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
  #1  
Old 10-14-2010, 10:05 PM
obeygiant's Avatar
obeygiant obeygiant is offline
Veteran Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 4,160
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Thumbs up Alameda -- APPLY to Get a Spot in Line

UPDATE (2014 April 14):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Ala Co SO on their CCW voicemail (510-208-9890) now says they will accept and hold apps w/SD=GC pending the resolution of CA AG's efforts. CGNers in Alameda County may want to get their apps in to be at the head of the line....
Acc. to CGF's 2013 Carry License Statistics report, city PDs that issue CCWs in Ala Co incl. Hayward, Oakland, Piedmont, and Pleasanton. If you live in one of those cities, you may want to contact your PD to ask their policy re. accepting CCW apps and issuing CCW permits when "self-defense"/"personal protection" is the only Good Cause.

UPDATE (2014 April 27): Hayward claims not to issue CCWs.

Anyone who gets denied in Alameda 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
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.

Hypothetically, 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.
UPDATE (2015 June 27): with SCOTUS declining to grant Jackson cert and Peruta having gone to an en banc panel of CA9, things at the moment look grim for CGNers in Ala Co. We should no longer assume the "Heller 5" will say our RKBA protected by the 2nd A "shall not be infringed."

We've got to adapt to this "new reality" until we get some reason to think otherwise. Thus, I've condensed and updated a previous thread of mine and made it into a new thread so that at least people who work in some parts of Ala Co can get CCWs.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...php?p=16522545

__________________

Member, CRPA Board of Directors
"No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little." - Edmund Burke

Search Calguns using Google
CGN Search plugin for Firefox & IE CA Shotgun AW ID Flowchart CA Handgun AW ID Flowchart CA Senate CA Assembly Anti-2A Search Plugin

Last edited by Paladin; 08-13-2015 at 8:09 AM.. Reason: added thumbs up symbol and revised title
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-18-2010, 3:26 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,527
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Does this mean that it's safe to apply now?

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-18-2010, 4:07 PM
Barbarossa's Avatar
Barbarossa Barbarossa is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 4,305
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
Does this mean that it's safe to apply now?

Erik.
I believe this thread is to discuss the carry policies of Sheriffs and status of CCW applications in Alameda County.


I'd be interested to see what good cause Sheriff Plumber issued for, as well as Ahern.

FYI, Dublin, CA L.E.O. are all contracted from the Alameda County Sheriff's office.
__________________
WTB: Remington 870's (wing masters a plus)
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-18-2010, 4:26 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,527
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Arrow

And just for info, in reading the policy statement of ALCO Sheriff, they require a $1 million liability insurance policy. This is obviously arbitrary, and so is this:

Quote:
II. POLICY: The Sheriff's Office recognizes that there may be circumstances that justify the issuance of a concealed weapon license; however, it also recognizes the potential for the use of deadly force and the grave responsibility that goes with the granting of that privilege. Carrying a concealed weapon is a privilege, not a right. The issuance of a Concealed Weapon License is at the discretion of the Sheriff.
(EDITED):

This is the letter I wrote to Sheriff Ahern on November 27, 2009:
Quote:
Dear Sheriff ...

Recently it has come to the attention of Law Enforcement Agencies and elected officials throughout the State of California that there has been an increase in discussions among city and county supervisors, and other top officials concerning the issuance of concealed weapon permits.

I am aware that currently in the state of California, according to section 12050 P.C.

The sheriff, ... upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying is a resident of the county, may issue ... a license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm ...

A license may include any reasonable restrictions or conditions which the issuing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, and circumstances under which the person may carry a concealed firearm.


In California, if one expresses in a statement of good cause that the person wishes to obtain a concealed weapon permit for the purpose of self defense & protection, he/she will very likely be denied because this cause is not considered good cause to many of the Chief Law Enforcement Officers and Sheriffs in California.

According to articles I have observed, Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness said he would consider issuing more concealed weapons permits, and that he has to be "open to the potential that there will be more people in need of the ability to protect themselves as individuals".

In Riverside County, Supervisor Jeff Stone has proposed the following as good cause for issuance of concealed weapons permits:

"With the State of California authorization for early release of up to 27,000 prisoners, a uniform policy for certification and issuance of a Concealed Weapon Permit should include the reason of "personal defense", in compliance with the State of California's "good cause" law, as a reason to carry a concealed weapon in Riverside County."

As a law abiding resident of the State of California who meets the criteria under section 12050, and with no history of moral turpitude, I am respectfully asking that you too begin issuing concealed weapons permits to citizens who meet this criteria, with the good cause that one wishes to obtain such permit for the purpose of personal defense and protection.

Sincerely,
My signature,
My name
This is the letter that Sheriff Ahern writes back to me. Note that he mentions the 2nd. I never mentioned anything about the 2nd in my letter to him:
Quote:
(510) 272-6878

December 10, 2009

My name
My address
My city , state & zip code

Dear Mr. *****

Thank you for your November 27, 2009, letter expressing your opinions about the issuance of concealed weapon permits.

My office has a written policy that outlines the application steps for citizens applying to the Alameda County Sheriff's Office for a Carry a Concealed Weapon (CCW) license. Our process meets all of the standards outlined in California Penal Code Sections 12050 through 12054.

Citizens who apply for licenses are screened on a case-by-case basis; they must complete steps in this process that include attending a firearms safety and qualification class, as well as other provisions.

I do not take this process lightly and also recognize qualified applicants' rights as outlined in the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. If you have other questions concerning this process, please contact Captain Donald Buchanan in the Internal Affairs Unit. Captain Buchanan can be reached at (510) 208-9800.

Sincerely,
The Sheriff's signature, etc.
Erik.

Last edited by Window_Seat; 10-18-2010 at 5:06 PM.. Reason: To add the letter I wrote to the Sheriff of Alameda County (I Found it!!)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-18-2010, 4:39 PM
obeygiant's Avatar
obeygiant obeygiant is offline
Veteran Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 4,160
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
Does this mean that it's safe to apply now?

Erik.
see wildhawker's response below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Not yet, but we will be phasing in each county as their acceptable good cause statements are available, and also as the policy compliance portion corrects any deficiencies.
__________________

Member, CRPA Board of Directors
"No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little." - Edmund Burke

Search Calguns using Google
CGN Search plugin for Firefox & IE CA Shotgun AW ID Flowchart CA Handgun AW ID Flowchart CA Senate CA Assembly Anti-2A Search Plugin
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-18-2010, 4:41 PM
VictorFranko's Avatar
VictorFranko VictorFranko is offline
#BlackLabsMatter
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: You can not protect the 1st Amendment without the 2nd Amendment........
Posts: 12,127
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

I went to boot camp in Alameda.
The title of this thread sent shivers down my spine........................
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-18-2010, 4:51 PM
Citizen 14's Avatar
Citizen 14 Citizen 14 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Great state of California
Posts: 144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
And just for info, in reading the policy statement of ALCO Sheriff, they require a $1 million liability insurance policy. This is obviously arbitrary,

I started looking into CCW in Alameda county a couple of weeks ago. When I saw this, I just about fell out of my chair!
It's just so aggravating and what makes it worse is the fact that some people think this is acceptable.
__________________
Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it.

I demand 100% compliance. Not 80%, not 90%, no 99%. 100 EFFING PERCENT. I'm sorry if the law enforcers don't like the laws and Constitution they swore to uphold... Actually, I'm not. -Brandon
(BOOYAH!!)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-18-2010, 5:05 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,527
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Update in my original post: The letter I wrote to Sheriff Ahern is included above.

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-19-2010, 8:54 AM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,527
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Arrow City of Newark CCW fee: $1200.00

Brandon, et all;

So here is the "Master Fee Schedule" for the City of Newark (in Alameda County).

The fee for a CCW license (apparently this indicates that the city does issue, unless they defer to ACSO).

Quote:
I. GENERAL FUND - POLICE
Q. PERMIT FEES

2.
a. New Permit 1,200
b. Annual Renewal 100
And I'll be looking around for an application or policy.

Either way, I think that 1200 is way too much, & arbitrary. This may fall into the category of "making the right prohibitively expensive". I wonder if they apply discounts for the "immortal". After skimming down for other fee costs, I didn't find anything lower than 500.00, other than the biggie permits which can run super high for stuff like development, building skyscrapers, that sort of thing; with the exception of fireworks & explosive permits which runs the same as a CCW in Newark, and even with that, I am told by Fireworks vendors on & around 07/04 that they pay upwards of 10,000 to the city, county & state for their 7 day stand to sell what the state, county & city tells them they can sell. This is why fireworks cost so damn much. And this is another issue I'd like to see us maybe someday (as a rather back burner priority) go after. Fireworks is part of our nations history, and it falls into the category of 1A, and possibly 2A (fire-works/arms maybe, or not?)?? Possible attack on arbitrary & prohibitive fireworks regulations?? No, not now (of course) Back to CCW issues...

And then there are penalties for this & that, and most don't even exceed 70.00 for parking, with the exception of parking in disabled, which runs anywhere from 200 & up.

I can't find a policy or application. PRAR anyone?

Erik.

Last edited by Window_Seat; 10-19-2010 at 8:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-19-2010, 9:20 AM
RipVanWinkle RipVanWinkle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 266
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

CCW is not an urgent priority for me personally, although perhaps it should be to the extent that being CCW licensed would ameliorate any legal hazards arising from living within multiple, overlapping, GFSZ’s. However, even if the current “good cause” were simply a desire for personal protection I would not be applying for a CCW license under Sheriff Ahern’s policy. It’s just too cumbersome and expensive:

$244 Application Fee.
$150 Psych. Exam (minimum: could be more)
$50 Qualifying Range Fee.
$50 Estimated cost of ammo for qualifying.
$100 Estimated handgun safety course fee.
$1500 Estimated annual premium for $1M personal liability insurance.*
$200 Estimated incidental expenses.
$2294 TOTAL

*Based on a quote for a one person business without public access. In reality no agents want to write such a policy.

The insurance premium and the license renewal fee (unspecified) would be ongoing annual expenses to maintain the license, putting CCW out of the reach of most citizens of Alameda County. This strikes me as the equivalent of a poll tax of grandiose proportions for the exercise of what is legally a fundamental individual right. A business might be able to expense this kind of exorbitant cash outlay, but the majority of us are out of luck.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-19-2010, 9:32 AM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,527
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by RipVanWinkle View Post
CCW is not an urgent priority for me personally, although perhaps it should be to the extent that being CCW licensed would ameliorate any legal hazards arising from living within multiple, overlapping, GFSZ’s. However, even if the current “good cause” were simply a desire for personal protection I would not be applying for a CCW license under Sheriff Ahern’s policy. It’s just too cumbersome and expensive:

$244 Application Fee.
$150 Psych. Exam (minimum: could be more)
$50 Qualifying Range Fee.
$50 Estimated cost of ammo for qualifying.
$100 Estimated handgun safety course fee.
$1500 Estimated annual premium for $1M personal liability insurance.*
$200 Estimated incidental expenses.
$2294 TOTAL

*Based on a quote for a one person business without public access. In reality no agents want to write such a policy.

The insurance premium and the license renewal fee (unspecified) would be ongoing annual expenses to maintain the license, putting CCW out of the reach of most citizens of Alameda County. This strikes me as the equivalent of a poll tax of grandiose proportions for the exercise of what is legally a fundamental individual right. A business might be able to expense this kind of exorbitant cash outlay, but the majority of us are out of luck.
This list being what it is, does not necessarily mean that it will be applied. Infact, it ultimately WON'T be applied, because it's an unconstitutional catch 22 on its face which will not pass muster in federal court, and the Sheriff knows it very well.

Here is a good reason why.

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-19-2010, 10:54 AM
Barbarossa's Avatar
Barbarossa Barbarossa is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 4,305
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quick google-ing brought up a few items from calccw.com

CCW issuance 1987 - 2006

he (Ahern) is willing to allow a second gun, though a condition is that you need to score >90% at range qualification with your current gun.
__________________
WTB: Remington 870's (wing masters a plus)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-19-2010, 11:29 AM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,527
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Exclamation

Since Alameda County is obviously going to be quite a serious challenge, it would be much appreciated if as many folks as possible could get together and join in the Alameda County CCW Initiative Sponsorship.

Sponsorship donations for Alameda County are extremely important because they are going to impose lots and lots of resistance. The same goes for counties like Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Los Angeles, Orange, and other counties which are just as important for this agenda. This isn't going to be easy, but it will be made easier with this sponsorship support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Excellent!

Just as an example, LA is asking $6,250 for their records alone. While those costs are a bit out of line, it goes to show how expensive sunshine will be.

As a target, it would be good to have 10 sponsorships and 1 or 2 vendor sponsorships per county to provide a base from which to relentlessly attack these policies.

If anyone is a member of another forum with similar interest in our rights, we'd be obliged if you'll help us get the word out.

Thanks again everyone!

-Brandon
Me? I have (so far) one sponsorship of ALCO, but that's not the only one. I'm pledging to make a monthly sponsorship donation (be it a general sponsorship, or one for a county) or maybe more often, but I can't do it alone!

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-19-2010, 12:31 PM
RipVanWinkle RipVanWinkle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 266
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
This list being what it is, does not necessarily mean that it will be applied. Infact, it ultimately WON'T be applied, because it's an unconstitutional catch 22 on its face which will not pass muster in federal court, and the Sheriff knows it very well.

Here is a good reason why.

Erik.
Thanks, Erik, I read that thread.

In responding to your letter Sheriff Ahern informed you that his department had a policy, but he didn't say much more about it except that it involved safety and qualification classes. Your letter was urging him to accept "personal defense" as a "good cause" under his department's policy, but he really didn't say anything about this in his reply. My point was that even if he acceded to your request, and I could apply for and be assured of receiving a license, the other requirements of the policy in question are so expensive and difficult to fulfill that I and most others would be prevented from applying.

I certainly agree with you that Sheriff Ahern's policy is "an unconstitutional catch 22 on its face", but based on his response to your letter I'm not convinced how well he knows that.

The policy itself has a history of:

ISSUE DATE: March 1, 1996
REVISION DATE: February 6, 2007.

I wonder what the policy was prior to the revision in 2007. In any event the last revision predated the recent Supreme Court decisions making the right to keep and bear arms a fundamental right and incorporating it to the states. Do you think that his reference to the 2nd Amendment was made with these cases in mind? Is it reasonable to expect that a further revision of Sheriff Ahern's policy might be forthcoming short of legal action?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-19-2010, 3:36 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,245
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
Brandon, et all;

So here is the "Master Fee Schedule" for the City of Newark (in Alameda County).
....
I'm not Brandon and doubt whether I qualify as one of his et als, but I'll chip in.

Bottom line: Don't bother w/cities and police departments.

In another thread (somewhere), this past week I read that CGF is focusing on the 58 sheriffs and NOT CoPs/PDs because there are only 58 sheriffs and sheriffs MUST take applications from ANY resident of their country, regardless of whether the person resides in an incorporated city which has a PD that issues its own CCWs or not.

IIRC, they (it was a Right Person) said that they will eventually go after PDs w/illegal policies, but that is way down the line since PDs really are irrelevant. Who cares if a CoP won't readily issue a CCW when all the sheriffs are forced to?
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
185+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Last edited by Paladin; 10-19-2010 at 9:52 PM.. Reason: clarity
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-19-2010, 4:30 PM
RipVanWinkle RipVanWinkle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 266
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Interesting...

If Sheriff Ahern is willing to allow a second gun on a license then he must be doing so by violating his own written policy, which is very specific:

"Only ONE weapon will be authorized on the license and must be the same weapon used in the safety course and range qualification. Your firearm must be of .38 caliber or larger, two- to six-inch barrel revolver, or a pistol (semiautomatic), 9mm caliber or larger. A.41 or .44 magnum will not be authorized. Your weapon must be capable of a minimum of 5 shots."

Other ambiguities are in here. Does this rule out .380, which at 0.355 is the same "caliber" as 9 mm, although a less powerful cartridge? Probably. I guess .44 special and .45 ACP are O.K., mouse guns are out. What about .454 Cassull? This sort of incomplete exclusion of selected cartridges always results in placing the approval of the firearm at the whim of the sheriff.

Also why allow a second gun with a 90% on the current gun? Shouldn't you just have to qualify with the second one?

Last edited by RipVanWinkle; 10-19-2010 at 4:35 PM.. Reason: added second gun
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-19-2010, 6:13 PM
RipVanWinkle RipVanWinkle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 266
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Excuse me for all the posts, but I’m just going through the Alameda Co. CCW Policy document and picking out things that really appear designed to make it overly difficult to get a license.

One thing that really bothers me is the psychological evaluation. Why should any citizen be directed to a psychologist who does evaluations for the Sheriff’s Department? I’m guessing that the department’s psychologist spends most of his/her time administering tests and interviews and evaluating candidates for hiring as officers, doing additional evaluations of existing personnel, counseling officers and whatever other services they might perform. One presumes that the validity of their tests and procedures is constantly updated by evaluating them with numerical measurements of job performance, although I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is not the case. It’s not as easy as it might sound.

Even if it is the case I see no reason to expect that the methods used in helping make hiring decisions for the department would transfer directly to making decisions about members of the general public seeking CCW licenses. Police officers are being selected for a specific job that includes use of firearms, but they are also being evaluated for a whole host of other characteristics that do not apply to members of the general public. In general, the proper deployment and use of firearms by the police is much broader and has a different focus than the use of a firearm for self defense by an individual citizen. The important question is: Have the methods used for making decisions about individuals seeking CCW licenses (presumably unique to that purpose) been validated by the same type of empirical studies that (one hopes) are employed in evaluating the methods applied to the selection of police officers?

I suspect that in many cases no adequate validation has been done in the testing of police officers, and I am almost certain that none exists for the case of CCW applicants. This conclusion is almost guaranteed given the many variations in procedures in the different departments. If this is correct then the psychological evaluation for CCW applicants should be eliminated. The details remain to be seen. Something tells me, “Dig Here!”
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-19-2010, 8:08 PM
obeygiant's Avatar
obeygiant obeygiant is offline
Veteran Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 4,160
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
Brandon, et all;

So here is the "Master Fee Schedule" for the City of Newark (in Alameda County).

The fee for a CCW license (apparently this indicates that the city does issue, unless they defer to ACSO).

And I'll be looking around for an application or policy.

I can't find a policy or application. PRAR anyone?

Erik.
No need to PRAR them or any of the other counties as CGF has already done this. CGF currently has:
  • fee schedule
  • policy
  • forms
  • instructions
  • and anything else related to ccw.

that being said, your passion and enthusiasm will be put to good use.
__________________

Member, CRPA Board of Directors
"No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little." - Edmund Burke

Search Calguns using Google
CGN Search plugin for Firefox & IE CA Shotgun AW ID Flowchart CA Handgun AW ID Flowchart CA Senate CA Assembly Anti-2A Search Plugin
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-20-2010, 3:56 PM
Sick Boy's Avatar
Sick Boy Sick Boy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Berkeley, PRK
Posts: 1,115
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Wow, this is getting exciting.

Hopefully they can knock down the fee though, I could buy a car for $2500.


Subscribed and patiently awaiting further news!
__________________
XBL GT: Mmmmm Bacons

"Doctrine is the last refuge of the unimaginative." - General James "Chaos" Mattis, USMC
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-20-2010, 5:05 PM
Ksmash01 Ksmash01 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oaklandish
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Question:

Is there a limit to how many times you can apply for a CCW?
__________________
Quote:
Originally posted by Huey Freeman

Jesus was Black, Ronald Reagan was the devil, and the Government lied about 9/11.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-20-2010, 5:51 PM
RipVanWinkle RipVanWinkle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 266
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sick Boy View Post
Wow, this is getting exciting.

Hopefully they can knock down the fee though, I could buy a car for $2500.


Subscribed and patiently awaiting further news!
Well, the Sheriff only collects these fees:

$244 Application Fee.
$150 Psych. Exam (minimum: could be more)
$50 Qualifying Range Fee.

$444.00 total. But you have to provide the insurance, ammo for qualification, and I'm guessing a couple hundred more bucks driving around and various expenses by the time you're through. I'm sure the Sheriff would want a certificate of insurance to complete the application, so you'd have to pay the premium for that before you know if you'll be approved. If your application is denied, of course, you'll kiss it all goodbye. You could probably get something back by canceling the policy, but the insurance company would still keep a chunk for minimum earned premium, say, $500 or so. The whole thing is ridiculous. But I'm betting no agent would write that policy anyway based on experience. If you have homeowners insurance you might be covered under that. Otherwise you're SOL.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-20-2010, 6:04 PM
Sick Boy's Avatar
Sick Boy Sick Boy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Berkeley, PRK
Posts: 1,115
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

I know, I work in the insurance industry, completely ridiculous.


Hopefully that is something Gene and the crew can get kicked to the curb.
__________________
XBL GT: Mmmmm Bacons

"Doctrine is the last refuge of the unimaginative." - General James "Chaos" Mattis, USMC
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-20-2010, 11:34 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RipVanWinkle View Post
Well, the Sheriff only collects these fees:

$244 Application Fee.
$150 Psych. Exam (minimum: could be more)
$50 Qualifying Range Fee.

$444.00 total. But you have to provide the insurance, ammo for qualification, and I'm guessing a couple hundred more bucks driving around and various expenses by the time you're through.
I am pretty sure that statutorily the limits are:
$95 livescan/background/DOJ fee
$100 local fee
$150 Psych exam, only if ALL applicants are required to do so.
$undetermined training fee


The sheriff can ask for the $95 fee plus $20 of the local fee up front, the rest can't be collected until your application is approved.

The insurance requirement is against the law and every sheriff in CA now knows that. Once we get to the point of starting to apply in Alameda Gray will have taken care of most of these issues. I also highly doubt that ALL of the applicants will have been through a psych eval so it is most likely the case that you won't have to either.

Remember, applying and getting our CCWs is the last little piece of this whole initiative. Brandon and Gray are working hard to give us the greatest probability of being approved and then getting issued for the least cost possible and in accordance with all CA laws. Part of being willing to participate in this whole process is knowing that some of our CCWs will be held up or take slightly longer because they will be part of the clean-up process.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-20-2010, 11:41 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,418
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ksmash01 View Post
Question:

Is there a limit to how many times you can apply for a CCW?
No, nor is there a "duration between applications" restriction, although the county has a limited time to respond. Please see the Flowchart and Guide for more info.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-20-2010, 11:43 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,527
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Cool

(Edited to add first):

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
No, nor is there a "duration between applications" restriction, although the county has a limited time to respond. Please see the Flowchart and Guide for more info.
And pay particular attention to notes relating to Salute v. Pitchess, especially on page 11 of the above link.

^Edited to add^
----------------------

And as far as the psych eval, I would think (or hope, I can hope, HOPE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!!) that this will also be thrown out quickly, or the Sheriff will be "compelled" not to require it. We have yet to find out if those who have been "awarded" were required to get a psych eval, no? Time will tell, and then the GC statements come in. Good questions & points above, keep 'em coming in!!

Erik.

Last edited by Window_Seat; 10-20-2010 at 11:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-20-2010, 11:43 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,418
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Another fee that can be collected is the local fingerprinting fee, which cannot exceed the standard local cost for same; in other words, the SO cannot charge 2x for CCW fingerprinting what they would otherwise charge for the same service.

Training would be "actual cost", and must be uniformly required of all applicants.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-20-2010, 11:46 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,418
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Paladin is exactly right.

I am sniffing around some cities throughout the state - and all in some counties - mainly to apply tactical "pain" and less because they matter in re CCW issuance. However, our focus is on making California "shall issue" and for the process to be accessible and unburdened with illegal policies.

-Brandon

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I'm not Brandon and doubt whether I qualify as one of his et als, but I'll chip in.

Bottom line: Don't bother w/cities and police departments.

In another thread (somewhere), this past week I read that CGF is focusing on the 58 sheriffs and NOT CoPs/PDs because there are only 58 sheriffs and sheriffs MUST take applications from ANY resident of their country, regardless of whether the person resides in an incorporated city which has a PD that issues its own CCWs or not.

IIRC, they (it was a Right Person) said that they will eventually go after PDs w/illegal policies, but that is way down the line since PDs really are irrelevant. Who cares if a CoP won't readily issue a CCW when all the sheriffs are forced to?
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-21-2010, 10:31 AM
Ksmash01 Ksmash01 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oaklandish
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
No, nor is there a "duration between applications" restriction, although the county has a limited time to respond. Please see the Flowchart and Guide for more info.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
(Edited to add first):



And pay particular attention to notes relating to Salute v. Pitchess, especially on page 11 of the above link.

^Edited to add^
----------------------

And as far as the psych eval, I would think (or hope, I can hope, HOPE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!!) that this will also be thrown out quickly, or the Sheriff will be "compelled" not to require it. We have yet to find out if those who have been "awarded" were required to get a psych eval, no? Time will tell, and then the GC statements come in. Good questions & points above, keep 'em coming in!!

Erik.
So not only is there a limit to how many applications that can be submitted, nor a duration between applications submitted, but the Sheriffs Dept.(licensing agency) has to go through each one individually per Salute v. Pitchess......

Interesting....

ETA: So what happens if the county doesn't answer within their allotted time?
__________________
Quote:
Originally posted by Huey Freeman

Jesus was Black, Ronald Reagan was the devil, and the Government lied about 9/11.

Last edited by Ksmash01; 10-21-2010 at 10:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-22-2010, 10:42 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ksmash01 View Post
So not only is there a limit to how many applications that can be submitted, nor a duration between applications submitted, but the Sheriffs Dept.(licensing agency) has to go through each one individually per Salute v. Pitchess......

Interesting....

ETA: So what happens if the county doesn't answer within their allotted time?
The steamroller comes for them.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-22-2010, 11:38 AM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RipVanWinkle View Post
CCW is not an urgent priority for me personally, although perhaps it should be to the extent that being CCW licensed would ameliorate any legal hazards arising from living within multiple, overlapping, GFSZ’s. However, even if the current “good cause” were simply a desire for personal protection I would not be applying for a CCW license under Sheriff Ahern’s policy. It’s just too cumbersome and expensive:

$244 Application Fee.
$150 Psych. Exam (minimum: could be more)
$50 Qualifying Range Fee.
$50 Estimated cost of ammo for qualifying.
$100 Estimated handgun safety course fee.
$1500 Estimated annual premium for $1M personal liability insurance.*
$200 Estimated incidental expenses.
$2294 TOTAL

*Based on a quote for a one person business without public access. In reality no agents want to write such a policy.
Interesting total there. As a Senior Citizen on Social Security, that's 2 mos income for me. Glad I don't live in that county.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-23-2010, 7:53 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just something I've learned from another "liability insurance" county is that A) An insurance policy like this doesn't actually exist and B) these liability insurance requiring sheriff's are not requiring it universally.

There may be case law involving insurance for use of a firearm in self defense inside of a home or business (the insurance company must cover it as it's considered an "accident), the same thing doesn't apply outside of the home.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-23-2010, 12:33 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,527
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Arrow

The individual health care insurance mandate could fall under that category, but a Michigan Federal Judge just denied a MSJ for a plaintiff who was asking for a preliminary injunction against the mandate. Hopefully if it gets struck in the appeals court, or ultimately, SCOTUS, or the bill gets repealed after 11/02, we might use that. It's a mandatory insurance requirement for an individual for the purpose of exercising a fundamental right. We have the right to travel in Interstate Commerce, and exercising certain rights which are incorporated against the States & Localities must be protected. The individual health care coverage mandate part of ObamaCare is unconstitutional on its face.

(ETA):

Texas case could decide health care reform suit

Something we have been discussing at length here for quite a while, the first Federal GFSZ act which was thrown out by SCOTUS.

Erik.

Last edited by Window_Seat; 10-23-2010 at 12:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-23-2010, 4:40 PM
Ksmash01 Ksmash01 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oaklandish
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
The steamroller comes for them.
I bet I can make our sheriff feel like he's under a steamroller with about 1,000 CCW applications from ONE PERSON.....

Just say the word.......talk about inundated.....
__________________
Quote:
Originally posted by Huey Freeman

Jesus was Black, Ronald Reagan was the devil, and the Government lied about 9/11.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-23-2010, 6:05 PM
RipVanWinkle RipVanWinkle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 266
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Just something I've learned from another "liability insurance" county is that A) An insurance policy like this doesn't actually exist and B) these liability insurance requiring sheriff's are not requiring it universally.
The thrust of what I said in an earlier post was that no insurance agent could be found who would write such a policy. Sick Boy, who works in the insurance industry agrees with me. Let's keep it simple. Does any Calgunner, or anyone else, have such a policy? If so, who is the agent, and what is the annual premium?

Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-23-2010, 11:38 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,418
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

My brother in law is our agent; he mentioned a $1MM UMB/GL policy as a possible rider to homeowners, and possibly as a stand-alone binder. I'll dig to see what the reality is. I haven't seen any requirement that had any particulars, just "$1MM liability".
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-24-2010, 7:39 AM
bootcamp bootcamp is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SF East Bay Area
Posts: 957
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Default

I sped read this thread but didn't find any "good meat" about whether or not it's ok to apply in Alameda county so let me just bluntly ask again. Should we continue to wait or should we put it in with a specific sheriff?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
Lube helps whenever you are trying to get something into a tight hole.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-24-2010, 7:48 AM
RipVanWinkle RipVanWinkle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 266
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Just something I've learned from another "liability insurance" county is that A) An insurance policy like this doesn't actually exist and B) these liability insurance requiring sheriff's are not requiring it universally.

I’m just curious about this whole insurance issue because of my past experience with something similar. About twenty years ago I rented a small workshop space, about 600 square feet, and as a condition of the lease the landlord wanted me to have a $1M liability insurance policy covering my use of the space, and naming the landlord as additional insured. I initially approached the insurance agent who has handled my other insurance matters for decades, and he was stumped because, if I remember correctly, none of his insurance companies would write such a policy for a commercial space less than 1500 square feet, or something like that.

I approached the agent who wrote the insurance for the landlord, and he agreed to insure me based on 600 square feet, only because he wanted to keep the main business of the landlord, and he thought that providing reasonable insurance to the tenants would help him in that respect. So I got my $1M liability policy with an annual premium of something like $250. In the meantime the other tenants were running into the same problems I’d faced, others were just ignoring the insurance requirement or dragging their feet on the issue. When it eventually became clear that the landlord was serious about enforcing the insurance requirement in the lease, some of the other tenants asked me where I got my insurance and I directed them to the cooperative insurance agent.

Alas!, by that time the landlord’s insurance policies had come up for renewal, and the friendly agent had been dumped by the landlord for a competitor who undercut him on his quote. He was no longer interested in insuring the tenants based on their square footage, but was quoting them $1200-$1500 annual premiums like all the other agents. He did, however, keep insuring me at the original low rate because all the work had been done in writing the policy in the first place. The rest of the tenants either coughed up the higher rates or moved out. I just got lucky.

The point of this long cautionary tale is that insurance agents, or the companies they represent, generally have a minimum or cutoff level below which they are unwilling to write policies. For some of us, we get lucky or have ongoing relationships with insurance agents through homeownership or businesses whereby we could incorporate the CCW insurance or even expense the costs of the premiums. There are workarounds. Other possibilities are membership in a club or organization that could offer a group policy that might attract an insurer.

But consider a 23 year old male who’s got nothin’: probably got all his net worth in his guns and his motorscooter. I’ll bet there’s no “Gunslinger Liability Policy” out there for that guy, at any price (Gray’s condition A). Hence my curiosity and my question: Does any Calgunner, or anyone else, have such a policy? If so, who is the agent, and what is the annual premium? I’ll include Gray’s condition B as an additional question: How many current CCW licensees comply with the insurance requirement? I’d like to know the demographics of that group! Security and guard businesses, PI's?

Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-24-2010, 10:30 AM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,527
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by bootcamp View Post
I sped read this thread but didn't find any "good meat" about whether or not it's ok to apply in Alameda county so let me just bluntly ask again. Should we continue to wait or should we put it in with a specific sheriff?
I posted that question above:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
Does this mean that it's safe to apply now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by obeygiant View Post
see wildhawker's response below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Not yet, but we will be phasing in each county as their acceptable good cause statements are available, and also as the policy compliance portion corrects any deficiencies.
I assure you, we will know when it's time to begin applying, and they will advise when the time comes.

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-24-2010, 11:03 AM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,527
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Arrow

And another easy resource for me to get my hands on a 1 million dollar policy is trucking insurance liability. I drive a Class 8 tractor trailer (semi), and each truck has to have a 1 million dollar liability insurance policy, so I would just take that in and say "Here's your "million dollar insurance".

I would imagine that such a policy wouldn't cover a person outside the truck while on "off duty time", or inside/outside the home. Your employer might have a policy like this, but one might have to be careful not to have the issuing authority go and call the insurance agent to ask questions, who in turn, calls the employer to ask questions about the applicant.

You might not have access to the policy info of your employer, but I would, because I'm mandated by federal regulations to have access to it to show proof of insurance, registration, etc.

I would attempt to, and obtain a notarized statement declaring that I have such a policy (after showing it to the NP), and show that statement, and if denied (a CCW), start making phone calls.

In my case, soon, I'll be purchasing my own Class 8 Truck, and becoming an "Owner Operator", and then I "must" have my own 1 million dollar liability insurance policy. I don't see why this wouldn't work, if in all unlikeliness, it's deemed to be constitutionally permissible by a Court(s).

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-27-2010, 2:06 PM
bootcamp bootcamp is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SF East Bay Area
Posts: 957
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Default

I'm starting to foam at the mouth that this "may" actually be possible in Alameda county. Anything we can do to be ready? I'd like to be close to the "front" of the line when this opens up. Thanks CGF!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
Lube helps whenever you are trying to get something into a tight hole.
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 7:43 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.