Calguns.net

Calguns.net (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   Calguns Concealed Carry County Information Forum (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=116)
-   -   San Mateo -- APPLY to Get a Spot in Line (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=352748)

p0ppyman 02-26-2014 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goomashoom (Post 13536207)
At what point in the process will you find out if they will accept your "good cause?"

If I recall correctly the Lt. said it may take 12 to 16 weeks for final decision as that is what it is taking right now. He did not make any comment as to the strength of my good cause statement. He told me to schedule the Live Scan as the next step. I will contact the Sheriff Friday to see when I can get the next appointment. He also mentioned training.

Both the Sheriff and the SMPD Chief will review my application and come to independent recommendations on issue. He said the Sheriff trumps the SMPD Chief. Ultimately the Sheriff is the issuing authority.

Whatever the outcome I am glad I took the first step and got into the queue. A lot could change over the next few weeks.

Gray Peterson 02-26-2014 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by p0ppyman (Post 13537435)
If I recall correctly the Lt. said it may take 12 to 16 weeks for final decision as that is what it is taking right now. He did not make any comment as to the strength of my good cause statement. He told me to schedule the Live Scan as the next step. I will contact the Sheriff Friday to see when I can get the next appointment. He also mentioned training.

Both the Sheriff and the SMPD Chief will review my application and come to independent recommendations on issue. He said the Sheriff trumps the SMPD Chief. Ultimately the Sheriff is the issuing authority.

Whatever the outcome I am glad I took the first step and got into the queue. A lot could change over the next few weeks.

I can tell you that changes are being readied. If it takes 12-16 weeks, it won't be because of a bunch of doting over each application. They simply will not have the time to do that.

gemini1 02-27-2014 3:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by p0ppyman (Post 13537435)
If I recall correctly the Lt. said it may take 12 to 16 weeks for final decision as that is what it is taking right now. He did not make any comment as to the strength of my good cause statement. He told me to schedule the Live Scan as the next step. I will contact the Sheriff Friday to see when I can get the next appointment. He also mentioned training.

Both the Sheriff and the SMPD Chief will review my application and come to independent recommendations on issue. He said the Sheriff trumps the SMPD Chief. Ultimately the Sheriff is the issuing authority.

Whatever the outcome I am glad I took the first step and got into the queue. A lot could change over the next few weeks.

P0ppyman, thanks for your input. I'll probably just wait till the dust settles, so to speak, before I make my move. Then write/post a summary of the process, fees, locations etc. Maybe this will entice a lot more people to join/move in our side of the fence once they find out how easy(?) it is.

ronlglock 02-28-2014 4:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwardm (Post 13514000)
Are they picky about degraded recoil springs? I know >this< much about those pistols.

I've heard Jackson Arms in SSF does, but that's mere rumor to these ears. I see no posted rules against it on their web site.

Jackson Arms allows draw from holster by those who pass their training department's tactical classes and LEO.

ronlglock 02-28-2014 4:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson (Post 13537505)
I can tell you that changes are being readied. If it takes 12-16 weeks, it won't be because of a bunch of doting over each application. They simply will not have the time to do that.

My second set of prints was pulled 2 weeks ago (I have barely readable prints) and Tom said that they would inform San Bruno (which has my file). That's all that I know so far. I guess I need to wait a bit??

11bravo1p 02-28-2014 10:16 PM

Treat em like mushrooms.

tr/328 03-01-2014 7:23 AM

Can someone address the Personal Insurance Policy that is listed in the San Mateo County Application instructions which states:

each applicant will be required to show proof of a personal liability policy. The personal liability policy will cover the individual for a minimum amount of $1,000,000.00. This policy must be kept valid for the duration of the CCW permit.

See the following:
http://calgunsfoundation.org/wp-cont...0/SanMateo.pdf

edwardm 03-01-2014 7:35 AM

Don't care, not enforced, not checked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tr/328 (Post 13555933)
Can someone address the Personal Insurance Policy that is listed in the San Mateo County Application instructions which states:

each applicant will be required to show proof of a personal liability policy. The personal liability policy will cover the individual for a minimum amount of $1,000,000.00. This policy must be kept valid for the duration of the CCW permit.

See the following:
http://calgunsfoundation.org/wp-cont...0/SanMateo.pdf


edwardm 03-01-2014 7:36 AM

Thoughts on how they plan to address training/qualification capacity issues?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson (Post 13537505)
I can tell you that changes are being readied. If it takes 12-16 weeks, it won't be because of a bunch of doting over each application. They simply will not have the time to do that.


hoffmang 03-01-2014 9:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwardm (Post 13556022)
Thoughts on how they plan to address training/qualification capacity issues?

There is a conversation active on the issue.

-Gene

ghostrider4evr 03-04-2014 8:25 AM

I just turned my application in to the SSF PD for approval, and was told that the Sergeant would be calling me back within the next few days. I was also told that I was the first application to be processed at that location. Looks like the waiting game starts now...

gemini1 03-04-2014 5:28 PM

Question on the range qualification. Does the below sample means, you need to shoot 6 times at a target, 3 yards away and at each time, fire 2 rounds within 5 seconds?

Seconds per string-5, # of strings-6, Rounds-2, Yards-3, Total # of rounds-12

hoffmang 03-05-2014 4:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gemini1 (Post 13582956)
Question on the range qualification. Does the below sample means, you need to shoot 6 times at a target, 3 yards away and at each time, fire 2 rounds within 5 seconds?

Seconds per string-5, # of strings-6, Rounds-2, Yards-3, Total # of rounds-12

It's something like that. First, do not stress the range qualification. They're looking for safe gun handling and basic ability to hit the target. You'll shoot just about 50 rounds per firearm you wish to have on your license.

The deputies on the range are compatriot gunnies who want to make sure you're safe and then able to effectively use the weapon if you need to. They're fellow travelers.

-Gene

gemini1 03-05-2014 6:29 PM

Thanks Gene, that's good to know.

edwardm 03-06-2014 1:47 PM

SMCSO statement on Peruta and no changes in policy:

http://www.smcsheriff.com/sites/defa...%20message.pdf

ghostrider4evr 03-06-2014 5:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwardm (Post 13597081)
SMCSO statement on Peruta and no changes in policy:

http://www.smcsheriff.com/sites/defa...%20message.pdf

I have an interview with a detective from the SSFPD tomorrow; given the nature of this statement from SMCSO, should I still proceed with the interview?

edwardm 03-06-2014 5:36 PM

That's a Crystal Ball Question, and I don't have a Crystal Ball Answer. :-/

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghostrider4evr (Post 13598585)
I have an interview with a detective from the SSFPD tomorrow; given the nature of this statement from SMCSO, should I still proceed with the interview?


dk94044 03-07-2014 6:37 AM

A few additions, I found a youtube vid showing the range qualifications, but older vid from 2012 and not sure what county.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thNosrImiDE

Also State Farm offers the $1M umbrella liability coverage for only ~$270 in addition to your current homeowner's policy.

edwardm 03-07-2014 7:40 AM

Video caption says Sacramento County. Good find and good post. But as Gene said, the takeaway is that the SMCSO people want to see safe gun handling and some modicum of marksmanship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dk94044 (Post 13601815)
A few additions, I found a youtube vid showing the range qualifications, but older vid from 2012 and not sure what county.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thNosrImiDE

Also State Farm offers the $1M umbrella liability coverage for only ~$270 in addition to your current homeowner's policy.

Cost depends on a host of other factors, i.e. age, marital status, age of children (if any). Mine is significantly less than the amount stated. Last I checked, amounts in excess of $1,000,000 are available in at least some circumstances.

Now, back to waiting for that special envelope from the Sheriff. Day 12....:)

fizux 03-07-2014 8:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghostrider4evr (Post 13598585)
I have an interview with a detective from the SSFPD tomorrow; given the nature of this statement from SMCSO, should I still proceed with the interview?

That was fast. Yes, go for it --- SSFPD is not SMCSO. Let us know how it goes.

ghostrider4evr 03-07-2014 9:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fizux (Post 13602342)
That was fast. Yes, go for it --- SSFPD is not SMCSO. Let us know how it goes.

I went in today for the interview with an officer from SSFPD. The officer basically went over my application to make sure all my information was correct, and briefly went over my GC statement. I was very upfront in telling the officer that I did not have an elevated cause for requesting the LTC, other than the reason of lawful self-defense. He seemed very knowledgeable about the current status of Peruta and was quite professional with me; never once did he seem condescending or rude.

At this point my paperwork will be sent over to SMCSO, and I am in the process of making my appointment for the livescan.

ghostrider4evr 03-11-2014 2:00 PM

Livescan appointment is this Friday; I was asked to bring a check for $95, DL, and proof of residency. Will a credit card statement and/or automobile reg suffice?

gemini1 03-11-2014 5:17 PM

Good luck bro, please keep us updated.
From what I've read in various threads, some say that even 2 different credit card statements should be okay, not sure about car registration, I would think its GTG, what about your cell phone bill?

gemini1 03-11-2014 5:17 PM

Double tap

goomashoom 03-12-2014 6:40 AM

Thanks to ghostrider4ever for keeping is updated on his experience going through the process.

I mailed my application to the San Mateo Sheriff's office on Fri. It was received by the Sheriff's office on Mon. I got a voicemail from a deputy on Tue. I will call him back today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Glock-23 03-12-2014 9:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gemini1 (Post 13630681)
Good luck bro, please keep us updated.

From what I've read in various threads, some say that even 2 different credit card statements should be okay, not sure about car registration, I would think its GTG, what about your cell phone bill?


Driver's license and last month's utility bill from PG&E worked for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

goomashoom 03-12-2014 10:00 AM

Left voicemail for Deputy Merson today at 10:43am. Got a call back from him 3 minutes later. He was very cordial and informed me "You live in San Mateo, and we [the Sheriff's Dept] have an agreement that anybody who is a resident of an incorporated city give their application to the city police department in which they live." The deputy went on to say "We would request that you submit this application to the San Mateo police department. You can go through our office [i.e. the Sheriff's office] because it's not mandatory to go through the police."

I responded that I would like to submit my application to the Sheriff's Dept and not my local San Mateo police dept.

The polite deputy replied that he would hand my application over to the sergeant in charge of processing applications for the Sheriff's office.

FYI, my response to the good cause portion of the application was simply "self-defense."

gemini1 03-12-2014 5:37 PM

^ Good luck! And please dont forget to update us of your steps/progress.

ghostrider4evr 03-14-2014 8:20 AM

My livescan experience went better than I expected. I came in at my appointed time and noticed that there was another gentleman there for his CCW livescan as well. The person administering the livescan procedure was very friendly and a fellow 2A supporter; he performed both of our livescans back to back.

After my livescan was completed, I was interviewed by a sergeant Regarding my application. She asked me what I did for a living and also my reason for requesting a CCW. I politely gave her my employment info and told her that my reason was lawful self-defense. She asked if anyone has made any threats on my life, and I politely informed her that I was under no immediate threat. After that, she tells me that they are following the results of the Peruta case very closely and will comply with the law, should the ruling be upheld. The sergeant was very personable and professional the whole time, she said that they want to keep the process very transparent for all applicants. I gave her the $95 check which she put into a file folder with my name on it, I also handed over a copy of my credit card statement and photocopy of my DL. She also took a picture of me (headshot) to include in my file; apparently Sheriff Munks requires a picture taken for every applicant.

At this point I am simply waiting for my local PD (SSF) to hand over their review of my application; after that, the sergeant will review their results and come to an independent decision of her own on the matter. As was stated in a previous post by p0ppyman, the Sheriff has the final say on whether an application is approved. It was a great experience overall and I can’t say enough about how well I was treated through this entire process.

p0ppyman 03-14-2014 6:49 PM

I did my Live Scan today. To refresh, my process started through the SMPD. The person working the printing station went into the office and brought out a form. I filled in my current address, place of birth, height & weight, DL #. He took my license and scanned it into his system and had me review the information before printing me. Afterward he told me to call the Sergeant and let her know I got printed. I have not paid anything at this point. I will shoot her an e-mail over the weekend. I expect she will let me know the next step.

Virginian 03-16-2014 11:10 AM

Question on fees
 
Much as I enjoy the thought of actually scarfing up the crumbs thrown on the table, and getting the permission of someone to defend my family, it seems to me that since the Supreme Court has recognized the 2nd the "law of the land" leads back to Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105:

"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by
Federal constitution. at 113, (1943)."

Am I the only one who sees a problem here?

Gray Peterson 03-16-2014 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virginian (Post 13660999)
Much as I enjoy the thought of actually scarfing up the crumbs thrown on the table, and getting the permission of someone to defend my family, it seems to me that since the Supreme Court has recognized the 2nd the "law of the land" leads back to Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105:

"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by
Federal constitution. at 113, (1943)."

Am I the only one who sees a problem here?

Marriage is a fundamental right and liberty, yet there are fees and licenses attached to it.

There was a law review article which talked about Murdock case, and the ways that the Supreme Court has partially overruled Murdock but didn't explicitly say so. I can't remember it, but it pretty well described the cases which partially overruled it was pretty compelling.

As the saying goes: "we're working on it". But for right now, forgoing getting the license on some sort of stand in a way that immediately endangers yourself and your family is similar to holding your breath when you don't get your way: You'll end up passed out and you still don't get what you want.

Protect yourself and your family first. That, by far, is the most important thing, not fretting over the fees at this present time. We're doing plenty of fretting ourselves.

Virginian 03-16-2014 2:09 PM

Live under expedience, or principle? Expedience generally wins out, and in that light I agree. Strictly as a discussion of principle... there is no Amendment that mentions marriage, nor driving, nor any number of things we pay fees for. In the end, the thing I fret about is allowing government to determine its own powers. Someone else fretting about that is reassuring... Thanks.

Gray Peterson 03-16-2014 2:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virginian (Post 13661987)
Live under expedience, or principle? Expedience generally wins out, and in that light I agree. Strictly as a discussion of principle... there is no Amendment that mentions marriage, nor driving, nor any number of things we pay fees for.

Some aspects of 1A are regulated by licensing. A newspaper can be required to have a business license to operate, as long as it's not denied due to the viewpoint of the paper or "proving to the king one's need to exercise a right", and such business licenses are generally required of all businesses.

Only four states in the United States have put into practice your belief that there should be no licensing of carry or fee requirements at all (VT, AZ, AK, WY for residents only). Do you expect the Supreme Court to put into practice the rules of 4 states into a nationwide standard?

Quote:

In the end, the thing I fret about is allowing government to determine its own powers. Someone else fretting about that is reassuring... Thanks.
The reassurance should come from the fact that the folks who filed the cases that even gave you the opportunity acquire the license after putting "self defense" on the good cause statement, think about these sort of thing and ways of attacking this every day.

For example, the associated legal supervisory teams (SAF) which filed Richards v. Prieto also filed against the high fees of New York City, originally Kwong v. Bloomberg now Kwong v. DeBlasio, which is now at the Supreme Court right now. If for some reason the Supreme Court doesn't take Kwong, the high fees of Illinois (150 for residents, 300 for non-residents) and California (95+local authority processing) could be taken up next, possibly generating a split in the circuits, generating a SCOTUS grant.

Virginian, protect yourself and your family first. We know the licensing fee is too expensive, we know it's probably shouldn't be licensed at all, but we aren't in a legal position to demand our Murdock, yet.

ronlglock 03-17-2014 6:25 PM

1 month anniversary of my Livescan in SMCO. Still counting...

goomashoom 03-18-2014 12:05 PM

Received a phone call this morning from the pleasant Deputy Sheriff in the San Mateo Sheriff's office who is handling my application. He asked me for my email address because he said that he was going to send me an email. He mentioned again that the Peruta decision is not final, and therefore, the San Mateo Sheriff's office policy on "good cause" remains unchanged. He said that the email would ask me if I wanted to continue with my LTC application or have him "hold" my application until such time that Peruta becomes final. He also informed me that the LTC application fee is $95.

I am inclined to continue with my application despite the deputy's assertion that my "simple self-defense" will not satisfy current policy for "good cause."

I don't see any downside to continuing with my application. I would speculate that the Sheriff will not deny my application even if Peruta is not "finalized."

Any advice/thoughts from the collective wisdom of this group is appreciated.

edwardm 03-18-2014 1:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goomashoom (Post 13675337)

I am inclined to continue with my application despite the deputy's assertion that my "simple self-defense" will not satisfy current policy for "good cause."

I don't see any downside to continuing with my application. I would speculate that the Sheriff will not deny my application even if Peruta is not "finalized."

Any advice/thoughts from the collective wisdom of this group is appreciated.

I would speculate that absent 'elevated good cause', the Sheriff will deny the permit, unless Peruta is made final sometime during your application process. I interact regularly with several San Mateo CCW permit holders - none was granted for basic self-defense absent enhancing factors.

This is one of those cases where I would like to be proven wrong, though.

goomashoom 03-18-2014 3:23 PM

I received an email from the deputy sheriff in charge of processing LCT applications for the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office. Just to recap, I mailed my application directly to the Sheriff instead of my local PD. The body of the email follows…….

"We have received your application for a concealed carry license. Based on my prior experience with these applications, I do not anticipate that the Sheriff would conclude, based solely on a bare statement from you that you wish the license for "self-defense", that you have provided "good cause" for a license.

However, the Sheriff looks at each one of these applications individually and exercises his discretion based on the totality of the circumstances. And, perhaps you intend to provide more context with respect to your "good cause" during the processing of your application. So if you would like us to continue to process your application now, recognizing that it may very well not be granted based on your statement of "good cause", I am happy to start the process.

Alternatively, as you may know, last month a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case, Peruta v. County of San Diego, which interprets the "good cause" requirement and that may ultimately effect the Sheriff's view on what constitutes "good cause". That case is currently being reviewed by the Court and is not yet final. If you would prefer (and request in writing), we would be happy to hold (and not act on) your application and not begin to process it until the legal issues raised by the Peruta case have been finally resolved, recognizing that might take some time. Please let me know how you would like me to proceed."

Gray Peterson 03-18-2014 6:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goomashoom (Post 13676578)
I received an email from the deputy sheriff in charge of processing LCT applications for the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office. Just to recap, I mailed my application directly to the Sheriff instead of my local PD. The body of the email follows…….

"We have received your application for a concealed carry license. Based on my prior experience with these applications, I do not anticipate that the Sheriff would conclude, based solely on a bare statement from you that you wish the license for "self-defense", that you have provided "good cause" for a license.

However, the Sheriff looks at each one of these applications individually and exercises his discretion based on the totality of the circumstances. And, perhaps you intend to provide more context with respect to your "good cause" during the processing of your application. So if you would like us to continue to process your application now, recognizing that it may very well not be granted based on your statement of "good cause", I am happy to start the process.

Alternatively, as you may know, last month a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case, Peruta v. County of San Diego, which interprets the "good cause" requirement and that may ultimately effect the Sheriff's view on what constitutes "good cause". That case is currently being reviewed by the Court and is not yet final. If you would prefer (and request in writing), we would be happy to hold (and not act on) your application and not begin to process it until the legal issues raised by the Peruta case have been finally resolved, recognizing that might take some time. Please let me know how you would like me to proceed."

Is that Corpus or Merson?

goomashoom 03-18-2014 9:22 PM

Deputy Merson authored the email I posted earlier today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.