Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > CONCEALED CARRY/LICENSE TO CARRY > Concealed Carry Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-28-2013, 6:32 AM
Mtn folk Mtn folk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default san bernardino changes reference requirements?

I just had my interview yesterday 2-27. the interviewer still wanted my 3 letters but said, starting two weeks ago, they no longer contact the 4 people you list on the application.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-28-2013, 7:53 AM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default

Interesting. Do the four on the application have to be different people than the three who write letters,

If so, it would seem that the only difference is that they don't send letters/questionnaires to the four on the app.

Still, this is an improvement and should speed things along.

Are they still doing 15-20 minute, 1:1 interviews? Someone else posted recently that they may
move to group interviews, whatever that is.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-28-2013, 10:18 AM
Jeepergeo's Avatar
Jeepergeo Jeepergeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,134
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Arrow

Sounds like progress. Hopefully, it will evolve to a rubber stamp after a standard DOJ check since really, what do they learn from anyone writing a letter or those being listed on the application? Who would list someone that would be a contrary reference? And what about folks new to the community?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-28-2013, 10:29 AM
winnre's Avatar
winnre winnre is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IE, Southern CA
Posts: 9,237
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeepergeo View Post
Sounds like progress. Hopefully, it will evolve to a rubber stamp after a standard DOJ check since really, what do they learn from anyone writing a letter or those being listed on the application? Who would list someone that would be a contrary reference? And what about folks new to the community?
I know people who can legally own a weapon but shouldn't. No way would I be anywhere near them if they had a CCW. I am sure there are denials for cause where guns are not taken away.
__________________
"If Jesus had a gun he would be alive today"-Homer Simpson
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-28-2013, 11:39 AM
Mtn folk Mtn folk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calplinker View Post
Interesting. Do the four on the application have to be different people than the three who write letters,

If so, it would seem that the only difference is that they don't send letters/questionnaires to the four on the app.

Still, this is an improvement and should speed things along.

Are they still doing 15-20 minute, 1:1 interviews? Someone else posted recently that they may
move to group interviews, whatever that is.
i'm not sure if you even list 4 people on the app anymore, but to answer your question, yes they had to be different people. My wife is going to pick up her app next week, i will know more then.

the interview and the live scan, along with the waiting room times was an hour and a half total. not bad at all. and yes it is 1:1.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-28-2013, 12:48 PM
john67elco's Avatar
john67elco john67elco is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Alta Loma
Posts: 3,189
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I'm going to donate to sheriff at election time. He is right for our county.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwalker99 View Post
""Calgunners couldn't wait to start falling all over themselves as to how to best comply""


half of you here are weak and lame that will basically wind up being happy with .22 single shot pistols or single barrel shotguns..

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-28-2013, 11:05 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
short bus driver
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: the 909
Posts: 18,501
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

From other forums...
San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon has recently changed the issuance policy again and no longer accepts "personal protection/self-defense" as a reasonable good cause for issuance. Need to articulate something more than just a simply self-defense statement.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-28-2013, 11:51 PM
Kid Stanislaus Kid Stanislaus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oakdale, CA
Posts: 4,421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
From other forums...
San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon has recently changed the issuance policy again and no longer accepts "personal protection/self-defense" as a reasonable good cause for issuance. Need to articulate something more than just a simply self-defense statement.
Ya gotta wonder why an otherwise pro-2A sheriff would backtrack like that.
__________________
Things usually turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-01-2013, 6:42 AM
Brian1979 Brian1979 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 483
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I have a great GC more extensive then just personal protection but never listed it due to the current requirements. If it has changed I am confident I will still be fine but this sucks if its true.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-01-2013, 8:52 AM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default Good cause

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
From other forums...
San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon has recently changed the issuance policy again and no longer accepts "personal protection/self-defense" as a reasonable good cause for issuance. Need to articulate something more than just a simply self-defense statement.
I don't believe that is accurate. My understanding is they won't allow you to write ONLY "personal protection/self defense". You can still write this, but they now want you to also write a paragraph or two explaining what this means to you.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that the threshold for approval has changed. They just want more than a few words in the good cause section.

In other words, your explanation of why you feel the need to protect yourself doesn't seem to have to meet a threshold that is higher than what they used in the past. This was explained to me in a recent renewal class. They didn't critique what we wrote. They just didn't want two words "personal protection" to be the only thing written in the good cause section.

If people are writing their explanation on the form and getting denied for this sole reason, that is news to me and would represent a definite change in approach. Historically, they approve virtually everyone who is not prohibited.

If someone has recently been denied, I would very much like to hear about it.

EDIT: Our new Sheriff was specifically asked about this very recently and emphatically stated that he strongly believes that non-prohibited residents in his county should be allowed to get an LTC and carry, and that he would be making no changes other than trying to clear up the back log and streamline the process. This is exactly the message we were given in our renewal class. New LTC's showed up in the mail shortly afterwards.

Last edited by Calplinker; 03-01-2013 at 9:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-01-2013, 10:33 AM
Mtn folk Mtn folk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calplinker View Post
I don't believe that is accurate. My understanding is they won't allow you to write ONLY "personal protection/self defense". You can still write this, but they now want you to also write a paragraph or two explaining what this means to you.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that the threshold for approval has changed. They just want more than a few words in the good cause section.

In other words, your explanation of why you feel the need to protect yourself doesn't seem to have to meet a threshold that is higher than what they used in the past. This was explained to me in a recent renewal class. They didn't critique what we wrote. They just didn't want two words "personal protection" to be the only thing written in the good cause section.

If people are writing their explanation on the form and getting denied for this sole reason, that is news to me and would represent a definite change in approach. Historically, they approve virtually everyone who is not prohibited.

If someone has recently been denied, I would very much like to hear about it.

EDIT: Our new Sheriff was specifically asked about this very recently and emphatically stated that he strongly believes that non-prohibited residents in his county should be allowed to get an LTC and carry, and that he would be making no changes other than trying to clear up the back log and streamline the process. This is exactly the message we were given in our renewal class. New LTC's showed up in the mail shortly afterwards.
and it is obvious they ARE clearing up and streamlining the process.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-01-2013, 6:48 PM
fyrguy fyrguy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 18
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You are required to explain why you need the CCW over and beyond Personal Protection for SB County now but the explanation doesn't have to be extensive. As long as you have a reasonable thought process you can explain personal protection. What makes you a target? As Mtn folk says the sheriff likes the thought of an armed public, as long as you are armed legally.

Last edited by fyrguy; 03-01-2013 at 6:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-02-2013, 9:10 PM
TrapperP2005's Avatar
TrapperP2005 TrapperP2005 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Victorville, CA
Posts: 350
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtn folk View Post
I just had my interview yesterday 2-27. the interviewer still wanted my 3 letters but said, starting two weeks ago, they no longer contact the 4 people you list on the application.
are you sure your info isnt backwards? my interview was on the 26th and they told me they didnt need the 3 reference letters, that the 4 people they contact by mail were the important ones. if that were the case, they wouldnt have anyone to get ahold of regarding my application. please let me know, want to make sure the process isnt delayed more than it has to be.

Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-03-2013, 7:05 AM
HighLander51 HighLander51 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
From other forums...
San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon has recently changed the issuance policy again and no longer accepts "personal protection/self-defense" as a reasonable good cause for issuance. Need to articulate something more than just a simply self-defense statement.
What they want is more than just the 2 words that can be eloquently and succinctly articulated in front of a judge in the event you ever get dragged into a wrongful death civil court case. For example: I want a CCW permit to protect myself, and my family, against the ever increasing number violent criminals, who have no absolutely no qualms about killing uniformed police officers, let alone civilians, during a time when many departments are reducing the number of officers available.

This is also new, "Not to be used for employment purposes"

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-04-2013, 4:13 AM
Mtn folk Mtn folk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperP2005 View Post
are you sure your info isnt backwards? my interview was on the 26th and they told me they didnt need the 3 reference letters, that the 4 people they contact by mail were the important ones. if that were the case, they wouldnt have anyone to get ahold of regarding my application. please let me know, want to make sure the process isnt delayed more than it has to be.

Thanks!
i guess it could be backwards but only if the interviewer misunderstood my question. He looked over my 3 ref. letters and just glanced at the 4 on the app. at the end of the interview he asked if i had any questions. i asked, " how long until the people listed on the app recieve their letters, I want to give them an idea?" His repy was "as of two weeks ago, we no longer do that". I have 3 ref letters and 4 refs listed on my app as that was the instructions at the time. But i do believe the ref letters had phone # and address requirements.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-04-2013, 4:25 AM
Mtn folk Mtn folk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
From other forums...
San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon has recently changed the issuance policy again and no longer accepts "personal protection/self-defense" as a reasonable good cause for issuance. Need to articulate something more than just a simply self-defense statement.
isn't self defense the only reason to ccw? I articulated my personal reason for wanting to carry, and from all accounts it was reasonable according to the interviewer. it was the truth, i used the whole page provided on the app to explain some details, but in no way was it iron clad. i doubt it would have been strong enough in some other counties. the jury is still out though.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-04-2013, 11:46 AM
winnre's Avatar
winnre winnre is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IE, Southern CA
Posts: 9,237
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Miss-use?????
__________________
"If Jesus had a gun he would be alive today"-Homer Simpson
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-04-2013, 12:00 PM
Steph's Avatar
Steph Steph is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: SoCal / Inland Empire
Posts: 380
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

My bf has an appt on the 15th and he called them and yes they no longer need the letters, but they still want the 4 people to contact.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-05-2013, 8:49 AM
tjcoker's Avatar
tjcoker tjcoker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 828
iTrader: 91 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by john67elco View Post
I'm going to donate to sheriff at election time. He is right for our county.
I agree!
__________________
Product of Langdon Tactical - Ernest Langdon, Acadami - Bill Go, CSAT - Paul Howe, ITTS - Scotty Reitz, Larry Vickers, and Rob Haught.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-14-2013, 11:50 AM
c483125117 c483125117 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Los Angeles (SGV)
Posts: 248
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Off topic, but does anyone know if SBC still has a 1-year residency requirement?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-14-2013, 11:52 AM
jenericsig jenericsig is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 200
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Yes. SB does have a one year residence policy.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-14-2013, 11:56 AM
winnre's Avatar
winnre winnre is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IE, Southern CA
Posts: 9,237
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I wonder if that means you can get your application after 4 months and then wait for the 8-month process.
__________________
"If Jesus had a gun he would be alive today"-Homer Simpson
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-14-2013, 11:05 PM
Kid Stanislaus Kid Stanislaus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oakdale, CA
Posts: 4,421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The whole notion is silly. I can find four people who'll swear I walk on water and feed a multitude with a few fishes and loaves!
__________________
Things usually turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-30-2013, 2:31 PM
glockcougar glockcougar is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Reference Letters

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperP2005 View Post
are you sure your info isnt backwards? my interview was on the 26th and they told me they didnt need the 3 reference letters, that the 4 people they contact by mail were the important ones. if that were the case, they wouldnt have anyone to get ahold of regarding my application. please let me know, want to make sure the process isnt delayed more than it has to be.

Thanks!
You no longer need reference letters nor references as of March 2013.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-30-2013, 2:53 PM
glockcougar glockcougar is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
From other forums...
San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon has recently changed the issuance policy again and no longer accepts "personal protection/self-defense" as a reasonable good cause for issuance. Need to articulate something more than just a simply self-defense statement.
If you would take a look at the Old or New CADOJ form (page 10 of 13) towards the bottom of the page--- you will notice the following paragraph:

"If the CCW license is desired for self-protection, the protection of others , or for the protection of large sums of money or valuable property, you are required to explain and provide good cause for issuance of the license. For example, has you life or property been threatened or jeopardized? Explain incidents and include dates, times, location, and names of police agencies to which these incidents were reported.

Details of Reason for Applicant Desiring a CCW license. Use additional pages if necessary.

So, this is not the Sheriff changing his mind, it is the State of California requiring the additional information.

Sheriff McMahon is 100 % behind the issuance of CCW permits.

Last edited by glockcougar; 04-30-2013 at 2:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-30-2013, 3:53 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,141
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glockcougar View Post
If you would take a look at the Old or New CADOJ form (page 10 of 13) towards the bottom of the page--- you will notice the following paragraph:

"If the CCW license is desired for self-protection, the protection of others , or for the protection of large sums of money or valuable property, you are required to explain and provide good cause for issuance of the license. For example, has you life or property been threatened or jeopardized? Explain incidents and include dates, times, location, and names of police agencies to which these incidents were reported.

Details of Reason for Applicant Desiring a CCW license. Use additional pages if necessary.

So, this is not the Sheriff changing his mind, it is the State of California requiring the additional information.

Sheriff McMahon is 100 % behind the issuance of CCW permits.
It's lovely that CA-DOJ is paying some attention to the application, but language on the app is not either Penal Code or regulation.

Since there have been no changes in those, the applicable consideration is PC 26150 (a)(2) "(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license." and the issuing agencies remain free to assess 'good cause' in whatever way the CLEO feels is adequate.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-01-2013, 9:21 AM
glockcougar glockcougar is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
It's lovely that CA-DOJ is paying some attention to the application, but language on the app is not either Penal Code or regulation.

Since there have been no changes in those, the applicable consideration is PC 26150 (a)(2) "(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license." and the issuing agencies remain free to assess 'good cause' in whatever way the CLEO feels is adequate.
I agree, but you still have to follow the directions on the "official document." This form is what will be brought into court. I know. I have been there and it wasn't pretty. Nothing like having an attorney asking why the form wasn't completed as directed. "Personal protection" is valid but it is not a complete thought, according to the court system. When everything u own, including your freedom, is being judged on two words, it is scary. How easy is it to explain in a short sentence why you want this. What is sad is to read why people don't know why they want it. Guess a jury of "not your peers" would love to hear why you are feel the need why u want to carry a gun and you say " I don't know why!" Guess what California is not gun friendly if you haven't figured it out yet. We need to protect ourselves with education and intelligence not just because we can attitude. This is how we lost our open carry, is because we could. Now we can't !!!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-01-2013, 3:26 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,141
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glockcougar View Post
I agree, but you still have to follow the directions on the "official document." This form is what will be brought into court. I know. I have been there and it wasn't pretty. Nothing like having an attorney asking why the form wasn't completed as directed. "Personal protection" is valid but it is not a complete thought, according to the court system. When everything u own, including your freedom, is being judged on two words, it is scary. How easy is it to explain in a short sentence why you want this. What is sad is to read why people don't know why they want it. Guess a jury of "not your peers" would love to hear why you are feel the need why u want to carry a gun and you say " I don't know why!" Guess what California is not gun friendly if you haven't figured it out yet. We need to protect ourselves with education and intelligence not just because we can attitude. This is how we lost our open carry, is because we could. Now we can't !!!
I think you are overly concerned on the point re: application language.

The applicants are not responsible for issuing the licenses. Any question on the appropriateness of a 'good cause' statement is on the issuing agency - and those agencies are exempted by Government Code from any liability from issuing or failing to issue a license. An application is not likely to be "brought into court".
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-02-2013, 8:28 AM
HighLander51 HighLander51 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

[QUOTE=glockcougar;11236793]I agree, but you still have to follow the directions on the "official document." This form is what will be brought into court. I know. I have been there and it wasn't pretty. QUOTE]

You were actually invovled in a shooting and then taken to civil court for a wrongful death suit and the lawyer asked you about your CCW reason???
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:54 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.