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)

Gray Peterson 12-15-2010 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssbn (Post 5452615)
Is the million dollar insurance policy requirement from the penal code or fiat deceleration of the Sheriff?:shrug:

That is also gone as well. We will be updating the San Mateo information packet at a later time, once everything is narrowed down.

Gray Peterson 12-15-2010 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Python2 (Post 5451765)
Can you elaborate Gene, I am a State Registered Professional in private practice and was denied because I was told (unfortunately not in writing) bad areas (ie:Richmond, Oakland, SF Western Addition) that I sometimes perform my profession is outside San Mateo's jurisdiction. I was shocked of their ignorance of the PC.

When did you apply?

Python2 12-15-2010 1:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson (Post 5452728)
When did you apply?

Oh about three to four years ago under the previous sheriff. They may have change their thinking now, I dont know. I decided it was easier for me to switch residence than attempt suing them. I am more interested in CCW more than anything else. I now feel safe since then. :)

Gray Peterson 12-15-2010 1:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Python2 (Post 5452839)
Oh about three to four years ago under the previous sheriff. They may have change their thinking now, I dont know.

I wasn't around 4 years ago. :)

Python2 12-15-2010 3:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson (Post 5452984)
I wasn't around 4 years ago. :)

I know and I really appreciate what you and the rest are doing.

hoffmang 12-15-2010 8:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Python2 (Post 5453854)
I know and I really appreciate what you and the rest are doing.

So if you have good cause above simple self defense then you should apply again...

-Gene

Python2 12-16-2010 4:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoffmang (Post 5455398)
So if you have good cause above simple self defense then you should apply again...

-Gene

Thanks, I will when I decide to re-switch my primary residence. I am just waiting for the results of the two I know who applied.:) besides I am currently a happy camper.

Backcountry 12-20-2010 2:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoffmang (Post 5455398)
So if you have good cause above simple self defense then you should apply again...

-Gene

What would be good cause besides "simple self defense" in San Mateo County? I don't have a stalker, I haven't been assaulted, etc... does a person need proof that they have been victimized before they can apply for a CCW in San mateo County?

Gray Peterson 12-20-2010 2:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backcountry (Post 5479066)
What would be good cause besides "simple self defense" in San Mateo County? I don't have a stalker, I haven't been assaulted, etc... does a person need proof that they have been victimized before they can apply for a CCW in San mateo County?

No.

nagorb 12-20-2010 3:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson (Post 5479184)
No.

So "simple self defense" will work?

Gray Peterson 12-20-2010 3:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nagorb (Post 5479513)
So "simple self defense" will work?

Why is it that people assume that when I say "no" to a question like "I don't have a stalker, I haven't been assaulted, etc... does a person need proof that they have been victimized before they can apply for a CCW in San mateo County?", the assumption is "So simple self defense will work"? The answer to this is no.

The correct answer is what Gene stated:

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoffmang (Post 5455398)
So if you have good cause above simple self defense then you should apply again...

-Gene

Interpret this as the following:

"Will Issue for Reasonable Good Cause; known to issue to average persons".

nagorb 12-20-2010 4:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson (Post 5479601)
Why is it that people assume that when I say "no" to a question like "I don't have a stalker, I haven't been assaulted, etc... does a person need proof that they have been victimized before they can apply for a CCW in San mateo County?", the assumption is "So simple self defense will work"? The answer to this is no.

The correct answer is what Gene stated:



Interpret this as the following:

"Will Issue for Reasonable Good Cause; known to issue to average persons".

First off calm down. Secondly I didn't assume anything, I believe it is you who ASSumed I thought something. You only answered half his question which is why I wanted CLARIFICATION.

taperxz 12-20-2010 4:23 PM

The way i have read into this is that the Sheriff wants you to perhaps explain in a little more detail why you want a CCW. I carry large amounts of cash, i am in situations because of work that puts me at risk, i work nights alone in rural areas, ect. They don't want to see the only words of " to protect myself or just self defense. Those words are really obvious to the sheriff.

Gray Peterson 12-20-2010 4:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nagorb (Post 5479651)
First off calm down. Secondly I didn't assume anything, I believe it is you who ASSumed I thought something. You only answered half his question which is why I wanted CLARIFICATION.

The fog of war sometimes elicits friendly fire. My apologies.

The basic answer is that you must articulate your good cause, but it does not require specific threats, stalking, or being a crime victim first.

taperxz 12-20-2010 4:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nagorb (Post 5479651)
First off calm down. Secondly I didn't assume anything, I believe it is you who ASSumed I thought something. You only answered half his question which is why I wanted CLARIFICATION.

I suggest reading some of the other counties "good cause" statements that elaborate on specific reasons to carry. It might help if you find one that suits your needs. At least for San Mateo county at this time.

Open for correction by the top brass here if i am mistaken!

Gray Peterson 12-20-2010 4:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taperxz (Post 5479760)
The way i have read into this is that the Sheriff wants you to perhaps explain in a little more detail why you want a CCW. I carry large amounts of cash, i am in situations because of work that puts me at risk, i work nights alone in rural areas, ect. They don't want to see the only words of " to protect myself or just self defense. Those words are really obvious to the sheriff.

It's a little better than that but he's correct: "I wish to acquire a license to carry a handgun for the purpose of self defense" will not fly with Sheriff Munks at this time.

Gray Peterson 12-20-2010 4:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taperxz (Post 5479778)
I suggest reading some of the other counties "good cause" statements that elaborate on specific reasons to carry. It might help if you find one that suits your needs. At least for San Mateo county at this time.

Open for correction by the top brass here if i am mistaken!

Nope, you pretty much have it spot on...

thedrickel 12-21-2010 9:32 AM

"I take long walks at night." ?

Python2 12-23-2010 7:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedrickel (Post 5483425)
"I take long walks at night." ?

Would be interesting to see if that works:)

taperxz 12-23-2010 7:33 AM

Ehhh... I ran into a little snag with SMSD. Waiting for the higher ups to see what is going on. I will keep ya posted.

Paladin 12-28-2010 10:26 PM

I was wondering if the CalCCW map had been updated, and saw that it had. Sacto is now dark green and San Joaquin is light green. Merced is still yellow, which may be out of date. San Benito being dark green is a surprise. But the real surprise IMO is in the Bay Area . . . .

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f3...cw_map-big.png

thedrickel 12-28-2010 10:30 PM

So how many people do we know of with reasonable good cause that have permits in hand? Any update on the good cause statements? I'm eager to get my application rolling since I have pretty decent good cause available :)

hoffmang 12-29-2010 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedrickel (Post 5520296)
So how many people do we know of with reasonable good cause that have permits in hand? Any update on the good cause statements? I'm eager to get my application rolling since I have pretty decent good cause available :)

I think we need one more decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals before we rock you're "good cause." :43:

-Gene

taperxz 12-29-2010 7:45 AM

Right now I don't think San Mateo all that promising
They told me I needed to have a clear and present danger to apply

Guess I will be moving to a friendly county

Gray Peterson 12-29-2010 9:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taperxz (Post 5521285)
Right now I don't think San Mateo all that promising
They told me I needed to have a clear and present danger yo apply

Guess I will be moving to a friendly county

Don't cut and run yet. A) That's a lie and B) The 9th Circuit ruling Gene's speaking of is Nordyke.

-Gray

LazyBoy 01-15-2011 9:55 PM

Is it almost time to start applying for my CCW?

nagorb 01-15-2011 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson (Post 5479762)
The fog of war sometimes elicits friendly fire. My apologies.

The basic answer is that you must articulate your good cause, but it does not require specific threats, stalking, or being a crime victim first.

I guess i missed this post. No worries, it happens:) Anyway I can't be upset at someone who works so hard for my rights!

Sureshot357 02-01-2011 6:36 AM

When will intel be provided for San Mateo? The map shows a lime green however we all know it's still Red. The Sheriff's office told me I needed an imminent threat for a ccw.

Paladin 02-01-2011 6:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sureshot357 (Post 5730944)
When will intel be provided for San Mateo? The map shows a lime green however we all know it's still Red. The Sheriff's office told me I needed an imminent threat for a ccw.

When did the SMSO tell you that?

Acc to post #69 over at:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...=210945&page=2

Gene says SM really is light/lime green.

nagorb 02-01-2011 8:11 AM

I would love to apply, but I doubt they would issue me one due to my past.

Gray Peterson 02-01-2011 8:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sureshot357 (Post 5730944)
When will intel be provided for San Mateo? The map shows a lime green however we all know it's still Red. The Sheriff's office told me I needed an imminent threat for a ccw.

They're lying. We have two initial applicants who got licenses that didn't need an immediate threat. Please hold off on applying for now. Holding pattern for Nordyke.

Sureshot357 02-01-2011 8:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson (Post 5731436)
They're lying. We have two initial applicants who got licenses that didn't need an immediate threat. Please hold off on applying for now. Holding pattern for Nordyke.


OK, I don't understand the "lie" part. Isn't their policy, their policy?

When does Nordyke get done and I thought that was a gun show thing.
Excuse my ignorance.

dantodd 02-01-2011 9:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sureshot357 (Post 5731459)
OK, I don't understand the "lie" part. Isn't their policy, their policy?

Their policy is their policy. What you were told (that an imminent threat is required to meet GC standard) is NOT the SMSO's policy. As Gray said, CGF has put 2 applicants through successfully with no imminent threat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sureshot357 (Post 5731459)
When does Nordyke get done and I thought that was a gun show thing.
Excuse my ignorance.

Nordyke is expected any time now. As an appeals case the lower courts will be bound by its result. If we get strict scrutiny for law abiding people through Nordyke then the carry cases are extremely strong. It also sets up sheriff's for future liability if they deny applicants in the interim if we get strict scrutiny, or the like.

Sureshot357 02-01-2011 9:16 AM

OK, I was a little confused with the message. The map shows lime, a previous poster reported the same thing that I experienced, calguns has two people that got one but the SO is now not telling the truth.

I noticed that some counties have good cause statements available. What good cause did the cal gunners use?

Thanks for your help. SS357

Gray Peterson 02-01-2011 9:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sureshot357 (Post 5731459)
OK, I don't understand the "lie" part. Isn't their policy, their policy?

No, it isn't. They are not in compliance with Guillory v. Gates, and they're using Peruta to guard themselves.

Quote:

When does Nordyke get done and I thought that was a gun show thing.
Excuse my ignorance.
Well, if you're willing to listen for a few hours to something and read a few opinions, let's get educated.

Nordyke I Oral Argument. Occured 1/15/2009

Nordyke I decision Occured 04/20/2009. Used intermediate scrutiny and declared 2A's application to state and local government, but said Alameda's ban on gun shows did not violate 2A, used weak intermediate scrutiny test.

Nordyke went en banc in July 2009.

Nordyke en banc ruling

Then another oral argument happened en banc on September 24th, 2009:

Nordyke II (en banc) oral argument

Post-McDonald, the Nordyke en banc panel released Nordyke en banc order remanding back to 3 judge panel

Then, Nordyke 3 judge panel reheard oral arguments again (Nordyke III): Nordyke III oral arguments

Legend for scrutiny:

Rational Basis=bad for us
Intermediate Scrutiny=better for us, but not best.
Strict Scrutiny=Best for us.

See also a sister case in the 4th Circuit (East Coast)

United States v. Chester

Important:

Although Chester asserts his right to possess a firearm in
his home for the purpose of self-defense, we believe his claim
is not within the core right identified in Heller—the right of
a law-abiding, responsible citizen to possess and carry a
weapon for self-defense—by virtue of Chester’s criminal history as a domestic violence misdemeanant. Heller, 128 S. Ct.
at 2821. Accordingly, we conclude that intermediate scrutiny
is more appropriate than strict scrutiny for Chester and similarly
situated persons.

This was cited to the Nordyke 3 judge panel in what's called a supplemental authorities letter, aka a 28(j) letter. A sister circuit is considered pursuasive authority.

If we get language that says "strict scrutiny" for law abiding citizens in Nordyke, it'll overturn the Peruta district court decision (it used weak intermediate and declared no right existed outside of home).

Nordyke isn't purely a "gun show" case. It was the Nordyke I decision which caused the safe handgun roster challenge (Pea v. Cid) and the carry challenge (Sykes and now Richards) to go forward, despite the fact that gun show lost.

taperxz 02-01-2011 10:23 AM

Great questions and even better answers!! It never dawned on me that I called after the Peruta decision. For what ever reason I never paired the CGF initiative with the court rulings. I just thought that Munks was doing this because of the letter of the law you were making him aware of and the use of McDonald and Heller. Learn something new every day.

Paladin 02-01-2011 3:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson (Post 5731436)
Please hold off on applying for now. Holding pattern for Nordyke.

Thanks, Gray.

Since I'm not a Right Person (well, maybe half-Right ;)), I've been chewing at the bit waiting for new releases of GC statements and increases in the number of "**TIME TO APPLY**" counties. After being frustrated for awhile I assumed everyone was waiting for Godot, er, Nordyke. If that goes our way (strict scrutiny), it should give legal -- and thereby political -- cover to sheriffs who are our allies to come out of the closest, so to speak, and strike terror in the hearts of those who hate our 2nd A RKBA. (Feel free to use your best Arnold accent to insert here Conan's answer to "What's best in life?" Oops! With the flare up re. Rush Limbaugh and CA Sen. Leland Yee, maybe we can't do that anymore? Or maybe it is only European accents that can still be made fun of? :rolleyes:)

Anyway, IIRC, odds are that Nordyke will be released before April. Time for a sandwich and a two-month nap. . . .

Window_Seat 02-01-2011 5:01 PM

Very good explanation from Gray.

And so would I be correct in saying that strict scrutiny must be given when a core fundamental right is severely burdened?

When I was listening to Nordyke III, I listen (at 25:51 into the recording) to one of the Judges asking the opposing counsel why Strict Scrutiny shouldn't be given in this case, and she argued:

Quote:

Judge: "McDonald tells us not only is the Heller right preserved it applies to the states, but it really emphasized the fact that the Second Amendment is a substantial, fundamental right, suggesting as we've seen in some of these other post McDonald cases, strict scrutiny perhaps ought to be applied, why shouldn't we apply strict scrutiny to this ordinance?"

Opposing Counsel:
"The fundamental rights cases do not pronounce a rule that we use strict scrutiny in the context of all fundamental rights, even when strict scrutiny is used, there are lots of variations on the forms..."


Judge:
"Sure, there has to be a showing on some burden on the right, isn't that correct?"


Opposing Counsel:
"There has to be a showing of a direct burden on the right, and as I tried to point out, here, we have at most an indirect burden on the right to purchase a gun, it makes it less convenient... We... We.. We only... wah... We have a situation in which strict scrutiny is not compatible with the court pointing out that there are several presumptively valid categories of regulation that survives Second Amendment."


I'm not sure how she could prevent the court from applying SS with that kind of argument. It seems like she is helping our side with that argument by saying that we have at most, an indirect burden on the right to purchase. Isn't it a direct burden when we are forced to look at a photo of a firearm we want to purchase because the real thing is banned, and we can't actually pick up the item and safely handle it to feel the weight, the general handling of it, among other things, there's a direct burden, and therefore SS ought to be applied? It seems like a no-brainer to me, but IANAL either...

And then she uses that term "presumptively" at the end of her answer when talking about the regulations that she believes survives the 2A.

I don't see how the court can do anything other than apply SS to the ordinance.

Erik.

wash 02-04-2011 2:09 PM

What happened to Zed?

gimmejr 02-04-2011 5:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wash (Post 5753045)
What happened to Zed?

Zed is dead baby! :43:


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:55 PM.

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