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 > Calguns Concealed Carry County Information Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns Concealed Carry County Information Forum Information on how to get a LTC in yourCounty

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 06-14-2014, 12:27 PM
otteray otteray is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Santa Cruz & Lake Tahoe
Posts: 2,967
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

My understanding is that after receiving the livescan results, or maybe, after interviewing, (not sure which,) the 90 day clock for the required timely processing begins. We will hopefully know more this coming week, if the new policy here is announced, as some were informed. My info is second hand, btw.
__________________

Last edited by otteray; 06-14-2014 at 8:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 06-20-2014, 10:04 PM
magicmojo magicmojo is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 37
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Has there been a new announcement of Santa Cruz's new CCW policy yet. I can't find anything.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 06-21-2014, 6:33 AM
otteray otteray is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Santa Cruz & Lake Tahoe
Posts: 2,967
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Here it is
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 06-21-2014, 8:59 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by otteray View Post
Quote:
Note: Based on current law, the Sheriff does not consider self-defense or generalized personal safety concerns to constitute sufficient “good cause” for the issuance of a license. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a recent opinion to the contrary which would change current law if finalized in its current form (Peruta, et al., v. County of San Diego, et al.). However, because of a recent motion filed by the California Attorney General to intervene in that case, the Peruta decision is not yet final and is therefore not yet law. It is unclear at this point whether the Peruta opinion will be finalized in its current form or subject to further appeal. If and when the Peruta decision becomes final, the Sheriff will follow the law as the Sheriff understands it.
Well, at least they're upfront saying they're anti-CCW....

Actually, he's kind of deceptive in trying to make it seem like "current law" states that self-defense is insufficient Good Cause. The law allows any sheriff to accept self-defense as sufficient GC, just like they do RIGHT NOW in Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Fresno, Kern, Ventura, Orange, and MOST rural counties!

And I like how he requires that applicants get 2 licensed professionals to put in writing that they think the applicant should be allowed to bear arms (costing the applicant more time, money, and effort):

Quote:
2. If directed: provide written evidence from a licensed physician that the applicant is not
currently suffering from any medical condition that would make the individual unsuitable
for carrying a concealed weapon. All costs paid by applicant.
3. Complete psychological testing, as directed, by an authorized psychologist used by the
Sheriff’s Office. The cost to the applicant may not exceed $150.00.
(emphasis added)

Bottom line: Sheriff Wowak, like most urban sheriffs, is nothing more than "a politician w/a badge & a gun"....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 06-21-2014 at 9:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 06-21-2014, 9:15 AM
mrboma mrboma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 1,163
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Well, at least they're upfront saying they're anti-CCW....

Actually, he's kind of deceptive in trying to make it seem like "current law" states that self-defense is insufficient Good Cause. The law allows any sheriff to accept self-defense as sufficient GC, just like they do RIGHT NOW in Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Fresno, Kern, Ventura, Orange, and MOST rural counties!

And I like how he requires that applicants get 2 licensed professionals to put in writing that they think the applicant should be allowed to bear arms (costing the applicant more time, money, and effort):

(emphasis added)

Bottom line: Sheriff Hart, like most urban sheriffs, is nothing more than "a politician w/a gun and a badge"....
Just for clarity.
Regards,
Mike
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 06-21-2014, 9:19 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrboma View Post
Just for clarity.
Regards,
Mike
The new policy's .pdf has Wowak's name on the letterhead as does SCSO's website: http://scsheriff.com/
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 06-21-2014 at 9:23 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 06-21-2014, 9:23 AM
mrboma mrboma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 1,163
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
The new policy's .pdf has Wowak's name on the letterhead.
Considering the way Hart came into office and the fact that he is INDEED nothing more than a politician with a badge, I guess it doesn't matter what name is on the doc.

Thanks Paladin,
Mike
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 06-21-2014, 9:27 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrboma View Post
Considering the way Hart came into office and the fact that he is INDEED nothing more than a politician with a badge, I guess it doesn't matter what name is on the doc.

Thanks Paladin,
Mike
I just edited my reply to also mention that Wowack's name (and image) is on the SCSO's website.

Is Hart the next sheriff? If so, I don't think he takes office until 2015 January.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 06-21-2014, 9:31 AM
mrboma mrboma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 1,163
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I just edited my reply to also mention that Wowack's name (and image) is on the SCSO's website.

Is Hart the next sheriff? If so, I don't think he takes office until 2015 January.
Yes, Hart won the election. It makes sense that he would not take office immediately. But as we can see from this latest policy release, nothing in Santa Cruz is going to change anytime soon.

Regards,
Mike
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 08-28-2014, 2:49 PM
DanMedeiros DanMedeiros is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is there any current cal guns effort focused on changing the Santa Cruz County Policy? Happy to help if there is. Also is it worth applying now with self defense as GC with the hope that Peruta will still be finalized?
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 08-28-2014, 5:47 PM
h0m3r2000 h0m3r2000 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanMedeiros View Post
Is there any current cal guns effort focused on changing the Santa Cruz County Policy? Happy to help if there is. Also is it worth applying now with self defense as GC with the hope that Peruta will still be finalized?
I also would like to know if Calguns Foundation or other have any plans for Santa Cruz county. I know a fair amount of people that would like to get a ccw in the county(me included). I would like to help if posibble.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 08-29-2014, 8:06 AM
mattsn0w's Avatar
mattsn0w mattsn0w is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 149
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

CalGuns Foundation is aware. Not sure what they are planning on doing. They said they would send them a letter.

https://twitter.com/CalgunsFdn/statu...46101139333121
__________________
Guns, and stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 09-04-2014, 2:51 AM
TLark's Avatar
TLark TLark is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 64
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

To put things in perspective the Sheriff's Office does not even provide CCW's for its Sheriff's Correctional Officers who deal with criminal's every hour of every shift. I wish you all luck and I'll be following your endeavors.

Last edited by TLark; 09-04-2014 at 3:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 09-05-2014, 7:48 AM
mattsn0w's Avatar
mattsn0w mattsn0w is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 149
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TLark View Post
To put things in perspective the Sheriff's Office does not even provide CCW's for its Sheriff's Correctional Officers who deal with criminal's every hour of every shift. I wish you all luck and I'll be following your endeavors.
That still doesn't make their actions against the public excusable.
__________________
Guns, and stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 09-05-2014, 6:27 PM
TLark's Avatar
TLark TLark is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 64
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Completely agree^, but it shows your where they stand as far as CCW issuing. If they feel there own LE personnel aren't deserving of a CCW for viable threats to there safety then why would a public citizen be granted one. I really hope you guys make progress and change the views of the Sheriff/County. In turn hopefully it loosens the policies on its own personnel.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 11-15-2014, 7:43 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

From the "CCW UPDATE" link on their homepage (http://scsheriff.com/):

CCW UPDATE

Members of the public wishing to obtain a CCW under the standards recently articulated by the Ninth Circuit in Peruta v. County of San Diego should be aware that the decision has not yet become final. Federal court rules prescribe a period of time which must elapse before the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

Applicants that seek a CCW permit under the self-defense standard set forth in Peruta will be processed in the order they are received should the decision of the Ninth Circuit become final. Once the decision becomes final, applicants will be contacted by the Sheriff’s Office with instructions on how to complete the process.

In order to accommodate, and expedite, the large numbers of anticipated applications, the Sheriff’s Office and County Counsel are currently revising the process for issuing CCW permits.
(emphasis added)

I'll update the OP and the thread title now.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 09-18-2015 at 7:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 09-11-2015, 8:04 PM
Grumpy_Hippie's Avatar
Grumpy_Hippie Grumpy_Hippie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: NV, the new CA lite
Posts: 123
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

anything new
__________________
Honesta Mors Turpi Vita Potior - 3%
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 09-12-2015, 6:39 AM
otteray otteray is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Santa Cruz & Lake Tahoe
Posts: 2,967
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy_Hippie View Post
anything new
Nope.
Peruta has to be resolved first.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 09-18-2015, 7:24 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
From the "CCW UPDATE" link on their homepage (http://scsheriff.com/):

CCW UPDATE

Members of the public wishing to obtain a CCW under the standards recently articulated by the Ninth Circuit in Peruta v. County of San Diego should be aware that the decision has not yet become final. Federal court rules prescribe a period of time which must elapse before the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

Applicants that seek a CCW permit under the self-defense standard set forth in Peruta will be processed in the order they are received should the decision of the Ninth Circuit become final. Once the decision becomes final, applicants will be contacted by the Sheriff’s Office with instructions on how to complete the process.

In order to accommodate, and expedite, the large numbers of anticipated applications, the Sheriff’s Office and County Counsel are currently revising the process for issuing CCW permits.
(emphasis added)

I'll update the OP and the thread title now.
I don't know when they changed it, but there is now a new "CCW UPDATE" linked on their homepage:

Quote:
CCW UPDATE

Members of the public seeking to obtain a CCW permit under the standards articulated by the Ninth Circuit in Peruta v. County of San Diego should be aware that on March 26, 2015 the Ninth Circuit ordered that the Peruta case be re-heard by a larger panel of judges. At some point in the future, the Ninth Circuit will issue a new opinion addressing the issues discussed in the Peruta case. Until the Ninth Circuit issues a new opinion, the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office will continue to review applications for CCW permits under the standards it utilized prior to issuance of the original Peruta decision.
Well, at least they're actively monitoring Peruta and revising things as it progresses.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 09-19-2015, 7:27 AM
mattsn0w's Avatar
mattsn0w mattsn0w is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 149
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I don't know when they changed it, but there is now a new "CCW UPDATE" linked on their homepage:



Well, at least they're actively monitoring Peruta and revising things as it progresses.
It has been there for almost a year.

__________________
Guns, and stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 09-19-2015, 8:40 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsn0w View Post
It has been there for almost a year.

That was the 1st update (which, as you can see, I had added to the OP on 2014 Nov 15). I'm talking about the 2nd update, the one about Peruta being taken en banc which I added to the OP yesterday.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 10-05-2016, 10:02 PM
sbcfd sbcfd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 234
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

looking at the Sheriffs office website they have a CCW policy in place as of 6/18/16. Has anyone applied?

Last edited by sbcfd; 10-05-2016 at 10:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 10-06-2016, 6:34 AM
otteray otteray is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Santa Cruz & Lake Tahoe
Posts: 2,967
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbcfd View Post
looking at the Sheriffs office website they have a CCW policy in place as of 6/18/16. Has anyone applied?
Many applied and all denied.
After Peruta was put into a suspended state thanks to Att. Gen. Harris, we were sent a letter from the S.O. explaining our two choices: Go forward with the request (and get denied) or be put on hold until Peruta was ultimately decided (Circular file.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 12-11-2016, 7:44 AM
NinjaNinja's Avatar
NinjaNinja NinjaNinja is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Elk Grove, CA
Posts: 485
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by otteray View Post
Many applied and all denied.
After Peruta was put into a suspended state thanks to Att. Gen. Harris, we were sent a letter from the S.O. explaining our two choices: Go forward with the request (and get denied) or be put on hold until Peruta was ultimately decided (Circular file.)
this county is still a no go huh?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 12-11-2016, 3:28 PM
otteray otteray is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Santa Cruz & Lake Tahoe
Posts: 2,967
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Cities of Watsonville and Scotts Valley may have recently issued a few licenses through their own PD, and not the SO. How many or why, I do not know.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 07-21-2017, 9:08 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by otteray View Post
Cities of Watsonville and Scotts Valley may have recently issued a few licenses through their own PD, and not the SO. How many or why, I do not know.
Anyone have any more/new info re. this?

ETA: I briefly looked over their PDs' websites and did not find any CCW info.
https://cityofwatsonville.org/197/Police
http://www.scottsvalleypd.com/
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 07-21-2017 at 9:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 05-06-2018, 9:52 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

To help a CGNer in another thread asking about the City of Santa Cruz and CCWs I had to look over the current materials on the SO's website re. CCWs. I saw that they require 3 letters of character reference (non-relatives), mandatory Psych Eval and possible required letter from Medical Doc saying you're okay to carry. See: http://scsheriff.com/Portals/1/Count...CW_Process.pdf

Then I noticed something big: there is NO CHARGE to you for ANYTHING until AFTER your GC is evaluated and you're approved!

That is NOT the behavior of an anti sheriff.

Once you've been approved (passed Phase 1 and told to continue to Phase 2), then you get hit with the LiveScan fee (~$100 IIRC), the Psych Eval fee (max of $150), possible MD fee ($???), 8 hour training class fee ($???), and ONLY $25 fee for the SO! Again: That is NOT the behavior of an anti sheriff.

While I could find NOTHING re. GC on the website (http://scsheriff.com/Home/CCWLicense.aspx), if it is FREE to apply to get your GC evaluated, why not apply??? Spend a month figuring out your best GC statement, figure out all the evidence you can muster to prove your GC actually exists (i.e., you aren't BSing the sheriff ), then apply!

To repeat myself: I did NOT find anything detailing GC, but these other things are not what anti sheriffs do. IMO, Santa Cruz may be doing what Monterey SO did years ago: loosen the GC requirement, but push GMC up to make sure only GGs get CCWs. But that is just a guess. Until people apply and post on CGN, we'll never know if things improved in Santa Cruz. But since applying and getting your GC approved/denied costs NOTHING, why not apply? Remember: a denial for insufficient GC does NOT hurt you in the future (but a denial for lacking GMC may...).
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 05-06-2018, 10:07 PM
SCruzsurfer's Avatar
SCruzsurfer SCruzsurfer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 16
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
To help a CGNer in another thread asking about the City of Santa Cruz and CCWs I had to look over the current materials on the SO's website re. CCWs. I saw that they require 3 letters of character reference (non-relatives), mandatory Psych Eval and possible required letter from Medical Doc saying you're okay to carry. See: http://scsheriff.com/Portals/1/Count...CW_Process.pdf

Then I noticed something big: there is NO CHARGE to you for ANYTHING until AFTER your GC is evaluated and you're approved!

That is NOT the behavior of an anti sheriff.

Once you've been approved (passed Phase 1 and told to continue to Phase 2), then you get hit with the LiveScan fee (~$100 IIRC), the Psych Eval fee (max of $150), possible MD fee ($???), 8 hour training class fee ($???), and ONLY $25 fee for the SO! Again: That is NOT the behavior of an anti sheriff.

While I could find NOTHING re. GC on the website (http://scsheriff.com/Home/CCWLicense.aspx), if it is FREE to apply to get your GC evaluated, why not apply??? Spend a month figuring out your best GC statement, figure out all the evidence you can muster to prove your GC actually exists (i.e., you aren't BSing the sheriff ), then apply!

To repeat myself: I did NOT find anything detailing GC, but these other things are not what anti sheriffs do. IMO, Santa Cruz may be doing what Monterey SO did years ago: loosen the GC requirement, but push GMC up to make sure only GGs get CCWs. But that is just a guess. Until people apply and post on CGN, we'll never know if things improved in Santa Cruz. But since applying and getting your GC approved/denied costs NOTHING, why not apply? Remember: a denial for insufficient GC does NOT hurt you in the future (but a denial for lacking GMC may...).
I did apply. You DO have to pay for the livescan (yes it was in the $100ish range) and the application fee. I did this twice. First was rejected (my 'good cause' wasn't good enough), second actually went to the interview stage, then Peruta got over-turned and my application is in a limbo (although I'm assuming it's been filed in the circular receptacle). I repeat, it is NOT free to apply. The current sheriff, is VERY anti carry. There are very few people in Santa Cruz County w/ permits, and seems like you have to have 'connections' in order to get one. Nothing has improved here. We had that brief glimmer of hope w/ Peruta, but that is long gone. Sorry there isn't a better end to this story.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 05-06-2018, 10:36 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCruzsurfer View Post
I did apply. You DO have to pay for the livescan (yes it was in the $100ish range) and the application fee. I did this twice. First was rejected (my 'good cause' wasn't good enough), second actually went to the interview stage, then Peruta got over-turned and my application is in a limbo (although I'm assuming it's been filed in the circular receptacle). I repeat, it is NOT free to apply. The current sheriff, is VERY anti carry. There are very few people in Santa Cruz County w/ permits, and seems like you have to have 'connections' in order to get one. Nothing has improved here. We had that brief glimmer of hope w/ Peruta, but that is long gone. Sorry there isn't a better end to this story.
When did Peruta get over turned: 2015? 2016? Your 2nd App was before that and your 1st app was before your 2nd.... Those are irrelevant. Hart didn't even take office, IIRC, until Jan 2015. I'm talking about what's on the SO website today.

Either (1) I'm misreading what they put on their website, or (2) what they posted is a mistake, or (3) they've changed their CCW process. If I lived in SC Co, I'd contact them via their FB page and ask about the current process. (There's no fee for that, that I'm aware of. )
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 05-06-2018, 10:52 PM
SCruzsurfer's Avatar
SCruzsurfer SCruzsurfer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 16
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
When did Peruta get over turned: 2015? 2016? Your 2nd App was before that and your 1st app was before your 2nd.... Those are irrelevant. Hart didn't even take office, IIRC, until Jan 2015. I'm talking about what's on the SO website today.

Either (1) I'm misreading what they put on their website, or (2) what they posted is a mistake, or (3) they've changed their CCW process. If I lived in SC Co, I'd contact them via their FB page and ask about the current process. (There's no fee for that, that I'm aware of. )
Yes, my first app was before Peruta, second was during that brief period where 'shall issue' was the 'law'. You seem very knowledgeable and have obviously done research online. So tell you what, put your money where your mouth is, go and fill out the application, do the livescan and see what it costs. I'm just telling you what my experience was. I understand what is on the website today and I understood it in the past when I applied. If it's as free as you say, go do it and report back to us. I wish you luck. You'll need it.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 05-06-2018, 11:25 PM
ColdDeadHands1's Avatar
ColdDeadHands1 ColdDeadHands1 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 3,246
iTrader: 67 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCruzsurfer View Post
Yes, my first app was before Peruta, second was during that brief period where 'shall issue' was the 'law'. You seem very knowledgeable and have obviously done research online. So tell you what, put your money where your mouth is, go and fill out the application, do the livescan and see what it costs. I'm just telling you what my experience was. I understand what is on the website today and I understood it in the past when I applied. If it's as free as you say, go do it and report back to us. I wish you luck. You'll need it.
I suspect if Paladin lived in Santa Cruz County he would have already applied as opposed to spending time on here trying to help others out. Just a thought?
__________________


"Let me guess... This isn't about the alcohol or tobacco?"
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 05-06-2018, 11:53 PM
SCruzsurfer's Avatar
SCruzsurfer SCruzsurfer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 16
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdDeadHands1 View Post
I suspect if Paladin lived in Santa Cruz County he would have already applied as opposed to spending time on here trying to help others out. Just a thought?
Possibly. I'm only sharing my personal experience. I hope someone can prove me wrong, but my first hand observation and discussion with others show that our current sheriff is ANTI-ccw. And there is a significant cost involved. If he (or anyone else) can prove me wrong, I would gladly eat my words and start the process again (as I'd sure like to have those hundreds of dollars back, or at least worth something). I only chimed in because there is a cost and I'd hate for anyone else to waste their money.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 05-07-2018, 7:45 AM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Some Yahoo on the Web
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Ventura County, near where the big fire started...
Posts: 3,056
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdDeadHands1 View Post
I suspect if Paladin lived in Santa Cruz County he would have already applied as opposed to spending time on here trying to help others out. Just a thought?
Reading comprehension can be a mother....
__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love. -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015


Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 05-07-2018, 11:25 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 481
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I have all approved active CCW applications, and all rejected CCW applications, and all prior approved but inactive applications for Santa Cruz county if anyone is interested. The Sheriff redacted the hell out of them tho.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 05-07-2018, 11:37 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 481
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

They gave me one in un-redacted form, then later gave it to me again in redacted form. So here is a copy with the redacted parts bold , but readable.

Quote:
I see and provide site surveys in the field for the installation of surveillance devices for public
safety and federal agencies. Specifically, there devices are cameras and sensing devices mounted in
high crime areas, high drug trafficking areas, and areas known to be frequented by criminals and
suspect persons. I carry sensitive equipment to these sites for survey, estimate, and technical
measuring and many times I am not accompanied by sworn officers.


My customers are public safety departments and agencies such as local police, sheriff's offices,
and state police. I drive a vehicle that is equipped with a license plate recognition equipment as
a demonstration vehicle to take sample readings.


My occupation takes me to areas of high crime throughout the western U.S. including urban areas such
as Oakland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas Metro, Seattle, Stockton, and boarder areas along
our southwest region of CA and AZ.


I also maintain and will visit our existing equipment utilized by the DEA along the CA and AZ border
and in most cases be unaccompanied by DEA or other agencies or police even though they are our clients
and own the equipment.

As a result of these conditions, I am subject to a high threat level environment and for personal
protection I request a CCW License.
I don't think any of these redactions are legal, but they don't seem to care much about the law in this county.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 05-07-2018, 4:32 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCruzsurfer View Post
Possibly.
Definitely. If I had half a chance w/my SO, I would apply. My county is, IMO, 1 of the 3 that would be last to voluntarily switch to readily issuing. The other 2 being SF and LA counties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCruzsurfer View Post
I'm only sharing my personal experience. I hope someone can prove me wrong, but my first hand observation and discussion with others show that our current sheriff is ANTI-ccw. And there is a significant cost involved.
From your experience when, over 4 years ago?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SCruzsurfer View Post
If he (or anyone else) can prove me wrong, I would gladly eat my words and start the process again (as I'd sure like to have those hundreds of dollars back, or at least worth something). I only chimed in because there is a cost and I'd hate for anyone else to waste their money.
I'm not going to do your work for you. As it is, I've spent my time and effort for FREE to alert you and all others who live in Santa Cruz Co that, at least as far as costs and when you pay them (AFTER your GC determination and approval vs before), things HAVE changed! Don't believe me? Go to the SO's website to verify what I wrote. Contact them via their FB page or by calling their non-emergency number.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
If you get turned down, there is NO CHARGE!

Go to: http://scsheriff.com/Home/CCWLicense.aspx
and then to: http://scsheriff.com/Portals/1/Count...CW_Process.pdf

Quote:
Fees
1. The fees for an Initial Application or a Renewal Application are $25.00 payable to the County of Santa Cruz only if the CCW is approved and issued
Note: I'd guess you have the LiveScan to pay for separately as well. That might run you ~$100 total (Scan plus processing). But that and the Psych Eval (another $150, IIRC), happen ONLY if your GC was approved after the Interview (Phase 1).

If the SO is only charging $25 total for issuing CCWs, what makes you think he's against issuing??? Times change and so do sheriffs. Look at San Diego Co Sheriff Gore who's now readily issuing CCWs.
So, the SO is pushing GMC high by requiring 3 non-relatives to provide character reference letters and mandatory Psych Eval and possible MD approval. But on the plus side, he's extremely reasonable re. the fees and when they have to be paid. The question remains: has he liberalized GC, even if a little (taking SC from dark red to light red or even yellow)? If so, while that improvement may not benefit anyone here, it will acclimate him to issuing CCWs and will get CCWers out on the streets, both of which indirectly help us all. Plus, there's nothing I like more than seeing a county on our map switch in our direction.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 05-07-2018 at 4:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 05-07-2018, 4:36 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I have all approved active CCW applications, and all rejected CCW applications, and all prior approved but inactive applications for Santa Cruz county if anyone is interested. The Sheriff redacted the hell out of them tho.
You sound like a great resource re. Santa Cruz Co. In your opinion, is the CA CCW GC map accurate in having it "dark red"? If not, what color do you think it currently is?

Did anyone, as far as you can tell, use a non-work related, non-personal threat/attack related (e.g., no DV restraining order), as GC and get issued?

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 05-07-2018 at 4:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 05-07-2018, 7:17 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 481
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
You sound like a great resource re. Santa Cruz Co. In your opinion, is the CA CCW GC map accurate in having it "dark red"? If not, what color do you think it currently is?

Did anyone, as far as you can tell, use a non-work related, non-personal threat/attack related (e.g., no DV restraining order), as GC and get issued?
So there's 24 currently active CCW holders, 29 expired. I got 46 good cause for approved which should include both from above, but there's a few missing not sure why.

There are 28 denied applications. Most rejections came in 2014.

Of the approved application the good cause reason seems to boil down to,

1) High value property
2) Body guard or security person
3) Some how law enforcement connected (people that testify for example)
4) Documented death threats

There are two application that looks like plain self defence. It's very difficult to know for sure because there's many redactions.

If I had to pick one of the colors, I would pick the lighter red. It seems like they will give you a CCW, but the standard is high.

Of the denied applications some strangely look similar to the approved ones. The person claims to have high value property, I guess not high value enough. Most of them are basic self defence.

Last edited by abinsinia; 05-07-2018 at 7:28 PM.. Reason: Added death threats
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 05-07-2018, 7:26 PM
otteray otteray is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Santa Cruz & Lake Tahoe
Posts: 2,967
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Paladin, for pete sake. Sheriff Hart does not issue to regular folks. Why do you insist on doubting that?
During his election debates he made it clear that he would follow whatever the state AG and court decided. From his own lips he said that; I was sitting right in front of him and heard it.
During Peruta, many, many of us applied, and all were denied.
The county Board of Sups, who pull his strings, would never allow it. But he was more than happy to sponsor a gun buyback recently, where a bunch of old fogies turned in their hunting rifles and shotguns, and then the county labeled it as a great success getting dangerous assault weapons of the streets.
Do the math. With a population of 262,000 (conservatively) good luck.
__________________

Last edited by otteray; 05-07-2018 at 7:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 05-09-2018, 3:20 AM
soqueljake soqueljake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 131
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

For what it's worth, hart is against new deputies carrying concealed off duty, corrections officer. No way.. the chances of getting a ccw in SC county are as good as getting struck by dry lighting in space if th opportunity ever presented itself. After speaking with some friends in relation to SCSO, they all said it's not worth your time to apply, also it will show up on record you've been denied before, move to Monterey, apply, wait 3 months and done...

They also insisted on moving out of CA but that's not always an easy option. You'd think hart being the man he is would take a bribe, judging by his character
__________________
There is a widening and distorted "gap" between where we are in life and where we want to be. -mike glover
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 3:01 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.