Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   Calguns Concealed Carry County Information Forum (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=116)
-   -   San Diego -- APPLY to Get a Spot in Line (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=352786)

Gray Peterson 10-14-2010 10:55 PM

San Diego -- APPLY to Get a Spot in Line
 
While Sheriff Gore decided not to appeal the decision of the three judge panel, several other parties, including the California Attorney General, filed motions to intervene in the case, as well as petitions for rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 28, 2014, the Ninth Circuit granted a stay in the case. Since that time, the Ninth Circuit has sought briefing on various issues, with the most recent pleadings being filed by December 24, 2014. On March 26, 2015 Chief Judge Thomas of the Ninth Circuit issued an order for the case to be heard en banc by the full Ninth Circuit.

Given the status of the case with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the fact that there are other procedural steps before the court’s decision becomes final, the Sheriff’s Department’s policies and procedures remain in effect and are unchanged.

The Sheriff’s Department continues to process CCW applications for those applicants that meet the current legal requirement to show good cause.

Applications for CCW’s based on the cause of “personal protection” may be dropped off at the Sheriff’s License Division and will be held in abeyance until the Ninth Circuit has completed its analysis of the issue.

Should the case be decided on the basis of “personal protection,” the Sheriff’s Department will begin to process applications held in abeyance in the order that they were received. Applicants will be contacted by the Sheriff’s Licensing Division with instructions on how to complete the process.


From:
http://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw.html

jtyner 10-18-2010 2:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildhawker (Post 5147513)
...our intention is to contact you volunteers with specific instructions on how to proceed as we move forward with case development. Not everyone will be tasked with the same thing, and timing will be unique to each county.

So... stand by?

Casual_Shooter 10-18-2010 2:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson (Post 5129765)
...

_ _ _

jshoebot 10-18-2010 11:00 PM

I'm also waiting for orders!

N6ATF 10-18-2010 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson (Post 5129765)
...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casual_Shooter (Post 5147789)
_ _ _

...

:p

Todd98SE 10-19-2010 6:05 AM

Ready and waiting sir.

McCrown 10-19-2010 1:23 PM

2 weeks? Right?

craneman 10-20-2010 5:21 PM

Late showing up, but ready for instructions.:chris:

GMG 10-20-2010 6:01 PM

Just received the message!

chewy352 10-21-2010 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMG (Post 5161284)
Just received the message!

What message? I got the email of just the main release but no specific instructions for San Diego.

horsetrader 10-21-2010 2:19 PM

awaiting orders, sir.

grammaton76 10-21-2010 2:42 PM

You know, folks, you can subscribe without posting to the thread. We don't need to fill the first several pages with "I'm here" and "let me know", etc etc.

Just click "thread tools" and then "subscribe" from the drop-down menu right above the top post.

Untamed1972 10-22-2010 8:36 AM

Does anyone know if SDSO does neighbor interviews as part of the application investigation?

Rossi357 10-25-2010 10:11 AM

Which course of action in SD County will get shall issue to happen sooner? Ed's case in Fed court, or this action using the good cause statments.

Gray Peterson 10-25-2010 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rossi357 (Post 5185591)
Which course of action in SD County will get shall issue to happen sooner? Ed's case in Fed court, or this action using the good cause statments.

Well, the point of this drill is to basically get the counties into statutory compliance.

Casual_Shooter 10-25-2010 10:16 AM

Sorry to sound dense... but can you point me to the instructions for this "drill". I've donated to my county, but is there something else I'm supposed to be doing?

Rossi357 10-25-2010 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casual_Shooter (Post 5185623)
Sorry to sound dense... but can you point me to the instructions for this "drill". I've donated to my county, but is there something else I'm supposed to be doing?

I think we are waiting for accepted good cause statements. Then we will be advised on a course of action.

loather 11-11-2010 5:40 PM

I'm currently reading through the San Diego requirements. In there, it states that we'd be required to submit character references. Are they legally allowed to do that? Additionally, it states further down that character references generally aren't required for judges, former law enforcement, and SO reserves. Doesn't this run afoul of equal protection?

wildhawker 11-12-2010 1:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loather (Post 5284758)
I'm currently reading through the San Diego requirements. In there, it states that we'd be required to submit character references. Are they legally allowed to do that? Additionally, it states further down that character references generally aren't required for judges, former law enforcement, and SO reserves. Doesn't this run afoul of equal protection?

No, and yes.

budprop 11-12-2010 5:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildhawker (Post 5286609)
No, and yes.

Uhhhh.... ok, good answer, thanks.

loather 11-12-2010 6:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildhawker (Post 5286609)
No, and yes.

Excellent. I'm available and willing to make waves if need be.

guns4life 11-12-2010 6:58 AM

I'm ready to go, just say the word and I'll submit my paperwork.

Untamed1972 11-12-2010 8:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loather (Post 5284758)
I'm currently reading through the San Diego requirements. In there, it states that we'd be required to submit character references. Are they legally allowed to do that? Additionally, it states further down that character references generally aren't required for judges, former law enforcement, and SO reserves. Doesn't this run afoul of equal protection?

Where they make it even stickier is they require the references to be from SD county residents, which is in effect a de facto length of residency requirement.

As for the LEOs I can see why they would exempt them only in they they've had a far more detailed and indepth background investgation done on them already which would provide and investigator FAR more info to look at then is contained on the standard DOJ app. Not saying I agree with it, just that I can see why.

But even for a full LEO background investigation letters are not required, only contact info for the references. It seems a pointless exercise to require the letters if the investigator is going to contact them personally for further interview anyway.

Crom 11-16-2010 7:19 AM

Okay, so How do we get San Diego Sheriff's Office to drop the illegal three character reference letters? Is Jason Davis going to send them a nasty letter anytime soon?

Untamed1972 11-16-2010 8:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom (Post 5305580)
Okay, so How do we get San Diego Sheriff's Office to drop the illegal three character reference letters? Is Jason Davis going to send them a nasty letter anytime soon?

^^ :)


Also, to combat that counties claims that they approve 90% of all applicants, I'm thinkin' its close to being time for a that SD CCW application day with a couple of hundred "GC = Self Defense" apps so at a minimum we can start racking up some denials, but I'm willing to wait a month to see what the judge has to say in the Peruta decision.

grammaton76 11-16-2010 1:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Untamed1972 (Post 5305766)
Also, to combat that counties claims that they approve 90% of all applicants, I'm thinkin' its close to being time for a that SD CCW application day with a couple of hundred "GC = Self Defense" apps so at a minimum we can start racking up some denials, but I'm willing to wait a month to see what the judge has to say in the Peruta decision.

The only time it's close to, is time for us on the sidelines (myself included) to sit down, shut up, and wait patiently to see what CGF requests of us.

I really don't think we'll ever have a "racking up mass denials" drive. Any denials being pursued will most likely need to be from disabled, minority, gay, etc complainants in the event that the suit has to escalate into appeals. Anyone who would be useful for a denial, has probably already been contacted.

The rest of us on the sidelines are only useful for two things: financial contributions, or eventually helping run CCW application drives once SDSO has been forced to cave in.

Untamed1972 11-17-2010 8:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grammaton76 (Post 5307519)
The only time it's close to, is time for us on the sidelines (myself included) to sit down, shut up, and wait patiently to see what CGF requests of us.

I really don't think we'll ever have a "racking up mass denials" drive. Any denials being pursued will most likely need to be from disabled, minority, gay, etc complainants in the event that the suit has to escalate into appeals. Anyone who would be useful for a denial, has probably already been contacted.

The rest of us on the sidelines are only useful for two things: financial contributions, or eventually helping run CCW application drives once SDSO has been forced to cave in.

Thank you for further marginalizing "heterosexual white males" as the only persons in our society who are "non-class" citizens. For the purpose of picking plaintiffs I understand the value of extra flavor of certain types of people. But simply for the purpose of filling the sheriff's files with denials for lack of GC so they cant claim a 90% approval rate, why does it matter who they are? Then from those denials you pick the best for plaintiffs.

The usefulness of statistics on denials was not of my own creation. And personally sitting in the courtroom listening to County counsel boast of their "90% approval rate" leads me to believe there is some validity to the value of the stats.

Not to mention did I say anything about "screw CFG and lets all go apply?" There has been plenty of indication that depending on Peruta outcome, the call for SD applicants is coming very soon.

Gray Peterson 11-17-2010 8:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Untamed1972 (Post 5311425)
Thank you for further marginalizing "heterosexual white males" as the only persons in our society who are "non-class" citizens.

Otis McDonald was not an accident. Deanna Sykes is not an accident. Shelly Parker (who should have been the national symbol of overturning the DC handgun ban had it not been for the Navegar standard) is not an accident. Tom Palmer (of Palmer v. DC) is not an accident. My case is not an accident. These are all well planned cases with specifically sympathetic plaintiffs due to their circumstances. They are the most "politically correct", regardless of your own misgivings as to the underpinnings of that belief.

That being said, symbol plaintiffs are less important to a writ of mandate case because it's a state statutory law issue.

Untamed1972 11-17-2010 9:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson (Post 5311595)
Otis McDonald was not an accident. Deanna Sykes is not an accident. Shelly Parker (who should have been the national symbol of overturning the DC handgun ban had it not been for the Navegar standard) is not an accident. Tom Palmer (of Palmer v. DC) is not an accident. My case is not an accident. These are all well planned cases with specifically sympathetic plaintiffs due to their circumstances. They are the most "politically correct", regardless of your own misgivings as to the underpinnings of that belief.

That being said, symbol plaintiffs are less important to a writ of mandate case because it's a state statutory law issue.

Like I said....I understand the handpicking of plaintiffs when it comes time for litigation.

For the purpose of racking up stats on denials for "GC = self defense" to kill the counties boast of "90% approval", why does it matter?

But hopefully in about 3 weeks that wont be needed in SD county.

Gray Peterson 11-17-2010 9:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Untamed1972 (Post 5311657)
Like I said....I understand the handpicking of plaintiffs when it comes time for litigation.

For the purpose of racking up stats on denials for "GC = self defense" to kill the counties boast of "90% approval", why does it matter?

But hopefully in about 3 weeks that wont be needed in SD county.

It doesn't, which is sorta what I was saying.

Untamed1972 11-17-2010 9:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson (Post 5311873)
It doesn't, which is sorta what I was saying.

:thumbsup:

grammaton76 11-17-2010 2:14 PM

Note the emphasized sections in bold:

Quote:

Originally Posted by grammaton76 (Post 5307519)
I really don't think we'll ever have a "racking up mass denials" drive. Any denials being pursued will most likely need to be from disabled, minority, gay, etc complainants in the event that the suit has to escalate into appeals. Anyone who would be useful for a denial, has probably already been contacted.

I figure it's unlikely that there'll need to be a mass denials drive. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure they could easily get 200 useful applicants, without even touching white straight males.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Untamed1972 (Post 5311425)
Thank you for further marginalizing "heterosexual white males" as the only persons in our society who are "non-class" citizens.

Well, get used to it - that's reality. Aggravates me to no end, but this is the system we're in.

Untamed1972 11-17-2010 2:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grammaton76 (Post 5313369)
I figure it's unlikely that there'll need to be a mass denials drive. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure they could easily get 200 useful applicants, without even touching white straight males.

So maybe all us straight white dudes should just claim to be gay for the purposes of application. How are they gonna check?

Can you claim to be a "non-practicing/celebate homosexual"? Or how about a bi-sexual who is in a "women only phase" for the time being? LOL

I got a better idea....how about the 2A just applies to everyone so we can skip all mumbo jumbo?

ETA: I had a thought last night....how about we get Hetero white males added to the endangered species list, then we'd be protected under the endangered species act! If anyone even looks at you wrong they'd be in deep doo! LOL

grammaton76 11-17-2010 2:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Untamed1972 (Post 5313537)
So maybe all us straight white dudes should just claim to be gay for the purposes of application. How are they gonna check?

Can you claim to be a "non-practicing/celebate homosexual"? Or how about a bi-sexual who is in a "women only phase" for the time being? LOL

Myself, I'd just hassle my wife until she applies. I think most wives would be ok with the paperwork if the husband's paying the fees. Heck, most of us could probably talk our mothers into applying as well. Those whose mothers have passed on, may have daughters old enough to apply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Untamed1972 (Post 5313537)
I got a better idea....how about the 2A just applies to everyone so we can skip all mumbo jumbo?

That'd be awesome.

sd_shooter 11-30-2010 12:52 PM

Bump, more San Diego sponsors needed :D

Firemark 12-01-2010 7:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sd_shooter (Post 5373956)
Bump, more San Diego sponsors needed :D

direct please to sponsor page, how much $$$????

and explain to mke again why?

ddestruel 12-01-2010 7:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firemark (Post 5377550)
direct please to sponsor page, how much $$$????

and explain to mke again why?

link is in his signature

GuyW 12-01-2010 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Untamed1972 (Post 5287212)

As for the LEOs I can see why they would exempt them only in they they've had a far more detailed and indepth background investgation done on them already which would provide and investigator FAR more info to look at then is contained on the standard DOJ app. Not saying I agree with it, just that I can see why.

And everyone knows that's a reasonable approach, as evidenced by the investigations of Craig Peyer, the Oceanside sex-Chippie (Carabahlo ??), the SDPD officer that trashed his Murrietta (?) house, etc etc etc

.

sd_shooter 12-03-2010 1:10 PM

bump

sd_shooter 12-10-2010 2:22 PM

Ok, since Peruta is now over (at least Round 1), is it time to apply yet... or still just time to sit back and wait?

:confused:


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.