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
  #81  
Old 07-15-2012, 1:05 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4D5auto View Post
To bad CA can't be as simple as Nevada, your a resident of the state of NV when you claim to be.!
It is that simple in California,... unless the issuing agency has made up some minimum duration requirement and demands proof.
__________________

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
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 09-06-2012, 8:18 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Sheriff Bosenko has a Campaign Opponent

I had the opportunity to question Sgt Aaron Maready on KCNR 1460am radio to see where he stood on carry licensing this morning. He indicated that he wanted to streamline the process, but confessed that he does support 'dicretionary issuance'.

If elected, I suspect that the 'new boss' is the same as the 'old boss'. His platform seems more centered on the jail and AB109 issues.

FB is here.

Audio for this mornings broadcast is here. The interview doesnt begin until 1:10:00 and the pertinent portion related to LTC is at 1;19;40
__________________

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

Last edited by CitaDeL; 09-06-2012 at 6:28 PM.. Reason: To add link to audio broadcast
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 09-06-2012, 2:12 PM
4D5auto's Avatar
4D5auto 4D5auto is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: North End
Posts: 707
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Sounds like more typical double talk!! "discretionary issue" What the hell is that? Must be more of the God complex from Law Enforcement.. If you're clean and meet state requirement, it should be a no brainer...Just more of the same on Infringement issues.. remember, the new boss will be like the old boss....
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 09-06-2012, 6:27 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4D5auto View Post
Sounds like more typical double talk!! "discretionary issue" What the hell is that? Must be more of the God complex from Law Enforcement.. If you're clean and meet state requirement, it should be a no brainer...Just more of the same on Infringement issues.. remember, the new boss will be like the old boss....
Precisely.

'Discretionary issue' is actually my descriptor. It more accurately describes 'may issue' in counties and jurisdictions where agencies do issue licenses to applicants, but look beyond good cause, good moral character (ie; the background check) and residency to deny.

If you listen to the audio, he says he supports the Constitutional right, but renegs and indicates that there must be some form of 'filter process' presumably to disqualify someone who is not a prohibited person and can lawfully own a firearm. He then reverses on that and states that if you can buy a gun, you should be able to carry it.

He either has not resolved the issue of rights vs privileges in his mind, or he was completely blindsided by the question and wasnt prepared to articulate it on live radio.

He will have to answer the question, "Can a fundemental right be filtered (administered/regulated, limited) by a government agent/agency?" If he believes it can be, then he does not believe the second amendment applies to carry licensing or the applicants for a LTC.
__________________

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
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 11-30-2012, 3:58 PM
moleculo moleculo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 647
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Update on Citadel's license progress: He has successfully obtained his LTC! According to the thread posted HERE, it is now time to apply for licenses in Shasta county.

To quote Citadel from the other thread:

Quote:
The tangible wins beyond the issuance of a license are;
  • License fees due were paid only upon issuance of the license.(Per SB610)
  • Fees for LiveScan/DOJ having been previously paid, were not required for a subsequent re-application.(PC26185)
  • No documentation for proof of residency was provided or necessary.
  • Self-defense was accepted as 'good cause' - no other statement was necessary.
Can we get a moderator to update the thread title and the first post to let people know that they should apply for licenses now?
__________________
Quote:
Those acting in the public interest assume obligations of accountability and transparency. Retroactively redefining goals while claiming — yet refusing to disclose — some “master plan” is just the opposite. So is viciously trashing anyone who questions your judgment. -navyinrwanda
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 11-30-2012, 6:09 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 moleculo View Post
Update on Citadel's license progress: He has successfully obtained his LTC! According to the thread posted HERE, it is now time to apply for licenses in Shasta county.

To quote Citadel from the other thread:



Can we get a moderator to update the thread title and the first post to let people know that they should apply for licenses now?
Done.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 11-30-2012, 7:15 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moleculo View Post
Update on Citadel's license progress: He has successfully obtained his LTC! According to the thread posted HERE, it is now time to apply for licenses in Shasta county.

To quote Citadel from the other thread:

Can we get a moderator to update the thread title and the first post to let people know that they should apply for licenses now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Done.
I would add that now is the time for license reform in Shasta County, since most residents are aware they can already apply and be issued a license under faulty and unlawful policies.

If anyone is unclear by what is meant or how one should apply for their initial license, prospective applicants should private message me or contact me through email. I will be happy to walk through the changes with those interested.
__________________

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
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 11-30-2012, 7:46 PM
Shasta Frog's Avatar
Shasta Frog Shasta Frog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Redding, Ca
Posts: 747
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I just received my permit from Shasta County and found it to be a fairly simple process. Took class, turned in app, had interview that day, received permit 42 days later. Nothing like some of the other counties I've been reading about.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 11-30-2012, 8:28 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,863
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
I would add that now is the time for license reform in Shasta County, since most residents are aware they can already apply and be issued a license under faulty and unlawful policies.

If anyone is unclear by what is meant or how one should apply for their initial license, prospective applicants should private message me or contact me through email. I will be happy to walk through the changes with those interested.
There are ongoing discussions between the Sheriff and CGF...

More news when it is available...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 11-30-2012, 8:56 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shasta Frog View Post
I just received my permit from Shasta County and found it to be a fairly simple process. Took class, turned in app, had interview that day, received permit 42 days later. Nothing like some of the other counties I've been reading about.
Good for you. I'm glad it didnt take very long for you to navigate the process.

It took me 295 days for me to recieve my license from the date I applied and interviewed. And my application was initially refused by his staff two weeks prior because I refused to provide proof of residency, my training certificate and submit all the fees up front. This of course, is all completely unlawful.

This may upset some licensees, but Sheriff Bosenko will have to adopt all the provisions of SB610 (which he has repeatedly indicated he supports) in order to conform to the law. While this reform is ongoing, he may as well clean up the rest of his published carry license policy to eliminate unlawful requirements and other curious citations from the policy statement he inherited from the prior administration (who stepped down into retirement like eight years ago).

The fact that Bosenko issues more liberally than many of his 57 counterparts does not make how he operates any less corrupt. He is still issues under a discretionary system designed to exclude individuals for any reason he wants.

That isnt how a 'shall issue' Sheriff operates. I remain hopeful that he is willing to move towards that objective.
__________________

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
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 11-30-2012, 9:50 PM
Shasta Frog's Avatar
Shasta Frog Shasta Frog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Redding, Ca
Posts: 747
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Oh wow you got some other stuff going on. I find it easier to just comply, even if it is "unlawful" Do it their way, get permit and move on. But I guess we all need something to keep fighting for.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 11-30-2012, 10:05 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shasta Frog View Post
Oh wow you got some other stuff going on. I find it easier to just comply, even if it is "unlawful" Do it their way, get permit and move on. But I guess we all need something to keep fighting for.
Correction. The Sheriff's Office has got some 'other stuff' going on. I applied according to statute and expected them to follow the law.
__________________

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
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 11-30-2012, 10:16 PM
Shasta Frog's Avatar
Shasta Frog Shasta Frog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Redding, Ca
Posts: 747
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well whatever they got going on got me a permit a heck of a lot sooner than you. I have 60 years left at best on this planet and spending every waking minute picking apart the law just isnt on my to do list. But like I said, We all need something to fight for.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 12-03-2012, 10:17 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shasta Frog View Post
Well whatever they got going on got me a permit a heck of a lot sooner than you. I have 60 years left at best on this planet and spending every waking minute picking apart the law just isnt on my to do list. But like I said, We all need something to fight for.
That dismissive status quo bullsh*t might fly at CalCCW, but unlike those who want to stroke each other over small privileges, we come here to engage in real reform.

Personally, I cant think of a better spent life, than to hold statist authoritarians accountable to the very laws that they administer. Bosenko is no exclusion, regardless of how ever many licenses he issues.
__________________

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
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 02-11-2013, 8:02 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Minor update.

Sheriff Bosenko was a guest host on KCNR 1460am this morning. Among the topics covered were gun control and carry licensing.

The show can be downloaded here or you can stream the February 11, 2013 podcast here.

Sheriff Bosenko brings up gun control as a topic at 1:10.12. A question is posed through the internet chat room asking about the status of carry license policy reform. His response can be heard starting at 1:22.00.

In short, he indicates that a new policy will soon be released, updated on the website, and in the policy statement being handed out-- it appears to also be the subject of a meeting with 20+ 'CCW' instructors.

What is not evident, is why someone who supported SB610, has taken more than 14 months to engage in substative reform since the law was passed.

I will be sure to update with copies of any revised policies issued by the S/O.
__________________

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
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 03-03-2013, 1:49 PM
Rock6.3's Avatar
Rock6.3 Rock6.3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Shasta County California
Posts: 2,444
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Finally a Shasta County Sunshine Update posted today by Gene Hoffman (cliff notes version is no change since 2011, but soon....):

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
From http://calgunsfoundation.org/news-bl...ve-update.html

While we work to resolve the national question of the scope of the right to bear arms in public, the Initiative’s Compliance component would further go to address as much as possible in the 58 sheriffs’ carry license programs (from pre-application to issuance) so that, as soon as we did have a final decision from the Supremes (or a victory in the Ninth Circuit), people could apply en masse and would, it was hoped, not be stuck dealing with unlawful and burdensome local rules.

The Sunshine aspect of the Initiative had a two-part role: (1) it made the as-applied policies of all 58 sheriffs collectively exposed for the first time in history - telegraphing that Californians were very much interested in their rights, and (2) offering valuable insight to applicants and prospective applicants on “good cause” statements.

Since the Initiative took off in 2010, it has directly and positively affected carry throughout California in a number of ways.

/snip/.

In Shasta County, CGF worked with Sheriff Bosenko to update his office’s policies following the enactment of SB 610. These revised policies and procedures are in the Sheriff’s hands and, last we heard, were waiting on final approval before being officially put into place.

/snip/

We expect to continue our existing progress and expect to accelerate the changes we’re creating once the Supreme Court grants cert in a carry case and then beyond an opinion recognizing that the law abiding have a right to bear arms in public.

-Gene
__________________

Last edited by Rock6.3; 03-03-2013 at 1:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 03-03-2013, 7:35 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock6.3 View Post
Finally a Shasta County Sunshine Update posted today by Gene Hoffman (cliff notes version is no change since 2011, but soon....):
Well, it is proving to be relatively meaningless in the context that I am recieving first hand accounts of the Sheriffs office demanding payment in full and CCW training certification up front from recent applicants.

If his carry license policies have been revised, there is no indication in how they are processing applicants.
__________________

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
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 03-03-2013, 7:43 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,863
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Well, it is proving to be relatively meaningless in the context that I am recieving first hand accounts of the Sheriffs office demanding payment in full and CCW training certification up front from recent applicants.

If his carry license policies have been revised, there is no indication in how they are processing applicants.
The new policy is being finalized, nothing has changed yet....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 03-04-2013, 6:15 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Deeds, not words...

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardW56 View Post
The new policy is being finalized, nothing has changed yet....
Not to discount what you are saying Howard, but I will only believe that Sheriff Bosenko means to change policy when I see it distributed and followed.

I am looking at this through the lens of hearing him pledge his support for SB610 the spring before the law was passed, having watched his dept do nothing either before or after the law was enacted to prepare for compliance, having heard him on live radio claim his policies were in conformance to California law while at the same time I was denied the ability to apply, and watched more than a year expire since SB610 was enacted before a new claim of a reformed policy would be released.

I believe along with time, he has burned up all his credibility for the simple reason that it does not take nearly two years to emplement a policy for something he claimed to support. Were he as enthusiastic about SB610 as he should have been as a supporter, the policy would have been ready December 31, 2011. It hasn't shown up yet. History proves him a liar.

He is only gotten this far with the encouragement from CGF...and clearly the threat of litigation means something to him. Perhaps with more applicants being told they are to fork over their application fees and training certificate up front and demanding utility bills to prove residency there should be more application of stick and less carrot.

Unfortunately, with this level of stubborness, a mule of such a disposition is only fit for dog food or glue.
__________________

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
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 03-05-2013, 1:18 PM
Rock6.3's Avatar
Rock6.3 Rock6.3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Shasta County California
Posts: 2,444
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

It would be nice to see Brandon follow up on this issue with Mr. Bosenko, and post a public status report here....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 03-05-2013, 7:58 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Here is your most recent update...

http://www.redding.com/news/2013/mar...ermit-process/

Quote:
The sheriff's office will begin requiring an appointment for all applications, including renewals, March 11.

Acknowledging a large backlog of applications, the sheriff's office says applicants will have to submit the forms two weeks before their appointments for a new permit and one week for a renewal.
No indicator of any policy reforms and the policy statement posted on the website remains the same as it has since 2005.

So, in short, everyone has to have an appointment to have their rights violated with an unlawful policy.
__________________

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
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 03-14-2013, 7:23 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Editorial Misses the Mark

http://www.redding.com/news/2013/mar...he-sheriff-on/

The author of this editorial seems to think that upgrading software to share mugshots is more significant than the Sheriff's as unreformed carry license policy.

Bosenko is not bound by law to produce mugshots of all the as-yet-not-proven guilty arrestees... He is however in violation of California state law with his discretionary and unlawful policies and procedures.

The truth is, neither of these issues is a priority for him. While he may have indicated that reform was eminent- it was either the announcement of requiring a scheduled appointment (which is not meaningful reform), or he has lied once again to his constituents with no intention to conform with SB610... a law on the books for more than 15 months.
__________________

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
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 03-26-2013, 2:02 PM
Rock6.3's Avatar
Rock6.3 Rock6.3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Shasta County California
Posts: 2,444
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
http://www.redding.com/news/2013/mar...he-sheriff-on/

The author of this editorial seems to think that upgrading software to share mugshots is more significant than the Sheriff's as unreformed carry license policy.

Bosenko is not bound by law to produce mugshots of all the as-yet-not-proven guilty arrestees... He is however in violation of California state law with his discretionary and unlawful policies and procedures.

The truth is, neither of these issues is a priority for him. While he may have indicated that reform was eminent- it was either the announcement of requiring a scheduled appointment (which is not meaningful reform), or he has lied once again to his constituents with no intention to conform with SB610... a law on the books for more than 15 months.
And the sunshine initiative continues to promote silence........
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 03-28-2013, 10:03 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
No indicator of any policy reforms and the policy statement posted on the website remains the same as it has since 2005.
http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/index/she.../sh_forms.aspx

The Sheriff's website has been updated to remove the current application policy statement and add the DOJ/BOF standard application. A hard copy obtained this morning reveals no substantive reforms to comply with the law.

I have added a scan of the hard copy that I picked up yesterday for viewers convenience. (Since you cannot get it from the Sheriff's website...)
Attached Files
File Type: pdf ShastaCoPolicy 3-29-13.pdf (140.1 KB, 10 views)
__________________

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

Last edited by CitaDeL; 03-29-2013 at 11:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 03-28-2013, 10:14 AM
jayfarley3 jayfarley3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fairfield, CA
Posts: 106
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Not sure if this is the appropriate place to ask this question. I am currently active duty military stationed in Solano County. Redding, CA is my home of record and still listed on my drivers license. Can I still apply for the Shasta County LTC?
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 03-28-2013, 10:19 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayfarley3 View Post
Not sure if this is the appropriate place to ask this question. I am currently active duty military stationed in Solano County. Redding, CA is my home of record and still listed on my drivers license. Can I still apply for the Shasta County LTC?
Yes, if you maintain your residence in Shasta County you would apply to the Shasta County Sheriff.
__________________

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
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 03-28-2013, 9:46 PM
jayfarley3 jayfarley3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fairfield, CA
Posts: 106
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Yes, if you maintain your residence in Shasta County you would apply to the Shasta County Sheriff.
Thanks for the prompt reply!
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 04-02-2013, 8:06 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Repeated reassurance is not reassuring.

While there is no policy statement of any kind on the Shasta County website now, I was told that the Sheriff's staff is in the 'process' of revising it - a process that has to date, taken 16 months so far to accomplish since SB610 was enacted. (A task which has already been accomplished for the Sheriff, free of charge by the Calguns Foundation.)

Other reassurances;
  • The three gun limitation is dead.
  • The requirement to provide utility bills to prove residency has been eliminated. (Though there is a new insistence that one shall be required to provide a rental agreement or some other new proof of permanent residency in Shasta County... which is just another version of the unlawful demand for receipts and documentation.)
  • Training certification isnt required in advance.
  • Fees arent required in full- the 20% local fees are due at the time of application. (Only $105.00 is due at the time of submission.)
  • While an 18 year old can be armed and sent off to war in a foreign country, anyone under 21 isnt eligible to defend themselves in their county of residence unless they got a signature from a parent or guardian. (The suggestion of which, has to be one of the more silly and convoluted requirements- as parents or guardians have no rights to contract on behalf of another adult unless they have power of attorney.)
  • The citizenship requirement is eliminated.

So if these reforms are in fact now policy, how can applicants possibly know how they should apply or know if the Sheriff is in compliance to the law when they are not published by his office anywhere?

If these SB610 procedures are completely unknown to new and renewal applicants, is it reasonable to assume that applicants are performing according to the old (read unlawful) policy statement and being ignorant of the law are paying their fees up front, paying for training up front, submitting the training certificate up front and submitting utility bills as a means to prove residency?

Is it also reasonable to assume that absent any reformed policy, that legal resident aliens are forgoing applying for a license as they believe they are not eligible?

I believe it is disingenuous to claim that reforms have been made, without the necessary documentation of a clear policy being available to the public. If the public has no idea reforms were made, they don't exist.
__________________

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
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 04-10-2013, 1:50 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There should be a significant update tomorrow. Stay tuned.

ETA; Looks like we are right back at
__________________

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

Last edited by CitaDeL; 04-11-2013 at 8:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 04-30-2013, 8:27 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Finally...

The Shasta County Sheriffs website has been updated to include the revised carry license policy statement. After much waiting, it appears that the S/O has produced something that should have been adopted 16 months ago.

http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/Sheriff/Docs/CCW_Policy.pdf

It may take some time for me to digest this, and determine if the changes were substative and lawful.

In reviewing the policy I found one item particularly interesting.

Under 218.6.3 (g) the policy states;

Quote:
"The issuance of a license by the Sheriff shall not entitle the holder to either a property or liberty interest as the issuance, amendment, or revocation of such license remains exclusively within the discretion of the Sheriff as set forth herein."


This wording was included because;

1) The Sheriff and the county counsel believe this will prevent them from being sued in the event that someone does have their license revoked for reasons other than good cause, good moral character, or residency. They are wrong.
2) The Sheriff is a stiff-necked, statist bureaucratic boob who feels that it is his duty to be the gatekeeper of liberty, deciding who is and isnt worthy to exercise an enumerated right. If anyone is unclear on this notion, it means that Sheriff Bosenko is not, and has never has been, a 'shall issue' Sheriff- and his published policy is a bold and clearly articulated confession of that.

The good news appears to be that many of the requirements of the past policy statement are gone. Applicants should not be asked for documentation substantiating residency or proof of training up front. The citizenship requirement is gone. The expectation to pay fees in full are gone. While the progress is notable, the delays in revising and emplementing conformance to California law... were typical of this adminstration.
__________________

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

Last edited by CitaDeL; 04-30-2013 at 9:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 06-26-2013, 5:13 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In spite of the publication of this;
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
It appears that my concerns about this;

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Other reassurances;
  • The requirement to provide utility bills to prove residency has been eliminated. (Though there is a new insistence that one shall be required to provide a rental agreement or some other new proof of permanent residency in Shasta County... which is just another version of the unlawful demand for receipts and documentation.)
... have some foundation in reality. While there is no clause in the Shasta County S/O's published policy directly requesting an applicant to provide proof of residency, it has come to my attention that the Sheriff's office is insisting on supplemental documentation anyway.

It is unlawful for the Sheriff to refuse to process your application for a carry license if an applicant either cannot or will not provide documentation other than the completed application.

Quote:
26175 (g) An applicant shall not be required to complete any additional application or form for a license, or to provide any information other than that necessary to complete the standard application form described in subdivision (a), except to clarify or interpret information provided by the applicant on the standard application form.
'Clarification' in this section as well as in Shasta's policy at 218.4.1 (a) parts 1 and 2 cannot be construed to mean that the S/O can demand utility bills, telephone bills, auto registration, boat registration, rental agreements, property tax statements, credit card receipts, or any other documentation that would satisfy their unlawful demand.

None of these things are 'necessary' to clarify or interpret information provided in your application. Your address is plain enough to understand and sufficient to complete your application.
__________________

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
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 07-06-2013, 7:30 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Shasta Applicants - Please Partcipate in a Brief Poll

Poll posted in the link below;


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=788846
__________________

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
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 07-20-2013, 12:05 AM
joker713 joker713 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 45
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Any update on the current status in Shasta? I have lived here since May of last year but have no proof of residency. Renting a room from a family friend until November. I understand that it's not legal for them to ask for it but with out some backing I don't know how comfortable I would be bucking against the Sheriff's Office. Any help or advice is appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 07-20-2013, 6:31 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joker713 View Post
Any update on the current status in Shasta? I have lived here since May of last year but have no proof of residency. Renting a room from a family friend until November. I understand that it's not legal for them to ask for it but with out some backing I don't know how comfortable I would be bucking against the Sheriff's Office. Any help or advice is appreciated.
I gather that you have postponed, delayed, or forgone applying for a carry license because you are unable to fulfill an unlawful requirement that the Sheriff's office is imposing.

Think of it this way; When you buy a ticket at a movie theater, the theater owner can't require you to buy popcorn and a soda before he decides he will roll the film. By virtue of the fact they have sold you a movie ticket, they are obligated to let you view the film or refund your money.

It is the same when you apply for a carry license. When you submit your completed application with the portion of the fees that is due at the time, there are a series of obligations on the Sheriff that must be met, some of which must be completed within a specified legal time limit.

No application and fee? The Sheriff can ignore you in perpetuity.

Once you submit a completed application and fee, the Sheriff is first obligated to consider your application and to inform you of his determination in writing-[PS26202] in a specified timeframe of 90 days from the date of the initial application [PC26205]

In other words, it isn't you 'bucking' the Sheriff's office.... it is the other way around- it is them jerking you around.

I would recommend applying. If they demand proof of residency or anything else that is not required by statute, contact legal counsel. I like Jason Davis, and he has helped remind Sheriff Bosenko of these obligations before.
__________________

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
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 07-24-2013, 7:34 PM
joker713 joker713 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 45
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Once I have completed my class I will be doing as suggested. Unfortunately, legal counsel is not something I would be able to afford at this time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
I gather that you have postponed, delayed, or forgone applying for a carry license because you are unable to fulfill an unlawful requirement that the Sheriff's office is imposing.

Think of it this way; When you buy a ticket at a movie theater, the theater owner can't require you to buy popcorn and a soda before he decides he will roll the film. By virtue of the fact they have sold you a movie ticket, they are obligated to let you view the film or refund your money.

It is the same when you apply for a carry license. When you submit your completed application with the portion of the fees that is due at the time, there are a series of obligations on the Sheriff that must be met, some of which must be completed within a specified legal time limit.

No application and fee? The Sheriff can ignore you in perpetuity.

Once you submit a completed application and fee, the Sheriff is first obligated to consider your application and to inform you of his determination in writing-[PS26202] in a specified timeframe of 90 days from the date of the initial application [PC26205]

In other words, it isn't you 'bucking' the Sheriff's office.... it is the other way around- it is them jerking you around.

I would recommend applying. If they demand proof of residency or anything else that is not required by statute, contact legal counsel. I like Jason Davis, and he has helped remind Sheriff Bosenko of these obligations before.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 07-24-2013, 9:16 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joker713 View Post
Once I have completed my class I will be doing as suggested. Unfortunately, legal counsel is not something I would be able to afford at this time.

Okay. But you were aware that you aren't required to obtain your training or certificate before you submitted your application AND received the determination on your application from the Sheriff---Right?

Or has the Shasta County Sheriff or his subordinates indicated otherwise?
__________________

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
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 07-25-2013, 8:48 PM
joker713 joker713 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 45
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Okay. But you were aware that you aren't required to obtain your training or certificate before you submitted your application AND received the determination on your application from the Sheriff---Right?

Or has the Shasta County Sheriff or his subordinates indicated otherwise?
That was more for my own benefit of knowing it was done when I placed the application.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 07-25-2013, 9:15 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joker713 View Post
That was more for my own benefit of knowing it was done when I placed the application.
That doesn't improve your likelihood of being approved. The only problem I see in doing this, is that in the event you are denied, the education you receive and the money you spend may be wasted. There are reasons why legislation was enacted to reorder this process. I think circumventing the order does not benefit anyone.
__________________

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
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 07-28-2013, 10:17 PM
joker713 joker713 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 45
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"GENERAL INFORMATION: Each new CCW applicant must demonstrate proof of residency. This can be satisfied in the form of a valid California Driver’s license and utility (electric/gas) receipts in the applicant’s name with the physical address shown (No PO Boxes). Originals of these and other documents must be present during the interview."

That's directly from the criteria, and I understand it's illegal for them to ask... So what is my response to negate this request when it comes during the interview?
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 07-28-2013, 10:23 PM
joker713 joker713 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 45
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Also, under the application process it does make it sound as if they want the ccw class completed before your interview...
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 11:52 PM.




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.