Sonoma

[Gray Peterson]

UPDATE (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.

UPDATE: 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).

From: https://www.facebook.com/sonoma.sher...03383356527670

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.

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.

[wildhawker]

We'll have some news on Sonoma, as well as Good Cause statements, soon.

-Brandon

[madmike]

This is excellent news! I eagerly await further instructions.
-madmike.

[tankerman]

Standing by for Good Cause Statements.

Has a list of current CCW holders been obtained from the Sheriff?

I'd like to know how many 'political friends' of the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors have been issued permits.

[stevea2003]

I am an alarm company owner and applied about six months ago and was rejected stating not good enough cause.
I am very interested in acceptable good cause statement. I thought my statement was very good but I think Sonoma County just doesn't issue permits unless you have friends in high places.

[Rocket Man]

We have a convicted child rapist living two blocks away from our beautiful blond 5yr old daughter....
Remember Poly Klaus, happened around here, taken from her own home to be raped & murdered....
I doubt our local sheriff would let my wife & I CCW even though we hold current NV CCW permits....

Thank you Calguns for fighting for our rights!

[stix213]

I recently donated enough to push Sonoma County over the fund raising target. Hopefully that will bump our county up a little higher on the fix it list I'm holding off on applying after I read that the Sonoma County Sheriff's office uses previous denials as reason for future denials (That's in Gray's link in his first post here).

Awaiting the call for "volunteers" though

[Soldier415]

Subbing thread

[obeygiant]

Originally Posted by tankerman

Standing by for Good Cause Statements.

Has a list of current CCW holders been obtained from the Sheriff?

I'd like to know how many 'political friends' of the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors have been issued permits.

They have not produced the responsive documents yet.

[tankerman]

Originally Posted by obeygiant

They have not produced the responsive documents yet.

The typical stalling.
Must be good list of pay-to-play political donors.


Using prior denials as reason for future denials amounts to an implied threat.

[Dirmer3]

Originally Posted by stix213

I recently donated enough to push Sonoma County over the fund raising target. Hopefully that will bump our county up a little higher on the fix it list I'm holding off on applying after I read that the Sonoma County Sheriff's office uses previous denials as reason for future denials (That's in Gray's link in his first post here).

Awaiting the call for "volunteers" though

Thank you! Now c'mon, let's get this movin' out here!

[dantodd]

Sorry for the delay guys. Short list, only nine outstanding CCWs according to the sheriff.

As usual, you can download the docs from the CGF website: http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/ind...ive/137-sonoma

[Soldier415]

I looked at the section 219 regarding CCW issuance. On page 5 where it states that by mutual agreement, each agency will only issue to those residing in its jurisdiction.

Says that if you live in a city, the sheriff will force you to apply to them. Is that little tidbit of illegal policy being addressed?

[madmike]

These good cause statements don't look like they'll help me (although I can't even afford the $20 it would take to find out right now). Are these all there are, or just all they would give up so far? This is a fascinating project, I can't wait to see how it turns out!

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by Soldier415

I looked at the section 219 regarding CCW issuance. On page 5 where it states that by mutual agreement, each agency will only issue to those residing in its jurisdiction.

Says that if you live in a city, the sheriff will force you to apply to them. Is that little tidbit of illegal policy being addressed?

I can say that this fact wasn't missed. It is also good to have it IN WRITING.

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by madmike

These good cause statements don't look like they'll help me (although I can't even afford the $20 it would take to find out right now). Are these all there are, or just all they would give up so far? This is a fascinating project, I can't wait to see how it turns out!

There is conflicting information from the various sources. Brandon is looking into it to determine if there are applications missing or if there was was inaccurate reporting of permit totals elsewhere.

[wildhawker]

Originally Posted by Soldier415

I looked at the section 219 regarding CCW issuance. On page 5 where it states that by mutual agreement, each agency will only issue to those residing in its jurisdiction.

Says that if you live in a city, the sheriff will force you to apply to them. Is that little tidbit of illegal policy being addressed?

Yes, it's on the radar, but no, we haven't found a Sonoma resident desiring to take that on. Wanna play?

-Brandon

[MudCamper]

Most of the GC statements are from cops or retired cops. That doesn't help us. Does the sheriff only issue to cops, or did he only release these kinds of GC statements, in an effort to roadblock the Sunshine Initiative? Maybe I'm wearing my tinfoil hat right now, but it seems like the kind of tactic that an anti-gun anti-citizen sheriff would pull.

[wildhawker]

I'll be following up to ensure they've provided all GC statements. The #s do not reconcile.

[Soldier415]

Originally Posted by MudCamper

Most of the GC statements are from cops or retired cops. That doesn't help us. Does the sheriff only issue to cops, or did he only release these kinds of GC statements, in an effort to roadblock the Sunshine Initiative? Maybe I'm wearing my tinfoil hat right now, but it seems like the kind of tactic that an anti-gun anti-citizen sheriff would pull.

I was thnking the same thing. I'd imagine there are more than 9 or 10 CCWs issued in the whole county.

[madmike]

Originally Posted by dantodd

There is conflicting information from the various sources. Brandon is looking into it to determine if there are applications missing or if there was was inaccurate reporting of permit totals elsewhere.

Let me know if I can assist.

[Soldier415]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

Yes, it's on the radar, but no, we haven't found a Sonoma resident desiring to take that on. Wanna play?

-Brandon

I'd love to, but we discussed my current predicament that precludes it.

[BigDogatPlay]

Originally Posted by dantodd

Sorry for the delay guys. Short list, only nine outstanding CCWs according to the sheriff.

That number seems very low, and may well be for the sheriff's office only. That said, if you PRAR'ed each of the nine incorporated cities I'd wager you might not find too many more.

Sheriff Cogbill, outgoing, was not renewing a lot of permits over the past few years as they came up for renewal and wasn't interested in new applications. There were members who posted here and elsewhere about exactly that.

[stix213]

Any news on the discrepancy between the number of good cause statements expected and the number the county actually produced?

[Soldier415]

Originally Posted by stix213

Any news on the discrepancy between the number of good cause statements expected and the number the county actually produced?

This

[ssteve]

anyone know Steve Freitas's ideals on CCW's, and when will he be the new active sheriff?

[stix213]

Originally Posted by ssteve

anyone know Steve Freitas's ideals on CCW's, and when will he be the new active sheriff?

He believes self defense alone isn't good cause. If you aren't wealthy with lots of property your life apparently should just wait for the deputies to arrive.

Funny how he starts out saying he supports the 2nd amendment, and follows up with saying you'll need to meet the "good cause standard" to utilize it.

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showt...php?p=11105248

From: steve@freitasforsheriff2010.com
To: shaunbootsma@hotmail.com
Subject:
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 1343 -0800

Mr. Bootsma,

Thank you for your e mail about CCW's in Sonoma County. First off, I support the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.

As for CCW's, the issue is the Penal Code section that says there must be "good cause" to issue the CCW. Different people have varying opinions on what "good cause" means. I know the Sheriff issues more CCW's then our law enforcement colleagues in the cities. For example, the city of Santa Rosa, with a population very similar to the unincorporated areas of the County, has 1 CCW issued to the best of my knowledge. On the other hand, the Sheriff currently has about 70 issued.

As for my position, I think I can best describe it by using an example. At a recent public meeting a rancher from the West County told me his story. He has several different properties and this requires him the use public roads to get to and from the various locations. At one of the locations he found evidence of marijuana being grown illegally on his property. He applied for a CCW but was turned down. In this situation I would have issued the CCW.

However, I need to point out that I did not check to see if this person was denied for some other reason and I did not verify his story. Either way the example is one that I can point to where I believe the ranchers story would meet the "good cause" standard in the Penal Code.

Each case needs to be looked at individually to see if it meets the "good cause" standard. I hope this example helps to explain, at least in this case, what my position is on the "good cause" question.

If you want to give me a specific example of your own I would be happy to answer it.

Thank you,


Steve Freitas
Freitas for Sheriff 2010
PO Box 869
Windsor, Ca 95492
(707) 570-1900

[stix213]

You'll note that Steve Freitas as of march believed that 70 CCW's were currently issued specifically by the sheriff's department. Which again doesn't match with what we have been provided.

[Super Spy]

Originally Posted by MudCamper

Most of the GC statements are from cops or retired cops. That doesn't help us. Does the sheriff only issue to cops, or did he only release these kinds of GC statements, in an effort to roadblock the Sunshine Initiative? Maybe I'm wearing my tinfoil hat right now, but it seems like the kind of tactic that an anti-gun anti-citizen sheriff would pull.

Same thing I noticed....so unless you're rich and live on 1000 acres in the sticks, or affiliated with Law Enforcement, you are SOL.

[ssteve]

hmmm, I live on a 8 acre horse ranch in the south west portion of santa rosa where there have been mountain lion attacks, drug houses, cock fighting rings, etc etc. I wonder if I can persuade him somehow....?

[GillaFunk]

oooh..subscribed!

I'd be interested in applying now that I have a job which may give me more than a 'good cause'

[ssteve]

Emailed him a letter, hopefully response time is decent.

[stix213]

Originally Posted by ssteve

Emailed him a letter, hopefully response time is decent.

I couldn't resist, I sent him an e-mail as well. My e-mail below. I think I did a good job writing it

CCW in Sonoma County question

Recently CCW issuance has become a hot button issue in CA due to the vast majority of the country going "shall issue" followed by the Heller and McDonald supreme court decisions confirming the right to individual self defense use of firearms as the core right protected by the 2nd amendment and the incorporation of this against the state, county, city, and other local governments.

Being that only holders of valid county or city issued CCW permits can legally "bear" functional arms in the state of California as described in the 2nd amendment per the penal code, and the Sheriff of Sonoma County must abide by both the US constitution (including the Supreme Court's interpretation of it) and California penal codes, I am asking what your position will be as Sonoma County Sheriff as to what constitutes "good cause" to issue a CCW permit?

The outgoing sheriff's policy was established when the courts in CA understood the 2nd amendment to protect a collective right, and not an individual right, so his policy of near no issue could be understandable in that context. Though in light of the total shift in 2A law this last year due to the previously mentioned SCOTUS decisions, can I assume a shift in Sonoma County's policy as well in the same way Sacramento County now accepts "self defense" as good cause in the aftermath of these landmark court decisions?

[MudCamper]

Originally Posted by ssteve

Emailed him a letter, hopefully response time is decent.

I emailed the new sheriff a month ago. Never got a response.

[ssteve]

I dont exactly expect he will return it, but at least I can say that I attempted to go through the proper legal channels. He enters as the new sheriff on Jan 3rd at noon, so Ill hold off putting in my ccw app till after then and just hope for the best.

[Sonic_mike]

Subscribing.

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by stix213

I couldn't resist, I sent him an e-mail as well. My e-mail below. I think I did a good job writing it

He's gonna cite Peruta in his defense.

[stix213]

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

He's gonna cite Peruta in his defense.

Yeah I would agree unfortunately.

[tankerman]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

Yes, it's on the radar, but no, we haven't found a Sonoma resident desiring to take that on. Wanna play?

-Brandon

Unfortunately I just moved to an unincorporated area, so I'm under the Sheriff's jurisdiction.

Sounds risky to apply if the Sheriff is still using a CCW permit denial as an excuse for future denials. Any ideas on how to thwart this type of preemptive retaliation tactic?

I want a CCW permit.

[GillaFunk]

I would like to try getting mine.

I was going to try THIS but the link is bad. Any ideas?