(2015 March 03):
Originally Posted by Paladin
I was just at the sheriff's updated website and his updated CCW webpage (http://www.sonomasheriff.org/ccw
Here's the GC and GMC part w/bolding added by me:
GOOD CAUSE FOR ISSUANCE:
The applicant must establish that there is good cause for the Sheriff to issue a California Concealed Weapons (CCW) license in the County of Sonoma. The defensive benefit of carrying a concealed firearm in public must be weighed against the risk of surprise to law enforcement, the risk of avoidable and dangerous conflict escalation in a public setting, and the risk to general public safety that discharging firearms poses to law enforcement and bystanders alike; therefore, the Sheriff has determined that good cause to issue a CCW license will generally only exist in conditions of necessity. Accordingly, applicants should be able to provide convincing evidence of the following:
(a) There is an existing and significant threat of death or grave bodily injury to the applicant, or his/her immediate family, which cannot be reasonably avoided or adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources, and which threat would be significantly mitigated by the carrying of a concealed weapon.
(b) The applicant establishes that circumstances exist requiring him or her to transport in public significant amounts of valuable, or inherently dangerous property, which would be impractical to entrust to the protection of an armored car or equivalent service for the safe transportation of valuables.
(c) The applicant is currently employed by a security firm having all requisite licenses, and provides satisfactory proof that his or her work is of a nature that requires the carrying of a concealed weapon in public.
(d) The applicant is a duly appointed Sonoma County Reserve Deputy as defined in Penal Code § 830.6.
(e) The applicant is a member of the magistrate either presiding and/or residing in the County of Sonoma.
MORAL CHARACTER / GOOD JUDGEMENT
Applicants must demonstrate that they have a history of using sound judgment, and that their everyday lives are unsullied by traits that may impair their ability to safely handle a firearm, under stress, in a public setting. A determination as to one's moral character and judgment is discretionary, and based on the totality of the applicants qualifications presented on a case by case basis. Factors or traits which will bear negatively on issuance are:
(a) A long-term history of mental or emotional instability, alcoholism, drug use or addiction to controlled substances.
(b) A history of fault in serious accidents with firearms, automobiles or other dangerous instruments / equipment.
(c) A history of citations, arrests, convictions, civil law suits, employment discharges, license denials, license revocations or other actions indicating a possible propensity for violence, moral turpitude, dishonesty, or carelessness with weapons.
: The Sonoma sheriff gutted the Good Cause requirement after Peruta
3-judge panel decision, but reversed course when it was stayed 2 weeks later:
PERUTA v. COUNTY of SAN DIEGO
On 2/13/2014 the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office dropped the "good cause" standard for issuing conceal carry permits after the requirement was struck down that day by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ruled that the Second Amendment bars California counties from requiring law-abiding gun owners who want to carry concealed firearms to demonstrate special, individualized needs for protection.
On 2/28/2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided to withdraw their decision in the above case by a decision to rehear the case En Banc. The Court has ordered a stay on the issuance of their previous mandate from 2/13/2014, which only required an applicant to state a need of “self defense” as their reason for desiring a CCW License. Therefore, as of 2/28/14 the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office will revert back to requiring all applicants to supplement the “good cause” statement for the CCW License in accord with Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office Policy 219 and California Penal Code section 26150(a)(2).
Anyone who gets denied in Sonoma Co
(either by a city's PD or by the Sheriff's Office), and wants to fight it should read the following quote from my ("Paladin") post in the Monterey Co thread. (There they accept SD as GC, but push the GMC requirement.) The 14th Amendment Equal Protection applies to ALL aspects of the application process, not just GC and GMC.
Originally Posted by Paladin
So, they say SD = GC, but then push GMC through the roof and, it appears, make your RKBA subject to your neighbors', co-workers' and friends' ratification....
If Bernal does NOT follow this same procedure with ALL CCW applicants (think political donors, "friends of the sheriff"/"posse" members, politicians, celebrities), he's open for a Guillory
-type 14th A Equal Protection federal lawsuit, but for GMC rather than GC.
, let's say there's a world-famous film star (and director) who lives in (and was once the mayor of) Carmel-By-The-Sea, a city which, acc to CGF's 2013 survey, does not issue CCWs. We'll call him "Mr. E." Let's suppose Mr. E has a Monterey SO CCW. When it is/was time to renew, if the sheriff has the same policy for renewals that means his "background investigator" would have to go to Mr. E's neighbors (who, unlike his friends, may be hard-core antis), and "ask them if they would recommend [Mr. E] be issued a CCW permit." Not only would the same procedure have to be followed, but the same standard as to judging whether to issue or not be followed. IOW, let's say 1 of your neighbors says "Nyet!
" when asked if you should get a CCW and because of that you are denied. If 1 of Mr. E's neighbors also said "No!" and yet was issued, that too is a 14th A Equal Protection violation.
Last edited by Paladin; 07-09-2015 at 5:31 AM..
Reason: removed GCS avail from title; added update to OP