PDA

View Full Version : Riverside CCW Department and CGF


DrDavid
05-04-2012, 9:49 AM
I went in to pick up my CCW at the Riverside Sheriff's office and had a nice long chat with the two deputies there. I wanted to share my thoughts about what was said, which might have some bearing on the direction CGF goes in the future.

Riverside is, for the most part, doing a great job, IMHO, in getting CCW's into the hands of those people who want it. For the record, I have nothing but good things to say about both deputies that work in the CCW unit. They're doing a fine job, very pleasant, very easy to deal with. They deserve a lot of respect for doing their job well, being open and honest about the process, and being easy to talk to.

Here's my opinion of what they're doing right:

Fairly quick. My process took under 90 days from the very first call I made inquiring about obtaining a CCW to the permit in my hands.
Training/qualification is easy. They charge $100 for the training/qualification.
They don't drive your neighbors crazy.. Unlike San Bernardino who knocks on all your neighbors doors, Riverside does not do this.
They follow the law in regards to fees and (mostly) forms.
They are genuinely helpful. Be nice to them, and they'll be nice to you.


There's lots more, but, I don't want to get accused to piling it on too thick.. :o Anyways, there's things they're doing wrong too.


They do ask for letters of recommendation; I didn't find it onerous, and they point to the fact that they can conduct background checks on the applicant... So, they basically claim that the letters are background material.
They do ask for an extra form to be filled out with the goofy questions like, "Have you ever committed a crime that you were never arrested for?"
They don't accept "personal protection" as the GC.. It needs to be more than just two words.


Are they perfect? No. Are they way better than most places? Absolutely. There's no 1 year wait for an appt. There's no invasion of your privacy. No requirements for a year of residency. No limitations on using the CCW for hire (kinda cool actually.. They in fact said I *could* use it for hire, if I wanted to! Anyone want an armed escort to a safety deposit box? Low fees! LOL :) )

Without getting into the details of everything said (which, is probably a good way to get them upset with me), suffice to say that they're slightly bothered that they're being targeted by CGF for not being 100% perfect, while there are a lot of other sheriff departments who aren't even close to them -- and probably deserve to be targeted much more than they are.

If a department is doing a good job, overall, of supporting citizens rights, I think there needs to be some positive reinforcement. Don't keep beating up one department who's 95% of the way there without complementing them on the 95%!

Go after counties that are doing it actually WRONG and fix it. Then worry about the small details. Am I wrong?

Tack
05-04-2012, 10:07 AM
You're right, Dr D. Good job, Riverside.

pepsi2451
05-04-2012, 10:14 AM
Without getting into the details of everything said (which, is probably a good way to get them upset with me), suffice to say that they're slightly bothered that they're being targeted by CGF for not being 100% perfect, while there are a lot of other sheriff departments who aren't even close to them -- and probably deserve to be targeted much more than they are.

So their excuse for unlawfully infringing on someones right to bear arms is they aren't as bad other departments?

If a department is doing a good job, overall, of supporting citizens rights, I think there needs to be some positive reinforcement. Don't keep beating up one department who's 95% of the way there without complementing them on the 95%!

Positive reinforcement? Should we be thanking them for only infringing on our rights a little?

Go after counties that are doing it actually WRONG and fix it. Then worry about the small details. Am I wrong?

What makes you think they aren't going after other counties? Yes, I think you are wrong.

Dee_Dub
05-04-2012, 10:16 AM
Dr David, I feel the same way. The Deputies in the unit are very helpful. I was surprised at how different the process is from San Bernardino. I have a lot of friends that have CCWs in SBco and I've heard things from they interview your neighbors, to the range masters being *******s, to the investigators trying to trick you during your interview. I had none of that during my process with Riv Co.:D

DrDavid
05-04-2012, 10:22 AM
So their excuse for unlawfully infringing on someones right to bear arms is they aren't as bad other departments?

Positive reinforcement? Should we be thanking them for only infringing on our rights a little?

What makes you think they aren't going after other counties? Yes, I think you are wrong.

There's no reason to be rude to someone who's genuinely trying to help and do the right thing. I'm pretty sure that while there are some issues, a nice discussion with them would accomplish more than a threat.

Look, you call ME up and say, "Hey, somethings wrong, would you mind fixing it?" I'll probably fix it. You call me and say, "Fix it or ELSE!", I'll eat your balls for breakfast and then not do a damn thing to fix it.

There is some diplomacy needed, IMHO. If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.. Maybe it's time to get another tool. Just sayin. :)

pepsi2451
05-04-2012, 10:33 AM
There's no reason to be rude to someone who's genuinely trying to help and do the right thing. I'm pretty sure that while there are some issues, a nice discussion with them would accomplish more than a threat.

Look, you call ME up and say, "Hey, somethings wrong, would you mind fixing it?" I'll probably fix it. You call me and say, "Fix it or ELSE!", I'll eat your balls for breakfast and then not do a damn thing to fix it.

There is some diplomacy needed, IMHO. If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.. Maybe it's time to get another tool. Just sayin. :)

We are talking about a fundamental right. You don't ask someone to stop infringing on your rights, you tell them.

Dark Paladin
05-04-2012, 10:35 AM
Go after counties that are doing it actually WRONG and fix it. Then worry about the small details. Am I wrong?

My humble half pence. . . from a "game of chess" point of view, it sounds like they have positioned themselves to be the low hanging fruit in the overall strategy. Can you not see CGF wanting to quickly and easily clean up their process, and then prop them up as the model issuing agency for all to see?

On the flip side, I'm not privy to the tactics CGF has employed in talking to the dept, so I have no idea what type of diplomacy (if any) was used.

Gray Peterson
05-04-2012, 10:36 AM
I went in to pick up my CCW at the Riverside Sheriff's office and had a nice long chat with the two deputies there. I wanted to share my thoughts about what was said, which might have some bearing on the direction CGF goes in the future.

Riverside is, for the most part, doing a great job, IMHO, in getting CCW's into the hands of those people who want it. For the record, I have nothing but good things to say about both deputies that work in the CCW unit. They're doing a fine job, very pleasant, very easy to deal with. They deserve a lot of respect for doing their job well, being open and honest about the process, and being easy to talk to.

Here's my opinion of what they're doing right:

Fairly quick. My process took under 90 days from the very first call I made inquiring about obtaining a CCW to the permit in my hands.
Training/qualification is easy. They charge $100 for the training/qualification.
They don't drive your neighbors crazy.. Unlike San Bernardino who knocks on all your neighbors doors, Riverside does not do this.
They follow the law in regards to fees and (mostly) forms.
They are genuinely helpful. Be nice to them, and they'll be nice to you.


There's lots more, but, I don't want to get accused to piling it on too thick.. :o Anyways, there's things they're doing wrong too.


They do ask for letters of recommendation; I didn't find it onerous, and they point to the fact that they can conduct background checks on the applicant... So, they basically claim that the letters are background material.
They do ask for an extra form to be filled out with the goofy questions like, "Have you ever committed a crime that you were never arrested for?"
They don't accept "personal protection" as the GC.. It needs to be more than just two words.


Are they perfect? No. Are they way better than most places? Absolutely. There's no 1 year wait for an appt. There's no invasion of your privacy. No requirements for a year of residency. No limitations on using the CCW for hire (kinda cool actually.. They in fact said I *could* use it for hire, if I wanted to! Anyone want an armed escort to a safety deposit box? Low fees! LOL :) )

Without getting into the details of everything said (which, is probably a good way to get them upset with me), suffice to say that they're slightly bothered that they're being targeted by CGF for not being 100% perfect, while there are a lot of other sheriff departments who aren't even close to them -- and probably deserve to be targeted much more than they are.

If a department is doing a good job, overall, of supporting citizens rights, I think there needs to be some positive reinforcement. Don't keep beating up one department who's 95% of the way there without complementing them on the 95%!

Go after counties that are doing it actually WRONG and fix it. Then worry about the small details. Am I wrong?

You're wrong.

Here is the basic issue:

If we give "friendly counties", or rather in this case, a supposedly "friendly" sheriff, a pass, it encourages unfriendly sheriffs to resist reform because of the perceived unfairness of our targeting.

Riverside refused for years to accept licenses from city residents without a denial. I pushed them for months to accept from city residents per Salute.

The "friendly" relationship is because of his speaking out against AB 962, him being a life member of the NRA, plus other things.

So:

1) sheriffs should not be making unlawful requirements, especially ones that burden applicants. The letters of reference are illegal, require you to associate in an unwanted fashion with others (this is a big problem for stalking victims), etc. They should adopt the CGF policy, which had been vetted for legality. The reasons they maintain these requirements is POLITICAL, not legal.

2) why doesn't the sheriff follow his peers in Sacramento, El Dorado, Sutter, Lake, Mendocino, & Tehama county & issue for self defense?

We hold our "friends" more accountable because they should know better.

radioman
05-04-2012, 10:39 AM
pepsi, in California we have no rights, so, if we have no rights and that department is trying to work with people, how can you call it infringing? try getting a CCW in coco county,

cindynles
05-04-2012, 10:39 AM
I have to disagree with you. When I went in for my interview the CCW unit tried very hard to discourage me from submitting my application. Couple that with the fact that they are still not following the law (insisting that you pay for the training and complete the range qualification BEFORE they will submit you application) and you get a CCW unit that doesn't seem to want regular people to apply.

Riverside County requires that you play the game their way if you want a LTC. There is a reason that there are only 423 active permits in a county with over 1.5 million residents. Riverside (0.273%) is worse than San Diego (0.302%) for LTC issue rate.

The perception that it is easy to get at LTC in Riverside county is wrong. Will Riverside county issue to normal, non connected citizens: Yes. But, and this is a big but, you still have to have a good cause that is acceptable to Sheriff Sniff. This is the point I am trying to make. You have to play the game in Riverside county. I don't have an acceptable good cause and I'm not willing to "craft" one. The statement that you made about the CCW unit being helpful is wrong in my experience (Dept. Yezzo sure didn't want me to apply). If they wanted people to apply they would at least follow the law.

I want everyone to know that Riverside county is using unfair and unlawful rules in the hopes that things will change and ALL residents will have the ability to obtain an LTC and not one of these $300 letters.....

http://i557.photobucket.com/albums/ss20/cindynles/scan0002.jpg

wildhawker
05-04-2012, 11:19 AM
I'm laughing because Riverside thinks they're being "targeted". If they were, it would be a lot more uncomfortable for them than it has been.

Riverside is a mediocre department by every metric. I suppose their rationalizations just go to how self-conscious they're feeling about their inadequacies.

I demand 100% compliance. Not 80%, not 90%, no 99%. 100 EFFING PERCENT. I'm sorry if the law enforcers don't like the laws and Constitution they swore to uphold.

Actually, I'm not.

-Brandon

stix213
05-04-2012, 11:29 AM
I don't understand why people are fine with requiring letters of recommendation. So people who don't have pro-gun friends shouldn't have carry rights?

Gray Peterson
05-04-2012, 11:31 AM
I'm laughing because Riverside thinks they're being "targeted". If they were, it would be a lot more uncomfortable for them than it has been.

Riverside is a mediocre department by every metric. I suppose their rationalizations just go to how self-conscious they're feeling about their inadequacies.

I demand 100% compliance. Not 80%, not 90%, no 99%. 100 EFFING PERCENT. I'm sorry if the law enforcers don't like the laws and Constitution they swore to uphold.

Actually, I'm not.

-Brandon

Yep. Concur.

David, the onus is on the sheriff to comply with law. He claims to be a friend of gun owners because of his relationship to a certain NRA staff guy.

He needs to prove it by:

1) adopting a compliant policy, which is mandatory

2) state that "self defense" is good cause, which is optional until we get bear at SCOTUS.

Untamed1972
05-04-2012, 11:40 AM
I don't understand why people are fine with requiring letters of recommendation. So people who don't have pro-gun friends shouldn't have carry rights?

The standard DOJ app already has a place for you to list references. The letters are just an additional hassle. My question always was "do they accept the letters at face value, or do they then contact the writer of the letter to further verify."

If they do make further contact and inquiry of the ref. letter writer then what was the purpose of the letter? Why not just list the contact info of your reference and let them make contact on in their investigation like they were gonna do anyway.

If it sped up the process and the letters were accepted at face value w/o further contact with the letter writer, in a certain way it wouldn't seem like such a bad thing, but just having to jump thru pointless hoops is stupid.

But then again the entire current process is a joke to begin with designed to give them ever reason, excuse, and ability to deny you. The current system process is essentially adversarial.....it assumes from the beginning that you dont qualify or need a CCW.....unless you can prove otherwise, vs. a true shall issue system which says "you are entitled to a permit, unless for these listed prohibiting reasons you are unqualified."

Untamed1972
05-04-2012, 11:44 AM
Yep. Concur.

David, the onus is on the sheriff to comply with law. He claims to be a friend of gun owners because of his relationship to a certain NRA staff guy.

He needs to prove it by:

1) adopting a compliant policy, which is mandatory

2) state that "self defense" is good cause, which is optional until we get bear at SCOTUS.

What kills me is that ALL GC statements essentially boil down to "self-defense". It just so happens that some people, due to certain circumstances may be more likely to need to defend themselves. Just because I am less likely to need to......doesnt mean that I wont ever need to tho.

bwiese
05-04-2012, 11:49 AM
You're wrong.

Here is the basic issue:

If we give "friendly counties", or rather in this case, a supposedly "friendly" sheriff, a pass, it encourages unfriendly sheriffs to resist reform because of the perceived unfairness of our targeting.

Riverside refused for years to accept licenses from city residents without a denial. I pushed them for months to accept from city residents per Salute.

The "friendly" relationship is because of his speaking out against AB 962, him being a life member of the NRA, plus other things.

So:

1) sheriffs should not be making unlawful requirements, especially ones that burden applicants. The letters of reference are illegal, require you to associate in an unwanted fashion with others (this is a big problem for stalking victims), etc. They should adopt the CGF policy, which had been vetted for legality. The reasons they maintain these requirements is POLITICAL, not legal.

2) why doesn't the sheriff follow his peers in Sacramento, El Dorado, Sutter, Lake, Mendocino, & Tehama county & issue for self defense?

We hold our "friends" more accountable because they should know better.

^THIS.

If we go after agencies for smaller discrepancies with the law and push to win, then other violating agencies take note.

The ultimate goal is reaction to CGF litigation (or threats). Our goal is to make Pavlov's dog always drool.

bwiese
05-04-2012, 11:50 AM
I don't understand why people are fine with requiring letters of recommendation. So people who don't have pro-gun friends shouldn't have carry rights?

Huge point.

Constitutional rights are not dependent on your neighbors' opinions'.

NoJoke
05-04-2012, 11:59 AM
Our goal is to make Pavlov's dog always drool.

Well, you made me drool. Time to kick more $$$ to CGF. :D

David v. Goliath - The righteous shall prevail! ...and so it shall happen again!


David and Goliath - Story Summary:
The Philistine army had gathered for war against Israel. The two armies faced each other, camped for battle on opposite sides of a steep valley. A Philistine giant measuring over nine feet tall and wearing full armor came out each day for forty days, mocking and challenging the Israelites to fight. His name was Goliath. Saul, the King of Israel, and the whole army were terrified of Goliath.

One day David, the youngest son of Jesse, was sent to the battle lines by his father to bring back news of his brothers. David was probably just a young teenager at the time. While there, David heard Goliath shouting his daily defiance and he saw the great fear stirred within the men of Israel. David responded, "Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of God?"

So David volunteered to fight Goliath. It took some persuasion, but King Saul finally agreed to let David fight against the giant. Dressed in his simple tunic, carrying his shepherd's staff, slingshot and a pouch full of stones, David approached Goliath. The giant cursed at him, hurling threats and insults.

David said to the Philistine, "You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied ... today I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds of the air ... and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel ... it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves; for the battle is the Lord's, and he will give all of you into our hands."

As Goliath moved in for the kill, David reached into his bag and slung one of his stones at Goliath's head. Finding a hole in the armor, the stone sank into the giant's forehead and he fell face down on the ground. David then took Goliath's sword, killed him and then cut off his head. When the Philistines saw that their hero was dead, they turned and ran. So the Israelites pursued, chasing and killing them and plundering their camp.

cindynles
05-04-2012, 12:06 PM
^THIS.

If we go after agencies for smaller discrepancies with the law and push to win, then other violating agencies take note.

The ultimate goal is reaction to CGF litigation (or threats). Our goal is to make Pavlov's dog always drool.

That is an outstanding response! $$ inbound to the Calgunsfoundation.

Drivedabizness
05-04-2012, 12:20 PM
Yep. Concur.

David, the onus is on the sheriff to comply with law. He claims to be a friend of gun owners because of his relationship to a certain NRA staff guy.

He needs to prove it by:

1) adopting a compliant policy, which is mandatory

2) state that "self defense" is good cause, which is optional until we get bear at SCOTUS.

I'm laughing because Riverside thinks they're being "targeted". If they were, it would be a lot more uncomfortable for them than it has been.

Riverside is a mediocre department by every metric. I suppose their rationalizations just go to how self-conscious they're feeling about their inadequacies.

I demand 100% compliance. Not 80%, not 90%, no 99%. 100 EFFING PERCENT. I'm sorry if the law enforcers don't like the laws and Constitution they swore to uphold.

Actually, I'm not.

-Brandon

Not to threadjack, but based on the above can we get an update on CGF's talks with the good Sheriff of Sac County?

His policy is not legal - he refuses to accept applications without a pre-interview which is not required by the law and is almost impossible to get (and is impossible to get if you aren't in his system now). Just keepin' it real.

SoCal Gunner
05-04-2012, 12:37 PM
DrD - That's like saying they only killed you a little bit.

Bwiese, Gray, WildHawker - When is this MF'er Riverside (whether they are in the room or "just in the doorway") going to get sued?

dantodd
05-04-2012, 12:47 PM
Of course I see your warrant there Deputy, but without 2 letters of reference I won't let you perform your search. Why is half-way following the law acceptable?

Untamed1972
05-04-2012, 12:50 PM
Are they perfect? No. Are they way better than most places? Absolutely. There's no 1 year wait for an appt. There's no invasion of your privacy. No requirements for a year of residency. No limitations on using the CCW for hire (kinda cool actually.. They in fact said I *could* use it for hire, if I wanted to! Anyone want an armed escort to a safety deposit box? Low fees! LOL :) )

Am I wrong?

The entire process and extensive application is an invasion of privacy. Compare that to an AZ or UT CCW app. The only personal info they want is just to run your NICS to make sure you're not a prohibited person and they need your address so they know where to send your permit. I had my AZ permit in under 3 weeks....all handled by mail.

If Sheriff's aren't adhering to the law as it is written now, then why would we expect them to when things actually go shall-issue? That's the point....train them to follow the law now, so they dont get any bright ideas later.

SoCal Gunner
05-04-2012, 12:51 PM
Exactly! The OP's line of thinking just kills me.

BTW, Did we ever get and post Riverside's GC statements? Seems like its been an awful long time to get those things out in print.

hawk1
05-04-2012, 1:03 PM
Of course I see your warrant there Deputy, but without 2 letters of reference I won't let you perform your search. Why is half-way following the law acceptable?

I only stole the coins from the bank, not any of the bills...:p

Clownpuncher
05-04-2012, 1:23 PM
Thank you for your post.

I understand both sides of the argument made here. I think where you are getting confused is you talked with the deputies in the CCW division and, as far as they're concerned, you are right they are doing what they can and are much better than others. The problem is that while it may appear to be "up to them" for a CCW, it isn't, it's the sheriff and that is who CGF is targeting.
Now, with crap rolling down hill I am sure that those 2 guys catch alot when the screws are applied to their boss. Like I said, I'm sure they are great guys and, to be honest, your treatment as well as that of others I have read is going to motivate me to apply in the near future but I don't think CGF should let up until all eligible people who want a CCW can get one within the framework of the law.

DrDavid
05-04-2012, 1:51 PM
So, you keep going after the low-hanging fruit that's Riverside.. Great.. You get them to follow the law. Wonderful. But, I worry that suddenly it'll be harder to get, or more investigative, or harder GC, or... At what point do you say, "Hey, let's go after the real bad counties first"?

This is a legit question.. I really don't know the answer.

Clownpuncher
05-04-2012, 1:53 PM
So, you keep going after the low-hanging fruit that's Riverside.. Great.. You get them to follow the law. Wonderful. But, I worry that suddenly it'll be harder to get, or more investigative, or harder GC, or... At what point do you say, "Hey, let's go after the real bad counties first"?

This is a legit question.. I really don't know the answer.

It is my understanding that CGF is hammering them all.

Untamed1972
05-04-2012, 1:55 PM
So, you keep going after the low-hanging fruit that's Riverside.. Great.. You get them to follow the law. Wonderful. But, I worry that suddenly it'll be harder to get, or more investigative, or harder GC, or... At what point do you say, "Hey, let's go after the real bad counties first"?

This is a legit question.. I really don't know the answer.


So basically "dont piss off the Master" right? Just kiss the ring and pray the benevolent Overlord look kindly upon your request? :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure other worse counties ARE being gone after. Many counties are or have been sued already. What more would like them to do?

I'm sure your tune would be quite different if your application had been denied, like the poster above. Like Wildhawker said.....make your policy 100% compliant and then their wont be any issues. How is this any different than a COP pulling you over because your license plate light it out? Come on officer.....I'm 99% compliant with the law, why are you hassling me?

NoJoke
05-04-2012, 2:08 PM
So, you keep going after the low-hanging fruit that's Riverside.. Great.. You get them to follow the law. Wonderful. But, I worry that suddenly it'll be harder to get, or more investigative, or harder GC, or... At what point do you say, "Hey, let's go after the real bad counties first"?

This is a legit question.. I really don't know the answer.

Nice to read some are not about our community as a whole and just thinking about themselves.

This reply seems like it would apply to any of the current "elite" who possess a LTC (not all LTC holders) and don't want to rock the boat any....cuz, heaven forbid - they might not get one next time around.

How about puttin on the shoes of those w/out LTC's and walk a mile in their shoes. New perspective might do some good.

Gray Peterson
05-04-2012, 2:09 PM
So, you keep going after the low-hanging fruit that's Riverside.. Great.. You get them to follow the law. Wonderful. But, I worry that suddenly it'll be harder to get, or more investigative, or harder GC, or... At what point do you say, "Hey, let's go after the real bad counties first"?

This is a legit question.. I really don't know the answer.

We are. LA county & Merced county are being attacked.

My point being is, if he's such a friend to gun owners, as certain NRA volunteers claims him to be, needs to change to the CGF policy. There is no excuse, at all to have an issuance rate lower than San Diego's.....

mdimeo
05-04-2012, 2:10 PM
So, you keep going after the low-hanging fruit that's Riverside.. Great.. You get them to follow the law. Wonderful. But, I worry that suddenly it'll be harder to get, or more investigative, or harder GC, or... At what point do you say, "Hey, let's go after the real bad counties first"?

This is a legit question.. I really don't know the answer.

The endgame here is judicially-imposed shall-issue, and in 20 years maybe constitutional carry when the culture gets there. Fixing supposedly-minor issues in county-by-county license problems is critical to making the strategy work.

If the courts take current california law and subtract discretion, it's close to what most other states have. But if you take california law minus discretion plus illegal policies that make getting a CCW harder, more expensive, or just more hassle than it's worth, you haven't gotten where you need to go.

That's why Riverside's illegal policies are important, and why it's important to fight them now.

AmericasFirstFreedom
05-04-2012, 2:24 PM
[...]

If a department is doing a good job, overall, of supporting citizens rights, I think there needs to be some positive reinforcement. Don't keep beating up one department who's 95% of the way there without complementing them on the 95%!

Go after counties that are doing it actually WRONG and fix it. Then worry about the small details. Am I wrong?

[...]



I think you have good intentions, Dr. D, but misguided.

There's a term I learned being on this forum: "Battered Gun Owner's" syndrome, which probably could be sub-classified under "Stockholm Syndrome." After being beat-down on all sides by hoplophobes, and sometimes by those within our ranks ("divide and conquer"), we sometimes come upon a "not such a bully," and it does sometimes feel "refreshing."

But we must not let our guard down. The law(s) are clear and their illegal interpretation and exercise of their duty are still offensive, an affront to our intelligence, and an usurpation of our civil rights. As you said, if somene gave you an ultimatum, you'd have their balls for breakfast.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, we already "asked nicely" in the form of educating them about the laws. They are, in essence, telling us "we know the law and we're going to do what we want."

Niceties are over. Pavlovian response it is. Keep the steamroller going . . .

lawaia
05-04-2012, 2:26 PM
The front-men of the CCW Unit are great guys and do a fantastic job.

However, the process is still very ambiguous, and it seems at times that the rules are made up as they go along. I doubt this comes from the two guys in the office, but nonetheless..............

I get mixed signals about what is happening there. Sometimes I feel like they really want to issue permits. Then I see something that makes me think if they truly wanted to issue, they wouldn't require what they do.

GC is VERY subjective, and that requirement should be the first to go. I have seen a few GC's that I thought were great, but the applicants were denied. I'm not sure there weren't other circumstances lending to the denial, but they didn't seem that way.

I would love to see an updated progress report from CGF about RCSO. It would be nice to see where we stand with the release of GC statements, etc. It would also be nice to have some "public" guidance from CGF to potential applicants. What should "we" be doing and not doing? What do you need from applicants to help the forward movement in this County? Should everyone be refusing the illegal requirements? If so, can they seek help from CGF when they are turned away from RCSO? Every applicants goal is approval. Most (including myself) don't want to rock the boat too severely, for fear of denial. If applicants refuse the illegal requirements, do they have a support system to keep pursuing the permit? Without support, most will just fulfill the requirements in hopes of getting the golden ticket.

This process SUCKS! People are frustrated and tired of not knowing what direction to move. As good a job as RCSO has done to improve over the "old" ways, the process is still more difficult and inconsistent than it needs to be.

I'll end by reinforcing the positive.;)

Aguirre and Yezzo are doing a great job, and are great guys!:)

ETA: CGF is doing great work! This is not intended as a bash against CGF. My point is that we need communication.

Honor1
05-04-2012, 2:33 PM
:confused:OK, read it all, appreciate Dr's points, and everyone elses, too!! ;)

I would also be interested in seeing Riversides GC listing in print...Anyone know where it is??? Good thread people!!

Gray Peterson
05-04-2012, 3:02 PM
I think you have good intentions, Dr. D, but misguided.

There's a term I learned being on this forum: "Battered Gun Owner's" syndrome, which probably could be sub-classified under "Stockholm Syndrome." After being beat-down on all sides by hoplophobes, and sometimes by those within our ranks ("divide and conquer"), we sometimes come upon a "not such a bully," and it does sometimes feel "refreshing."

But we must not let our guard down. The law(s) are clear and their illegal interpretation and exercise of their duty are still offensive, an affront to our intelligence, and an usurpation of our civil rights. As you said, if somene gave you an ultimatum, you'd have their balls for breakfast.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, we already "asked nicely" in the form of educating them about the laws. They are, in essence, telling us "we know the law and we're going to do what we want."

Niceties are over. Pavlovian response it is. Keep the steamroller going . . .

I know for a fact that both Sheriff Sniff & the volunteer read this forum. I don't care.

Stanley should explain why his deputies are complaining about pressure from CGF to applicants, rather than fixing his policies to comply.

Stanley should explain how when he tells people he's pro gun, but has policies that not even Ventura County enforces (the first adopter of the CGF policy, though GC/GMC is still bad).

Stanley should explain why despite now having an election under his belt, he's supposedly still cowering from "potential political blowback from others". There is no blowback. No sheriff has ever lost on the basis of his or her LTC stance, both pro & con (though the pro side challengers against anti incumbents & challengers won in three counties in 2010, though not on carry issues per se ).

I'll even grant, with great reservations, using GMC to keeping a Zimmerman type from getting an LTC until GMC is struck. He should switch to the good cause specifically allowed by half the sheriffs in the state.

He should turn in his NRA card & resign from the organization if he's going to continue to break the law against the interest of his gun owning constituents.

Perhaps he should join the LCAV & the Brady Campaign, as they have a history of telling governments to do stupid things, & then sticking them with the opposing attorneys fees.

400k for prop H, 35K for Ventura PRA. Do the math, Stan. Change your policy.

axel4488
05-04-2012, 3:11 PM
:confused:OK, read it all, appreciate Dr's points, and everyone elses, too!! ;)

I would also be interested in seeing Riversides GC listing in print...Anyone know where it is??? Good thread people!!

We won't get them. It has been over a year and not a single peep of them. Riverside needs to be targeted in a lawsuit for violating not just our gun rights, but our rights to privacy as well.

G60
05-04-2012, 3:22 PM
they're slightly bothered that they're being targeted by CGF for not being 100% perfect, while there are a lot of other sheriff departments who aren't even close to them -- and probably deserve to be targeted much more than they are.



Go after counties that are doing it actually WRONG and fix it. Then worry about the small details. Am I wrong?

You/they think CGF isn't going after those other counties, too?

BTW, Riverside is doing it wrong.

CitaDeL
05-04-2012, 3:30 PM
If we give "friendly counties", or rather in this case, a supposedly "friendly" sheriff, a pass, it encourages unfriendly sheriffs to resist reform because of the perceived unfairness of our targeting.


I demand 100% compliance. Not 80%, not 90%, no 99%. 100 EFFING PERCENT.

^THIS.

If we go after agencies for smaller discrepancies with the law and push to win, then other violating agencies take note.

The ultimate goal is reaction to CGF litigation (or threats). Our goal is to make Pavlov's dog always drool.

This^

...is the Calguns win trifecta. I almost wet myself.

While using 'carrot' tactics helps ease agencies into compliance, and opens the dialogue with presumptively 'friendly' agencies, there are no agencies that are immune from the influence of 'stick' tactics. And I am glad. I do not much care for apologetics for those who will not fully comply with the program.

I believe there is a theme emerging here that will demonstrate to those agencies who are firmly 'no issuance' that could be coaxed into compliance when they see the 'asses' that are generally 'cooperative' get beat for not walking the direction and speed we expect.

sfbadger
05-04-2012, 3:43 PM
It is my understanding that CGF is hammering them all.

I know that CA is a big state with a lot of counties, (in other words, a lot of work to do), but it seems unlikely that San Francisco, with its reputation for political intransigence, is getting "hammered" much lately.

dantodd
05-04-2012, 3:45 PM
I work in property management and if I am going to a house in a bad area I carry my side arm. I dont need a some paper from the sheriff saying I am alowed to defend myself. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I have lost all faith in anyone working for the government. By the way, I am not breaking any laws when I am carrying on private property.


Read the section of the calguns wiki on unlicensed concealed carry. Most of the section is not specific to concealed carry and will apply to loaded open carry as well. http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Unlicensed_Concealed_Carry

Honor1
05-04-2012, 4:18 PM
You are right on AXEL, I just saw the print outs available (and very few counties have done that), but it was interesting to spend an hour perusing the San Diego ones..:(....something is better than nothing at this point!!

Smokeybehr
05-04-2012, 7:07 PM
I know that CA is a big state with a lot of counties, (in other words, a lot of work to do), but it seems unlikely that San Francisco, with its reputation for political intransigence, is getting "hammered" much lately.

LA and SF counties are the last on the list, because they are so intransigent, that it will take a proven track record of having the other 56 counties compliant with the CGF model.

G60
05-04-2012, 7:44 PM
LA & SF "last on the list?"

What are you talking about? Who's engaged in litigation against Lee Baca as we speak? Who got Michael Hennessey to adopt an LTC policy? The tooth fairy?

sfbadger
05-04-2012, 7:48 PM
LA and SF counties are the last on the list, because they are so intransigent, that it will take a proven track record of having the other 56 counties compliant with the CGF model.

Yep! Although I try to live a healthy lifestyle, at 50 yrs old, I doubt that I will live long enough to see San Francisco become a "shall issue" county. That is a sad and sobering thought.

sfbadger
05-04-2012, 7:54 PM
LA & SF "last on the list?"

What are you talking about? Who's engaged in litigation against Lee Baca as we speak? Who got Michael Hennessey to adopt an LTC policy? The tooth fairy?

San Francisco, in finally forming a CCW policy, thanks to CGF, has done only the bare minimum to comply with CA state law and there are glaring illegal and financial obstacles in that policy.

timdps
05-04-2012, 8:01 PM
What kills me is that ALL GC statements essentially boil down to "self-defense". It just so happens that some people, due to certain circumstances may be more likely to need to defend themselves. Just because I am less likely to need to......doesnt mean that I wont ever need to tho.

Thanks for pointing that out. Had not thought of it that way.
It makes "good cause" completely ridiculous: You have the right to protect your life because you carry a lot of money around, but because I do not carry a lot of money around, I don't have the same right to protect my own life?

Where is the 14th Amendment "equal protection" in that system?

Gray Peterson
05-04-2012, 8:27 PM
Yep! Although I try to live a healthy lifestyle, at 50 yrs old, I doubt that I will live long enough to see San Francisco become a "shall issue" county. That is a sad and sobering thought.

36 months, tops. People need to stop with this 25-30 years crap. Seriously. The only way that will happen is if we lose a "bear" case at SCOTUS. That's not going to happen.

craneman
05-04-2012, 10:15 PM
36 months, tops. People need to stop with this 25-30 years crap. Seriously. The only way that will happen is if we lose a "bear" case at SCOTUS. That's not going to happen.

I am glad some of you guys can still be this confident. Mine started to dwindle away as of late. Thanks for the boost. I just hope you are right.

esiegel91
05-05-2012, 12:20 AM
Do you guys think for a military member the ccw would be easier to obtain? If so can someone give me a link for the steps or process of getting the ccw thanks in advance

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Dreaded Claymore
05-05-2012, 12:38 AM
Yep! Although I try to live a healthy lifestyle, at 50 yrs old, I doubt that I will live long enough to see San Francisco become a "shall issue" county. That is a sad and sobering thought.

The steamroller has been running for a while, and we have no intent to slow it down. The cases are all lined up for the Supreme Court. What exactly is going to take thirty years? I'd say six years, on the outside. Probably less than that.

wildhawker
05-05-2012, 12:41 AM
If the op is concerned about our 'targeting', maybe he would be interested in explaining to me what we're doing, where, and why. I'll make time.

Librarian
05-05-2012, 12:48 AM
Do you guys think for a military member the ccw would be easier to obtain? If so can someone give me a link for the steps or process of getting the ccw thanks in advance

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Check here for the thread for your county:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=116

Generally, military has no known influence.

lawaia
05-05-2012, 7:35 AM
If the op is concerned about our 'targeting', maybe he would be interested in explaining to me what we're doing, where, and why. I'll make time.

Is there somewhere that we can find that information? I'm not being smart, I really want to know.

SoCal Gunner
05-05-2012, 8:11 AM
DrD - That's like saying they only killed you a little bit.

Bwiese, Gray, WildHawker - When is this MF'er Riverside (whether they are in the room or "just in the doorway") going to get sued?


Quoting my self, hoping for an answer from someone. Seriously, Why don't we have the GC statements requested about a year ago? And, what legal action is in motion or pending for Riverside County?

KandyRedCoi
05-05-2012, 8:21 AM
Quoting my self, hoping for an answer from someone. Seriously, Why don't we have the GC statements requested about a year ago? And, what legal action is in motion or pending for Riverside County?

is there a way that an individual (like myself) hire the CGF to 'help' me obtain and set rsco straight in regards to ccw/ltc? the time frame for me to properly defend myself is NOW...not 60-90days, not 36months, and certainly not 25-50yrs

:mad:

sfbadger
05-05-2012, 8:21 AM
36 months, tops. People need to stop with this 25-30 years crap. Seriously. The only way that will happen is if we lose a "bear" case at SCOTUS. That's not going to happen.

I can honestly say that my optimism just got a giant boost!! Thanks

kcbrown
05-05-2012, 8:31 AM
The steamroller has been running for a while, and we have no intent to slow it down. The cases are all lined up for the Supreme Court. What exactly is going to take thirty years? I'd say six years, on the outside. Probably less than that.

Even I, the Ultimate Skeptic, don't think it's going to take 30 years. 10 years is more realistic, methinks.

36 months? In the anti-gun strongholds? No way. If it's "shall-issue" in those areas, it won't be of something that's usable (think permits with "no GFSZ" restrictions on them, for instance).

The 10 years is for litigating all the separate things the anti-gun strongholds are going to try to do in an effort to keep the right from actually being a right. The permits won't be of much use until all that is done with.

cindynles
05-05-2012, 8:50 AM
So, you keep going after the low-hanging fruit that's Riverside.. Great.. You get them to follow the law. Wonderful. But, I worry that suddenly it'll be harder to get, or more investigative, or harder GC, or... At what point do you say, "Hey, let's go after the real bad counties first"?

This is a legit question.. I really don't know the answer.

If the op is concerned about our 'targeting', maybe he would be interested in explaining to me what we're doing, where, and why. I'll make time.

It sounds to me like the OP has a case of "I got mine, so don't rock the boat".

lawaia
05-05-2012, 9:40 AM
Quoting my self, hoping for an answer from someone. Seriously, Why don't we have the GC statements requested about a year ago? And, what legal action is in motion or pending for Riverside County?

I see I am not alone in wanting dissemination of information from CGF. You can only tell people "soon" for so long, before the natives get wrestless.

If the information cannot be made public for "strategic" reasons, at least tell us that.

Would you consider publishing a periodic CGF "progress report"?

wildhawker
05-05-2012, 10:07 AM
There's strategic and also logistical constraints at play. However, if the demand is there, I'll setup a quasi-regular conference call. Obviously, anything that isn't invite-only is going to be necessarily restrained.

-Brandon

NoJoke
05-05-2012, 10:23 AM
36 months, tops. .

I'd say six years, on the outside. Probably less than that.

This is the first time I've seen some actual periods of time mentioned.

And those numbers are sweet music to my ears.

Heard this one on "Law and Order" - "...what's a nickel? That's easy." :chris: I'm digging in now to patiently wait. :beer::beer:

sfbadger
05-05-2012, 10:35 AM
It sounds to me like the OP has a case of "I got mine, so don't rock the boat".

^^^^^
THIS, ... big time!!

G60
05-05-2012, 10:37 AM
For those with limited time to peruse the forums and get to the meat of what CGF is doing, the best way to find out the most information is to "view all posts" by folks like Wildhawker, Hoffmang, jdberger, Gray Peterson, etc.

Of course there are some things that cannot be made public for strategic reasons, but they do make what they can available to us, just gotta search for it.

lawaia
05-05-2012, 10:43 AM
There's strategic and also logistical constraints at play. However, if the demand is there, I'll setup a quasi-regular conference call. Obviously, anything that isn't invite-only is going to be necessarily restrained.

-Brandon

I completely understand the restraints on both fronts. I'm thinking more along the lines of how to distribute the pertinent information to the gun community masses (i.e. Calguns community). A conference call with appropriate people involved would be great. Where would/could the information go from there? People are confused about how to proceed. They are confused about where we are going as a community. I have a feeling they are also feeling like they are not an integral part of the CGF team. They want some direction and information to help them make decisions.

hoffmang
05-05-2012, 10:52 AM
The endgame here is judicially-imposed shall-issue, and in 20 years maybe constitutional carry when the culture gets there. Fixing supposedly-minor issues in county-by-county license problems is critical to making the strategy work.

If the courts take current california law and subtract discretion, it's close to what most other states have. But if you take california law minus discretion plus illegal policies that make getting a CCW harder, more expensive, or just more hassle than it's worth, you haven't gotten where you need to go.

That's why Riverside's illegal policies are important, and why it's important to fight them now.

Quoting this for posterity as it's exactly on base.

As to the PRA side, choosing the next person to lose and pay our fees is very strategic. Posting the "lucky" here takes the pressure off the other non compliant counties. We like them guessing who's County treasury is going to make an involuntary donation to CGF.

Our long stated goal with the sunshine and compliance initiative is to have definitive rulings around California that state that these BS illegalities are contra state law. Playing that game does mean that we have to mix a matrix of who the Sheriffs are, what their local politics are, and in which California State Court of Appeals they are in. Some battles are best fought out in the Central Valley - some in Oakland, SF, or LA. It really depends on the issue and stare decisis. Some of those specific tactical decisions can't be fully explained because judges read Calguns too...

-Gene

lawaia
05-05-2012, 10:55 AM
It sounds to me like the OP has a case of "I got mine, so don't rock the boat".

^^^^^
THIS, ... big time!!

And I disagree. This type of statement is simply a personal attack on the OP. Read his posts #1 & #27. If you set your personal feelings aside, you will see that he is asking legitimate questions with genuine concern. He has his permit. How could his concerns be considered selfish? Pushing the agency with the potential of making things worse is a concern for others, not the OP himself.

wildhawker
05-05-2012, 11:10 AM
If the OP doesn't or won't call me, why wouldn't I consider him another CLEO apologist ala CalCCW?

sfbadger
05-05-2012, 11:40 AM
So, you keep going after the low-hanging fruit that's Riverside.. Great.. You get them to follow the law. Wonderful. But, I worry that suddenly it'll be harder to get, or more investigative, or harder GC, or... At what point do you say, "Hey, let's go after the real bad counties first"?

This is a legit question.. I really don't know the answer.

I'm sorry, but that does sound like the OP is worried about it becoming more difficult in the future to obtain / renew his LTC.

lawaia
05-05-2012, 11:48 AM
If the OP doesn't or won't call me, why wouldn't I consider him another CLEO apologist ala CalCCW?

I wasn't aware he was invited to a phone conversation.

I think a little civility in discussion will keep people around to continue a discussion. Attacks will only push people away, ala CalCCW. Have you seen their daily activity levels lately?:rolleyes:

If the OP doesn't want to continue the conversation, it can go on without him and we should forego further comments about him.

There's my .02.:)

DrDavid
05-05-2012, 11:48 AM
If the OP doesn't or won't call me, why wouldn't I consider him another CLEO apologist ala CalCCW?

I'll happily call you. What's your number?

I've been out with the kids. I will reply to the attacks on here later, but you're wrong about me. I want to keep it easy for people to get ccws. It's not a I got mine, so I don't care about others.

I'm asking legit questions.

G60
05-05-2012, 11:49 AM
He has his permit. How could his concerns be considered selfish?

You answered your own question.
He's got his permit. Riverside county does not accept "Personal protection" as GC, among other compliance concerns. He's got GC above and beyond "personal protection." He's got his permit, and wants CGF to leave riverside alone and 'pick on' someone else.

What about the riverside county resident who would like to defend their own life or the lives of their loved ones, but does not have a CG above and beyond personal protection?

What bothers me is the "why aren't you guys going after XX counties first?" when they are, hence my comments re: Sheriffs Hennessey and Baca.

lawaia
05-05-2012, 11:52 AM
You answered your own question.
He's got his permit. Riverside county does not accept "Personal protection" as GC, among other compliance concerns. He's got GC above and beyond "personal protection." He's got his permit, and wants CGF to leave riverside alone and 'pick on' someone else.

What about the riverside county resident who would like to defend their own life or the lives of their loved ones, but does not have a CG above and beyond personal protection?

What bothers me is the "why aren't you guys going after XX counties first?" when they are, hence my comments re: Sheriffs Hennessey and Baca.

If he wanted to be selfish, he would enjoy his permit and not come here to pose questions.

KandyRedCoi
05-05-2012, 11:53 AM
its easier to fix something thats just a little bit broken than something that is totally broken

i hope riverside gets straightened out SOON....

G60
05-05-2012, 11:55 AM
If he wanted to be selfish, he would enjoy his permit and not come here to pose questions.

Perhaps, but there are some who have their permits, and are still fighting so that others cannot be denied their rights, and there are those who have their permits and want their issuing agency to be left alone.

lawaia
05-05-2012, 12:02 PM
Perhaps, but there are some who have their permits, and are still fighting so that others cannot be denied their rights, and there are those who have their permits and want their issuing agency to be left alone.

No argument from me about that.

Gray Peterson
05-05-2012, 12:26 PM
I'll happily call you. What's your number?

I've been out with the kids. I will reply to the attacks on here later, but you're wrong about me. I want to keep it easy for people to get ccws. It's not a I got mine, so I don't care about others.

I'm asking legit questions.

David,

You have to understand, this isn't the first time a sheriff's agency has essentially blamed us for "causing problems" to an applicant and then said applicant essentially "called us out" saying we're causing them issues. It's an extremely disturbing situation where we're being being blamed for doing our jobs because the agency doesn't want to do theirs, which is uphold the law.

wildhawker
05-05-2012, 12:28 PM
I'll happily call you. What's your number?

I've been out with the kids. I will reply to the attacks on here later, but you're wrong about me. I want to keep it easy for people to get ccws. It's not a I got mine, so I don't care about others.

I'm asking legit questions.

They're uninformed questions, and that's due to your apparent trend of not taking the time to do a minimal amount of research before posting. However, I'll PM you my number; call me at your convenience and we'll talk.

-Brandon

Baconator
05-05-2012, 12:35 PM
If he wanted to be selfish, he would enjoy his permit and not come here to pose questions.

If he isn't selfish about it then ask him what his magic gc was and see if he'll tell you.



hint-I already did and was told no, even via pm.

cindynles
05-05-2012, 12:54 PM
If he isn't selfish about it then ask him what his magic gc was and see if he'll tell you.



hint-I already did and was told no, even via pm.

Sounds alot like the "calccw" and "team BillyJack" answers. Good Cause is super secret (even though its a public record) so I can't share.

Baconator
05-05-2012, 12:56 PM
Sounds alot like the "calccw" and "team BillyJack" answers. Good Cause is super secret (even though its a public record) so I can't share.

That was my take, or that I would (could) somehow use it against him. If I was able to secure a LTC I would coach anyone I else I could to the same end. Because, as was said above, all of the LTCs that are issued are for "self defense" as long as you can articulate your need in the way they want it. I don't have money to throw away in hopes that I am able to articulate it correctly.

NoJoke
05-05-2012, 1:23 PM
David,

You have to understand, this isn't the first time a sheriff's agency has essentially blamed us for "causing problems" to an applicant and then said applicant essentially "called us out" saying we're causing them issues. It's an extremely disturbing situation where we're being being blamed for doing our jobs because the agency doesn't want to do theirs, which is uphold the law.

Wow, your words are ringing in my ears from my experience.

You see, during my CCW/LTC attemt in San Diego the sheriff's detective told me that he was recommending an approval to the next level, the panel.

It was explained to me that a panel was put into place due to some recent law suit against the sheriff.

I was thinking to myself, if you put up enough layers, at some point wouldn't everyone be denied? :rolleyes:

Gray Peterson
05-05-2012, 1:31 PM
Sounds alot like the "calccw" and "team BillyJack" answers. Good Cause is super secret (even though its a public record) so I can't share.

Let's not cast aspersions on people.

DrDavid
05-05-2012, 1:44 PM
I've posted some of the elements of my GC on here before. But, it was business related. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't apply to a lot of others. But, at no point did I refuse to HELP others with their own GC.

Seriously, I feel like I'm being lynched for something I thought was a legit question.

Brandon - I'm going to call you shortly. Still with the kids at a party :)

kcbrown
05-05-2012, 2:37 PM
We like them guessing who's County treasury is going to make an involuntary donation to CGF.


Quoted not just for its truth, but for it's sheer awesomeness!

Made me :rofl2:.

SoCal Gunner
05-05-2012, 3:00 PM
There's strategic and also logistical constraints at play. However, if the demand is there, I'll setup a quasi-regular conference call. Obviously, anything that isn't invite-only is going to be necessarily restrained.

-Brandon

I can accept that answer and certainly would not suggest the CGF team do anything that compromises the mission.

I did assume since there was an announcement that the GC from R.C. only needed redacted before becoming available that it was open to ask about the status.

DrDavid
05-05-2012, 3:19 PM
^^^^^
THIS, ... big time!!
Seriously, this is such bull****. I posted something intended to provoke discussion (which it did), but, personal ad homonym attacks are not useful.

Here's what I was hoping to read: Yeah, Riverside has issues, but, since we have a limited amount of resources, we're going after the REAL source of the problems -- San Francisco. The place where they restrict you from even buying ammo! But, instead, CGF (in my opinion... we still do have the 1st amendment, right? :) ) goes after the low-hanging fruit. Which, I guess is an easy victory; but, is Riverside dropping the requirements for a letter of reference, in the big picture, just as good as an actual WIN against Frisco? Or, getting OC to grant CCWs to more than just those who donate to the sheriff's reelection campaign?

I don't think I'm wrong here.. Limited funds == go after places it makes a DIFFERENCE to the most people. An extra letter isn't the end of the world. A $1722 training fee, $1,000,000 liability insurance and all the other crazy in the San Francisco CCW application seems a tad more unreasonable. No?

wildhawker
05-05-2012, 3:38 PM
So, I see you still didn't do any research.

Bill Carson
05-05-2012, 3:39 PM
Seriously, this is such bull****. I posted something intended to provoke discussion (which it did), but, personal ad homonym attacks are not useful.

Here's what I was hoping to read: Yeah, Riverside has issues, but, since we have a limited amount of resources, we're going after the REAL source of the problems -- San Francisco. The place where they restrict you from even buying ammo! But, instead, CGF (in my opinion... we still do have the 1st amendment, right? :) ) goes after the low-hanging fruit. Which, I guess is an easy victory; but, is Riverside dropping the requirements for a letter of reference, in the big picture, just as good as an actual WIN against Frisco? Or, getting OC to grant CCWs to more than just those who donate to the sheriff's reelection campaign?

I don't think I'm wrong here.. Limited funds == go after places it makes a DIFFERENCE to the most people. An extra letter isn't the end of the world. A $1722 training fee, $1,000,000 liability insurance and all the other crazy in the San Francisco CCW application seems a tad more unreasonable. No?

To the OP it seemed to me that you cam off as a FNG trying to tell the GCF and member's on this board how to act in regard to getting a CCW. I think you might have caused yourself to be the target of some jealousy and hate. I wonder if you would be singing the praises of the Riverside Sheriff's Office if they had denied you after making you jump through those illegal hoops because in another thread on wal-mart ammo sales you sure seemed to be opposed to their ridiculous requirements.

DrDavid
05-05-2012, 3:43 PM
So, I see you still didn't do any research.
I called you.. Did you not get my voicemail? Lets talk.

DrDavid
05-05-2012, 3:48 PM
To the OP it seemed to me that you cam off as a FNG trying to tell the GCF and member's on this board how to act in regard to getting a CCW. I think you might have caused yourself to be the target of some jealousy and hate. I wonder if you would be singing the praises of the Riverside Sheriff's Office if they had denied you after making you jump through those illegal hoops because in another thread on wal-mart ammo sales you sure seemed to be opposed to their ridiculous requirements.

Tried to re-read what you said I posted.. Didn't find anything I wrote about the rcso requirements being crazy. I was talking about credit cards and showing ID...

For the record, I think *everyone* who wants a CCW and isn't otherwise disqualified (i.e. felon, etc.) should get one.

Bill Carson
05-05-2012, 3:57 PM
I think it would behoove you to find out CGF's position on issuing CCW's. I did not write that you said RSCO's requirements being crazy. I wrote that they were illegal. They make you jump through hoops to exercise your rights. I think you opinion of the RSCO would be different if you were denied.

DrDavid
05-05-2012, 3:59 PM
I think it would behoove you to find out CGF's position on issuing CCW's. I did not write that you said RSCO's requirements being crazy. I wrote that they were illegal. They make you jump through hoops to exercise your rights. I think you opinion of the RSCO would be different if you were denied.
The process was transparent IMHO. I knew I would be approved from day one. I had already bought my money orders before I was "approved". It's pretty obvious to me who they approve, and who they don't. It's not random.

KandyRedCoi
05-05-2012, 4:04 PM
The process was transparent IMHO. I knew I would be approved from day one. I had already bought my money orders before I was "approved". It's pretty obvious to me who they approve, and who they don't. It's not random.

that means me, being a younger asian man with a shaved head and tattoos would most likely get DENIED, even if im a working professional and a business owner :(

cant use wildlife, cant use personal protection FML

DrDavid
05-05-2012, 4:08 PM
that means me, being a younger asian man with a shaved head and tattoos would most likely get DENIED, even if im a working professional and a business owner :(

cant use wildlife, cant use personal protection FML

Huh? Nothing I wrote would suggest you'd be denied based on appearance. You're just making it up now.

KandyRedCoi
05-05-2012, 4:10 PM
Huh? Nothing I wrote would suggest you'd be denied based on appearance. You're just making it up now.

based upon your previous statement...im not accusing you of anything, how else would ONE know that who gets one prior to all the paperwork or application? LOL solely based on appearance...thats how

The process was transparent IMHO. I knew I would be approved from day one. I had already bought my money orders before I was "approved". It's pretty obvious to me who they approve, and who they don't. It's not random.

DrDavid
05-05-2012, 4:13 PM
based upon your previous statement...im not accusing you of anything, how else would ONE know that who gets one prior to all the paperwork or application? LOL solely based on appearance...thats how

:rolleyes:

If you say so.

lawaia
05-05-2012, 4:27 PM
Typical internet pissing match that is accomplishing nothing.

Bill Carson
05-05-2012, 4:28 PM
The process was transparent IMHO. I knew I would be approved from day one. I had already bought my money orders before I was "approved". It's pretty obvious to me who they approve, and who they don't. It's not random.

Now you just sound arrogant. In your first post you asked " am I wrong ?" The overwhelming opinion of the people that responded to that question seems to be yes. Now you do not like the fact that people who have been on here and fighting this fight a lot longer than you have do not agree with you. I believe you are now in verbal quicksand .

Gray Peterson
05-05-2012, 4:35 PM
Enough with the fighting.

paul0660
05-05-2012, 4:41 PM
Great thread........the avatar..........not so much.

"Have you ever committed a crime that you were never arrested for?"

Correct answer is "No", while thinking "probably" and thanking God for the 5A.

NoJoke
05-05-2012, 4:57 PM
Dr.David,
I think it's great you got y our LTC
I'm sure the sheriff's office was nice and polite - they were to me too (SD).
But, lets be honest - had you been denied you too would cry foul and want to have CA turned into a state that recognizes (and stops ignoring) the second amendment and becomes "shall issue"

You are probably a good guy and feel the sheriff's office is being unfairly represented - since everyone is nice. Please keep in mind, nobody here holds anything against most all public employee's - they're doing their jobs w/in the confines of their job description.

What I want to urge you to consider is that we want to change their job description to:
Accept application.
Accept fee.
Run "prohibited" background check.
Issue and mail LTC w/in 3 weeks.

....at least that's the way a majority of the rest of the united states operates.

So what I would suggest and ask is please place yourself in OUR shoes and donate till it hurts. There are many here who would like to share in your victory - not fight about details. :D

DrDavid
05-05-2012, 5:46 PM
based upon your previous statement...im not accusing you of anything, how else would ONE know that who gets one prior to all the paperwork or application? LOL solely based on appearance...thats how
Easily.. I spoke to Dep Yezzo and asked him questions. I read lots on here, and I listened to what others said. I figured out which parts of my life I could use on the GC, wrote a few paragraphs about it and omitted the words "personal protection". I carefully read the application, filled in the blanks where needed, and submitted it.

The GC statement isn't rocket science.. There wasn't anything scary about it in retrospect. They don't care about how many times you might have heard a coyote; they care about the fact that as a business owner, some parts of my job were more risky than a "normal persons" job/life. That's it. Like I said, it's not random; it's based on a set of criteria.

You said you're a business owner... There's ATM deposits, business tools, equipment, inventory, documents that are valuable, etc.. Think about "Why would a bad guy target me more than someone else?"

But, for those who will attack me again for what I just wrote.. Let me be clear. RivCo should be shall-issue, and 'personal protection' should be good enough.

blakdawg
05-05-2012, 6:02 PM
If a department is doing a good job, overall, of supporting citizens rights, I think there needs to be some positive reinforcement. Don't keep beating up one department who's 95% of the way there without complementing them on the 95%!

Go after counties that are doing it actually WRONG and fix it. Then worry about the small details. Am I wrong?

or, phrased differently,

"Officer, you shouldn't write me up for doing 70 in a 55, there are tons of other guys who are doing 80 or 90, why don't you go get them instead? I don't usually speed, I'm just late for work today." or "Why are you hassling me for just a little bit of pot, there are a ton of guys selling heroin to little kids, you should go after the real criminals" or "So I siphoned a little gas, those Wall Street ***holes steal billions, go arrest them!"

Perhaps those guys at RCSO have heard those lines a few times.

The standard phrase to explain CGF strategy is "chess, not checkers" - e.g., this is a process where thinking several steps ahead is important.

The bottom line is that CGF is a small number of people who are doing what they think is right, and so far they've had good results.

If you think they're too slow and passive, you can certainly hire attorneys on your own and fight the battles you want to fight the way you think they should be fought. Peruta did this in San Diego and I don't personally think he did himself or anyone else a favor with that, but it's a free country.

If you think CGF is too aggressive, well, that's a funny thing to say as a person who just picked up a CCW. I feel very confident that the CCW environment would be very different if CGF hadn't been as active as they have been.

If you don't like what CGF is doing, don't give them $. If you think you can do it better, the field is wide open, but please be aware that many people whose actions are driven by enthusiasm and feeling and not so much by analysis and thinking end up making things worse for everyone.

KandyRedCoi
05-05-2012, 6:03 PM
Easily.. I spoke to Dep Yezzo and asked him questions. I read lots on here, and I listened to what others said. I figured out which parts of my life I could use on the GC, wrote a few paragraphs about it and omitted the words "personal protection". I carefully read the application, filled in the blanks where needed, and submitted it.

The GC statement isn't rocket science.. There wasn't anything scary about it in retrospect. They don't care about how many times you might have heard a coyote; they care about the fact that as a business owner, some parts of my job were more risky than a "normal persons" job/life. That's it. Like I said, it's not random; it's based on a set of criteria.

You said you're a business owner... There's ATM deposits, business tools, equipment, inventory, documents that are valuable, etc.. Think about "Why would a bad guy target me more than someone else?"

But, for those who will attack me again for what I just wrote.. Let me be clear. RivCo should be shall-issue, and 'personal protection' should be good enough.

like i said it wasnt an attack at you, but just trying to clear things up since YOU already know how RivCo works...on with the show

cindynles
05-05-2012, 6:17 PM
But, for those who will attack me again for what I just wrote.. Let me be clear. RivCo should be shall-issue, and 'personal protection' should be good enough.

Then why are you defending the policies and procedures of the department?

You said:

Go after counties that are doing it actually WRONG and fix it. Then worry about the small details. Am I wrong?

Riverside is doing it wrong. You don't see the small details as a problem because you just happen to be one of the 0.273% with an LTC from Sheriff Sniff.

Librarian
05-05-2012, 6:20 PM
I think all the useful bits have been squeezed out of this thread; now drifting into old ground, so closed.