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 > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-04-2012, 9:49 AM
DrDavid's Avatar
DrDavid DrDavid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: SoCal (Riverside County)
Posts: 568
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Riverside CCW Department and CGF

I went in to pick up my CCW at the Riverside Sheriff's office and had a nice long chat with the two deputies there. I wanted to share my thoughts about what was said, which might have some bearing on the direction CGF goes in the future.

Riverside is, for the most part, doing a great job, IMHO, in getting CCW's into the hands of those people who want it. For the record, I have nothing but good things to say about both deputies that work in the CCW unit. They're doing a fine job, very pleasant, very easy to deal with. They deserve a lot of respect for doing their job well, being open and honest about the process, and being easy to talk to.

Here's my opinion of what they're doing right:
  1. Fairly quick. My process took under 90 days from the very first call I made inquiring about obtaining a CCW to the permit in my hands.
  2. Training/qualification is easy. They charge $100 for the training/qualification.
  3. They don't drive your neighbors crazy.. Unlike San Bernardino who knocks on all your neighbors doors, Riverside does not do this.
  4. They follow the law in regards to fees and (mostly) forms.
  5. They are genuinely helpful. Be nice to them, and they'll be nice to you.

There's lots more, but, I don't want to get accused to piling it on too thick.. Anyways, there's things they're doing wrong too.
  1. They do ask for letters of recommendation; I didn't find it onerous, and they point to the fact that they can conduct background checks on the applicant... So, they basically claim that the letters are background material.
  2. They do ask for an extra form to be filled out with the goofy questions like, "Have you ever committed a crime that you were never arrested for?"
  3. They don't accept "personal protection" as the GC.. It needs to be more than just two words.

Are they perfect? No. Are they way better than most places? Absolutely. There's no 1 year wait for an appt. There's no invasion of your privacy. No requirements for a year of residency. No limitations on using the CCW for hire (kinda cool actually.. They in fact said I *could* use it for hire, if I wanted to! Anyone want an armed escort to a safety deposit box? Low fees! LOL )

Without getting into the details of everything said (which, is probably a good way to get them upset with me), suffice to say that they're slightly bothered that they're being targeted by CGF for not being 100% perfect, while there are a lot of other sheriff departments who aren't even close to them -- and probably deserve to be targeted much more than they are.

If a department is doing a good job, overall, of supporting citizens rights, I think there needs to be some positive reinforcement. Don't keep beating up one department who's 95% of the way there without complementing them on the 95%!

Go after counties that are doing it actually WRONG and fix it. Then worry about the small details. Am I wrong?
  #2  
Old 05-04-2012, 10:07 AM
Tack Tack is offline
Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: north San Diego county
Posts: 232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You're right, Dr D. Good job, Riverside.
__________________
Calguns and NRA life member.
Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have.
  #3  
Old 05-04-2012, 10:14 AM
pepsi2451 pepsi2451 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Del Norte County
Posts: 1,568
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post
Without getting into the details of everything said (which, is probably a good way to get them upset with me), suffice to say that they're slightly bothered that they're being targeted by CGF for not being 100% perfect, while there are a lot of other sheriff departments who aren't even close to them -- and probably deserve to be targeted much more than they are.
So their excuse for unlawfully infringing on someones right to bear arms is they aren't as bad other departments?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post
If a department is doing a good job, overall, of supporting citizens rights, I think there needs to be some positive reinforcement. Don't keep beating up one department who's 95% of the way there without complementing them on the 95%!
Positive reinforcement? Should we be thanking them for only infringing on our rights a little?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post
Go after counties that are doing it actually WRONG and fix it. Then worry about the small details. Am I wrong?
What makes you think they aren't going after other counties? Yes, I think you are wrong.
  #4  
Old 05-04-2012, 10:16 AM
Dee_Dub's Avatar
Dee_Dub Dee_Dub is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: So cal
Posts: 1,901
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Dr David, I feel the same way. The Deputies in the unit are very helpful. I was surprised at how different the process is from San Bernardino. I have a lot of friends that have CCWs in SBco and I've heard things from they interview your neighbors, to the range masters being *******s, to the investigators trying to trick you during your interview. I had none of that during my process with Riv Co.
  #5  
Old 05-04-2012, 10:22 AM
DrDavid's Avatar
DrDavid DrDavid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: SoCal (Riverside County)
Posts: 568
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepsi2451 View Post
So their excuse for unlawfully infringing on someones right to bear arms is they aren't as bad other departments?

Positive reinforcement? Should we be thanking them for only infringing on our rights a little?

What makes you think they aren't going after other counties? Yes, I think you are wrong.
There's no reason to be rude to someone who's genuinely trying to help and do the right thing. I'm pretty sure that while there are some issues, a nice discussion with them would accomplish more than a threat.

Look, you call ME up and say, "Hey, somethings wrong, would you mind fixing it?" I'll probably fix it. You call me and say, "Fix it or ELSE!", I'll eat your balls for breakfast and then not do a damn thing to fix it.

There is some diplomacy needed, IMHO. If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.. Maybe it's time to get another tool. Just sayin.
  #6  
Old 05-04-2012, 10:33 AM
pepsi2451 pepsi2451 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Del Norte County
Posts: 1,568
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post
There's no reason to be rude to someone who's genuinely trying to help and do the right thing. I'm pretty sure that while there are some issues, a nice discussion with them would accomplish more than a threat.

Look, you call ME up and say, "Hey, somethings wrong, would you mind fixing it?" I'll probably fix it. You call me and say, "Fix it or ELSE!", I'll eat your balls for breakfast and then not do a damn thing to fix it.

There is some diplomacy needed, IMHO. If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.. Maybe it's time to get another tool. Just sayin.
We are talking about a fundamental right. You don't ask someone to stop infringing on your rights, you tell them.
  #7  
Old 05-04-2012, 10:35 AM
Dark Paladin's Avatar
Dark Paladin Dark Paladin is offline
學者, 羇客, 神戰士
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Orange Box
Posts: 1,539
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post
Go after counties that are doing it actually WRONG and fix it. Then worry about the small details. Am I wrong?
My humble half pence. . . from a "game of chess" point of view, it sounds like they have positioned themselves to be the low hanging fruit in the overall strategy. Can you not see CGF wanting to quickly and easily clean up their process, and then prop them up as the model issuing agency for all to see?

On the flip side, I'm not privy to the tactics CGF has employed in talking to the dept, so I have no idea what type of diplomacy (if any) was used.
  #8  
Old 05-04-2012, 10:36 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 DrDavid View Post
I went in to pick up my CCW at the Riverside Sheriff's office and had a nice long chat with the two deputies there. I wanted to share my thoughts about what was said, which might have some bearing on the direction CGF goes in the future.

Riverside is, for the most part, doing a great job, IMHO, in getting CCW's into the hands of those people who want it. For the record, I have nothing but good things to say about both deputies that work in the CCW unit. They're doing a fine job, very pleasant, very easy to deal with. They deserve a lot of respect for doing their job well, being open and honest about the process, and being easy to talk to.

Here's my opinion of what they're doing right:
  1. Fairly quick. My process took under 90 days from the very first call I made inquiring about obtaining a CCW to the permit in my hands.
  2. Training/qualification is easy. They charge $100 for the training/qualification.
  3. They don't drive your neighbors crazy.. Unlike San Bernardino who knocks on all your neighbors doors, Riverside does not do this.
  4. They follow the law in regards to fees and (mostly) forms.
  5. They are genuinely helpful. Be nice to them, and they'll be nice to you.

There's lots more, but, I don't want to get accused to piling it on too thick.. Anyways, there's things they're doing wrong too.
  1. They do ask for letters of recommendation; I didn't find it onerous, and they point to the fact that they can conduct background checks on the applicant... So, they basically claim that the letters are background material.
  2. They do ask for an extra form to be filled out with the goofy questions like, "Have you ever committed a crime that you were never arrested for?"
  3. They don't accept "personal protection" as the GC.. It needs to be more than just two words.

Are they perfect? No. Are they way better than most places? Absolutely. There's no 1 year wait for an appt. There's no invasion of your privacy. No requirements for a year of residency. No limitations on using the CCW for hire (kinda cool actually.. They in fact said I *could* use it for hire, if I wanted to! Anyone want an armed escort to a safety deposit box? Low fees! LOL )

Without getting into the details of everything said (which, is probably a good way to get them upset with me), suffice to say that they're slightly bothered that they're being targeted by CGF for not being 100% perfect, while there are a lot of other sheriff departments who aren't even close to them -- and probably deserve to be targeted much more than they are.

If a department is doing a good job, overall, of supporting citizens rights, I think there needs to be some positive reinforcement. Don't keep beating up one department who's 95% of the way there without complementing them on the 95%!

Go after counties that are doing it actually WRONG and fix it. Then worry about the small details. Am I wrong?
You're wrong.

Here is the basic issue:

If we give "friendly counties", or rather in this case, a supposedly "friendly" sheriff, a pass, it encourages unfriendly sheriffs to resist reform because of the perceived unfairness of our targeting.

Riverside refused for years to accept licenses from city residents without a denial. I pushed them for months to accept from city residents per Salute.

The "friendly" relationship is because of his speaking out against AB 962, him being a life member of the NRA, plus other things.

So:

1) sheriffs should not be making unlawful requirements, especially ones that burden applicants. The letters of reference are illegal, require you to associate in an unwanted fashion with others (this is a big problem for stalking victims), etc. They should adopt the CGF policy, which had been vetted for legality. The reasons they maintain these requirements is POLITICAL, not legal.

2) why doesn't the sheriff follow his peers in Sacramento, El Dorado, Sutter, Lake, Mendocino, & Tehama county & issue for self defense?

We hold our "friends" more accountable because they should know better.
  #9  
Old 05-04-2012, 10:39 AM
radioman's Avatar
radioman radioman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Yucca Arizona
Posts: 1,804
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

pepsi, in California we have no rights, so, if we have no rights and that department is trying to work with people, how can you call it infringing? try getting a CCW in coco county,
__________________
"One useless man is called a disgrace, two become a law firm, and three or more become a Congress."
the new avatar is a painting from 1906, escape from San Francisco.
  #10  
Old 05-04-2012, 10:39 AM
cindynles's Avatar
cindynles cindynles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Temecula
Posts: 2,422
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I have to disagree with you. When I went in for my interview the CCW unit tried very hard to discourage me from submitting my application. Couple that with the fact that they are still not following the law (insisting that you pay for the training and complete the range qualification BEFORE they will submit you application) and you get a CCW unit that doesn't seem to want regular people to apply.

Riverside County requires that you play the game their way if you want a LTC. There is a reason that there are only 423 active permits in a county with over 1.5 million residents. Riverside (0.273%) is worse than San Diego (0.302%) for LTC issue rate.

The perception that it is easy to get at LTC in Riverside county is wrong. Will Riverside county issue to normal, non connected citizens: Yes. But, and this is a big but, you still have to have a good cause that is acceptable to Sheriff Sniff. This is the point I am trying to make. You have to play the game in Riverside county. I don't have an acceptable good cause and I'm not willing to "craft" one. The statement that you made about the CCW unit being helpful is wrong in my experience (Dept. Yezzo sure didn't want me to apply). If they wanted people to apply they would at least follow the law.

I want everyone to know that Riverside county is using unfair and unlawful rules in the hopes that things will change and ALL residents will have the ability to obtain an LTC and not one of these $300 letters.....

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." B.Franklin,1759

  #11  
Old 05-04-2012, 11:19 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

I'm laughing because Riverside thinks they're being "targeted". If they were, it would be a lot more uncomfortable for them than it has been.

Riverside is a mediocre department by every metric. I suppose their rationalizations just go to how self-conscious they're feeling about their inadequacies.

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
__________________
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.
  #12  
Old 05-04-2012, 11:29 AM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,496
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I don't understand why people are fine with requiring letters of recommendation. So people who don't have pro-gun friends shouldn't have carry rights?
__________________
Support my Steam Greenlight campaign for Omega Reaction!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=618002901

Just vote Yes please, not asking for money.
  #13  
Old 05-04-2012, 11:31 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 wildhawker View Post
I'm laughing because Riverside thinks they're being "targeted". If they were, it would be a lot more uncomfortable for them than it has been.

Riverside is a mediocre department by every metric. I suppose their rationalizations just go to how self-conscious they're feeling about their inadequacies.

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
Yep. Concur.

David, the onus is on the sheriff to comply with law. He claims to be a friend of gun owners because of his relationship to a certain NRA staff guy.

He needs to prove it by:

1) adopting a compliant policy, which is mandatory

2) state that "self defense" is good cause, which is optional until we get bear at SCOTUS.
  #14  
Old 05-04-2012, 11:40 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,135
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
I don't understand why people are fine with requiring letters of recommendation. So people who don't have pro-gun friends shouldn't have carry rights?
The standard DOJ app already has a place for you to list references. The letters are just an additional hassle. My question always was "do they accept the letters at face value, or do they then contact the writer of the letter to further verify."

If they do make further contact and inquiry of the ref. letter writer then what was the purpose of the letter? Why not just list the contact info of your reference and let them make contact on in their investigation like they were gonna do anyway.

If it sped up the process and the letters were accepted at face value w/o further contact with the letter writer, in a certain way it wouldn't seem like such a bad thing, but just having to jump thru pointless hoops is stupid.

But then again the entire current process is a joke to begin with designed to give them ever reason, excuse, and ability to deny you. The current system process is essentially adversarial.....it assumes from the beginning that you dont qualify or need a CCW.....unless you can prove otherwise, vs. a true shall issue system which says "you are entitled to a permit, unless for these listed prohibiting reasons you are unqualified."
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
  #15  
Old 05-04-2012, 11:44 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,135
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Yep. Concur.

David, the onus is on the sheriff to comply with law. He claims to be a friend of gun owners because of his relationship to a certain NRA staff guy.

He needs to prove it by:

1) adopting a compliant policy, which is mandatory

2) state that "self defense" is good cause, which is optional until we get bear at SCOTUS.
What kills me is that ALL GC statements essentially boil down to "self-defense". It just so happens that some people, due to certain circumstances may be more likely to need to defend themselves. Just because I am less likely to need to......doesnt mean that I wont ever need to tho.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
  #16  
Old 05-04-2012, 11:49 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,720
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
You're wrong.

Here is the basic issue:

If we give "friendly counties", or rather in this case, a supposedly "friendly" sheriff, a pass, it encourages unfriendly sheriffs to resist reform because of the perceived unfairness of our targeting.

Riverside refused for years to accept licenses from city residents without a denial. I pushed them for months to accept from city residents per Salute.

The "friendly" relationship is because of his speaking out against AB 962, him being a life member of the NRA, plus other things.

So:

1) sheriffs should not be making unlawful requirements, especially ones that burden applicants. The letters of reference are illegal, require you to associate in an unwanted fashion with others (this is a big problem for stalking victims), etc. They should adopt the CGF policy, which had been vetted for legality. The reasons they maintain these requirements is POLITICAL, not legal.

2) why doesn't the sheriff follow his peers in Sacramento, El Dorado, Sutter, Lake, Mendocino, & Tehama county & issue for self defense?

We hold our "friends" more accountable because they should know better.
^THIS.

If we go after agencies for smaller discrepancies with the law and push to win, then other violating agencies take note.

The ultimate goal is reaction to CGF litigation (or threats). Our goal is to make Pavlov's dog always drool.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
  #17  
Old 05-04-2012, 11:50 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,720
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
I don't understand why people are fine with requiring letters of recommendation. So people who don't have pro-gun friends shouldn't have carry rights?
Huge point.

Constitutional rights are not dependent on your neighbors' opinions'.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
  #18  
Old 05-04-2012, 11:59 AM
NoJoke's Avatar
NoJoke NoJoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,539
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Our goal is to make Pavlov's dog always drool.
Well, you made me drool. Time to kick more $$$ to CGF.

David v. Goliath - The righteous shall prevail! ...and so it shall happen again!


David and Goliath - Story Summary:
The Philistine army had gathered for war against Israel. The two armies faced each other, camped for battle on opposite sides of a steep valley. A Philistine giant measuring over nine feet tall and wearing full armor came out each day for forty days, mocking and challenging the Israelites to fight. His name was Goliath. Saul, the King of Israel, and the whole army were terrified of Goliath.

One day David, the youngest son of Jesse, was sent to the battle lines by his father to bring back news of his brothers. David was probably just a young teenager at the time. While there, David heard Goliath shouting his daily defiance and he saw the great fear stirred within the men of Israel. David responded, "Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of God?"

So David volunteered to fight Goliath. It took some persuasion, but King Saul finally agreed to let David fight against the giant. Dressed in his simple tunic, carrying his shepherd's staff, slingshot and a pouch full of stones, David approached Goliath. The giant cursed at him, hurling threats and insults.

David said to the Philistine, "You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied ... today I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds of the air ... and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel ... it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves; for the battle is the Lord's, and he will give all of you into our hands."

As Goliath moved in for the kill, David reached into his bag and slung one of his stones at Goliath's head. Finding a hole in the armor, the stone sank into the giant's forehead and he fell face down on the ground. David then took Goliath's sword, killed him and then cut off his head. When the Philistines saw that their hero was dead, they turned and ran. So the Israelites pursued, chasing and killing them and plundering their camp.
__________________

NO ISSUE / MAY ISSUE / SHALL ISSUE - LTC progress over time since 1986

  #19  
Old 05-04-2012, 12:06 PM
cindynles's Avatar
cindynles cindynles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Temecula
Posts: 2,422
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
^THIS.

If we go after agencies for smaller discrepancies with the law and push to win, then other violating agencies take note.

The ultimate goal is reaction to CGF litigation (or threats). Our goal is to make Pavlov's dog always drool.
That is an outstanding response! $$ inbound to the Calgunsfoundation.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." B.Franklin,1759

  #20  
Old 05-04-2012, 12:20 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,621
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Yep. Concur.

David, the onus is on the sheriff to comply with law. He claims to be a friend of gun owners because of his relationship to a certain NRA staff guy.

He needs to prove it by:

1) adopting a compliant policy, which is mandatory

2) state that "self defense" is good cause, which is optional until we get bear at SCOTUS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
I'm laughing because Riverside thinks they're being "targeted". If they were, it would be a lot more uncomfortable for them than it has been.

Riverside is a mediocre department by every metric. I suppose their rationalizations just go to how self-conscious they're feeling about their inadequacies.

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
Not to threadjack, but based on the above can we get an update on CGF's talks with the good Sheriff of Sac County?

His policy is not legal - he refuses to accept applications without a pre-interview which is not required by the law and is almost impossible to get (and is impossible to get if you aren't in his system now). Just keepin' it real.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
  #21  
Old 05-04-2012, 12:37 PM
SoCal Gunner's Avatar
SoCal Gunner SoCal Gunner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 1,462
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

DrD - That's like saying they only killed you a little bit.

Bwiese, Gray, WildHawker - When is this MF'er Riverside (whether they are in the room or "just in the doorway") going to get sued?
  #22  
Old 05-04-2012, 12:47 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Of course I see your warrant there Deputy, but without 2 letters of reference I won't let you perform your search. Why is half-way following the law acceptable?
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
  #23  
Old 05-04-2012, 12:50 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,135
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post
Are they perfect? No. Are they way better than most places? Absolutely. There's no 1 year wait for an appt. There's no invasion of your privacy. No requirements for a year of residency. No limitations on using the CCW for hire (kinda cool actually.. They in fact said I *could* use it for hire, if I wanted to! Anyone want an armed escort to a safety deposit box? Low fees! LOL )

Am I wrong?
The entire process and extensive application is an invasion of privacy. Compare that to an AZ or UT CCW app. The only personal info they want is just to run your NICS to make sure you're not a prohibited person and they need your address so they know where to send your permit. I had my AZ permit in under 3 weeks....all handled by mail.

If Sheriff's aren't adhering to the law as it is written now, then why would we expect them to when things actually go shall-issue? That's the point....train them to follow the law now, so they dont get any bright ideas later.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
  #24  
Old 05-04-2012, 12:51 PM
SoCal Gunner's Avatar
SoCal Gunner SoCal Gunner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 1,462
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Exactly! The OP's line of thinking just kills me.

BTW, Did we ever get and post Riverside's GC statements? Seems like its been an awful long time to get those things out in print.
  #25  
Old 05-04-2012, 1:03 PM
hawk1's Avatar
hawk1 hawk1 is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 7,590
iTrader: 80 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
Of course I see your warrant there Deputy, but without 2 letters of reference I won't let you perform your search. Why is half-way following the law acceptable?
I only stole the coins from the bank, not any of the bills...
__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER
  #26  
Old 05-04-2012, 1:23 PM
Clownpuncher's Avatar
Clownpuncher Clownpuncher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Mexifornia IE
Posts: 1,181
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Thank you for your post.

I understand both sides of the argument made here. I think where you are getting confused is you talked with the deputies in the CCW division and, as far as they're concerned, you are right they are doing what they can and are much better than others. The problem is that while it may appear to be "up to them" for a CCW, it isn't, it's the sheriff and that is who CGF is targeting.
Now, with crap rolling down hill I am sure that those 2 guys catch alot when the screws are applied to their boss. Like I said, I'm sure they are great guys and, to be honest, your treatment as well as that of others I have read is going to motivate me to apply in the near future but I don't think CGF should let up until all eligible people who want a CCW can get one within the framework of the law.
  #27  
Old 05-04-2012, 1:51 PM
DrDavid's Avatar
DrDavid DrDavid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: SoCal (Riverside County)
Posts: 568
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So, you keep going after the low-hanging fruit that's Riverside.. Great.. You get them to follow the law. Wonderful. But, I worry that suddenly it'll be harder to get, or more investigative, or harder GC, or... At what point do you say, "Hey, let's go after the real bad counties first"?

This is a legit question.. I really don't know the answer.
  #28  
Old 05-04-2012, 1:53 PM
Clownpuncher's Avatar
Clownpuncher Clownpuncher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Mexifornia IE
Posts: 1,181
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post
So, you keep going after the low-hanging fruit that's Riverside.. Great.. You get them to follow the law. Wonderful. But, I worry that suddenly it'll be harder to get, or more investigative, or harder GC, or... At what point do you say, "Hey, let's go after the real bad counties first"?

This is a legit question.. I really don't know the answer.
It is my understanding that CGF is hammering them all.
  #29  
Old 05-04-2012, 1:55 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,135
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post
So, you keep going after the low-hanging fruit that's Riverside.. Great.. You get them to follow the law. Wonderful. But, I worry that suddenly it'll be harder to get, or more investigative, or harder GC, or... At what point do you say, "Hey, let's go after the real bad counties first"?

This is a legit question.. I really don't know the answer.

So basically "dont piss off the Master" right? Just kiss the ring and pray the benevolent Overlord look kindly upon your request?

I'm pretty sure other worse counties ARE being gone after. Many counties are or have been sued already. What more would like them to do?

I'm sure your tune would be quite different if your application had been denied, like the poster above. Like Wildhawker said.....make your policy 100% compliant and then their wont be any issues. How is this any different than a COP pulling you over because your license plate light it out? Come on officer.....I'm 99% compliant with the law, why are you hassling me?
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun

Last edited by Untamed1972; 05-04-2012 at 1:58 PM..
  #30  
Old 05-04-2012, 2:08 PM
NoJoke's Avatar
NoJoke NoJoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,539
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post
So, you keep going after the low-hanging fruit that's Riverside.. Great.. You get them to follow the law. Wonderful. But, I worry that suddenly it'll be harder to get, or more investigative, or harder GC, or... At what point do you say, "Hey, let's go after the real bad counties first"?

This is a legit question.. I really don't know the answer.
Nice to read some are not about our community as a whole and just thinking about themselves.

This reply seems like it would apply to any of the current "elite" who possess a LTC (not all LTC holders) and don't want to rock the boat any....cuz, heaven forbid - they might not get one next time around.

How about puttin on the shoes of those w/out LTC's and walk a mile in their shoes. New perspective might do some good.
__________________

NO ISSUE / MAY ISSUE / SHALL ISSUE - LTC progress over time since 1986

  #31  
Old 05-04-2012, 2:09 PM
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 DrDavid View Post
So, you keep going after the low-hanging fruit that's Riverside.. Great.. You get them to follow the law. Wonderful. But, I worry that suddenly it'll be harder to get, or more investigative, or harder GC, or... At what point do you say, "Hey, let's go after the real bad counties first"?

This is a legit question.. I really don't know the answer.
We are. LA county & Merced county are being attacked.

My point being is, if he's such a friend to gun owners, as certain NRA volunteers claims him to be, needs to change to the CGF policy. There is no excuse, at all to have an issuance rate lower than San Diego's.....

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 05-04-2012 at 2:18 PM..
  #32  
Old 05-04-2012, 2:10 PM
mdimeo mdimeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 603
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post
So, you keep going after the low-hanging fruit that's Riverside.. Great.. You get them to follow the law. Wonderful. But, I worry that suddenly it'll be harder to get, or more investigative, or harder GC, or... At what point do you say, "Hey, let's go after the real bad counties first"?

This is a legit question.. I really don't know the answer.
The endgame here is judicially-imposed shall-issue, and in 20 years maybe constitutional carry when the culture gets there. Fixing supposedly-minor issues in county-by-county license problems is critical to making the strategy work.

If the courts take current california law and subtract discretion, it's close to what most other states have. But if you take california law minus discretion plus illegal policies that make getting a CCW harder, more expensive, or just more hassle than it's worth, you haven't gotten where you need to go.

That's why Riverside's illegal policies are important, and why it's important to fight them now.
  #33  
Old 05-04-2012, 2:24 PM
AmericasFirstFreedom's Avatar
AmericasFirstFreedom AmericasFirstFreedom is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 29
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default "Stockholm Syndrome" . . . or BGO

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post

[...]

If a department is doing a good job, overall, of supporting citizens rights, I think there needs to be some positive reinforcement. Don't keep beating up one department who's 95% of the way there without complementing them on the 95%!

Go after counties that are doing it actually WRONG and fix it. Then worry about the small details. Am I wrong?

[...]
I think you have good intentions, Dr. D, but misguided.

There's a term I learned being on this forum: "Battered Gun Owner's" syndrome, which probably could be sub-classified under "Stockholm Syndrome." After being beat-down on all sides by hoplophobes, and sometimes by those within our ranks ("divide and conquer"), we sometimes come upon a "not such a bully," and it does sometimes feel "refreshing."

But we must not let our guard down. The law(s) are clear and their illegal interpretation and exercise of their duty are still offensive, an affront to our intelligence, and an usurpation of our civil rights. As you said, if somene gave you an ultimatum, you'd have their balls for breakfast.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, we already "asked nicely" in the form of educating them about the laws. They are, in essence, telling us "we know the law and we're going to do what we want."

Niceties are over. Pavlovian response it is. Keep the steamroller going . . .
__________________
  #34  
Old 05-04-2012, 2:26 PM
lawaia's Avatar
lawaia lawaia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 1,949
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

The front-men of the CCW Unit are great guys and do a fantastic job.

However, the process is still very ambiguous, and it seems at times that the rules are made up as they go along. I doubt this comes from the two guys in the office, but nonetheless..............

I get mixed signals about what is happening there. Sometimes I feel like they really want to issue permits. Then I see something that makes me think if they truly wanted to issue, they wouldn't require what they do.

GC is VERY subjective, and that requirement should be the first to go. I have seen a few GC's that I thought were great, but the applicants were denied. I'm not sure there weren't other circumstances lending to the denial, but they didn't seem that way.

I would love to see an updated progress report from CGF about RCSO. It would be nice to see where we stand with the release of GC statements, etc. It would also be nice to have some "public" guidance from CGF to potential applicants. What should "we" be doing and not doing? What do you need from applicants to help the forward movement in this County? Should everyone be refusing the illegal requirements? If so, can they seek help from CGF when they are turned away from RCSO? Every applicants goal is approval. Most (including myself) don't want to rock the boat too severely, for fear of denial. If applicants refuse the illegal requirements, do they have a support system to keep pursuing the permit? Without support, most will just fulfill the requirements in hopes of getting the golden ticket.

This process SUCKS! People are frustrated and tired of not knowing what direction to move. As good a job as RCSO has done to improve over the "old" ways, the process is still more difficult and inconsistent than it needs to be.

I'll end by reinforcing the positive.

Aguirre and Yezzo are doing a great job, and are great guys!

ETA: CGF is doing great work! This is not intended as a bash against CGF. My point is that we need communication.

Last edited by lawaia; 05-04-2012 at 2:33 PM..
  #35  
Old 05-04-2012, 2:33 PM
Honor1's Avatar
Honor1 Honor1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 3
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Post Lots to think about here....

OK, read it all, appreciate Dr's points, and everyone elses, too!!

I would also be interested in seeing Riversides GC listing in print...Anyone know where it is??? Good thread people!!
__________________
HONOR, COURTESY, INTEGRITY, PERSEVERANCE, SELF-CONTROL, COURAGE, COMMUNITY, STRENGTH, HUMILITY AND KNOWLEDGE.
  #36  
Old 05-04-2012, 3:02 PM
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 AmericasFirstFreedom View Post
I think you have good intentions, Dr. D, but misguided.

There's a term I learned being on this forum: "Battered Gun Owner's" syndrome, which probably could be sub-classified under "Stockholm Syndrome." After being beat-down on all sides by hoplophobes, and sometimes by those within our ranks ("divide and conquer"), we sometimes come upon a "not such a bully," and it does sometimes feel "refreshing."

But we must not let our guard down. The law(s) are clear and their illegal interpretation and exercise of their duty are still offensive, an affront to our intelligence, and an usurpation of our civil rights. As you said, if somene gave you an ultimatum, you'd have their balls for breakfast.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, we already "asked nicely" in the form of educating them about the laws. They are, in essence, telling us "we know the law and we're going to do what we want."

Niceties are over. Pavlovian response it is. Keep the steamroller going . . .
I know for a fact that both Sheriff Sniff & the volunteer read this forum. I don't care.

Stanley should explain why his deputies are complaining about pressure from CGF to applicants, rather than fixing his policies to comply.

Stanley should explain how when he tells people he's pro gun, but has policies that not even Ventura County enforces (the first adopter of the CGF policy, though GC/GMC is still bad).

Stanley should explain why despite now having an election under his belt, he's supposedly still cowering from "potential political blowback from others". There is no blowback. No sheriff has ever lost on the basis of his or her LTC stance, both pro & con (though the pro side challengers against anti incumbents & challengers won in three counties in 2010, though not on carry issues per se ).

I'll even grant, with great reservations, using GMC to keeping a Zimmerman type from getting an LTC until GMC is struck. He should switch to the good cause specifically allowed by half the sheriffs in the state.

He should turn in his NRA card & resign from the organization if he's going to continue to break the law against the interest of his gun owning constituents.

Perhaps he should join the LCAV & the Brady Campaign, as they have a history of telling governments to do stupid things, & then sticking them with the opposing attorneys fees.

400k for prop H, 35K for Ventura PRA. Do the math, Stan. Change your policy.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 05-04-2012 at 3:07 PM..
  #37  
Old 05-04-2012, 3:11 PM
axel4488's Avatar
axel4488 axel4488 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Moreno Valley, Ca
Posts: 1,182
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Honor1 View Post
OK, read it all, appreciate Dr's points, and everyone elses, too!!

I would also be interested in seeing Riversides GC listing in print...Anyone know where it is??? Good thread people!!
We won't get them. It has been over a year and not a single peep of them. Riverside needs to be targeted in a lawsuit for violating not just our gun rights, but our rights to privacy as well.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabinetguy View Post
im hoping for a milsurp shoulder thingy that goes up
  #38  
Old 05-04-2012, 3:22 PM
G60's Avatar
G60 G60 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hanford
Posts: 3,986
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post
they're slightly bothered that they're being targeted by CGF for not being 100% perfect, while there are a lot of other sheriff departments who aren't even close to them -- and probably deserve to be targeted much more than they are.



Go after counties that are doing it actually WRONG and fix it. Then worry about the small details. Am I wrong?
You/they think CGF isn't going after those other counties, too?

BTW, Riverside is doing it wrong.
__________________
http://twitter.com/ddbaxte

"Any unarmed people are slaves, or are subject to slavery at any given moment." - Dr. Huey P. Newton
  #39  
Old 05-04-2012, 3:30 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,166
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
If we give "friendly counties", or rather in this case, a supposedly "friendly" sheriff, a pass, it encourages unfriendly sheriffs to resist reform because of the perceived unfairness of our targeting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
I demand 100% compliance. Not 80%, not 90%, no 99%. 100 EFFING PERCENT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
^THIS.

If we go after agencies for smaller discrepancies with the law and push to win, then other violating agencies take note.

The ultimate goal is reaction to CGF litigation (or threats). Our goal is to make Pavlov's dog always drool.
This^

...is the Calguns win trifecta. I almost wet myself.

While using 'carrot' tactics helps ease agencies into compliance, and opens the dialogue with presumptively 'friendly' agencies, there are no agencies that are immune from the influence of 'stick' tactics. And I am glad. I do not much care for apologetics for those who will not fully comply with the program.

I believe there is a theme emerging here that will demonstrate to those agencies who are firmly 'no issuance' that could be coaxed into compliance when they see the 'asses' that are generally 'cooperative' get beat for not walking the direction and speed we expect.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
  #40  
Old 05-04-2012, 3:43 PM
sfbadger's Avatar
sfbadger sfbadger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Belly of the Beast, S.F.
Posts: 306
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clownpuncher View Post
It is my understanding that CGF is hammering them all.
I know that CA is a big state with a lot of counties, (in other words, a lot of work to do), but it seems unlikely that San Francisco, with its reputation for political intransigence, is getting "hammered" much lately.
Closed Thread

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 11:57 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.