a Live Scan report, review the classroom training certificate, review the range certificate, and perform a quick interview to prove that the citizen, really is the law-abiding citizen in question?

Fifteen minutes? Or less.

The applicant performs the time consuming jobs.

School me, please!!! What am I missing.

markm

Seriously, if it takes any longer they're doing it wrong.

Curley Red
02-02-2012, 11:49 AM
If they don't have the man power what do you expect them to do. Their budget has been cut how many times now?

And if people start complaining and try a Writ of Mandamus, what do you think they sheriff will do? Look what happened when people decided to open carry in big groups, that didn't turn out to well did it?

Gray Peterson
02-02-2012, 11:52 AM
Personally I prefer Arizona's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Plain English.

The right to bear arms shall also not be infringed.

Here in The Peoples Republic of California, there seems to be an obsession with "papers."

That "obsession with papers" exists in 45 other states...

NoJoke
02-02-2012, 11:55 AM
Personally I prefer Arizona's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Plain English.

The right to bear arms shall also not be infringed.

Here in The Peoples Republic of California, there seems to be an obsession with "taxes."

fixed it. :)

Stonewalker
02-02-2012, 11:59 AM
Sonofva... I've been putting off my app for months now because I don't own a handgun yet and you can't apply if you don't have one... Can't even be screened with an appointment for a whole year? I'm no legal eagle, but that sounds like denied rights.

OleCuss
02-02-2012, 12:13 PM
Sonofva... I've been putting off my app for months now because I don't own a handgun yet and you can't apply if you don't have one... Can't even be screened with an appointment for a whole year? I'm no legal eagle, but that sounds like denied rights.

You might want to ask the CGF board members if they want to work with you on carefully documenting your situation and any attempts to get an appointment for your carry license. You might be quite valuable in this situation?

IANAL, so I could be way off.

JeffCinSac
02-02-2012, 12:33 PM
The pessimist in me worries that this is how shall issue will eventually come to CA. Yes, the sheriff shall issue, but not for a year or more and then with so many restrictions on the license that it is all but useless. I sincerely hope I am wrong. The current situation in Sac is, however, ridiculous. If you don't already have an appointment in 2012, you cannot make an appointment at all. Even if you could, it wouldn't be for at least eleven months. That's unacceptable and illegal.

BassNut
02-02-2012, 12:40 PM
HERE IS THE STORY GUYS.............

http://www.news10.net/news/article/176415/2/Sacramento-Sheriff39s-Dept-struggling-to-keep-up-with-concealed-weapons-permit-demand

zhyla
02-02-2012, 12:41 PM
Don't the application fees stay with the issuer? It's hard to believe they won't hire contractors to get thru the backlog and pull in that revenue stream. Shut up and take my money!

bigcalidave
02-02-2012, 12:55 PM
Its shocking that they can't hire temps and run this app process for all its worth. I thought they had legal obligations to take the apps and process in a timely manner, and the appointments for 9 months out were violating state law....

OleCuss
02-02-2012, 1:02 PM
Everyone who wants a carry license in Sacramento should be requesting an appointment and carefully documenting everything.

There might be no legal action on this, but just in case???

And does the Merced County lawsuit have relevance to this?

In the short term this really sucks badly. But I think some real good could come of this.

I mean, think. . . We have a licensing scheme which is so burdensome that one month into the year they have stopped even accepting license applications. One could argue that this means that well over 90% of those who wish to exercise their 2A right are being denied even consideration.

This would have to be viewed as totally unacceptable by the courts. A fundamental right which cannot be exercised by 90% of the population because of paperwork and staffing issues.

So with careful documentation we could end up with a facial challenge to the current licensing scheme. It is clear that attempts to follow the licensure scheme as mandated by our law (even by friendly authorities) is not possible. Therefore the licensing scheme must be found unconstitutional. Might get the NICS system being the core of the licensure scheme.

I think you might be able to construe it as an "as applied" challenge, but the fact that a friendly sheriff cannot allocate the resources to me indicates that the challenge could be "facial".

But to go back to what I suggested earlier, I think the Merced case may have bearing and I'd bet the idea would be to document now and evaluate any challenge to the licensing scheme after that has been decided at (at least) the District level.

Librarian
02-02-2012, 1:07 PM
Hey Librarian,

How long does it take to review a Live Scan report, review the classroom training certificate, review the range certificate, and perform a quick interview to prove that the citizen, really is the law-abiding citizen in question?

Fifteen minutes? Or less.

The applicant performs the time consuming jobs.

School me, please!!! What am I missing.

markm

I don't know what all that takes - but it looks to me as if they need to either allocate more resources or streamline their process to fit resources available.

Drivedabizness
02-02-2012, 1:10 PM
I sent a very polite note to Sherriff Jones several months ago, asking why:
If, good cause = self defense,
and
Good Moral Character = not prohibited,
and given all the automated tools that exist to make determining same a very low investment in labor, then why, even with adding all the added staff they say are processing applications, is the wait so long.
The Sheriff's response was a non-sequitur and not at all responsive. Basically said they had 5 retired detectives processing apps and we should be grateful.
One of the "right people" told me privately that CGF is cutting the Sheriff some slack on GMC.
The Sheriff also says they are approving 98% of applications. Seems to me the 2% are eating up resources that outta be able to process about 1000% more apps than they are doing.
1 retired detective @ 30 minutes ea per ap - plus 10 minutes for initial review for completeness/red flags = 40 minutes per ap.
Lets say 30 productive hours per week = 1800 minutes/40 minutes = 45 aps
X the five retired detectives = 225 apps per week
The answer is - the Sheriff has built in (this has been covered in multiple threads elsewhere) a level of wasted time and resources into the process. He displays no feeling of obligation to live up to the lawsuit settlement, which I'm quite sure was not intended to make us all give up and go away.
I made my appointment last August. Its in July. I've looked a lot of times for cancellations. Totally unacceptable.

tuolumnejim
02-02-2012, 1:16 PM
And at the 1530 KFBK (http://www.kfbk.com/pages/news.html?article=9703964), their story has a real zinger in it.

According to a sheriff's spokesman, the calendar for appointments is completely booked for the rest of 2012 because of overwhelming demand throughout last year. In addition, the department is not accepting applications for 2013 because of the backlog.


However, the spokesman insists Sheriff Jones is still committed to giving permits to qualified applicants, so he has dedicated more people and time to processing the permits.

Is this part for those that are more equal than other? :43:

OleCuss
02-02-2012, 1:20 PM
I'm going to harp on it just a little more.

Look at the broader picture. You have a friendly sheriff who cannot comply.

I think we should be setting up for a facial challenge to the state's licensing scheme rather than an "as applied" challenge against a friendly sheriff.

That means you mostly leave the sheriff alone and ask him to assist us in documenting the impossible burden of complying with the licensing scheme and still ensuring that our RKBA is respected. If he'll document his end and we document ours, maybe some really good stuff will develop.

And if anyone thinks I'm hinting at what CGF is planning. . . Not at all. I don't think any of the CGF board knows who I am beyond some old cuss on this forum. They certainly haven't told me what they have planned. So I have license to rant about what I think would be a good or likely approach to the matter - and do it without disclosing anything confidential.

So I'd bless the sheriff, document the failed attempts to exercise your right, and be patient as the Merced case finishes this level and then see if CGF/SAF/CRPA/NRA want to tackle the state's ridiculous licensing scheme.

vincewarde
02-02-2012, 1:21 PM
I suggest that we first be a bit patient about this - and let some of the leadership here at Calguns have a chance to dialog with the Sheriff. There should be a solution to this problem, so way to streamline the process without risk to the public.

BTW, the TV report was great - none of the typical media hype about blood flowing in the streets, etc.

Stonewalker
02-02-2012, 1:31 PM
You might want to ask the CGF board members if they want to work with you on carefully documenting your situation and any attempts to get an appointment for your carry license. You might be quite valuable in this situation?

IANAL, so I could be way off.

I like it. We'll see what I end up doing, I may just buy some $200 pistol ASAP and then get the process going. Adding a gun later doesn't require an appointment. If one of the right people thinks my situation could have some strategic value then I'd be happy to help.

BassNut
02-02-2012, 1:54 PM
As I've stated in another thread. I have been told that they think that there are a bunch of ANTI'S booking appointments just to clog the system. I'm curious how many people with appointments never show up. This info would help to back this theory.

Because it is an automated system, I'm not sure what they could do at this point to stop this from happening.

Gray Peterson
02-02-2012, 2:09 PM
Sonofva... I've been putting off my app for months now because I don't own a handgun yet and you can't apply if you don't have one... Can't even be screened with an appointment for a whole year? I'm no legal eagle, but that sounds like denied rights.

Sorry to be the killjoy but who told you that? That's not true....

Stonewalker
02-02-2012, 2:19 PM
Sorry to be the killjoy but who told you that? That's not true....

Admittedly, I am assuming things. You have to qualify with the carry weapons that the applications asks you to list, so I assumed you needed to have the model/serial# ahead of time. I haven't actually put much effort into obtaining an LTC yet, I was just thinking this is the way it was.

keneva
02-02-2012, 2:26 PM
I thought that State Law gives them 90 days to either give you your permit or decline it? Anything over 90 days, they should be violating state law?

bruss01
02-02-2012, 2:32 PM
HERE IS THE STORY GUYS.............

http://www.news10.net/news/article/176415/2/Sacramento-Sheriff39s-Dept-struggling-to-keep-up-with-concealed-weapons-permit-demand

Exactly like I said in post #5 of this thread.

They are still issuing permits and will continue to issue permits - to those who are ALREADY SCHEDULED with an appointment. They are simply not scheduling any additional appointments because the current calendar year schedule is booked solid until 2013.

If you waited until NOW to try to get an appointment... it looks like you waited too long. Those who foresaw this pent-up tsunami of permit requesters flooding the system and got yours early... it looks like you had good timing.

I got mine a little over a year ago, and the wife got hers right around a year ago. I hate to get all cliche but "you snooze, you lose" comes to mind.

POLICESTATE
02-02-2012, 2:34 PM
Seriously, if it takes any longer they're doing it wrong.

Of course they're doing it wrong, according to the law most of the metropolitan LTC issuing authorities are doing it wrong to some extent or other.

Mstrty
02-02-2012, 2:34 PM
Admittedly, I am assuming things. You have to qualify with the carry weapons that the applications asks you to list, so I assumed you needed to have the model/serial# ahead of time. I haven't actually put much effort into obtaining an LTC yet, I was just thinking this is the way it was.

I didnt even purchase my primary carry weapon until after my livescan has come back. Just didnt have the funds. A California LTC issued by Sacramento still runs $500+

from memory:
Money to county $100
Money to Live Scan $137
Money to training $125
Money for Qualification per gun $10 x3
Money for box of ammo $30 x3
2 trips down to SCSO (time off work and fuel) $100+
16 hours I will never get back of the worst crap spewed from a BSIS instructor. Priceless

In all fairness, SCSO has streamlined renewals for permit holders. They now only qualify every other year with each weapon.
IMO this beniefits the holder more than the Sheriffs office.

MudCamper
02-02-2012, 2:39 PM
I haven't actually put much effort into obtaining an LTC yet

Wow. You live in Sac and you don't apply. I'd apply the instant I could. I'd pay $10,000 right now for an LTC if it'd get me one. For some reason your complacency bothers me more right now than my having to wait until I'm an old man before I can exercise my theoretical rights.

TheBest
02-02-2012, 2:50 PM
Its shocking that they can't hire temps and run this app process for all its worth. I thought they had legal obligations to take the apps and process in a timely manner, and the appointments for 9 months out were violating state law....

Do you guys know how hard it is to hire *anyone* in the public sector? We haven't had a receptionist for more than a year because of a hiring freeze.

And you guys want the government to hire more employees?

Gray Peterson
02-02-2012, 2:52 PM
Do you guys know how hard it is to hire *anyone* in the public sector? We haven't had a receptionist for more than a year because of a hiring freeze.

And you guys want the government to hire more employees?

Who's "we"?

Stonewalker
02-02-2012, 2:56 PM
I didnt even purchase my primary carry weapon until after my livescan has come back. Just didnt have the funds. A California LTC issued by Sacramento still runs $500+

from memory:
Money to county $100
Money to Live Scan $137
Money to training $125
Money for Qualification per gun $10 x3
Money for box of ammo $30 x3
2 trips down to SCSO (time off work and fuel) $100+
16 hours I will never get back of the worst crap spewed from a BSIS instructor. Priceless

In all fairness, SCSO has streamlined renewals for permit holders. They now only qualify every other year with each weapon.
IMO this beniefits the holder more than the Sheriffs office.
Well thanks for sharing your experience, that does put things into a little better perspective for me.
Wow. You live in Sac and you don't apply. I'd apply the instant I could. I'd pay $10,000 right now for an LTC if it'd get me one. For some reason your complacency bothers me more right now than my having to wait until I'm an old man before I can exercise my theoretical rights.

Complacency? Please. You are really looking at this in the wrong way. I donate to several RKBA groups, I regularly take coworkers and friends to the range - antis at that! And I pay for ammo. I'm doing what I can for gun rights in CA. What do you care if I have an LTC or even any guns for that matter, it's none of your business.

Cost, time and logistics are all issues for me. It's all about priorities and apparently ours are quite different. This thread has, however inspired me to fill out the app tonight.

bruss01
02-02-2012, 2:57 PM
I thought that State Law gives them 90 days to either give you your permit or decline it? Anything over 90 days, they should be violating state law?

I think that's from when you apply, not from when you decide to apply.

In order to apply, you have to get an appointment to apply.

It is these "appointments to apply" that are scheduled through the rest of the year. If I recall correctly, once we actually applied it was only like 10-12 weeks to actually get the permit. And part of that wait was on documentation which the SCSO office has no control over when they get it. On our end, we followed up each step of the process promptly. SCSO still has to schedule you to come in for your interview, and then again for your approval appointments.

Yes, the whole process could be much more efficient. I think they are being extra careful to dot i's and cross t's since this is a new thing for them and they'd rather be a little over-careful up front rather than approve a bunch of yahoos that start shooting up the county. I know, it's an absurd prospect given what we know about CCW holders but think of it this way... if something goes wrong, YOU and I are not the ones running for re-election a few years down the road. Simple political reality, really. They will play it safe for a while until it becomes an accepted practice for SCSO to be essentially "shall issue". Then they might start to think about streamlining things.

Stonewalker
02-02-2012, 3:00 PM
And by the way this thread title is totally innaccurate and FUD-ey, can you fix it OP?

Untamed1972
02-02-2012, 3:01 PM
Personally I prefer Arizona's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Plain English.

The right to bear arms shall also not be infringed.

Here in The Peoples Republic of California, there seems to be an obsession with "papers."

And AZ can process and issue a CCW even to a non-resident in about 3wks total turn around time and completely thru the mail.

Maybe Sac Sheriff needs to examine their process and see if there is anything that can be cut out as unnessecary.

Librarian
02-02-2012, 3:02 PM
I thought that State Law gives them 90 days to either give you your permit or decline it? Anything over 90 days, they should be violating state law?

That's true once they have accepted the application. The current system starts the clock with the interview.

PC 26205 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/26205.html) The licensing authority shall give written notice to the
applicant indicating if the license under this article is approved or
denied. The licensing authority shall give this notice within 90
days of the initial application for a new license or a license
renewal, or 30 days after receipt of the applicant's criminal
background check from the Department of Justice, whichever is later

Having the process start with the interview isn't itself a bad idea; I once worked for a state agency that issued licenses, and we were forever writing for missing info and having requests and materials cross in the mail. Having a quick scan for completeness, immediate 'please get this, that, and the other thing' feedback is a good thing.

But the evidence shows There Are Issues Which Must Be Addressed.

Mesa Tactical
02-02-2012, 3:16 PM
1 retired detective @ 30 minutes ea per ap - plus 10 minutes for initial review for completeness/red flags = 40 minutes per ap.
Lets say 30 productive hours per week = 1800 minutes/40 minutes = 45 aps
X the five retired detectives = 225 apps per week

We aren't Shall Issue in California and we aren't Shall Issue in Sacramento.

With true Shall Issue, the process should take no longer than buying a gun:

o 4473 == LTC application
o NICS == LiveScan
o safe affidavit == training certification
o FFL-specific paperwork hoops to leap through == agency-specific paperwork hoops to leap through

Done. In and out in less then 15 minutes, tops.

Should be easier than getting a driver's license, since the LTC applicant is responsible for getting his own training done.

Sanman023
02-02-2012, 3:25 PM
based on a couple of ccw timelines (in a different thread) and my own experience....the whole process from application to permit in the mail is around 4-5 weeks....not too bad....

Drivedabizness
02-02-2012, 3:36 PM
Say what?

The wait just to get the first appointment is a year - and has been for many, many months.

yellowfin
02-02-2012, 3:45 PM
This sounds similar to how Connecticut turns shall issue into may issue by requiring an interview before you actually receive the app.

uyoga
02-02-2012, 3:58 PM
I wonder if there's any reasonable way we (the bona fide Second Amendment organizations) can help with routine and ministerial acts by supplying volunteer manpower to the good Sheriff?

Stonewalker
02-02-2012, 4:01 PM
I wonder if there's any reasonable way we (the bona fide Second Amendment organizations) can help with routine and ministerial acts by supplying volunteer manpower to the good Sheriff?

I can just imagine the Brady headline: "Gun fetishists approving Concealed Lethal Gun Permits for other gun fetishists!!!" I like the idea :chris::43:

press1280
02-02-2012, 4:20 PM
This sounds similar to how Connecticut turns shall issue into may issue by requiring an interview before you actually receive the app.

They do? I got mine by mail.....

Anyways, can't the sheriff ditch the interview? Just have folks drop off applications, they do the background checks, and then call you to pick it up?

Sanman023
02-02-2012, 4:48 PM
40 per week, $100.00 for each permit is $40,000.00 a week. That's 2 million a year at current capacity.

In the private sector they would just hire more people.

im not a math expert...but wouldnt that be $4000 a week..

wildhawker
02-02-2012, 4:52 PM
The answer, and action, is here:

Cal. Penal Code Sec. 26190(b)(1)

The licensing authority of any city, city and county, or county may charge an additional fee in an amount equal to the actual costs for processing the application for a new license, including any required notices, excluding fingerprint and training costs, but in no case to exceed one hundred dollars ($100), and shall transmit the additional fee, if any, to the city, city and county, or county treasury.

1. The Licensing Authority has a duty to accept and process applications.

2. A Licensing Authority which chooses to impose a local fee (at its option) has a corollary duty to perform those functions which costs are offset by the optionally-assessed local fee.

3. The optionally-assessed local fee must only be a cost offset, and not a source of income (e.g. unconstitutional tax).

4. The city or county treasury shall receive the optionally-collected fees, and vis-a-vis other laws, provide for their accounting (both with respect to the revenues and costs of services provided therefore).

5. Given that the fee is a cost offset, and given that the Licensing Authority has a statutory duty to collect and process all applications un Section 26150, et seq., the Licensing Authority which imposes the optionally-assessed local fee must provide the services for which it is assessing the fee in proportion with the demand and fee collection.

-Brandon

joe_sun
02-02-2012, 4:56 PM
im not a math expert...but wouldnt that be $4000 a week..

LOL wow

Yup mail fail

Bandsecurity
02-02-2012, 5:13 PM
Sanman023 your only off by $36,000.

I have no problem with what Jones is doing. It is easy to get the license and one of the few places in CA to get a LTC. Why complain at all?

Thre is more demand than the present staff can handle so they made an announcement saying they are booked up for the entire year. Big deal.
Its like trying to go to In-n-Out at 12:15pm. there is going to be a line.

If you waited 18 months to apply what is 10 more months?

Clinton
02-02-2012, 5:23 PM
I got mine a little over a year ago, and the wife got hers right around a year ago. I hate to get all cliche but "you snooze, you lose" comes to mind.


Nope, hafta disagree on this. You should not "lose" at all. They should find a way to speed up the process so that ALL that apply are processed in a timely manner.
It shouldn't be "We only have this many rights to go around. If you wanted your rights, you should have applied sooner. Now we're out of rights to give you. So sorry"

12voltguy
02-02-2012, 5:32 PM
Sheriff's web site says they have filled up all their appointments for 2012; one news source (forgot which) said something like 'even after tripling staff' to work on licenses.

appointments?

I'm in butte county
had my LTC going on 4 or 6 years June is renew time
All I did was fill out app, take 4 hour training, shoot & go in with my papers, have it typed up & leave
now I do 4 hour training every 2 years, take targets to office & walk out with new lience
never had any appointments......think they need to streamline the process there.

CaliforniaLiberal
02-02-2012, 5:33 PM
Sacramento Bee

http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/2012/02/concealed-weapon-permit-applicants-flood-sacramento-sheriffs-calendar.html

wildhawker
02-02-2012, 5:44 PM
Sanman023 your only off by $36,000.

I have no problem with what Jones is doing. It is easy to get the license and one of the few places in CA to get a LTC. Why complain at all?

Thre is more demand than the present staff can handle so they made an announcement saying they are booked up for the entire year. Big deal.
Its like trying to go to In-n-Out at 12:15pm. there is going to be a line.

If you waited 18 months to apply what is 10 more months?

Please tell me this is not a serious argument.

Please.

-Brandon

Librarian
02-02-2012, 5:46 PM
im not a math expert...but wouldnt that be $4000 a week..
Yes, it would.

40 per week * $100 = $4000. That's just 1 per hour in a 40-hour week.

At 4000*52, they would be collecting $208,000 annually.

How many full-time staff (salary + ordinary benefits + overhead) can one hire for, oh, a senior clerical or low-level analytical job? Going rates for the County are here: http://agency.governmentjobs.com/sacramento/default.cfm?action=agencyspecs

Deputy Sheriff gets $5350 - 6502 monthly. Civil Service Staff Analyst $4515-5487; Senior Office Specialist (http://agency.governmentjobs.com/sacramento/default.cfm?action=viewclassspec&classSpecID=16943&agency=601&viewOnly=yes) $3168-3850

wildhawker
02-02-2012, 5:49 PM
That their process is unlawful and inefficient is not the public's problem. (Except to the extent that they make it so, such as here. For those situations, there are legal remedies.)

-Brandon

77bawls
02-02-2012, 6:13 PM
As I've stated in another thread. I have been told that they think that there are a bunch of ANTI'S booking appointments just to clog the system. I'm curious how many people with appointments never show up. This info would help to back this theory.

Because it is an automated system, I'm not sure what they could do at this point to stop this from happening.

Make it so that you do your live scan before your appointment, and get a confirmation number, problem solved.

wildhawker
02-02-2012, 6:17 PM
Make it so that you do your live scan before your appointment, and get a confirmation number, problem solved.

Or they can simply do the Live Scan when the application is submitted and create an efficient process, in accordance with existing law.

-Brandon

77bawls
02-02-2012, 6:22 PM
Or they can simply do the Live Scan when the application is submitted and create an efficient process, in accordance with existing law.

-Brandon

That won't stop the anti's from making false appointments. Unless they got rid of the appointment system and allowed walk in's.

wildhawker
02-02-2012, 6:29 PM
That won't stop the anti's from making false appointments. Unless they got rid of the appointment system and allowed walk in's.

It's entirely reasonable to have the appointment system collect the $20.00 initial local fee. If antis want to donate $20 a head to their local sheriff to support carry licensing, we should help them do so.

-Brandon

mag360
02-02-2012, 6:39 PM
nobody on this site that's been a member longer than 6mos or so and lives in Sac County, should even have a problem. Unless you're a slacker! Appointments first opened up in Nov 2010.

Having said that, I wish they would process these things faster.

Stonewalker
02-02-2012, 6:42 PM
That won't stop the anti's from making false appointments. Unless they got rid of the appointment system and allowed walk in's.

Honestly, I would bet $50 that there were no more than 20 fake apps in the mix. There aren't a whole lot of antis who actually do grassroots strike missions like that. There aren't even a lot of antis who do any grassroots stuff at all. We win the numbers game.

ETA: And that's a wager if we could ever prove it!

77bawls
02-02-2012, 6:48 PM
It's entirely reasonable to have the appointment system collect the $20.00 initial local fee. If antis want to donate $20 a head to their local sheriff to support carry licensing, we should help them do so.

-Brandon

That's a great idea.

Honestly, I would bet $50 that there were no more than 20 fake apps in the mix. There aren't a whole lot of antis who actually do grassroots strike missions like that. There aren't even a lot of antis who do any grassroots stuff at all. We win the numbers game.

ETA: And that's a wager if we could ever prove it!

It only takes two or three to book up the entire year.

Stonewalker
02-02-2012, 7:04 PM
That's a great idea.



It only takes two or three to book up the entire year.

To clarify, I meant that there probably only 20 actual people.

77bawls
02-02-2012, 7:25 PM
To clarify, I meant that there probably only 20 actual people.

One of the retired staff told me that no-shows were a huge problem. I just wish there was an actual number.

wildhawker
02-02-2012, 7:30 PM
One of the retired staff told me that no-shows were a huge problem. I just wish there was an actual number.

The burden created by fact that the SO isn't innovative policymakers or competent managers should not be transferred to applicants who desire the only vehicle to exercising a fundamental right.

-Brandon

Drivedabizness
02-02-2012, 7:34 PM
That their process is unlawful and inefficient is not the public's problem. (Except to the extent that they make it so, such as here. For those situations, there are legal remedies.)

-Brandon

Does this mean the Sheriff has some education coming? I'm under the impression (based on a PM from a CGF Board member) that he has reason to believe CGF thinks all is well.

We both know that all he has to do is make some very easy, minor adjustments and the # of permits processed could rise dramatically with the resources he is already using. Of course, that may be what he is trying to prevent (what else could it be?)

wildhawker
02-02-2012, 7:36 PM
Of course, that may be what he is trying to prevent (what else could it be?)

Standard-fare government incompetence.

-Brandon

Scotty
02-02-2012, 7:37 PM
based on a couple of ccw timelines (in a different thread) and my own experience....the whole process from application to permit in the mail is around 4-5 weeks....not too bad....

I just went through the process. 2 weeks after interview for the approval letter. LiveScan took 4 weeks. Issuance was 4 days.

hoffmang
02-02-2012, 8:16 PM
Let's be clear here. The Sacramento Sheriff's office has kept the same capacity from last year but the demand is extremely high. There have been one or two denials that had in the past won on appeal that have not but there are very articulable reasons why someone had issues.

The Sheriff is still processing applications and if you want to get an appointment you have to watch for cancellations which can and do happen.

CGF will be seeing how we can help get things moving along.

-Gene

NorCal Mtn Flyer
02-02-2012, 8:35 PM
This may sound a little far fetched, but maybe there is something that can be done about the backlog of applications.

A few years ago, the Medical Certification Branch of the FAA in Oklahoma City was backlogged by several months in processing pilot medical certificates. As a result, AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Assoc) supplied some assistance in the form of a number of administrative people to aid in reducing the backlog. Within just a couple of months, the backlog was eliminated!

Do you suppose the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office would accept volunteer help in order to alleviate the growing backlog of LTC applications?

It could be a win-win deal.... the SCSO gets badly needed assistance, and the relationship between CalGuns/area gun owners is improved! By showing that local gun owners are willing to pitch in to help solve the backlog, how better to provide the SCSO with proof of support for their efforts?

Just an idea....

bruss01
02-02-2012, 8:36 PM
I got mine a little over a year ago, and the wife got hers right around a year ago. I hate to get all cliche but "you snooze, you lose" comes to mind.
Nope, hafta disagree on this. You should not "lose" at all. They should find a way to speed up the process so that ALL that apply are processed in a timely manner.
It shouldn't be "We only have this many rights to go around. If you wanted your rights, you should have applied sooner. Now we're out of rights to give you. So sorry"

Ah, you thought I was talking about RIGHTS. Nope. I was talking about processing papers through a bureaucracy bottleneck. You are of course correct with regard to the former. I maintain I was right on the latter.

NotEnufGarage
02-02-2012, 8:45 PM
A previous post mentioned that the current speed at which they're processing being $208,000 and listed the salaries of various positions for SCSO then drew the conclusion that it was enough to employ 3 people full time to process applications. If this is true, why are they only processing applications 2 days per week?

Sounds to me like they might be using this to increase their revenue....

They should be accepting applications 5 days per week, 20 per day and use the additional revenue to bring in more retired Sherrifs and some temporary clerical support to help process them.

By only accepting the applications by appointment, they are limiting their liability to violating the 90 day aspect of the law. What would happen if people just started mailing in completed applications via registered or certified letter with delivery confirmation? Would they be obliged to process them?

wildhawker
02-02-2012, 8:46 PM
By only accepting the applications by appointment, they are limiting their liability to violating the 90 day aspect of the law. What would happen if people just started mailing in completed applications via registered or certified letter with delivery confirmation? Would they be obliged to process them?

No. Please see the CGF carry license guides for info as to why: http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/category/9-carry.html

-Brandon

77bawls
02-02-2012, 8:53 PM
I'm wondering if one could just go there and see if they will accept an interview that resulted from a no show.

Clinton
02-02-2012, 9:04 PM
Ah, you thought I was talking about RIGHTS. Nope. I was talking about processing papers through a bureaucracy bottleneck. You are of course correct with regard to the former. I maintain I was right on the latter.


Fair enough. But they really should get things moving along.

Sanman023
02-02-2012, 9:13 PM
A previous post mentioned that the current speed at which they're processing being $208,000 and listed the salaries of various positions for SCSO then drew the conclusion that it was enough to employ 3 people full time to process applications. If this is true, why are they only processing applications 2 days per week?

Sounds to me like they might be using this to increase their revenue....

They should be accepting applications 5 days per week, 20 per day and use the additional revenue to bring in more retired Sherrifs and some temporary clerical support to help process them.

By only accepting the applications by appointment, they are limiting their liability to violating the 90 day aspect of the law. What would happen if people just started mailing in completed applications via registered or certified letter with delivery confirmation? Would they be obliged to process them?

They did mention that they tripled the staff.....

Markinsac
02-02-2012, 9:15 PM
I'm wondering if one could just go there and see if they will accept an interview that resulted from a no show.

No walk-ins - from information I've heard, they run a quick check on you based on information you provide when you make the appointment online. The detailed check occurs after the initial appointment process and the LiveScan is completed.

Also, remember that the LiveScan data can take a bit to get back. There are queues for fingerprint checks of varying priority - there may be other queues (felony checks on arrests, security clearances, etc..) that would be done first.

BTW - if the OP won't change the title of the topic, would one of the administrators consider doing it? The topic header as it is now is somewhat wrong.

quiet-wyatt
02-02-2012, 9:29 PM
BTW - if the OP won't change the title of the topic, would one of the administrators consider doing it? The topic header as it is now is somewhat wrong.

Agree... There is no "repealing" going on...

press1280
02-03-2012, 1:41 AM
No. Please see the CGF carry license guides for info as to why: http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/category/9-carry.html

-Brandon

The model policy says this department (does/does not) require an appointment. I'd say in Sacto's case they should not, since the delays seem to be stemming from this.

Sgt Raven
02-03-2012, 2:17 AM
Standard-fare government incompetence.

-Brandon

"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity" Robert A. Heinlein ;)

JaMail
02-03-2012, 3:14 AM
going back to the 208k a year revenue stream, and the 5 "retired detectives"

How much does each retired detective receive in compensation for this work. are they getting the same pay they retired out at.

How much exactly are they getting for 8 days of work a month. (going off the two days per week stated in a previous post)

Bandsecurity
02-03-2012, 5:52 AM
Please tell me this is not a serious argument.

Please.

-Brandon

It is. They are full for the year. Too bad. There is no requirement that they add staff to keep up with the demand. I have no issue with it at all. Sacramento is one of the few counties that issues LTC's and I dont understand why people would be critcal of it when other counties dont issue at all. It seems to me that the focus should be on the ones that dont than the ones in which demand exceeds staffing.

I am not sure being a smart *** in posts helps the situation Brandon.

dantodd
02-03-2012, 6:10 AM
It is. They are full for the year. Too bad. There is no requirement that they add staff to keep up with the demand. I have no issue with it at all. Sacramento is one of the few counties that issues LTC's and I dont understand why people would be critcal of it when other counties dont issue at all. It seems to me that the focus should be on the ones that dont than the ones in which demand exceeds staffing.

I am not sure being a smart *** in posts helps the situation Brandon.

They are legally required to meet certain deadlines. If that requires adding staff then so be it. How hard is into imagine the government actually following the laws written by the government. Would you be ok with being stripped of your RKBA if ou moved to another jurisdiction? What if you bought a gun and when you went to pick it up after 10 days you were told it would take a year for the DOJ to do the required background check so you have to wait?

All the crap about people should just shut up about having to wait a year and be happy the sheriff is issuing at all is absolutely incomprehensible to me.

wildhawker
02-03-2012, 6:20 AM
A disappointing but not surprising reply.

I'm going to ask you to [re]read my earlier post, quoted here for your convenience. I'll say that the arguments are but some of those I can make in support of my position. What can you offer that doesn't boil down to simply excusing the inexcusable?

I don't know what situation you think is being "helped" by your lack of objectivity in this.

-Brandon

The answer, and action, is here:

1. The Licensing Authority has a duty to accept and process applications.

2. A Licensing Authority which chooses to impose a local fee (at its option) has a corollary duty to perform those functions which costs are offset by the optionally-assessed local fee.

3. The optionally-assessed local fee must only be a cost offset, and not a source of income (e.g. unconstitutional tax).

4. The city or county treasury shall receive the optionally-collected fees, and vis-a-vis other laws, provide for their accounting (both with respect to the revenues and costs of services provided therefore).

5. Given that the fee is a cost offset, and given that the Licensing Authority has a statutory duty to collect and process all applications un Section 26150, et seq., the Licensing Authority which imposes the optionally-assessed local fee must provide the services for which it is assessing the fee in proportion with the demand and fee collection.

-Brandon


It is. They are full for the year. Too bad. There is no requirement that they add staff to keep up with the demand. I have no issue with it at all. Sacramento is one of the few counties that issues LTC's and I dont understand why people would be critcal of it when other counties dont issue at all. It seems to me that the focus should be on the ones that dont than the ones in which demand exceeds staffing.

I am not sure being a smart *** in posts helps the situation Brandon.

Lives_In_Fresno
02-03-2012, 6:31 AM
By only accepting the applications by appointment, they are limiting their liability to violating the 90 day aspect of the law. What would happen if people just started mailing in completed applications via registered or certified letter with delivery confirmation? Would they be obliged to process them?

Well, there is really only one way to find out! Do it!

Lives_In_Fresno
02-03-2012, 6:34 AM
going back to the 208k a year revenue stream, and the 5 "retired detectives"

How much does each retired detective receive in compensation for this work. are they getting the same pay they retired out at.

How much exactly are they getting for 8 days of work a month. (going off the two days per week stated in a previous post)

well, there are also other issues, such as where you get the money to hire the people, that money being paid back later, as fees roll in.

Budget crunches being what they are, the money has to start from somewhere, and they aren't allowed to "profit" from the activity, so earlier fees won't likely cover a new hire.

You also have to find places to put those people, pay their benefits, etc., costs which may not be included in earlier estimates.

dantodd
02-03-2012, 6:43 AM
Again, so what? They have a legal obligation to to process applications within a set timeframe. If they have to pull deputies off road patrol or pull administrative staff from other areas then they need to do that.

The sheriff has a statutory obligation that he isn't meeting. What would happen to you or me of we didn't meet a statutory time limit? Would the DMV say "it's ok to pay your registration fees a year late?" No, there are repercussions. The same for the IRS or BoE.

well, there are also other issues, such as where you get the money to hire the people, that money being paid back later, as fees roll in.

Budget crunches being what they are, the money has to start from somewhere, and they aren't allowed to "profit" from the activity, so earlier fees won't likely cover a new hire.

You also have to find places to put those people, pay their benefits, etc., costs which may not be included in earlier estimates.

bruss01
02-03-2012, 6:48 AM
What I don't understand is why it requires "detectives" to simply review and process paperwork. Any entry-level clerical employee (including temps) should be able to process the rudimentary documents required. Is it mandated by law that it has to be detectives? I would think, even if so, you could have 4-5 clerical employees doing all the legwork of the screening, and then handing off to ONE detective for final review and stamp of approval. The detective would only need to get really involved in cases where there is some kind of special circumstance (say something negative comes back on the background check) that needs to be checked out.

I suspect that the chief did not anticipate such a groundswell of pent-up demand for permits when he made his "shall-issue" commitment. He likely believes that once the pent-up demand subsides from this initial rush, things will get down to a manageable volume of applications. I'd wager he believes that by this time next year most of the gun-nuts who want permits will be accommodated and they'll have only a few per week to deal with. I suspect he may be right to a degree, but also that it may take longer to subside than he is anticipating and will not go nearly as low when it does as he thinks it will.

dantodd
02-03-2012, 7:02 AM
Nothing in the statute requires any particular level of training for the people processing the applications.

BobB35
02-03-2012, 7:11 AM
It is. They are full for the year. Too bad. There is no requirement that they add staff to keep up with the demand. I have no issue with it at all. Sacramento is one of the few counties that issues LTC's and I dont understand why people would be critcal of it when other counties dont issue at all. It seems to me that the focus should be on the ones that dont than the ones in which demand exceeds staffing.

I am not sure being a smart *** in posts helps the situation Brandon.

Wow....so for you the fact that they are "issuing" is enough. No wonder Gun right in CA are so bad. I guess you would be OK with 1 LTC per week, which the Sherriff could do. Amazing.

Do you not remember the following from 2 years ago, where the current sheriff (then a captain) was baffled and couldn't understand how to determine the pent up demand for personal responsibility. Something tells me at the current rate of issuance it will be 10 years before they clear the current backlog let alone meet new demand.



THE LETTER

Sheriff,

I was listening to you on the A&G show for the last two days and I was hoping you could help me with something. (Great show by the way)

You had two different callers call with questions about CCWs. You responded that you support the 2nd Amendment and that your department issues CCWs. I am trying to reconcile these statements with the reputation and practice of the Sac Sheriffs department.

Your department does not issue CCWs, in fact I don’t think you have issued a new CCW since you became Sheriff- maybe a few to government employees and agents but none to regular citizens. The firearms training instructors listed on your website have stopped offering training because of the practices of your department. The reputation of the Sac Sheriff is that the department is “NO ISSUE” on par with San Francisco. The number of permits issued in Sac County is about 500 and declining. This is an issuance rate of 0.03%. If the county was at the national issue rate of 2% for “Shall issue” states (and some counties in CA) the number of permits would be closer to 27,500, quite a difference if you ask me. Is this your intent or are the people you have delegated to this task being more strict than you intend? As far as people applying, most people don’t even bother because they know they will be denied. Because of this, if you are trying to use the number of requests you currently receive as a barometer for the pent up demand for CCWs you do not have a valid baseline.

I have heard comments made that limited CCW issuance is a public safety issue, but this has been disproven by 20+ years of history in “Shall Issue” states. I am licensed in 30 states to carry a concealed weapon, it is only in the state that I live where it is almost impossible to get a permit. What is scary is that the crime rate in CA is higher than most other states. By your own admission, a LEO can not be there to protect me and in fact GC 845 exempts LEO and governments from protecting me. GC 820-821 exempts governments and CLEO from liability when issuing permits, so I struggle with why the Sac County Sherriff’s department refuses to allow people the means to protect themselves. I am not talking about in the home, that is not a problem, I am talking about when I have to go out in public and interact with meth-heads, Mexican narco gangs, South Sac Gang bangers, general thugs etc.

This situation has gotten to the point that people are fleeing Sacramento county and the state of California by the 1000’s because of the regressive nature of the self-defense laws in this state. Do you ever wonder why the population of El Dorado and Placer counties are growing while the Bay area counties are shrinking? I myself am looking to move and take my taxes to a county that is more trusting of it’s citizens and at least affords me a reasonable chance at self-defense.

Sheriff, I am looking for a reason here and I can’t come up with a good one. The only reasons I can come up with that the Sac County Sheriff does not issue more CCWs are distrust of citizens, power issues, control issues, etc. It has nothing to do with Public Safety or personal responsibility. I would hope that as the economic crisis accelerates and crime skyrockets you have a change of heart and let people obtain the means to defend themselves.

Do I expect it? No – but one can only hope.
***************

THE RESPONSE

The reply from the Sherriff’s office

I was asked to respond to you regarding your inquiries relative to the Sheriff’s issuance of CCW permits. First, your assertion that Sheriff McGinness does not issue permits is erroneous; he has issued several dozen permits since he has taken office. Although he has final authority over whether to grant or deny an applicant, he has empanelled a CCW committee that reviews each application. He has provided guidelines to that committee on criteria to consider in granting or denying an application. Factors to consider in granting the application are if the applicant is a business owner/agent who transports large sums of money or valuable commodities; individuals who are engaged in fugitive recovery, executive protection, and the like; individuals who have demonstrated a need or articulated threat; and former law enforcement officers or other persons who have received substantial training in weapons handling. Conversely, there are a number of criteria that are weighed AGAINST granting a permit, such as certain prior arrests or convictions, evidence of substance abuse, etc.

It is easy to look from the outside and determine for yourself what the Sheriff should or should not do with regard to CCW permits. However, that responsibility is vested squarely with the Sheriff and as with any significant responsibility, it must be tempered by a concomitant responsibility and restraint. It would be a simple matter to simply grant each CCW application, but the community would not be best served by such a practice. Further, any internal practice must withstand scrutiny from the public, the media, and the courts (the Department has been sued twice regarding CCW issuance since the Sheriff took office).

Finally, as for your assertion that the number of applicants cannot be used as a barometer for the effectiveness of the CCW process, I’m not sure what other measure to use. It is purely speculative to opine what might be the outcome of potential applicants, and I would encourage anyone who feels they have a need to apply—including you, since I was unable to determine that you ever applied for a CCW permit with this Department under that name.

While I recognize that this may not satisfy your concerns relative to the issuance of CCWs in Sacramento County, I hope it at least gives you some insight into the process.

Captain Scott Jones

Assistant to the Sheriff

Once again A right delayed is a right denied....

The level of government incompetence is sometimes staggering...what is even more astounding though is the level to which the government will ignore the law and twist logic and common sense to their own ends. This has only increased exponentially in the last 70 years....I do not have hope for the long term survival of the union.

markm
02-03-2012, 7:46 AM
I just went through the process. 2 weeks after interview for the approval letter. LiveScan took 4 weeks. Issuance was 4 days.

Hey Scotty,

Your liveScan took 4 weeks? My LiveScan from Roseville PD took one hour.

markm

jb7706
02-03-2012, 7:51 AM
Hey Scotty,

Your liveScan took 4 weeks? My LiveScan from Roseville PD took one hour.

markm

Those things vary widely. Some are next day, most a couple of days and some take a month+ to come back.

markm
02-03-2012, 8:24 AM
Agree... There is no "repealing" going on...

Hey quiet-wyatt,

Am I to assume that, in your "opinion," the Sherriff is not repealing, he is just incompetant?

You know, that is bordering on LEO bashing. Careful now.

I think the Sherriff and his political team are crafty engineers of political warfare. My OP was written in a narrative format with a question regarding the possibility that the Sherriff, as a crafty politician, "may be" engineering the demise of shall issue.

I guess you don't like my question, so it must be FUD.

markm

PS: Thanks Librarian for adding [failure to perform] to the title. It brings another possibility to opine on. What is worse?

Maestro Pistolero
02-03-2012, 9:02 AM
Markm, on what do you base your belief that "the Sherriff [sic] and his political team are crafty engineers of political warfare"?

How is it "repealing" if the applicants that ARE being processed, are in fact issued unless the person is prohibited?

I maintain the the thread title is misleading and adversarial, And now, as edited by Librarian, also confusing and ambiguous.

It is clearly NOT a repealing of the issuance criteria, yet the thread title continues to suggest that it is.

rp55
02-03-2012, 9:25 AM
I wonder if any public officials from Chicago are reading this. I could see them trying this tactic next; "We'll let you have handguns. We'll let you have the firing range to do the training for the Chicago Firearm Permit Course (CFP). You do have to make an appointment for the class which we run once a week and, by the way, even though it's early February were full up for the year because we have to bring in retired detectives to teach the course."

I really think they'd be stupid enough to try that and I also believe Alan Gura would have them back in court so quick it would make their heads spin.

I recall reading once a upon a time that a "right delayed is a right denied."

Librarian
02-03-2012, 10:34 AM
I maintain the the thread title is misleading and adversarial, And now, as edited by Librarian, also confusing and ambiguous.


I agree in part, disagree in part.

Markm deserves to keep his opinion in the title of his post.

My addition, I think, highlights the problem-as-observed, while leaving the motivation unstated.

Administrative foot-dragging, as a policy to limit the number of licenses issued, could be a change of heart. Or, it could be a perceived budget issue. Or it could be a misapprehension of the correct level of staff needed to process applications. Or it could be some other things.

It would be nice to know a number of things about the process, but most of the answers probably need be from the Sheriff's office.

Were I the Sheriff, I might look at this thread as a free consulting/brainstorming session. I might also have preferred it happen in private, but the problem is extremely public, so discussions of ways to fix the problem, like many public agency issues, also wind up in public.

IIRC, Sheriff Jones is a member here - it seems to me he had some participation during the election.

Flopper
02-03-2012, 11:23 AM
Hey Scotty,

Your liveScan took 4 weeks? My LiveScan from Roseville PD took one hour.

markm

Go to a UPS store for LiveScan, they're quick as heck.

nosuchagency
02-03-2012, 12:52 PM
dramatically titled thread fails to deliver... /unsubcribe

Sgt Raven
02-03-2012, 12:55 PM
Go to a UPS store for LiveScan, they're quick as heck.

They may be quick for the scanning part, getting the results back is what can take time.

Lives_In_Fresno
02-03-2012, 12:59 PM
Again, so what? They have a legal obligation to to process applications within a set timeframe. If they have to pull deputies off road patrol or pull administrative staff from other areas then they need to do that.

The sheriff has a statutory obligation that he isn't meeting. What would happen to you or me of we didn't meet a statutory time limit? Would the DMV say "it's ok to pay your registration fees a year late?" No, there are repercussions. The same for the IRS or BoE.

fine, sue them then.

I was commenting on a different issue.

Scotty
02-03-2012, 1:53 PM
Hey Scotty,

Your liveScan took 4 weeks? My LiveScan from Roseville PD took one hour.

markm

I did it between Christmas and New Years. But it was 4 weeks from the time I went in to the Sac Sheriff office (Marconi) till I got the letter.

wildhawker
02-03-2012, 2:52 PM
Go to a UPS store for LiveScan, they're quick as heck.

For the purposes of an LTC, it's the opinion of CGF (and, in part, DOJ) that an applicant may only be Live Scan fingerprinted by "the officer" who accepts and processes the application.

Where one is Live Scanned has no bearing on background check processing time.

-Brandon

Scotty
02-03-2012, 4:19 PM
For the purposes of an LTC, it's the opinion of CGF (and, in part, DOJ) that an applicant may only be Live Scan fingerprinted by "the officer" who accepts and processes the application.

Where one is Live Scanned has no bearing on background check processing time.

-Brandon

I just followed the directions in the approval letter. It said to go to one of three Sheriff offices to get LiveScan.

wildhawker
02-03-2012, 5:10 PM
I just followed the directions in the approval letter. It said to go to one of three Sheriff offices to get LiveScan.

I fully appreciate that the Sheriff's policy is in another way not compliant with the law. It is interesting how what was to be a "standard" framework for applications and licensure has become so, well, not.

-Brandon

77bawls
02-03-2012, 5:13 PM
For the purposes of an LTC, it's the opinion of CGF (and, in part, DOJ) that an applicant may only be Live Scan fingerprinted by "the officer" who accepts and processes the application.

Where one is Live Scanned has no bearing on background check processing time.

-Brandon

Agreed. I think the major factor in processing time may depend how many states you've lived in. Mine took a while and I lived in Minnesota before I moved here.

radioman
02-03-2012, 5:36 PM
yes this thread needs a new title, but that's miner. I got to looking at this as if it were bigger. what if, 58 county's had this backup. Sacramento is trying to follow the law, and doing well with it. Now if 50 some odd county's were doing as well as Sacramento, and they should be. We vote, if a state full of gun owners found out there was a back log of a year, or better, our legislators would hear from more then a few upset voters. someone up there in Sac would write a Bill for the state to take it over. I know this is far fetched, but still "if" the system worked and all 58 county's followed the law, most of the 58 could be backed up too. The up side for the State would be revenue, how many people in California would apply for a permit? would a million seem to small of number, I don't think so. politically this back up is a good thing, first it's in the news, ccw is in the courts and it's getting out to the other county's how ccw (LTC) should be done, if/when they do it. If we ever get Shall the State will have to run it, could you imagine if you had to go to the county to register your car, get your drivers license, and the back up. The good Dr. from insight may have been on the right track, less words for one thing, to many words only get you in trouble. removing good cause/moral character, the word may and let the doj-bof run it. The up side for us, a fixed fee, all the hoops would be the same size and the cost of training might come down as demand goes up. Now this is really pushing the envelop, you buy a gun and the FFl runs the life scan as part of DROS, bof does their ten day side step, but at the same time they put together your LTC, the FFL gives you your paper permit and the DMV sends you a new DL, where the DMV puts A,B,MC1 and so on, they could put CCW or LTC. Or am I asking for to much?

Dreaded Claymore
02-03-2012, 9:21 PM
I wonder if every county will have this problem when they become shall-issue. I'm also wondering whether it'd be easier to get a carry license from the state government (like so many other states do) than from the county you happen to live in, assuming all of the counties are shall-issue.

hoffmang
02-03-2012, 11:53 PM
I wonder if every county will have this problem when they become shall-issue. I'm also wondering whether it'd be easier to get a carry license from the state government (like so many other states do) than from the county you happen to live in, assuming all of the counties are shall-issue.

Post a SCOTUS case we will ratchet the heat up via Federal Courts to keep all counties on an even shorter cycle.

-Gene

itzameeh
02-04-2012, 2:04 AM
IMO... I think the system they use to book appts needs to be replaced and is primarily the problem of this backlog cause one can technically book dozens of appts under his/her name causing the tremendous backlog. I think that the system should have a built in check and make you choose so no one person can have multiple appts scheduled. Pretty soon we are going to see appts up for sale on Craigslist/Ebay.lol.

Gray Peterson
02-04-2012, 4:04 PM
I wonder if every county will have this problem when they become shall-issue. I'm also wondering whether it'd be easier to get a carry license from the state government (like so many other states do) than from the county you happen to live in, assuming all of the counties are shall-issue.

I think there are opportunities to speed the process up so that it's pretty automatic. A lot of application processes, including illegal ones, are pure derriere covering exercises.

yes this thread needs a new title, but that's miner. I got to looking at this as if it were bigger. what if, 58 county's had this backup. Sacramento is trying to follow the law, and doing well with it. Now if 50 some odd county's were doing as well as Sacramento, and they should be. We vote, if a state full of gun owners found out there was a back log of a year, or better, our legislators would hear from more then a few upset voters. someone up there in Sac would write a Bill for the state to take it over. I know this is far fetched, but still "if" the system worked and all 58 county's followed the law, most of the 58 could be backed up too. The up side for the State would be revenue, how many people in California would apply for a permit? would a million seem to small of number, I don't think so. politically this back up is a good thing, first it's in the news, ccw is in the courts and it's getting out to the other county's how ccw (LTC) should be done, if/when they do it. If we ever get Shall the State will have to run it, could you imagine if you had to go to the county to register your car, get your drivers license, and the back up. The good Dr. from insight may have been on the right track, less words for one thing, to many words only get you in trouble. removing good cause/moral character, the word may and let the doj-bof run it. The up side for us, a fixed fee, all the hoops would be the same size and the cost of training might come down as demand goes up. Now this is really pushing the envelop, you buy a gun and the FFl runs the life scan as part of DROS, bof does their ten day side step, but at the same time they put together your LTC, the FFL gives you your paper permit and the DMV sends you a new DL, where the DMV puts A,B,MC1 and so on, they could put CCW or LTC. Or am I asking for to much?

This is all post-Richards, most likely.

IMO... I think the system they use to book appts needs to be replaced and is primarily the problem of this backlog cause one can technically book dozens of appts under his/her name causing the tremendous backlog. I think that the system should have a built in check and make you choose so no one person can have multiple appts scheduled. Pretty soon we are going to see appts up for sale on Craigslist/Ebay.lol.

Or, you can charge $20 to schedule an appointment? Just a thought.

HBrebel
02-04-2012, 4:07 PM
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.......what the hell happened to us

Gray Peterson
02-04-2012, 6:07 PM
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.......what the hell happened to us

Can you add something constructive to the conversation? Or perhaps read some of the gun rights history articles about what happened to us for the last 80 years? What happened to us was decades of courts saying 2A was a collective right rather than a fundamental individual one.

Remember, "Congress shall pass no law" is not as much a restriction against Congress and the States as the wording seems to be....

quiet-wyatt
02-04-2012, 6:28 PM
Hey quiet-wyatt,

Am I to assume that, in your "opinion," the Sherriff is not repealing, he is just incompetant?

You know, that is bordering on LEO bashing. Careful now.

I think the Sherriff and his political team are crafty engineers of political warfare. My OP was written in a narrative format with a question regarding the possibility that the Sherriff, as a crafty politician, "may be" engineering the demise of shall issue.

I guess you don't like my question, so it must be FUD.

markm

PS: Thanks Librarian for adding [failure to perform] to the title. It brings another possibility to opine on. What is worse?

You assume incorrectly...

"Repealing" (your words) is much different than "unable to meet current demand" - for whatever reason.

So, using YOUR logic, Librarian (by adding "Failure to perform") is also "LEO bashing"?

If anyone needs to be careful, I think it's you...

quiet-wyatt
02-04-2012, 6:29 PM
dramatically titled thread fails to deliver... /unsubcribe

+1...

317cmbtengr
02-04-2012, 6:42 PM
With the current system for appointments if only ten percent of the population of Sac county wanted a permit it would take 68 years to complete. 1,418,788 population of Sac county according to the Census of 2010. Ten percent of that divided by 2080 appointments per year. This is a very good way to limit the total number.

hoffmang
02-04-2012, 6:50 PM
With the current system for appointments if only ten percent of the population of Sac county wanted a permit it would take 68 years to complete. 1,418,788 population of Sac county according to the Census of 2010. Ten percent of that divided by 2080 appointments per year. This is a very good way to limit the total number.

It took most states that did get to 6ish% decades to get there. Most states run around 2-3%. Each 1% is 14,000 folks in Sacramento County though.

Here are some good states on shall issue NC for example: http://ncguns.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-percentage-of-eligible-population.html

Notice that Mecklenburg, home county of myself and Charlotte, is still smaller than Sac County, but has only reached 2.31% of that urban county's population.

-Gene

safewaysecurity
02-04-2012, 6:57 PM
If they just got rid of interviews and processed apps the same way mail-in shall-issue states processed them we wouldn't have this problem.

mag360
02-04-2012, 9:05 PM
If they just got rid of interviews and processed apps the same way mail-in shall-issue states processed them we wouldn't have this problem.

yep, what does the interview accomplish? that you don't have those "crazy eyes"?

mail in your application with the $, training cert, picture and livescan, send it off to the printers and away you go (just like Utah). no additional reason to have deputies sit there and re-ask you the same question you just answered on the packet or ask how you store your gun at home when it is covered in the application and training.

wildhawker
02-04-2012, 9:44 PM
yep, what does the interview accomplish? that you don't have those "crazy eyes"?

mail in your application with the $, training cert, picture and livescan, send it off to the printers and away you go (just like Utah). no additional reason to have deputies sit there and re-ask you the same question you just answered on the packet or ask how you store your gun at home when it is covered in the application and training.

What you describe is a possibility for the future, but would not comport with the law as it stands today.

-Brandon

tango-52
02-05-2012, 7:23 AM
What you describe is a possibility for the future, but would not comport with the law as it stands today.

-Brandon

Really? A government agency is not authorized to do anything above and beyond the minimum requirement stated in the law. The laws work opposite for government compared to citizens. For a citizen if the law doesn't say we can't do something, then we can. For an agency, if it doesn't say they can do it, then they cannot. There is nothing in the Penal Code (revised statutes 26150-26225) that requires an interview, or that the Sheriff perform the Livescan in-house.

PC26150:a) When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person, the sheriff of a county may issue a license to that person
upon proof of all of the following:
(1) The applicant is of good moral character.
(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.
(3) The applicant is a resident of the county or a city within the
county, or the applicant's principal place of employment or business
is in the county or a city within the county and the applicant
spends a substantial period of time in that place of employment or
business.
(4) The applicant has completed a course of training as described
in Section 26165.

All of the 26150 requirements can be met as follows:
a)If a person applies, they could mail the whole packet in.
1)Moral character is determined through the DOJ background check and the fingerprints could be taken by any licensed Livescan facility, the same as is done for teachers.
2)Good cause has been published here on Calguns.
3)Residency is established through copies of utility bills or a variety of other methods.
4)Training is done by an approved trainer.

No where does it say that an interview must be performed, that an applicant must shoot at the Sheriff's range, that police officers must go to the applicant's neighborhood or contact their employer. Anything that a Sheriff does that is above this bare minimum is not supported by the Penal Code and is an underground regulation. http://www.oal.ca.gov/oal_role.htm

CitaDeL
02-05-2012, 8:01 AM
Really? A government agency is not authorized to do anything above and beyond the minimum requirement stated in the law. The laws work opposite for government compared to citizens. For a citizen if the law doesn't say we can't do something, then we can. For an agency, if it doesn't say they can do it, then they cannot. There is nothing in the Penal Code (revised statutes 26150-26225) that requires an interview, or that the Sheriff perform the Livescan in-house.

PC26150:a) When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person, the sheriff of a county may issue a license to that person
upon proof of all of the following:
(1) The applicant is of good moral character.
(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.
(3) The applicant is a resident of the county or a city within the
county, or the applicant's principal place of employment or business
is in the county or a city within the county and the applicant
spends a substantial period of time in that place of employment or
business.
(4) The applicant has completed a course of training as described
in Section 26165.

All of the 26150 requirements can be met as follows:
a)If a person applies, they could mail the whole packet in.
1)Moral character is determined through the DOJ background check and the fingerprints could be taken by any licensed Livescan facility, the same as is done for teachers.
2)Good cause has been published here on Calguns.
3) Residency is established through copies of utility bills or a variety of other methods.
4)Training is done by an approved trainer.

No where does it say that an interview must be performed, that an applicant must shoot at the Sheriff's range, that police officers must go to the applicant's neighborhood or contact their employer. Anything that a Sheriff does that is above this bare minimum is not supported by the Penal Code and is an underground regulation. http://www.oal.ca.gov/oal_role.htm

Actually, requiring someone to bring utility bills or other documentation to establish residency or a timetable of residency to fill a requirement of minimum duration isnt lawful either. When you apply, you are making a statement under penalty of perjury that you are a resident, and no other documents are necessary.

tango-52
02-05-2012, 12:28 PM
Actually, requiring someone to bring utility bills or other documentation to establish residency or a timetable of residency to fill a requirement of minimum duration isnt lawful either. When you apply, you are making a statement under penalty of perjury that you are a resident, and no other documents are necessary.

Well, nothing in PC says you need to show how long you have been a resident, just that you prove that you are. So a rental, lease, or purchase agreement dated the same day as the CCW application should fit the bill. But the PC does say "upon proof of", so I don't think swearing under penalty of perjury fits the bill.

But my main point was that this whole process could be handled by mail by a clerk,, legally and in full compliance with PC. No appointments. No interviews. No needless delays. ;)

Drivedabizness
02-05-2012, 1:33 PM
I'm hoping some of the "right people" will talk turkey to Sheriff Jones. They've been very patient and even complimentary - hardly adversarial towards him. Hopefully that bought them some good will from him in return.
It's pretty obvious his process isn't working well at all and is not delivering what he agreed to do or what the PC calls for. Its not like this level of demand was not easily envisioned - whoever thought 40 appointments a week could ever be workable needs a checkup from the neckup.

DublTap
02-05-2012, 6:14 PM
You do not need to own a firearm to make an appointment. When you submit your application, the firearm information can be ommitted. You must own your firearm in time to qualify with it. I was issued a Sacramento LTC last year without problem by following the advice on Calguns. If you want an LTC, do your homework. Sacramento will likely reopen the appointment system. Be ready when they do.

dr.crash
02-05-2012, 6:20 PM
Just another reason i am glad i moved out of california. Only took 5 weeks from start to finish here in ohio :)

CitaDeL
02-05-2012, 6:41 PM
Well, nothing in PC says you need to show how long you have been a resident, just that you prove that you are. So a rental, lease, or purchase agreement dated the same day as the CCW application should fit the bill. But the PC does say "upon proof of", so I don't think swearing under penalty of perjury fits the bill.

But my main point was that this whole process could be handled by mail by a clerk,, legally and in full compliance with PC. No appointments. No interviews. No needless delays. ;)

If you are willing to provide proof that you are a resident, then you should also be willing to provide documentation that you are of good moral character and have good cause too. Would you be willing to supply character references from 5 people who have known you for more than one year who will be willing to provide letters of recommendation? And are you going to also provide the issuing agency documentation that proves your good cause of 'self defense'? You see, the problem remains; if you allow the issuing agency to demand proof on something like residency, you will also open the barn door on things that should not enter into their purview of discretion.

Residency = "I live in the county you serve." Anything else unlawfully disqualifies those who do not have utility bills, rental agreements, or purchase agreements.

If the CGF suggests that one apply in person, I would take that advice until they give the go-ahead on applying by mail. I believe they have sound reasons that outweigh the inconvenience of awaiting an interview time.

Librarian
02-05-2012, 6:48 PM
Residency = "I live in the county you serve." Anything else unlawfully disqualifies those who do not have utility bills, rental agreements, or purchase agreements.

Of course, the issuing agency is free to verify that claim - on their own time.

sharxbyte
02-05-2012, 6:52 PM
For the rest of the year? I don't even get mine in October? >.<

Supertac916
02-05-2012, 7:01 PM
It's interesting to see guys complain because they can't get on the schedule fast enough for their interview. I received my CCW from Sac County 9 years ago, when there were only 250 permits. I'm actually alright with the sherrif's department slowing things down because they want to make sure they're issuing them to responsible citizens and doing proper background checks. The more guys with permits puts all of our permits at jeapardy. Should some idiot get his hands on one and uses it during the wrong situation. I also believe that guys who acquire their CCW's need to take the responsibility for proper defensive handgun training because I know many gun owners can't hit the broad side of a barn. I believe in the Right to Bear Arms, but I also believe that with that right comes responsibility to ourselves, family, and our community. Good luck guys and I hope you get your permits, but be patient and in the mean time get a lot of range time and training in.

CitaDeL
02-05-2012, 7:02 PM
Of course, the issuing agency is free to verify that claim - on their own time.

That's right. But it isn't my job to provide such proof or conduct their investigation for them. With absence of anything to dispute my claim of residency, they must accept my statement under penalty of perjury at face value.

Gray Peterson
02-05-2012, 7:48 PM
I'm actually alright with the sherrif's department slowing things down because they want to make sure they're issuing them to responsible citizens and doing proper background checks. The more guys with permits puts all of our permits at jeapardy.

So people getting killed by criminals as a consequence of not being able to secure an appointment fast enough OK with you?

Do the math, folks. Sacramento County has a lot of violence problems, and a lot of folks want to protect themselves. It's 14K per 1% of the population of Sacramento County. There are nearly 2K issued licenses, and 2000 pending application appointments. That's 4K licenses. It'll take 3 years to unwring the huge demand.

That's not acceptable, especially in light of the apparent law violations in the application process....

wildhawker
02-05-2012, 9:01 PM
It's interesting to see guys complain because they can't get on the schedule fast enough for their interview. I received my CCW from Sac County 9 years ago, when there were only 250 permits. I'm actually alright with the sherrif's department slowing things down because they want to make sure they're issuing them to responsible citizens and doing proper background checks. The more guys with permits puts all of our permits at jeapardy. Should some idiot get his hands on one and uses it during the wrong situation. I also believe that guys who acquire their CCW's need to take the responsibility for proper defensive handgun training because I know many gun owners can't hit the broad side of a barn. I believe in the Right to Bear Arms, but I also believe that with that right comes responsibility to ourselves, family, and our community. Good luck guys and I hope you get your permits, but be patient and in the mean time get a lot of range time and training in.

Mr. Ruger, is that you? :rolleyes:

-Brandon

dantodd
02-05-2012, 9:09 PM
It's interesting to see guys complain because they can't get on the schedule fast enough for their interview. I received my CCW from Sac County 9 years ago, when there were only 250 permits. I'm actually alright with the sherrif's department slowing things down because they want to make sure they're issuing them to responsible citizens and doing proper background checks. The more guys with permits puts all of our permits at jeapardy. Should some idiot get his hands on one and uses it during the wrong situation. I also believe that guys who acquire their CCW's need to take the responsibility for proper defensive handgun training because I know many gun owners can't hit the broad side of a barn. I believe in the Right to Bear Arms, but I also believe that with that right comes responsibility to ourselves, family, and our community. Good luck guys and I hope you get your permits, but be patient and in the mean time get a lot of range time and training in.

So, of you move or if your license expires you are OK with waiting over a year to get a new license?

jdberger
02-05-2012, 9:14 PM
... I believe in the Right to Bear Arms, but ....

So do Mayors Bloomberg and Menino. (http://www.dnainfo.com/20120203/manhattan/watch-mayor-michael-bloombergs-super-bowl-ad)

Who's side are you on?

Drivedabizness
02-05-2012, 9:18 PM
It's interesting to see guys complain because they can't get on the schedule fast enough for their interview. I received my CCW from Sac County 9 years ago, when there were only 250 permits. I'm actually alright with the sherrif's department slowing things down because they want to make sure they're issuing them to responsible citizens and doing proper background checks. The more guys with permits puts all of our permits at jeapardy. Should some idiot get his hands on one and uses it during the wrong situation. I also believe that guys who acquire their CCW's need to take the responsibility for proper defensive handgun training because I know many gun owners can't hit the broad side of a barn. I believe in the Right to Bear Arms, but I also believe that with that right comes responsibility to ourselves, family, and our community. Good luck guys and I hope you get your permits, but be patient and in the mean time get a lot of range time and training in.

Your post is offensive in so many ways...most certainly because you have nowhere near the merit that myself and so many other applicants have.

But since one of the Golden Rules of web sites is not to feed trolls I will simply tell you how messed up you are and then walk away.

Lucky you - now go away. And I mean it.

kcbrown
02-05-2012, 10:00 PM
It's interesting to see guys complain because they can't get on the schedule fast enough for their interview. I received my CCW from Sac County 9 years ago, when there were only 250 permits. I'm actually alright with the sherrif's department slowing things down because they want to make sure they're issuing them to responsible citizens and doing proper background checks. The more guys with permits puts all of our permits at jeapardy. Should some idiot get his hands on one and uses it during the wrong situation. I also believe that guys who acquire their CCW's need to take the responsibility for proper defensive handgun training because I know many gun owners can't hit the broad side of a barn. I believe in the Right to Bear Arms, but I also believe that with that right comes responsibility to ourselves, family, and our community. Good luck guys and I hope you get your permits, but be patient and in the mean time get a lot of range time and training in.

How generous of you, seeing how you already have yours and all and were so "special" that you managed to get one when essentially nobody else could.

I bet if you didn't have yours and felt a pressing need for one, you would not be singing this tune.

wildhawker
02-05-2012, 10:20 PM
There is nothing in the Penal Code (revised statutes 26150-26225) that requires an interview

I agree with you on this point.

or that the Sheriff perform the Livescan in-house.

The framework codified in the Penal Code's indicates that the Legislature's standardized system for initiating the application process requires the applicant to be physically present.

Cal. Penal Code Sec. 26190:
(a)
(1) Each applicant for a new license or for the renewal
of a license shall pay at the time of filing the application a fee
determined by the Department of Justice. The fee shall not exceed the
application processing costs of the Department of Justice for the
direct costs of furnishing the report required by Section 26185.
(2) After the department establishes fees sufficient to reimburse
the department for processing costs, fees charged shall increase at a
rate not to exceed the legislatively approved annual cost-of-living
adjustments for the department's budget.
(3) The officer receiving the application and the fee shall
transmit the fee, with the fingerprints if required, to the
Department of Justice.
(b) (1) The licensing authority of any city, city and county, or
county may charge an additional fee in an amount equal to the actual
costs for processing the application for a new license, including any
required notices, excluding fingerprint and training costs, but in
no case to exceed one hundred dollars ($100), and shall transmit the
additional fee, if any, to the city, city and county, or county
treasury.
(2) The first 20 percent of this additional local fee may be
collected upon filing of the initial application. The balance of the
fee shall be collected only upon issuance of the license.

DOJ agrees with this interpretation, and based on this they have denied access to certain records which would create a pretty easy way for people to circumvent the statutory process and be Live Scan fingerprinted by any DOJ-approved operator.

All of the 26150 requirements can be met as follows:
a)If a person applies, they could mail the whole packet in.

You're failing to acknowledge two of the most important tasks on the critical path.

Cal. Penal Code Sec. 26185:
(a)
(1) The fingerprints of each applicant shall be taken
and two copies on forms prescribed by the Department of Justice shall
be forwarded to the department.
(2) Upon receipt of the fingerprints and the fee as prescribed in
Section 26190, the department shall promptly furnish the forwarding
licensing authority a report of all data and information pertaining
to any applicant of which there is a record in its office, including
information as to whether the person is prohibited by state or
federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a
firearm.
(3) No license shall be issued by any licensing authority until
after receipt of the report from the department.

(Note that there exist some exceptions to the above. No licensing authority to my knowledge, with the possible exception of Ventura County Sheriff (now that they've adopted our policy), has these right in practice.)

Let's see *why* the aforementioned tasks are so important to the process, and why their completion are not simply mailable items:

26205. The licensing authority shall give written notice to the
applicant indicating if the license under this article is approved or
denied. The licensing authority shall give this notice within 90
days of the initial application for a new license or a license
renewal, or 30 days after receipt of the applicant's criminal
background check from the Department of Justice, whichever is later.
If the license is denied, the notice shall state which requirement
was not satisfied.

1)Moral character is determined through the DOJ background check and the fingerprints could be taken by any licensed Livescan facility, the same as is done for teachers.

I agree that it's possible for such a system to work, but not the way the system is constructed today.

2)Good cause has been published here on Calguns.

"Self defense." Done. (Now, again, we're assuming post-Richards.)

3)Residency is established through copies of utility bills or a variety of other methods.

Is it? To whom?

4)Training is done by an approved trainer.

After approval, yes, but what or who is an "approved trainer"? Wouldn't that require the licensing authority to publish a policy - one that includes a listing of approved trainers?

No where does it say that an interview must be performed, that an applicant must shoot at the Sheriff's range, that police officers must go to the applicant's neighborhood or contact their employer. Anything that a Sheriff does that is above this bare minimum is not supported by the Penal Code and is an underground regulation. http://www.oal.ca.gov/oal_role.htm

All of those examples may not be underground regulations per se. However, they are certainly more than the minimum legal threshold for issuing licenses under 26150, et seq.

Well, nothing in PC says you need to show how long you have been a resident, just that you prove that you are. So a rental, lease, or purchase agreement dated the same day as the CCW application should fit the bill. But the PC does say "upon proof of", so I don't think swearing under penalty of perjury fits the bill.

If you mean to say that most judges would find a policy of requiring some tangible proof of residency to be lawful (except, possibly, as-applied to some people; this also discounts for the effects of Dearth, Lane, etc.), then I agree with you. However, there is no definition of "resident" in the PC with respect to 26150-26225, and many different definitions of "residency" exist in state law. Which applies? The PC also says that "[a]pplications 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 Sec. 26175(a)(1).) It goes on to state that "[a]n 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."

Merriam-Webster defines “clarify” as “to free of confusion” and “to make understandable”; according to that same source, to “interpret” is to “explain or tell the meaning of” or “present in understandable terms”. Unless the additionally-required information, documentation, or form(s) serve to “clarify or interpret information provided by the applicant on the standard application form”, then the licensing authority may not require any such information or documents from an applicant.

But my main point was that this whole process could be handled by mail by a clerk,, legally and in full compliance with PC. No appointments. No interviews. No needless delays. ;)

I think we agree on the desired system (or, at the very least, on the major points of process), but there simply isn't any logical way of reading the law [as constructed] to mean what you say it does.

-Brandon

thebronze
02-05-2012, 10:43 PM
Sonofva... I've been putting off my app for months now because I don't own a handgun yet and you can't apply if you don't have one... Can't even be screened with an appointment for a whole year? I'm no legal eagle, but that sounds like denied rights.

I'd submit that you probably don't have the requisite common sense or intelligence to obtain a LTC.

No one on here has EVER said that you needed to own a handgun to apply.

Common sense would tell you that if you applied for an appointment in October 2012, that you have quite some time to buy a handgun. SMH...

You obviously haven't been paying attention. Your attempt to cast your own personal failings onto SSD doesn't wash with me.

safewaysecurity
02-05-2012, 10:48 PM
On the application I believe you have RO submit your handgun info. From what I understand you do need a handgun to apply.

wildhawker
02-05-2012, 10:55 PM
The standard application form and Penal Code requires the listing of proposed firearms to be associated with the initial license. It's possible that an application for a license could be approved without any firearm, but I think a judge would find that the statutes and application form do require the listing of firearm(s) prior to issuance. (Amendment application forms can be used to modify the associated firearms.)

-Brandon

Markinsac
02-06-2012, 12:15 AM
On the application I believe you have RO submit your handgun info. From what I understand you do need a handgun to apply.

No, you can leave that area empty at the time of initial application. Once you take the class and qualify, that information can be used to fill in the blanks during the final appointment.

tango-52
02-06-2012, 5:33 AM
The framework codified in the Penal Code's indicates that the Legislature's standardized system for initiating the application process requires the applicant to be physically present.

Cal. Penal Code Sec. 26190:
(a)
(1) Each applicant for a new license or for the renewal
of a license shall pay at the time of filing the application a fee
determined by the Department of Justice. The fee shall not exceed the
application processing costs of the Department of Justice for the
direct costs of furnishing the report required by Section 26185.
(2) After the department establishes fees sufficient to reimburse
the department for processing costs, fees charged shall increase at a
rate not to exceed the legislatively approved annual cost-of-living
adjustments for the department's budget.
(3) The officer receiving the application and the fee shall
transmit the fee, with the fingerprints if required, to the
Department of Justice.
(b) (1) The licensing authority of any city, city and county, or
county may charge an additional fee in an amount equal to the actual
costs for processing the application for a new license, including any
required notices, excluding fingerprint and training costs, but in
no case to exceed one hundred dollars ($100), and shall transmit the
additional fee, if any, to the city, city and county, or county
treasury.
(2) The first 20 percent of this additional local fee may be
collected upon filing of the initial application. The balance of the
fee shall be collected only upon issuance of the license.

DOJ agrees with this interpretation, and based on this they have denied access to certain records which would create a pretty easy way for people to circumvent the statutory process and be Live Scan fingerprinted by any DOJ-approved operator.


-Brandon

I'm breaking your voluminous response into pieces to address them easier. Here is the first one:
http://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints
The last line of that page:
In California, fingerprinting must be done by a certified fingerprint roller or qualified law enforcement personnel.

Here is their info page on Certified Live Scan Operators:
http://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/operators

Here is the list of Certified Live Scan Operators in Sacramento:
http://ag.ca.gov/fingerprints/publications/contact.php#sacramento

Finally, Section 26190 doesn't say that it has to be in person. The County agency I work for receives permit applications filed electronically and takes credit card payments on a daily basis. In fact, we are under a State mandate to get all of our processes paperless within the next two years.

As a point of clarification, the DOJ agrees with the policy because that is the one the Sheriff submitted to them. It meets their criteria. If he would have written a policy such as I described and submitted it, they probably would have accepted it too. It is DOJ's job to support the Sheriffs and give them what they want. When the new Orange County Sheriff re-wrote her policy so she could terminate CCWs early, they supported her too.

tango-52
02-06-2012, 5:42 AM
You're failing to acknowledge two of the most important tasks on the critical path.

Cal. Penal Code Sec. 26185:
(a)
(1) The fingerprints of each applicant shall be taken
and two copies on forms prescribed by the Department of Justice shall
be forwarded to the department.
(2) Upon receipt of the fingerprints and the fee as prescribed in
Section 26190, the department shall promptly furnish the forwarding
licensing authority a report of all data and information pertaining
to any applicant of which there is a record in its office, including
information as to whether the person is prohibited by state or
federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a
firearm.
(3) No license shall be issued by any licensing authority until
after receipt of the report from the department.

(Note that there exist some exceptions to the above. No licensing authority to my knowledge, with the possible exception of Ventura County Sheriff (now that they've adopted our policy), has these right in practice.)

Let's see *why* the aforementioned tasks are so important to the process, and why their completion are not simply mailable items:

26205. The licensing authority shall give written notice to the
applicant indicating if the license under this article is approved or
denied. The licensing authority shall give this notice within 90
days of the initial application for a new license or a license
renewal, or 30 days after receipt of the applicant's criminal
background check from the Department of Justice, whichever is later.
If the license is denied, the notice shall state which requirement
was not satisfied.

I agree that it's possible for such a system to work, but not the way the system is constructed today.
-Brandon

I'm not really sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that they can't start the 90 day clock if it comes in by certified mail? If that were the case, we would never have heard back from the OC Sheriff on the 50 or more PRAs OCCCWS did.

tango-52
02-06-2012, 5:51 AM
After approval, yes, but what or who is an "approved trainer"? Wouldn't that require the licensing authority to publish a policy - one that includes a listing of approved trainers?

-Brandon
I don't know about Sacramento, but both Orange County and San Diego County maintain a list of trainers that they have approved. I would be surprised if Sacramento doesn't also have a list.

And, the licensing authority is required to publish their policy, as you well know.

I think we are in agreement that the policies throughout the state need streamlining. Personally, I think the best way is to hold the agencies to the strictist minimal interpretations of what they are legally allowed to do. Just because a process is moving doesn't mean it is actually working. :)

tango-52
02-06-2012, 5:57 AM
If you are willing to provide proof that you are a resident, then you should also be willing to provide documentation that you are of good moral character and have good cause too. Would you be willing to supply character references from 5 people who have known you for more than one year who will be willing to provide letters of recommendation? And are you going to also provide the issuing agency documentation that proves your good cause of 'self defense'? You see, the problem remains; if you allow the issuing agency to demand proof on something like residency, you will also open the barn door on things that should not enter into their purview of discretion.

Residency = "I live in the county you serve." Anything else unlawfully disqualifies those who do not have utility bills, rental agreements, or purchase agreements.

If the CGF suggests that one apply in person, I would take that advice until they give the go-ahead on applying by mail. I believe they have sound reasons that outweigh the inconvenience of awaiting an interview time.

As I stated, GMC is established through the background check and GC has been publically established. It is Penal Code that requires proof of those things.

mag360
02-06-2012, 6:02 AM
they must streamline or make changes, at 40 a week will take 13 years to get to 2% of the population. Right now they are doing the whole process downtown.

How about running at minimum 10 permits a week through the auxiliary offices, that should not be a huge imposition. 2 a day, 5 days a week. Would speed it up ( a little) for now until people get comfortable with a "Utah-esque" process.

They are certainly not pushing too hard. Given 20 minute interviews, that could be 24 per 8hr day so they can certainly improve productivity.

mag360
02-06-2012, 6:12 AM
they have 5 service centers and the main location, so with my plan they would be at 90 a week, that's a 125% increase!

CitaDeL
02-06-2012, 6:51 AM
As I stated, GMC is established through the background check and GC has been publically established. It is Penal Code that requires proof of those things.

Allow me to rephrase. If an applicant must provide documentation of residency establishing 'proof', then it's concievable that the applicant could be compelled to provide documentation for the other two areas of discretion that are not supported by statute. The law says something completely different.

/off topic

Untamed1972
02-06-2012, 7:50 AM
It's interesting to see guys complain because they can't get on the schedule fast enough for their interview. I received my CCW from Sac County 9 years ago, when there were only 250 permits. I'm actually alright with the sherrif's department slowing things down because they want to make sure they're issuing them to responsible citizens and doing proper background checks. The more guys with permits puts all of our permits at jeapardy. Should some idiot get his hands on one and uses it during the wrong situation. I also believe that guys who acquire their CCW's need to take the responsibility for proper defensive handgun training because I know many gun owners can't hit the broad side of a barn. I believe in the Right to Bear Arms, but I also believe that with that right comes responsibility to ourselves, family, and our community. Good luck guys and I hope you get your permits, but be patient and in the mean time get a lot of range time and training in.

That is an old, tired, elitest attitude that millions of LTC holders in 40+ other states have shown for 20yrs now NOT to be true in the least. Such claims and fears by the anti's and elitests such as yourself have not materialized in the least. So just give it up......the commoners will soon be armed.....deal with it.

Shenaniguns
02-06-2012, 9:23 AM
I don't know about Sacramento, but both Orange County and San Diego County maintain a list of trainers that they have approved. I would be surprised if Sacramento doesn't also have a list.

And, the licensing authority is required to publish their policy, as you well know.

I think we are in agreement that the policies throughout the state need streamlining. Personally, I think the best way is to hold the agencies to the strictist minimal interpretations of what they are legally allowed to do. Just because a process is moving doesn't mean it is actually working. :)


Be surprised!!!

randian
02-06-2012, 9:24 AM
and given all the automated tools that exist to make determining same a very low investment in labor, then why, even with adding all the added staff they say are processing applications, is the wait so long.
It's the same reason the Post Office spent billions on automation yet didn't reduce its costs or improve its service.

Stonewalker
02-06-2012, 9:42 AM
I'd submit that you probably don't have the requisite common sense or intelligence to obtain a LTC.

No one on here has EVER said that you needed to own a handgun to apply.

Common sense would tell you that if you applied for an appointment in October 2012, that you have quite some time to buy a handgun. SMH...

You obviously haven't been paying attention. Your attempt to cast your own personal failings onto SSD doesn't wash with me.

I assumed and paid the price. Derp.

wildhawker
02-06-2012, 2:53 PM
I'm breaking your voluminous response into pieces to address them easier. Here is the first one:
http://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints
The last line of that page:
In California, fingerprinting must be done by a certified fingerprint roller or qualified law enforcement personnel.

Here is their info page on Certified Live Scan Operators:
http://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/operators

Here is the list of Certified Live Scan Operators in Sacramento:
http://ag.ca.gov/fingerprints/publications/contact.php#sacramento

You keep coming back to that, but there's both statutory and practical problems with what you suggest.

A report may only be mailed to the requesting law enforcement office (the "forwarding licensing authority"). ("Upon receipt of the fingerprints and the fee as prescribed in Section 26190, the department [of Justice] shall promptly furnish the forwarding licensing authority a report...." PC 26185(a)(2).) This means that the fingerprints were transmitted by the licensing authority to the DOJ; it follows that the "forwarding licensing authority" would also be that one to collect the fingerprints.

Finally, Section 26190 doesn't say that it has to be in person. The County agency I work for receives permit applications filed electronically and takes credit card payments on a daily basis. In fact, we are under a State mandate to get all of our processes paperless within the next two years.

I'd be very interested in knowing if your agency receives carry license applications filed electronically. If it does not, or if the agency you work for is not a licensing authority, then I fail to see how your facts apply to the instant matter.

In such a case that an applicant is required to submit fingerprints for their application, and given that:

[A] the fingerprints shall be collected by the Live Scan process per DOJ;

"The [specific] officer [or, possibly, office] receiving the application and the fee shall transmit the fee, with the fingerprints if required, to the Department of Justice";

[C] the costs for Live Scan services are assessed directly to the licensing authority's account when a Live Scan service is submitted; and,

[D] applicants "shall pay [B]at the time of filing the application a fee determined by the Department of Justice" [to offset "the
application processing costs of the Department of Justice for the direct costs of furnishing the report required by Section 26185"],

I do not see that the statutes can be interpreted in the manner you suggest without creating illogical outcomes.

As a point of clarification, the DOJ agrees with the policy because that is the one the Sheriff submitted to them. It meets their criteria. If he would have written a policy such as I described and submitted it, they probably would have accepted it too. It is DOJ's job to support the Sheriffs and give them what they want. When the new Orange County Sheriff re-wrote her policy so she could terminate CCWs early, they supported her too.

I disagree entirely here. These statutes trace back to CSSA, CPCA, and NRA (which was, unfortunately, later cut out of the statute going to the application form creation and committee responsible therefore) working to create some sort of consistent and common process [which, interestingly, CSSA and CPCA members then summarily ignored].

You're assuming that every sheriff works like "the Sheriff" (whoever that is) and that the DOJ cares. It generally does not, except to the extent that illogical outcomes create a mess they will be party to.

-Brandon

wildhawker
02-06-2012, 3:14 PM
I'm not really sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that they can't start the 90 day clock if it comes in by certified mail? If that were the case, we would never have heard back from the OC Sheriff on the 50 or more PRAs OCCCWS did.

I'm saying that they might be able to start the 90 day clock assuming that either [A] the application form can be signed without being "witnessed", or the sheriff is ignoring the statutory mandate that "[a]pplications for licenses shall be filed in writing and signed by the applicant." (PC 26175(d).)

However, you again overlook the critical element:

"The licensing authority shall give this notice within 90 days of the initial application for a new license or a license renewal, [B]or 30 days after receipt of the applicant's criminal background check from the Department of Justice, whichever is later." (PC 26205.) (Emphasis added.)

Your PRA requests have absolutely nothing to do with this. Once paper is in the domain of the agency, it becomes a responsive record (given a properly-formed request). The agency's choice to produce or withhold the records has nothing to do with its duties to accept and process.

-Brandon

wildhawker
02-06-2012, 3:16 PM
I don't know about Sacramento, but both Orange County and San Diego County maintain a list of trainers that they have approved. I would be surprised if Sacramento doesn't also have a list.

And, the licensing authority is required to publish their policy, as you well know.

I think we are in agreement that the policies throughout the state need streamlining. Personally, I think the best way is to hold the agencies to the strictist minimal interpretations of what they are legally allowed to do. Just because a process is moving doesn't mean it is actually working. :)

I agree that if a licensing authority's policy requires some specific type of training (or approved trainer(s)), then it should be part of the policy document that is published. However, that is a legal argument for which exists no direct precedent.

-Brandon

kcbrown
02-06-2012, 4:19 PM
You keep coming back to that, but there's both statutory and practical problems with what you suggest.

A report may only be mailed to the requesting law enforcement office (the "forwarding licensing authority"). ("Upon receipt of the fingerprints and the fee as prescribed in Section 26190, the department [of Justice] shall promptly furnish the forwarding licensing authority a report...." PC 26185(a)(2).) This means that the fingerprints were transmitted by the licensing authority to the DOJ; it follows that the "forwarding licensing authority" would also be that one to collect the fingerprints.


Looks to me like it only follows that the fingerprints were delivered to the "forwarding licensing authority". It doesn't necessarily imply that the fingerprints were originally generated there.

I don't know the first thing about Live Scan, however, so this may be a distinction without a difference. If the Live Scan agent is unable to forward the fingerprints to the "forwarding licensing authority" and is unable to bill the "forwarding licensing authority" for the scan then clearly the distinction above is of no use here.

NotEnufGarage
02-06-2012, 4:22 PM
I'm actually alright with the sherrif's department slowing things down because they want to make sure they're issuing them to responsible citizens and doing proper background checks. The more guys with permits puts all of our permits at jeapardy.

So, you would rewrite the 2nd Amendment to read ;



A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the RESPONSIBLE MALE people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

wildhawker
02-06-2012, 4:42 PM
I don't know the first thing about Live Scan, however

This is the operative part of the post, kc. You need to re-read the rest of the analysis.

-Brandon

Tarn_Helm
02-06-2012, 5:07 PM
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.......what the hell happened to us

"What the hell happened to us?"

In order to appear reasonable, we the people have been too willing to reason with unreasonable, tyrannical people who play word games that take away our rights while they pretend to not understand the clear meaning and intent of the law.

So while we calmly explain to them century after century what our rights are which they are violating, they pretend not to understand so that the rights can be infringed de facto rather than de jure.

Diminution through delay is denial of rights.

But still, most experts here argue that mere litigation rather than legislation is the only way to obtain a legal remedy to our situation.
:facepalm:

quiet-wyatt
02-06-2012, 6:33 PM
I'm actually alright with the sherrif's department slowing things down...
Of course you are - You already have yours...

The more guys with permits puts all of our permits at jeapardy.
Based on... ???

Should some idiot get his hands on one and uses it during the wrong situation.
And I assume you're including yourself in this....

kcbrown
02-06-2012, 7:48 PM
This is the operative part of the post, kc. You need to re-read the rest of the analysis.


I went back and read the statute itself.

I agree -- I see no logically consistent way to interpret it other than that the "licensing authority" is the entity that does the Live Scan.

There are a couple of things that aren't clear to me. The first is:


(a) (1) The fingerprints of each applicant shall be taken and two copies on forms prescribed by the Department of Justice shall be forwarded to the department.


Two copies of what? The fingerprints? Whatever for, when Live Scan transmits them electronically? If DOJ wants two copies of forms with fingerprints on them, what's the purpose of doing the Live Scan at all?


The second is this:


(2) Upon receipt of the fingerprints and the fee as prescribed in Section 26190, the department shall promptly furnish the forwarding licensing authority a report ...


Upon receipt of which fingerprints? The ones transmitted electronically, or the ones sent physically?

wildhawker
02-06-2012, 8:18 PM
I went back and read the statute itself.

I agree -- I see no logically consistent way to interpret it other than that the "licensing authority" is the entity that does the Live Scan.

There are a couple of things that aren't clear to me. The first is:

Two copies of what? The fingerprints? Whatever for, when Live Scan transmits them electronically? If DOJ wants two copies of forms with fingerprints on them, what's the purpose of doing the Live Scan at all?

DOJ has more recently [than the statutes were enacted] prescribed that licensing authorities collect the fingerprints by Live Scan rather than the two fingerprint cards that were once the standard for this sort of background check.

Your confusion is entirely reasonable based on a plain reading of the Code. However, in conjunction with later rules and regulations, "prescribed by the Department of Justice" dictates that the "two copies on forms" now really means "one set by Live Scan".

The second is this:

Upon receipt of which fingerprints? The ones transmitted electronically, or the ones sent physically?

See above.

-Brandon

Neptune
02-06-2012, 9:40 PM
Dropping the mandatory face to face interview would cut a chunk of time off the wait time. Few counties require this step and it slows the process and takes up lots of time for an already time consuming process.



__

Markinsac
02-07-2012, 12:38 AM
Two copies of what? The fingerprints? Whatever for, when Live Scan transmits them electronically? If DOJ wants two copies of forms with fingerprints on them, what's the purpose of doing the Live Scan at all?

The second is this:

Upon receipt of which fingerprints? The ones transmitted electronically, or the ones sent physically?

The fingerprints are only done once - electronically. The form is a triplicate. You get one back with the transaction number. The other copies are used for transmitting the data - one copy ultimately stays with the agency, the other can go with the requests.

CSDGuy
02-07-2012, 2:23 AM
As I read PC 26185 and 26190, and my memory about the Live Scan form, the requesting agency puts their ORI number on the LS form. That determines "who" is the requesting agency and also where the LS report is returned to. If Wildhawker's assertion that only the issuing agency can be the one doing the LS, I can see language in there that would require that the LS be done when the CCW application is filed. However, that language appears to predate the invention of the LS, and thus hard-card prints be taken on 2 forms.

The reality is that we go file the application, get the LS form from the issuing agency, go have it done, and the LS operator forwards the fee to the DOJ and the DOJ will process the LS and return the prints to the requesting agency, not the LS operator that did the scan, because the requesting agency is the entity requesting the data, not the LS operator. The SSD usually does it in-house because they want the rolling fee. The LS prints are sent directly to the DOJ regardless of where they're taken.

Now if you wanted to press the issue, you could insist that all CCW issuing authorities take the LS immediately upon filing of the CCW application... which is one way that 26190 (a)(1) can be read... and (IMHO) would be consistent with your reading of the interplay of the appropriate sections of 26185 and 26190.

wildhawker
02-07-2012, 3:10 AM
Now we have someone tracking the issues exactly right. Thanks for taking the time to evaluate and post on this.

We attempted to gain access to all of the ORIs because we wanted to create a system where the application could be mailed, and the applicant would be fingerprinted at any DOJ approved Live Scan service (with the report being sent back to the LEA holding the application). However, the State (very much aware of what and why we sought that information, withheld it. After months of discussions between me, DOJ, and some licensing authorities, we felt that it was the wrong road with no clear path to achieving the goal (and, even if we were successful, the administrative nightmare that would follow is incentive enough to not push the system beyond its limits).

As such, the only logical path is to enforce the text of the statues as written, and as modified by DOJ's prescribing the Live Scan process.

Based on the statutory framework, the process should be (for those applicants for which a form and fees are required; note that they are not in many cases we outline in our guides):

1. Applicant completes standard form;
2. Applicant delivers standard form to licensing authority, which checks for completeness and then has applicant sign (and LEA countersigns) form;
3. Licensing authority collects initial local fee and the fingerprint fees (roll, plus $95 DOJ).
4. Applicant is fingerprinted by Live Scan [end application submission];
5. If they wish, a short interview with the applicant at the time of submission;
6. DOJ forwards the background check to licensing authority;
7. Licensing authority evaluates and makes a determination;
8. If denied, notice sent; if approved, notice sent with instruction to complete training;
9. Applicant submits training documentation, signs the license, and places thumbprint on the license;
10. License issued (with any TMP restrictions printed on the license).
/end

-Brandon

As I read PC 26185 and 26190, and my memory about the Live Scan form, the requesting agency puts their ORI number on the LS form. That determines "who" is the requesting agency and also where the LS report is returned to. If Wildhawker's assertion that only the issuing agency can be the one doing the LS, I can see language in there that would require that the LS be done when the CCW application is filed. However, that language appears to predate the invention of the LS, and thus hard-card prints be taken on 2 forms.

The reality is that we go file the application, get the LS form from the issuing agency, go have it done, and the LS operator forwards the fee to the DOJ and the DOJ will process the LS and return the prints to the requesting agency, not the LS operator that did the scan, because the requesting agency is the entity requesting the data, not the LS operator. The SSD usually does it in-house because they want the rolling fee. The LS prints are sent directly to the DOJ regardless of where they're taken.

Now if you wanted to press the issue, you could insist that all CCW issuing authorities take the LS immediately upon filing of the CCW application... which is one way that 26190 (a)(1) can be read... and (IMHO) would be consistent with your reading of the interplay of the appropriate sections of 26185 and 26190.

tango-52
02-07-2012, 5:19 AM
I am no fan of the current Orange County Sheriff, but even she has seen that there need be no interview. Here is the current approach being used:
http://egov.ocgov.com/ocgov/Sheriff-Coroner%20-%20Sandra%20Hutchens/Information/Sheriff%20Services/CCW%20License/Initial%20Application%20Process

In order to obtain a CCW license from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department, the applicant must complete the following steps:

1. Read, complete, and sign the CCW application form. This form may be obtained by clicking on the link above or picked up in person at the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner’s Department, which is located at 320 N. Flower Street 4th Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92703.

Making any intentionally false statements on the application is a crime (Penal Code 12051) and can be prosecuted either as a misdemeanor or a felony.

The CCW application, while processed as confidential, is not a privileged document. Information divulged in the application is subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

2. After completing the application, the applicant must mail or hand deliver the appropriate supporting documentation to the CCW licensing desk for processing. The applicant will be notified of the next step via telephone or email by a Sheriff’s Department authorized designee regarding his or her application status. All information is subject to verification and the applicant may be required to provide additional supporting documentation. The CCW licensing desk is open Monday through Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., except County holidays.

3. The Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department will conduct a background investigation on the applicant. When the investigation is complete, the Sheriff’s Department administration will review the information. A decision will be made at this time whether or not the CCW license will be preliminarily approved. If the request is denied, the applicant will be notified by mail.

Note: The applicant may be required to furnish proof of medical fitness and/or undergo psychological testing by a psychologist specified by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, and at the applicant’s expense in accordance with the provisions of Penal Code 12054(c).

4. Upon receiving preliminary approval for the CCW license, the applicant must return to the Sheriff’s Department CCW desk to be fingerprinted and pay the required Department of Justice fees ($95 to $136 depending upon the specific application) before continuing the process. Fingerprints and fees are sent to the Department of Justice for confirmation of identify, criminal history, and firearms possession eligibility. All fees are non-refundable.

5. The clearance from the Department of Justice can take from one to three months. Additionally, CCW applicants must undergo 16 hours of firearms training prior to receiving their CCW license (Penal Code 12050E). This training must be performed by a Sheriff’s Department approved instructor at the applicant’s expense. The firearm(s) the applicant intends to carry (limit of three) must also be inspected and approved by Sheriff’s Department range staff before a CCW license is issued. Upon preliminary approval, the applicant will be mailed a list of approved firearms instructors and information on firearms inspection.

Note: Applicants are asked not to complete their firearms training or weapons inspection until after they are notified of their clearance from the Department of Justice.

6. Once the Department of Justice responds and it is determined that the applicant has been cleared to receive a license, the applicant will be notified. The applicant must return to the CCW licensing desk in person to provide certification of completion of the required training, show proof of the weapon inspection / safety check, and pay the county processing fee. The applicant receives the CCW license after these requirements have been satisfied.

You will note that the applicant can mail or hand deliver the application and supporting documentation. Once they are approved, they return to pay the DOJ fees and do the fingerprints. If you made it this far, you are going to get your CCW unless you fail at DOJ. There is no interview in this process. Appointments are no longer needed in OC.

My point is, there are ways to avoid interminable delays and backlogs. Eliminating the needless interview is the first step. Unless, of course, the goal of the department is to slow things down to a bureaucratic crawl to discourage applicants.

With regard to the Live Scan, CSDGuy had it right. The electronic fingerprints are sent directly to DOJ. Identifying which agency should receive the results is a simple matter of putting the right number on the standard form.

wildhawker
02-07-2012, 6:26 AM
The Sheriff's choice to accept applications by mail is a de facto contravention of the statutory process such that [a] not all duties are fulfilled by her, and [b] the deadlines are indefinitely suspended due to the lack of initiation of the total process. (What an anti-gun sheriff does with her policy is her choice - until we compel her to get with the state's program. However, that a policy containing some elements you argue as lawful exists is not dispositive evidence that it is proper. Indeed, if we take the various policies as evidence of what is proper, we'd have little to argue over.)

Look, tango - you seem to want a smoother and faster process. We can certainly find common ground there. Have you thought about what having submitted your form and fees (and fingerprints) does for those applicants seeking to apply again? (Moreover, have you considered that a second appointment for fingerprinting, etc., is - beyond how I've already shown such to be violative of the duties and process in PC - forces applicants to incur additional costs, time off work, etc.?)

I agree that it's possible to create a system where one could be Live Scanned anywhere. The current system is just not structured for it. There are some things in the works to provide for such a system, should the Legislature (and Governor) so choose.

More on this very soon.

-Brandon

thebronze
02-07-2012, 2:04 PM
On the application I believe you have RO submit your handgun info. From what I understand you do need a handgun to apply.

Wrong.

ramathorn
02-20-2012, 5:34 PM
You can't get an appointment for anyday sooner than 12 mo away. BUT you can call in the morning (early) to ask if there are any cancelations. If there is an open spot and you call before its filled you can snag it. Try calling when they open and see if you have any luck, otherwise be very very patient. :wacko:

Stonewalker
02-20-2012, 5:44 PM
ramathorn,

You can check the website for cancellations at anytime. http://sacsheriff.checkappointments.com/

I check it about 100 times a day.

ramathorn
02-20-2012, 6:15 PM
ramathorn,

You can check the website for cancellations at anytime. http://sacsheriff.checkappointments.com/

I check it about 100 times a day.

Nice!! I thought the wait was bad when i made my appointment but it got way worse. I had to wait 7 months which i thought was forever. It was - but now its forever and a handful of months. Lame.

BassNut
02-20-2012, 6:26 PM
There are appointments available in December right now if anyone wants to jump on them.

Markinsac
02-20-2012, 7:13 PM
There are appointments available in December right now if anyone wants to jump on them.

Those three days have shown available for several weeks, but no appointments are available if you select any of the dates. This has been commented on earlier.

Supertac916
03-02-2012, 7:36 PM
Looks like I pissed off a lot of you guys in my last post. I apologize for offending you guys and after re-reading the post I could see why I pissed some of you guys off. Here's my thoughts and I'm open to your opinions and thoughts. I'm not always right and I hope after reading this you'll understand my thoughts.

I'm not a member of the Elite nor do I believe I have more of a right to carry, than any other American. I received my permit from Sac County 9 years ago because my job had me dealing with and transporting firearms and large sums of cash. I probably sold some of you guns or even shot with some of you guys. There were multiple incidents that I had to sight in my interview for me to justify receiving my CCW, along with multiple letters of recommendations. During the interview I was given multiple scenarios, which I had to answer correctly or get denied. I had to understand the law because I was the youngest CCW permit holder at that time. I was originally denied automatically and had to file an appeal to setup my interview. My mention of some of the guys complaining about the process now and not getting theirs fast enough was because it took me almost two years to get mine.

I've sold thousands of guns over the years before, during, and after working for one of the local ranges. I've taught hundreds how to shoot and helped them decide what firearm would work best for carry, home defense, and recreation. I'm a strong believer in our 2nd Amendment and believe that every responsible and law abiding citizen should be allowed to carry for personal protection. However, I could give you several examples of my time working and selling firearms of why some rules and guidelines are needed. I don't mean more laws to regulate firearms, but personal guidelines we need to do on our own accord as responsible firearms owners.

I worked at the range for almost 3 years and I've had regular citizens, LEO's, CCW holders come up to me and ask me why their gun was malfunctioning. I'd take that damn thing apart and there would be lint built up inside blocking the firing pin or they weren't cleaned since they last qualified and were drenched in oil so the guns malfunctioned. Then you take some to the firing line to qualify them and they couldn't qualify and had to keep retaking their qualification or even worse they didn't remember how to load it. Keep in mind these are our professionals and people who are carrying for self protection.

This concerns me because we don't live in a Shall issue county and in a predominately anti-gun state. Our CCW's could be revoked at any time by the sherrif's department, so if someone is carry a gun and doesn't remember how to load it or could barely score a 255/300 on their qualifications. They could very well accidently miss the assailant and hit an innocent bystander, which could be my family. Also, someone could very well have a clean background and be gang members, psychologically disturbed, or have anger control issues. If we issue everyone the right to carry without some sort of guidelines, than it gives the anti-gunners ammunition against us. Imagine a CCW holder getting into a road rage incident and killing someone over cutting him off. That would put extreme pressure on getting our permits revoked.

We can preach all day long about our 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms gives us the right to carry and that right can't be infringed, but we all know that at these days that doesn't completely hold true. There are many politicians out there that are just waiting to jump on that.

I strongly believe in training psychologically and learning from others who are better and trained in defensive combat shooting. I don't shoot 500 rounds a week like I used too, but I put at least 500 rounds down range a month now. I also take courses at Sac Valley from various instructors to make sure I don't put myself, my family, or those around me in danger should I ever have to use deadly force to stop a threat. I want everyone to make the same commitment when they carry. I'm sure most of you guys do, but there are many who buy a gun and get a permit and just qualify once a year shooting a stationary target at 15 yards. If I'm going to be out shopping with my family and the **** hits the fan, all I ask is you don't miss and I promise that I won't either.

Here's one example that my instructor was sharing with me:

There was a mall shooting in Arizona a few years ago and there were 4 armed citizens within 15 feet of the shooter and guess who took them down? A 70 year old unarmed US Marine Vet who tackled and disarmed the guy during his reload. When interviewed the armed citizens were asked why they didn't stop the shooter. All four of them said they weren't confident that they could hit the shooter. They said they forgot they had their firearms because it happened so fast.

Also, some gun owners listen to other gun owners for what they should do if they shoot someone in self defense. I remember a Sac PD officer coming into the store one day and he was pretty down. I asked him what was wrong and he said that a convicted rapist was shot and killed by a lady protecting herself. I didn't see a problem with that, but then he proceded to tell me that he had to arrest the lady for manslaughter. She heard from her friend that if someone breaks into your home you need to make sure he's dead. Well she made sure he was dead, but she shot him 3x with a .357 mag in the chest as he was going through the window. He was still alive, so she went out through the back door walked up to him and put one in his head. She proceded to drag the mans body through her back door leaving brains and blood along the way. Her friend told her if you ever shoot someone outside you need to bring them into your house. On the positive side there's one less dirtbag on the street, but if she didn't take that last shot she wouldn't had been tried by 12. I'm not sure what happened to that case, but understanding the laws that we need to abide by are very important.

I had a nice little old lady come in to buy a handgun and I gave her some shooting lessons. I recommended a S&W Model 60 and to shoot .38 special hollowpoints for a defense cartridge. She then started telling my she wanted the most powerful .357 cartridge available. I told her that she needs to practice with a full load like that because it's going to be harder to control. She proceded to tell me that she only need a gun small enough to fit in her purse and powerful enough to take her son inlaws head off. I tried to talk her out of it because what she was telling me was first degree murder and she said it was for her grandson because her son inlaw was trying to take full custody of her grandson. She stopped and said "You probably can't sell me the gun now right?" I didn't sell her the gun and a few days later I swung by Wild Sports and saw her walking out, but she didn't notice me. I talked to the manager and told him the circumstances and they froze the DROS. I know that some of you may think that it was wrong for me to intervene, but she was going to kill her son inlaw in front of her grandson during the next custody exchange. I knew law enforcement couldn't do anything because she didn't do anything legally wrong and even called the sheriff's department and spoke with a detective. I have a problem with knowing that a childs life would be changed forever to watch his grandmother kill his father in front of him and then go to prison for the rest of her life.

There is a lot of responsibility and I don't believe enough gun owners take the responsibility seriously enough. Again, I'm not saying anything regarding Calgun members, but the average gun owner and many CCW holders. When you put your gun on in the morning you have to be alert at all times. Since we are a very small portion of the population here in Sacramento people will freak if they see you reach up for a jug of milk and they see your gun. You have to change the way you dress, the way you pickup something, and be prepared of what to do if your stopped by a police officer for having a firearm. It's literally situational awareness at all times.

I believe that for some, carrying a firearm also gives them a false sense of security. How many articles have we read recently about people forgetting they had their guns in their purses or in their carry on bags going through the airport? Do you actually think if they forgot they had a loaded weapon on their persons in an airport, they would actually remember and pull the gun fast enough to stop an attacker? A gun is only a tool and I also believe that guns do not kill people, people kill people. When we decide to carry a gun we have to be mentally prepared to take a human life to protect ourselves or our family's. You at least need to know when you have a gun on you.

Have I noticed violent crime increasing in Sacramento? There's no doubt.. I've had friends home invaded, burglarized, robbed at gunpoint, carjacked, and assaulted over the years. We have over 11% unemployment and our LE budgets have been cut, so it leaves less LEO's and more criminals on the streets. "Non-violent" offenders are being released due to overcrowding and a Federal mandate reducing the amount of prisoners being held in our state prisons. Those prisoners are being released and there aren't enough parole officers to keep track of them due to the budget cuts. Recidivism rates are high because the criminals are competing against law abiding citizens for jobs, so when they can't find employment they go back to what they do best.

I do want more law abiding citizens to carry more firearms for protection, but I want psychologically sound individuals who are committed to training themselves mentally and to train regularly. Should they have to use their firearms to protect themselves and they're around my family that they know what to do and how to react. If 25-50% of our population were armed this way I would be all for it because criminals wouldn't have a chance. I also want to make sure that the anti-gun politicians aren't given ammunition against our 2nd Amendment because we all know there are some waiting for mistakes. Again, I apologize for offending you guys and good luck on your permits, if there's anything I could do feel free to ask. I have friends interviewing regularly and they update me on their progress. I also know a lot of the certified instructors giving the 16 hour certification courses.

Barkoff
03-02-2012, 7:53 PM
I didnt even purchase my primary carry weapon until after my livescan has come back. Just didnt have the funds. A California LTC issued by Sacramento still runs $500+

from memory:
Money to county $100
Money to Live Scan $137
Money to training $125
Money for Qualification per gun $10 x3
Money for box of ammo $30 x3
2 trips down to SCSO (time off work and fuel) $100+
16 hours I will never get back of the worst crap spewed from a BSIS instructor. Priceless

In all fairness, SCSO has streamlined renewals for permit holders. They now only qualify every other year with each weapon.
IMO this beniefits the holder more than the Sheriffs office.


Wow, that's a lot more intensive than San Benito. I wonder how much of that they will expect of you at renewal time?

Barkoff
03-02-2012, 8:02 PM
Please tell me this is not a serious argument.

Please.

-Brandon

Had me shaking my head.

We're just lucky they give us CCWs at all. :kest:

mag360
03-02-2012, 8:04 PM
Why do you keep going back to the Brady nutjobs argument, "what if someone gets cutoff and starts shooting up the freeway". That has not happened, that is not going to happen.

I do think people need training, and requalification but what else are you trying to justify? The year long wait? The fact they only interview what 40 people a week? The fact that it is too damn expensive to go through the whole thing?

Barkoff
03-02-2012, 8:13 PM
It is. They are full for the year. Too bad. There is no requirement that they add staff to keep up with the demand. I have no issue with it at all. Sacramento is one of the few counties that issues LTC's and I dont understand why people would be critcal of it when other counties dont issue at all. It seems to me that the focus should be on the ones that dont than the ones in which demand exceeds staffing.

I am not sure being a smart *** in posts helps the situation Brandon.


Well because these are the laws of CA that they are not enforcing. It is their responsibility to meet said laws. I'm not sure saying "what's eight more months going to hurt" helps the situation.

Antheia
03-02-2012, 8:16 PM
I hope my comment does not open up a political discussion because personally I hate politics, but I have been told the Sacramento PD have been cut back so much that they are having a hard time handling all the CCW requests. This could be the cause of a substantial delay in the CCW processing. :confused:

hoffmang
03-02-2012, 9:13 PM
I hope my comment does not open up a political discussion because personally I hate politics, but I have been told the Sacramento PD have been cut back so much that they are having a hard time handling all the CCW requests. This could be the cause of a substantial delay in the CCW processing. :confused:

My understanding is that Sac PD issues almost no permits. Sac Sheriff's office issues many, many permits and that volume is the problem.

-Gene

warbird
03-02-2012, 9:35 PM
I got a Sacramento CCW issued six months after Scott opened up the process and I was kind of amazed they were going as smoothly as they were considering how many agencies they relied on to respond in a timely manner. One backlog by another agency puts the department in a backlog. a few months later my postman filed for an initial appointment and was given a date nearly eight months into the future indicating a sudden heavy rush of applications. I think Scott found his fullment of a campaign promise overwhelming his department and he is chosing not to pull active cops on crimes to process these applications. He is not backing off but he is saying he can only use so much active police officer time to conduct these CCW investigations. Like many others I am shocked at how much the requests have mushroomed and I wonder how many are from people who moved to Sacramento expressly for the purpose of avoiding their own county. Maybe people need to be raising some he-- with their supervisors to get him money expressly for this purpose. Why not meet with Scott adn work with him to get more money so he can do his job for you. Money specifically targeted for CCW investigations. Just my opinion.

Supertac916
03-02-2012, 9:48 PM
My understanding is that Sac PD issues almost no permits. Sac Sheriff's office issues many, many permits and that volume is the problem.

-Gene

I believe Sac PD past on the CCW responsibility to the Sheriff's department a few years ago. They've since quadrupled their department because for the longest time it was just Amber. I went to renew mine last year and was able to get in time, but they were slammed and there was no small talk. I have a few dozen friends in the process right now and it'll be 6 months to a year, since they first applied. There's been a lot of budget cuts due to the economy, so the more people they put in the CCW department the less deputies on the streets. Before the duties were passed from the PD to the Sheriff's department it was impossible to get a permit if you lived in city limits. If you had a slim chance of getting one you had to live in Sacramento county and they only had 250 permits amongst 1.3 million people.

wildhawker
03-02-2012, 9:58 PM
Gene's pretty aware of the details (http://calgunsfoundation.org/news-blog/archives/157-sykes-sacramento-settle.html).

-Brandon

Supertac916
03-02-2012, 10:30 PM
Gene's pretty aware of the details (http://calgunsfoundation.org/news-blog/archives/157-sykes-sacramento-settle.html).

-Brandon

I agree with you on that one because I noticed Gene's the Chairman of Calguns..lol I just remember how much of a pain in the *** it used to be to get one and I feel for Amber and their department. Up until a few years ago no one complained about a year long wait because we couldn't get them, so no one even applied. Now if you can find a spot on their schedule you have a 95% chance of getting one. Just saying that this is a huge improvement and agree with Gene that the sheriff's department is trying to keep up with the volume. They don't have the systems in place because they had 250 permits to manage before. Switching over the volume to 1,400-1,500 issued permits a year is a pretty big change. Plus making sure the infrastructure is in place to make sure all permits, qualifications, and legal updates are taken care of. I'm new on the site, so this stuff was probably covered already.

adrenaline
03-03-2012, 3:07 AM
Looks like I pissed off a lot of you guys in my last post. I apologize for offending you guys and after re-reading the post I could see why I pissed some of you guys off. Here's my thoughts and I'm open to your opinions and thoughts. I'm not always right and I hope after reading this you'll understand my thoughts.

I'm not a member of the Elite nor do I believe I have more of a right to carry, than any other American. I received my permit from Sac County 9 years ago because my job had me dealing with and transporting firearms and large sums of cash. I probably sold some of you guns or even shot with some of you guys. There were multiple incidents that I had to sight in my interview for me to justify receiving my CCW, along with multiple letters of recommendations. During the interview I was given multiple scenarios, which I had to answer correctly or get denied. I had to understand the law because I was the youngest CCW permit holder at that time. I was originally denied automatically and had to file an appeal to setup my interview. My mention of some of the guys complaining about the process now and not getting theirs fast enough was because it took me almost two years to get mine.

I've sold thousands of guns over the years before, during, and after working for one of the local ranges. I've taught hundreds how to shoot and helped them decide what firearm would work best for carry, home defense, and recreation. I'm a strong believer in our 2nd Amendment and believe that every responsible and law abiding citizen should be allowed to carry for personal protection. However, I could give you several examples of my time working and selling firearms of why some rules and guidelines are needed. I don't mean more laws to regulate firearms, but personal guidelines we need to do on our own accord as responsible firearms owners.

I worked at the range for almost 3 years and I've had regular citizens, LEO's, CCW holders come up to me and ask me why their gun was malfunctioning. I'd take that damn thing apart and there would be lint built up inside blocking the firing pin or they weren't cleaned since they last qualified and were drenched in oil so the guns malfunctioned. Then you take some to the firing line to qualify them and they couldn't qualify and had to keep retaking their qualification or even worse they didn't remember how to load it. Keep in mind these are our professionals and people who are carrying for self protection.

This concerns me because we don't live in a Shall issue county and in a predominately anti-gun state. Our CCW's could be revoked at any time by the sherrif's department, so if someone is carry a gun and doesn't remember how to load it or could barely score a 255/300 on their qualifications. They could very well accidently miss the assailant and hit an innocent bystander, which could be my family. Also, someone could very well have a clean background and be gang members, psychologically disturbed, or have anger control issues. If we issue everyone the right to carry without some sort of guidelines, than it gives the anti-gunners ammunition against us. Imagine a CCW holder getting into a road rage incident and killing someone over cutting him off. That would put extreme pressure on getting our permits revoked.

We can preach all day long about our 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms gives us the right to carry and that right can't be infringed, but we all know that at these days that doesn't completely hold true. There are many politicians out there that are just waiting to jump on that.

I strongly believe in training psychologically and learning from others who are better and trained in defensive combat shooting. I don't shoot 500 rounds a week like I used too, but I put at least 500 rounds down range a month now. I also take courses at Sac Valley from various instructors to make sure I don't put myself, my family, or those around me in danger should I ever have to use deadly force to stop a threat. I want everyone to make the same commitment when they carry. I'm sure most of you guys do, but there are many who buy a gun and get a permit and just qualify once a year shooting a stationary target at 15 yards. If I'm going to be out shopping with my family and the **** hits the fan, all I ask is you don't miss and I promise that I won't either.

Here's one example that my instructor was sharing with me:

There was a mall shooting in Arizona a few years ago and there were 4 armed citizens within 15 feet of the shooter and guess who took them down? A 70 year old unarmed US Marine Vet who tackled and disarmed the guy during his reload. When interviewed the armed citizens were asked why they didn't stop the shooter. All four of them said they weren't confident that they could hit the shooter. They said they forgot they had their firearms because it happened so fast.

Also, some gun owners listen to other gun owners for what they should do if they shoot someone in self defense. I remember a Sac PD officer coming into the store one day and he was pretty down. I asked him what was wrong and he said that a convicted rapist was shot and killed by a lady protecting herself. I didn't see a problem with that, but then he proceded to tell me that he had to arrest the lady for manslaughter. She heard from her friend that if someone breaks into your home you need to make sure he's dead. Well she made sure he was dead, but she shot him 3x with a .357 mag in the chest as he was going through the window. He was still alive, so she went out through the back door walked up to him and put one in his head. She proceded to drag the mans body through her back door leaving brains and blood along the way. Her friend told her if you ever shoot someone outside you need to bring them into your house. On the positive side there's one less dirtbag on the street, but if she didn't take that last shot she wouldn't had been tried by 12. I'm not sure what happened to that case, but understanding the laws that we need to abide by are very important.

I had a nice little old lady come in to buy a handgun and I gave her some shooting lessons. I recommended a S&W Model 60 and to shoot .38 special hollowpoints for a defense cartridge. She then started telling my she wanted the most powerful .357 cartridge available. I told her that she needs to practice with a full load like that because it's going to be harder to control. She proceded to tell me that she only need a gun small enough to fit in her purse and powerful enough to take her son inlaws head off. I tried to talk her out of it because what she was telling me was first degree murder and she said it was for her grandson because her son inlaw was trying to take full custody of her grandson. She stopped and said "You probably can't sell me the gun now right?" I didn't sell her the gun and a few days later I swung by Wild Sports and saw her walking out, but she didn't notice me. I talked to the manager and told him the circumstances and they froze the DROS. I know that some of you may think that it was wrong for me to intervene, but she was going to kill her son inlaw in front of her grandson during the next custody exchange. I knew law enforcement couldn't do anything because she didn't do anything legally wrong and even called the sheriff's department and spoke with a detective. I have a problem with knowing that a childs life would be changed forever to watch his grandmother kill his father in front of him and then go to prison for the rest of her life.

There is a lot of responsibility and I don't believe enough gun owners take the responsibility seriously enough. Again, I'm not saying anything regarding Calgun members, but the average gun owner and many CCW holders. When you put your gun on in the morning you have to be alert at all times. Since we are a very small portion of the population here in Sacramento people will freak if they see you reach up for a jug of milk and they see your gun. You have to change the way you dress, the way you pickup something, and be prepared of what to do if your stopped by a police officer for having a firearm. It's literally situational awareness at all times.

I believe that for some, carrying a firearm also gives them a false sense of security. How many articles have we read recently about people forgetting they had their guns in their purses or in their carry on bags going through the airport? Do you actually think if they forgot they had a loaded weapon on their persons in an airport, they would actually remember and pull the gun fast enough to stop an attacker? A gun is only a tool and I also believe that guns do not kill people, people kill people. When we decide to carry a gun we have to be mentally prepared to take a human life to protect ourselves or our family's. You at least need to know when you have a gun on you.

Have I noticed violent crime increasing in Sacramento? There's no doubt.. I've had friends home invaded, burglarized, robbed at gunpoint, carjacked, and assaulted over the years. We have over 11% unemployment and our LE budgets have been cut, so it leaves less LEO's and more criminals on the streets. "Non-violent" offenders are being released due to overcrowding and a Federal mandate reducing the amount of prisoners being held in our state prisons. Those prisoners are being released and there aren't enough parole officers to keep track of them due to the budget cuts. Recidivism rates are high because the criminals are competing against law abiding citizens for jobs, so when they can't find employment they go back to what they do best.

I do want more law abiding citizens to carry more firearms for protection, but I want psychologically sound individuals who are committed to training themselves mentally and to train regularly. Should they have to use their firearms to protect themselves and they're around my family that they know what to do and how to react. If 25-50% of our population were armed this way I would be all for it because criminals wouldn't have a chance. I also want to make sure that the anti-gun politicians aren't given ammunition against our 2nd Amendment because we all know there are some waiting for mistakes. Again, I apologize for offending you guys and good luck on your permits, if there's anything I could do feel free to ask. I have friends interviewing regularly and they update me on their progress. I also know a lot of the certified instructors giving the 16 hour certification courses.

My simple reply to this is....CRAP HAPPENS. You can do the best you can do and still....that same CRAP will happen.

Life will go on. It does every day. You can only do your best as a person, a community, etc. However, protecting people SHOULD not come from legislation or politics. People who life in fear turn to politics and legislators to improve society. It's that fear of a stray bullet, of a vigilante grandmother, etc. that leads some to trade their liberties for a little temporary safety. I'll take liberty over that safety every day of the week (and twice on Sunday).

If they ever did away with the LTC, I would still carry (I have my CCW/LTC). I f an individual was held at gun point or being shot at, (without my permit) I WOULD NOT go to their defense. Much much greater risk at doing so without a permit. If however, my life was threatened or that of my family....

You know the old cliche...better to be judged by 12 than be carried by six. (or worse....watching my family....carried by six).

I wonder if carrying an expired permit is basically the same as carrying a denial letter. :) I guess you can re-apply just to earn the denial letter. ;)

Drivedabizness
03-03-2012, 6:42 AM
Just to clarify:

As opposed to issuing many permits, Sac SO "budgets" 40 LTC initial screening appointments per week. A certain amount of those interview spots go unfilled. When one adds the chilling effect of the inordinate (upwards of a year just to start the process) wait time due an extra-legal process it boggles the mind.

I'm all for seeing the glass as half full instead of empty or half empty on general principles. But let's be honest - this is hardly an epic win.

Supertac916
03-03-2012, 7:22 AM
My simple reply to this is....CRAP HAPPENS. You can do the best you can do and still....that same CRAP will happen.

Life will go on. It does every day. You can only do your best as a person, a community, etc. However, protecting people SHOULD not come from legislation or politics. People who life in fear turn to politics and legislators to improve society. It's that fear of a stray bullet, of a vigilante grandmother, etc. that leads some to trade their liberties for a little temporary safety. I'll take liberty over that safety every day of the week (and twice on Sunday).

If they ever did away with the LTC, I would still carry (I have my CCW/LTC). I f an individual was held at gun point or being shot at, (without my permit) I WOULD NOT go to their defense. Much much greater risk at doing so without a permit. If however, my life was threatened or that of my family....

You know the old cliche...better to be judged by 12 than be carried by six. (or worse....watching my family....carried by six).

I wonder if carrying an expired permit is basically the same as carrying a denial letter. :) I guess you can re-apply just to earn the denial letter. ;)

I definitely agree with you and I know a lot of people who feel the same way. If it comes to saving my wife and kids lives over, whether or not I could legally carry a firearm I'd choose my family's safety first. Crap happens everyday and thank god we have the 2nd Amendment because I've had to use my firearms in self defense to prevent 2 guys with 9mm's from robbing us on a camping trip in Ice House several years ago. My wife had to use her Ruger SP101 to scare off some peeping tom who was in our backyard looking through our bedroom window watching her change. We didn't need a CCW in either case, but we definitely needed our guns to prevent from being victims.

It wasn't the stray bullet I was worried about with the grandmother, but the fact that a 6 year old would see his grandmother blow his Dad's brains out right in front of him. I also didn't want the anti-gun lobbyist to use this case to show that legally purchased firearms are used to commit calculated murders. Did I have the right to suppress this grandmothers right to bear arms? No I did not and it was a difficult decision for me because on one side I'm a supporter of our 2nd Amendment and she had the legal right to own a firearm and a guilty mind is not a crime. However, I had a moral obligation to myself knowing that she was going to kill someone in cold blood with the skills I taught her and with a gun that I sold her.

I'm torn between the laws we abide by because I understand why some are in place, but many these days are violating our constitutional rights and not just our 2nd amendment. Our CCW's aren't upheld in the city limits of San Francisco and it's a crime to carry hollowpoint ammunition. I'm sure many of us still carry knowing that they will detain and confiscate our weapons should a LEO find out we have a firearm, even if we have our CCW. I've experienced both the civilian side of our Right to Bear Arms and also the LEO side because while I worked at the range I also worked for the US Marshals warrants division and the CA DOJ training center and one of the courses I was involved with was Officer Involved Shootings. I realized the problems with our criminal justice system, but I also know that there are a lot of good people who are LEO's. Many of them are encouraging citizens to get their CCW's now because they know the streets aren't safe and they are reacting to crime these days. In my wife's case the police never showed up to take the report because she had already scared the guy off with her .357 and this was back in 2002 when the economy was good. Today we'll be lucky to have police respond in 5-15 minutes for a 911 call.

If some of the guys are frustrated with the system and still carry, than that's their right and you won't see me rat on them. I would too if I believed that I wanted to protect my family and had the choice to be tried by 12 or have to watch them become victims of a violent crime.

In response to the other poster who called me the Bradybill nutjob about road rage incidents that never happened. I saw the aftermath in 2003 on the off ramp of Hazel and Hwy 50, when a good family guy got into a physical altercation with another driver for cutting him off. He went back to his truck and got his handgun that he carried for self defense and shot the guy killing him. A few months later before his trial he went back to the same intersection and killed himself because he couldn't live with the guilt. This could be either one of us and if I had the choice I wouldn't want to be carried by 6 or tried by 12. After I started carrying I'm just the nicest guy because I prefer to go the rest of my life without having to take another human life, but if I ever have too it won't be out of anger because it clouds our judgement.

I'm always down to shoot and I go out with multiple groups whom I've helped acquire their CCW's. We review the laws and rules of self defense, along with learning defensive tactics with instructors or we'll setup our own scenarios at Sac Valley or up in Ice House. I also believe in learning from others because there are many who are more experienced than I am. When I help my friends acquire their CCW's I feel a sense of responsibility that they are trained mentally, emotionally, and are well versed in using their firearms, so should the need ever arise that they will be able to protect themselves and their family.

I have an old buddy who called me last night about buying 6 more guns and getting his CCW out of Placer county. He's coming over with his wife this afternoon to go over the process and what firearms he should buy for home defense, should the crap hit the fan, and carry guns. What do you guys think about this list? I'm sure it could be improved.

Home defense: Remington 870 and a full size Kimber or Springfield 1911 for him. His wife a Smith & Wesson model 60 or 686+.

Crap hits the fan guns: AK, AR-15 variant, AR10, M1A, Rem 700 in .308

CCW guns: S&W J frame, Glock 26,27,19, or 23, Springfield XD, 1911 3-4", Ruger LC9. Most of the smaller guns these days are LEO only, so if you guys have other suggestions I'd appreciate it. I carry a Glock 23, HK P2000, and a Full size Kimber Gold Combat. I'd personally like a smaller gun, but haven't found one that I really liked.

NotEnufGarage
03-03-2012, 8:30 AM
Just to clarify:

As opposed to issuing many permits, Sac SO "budgets" 40 LTC initial screening appointments per week. A certain amount of those interview spots go unfilled. When one adds the chilling effect of the inordinate (upwards of a year just to start the process) wait time due an extra-legal process it boggles the mind.



This is the problem and it's easily corrected by the application of a little bit of effort and technology.

1) Validate drivers license to name. No match, no appointment
2) Phone call to confirm appointment a few days prior to appointment. No answer, no callback, appointment cancelled and released for someone else to use.
3) Only one appointment per person to eliminate anti-2a'ers filling up the appointment slots.
4) Require $20 application fee be paid when making appointment, if legal.
5) Civil rights lawsuit against anyone found to be falsely making appointments to inhibit others from applying.

Gray Peterson
03-03-2012, 9:06 AM
I'm torn between the laws we abide by because I understand why some are in place, but many these days are violating our constitutional rights and not just Hop our 2nd amendment. Our CCW's aren't upheld in the city limits of San Francisco and it's a crime to carry hollowpoint ammunition.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Are you saying that LTC's are invalid on SF? That's not correct. Fiscal put that notion to bed. The city cannot, to use the appellate court parlance, "cancel those licenses".

Librarian
03-03-2012, 11:29 AM
Originally Posted by Supertac916

I'm torn between the laws we abide by because I understand why some are in place, but many these days are violating our constitutional rights and not just Hop our 2nd amendment. Our CCW's aren't upheld in the city limits of San Francisco and it's a crime to carry hollowpoint ammunition.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Are you saying that LTC's are invalid on SF? That's not correct. Fiscal put that notion to bed. The city cannot, to use the appellate court parlance, "cancel those licenses".

Nor is it a crime to carry hollowpoint ammunition.

Supertac916
03-03-2012, 11:52 AM
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Are you saying that LTC's are invalid on SF? That's not correct. Fiscal put that notion to bed. The city cannot, to use the appellate court parlance, "cancel those licenses".

You could be right, if they the appelate court decided their city ordinance was invalid recently. I haven't looked up the law in the last few month. If I'm wrong, than cool so I don't have to worry about carrying in SF anymore. I know a guy who was not arrested for concealed weapon because he had a permit, but they stopped him and confiscated his firearm. He had to go to court to get it back. I'll look it up again.. Thanks for the info..

Gray Peterson
03-03-2012, 12:35 PM
You could be right, if they the appelate court decided their city ordinance was invalid recently. I haven't looked up the law in the last few month. If I'm wrong, than cool so I don't have to worry about carrying in SF anymore. I know a guy who was not arrested for concealed weapon because he had a permit, but they stopped him and confiscated his firearm. He had to go to court to get it back. I'll look it up again.. Thanks for the info..

There has never, in the last 50 years at least, an SF ordinance which dishonors a non SF LTC. See Sippel v. Nelder, Doe v. San Francisco, and Fiscal.

Old_Bald_Guy
03-03-2012, 12:36 PM
In response to the other poster who called me the Bradybill nutjob about road rage incidents that never happened. I saw the aftermath in 2003 on the off ramp of Hazel and Hwy 50, when a good family guy got into a physical altercation with another driver for cutting him off. He went back to his truck and got his handgun that he carried for self defense and shot the guy killing him. A few months later before his trial he went back to the same intersection and killed himself because he couldn't live with the guilt. This could be either one of us and if I had the choice I wouldn't want to be carried by 6 or tried by 12.
I remember that case well. Sad all the way around; the teenage son of the blustering road-rager saw his dad killed, IIRC. Shooter kills himself. Both parties shared some blame in the original road rage incident.

As dramatic an incident as that was, it's not completely relevant to our situation. That guy didn't have an LTC. He had already made the conscious decision to carry illegally. You can't say specifically in this incident, but a good working hypothesis would be that in general, the subset of people who choose to carry illegally may be statistically more likely to get involved in situations in which they make decisions during the evolution of a developing incident that contribute to the likelihood of lethal force being used. I said working hypothesis, not conclusion.

All "should be's" aside, if a holder of a Sac County LTC ever does something like that, you can bet that the media will be all over it like great whites on a wounded surfer, and the resulting political $#it-storm will end up affecting every LTC holder in the county.

mag360
03-03-2012, 1:37 PM
In response to the other poster who called me the Bradybill nutjob about road rage incidents that never happened. I saw the aftermath in 2003 on the off ramp of Hazel and Hwy 50, when a good family guy got into a physical altercation with another driver for cutting him off. He went back to his truck and got his handgun that he carried for self defense and shot the guy killing him. A few months later before his trial he went back to the same intersection and killed himself because he couldn't live with the guilt.

I have an old buddy who called me last night about buying 6 more guns and getting his CCW out of Placer county. He's coming over with his wife this afternoon to go over the process and what firearms he should buy for home defense, should the crap hit the fan, and carry guns. What do you guys think about this list? I'm sure it could be improved.

Home defense: Remington 870 and a full size Kimber or Springfield 1911 for him. His wife a Smith & Wesson model 60 or 686+.

Crap hits the fan guns: AK, AR-15 variant, AR10, M1A, Rem 700 in .308

CCW guns: S&W J frame, Glock 26,27,19, or 23, Springfield XD, 1911 3-4", Ruger LC9. Most of the smaller guns these days are LEO only, so if you guys have other suggestions I'd appreciate it. I carry a Glock 23, HK P2000, and a Full size Kimber Gold Combat. I'd personally like a smaller gun, but haven't found one that I really liked.

That was me, and like the other guy said "Crap happens"; therefore you must move beyond it. No state that has gone shall issue is having a widespread problem like you describe. If that guy hadn't had his gun, he very likely could have crashed his car into the guy!

In regards to your gun list for your friend, that is a mighty long list!

I carry a G26 or a G19, soon to be putting my G20 on the permit for woods carry or getting a ruger .44 mag depending on how I feel about the 10mm strength for the Sierras.

I'd 2nd the 870, and a springfield full size steel with rail 1911 for HD.

for carry i love the G26, or G27, but wouldnt mind something a little smaller in 9mm.

For shtf, you already have the 870, so I'd toss in an AR-15 and an AR-10, skip the AK, and a Rem 700 in 338 lapua mag for those 1500yd shots!

Gray Peterson
03-03-2012, 1:44 PM
All "should be's" aside, if a holder of a Sac County LTC ever does something like that, you can bet that the media will be all over it like great whites on a wounded surfer, and the resulting political $#it-storm will end up affecting every LTC holder in the county.

Which is why we need Richards to succeed.

Supertac916
03-03-2012, 1:46 PM
I remember that case well. Sad all the way around; the teenage son of the blustering road-rager saw his dad killed, IIRC. Shooter kills himself. Both parties shared some blame in the original road rage incident.

As dramatic an incident as that was, it's not completely relevant to our situation. That guy didn't have an LTC. He had already made the conscious decision to carry illegally. You can't say specifically in this incident, but a good working hypothesis would be that in general, the subset of people who choose to carry illegally may be statistically more likely to get involved in situations in which they make decisions during the evolution of a developing incident that contribute to the likelihood of lethal force being used. I said working hypothesis, not conclusion.

All "should be's" aside, if a holder of a Sac County LTC ever does something like that, you can bet that the media will be all over it like great whites on a wounded surfer, and the resulting political $#it-storm will end up affecting every LTC holder in the county.

It was sad and I still remember driving by both incidents and seeing the yellow tarp of the guys body. There are at least 8 CHP and Sac SO cars and they stopped traffic. I can't recall how much longer, but then I see another crime scene on the other side of the road where the guy killed himself. I agree that those of us who go through the legal process might be less likely compared to someone who decided to carry illegally.

Supertac916
03-03-2012, 1:56 PM
That was me, and like the other guy said "Crap happens"; therefore you must move beyond it. No state that has gone shall issue is having a widespread problem like you describe. If that guy hadn't had his gun, he very likely could have crashed his car into the guy!

In regards to your gun list for your friend, that is a mighty long list!

I carry a G26 or a G19, soon to be putting my G20 on the permit for woods carry or getting a ruger .44 mag depending on how I feel about the 10mm strength for the Sierras.

I'd 2nd the 870, and a springfield full size steel with rail 1911 for HD.

for carry i love the G26, or G27, but wouldnt mind something a little smaller in 9mm.

For shtf, you already have the 870, so I'd toss in an AR-15 and an AR-10, skip the AK, and a Rem 700 in 338 lapua mag for those 1500yd shots!

Thanks for the recommendations!! My buddy's coming over in a few hours and I'll show him my AR's, AR10, M1A, but I don't own an AK. I've got plenty of 1911's to show him and I carry a Glock 20 when I take the family camping. I like the Glock 23 for carry because I don't need the extensions on the mags, but it's pretty wide so I'm looking for a thinner carry gun.

Rem 700 in 338 Lapua is one hell of a cartidge and costs an arm and a leg to shoot..haha I have a Remington 700 LTR .308, glass embedded, McMillan stock, Harris bi-pod, trigger dropped to 1.5lbs, and Leupold. Figured if I need shoot someone past a 1,000 yards I'll have to break out my old Browning .300Win Mag, but if it gets that bad we're in a whole lot of trouble...haha I remember right before the ban on .50 BMG's I sold a few Barrett M82's (Can't remember the exact models), but the 10 round detachable box mags. Damn things were $10k and guys were paying cash for them.

Thanks for the recommendations...

Supertac916
03-03-2012, 2:06 PM
There has never, in the last 50 years at least, an SF ordinance which dishonors a non SF LTC. See Sippel v. Nelder, Doe v. San Francisco, and Fiscal.

I'm not trying to challenge you at all, but one of the LTC instructors has been currently teaching this in his class because there's been a few incidents within the last few years with SF. I'll double check to see where he found his source and why he's teaching his students this.

I'd prefer that I don't have to worry in SF anymore and the information was incorrect. I'll let the instructor know and check where he found this information or if it was just from former students running into problems. I'll pull up the case law that you just sent and read it. Trust me, I'm not always right and I'm here to learn as well. If this is in fact true, than it should be corrected on the curriculum so we don't have a bunch of LTC holders thinking they're taking on risk if they carry in SF.

wildhawker
03-03-2012, 2:08 PM
LTC instructors are about as reliable a source of accurate gun law intel as gun stores and CA DOJ telephone service.

Supertac916
03-03-2012, 2:25 PM
LTC instructors are about as reliable a source of accurate gun law intel as gun stores and CA DOJ telephone service.

Can't fight you on that one.. So what you guys are saying there hasn't been any city ordinance in SF that prohibits all concealed carry legal or illegal? There is also no law against carrying hollowpoints? I guess the reason why I believed it was because it wouldn't surprise me in SF. You mention gun to any of my family from the city and they start telling me about how much safer our society would be without guns. I tell them if you could guarantee that no gun legal or illegal will ever be on the streets, than you could take my rights away. In other words never... Appreciate the correction and now I will carry freely when I go to SF.

Librarian
03-03-2012, 2:53 PM
So what you guys are saying there hasn't been any city ordinance in SF that prohibits all concealed carry legal or illegal? There is also no law against carrying hollowpoints?

Right. But they don't need a city law to prohibit illegal CCW - that's already in state law.

Supertac916
03-03-2012, 3:40 PM
Right. But they don't need a city law to prohibit illegal CCW - that's already in state law.

Interesting, now you guys are reminding me why I used to be so frustrated before. I guess I've become lax on researching laws myself these days.

Any other myths or changes over the last few years that I should know about? I know we could now carry in school zones, but I believe the Federal buildings, airports, etc. are still off limits.

What about places where they have signs that show no handguns? I noticed Century Cinema on Greenback has a sign that says firearms are prohibited. What's the law if you have your LTC, but the establishment has a sign prohibiting it on private property. They never had those up before the last few years.

Thanks again..

El Gato
03-03-2012, 4:05 PM
LTC instructors are about as reliable a source of accurate gun law intel as gun stores and CA DOJ telephone service.

Well I don't know...

you mean it' NOT a felony to shoot someone with a gun that's not registered to you?

or that you'll NOT go to prison for shooting a guy/girl who is trying to rape you?

Or that if you carry a gun on your permit that's NOT registed to you, it's NOT a felony?

You mean my permit is VALID in San Fran and they won't arrest me? for... wait for it.... a Felony?

well.. I personally have never said something so bone-headed, it is however a common thread brought up in class... as "something another instructor said" and my response is usually, well, gee did he/she/it give you any penal code or case law that says that?... I love it when we have a judge or attorney in class who will often turn around and look the person in the eye and let them know the other "instructor" needs a glass belly button....and to be perfectly clear.... I'm not perfect and when I walk on water I sink all the way in, and I have stayed at Holiday Inn's but not recently...

I do try to bring the law and the case law with me to give to my clients and have never understood people who assert stupidly wild things ""'cause I'm an expert...."

my favorite: "when the police pull you over, they can look up on their car computers that you have a ccw and will....(fill in the blank)....you if you don't tell them about your ccw and of course it's a "felony""...always is don't you know...

I used to drive one of them cars, use the same computer system and yes I had one in my car and yes I had administrative access, and NO you couldn't look it up on the "system"...the local sheriff has only had the licenses on computer for about 4 years...wow...

Supertac916
03-03-2012, 4:14 PM
Well I don't know...

you mean it' NOT a felony to shoot someone with a gun that's not registered to you?

or that you'll NOT go to prison for shooting a guy/girl who is trying to rape you?

Or that if you carry a gun on your permit that's NOT registed to you, it's NOT a felony?

You mean my permit is VALID in San Fran and they won't arrest me? for... wait for it.... a Felony?

well.. I personally have never said something so bone-headed, it is however a common thread brought up in class... as "something another instructor said" and my response is usually, well, gee did he/she/it give you any penal code or case law that says that?... I love it when we have a judge or attorney in class who will often turn around and look the person in the eye and let them know the other "instructor" needs a glass belly button....and to be perfectly clear.... I'm not perfect and when I walk on water I sink all the way in, and I have stayed at Holiday Inn's but not recently...

I do try to bring the law and the case law with me to give to my clients and have never understood people who assert stupidly wild things ""'cause I'm an expert...."

my favorite: "when the police pull you over, they can look up on their car computers that you have a ccw and will....(fill in the blank)....you if you don't tell them about your ccw and of course it's a "felony""...always is don't you know...

I used to drive one of them cars, use the same computer system and yes I had one in my car and yes I had administrative access, and NO you couldn't look it up on the "system"...the local sheriff has only had the licenses on computer for about 4 years...wow...

Regarding the computers I had access to their system at the Marshals office and never saw anything regarding CCW's. Each time I did a firearms check on wanted persons it had to be logged. I got permission to run mine and it didn't have my CCW on it, but it had my two registered Bushmasters and all of my handguns.

Supertac916
03-03-2012, 4:17 PM
Another question for some of you guys. What about carrying high cap mags that you bought in 1998 before the ban? I have a Glock 23 on my permit and bought the gun after the ban, but I bought a bunch of high caps before the ban for the guns I eventually wanted to own. Should I be carrying 10rds or are the 13rds alright to carry?

wildhawker
03-03-2012, 4:21 PM
I should note that there are many very excellent instructors out there, el gato being one of them. My point was simply to note that an awful lot of misinformation is promulgated through the LTC training networks.

Librarian
03-03-2012, 4:56 PM
Another question for some of you guys. What about carrying high cap mags that you bought in 1998 before the ban? I have a Glock 23 on my permit and bought the gun after the ban, but I bought a bunch of high caps before the ban for the guns I eventually wanted to own. Should I be carrying 10rds or are the 13rds alright to carry?

Nothing in the PC about that; I believe some have reported that their issuing agency has expressed a preference, but no statute requires or supports that limitation.

Supertac916
03-04-2012, 8:47 AM
Nothing in the PC about that; I believe some have reported that their issuing agency has expressed a preference, but no statute requires or supports that limitation.

Thanks... So there hasn't been any case law regarding California gun owners using high capacity magazines in a self defense situation being used against them during prosecution?

NotEnufGarage
03-04-2012, 9:26 AM
I remember that case well. Sad all the way around; the teenage son of the blustering road-rager saw his dad killed, IIRC. Shooter kills himself. Both parties shared some blame in the original road rage incident.

As dramatic an incident as that was, it's not completely relevant to our situation. That guy didn't have an LTC. He had already made the conscious decision to carry illegally. You can't say specifically in this incident, but a good working hypothesis would be that in general, the subset of people who choose to carry illegally may be statistically more likely to get involved in situations in which they make decisions during the evolution of a developing incident that contribute to the likelihood of lethal force being used. I said working hypothesis, not conclusion.

All "should be's" aside, if a holder of a Sac County LTC ever does something like that, you can bet that the media will be all over it like great whites on a wounded surfer, and the resulting political $#it-storm will end up affecting every LTC holder in the county.

So, should the laws and policies be to restrict the freedoms of 99.9% to prevent the problems of the 0.01%?

This thinking is what's destroying this country. From LTC laws to the debate about mandated health insurance coverage and taxes.

An analogy from Abraham Lincoln - "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

Think about that and let it sink in.

hoffmang
03-04-2012, 9:53 AM
So what you guys are saying there hasn't been any city ordinance in SF that prohibits all concealed carry legal or illegal? There is also no law against carrying hollowpoints?

There is a law that hollowpoints can't be sold in gun stores in SF. You can carry whatever you want in and you mailorder whatever you want in. The only thing that SF does that regulates carry licenses is a Blood Alcohol restriction to less than 0.10 in the Municipal Code at 3600 (http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/police/article36prohibitingthecarryingofafirear?f=templat es$fn=altmain-nf.htm$3.0#JD_Article36). It's likely pre-empted by state law, but it's there and I don't think anyone wants to fight it just yet. Also, you can ignore the restriction on carrying in a bar as it's clearly preempted and you can also ignore the "must consent to a search" part because this is a right and not a privilege like driving. Make 'em get a warrant.


Any other myths or changes over the last few years that I should know about? I know we could now carry in school zones, but I believe the Federal buildings, airports, etc. are still off limits.

What about places where they have signs that show no handguns? I noticed Century Cinema on Greenback has a sign that says firearms are prohibited. What's the law if you have your LTC, but the establishment has a sign prohibiting it on private property. They never had those up before the last few years.

You can carry in school zones and even on school property with a license. In Sacramento there used to a restriction written on the license that said you can not. That policy has been rescinded. As to the signs, in California, all that they can do to you is ask you to leave if they find you carrying. If you don't leave it's trespass.

Regarding the computers I had access to their system at the Marshals office and never saw anything regarding CCW's. Each time I did a firearms check on wanted persons it had to be logged. I got permission to run mine and it didn't have my CCW on it, but it had my two registered Bushmasters and all of my handguns.
The ORI and CII numbers are now in AFS. That didn't happen until 2010 or 2011 so it's very recent. But now, most every system will show the validity of your carry permit in CA.

I'd suggest you find some of the threads that explain the intricacies of where you can and cannot carry here on the forum.

-Gene

Librarian
03-04-2012, 10:38 AM
Thanks... So there hasn't been any case law regarding California gun owners using high capacity magazines in a self defense situation being used against them during prosecution?

No PC to charge someone with - see the Magazine Q's link, below.

ojisan
03-04-2012, 1:25 PM
If Los Angeles adopted Sac's policy, the instant huge backlog of L.A. LTC applications would lilkely mean years of waiting just to get an interview.
L.A is at 7,000,000 population with only 220 LTCs issued so far....5-10 years to work through the expected application volume?
If L.A. is ever going to go LTC, there will need to be a streamlined process to handle the volume in a timely manner.

El Gato
03-04-2012, 2:14 PM
I should note that there are many very excellent instructors out there, el gato being one of them. My point was simply to note that an awful lot of misinformation is promulgated through the LTC training networks.

Thanks...
and for what it's worth, this forum has helped speed the info. gathering I do!

I get frustrated with that brand of instructor who thinks it his/her mission to sound their own horn... that they have a "new" technique or that they are the sole repository of "the truth"....the arrogance is astounding...Soloman said it best...there is "nothing new under the sun"...new equipment, OK..and with the new equipment maybe I shift my hand or it takes less muscle to defend myself etc... but I'm reasonably sure that Alexander the Great had Sgt's or whatever they called them, who yelled at recruits to get the point up between them and the enemy, shield up, feet in position so that they could move, cause if you is standing still, you is a good target kinda thing...and while the equipment has changed, the individual aspects of combat may in fact be very similar...or the same...or some reasonable facsimily thereof, so spare me your "special technique you can only get here cause I'm a former (fill in the blank) and I'm an expert... funny most of the guys I've met who have had actually incomming fire would rather go fishing than fighting, especially the ones who have been shot!...and having been shot at, it's not something i would do again, on purpose, if there is another choice... so spare me...your shooting is not despositve to the matter for the rest of us.....imortant...not despositive.....and If you have actually been in a shooting while on duty... I'm glad your still around to share, but your one shooting, or three, while important to the body of knowledge we all share, and very important that it be shared in a way that we can all learn from your mistakes... I'm frankly more impressed with the stories I have heard from people who said..."it almost went really bad, and here is what I did to make it not go bad...SO I DIDN'T HAVE TO SHOOT ANYONE!"... that's what I want to hear... Not that I would ever stop my brothers and sisters from sharing the stories of their shootings, and not that we shouldn't learn, but maybe what we learn most from is HOW it went bad, and what that person learned from it that will help me AVOID getting in a shooting....

I'm ranting again aren't I....sorry... reset...

teaching, ideally Leading...folks on this whole carry journey is NOT AND NEVER SHOULD BE ABOUT ME... it's about YOU...and it should be our mission to give you accurate and helpful, useful and ultimately digestable information that you can synthesize into useful behaviors...

the law is the law, and that means the code and the case law...your instructor should be giving you PC and the Case Law or at least point you in the right direction!

When your instructor has to spend an hour telling you how great he/she/it is ... that should speak volumes...like loud ones...like a clue as they say in detective movies....

Clint Smith, one of my favorite instructors will tell you he might have picked up a thing or two, and you did pay him for what HE thinks, but I've never heard him toot his own horn...ever...a humble man if a former marine can be so described, and I believe they can be... not bombastic

ANYONE... who spends more than a few minutes telling you their bonifides...might be someone, and I could be mistaken here... but that person might be...someone who is more concerned that you come to his/her/its class so that you may agrandize the instructor by pumping his/her/it's numbers....

or perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think not...

I never get offended when a client asks me to back up what I'm saying...

hoffmang
03-04-2012, 2:18 PM
If Los Angeles adopted Sac's policy, the instant huge backlog of L.A. LTC applications would lilkely mean years of waiting just to get an interview.
L.A is at 7,000,000 population with only 220 LTCs issued so far....5-10 years to work through the expected application volume?
If L.A. is ever going to go LTC, there will need to be a streamlined process to handle the volume in a timely manner.

The likely number of licenses LA County will have to issue is 210,000 at 3%.

We will be pressing them to get them done when the time comes.

-Gene

Supertac916
03-04-2012, 3:27 PM
There is a law that hollowpoints can't be sold in gun stores in SF. You can carry whatever you want in and you mailorder whatever you want in. The only thing that SF does that regulates carry licenses is a Blood Alcohol restriction to less than 0.10 in the Municipal Code at 3600 (http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/police/article36prohibitingthecarryingofafirear?f=templat es$fn=altmain-nf.htm$3.0#JD_Article36). It's likely pre-empted by state law, but it's there and I don't think anyone wants to fight it just yet. Also, you can ignore the restriction on carrying in a bar as it's clearly preempted and you can also ignore the "must consent to a search" part because this is a right and not a privilege like driving. Make 'em get a warrant.


You can carry in school zones and even on school property with a license. In Sacramento there used to a restriction written on the license that said you can not. That policy has been rescinded. As to the signs, in California, all that they can do to you is ask you to leave if they find you carrying. If you don't leave it's trespass.


The ORI and CII numbers are now in AFS. That didn't happen until 2010 or 2011 so it's very recent. But now, most every system will show the validity of your carry permit in CA.

I'd suggest you find some of the threads that explain the intricacies of where you can and cannot carry here on the forum.

-Gene

Thanks Gene, I appreciate all of the answers and clarifying all of the updates. I'll check out the forum as well.

Librarian
03-04-2012, 4:43 PM
The likely number of licenses LA County will have to issue is 210,000 at 3%.

We will be pressing them to get them done when the time comes.

-Gene

Let's see ...

LASD has 23 stations. Let's say they consolidate LTC operations to 10.

I'd accept 10,000/month as a good faith effort. That would be 1,000 per station.

Figure that proper public service would have that open 7 days a week, and available 7 am to 7 pm, to accommodate folks before and after work. (Stop laughing!)

There's about 30 days per month, 12 hours per day, 360 hours available for the LTC program. That gives them an ample 21 minutes to process each one.


Got an app? Check.
Got the fee? Check.
Step over here for your live-scan prints, please... Check.
Sir or madam, if the background check comes back clean, your license will be in the mail in about a week.

(Dammit, I said stop laughing!)

El Gato
03-04-2012, 4:50 PM
Let's see ...

(Dammit, I said stop laughing!)

Naw....laugh maniacally....and we shall all join in...:43:

Drivedabizness
03-04-2012, 4:53 PM
Let's see ...

LASD has 23 stations. Let's say they consolidate LTC operations to 10.

I'd accept 10,000/month as a good faith effort. That would be 1,000 per station.

Figure that proper public service would have that open 7 days a week, and available 7 am to 7 pm, to accommodate folks before and after work. (Stop laughing!)

There's about 30 days per month, 12 hours per day, 360 hours available for the LTC program. That gives them an ample 21 minutes to process each one.


Got an app? Check.
Got the fee? Check.
Step over here for your live-scan prints, please... Check.
Sir or madam, if the background check comes back clean, your license will be in the mail in about a week.

(Dammit, I said stop laughing!)

Please pass this on the Sheriff Jones...he obviously hasn't figured it out yet (and based on what we've seen so far, won't on his own)

wildhawker
03-04-2012, 5:02 PM
If a 5-15 minute call confirms (via Brady/NICS) that I am not prohibited to purchase or possess a handgun, and if "bear arms" means to 'wear, bear, or carry [a functional, loaded firearm]. . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person' [in public], then it seems to me that a free background check that takes only a few minutes would be a narrowly-tailored regulation that serves what might be found or argued to be a compelling interest.

-Brandon

Anonymous Coward
03-04-2012, 5:30 PM
An analogy from Abraham Lincoln - "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

Think about that and let it sink in.

Apparently this isn't a quote from Lincoln. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln/prosperity.asp

Too bad, it is a good one!

Southwest Chuck
03-04-2012, 6:23 PM
Apparently this isn't a quote from Lincoln. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln/prosperity.asp

Too bad, it is a good one!

No, but this is and has been confirmed, historically
Lincoln's Letter to his brother-in-law (http://ricechrispies.blogspot.com/2008/03/letter-from-lincoln-to-his-brother-in.html)

kcbrown
03-04-2012, 7:26 PM
There is a law that hollowpoints can't be sold in gun stores in SF. You can carry whatever you want in and you mailorder whatever you want in. The only thing that SF does that regulates carry licenses is a Blood Alcohol restriction to less than 0.10 in the Municipal Code at 3600 (http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/police/article36prohibitingthecarryingofafirear?f=templat es$fn=altmain-nf.htm$3.0#JD_Article36). It's likely pre-empted by state law, but it's there and I don't think anyone wants to fight it just yet. Also, you can ignore the restriction on carrying in a bar as it's clearly preempted and you can also ignore the "must consent to a search" part because this is a right and not a privilege like driving. Make 'em get a warrant.


And yet, the "e" check (now called something else thanks to the renumbering) remains in place. How is it any different from the "must consent to a search" clause except in breadth?

I guess the sheer breadth of SF's ordinance may be sufficient to make it easy to knock down in court, so perhaps I answered my own question here.

Even so, the persistence of the "e" check would have me naturally concerned about the ability of SF's ordinance to withstand a judicial challenge within the same court system that apparently has upheld the "e" check (unless, of course, nobody has bothered to challenge the "e" check in court).

Antheia
03-04-2012, 7:38 PM
I have to agree. I was just on the Sac Sheriff website and to try to schedule an appointment thinking perhaps there just may be a day open. On the website it says that it takes about 15 mins for the interview. If there are 5 sheriffs processing these CCW's daily, and if they do at least 3 interviews an hour, times 7 hours for a days work (most likely they won't have any interviews during a lunch period), times 5 days. Mathematically speaking they could process 105 applications per sheriff, so times 5, that would leave about 525 people able to get their permits a WEEK. It really concerns me to see they are supposedly backed up so much that now I cannot get a CCW until 2013. I will be checking their site for cancellations daily!



It's not really shall issue if they can't process more than 40 applications a week. After all, how many firearms can an FFL sell in a week?

hoffmang
03-04-2012, 9:03 PM
And yet, the "e" check (now called something else thanks to the renumbering) remains in place. How is it any different from the "must consent to a search" clause except in breadth?

Completely different context and not state law.

-Gene

kcbrown
03-04-2012, 9:20 PM
Completely different context and not state law.


So...can be fought on state preemption grounds alone?

Librarian
03-04-2012, 10:11 PM
25850 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/25850.html) (b)
(a) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when the
person carries a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while
in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city
or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area
of unincorporated territory.
(b) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
to examine any firearm carried by anyone on the person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
this section.So it's now a 'b-check'.

Pre-emption? Only if the 4th Amendment is taken seriously.

Anonymous Coward
03-05-2012, 6:30 AM
No, but this is and has been confirmed, historically
Lincoln's Letter to his brother-in-law (http://ricechrispies.blogspot.com/2008/03/letter-from-lincoln-to-his-brother-in.html)

Sorry, I don't see the quote in the letter you referenced. Snopes has an a list of books and newspaper articles which all say it's somebody else's quote that often gets attributed to Lincoln.

Speaking of such :
http://www.icanhasinternets.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Internet-Quotes.jpg

acnnowdoesguns
03-11-2012, 12:54 PM
I sent a very polite note to Sherriff Jones several months ago, asking why:
If, good cause = self defense,
and
Good Moral Character = not prohibited,
and given all the automated tools that exist to make determining same a very low investment in labor, then why, even with adding all the added staff they say are processing applications, is the wait so long.
The Sheriff's response was a non-sequitur and not at all responsive. Basically said they had 5 retired detectives processing apps and we should be grateful.
One of the "right people" told me privately that CGF is cutting the Sheriff some slack on GMC.
The Sheriff also says they are approving 98% of applications. Seems to me the 2% are eating up resources that outta be able to process about 1000% more apps than they are doing.
1 retired detective @ 30 minutes ea per ap - plus 10 minutes for initial review for completeness/red flags = 40 minutes per ap.
Lets say 30 productive hours per week = 1800 minutes/40 minutes = 45 aps
X the five retired detectives = 225 apps per week
The answer is - the Sheriff has built in (this has been covered in multiple threads elsewhere) a level of wasted time and resources into the process. He displays no feeling of obligation to live up to the lawsuit settlement, which I'm quite sure was not intended to make us all give up and go away.
I made my appointment last August. Its in July. I've looked a lot of times for cancellations. Totally unacceptable.




Now i work at a gun store and i have heard that anti gun groups and people against firearms are booking the appointments for themselves and not showing up. this effectively
limits the ccws being handed out. so please calgunners. stick with it. Do a quick search everynight and be determined!

adrenalinemedic
03-12-2012, 4:12 PM
I just moved to Sac Co. from Placer (where I couldn't get an LTC because of 2 speeding and 1 seatbelt ticket in the last 5 years, despite NO arrests or criminal record, a WA state CPL, 6 years of military service, and being a firefighter), and was disgusted to find out I cant get a CPL in this county either.

Let's see ...

LASD has 23 stations. Let's say they consolidate LTC operations to 10.

I'd accept 10,000/month as a good faith effort. That would be 1,000 per station.

Figure that proper public service would have that open 7 days a week, and available 7 am to 7 pm, to accommodate folks before and after work. (Stop laughing!)

There's about 30 days per month, 12 hours per day, 360 hours available for the LTC program. That gives them an ample 21 minutes to process each one.


Got an app? Check.
Got the fee? Check.
Step over here for your live-scan prints, please... Check.
Sir or madam, if the background check comes back clean, your license will be in the mail in about a week.

(Dammit, I said stop laughing!)

That's exactly how it's done in WA state. I had my CPL in the in mail in a shade under 3 weeks, for $56, and it's good for five years.

Oddly enough, I didn't see anyone driving around shooting at each other in traffic or dueling at high noon. Must have gotten lucky...

wildhawker
03-12-2012, 4:18 PM
I just moved to Sac Co. from Placer (where I couldn't get an LTC because of 2 speeding and 1 seatbelt ticket in the last 5 years, despite NO arrests or criminal record, a WA state CPL, 6 years of military service, and being a firefighter), and was disgusted to find out I cant get a CPL in this county either.

That's exactly how it's done in WA state. I had my CPL in the in mail in a shade under 3 weeks, for $56, and it's good for five years.

Oddly enough, I didn't see anyone driving around shooting at each other in traffic or dueling at high noon. Must have gotten lucky...

Why can't you get an LTC in Sacramento? Are you speaking of the denial by delay or some other reason?

-Brandon

adrenalinemedic
03-12-2012, 4:29 PM
The delay. Unless I missed something in this thread, I can't get an LTC without an appointment. The County informed me that there were no more appointments available.

Sidebar: Why don't cities step up to the plate? That's another thing WA does; you can get your CPL from city police departments, too.

wildhawker
03-12-2012, 4:31 PM
The delay. Unless I missed something in this thread, I can't get an LTC without an appointment. The County informed me that there were no more appointments available.

Sidebar: Why don't cities step up to the plate? That's another thing WA does; you can get your CPL from city police departments, too.

The statutory structure of WA is very different than CA. However, local chiefs of police are empowered to issue licenses - they just generally don't, and many are anti-rights (or are employed by cities which are anti-rights).

-Brandon

mej16489
03-21-2012, 4:38 PM
Sorry for the Necro-post...

How are Judges and Reserves getting licenses in Sacramento County? I'm guessing they have a different process?

In looking over Sac County's policy webpage (http://sacsheriff.com/organization/office_of_the_sheriff/ccw.cfm) it refers to "All applicants"

Maybe someone knows a friendly judge in Sac County who can be inspired to get his/herself a new LTC...

Gray Peterson
03-21-2012, 4:54 PM
The delay. Unless I missed something in this thread, I can't get an LTC without an appointment. The County informed me that there were no more appointments available.

Sidebar: Why don't cities step up to the plate? That's another thing WA does; you can get your CPL from city police departments, too.

Many cities in California opt out.

Old_Bald_Guy
04-03-2012, 7:06 AM
Only new...

I checked the online appointment system earlier and found that there are no 2013 appointments of ANY kind. No modification or renewal appointments either. Makes me wonder about the chances of renewal in 2013.






.

Drivedabizness
04-03-2012, 7:13 AM
I wonder if there is a sit rep on efforts by the "right people" to remind the good Sheriff of his obligation to accept and process applications - both under the law and the settlement.

Old_Bald_Guy
04-03-2012, 12:31 PM
NO way would I ever carry illegally--never gonna do that.

I hope they get this thing resolved; it'd be good to hear something substantive. There may be a simple explanation, but having no renewal slots open past December, when renewals and mods have not caused any bottlenecks, is disconcerting.