Thread: Butte
View Single Post
Old 03-21-2012, 2:55 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,640
iTrader: 0 / 0%

Originally Posted by blakdawg View Post
I talked to the records unit at the Butte County SO yesterday - they said that the new letters going out have an expiration of 60 days, not 30, and that mine was probably one of the last letters that went out with the old number. We signed up for a class at Safer Arms in early April and I think my personal situation is resolved.

In the bigger picture, I think it would be better to have a better-defined policy regarding expiration of the training letter. While I think it does make sense for the letter to expire, given that the two components of CCW eligibility (good cause and good moral character) are both subject to change with the passage of time, I think 30 days is too short (and, apparently, the SO has come to think so, too.)

By way of comparison, attorney licensing also requires a determination of good moral character. When the CA Bar makes a determination that an applicant is of good moral character, that determination is good for 36 months before it must be renewed.

While I don't think that it makes sense for the training letter to be valid indefinitely (the CCW itself is only valid for 2 years), I think it would make a lot more sense to say that the license must be issued by date "X", rather than saying that someone must complete registration for training prior to date "X". I don't have any reason to think anything bad about anyone at Safer Arms, but I'm not very comfortable with letting the time period expire before I have completed the training - what if the instructor dies, or goes on vacation, or the range closes or has a fire, or the instructor and I don't get along with each other? What if the training org decides to triple their prices after the letter expires?

If the concern is that someone will be eligible today, get a training authorization, then commit a bunch of crimes and get rid of the parts of their life that created good cause, and then go get their permit with stale/expired GC/MC, it doesn't make sense to say that the training org can extend the issue period indefinitely - that doesn't really address the underlying concern. It makes it a little tougher for the applicant, versus just putting the letter in their sock drawer and getting it out 10 years later, but if we're really concerned that unqualified people are going to get licensed, we can/should do better than that.

FYI, when we registered at Safer Arms for the class, they wanted to keep the original of the training authorization letter.
I apologize if I seem to be belaboring these rather small issues, but I think it is important to encourage the Sheriff to conform to the law regardless of the percieved significance of the details.

First, the letter an applicant recieves from an issuing agency informing of a positive determination is a letter of approval. The Sheriff has no authority to authorize when you get your training. You don't need anyone's permission. Potentially, you can go get your training before you get your approval letter, but this defeats the purpose of not being required to pay for and recieve training in advance of the issuing agencies determination.

Second, the Sheriff's statutory discretion is limited. Under the law, the Sheriff can deny for residency, good moral character, and good cause. Nowhere in the law, does it say that the Sheriff can place conditions on issuance like expirations on your approval. It is the opposite,... the Sheriff's approval cannot expire- and it can only be altered by statutory disqualification.

If you think that it is reasonable to expect an issuing agency to apply a time limit on training or place any number of conditions on issuance of a license, then you must believe that the agency has unlimited discretion and should be allowed to make up rules without the legislature's guidance.

As I have already pointed out, if an applicant is involved in a disqualifying event, such as commiting a crime, or being adjudicated as mentally ill (say, between the time the applicant is approved and the license is issued) the DOJ will inform the issuing agency that the applicant is a prohibited person, and the license would be revoked or invalidated.

I think it would be interesting to apply and recieve approval and return with a training certificate after their 'training authorization' letter expired. It would give a new meaning to suing ever m-f'r in the room and make every rural county's bean-counter pucker.

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote