Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > CONCEALED CARRY/LICENSE TO CARRY > Calguns Concealed Carry County Information Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns Concealed Carry County Information Forum Information on how to get a LTC in yourCounty

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-14-2010, 11:08 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,817
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Thumbs up Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz County CCW Policy, Good Cause statements, Guidelines and Forms can be found Here


2014 Nov 15 UPDATE: Per my (Paladin's) post in this thread today (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...8#post15266388), you should apply ASAP if your Good Cause is "self-defense"/"personal protection" to get a space in line for processing after Peruta is finalized.

2015 Sept 18 UPDATE: Per my (Paladin's) post in this thread today (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...9#post16944869), the SO says there'll be no change at least after the Peruta en banc panel renders its opinion.

Last edited by Paladin; 09-18-2015 at 7:28 PM.. Reason: update OP per SO accepting & holding apps for Peruta
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-15-2014, 7:43 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

From the "CCW UPDATE" link on their homepage (http://scsheriff.com/):

CCW UPDATE

Members of the public wishing to obtain a CCW under the standards recently articulated by the Ninth Circuit in Peruta v. County of San Diego should be aware that the decision has not yet become final. Federal court rules prescribe a period of time which must elapse before the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

Applicants that seek a CCW permit under the self-defense standard set forth in Peruta will be processed in the order they are received should the decision of the Ninth Circuit become final. Once the decision becomes final, applicants will be contacted by the Sheriff’s Office with instructions on how to complete the process.

In order to accommodate, and expedite, the large numbers of anticipated applications, the Sheriff’s Office and County Counsel are currently revising the process for issuing CCW permits.
(emphasis added)

I'll update the OP and the thread title now.

Last edited by Paladin; 09-18-2015 at 7:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-11-2015, 8:04 PM
Grumpy_Hippie's Avatar
Grumpy_Hippie Grumpy_Hippie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 137
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

anything new
__________________
Honesta Mors Turpi Vita Potior - 3%
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-12-2015, 6:39 AM
otteray's Avatar
otteray otteray is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Santa Cruz & Lake Tahoe
Posts: 3,206
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy_Hippie View Post
anything new
Nope.
Peruta has to be resolved first.
__________________

Single fin mentality
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-18-2015, 7:24 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
From the "CCW UPDATE" link on their homepage (http://scsheriff.com/):

CCW UPDATE

Members of the public wishing to obtain a CCW under the standards recently articulated by the Ninth Circuit in Peruta v. County of San Diego should be aware that the decision has not yet become final. Federal court rules prescribe a period of time which must elapse before the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

Applicants that seek a CCW permit under the self-defense standard set forth in Peruta will be processed in the order they are received should the decision of the Ninth Circuit become final. Once the decision becomes final, applicants will be contacted by the Sheriff’s Office with instructions on how to complete the process.

In order to accommodate, and expedite, the large numbers of anticipated applications, the Sheriff’s Office and County Counsel are currently revising the process for issuing CCW permits.
(emphasis added)

I'll update the OP and the thread title now.
I don't know when they changed it, but there is now a new "CCW UPDATE" linked on their homepage:

Quote:
CCW UPDATE

Members of the public seeking to obtain a CCW permit under the standards articulated by the Ninth Circuit in Peruta v. County of San Diego should be aware that on March 26, 2015 the Ninth Circuit ordered that the Peruta case be re-heard by a larger panel of judges. At some point in the future, the Ninth Circuit will issue a new opinion addressing the issues discussed in the Peruta case. Until the Ninth Circuit issues a new opinion, the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office will continue to review applications for CCW permits under the standards it utilized prior to issuance of the original Peruta decision.
Well, at least they're actively monitoring Peruta and revising things as it progresses.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-19-2015, 7:27 AM
mattsn0w's Avatar
mattsn0w mattsn0w is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 141
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I don't know when they changed it, but there is now a new "CCW UPDATE" linked on their homepage:



Well, at least they're actively monitoring Peruta and revising things as it progresses.
It has been there for almost a year.

__________________
Guns, and stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-19-2015, 8:40 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsn0w View Post
It has been there for almost a year.

That was the 1st update (which, as you can see, I had added to the OP on 2014 Nov 15). I'm talking about the 2nd update, the one about Peruta being taken en banc which I added to the OP yesterday.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-05-2016, 10:02 PM
sbcfd sbcfd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

looking at the Sheriffs office website they have a CCW policy in place as of 6/18/16. Has anyone applied?

Last edited by sbcfd; 10-05-2016 at 10:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-06-2016, 6:34 AM
otteray's Avatar
otteray otteray is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Santa Cruz & Lake Tahoe
Posts: 3,206
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbcfd View Post
looking at the Sheriffs office website they have a CCW policy in place as of 6/18/16. Has anyone applied?
Many applied and all denied.
After Peruta was put into a suspended state thanks to Att. Gen. Harris, we were sent a letter from the S.O. explaining our two choices: Go forward with the request (and get denied) or be put on hold until Peruta was ultimately decided (Circular file.)
__________________

Single fin mentality
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-11-2016, 7:44 AM
NinjaNinja's Avatar
NinjaNinja NinjaNinja is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Elk Grove, CA
Posts: 480
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by otteray View Post
Many applied and all denied.
After Peruta was put into a suspended state thanks to Att. Gen. Harris, we were sent a letter from the S.O. explaining our two choices: Go forward with the request (and get denied) or be put on hold until Peruta was ultimately decided (Circular file.)
this county is still a no go huh?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-11-2016, 3:28 PM
otteray's Avatar
otteray otteray is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Santa Cruz & Lake Tahoe
Posts: 3,206
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Cities of Watsonville and Scotts Valley may have recently issued a few licenses through their own PD, and not the SO. How many or why, I do not know.
__________________

Single fin mentality
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-21-2017, 9:08 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by otteray View Post
Cities of Watsonville and Scotts Valley may have recently issued a few licenses through their own PD, and not the SO. How many or why, I do not know.
Anyone have any more/new info re. this?

ETA: I briefly looked over their PDs' websites and did not find any CCW info.
https://cityofwatsonville.org/197/Police
http://www.scottsvalleypd.com/

Last edited by Paladin; 07-21-2017 at 9:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-06-2018, 9:52 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

To help a CGNer in another thread asking about the City of Santa Cruz and CCWs I had to look over the current materials on the SO's website re. CCWs. I saw that they require 3 letters of character reference (non-relatives), mandatory Psych Eval and possible required letter from Medical Doc saying you're okay to carry. See: http://scsheriff.com/Portals/1/Count...CW_Process.pdf

Then I noticed something big: there is NO CHARGE to you for ANYTHING until AFTER your GC is evaluated and you're approved!

That is NOT the behavior of an anti sheriff.

Once you've been approved (passed Phase 1 and told to continue to Phase 2), then you get hit with the LiveScan fee (~$100 IIRC), the Psych Eval fee (max of $150), possible MD fee ($???), 8 hour training class fee ($???), and ONLY $25 fee for the SO! Again: That is NOT the behavior of an anti sheriff.

While I could find NOTHING re. GC on the website (http://scsheriff.com/Home/CCWLicense.aspx), if it is FREE to apply to get your GC evaluated, why not apply??? Spend a month figuring out your best GC statement, figure out all the evidence you can muster to prove your GC actually exists (i.e., you aren't BSing the sheriff ), then apply!

To repeat myself: I did NOT find anything detailing GC, but these other things are not what anti sheriffs do. IMO, Santa Cruz may be doing what Monterey SO did years ago: loosen the GC requirement, but push GMC up to make sure only GGs get CCWs. But that is just a guess. Until people apply and post on CGN, we'll never know if things improved in Santa Cruz. But since applying and getting your GC approved/denied costs NOTHING, why not apply? Remember: a denial for insufficient GC does NOT hurt you in the future (but a denial for lacking GMC may...).
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-06-2018, 10:07 PM
SCruzsurfer's Avatar
SCruzsurfer SCruzsurfer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 13
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
To help a CGNer in another thread asking about the City of Santa Cruz and CCWs I had to look over the current materials on the SO's website re. CCWs. I saw that they require 3 letters of character reference (non-relatives), mandatory Psych Eval and possible required letter from Medical Doc saying you're okay to carry. See: http://scsheriff.com/Portals/1/Count...CW_Process.pdf

Then I noticed something big: there is NO CHARGE to you for ANYTHING until AFTER your GC is evaluated and you're approved!

That is NOT the behavior of an anti sheriff.

Once you've been approved (passed Phase 1 and told to continue to Phase 2), then you get hit with the LiveScan fee (~$100 IIRC), the Psych Eval fee (max of $150), possible MD fee ($???), 8 hour training class fee ($???), and ONLY $25 fee for the SO! Again: That is NOT the behavior of an anti sheriff.

While I could find NOTHING re. GC on the website (http://scsheriff.com/Home/CCWLicense.aspx), if it is FREE to apply to get your GC evaluated, why not apply??? Spend a month figuring out your best GC statement, figure out all the evidence you can muster to prove your GC actually exists (i.e., you aren't BSing the sheriff ), then apply!

To repeat myself: I did NOT find anything detailing GC, but these other things are not what anti sheriffs do. IMO, Santa Cruz may be doing what Monterey SO did years ago: loosen the GC requirement, but push GMC up to make sure only GGs get CCWs. But that is just a guess. Until people apply and post on CGN, we'll never know if things improved in Santa Cruz. But since applying and getting your GC approved/denied costs NOTHING, why not apply? Remember: a denial for insufficient GC does NOT hurt you in the future (but a denial for lacking GMC may...).
I did apply. You DO have to pay for the livescan (yes it was in the $100ish range) and the application fee. I did this twice. First was rejected (my 'good cause' wasn't good enough), second actually went to the interview stage, then Peruta got over-turned and my application is in a limbo (although I'm assuming it's been filed in the circular receptacle). I repeat, it is NOT free to apply. The current sheriff, is VERY anti carry. There are very few people in Santa Cruz County w/ permits, and seems like you have to have 'connections' in order to get one. Nothing has improved here. We had that brief glimmer of hope w/ Peruta, but that is long gone. Sorry there isn't a better end to this story.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-06-2018, 10:36 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCruzsurfer View Post
I did apply. You DO have to pay for the livescan (yes it was in the $100ish range) and the application fee. I did this twice. First was rejected (my 'good cause' wasn't good enough), second actually went to the interview stage, then Peruta got over-turned and my application is in a limbo (although I'm assuming it's been filed in the circular receptacle). I repeat, it is NOT free to apply. The current sheriff, is VERY anti carry. There are very few people in Santa Cruz County w/ permits, and seems like you have to have 'connections' in order to get one. Nothing has improved here. We had that brief glimmer of hope w/ Peruta, but that is long gone. Sorry there isn't a better end to this story.
When did Peruta get over turned: 2015? 2016? Your 2nd App was before that and your 1st app was before your 2nd.... Those are irrelevant. Hart didn't even take office, IIRC, until Jan 2015. I'm talking about what's on the SO website today.

Either (1) I'm misreading what they put on their website, or (2) what they posted is a mistake, or (3) they've changed their CCW process. If I lived in SC Co, I'd contact them via their FB page and ask about the current process. (There's no fee for that, that I'm aware of. )
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-06-2018, 10:52 PM
SCruzsurfer's Avatar
SCruzsurfer SCruzsurfer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 13
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
When did Peruta get over turned: 2015? 2016? Your 2nd App was before that and your 1st app was before your 2nd.... Those are irrelevant. Hart didn't even take office, IIRC, until Jan 2015. I'm talking about what's on the SO website today.

Either (1) I'm misreading what they put on their website, or (2) what they posted is a mistake, or (3) they've changed their CCW process. If I lived in SC Co, I'd contact them via their FB page and ask about the current process. (There's no fee for that, that I'm aware of. )
Yes, my first app was before Peruta, second was during that brief period where 'shall issue' was the 'law'. You seem very knowledgeable and have obviously done research online. So tell you what, put your money where your mouth is, go and fill out the application, do the livescan and see what it costs. I'm just telling you what my experience was. I understand what is on the website today and I understood it in the past when I applied. If it's as free as you say, go do it and report back to us. I wish you luck. You'll need it.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-06-2018, 11:25 PM
ColdDeadHands1's Avatar
ColdDeadHands1 ColdDeadHands1 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 3,385
iTrader: 73 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCruzsurfer View Post
Yes, my first app was before Peruta, second was during that brief period where 'shall issue' was the 'law'. You seem very knowledgeable and have obviously done research online. So tell you what, put your money where your mouth is, go and fill out the application, do the livescan and see what it costs. I'm just telling you what my experience was. I understand what is on the website today and I understood it in the past when I applied. If it's as free as you say, go do it and report back to us. I wish you luck. You'll need it.
I suspect if Paladin lived in Santa Cruz County he would have already applied as opposed to spending time on here trying to help others out. Just a thought?
__________________


"Let me guess... This isn't about the alcohol or tobacco?"
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-06-2018, 11:53 PM
SCruzsurfer's Avatar
SCruzsurfer SCruzsurfer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 13
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdDeadHands1 View Post
I suspect if Paladin lived in Santa Cruz County he would have already applied as opposed to spending time on here trying to help others out. Just a thought?
Possibly. I'm only sharing my personal experience. I hope someone can prove me wrong, but my first hand observation and discussion with others show that our current sheriff is ANTI-ccw. And there is a significant cost involved. If he (or anyone else) can prove me wrong, I would gladly eat my words and start the process again (as I'd sure like to have those hundreds of dollars back, or at least worth something). I only chimed in because there is a cost and I'd hate for anyone else to waste their money.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-07-2018, 7:45 AM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Map Maker
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 3,439
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdDeadHands1 View Post
I suspect if Paladin lived in Santa Cruz County he would have already applied as opposed to spending time on here trying to help others out. Just a thought?
Reading comprehension can be a mother....
__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015

NRA Lifetime Member : CalGuns Lifetime Member : GOA Lifetime Member

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-07-2018, 11:25 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,712
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I have all approved active CCW applications, and all rejected CCW applications, and all prior approved but inactive applications for Santa Cruz county if anyone is interested. The Sheriff redacted the hell out of them tho.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-07-2018, 11:37 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,712
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

They gave me one in un-redacted form, then later gave it to me again in redacted form. So here is a copy with the redacted parts bold , but readable.

Quote:
I see and provide site surveys in the field for the installation of surveillance devices for public
safety and federal agencies. Specifically, there devices are cameras and sensing devices mounted in
high crime areas, high drug trafficking areas, and areas known to be frequented by criminals and
suspect persons. I carry sensitive equipment to these sites for survey, estimate, and technical
measuring and many times I am not accompanied by sworn officers.


My customers are public safety departments and agencies such as local police, sheriff's offices,
and state police. I drive a vehicle that is equipped with a license plate recognition equipment as
a demonstration vehicle to take sample readings.


My occupation takes me to areas of high crime throughout the western U.S. including urban areas such
as Oakland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas Metro, Seattle, Stockton, and boarder areas along
our southwest region of CA and AZ.


I also maintain and will visit our existing equipment utilized by the DEA along the CA and AZ border
and in most cases be unaccompanied by DEA or other agencies or police even though they are our clients
and own the equipment.

As a result of these conditions, I am subject to a high threat level environment and for personal
protection I request a CCW License.
I don't think any of these redactions are legal, but they don't seem to care much about the law in this county.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-07-2018, 4:32 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCruzsurfer View Post
Possibly.
Definitely. If I had half a chance w/my SO, I would apply. My county is, IMO, 1 of the 3 that would be last to voluntarily switch to readily issuing. The other 2 being SF and LA counties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCruzsurfer View Post
I'm only sharing my personal experience. I hope someone can prove me wrong, but my first hand observation and discussion with others show that our current sheriff is ANTI-ccw. And there is a significant cost involved.
From your experience when, over 4 years ago?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SCruzsurfer View Post
If he (or anyone else) can prove me wrong, I would gladly eat my words and start the process again (as I'd sure like to have those hundreds of dollars back, or at least worth something). I only chimed in because there is a cost and I'd hate for anyone else to waste their money.
I'm not going to do your work for you. As it is, I've spent my time and effort for FREE to alert you and all others who live in Santa Cruz Co that, at least as far as costs and when you pay them (AFTER your GC determination and approval vs before), things HAVE changed! Don't believe me? Go to the SO's website to verify what I wrote. Contact them via their FB page or by calling their non-emergency number.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
If you get turned down, there is NO CHARGE!

Go to: http://scsheriff.com/Home/CCWLicense.aspx
and then to: http://scsheriff.com/Portals/1/Count...CW_Process.pdf

Quote:
Fees
1. The fees for an Initial Application or a Renewal Application are $25.00 payable to the County of Santa Cruz only if the CCW is approved and issued
Note: I'd guess you have the LiveScan to pay for separately as well. That might run you ~$100 total (Scan plus processing). But that and the Psych Eval (another $150, IIRC), happen ONLY if your GC was approved after the Interview (Phase 1).

If the SO is only charging $25 total for issuing CCWs, what makes you think he's against issuing??? Times change and so do sheriffs. Look at San Diego Co Sheriff Gore who's now readily issuing CCWs.
So, the SO is pushing GMC high by requiring 3 non-relatives to provide character reference letters and mandatory Psych Eval and possible MD approval. But on the plus side, he's extremely reasonable re. the fees and when they have to be paid. The question remains: has he liberalized GC, even if a little (taking SC from dark red to light red or even yellow)? If so, while that improvement may not benefit anyone here, it will acclimate him to issuing CCWs and will get CCWers out on the streets, both of which indirectly help us all. Plus, there's nothing I like more than seeing a county on our map switch in our direction.

Last edited by Paladin; 05-07-2018 at 4:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-07-2018, 4:36 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I have all approved active CCW applications, and all rejected CCW applications, and all prior approved but inactive applications for Santa Cruz county if anyone is interested. The Sheriff redacted the hell out of them tho.
You sound like a great resource re. Santa Cruz Co. In your opinion, is the CA CCW GC map accurate in having it "dark red"? If not, what color do you think it currently is?

Did anyone, as far as you can tell, use a non-work related, non-personal threat/attack related (e.g., no DV restraining order), as GC and get issued?


Last edited by Paladin; 05-07-2018 at 4:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-07-2018, 7:17 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,712
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
You sound like a great resource re. Santa Cruz Co. In your opinion, is the CA CCW GC map accurate in having it "dark red"? If not, what color do you think it currently is?

Did anyone, as far as you can tell, use a non-work related, non-personal threat/attack related (e.g., no DV restraining order), as GC and get issued?
So there's 24 currently active CCW holders, 29 expired. I got 46 good cause for approved which should include both from above, but there's a few missing not sure why.

There are 28 denied applications. Most rejections came in 2014.

Of the approved application the good cause reason seems to boil down to,

1) High value property
2) Body guard or security person
3) Some how law enforcement connected (people that testify for example)
4) Documented death threats

There are two application that looks like plain self defence. It's very difficult to know for sure because there's many redactions.

If I had to pick one of the colors, I would pick the lighter red. It seems like they will give you a CCW, but the standard is high.

Of the denied applications some strangely look similar to the approved ones. The person claims to have high value property, I guess not high value enough. Most of them are basic self defence.

Last edited by abinsinia; 05-07-2018 at 7:28 PM.. Reason: Added death threats
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-07-2018, 7:26 PM
otteray's Avatar
otteray otteray is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Santa Cruz & Lake Tahoe
Posts: 3,206
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Paladin, for pete sake. Sheriff Hart does not issue to regular folks. Why do you insist on doubting that?
During his election debates he made it clear that he would follow whatever the state AG and court decided. From his own lips he said that; I was sitting right in front of him and heard it.
During Peruta, many, many of us applied, and all were denied.
The county Board of Sups, who pull his strings, would never allow it. But he was more than happy to sponsor a gun buyback recently, where a bunch of old fogies turned in their hunting rifles and shotguns, and then the county labeled it as a great success getting dangerous assault weapons of the streets.
Do the math. With a population of 262,000 (conservatively) good luck.
__________________

Single fin mentality

Last edited by otteray; 05-07-2018 at 7:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-09-2018, 3:20 AM
soqueljake soqueljake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 152
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

For what it's worth, hart is against new deputies carrying concealed off duty, corrections officer. No way.. the chances of getting a ccw in SC county are as good as getting struck by dry lighting in space if th opportunity ever presented itself. After speaking with some friends in relation to SCSO, they all said it's not worth your time to apply, also it will show up on record you've been denied before, move to Monterey, apply, wait 3 months and done...

They also insisted on moving out of CA but that's not always an easy option. You'd think hart being the man he is would take a bribe, judging by his character
__________________
There is a widening and distorted "gap" between where we are in life and where we want to be. -mike glover
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-10-2018, 9:09 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,712
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I was thinking we should start a local petition to add an county ordinance which mandates that sufficient good cause to issue is "Natural Right of Self Defence."

23000 registered republicans in the county, and 32000 NPP voters. Signatures would be less than 10k ..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-10-2018, 4:55 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by otteray View Post
Paladin, for pete sake. Sheriff Hart does not issue to regular folks. Why do you insist on doubting that?
Please provide the quote where I "insist" that Hart issues to regular folks.

All I did -- in post #147 and following -- was show what he has on his CCW webpage and point out that it is not what a anti would have and suggest/encourage Santa Cruz folk to look into it to see if things may have changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by otteray View Post
During his election debates he made it clear that he would follow whatever the state AG and court decided. From his own lips he said that; I was sitting right in front of him and heard it.
So? All sheriffs, unless they're opening themselves up to lawsuits, are following what the en banc panel in Peruta decided, whether we're talking about Jones in Sacto who liberally issues, or Ahern in Ala Co who restrictively issues. Sheriff Gore, when he was restrictively issuing a year ago was following the Peruta decision and now when he's liberally issuing he's still following the Peruta decision. IOW, Peruta said there's no right to a CCW and did NOT change anything with CA's May Issue law. If a sheriff wants to be restrictive re. GC, he can. If he wants to be liberal, he can. If he's one way and changes his mind and practice, like Gore has over the past 12 months, he can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by otteray View Post
During Peruta, many, many of us applied, and all were denied.
So? If you contact San Diego Co Gun Owners PAC (they're a member here you can PM or via their FB page at: https://www.facebook.com/SDCGO/ or their own website at: https://sandiegocountygunowners.com/), you will find out that many people who were denied by Sheriff Gore (you know, the defendant in Peruta v. Gore), have now been approved for San Diego SO CCWs since last Sept when Gore liberalized issuance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by otteray View Post
The county Board of Sups, who pull his strings, would never allow it. But he was more than happy to sponsor a gun buyback recently, where a bunch of old fogies turned in their hunting rifles and shotguns, and then the county labeled it as a great success getting dangerous assault weapons of the streets.
Do the math. With a population of 262,000 (conservatively) good luck.
irrelevant

Last edited by Paladin; 05-10-2018 at 6:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-10-2018, 5:02 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soqueljake View Post
For what it's worth, hart is against new deputies carrying concealed off duty, corrections officer. No way.. the chances of getting a ccw in SC county are as good as getting struck by dry lighting in space if th opportunity ever presented itself. After speaking with some friends in relation to SCSO, they all said it's not worth your time to apply, also it will show up on record you've been denied before, move to Monterey, apply, wait 3 months and done...

They also insisted on moving out of CA but that's not always an easy option. You'd think hart being the man he is would take a bribe, judging by his character
A denial for lack of/insufficient GC does NOT matter, it does NOT affect your future chances. A denial for lack of GMC will be looked into, but in itself is not dispositive.


Last edited by Paladin; 05-10-2018 at 6:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-11-2020, 9:26 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

For those thinking about applying, below is the latest revision of my breakdown of the meaning of the Dark Red, Light Red and Yellow categories. If you do apply, be sure to let us know, via a post, or at least me, via a PM, how it went and any insights you can share.

People with Dark Red GCs have best chance, Light Red less chance and Yellow unlikely as far as we can tell. But you never know until you apply and a denial for insufficient GC will not hurt you in the future. (A denial for lacking GMC may.)

Quote:
The below GC categories are listed from, roughly, weakest to strongest. Note well there's a range within each category. For example, someone who's work equipment is worth $10,000 (might pass Light Red) is assumed to be more at risk than someone who's equipment is worth only $1,000 (might pass Yellow). Plus, remember that equipment that cost you $1,000 isn't equivalent to someone making $500 cash deposits. Your equipment is not only used (let's say it would fetch $600), but also it's stolen (might then drop that to $300). Similarly, someone who walks with a slight limp (might pass Dark Green), is not as vulnerable as someone who requires a cane (might pass Light Green) and they're not as vulnerable as someone who requires a wheelchair (might pass Yellow). Evaluation of GC isn't black and white, but often shades of gray, a judgment call. That's one of the reasons why we say the map may be off by 1 color in either direction. So, if you have a GC that is listed under Light Green below it might pass in a Yellow county. Apply if you really want a CCW and can afford to waste the time, money and effort in applying since you're most likely to be denied. (Going through the process might be good practice.) Remember: we should win a robust 2nd A RBA from SCOTUS by 2021 July 01.

<snip>

All the below will likely pass in a Yellow county Some of us can get issued here.

(8) Lives in a remote area with little or no cellphone coverage and/or long LE response times. (Provide proof of residence location, photos of your acreage, of you farming/ranching, etc) N.B. While this may work with SLO Co SOs, it will not work with Alameda Co SO; not sure re. Napa and Yolo Co SOs.

(9) Employees required to work in remote locales at all hours with little or no cellphone coverage and/or long LE response times (e.g., wilderness photographer, surveyors, construction workers). (Get letter from employer supporting the application and willingness to accept liability, copies of relevant certificates/licenses, provide photos of you doing job, value of equipment) restricted to on-the-job only N.B. Your CCW may be restricted to on-the-job only.

(10) Employees at heightened risk due visiting isolated locations required by their employment (e.g., female RE agents showing houses to strangers at all hours while alone). (Get letter from employer supporting the application and willingness to accept liability, copies of relevant certificates/licenses, provide photos of you doing job, etc) N.B. Your CCW may be restricted to on-the-job only.

(11) Employees (e.g., business managers, property managers) who are at heightened risk due to valuables associated with their employment (e.g., Au/Ag, jewelry, pharmaceuticals, firearms, ammo or gunpowder ("inherently dangerous property"), cash sales or rental deposits). Get letter from employer supporting the application and willingness to accept liability, copies of relevant certificates/licenses, provide photos of you doing job, etc N.B. Your CCW may be restricted to on-the-job only.

(12) The nature of the business or occupation of the applicant is such that it is subject to personal risk and / or criminal attack, greater than the general population (e.g., private investigators, process servers, plain clothes security guards, bodyguards, taxi drivers). (Get letter from employer supporting the application and willingness to accept liability, copies of relevant certificates/licenses, photos of you on the job, etc.) N.B. Your CCW may be restricted to on-the-job only.

All the below will likely pass in a Light Red county. Few of us can get issued here.

(13) Business owners required to work at all hours in remote locales with little or no cellphone coverage and/or long LE response times (e.g., professional farmer or rancher, wilderness photographer, surveyor, contractor). (copies of relevant certificates/licenses, provide photos of you doing job at remote locations, value of equipment, etc) N.B. Your CCW may be restricted to on-the-job only.

(14) Business owners who are at heightened risk due to valuables associated with their profession or business activities (e.g., Au/Ag dealers, jewelry dealers, MD/pharmacists/pharma sales rep, business owner or landlord making cash sales or rental deposits, maybe NRA Instructor, RSO and FFL dealers due to regularly transporting "inherently dangerous property"). (written description of your business activities, copies of relevant certificates/licenses, provide photos of you doing job, etc) N.B. Your CCW may be restricted to on-the-job only.

The below Good Cause will likely pass in a Dark Red county. This is Virtual No Issue because virtually none of us can get issued here. There are 3 levels in Dark Red (from most restrictive to least): actual No Issue. SF and Santa Clara, for awhile, were once this. Next, corrupt issue. LA is like this per the CSA's report: 25 out of 25 audited files did not follow their own CCW policy re. residency and 24 out of 25 did not follow their own policy on GC. Last is Virtual No Issue: this is where they issue for category #15 below and only for that.

(15) They are at heightened risk due to a documented "clear & present danger to life, or great bodily harm" against them or an immediate family member (e.g., crazy ex- or disgruntled fired employee, stalker, anonymous nut case/evildoer, etc.). These GC policies are usually based upon CA State AG John Van de Kamp's early 1980s Opinion letter and require a number of additional conditions be present. (Proof includes police reports (if BG unknown), permanent restraining order (if BG known), evidence of current threats (e.g., audio recordings, video/pictures, written threats, etc).)
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-12-2020, 8:17 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here’s the link to the sheriff’s CCW webpage. It’s not linked on the homepage or under Self Help, you have to search for it.
http://scsheriff.com/Home/CCWLicense.aspx
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-12-2020, 11:19 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
So there's 24 currently active CCW holders, 29 expired. I got 46 good cause for approved which should include both from above, but there's a few missing not sure why.

There are 28 denied applications. Most rejections came in 2014.

Of the approved application the good cause reason seems to boil down to,

1) High value property
2) Body guard or security person
3) Some how law enforcement connected (people that testify for example)
4) Documented death threats


There are two application that looks like plain self defence. It's very difficult to know for sure because there's many redactions.

If I had to pick one of the colors, I would pick the lighter red. It seems like they will give you a CCW, but the standard is high.

Of the denied applications some strangely look similar to the approved ones. The person claims to have high value property, I guess not high value enough. Most of them are basic self defence.
Thank you for the valuable information. If the “high value property” includes when employees are transporting it (e.g., property managers collecting cash rents, store managers making bank deposits), that is if it’s not just business owners and professionals that’s a Yellow GC (otherwise it’s Light Red). Either way Santa Cruz issues for more than credible current threats, so it’s not Dark Red, it’s Light Red at worst.

Last edited by Paladin; 09-13-2020 at 8:50 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-13-2020, 9:59 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Has anyone been issued a Santa Cruz SO CCW for any of the following reasons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
All the below will likely pass in a Yellow county Some of us can get issued here.

(8) Lives in a remote area with little or no cellphone coverage and/or long LE response times. (Provide proof of residence location, photos of your acreage, of you farming/ranching, etc) N.B. While this may work with SLO Co SO, it will not with Alameda Co SO; not sure re. Napa and Yolo Co SOs.

(9) Employees required to work in remote locales at all hours with little or no cellphone coverage and/or long LE response times (e.g., wilderness photographer, surveyors, construction workers). Get letter from employer supporting the application and willingness to accept liability, copies of relevant certificates/licenses, provide photos of you doing job, value of equipment. N.B. Your CCW may be restricted to on-the-job only.

(10) Employees at heightened risk due visiting isolated locations required by their employment (e.g., female RE agents showing houses to strangers at all hours while alone). Get letter from employer supporting the application and willingness to accept liability, copies of relevant certificates/licenses, provide photos of you doing job, etc. N.B. Your CCW may be restricted to on-the-job only.

(11) Employees (e.g., business managers, property managers) who are at heightened risk due to valuables associated with their employment (e.g., Au/Ag, jewelry, pharmaceuticals, firearms, ammo or gunpowder ("inherently dangerous property"), cash sales or rental deposits). Get letter from employer supporting the application and willingness to accept liability, copies of relevant certificates/licenses, provide photos of you doing job, etc N.B. Your CCW may be restricted to on-the-job only.

(12) The nature of the business or occupation of the applicant is such that it is subject to personal risk and / or criminal attack, greater than the general population (e.g., private investigators, some lawyers, process servers, plain clothes security guards, bodyguards, fugitive recovery agents/"bounty hunters," taxi drivers). Get letter from employer supporting the application and willingness to accept liability, copies of relevant certificates/licenses, photos of you on the job, etc. N.B. Your CCW may be restricted to on-the-job only.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-24-2020, 3:15 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Exclamation

I spoke with Sgt. Shearer (831-454-7616) who handles CCWs. He was pleasant, polite and professional and encouraged people to apply. To that end, the Santa Cruz SO does not charge anything to get a Good Cause decision (step 1 of a 3 step process).

I asked about the all important GC standard and was surprised: he said while no GC on its own is an automatic “yes”, as best I could tell from our brief conversation SC should be Yellow (“employment risks”) on the CA CCW GC map. He suggested there might even be circumstances where “recreational risks” (Light Green) could be sufficient. Of course that assumes you have evidence to prove your GC exists and you pass Good Moral Character and the rest of the requirements.



I definitely encourage residents with Dark Red to Yellow GC to apply. If you have Light Green call him and discuss your background and circumstances to see if formally applying is worthwhile. Regardless, after you get a CCW or a denial please make a post describing your experience to help other CGNers (or share with me via PM so I can share it if you want to remain anonymous).

Here’s a link to my CCW Application Advice thread. Best to read all of my posts in it at least once.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1482924

Here’s a link to SCruz SO’s CCW webpage: http://www.scsheriff.com/Home/CCWLicense.aspx

ETA: No, I don’t live in Santa Cruz Co.

Last edited by Paladin; 02-17-2021 at 9:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-30-2021, 5:34 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
For any who don’t know SCOTUS has taken a major gun rights case. It should be heard in the fall and decision released sometime before 2022 July 01. The case has to do with our Right to Bear Arms. More at: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1676407
...
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-08-2021, 5:54 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Less than 11 months until the next sheriffs’ election! (early June 2022) If he hasn’t already, he’ll probably decide soon if he’s running again because he should lock-in endorsements of local and state politicians early.

Let us know if you hear about any challengers and their positions on CCWs.

Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-17-2021, 9:44 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In case some of you would rather wait for the courts than fight at the local level you may be waiting for years more… see https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...6#post26268406
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-21-2021, 3:32 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There have been several cases of rideshare drivers and many cases of food delivery drivers using CCWs to save their lives. If you do that work and live in a Light Red or Yellow county you may want to print out news articles about such attacks (ones with and without CCWing drivers), to prove elevated GC.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/philadelp...162744266.html
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-24-2022, 10:00 AM
fudd fudd is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 23
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Has the sheriff made any statements regarding the decision?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-24-2022, 3:08 PM
popeye4's Avatar
popeye4 popeye4 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Cruz mountains
Posts: 1,534
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nothing on their Facebook page. I have no doubt he's squirming and trying to figure out a loophole. I sent a message on FB Messenger asking when they were going to comply with the law...
__________________

NRA Life Member
CRPA Life Member
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 2:13 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy